/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/231226.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, December 26, 2023, Vol. 25, No. 258

                            Headlines

3M CO: Hardwick Files Bids for Revival of Massive PFAS Class Suit
3M CO: Pender County, NC Joins Water Contamination Class Suit
ACRISURE LLC: Dias Sues Over Failure to Protect Customers' Info
ALABAMA: Faces Class Suit Over Forced Prison Labor Scheme
AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Sept. 16, 2024

AMAZON.COM INC: Filing for Class Cert. Extended to April 29, 2024
ANGLO AMERICAN: Court Denies Class Suit Over Kabwe Pollution
ANTHEM COMPANIES: Seeks More Time for Class Cert Response in Midkif
ANTHONY ANNUCCI: Coggins Class Action Letter Tossed w/o Prejudice
APPLE INC: Faces Class Suit Over Anti-Trust Violations

APPLE INC: Settles Class Suit Over Family Sharing Feature for $25M
AUTOZONE INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Alvarez Alleges
AUTOZONE INC: Fails to Secure Consumers' Info, Walles Suit Alleges
BAE SYSTEMS: Cabrales Class Certification Bid Partly Granted
BANK OF AMERICA: Class Cert. Bid in Aseltine Due August 23, 2024

BON SECOURS: Durbin Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Police Officers
BOULDER BJ: Knerr Suit Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification
CANO HEALTH: Faces Shareholder Suit Over SEC Disclosures
CANOO INC: Third Amended Complaint Reply Due Feb. 8, 2024
CITADEL SERVICING: Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to Feb. 8, 2024

CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Riverdale Brings Appeal to N.Y. Appeal Div.
CONSUMER FINANCIAL: Jones Suit Seeks Class Certification
COOK COUNTY, IL: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
COREPOWER YOGA: Bid to Dismiss Suit Continued to Jan. 19, 2024
CORTEVA INC: Scheduling Order Entered in Cockerill Class Lawsuit

COVIA HOLDINGS: $6MM Class Settlement to be Heard on April 11
CREDIT UNION: Court OK's Plaintiffs' Bid to Leave to Amend Claims
CROWN EQUIPMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brown Suit Alleges
CSX TRANSPORTATION: Breaches Fiduciary Duties, Francisco Alleges
CUPERTINO ELECTRIC: Crowl Suit Consolidated with Wise

CVS HEALTH: Filling for Class Cert Bid Due March 7, 2025
CYBELANGEL USA: Unopposed Bid for Extension of Time OK'd in Koeller
D & M BOLANOS: Gomez Seeks Court-Approved Notice to Employees
DBI SERVICES: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 31, 2024
DENTSPLY SIRONA: Parties Seek More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid

DENTSPLY SIRONA: Parties Seek to Extend May 31, 2023 Sched Order
DOTERRA INT'L: Bingham Seeks Conditional Class Certification
DRIVE NEW JERSEY: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid
EBERJEY HOLDINGS: Bilbao Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit

ENVIRONMENTAL ALTERNATIVES: Lomeli Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
ENVISION HEALTHCARE: $$177.5MM Settlement to be Heard on March 21
EXP WORLD HOLDINGS: Faces Phillips Class Suit in Georgia
EXPENSIFY INC: Faces Wilhite Suit Over 36.89% Stock Price Drop
FARADAY FUTURE: Faces Consolidated Class Action

FARADAY FUTURE: Settles Securities Class Action
FLIPPS MEDIA: Discloses Video Habits to Facebook, Sancruzado Says
FRESH DINING: Faces Carter Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
GEORGE ARCHOS: Flood Enterprises Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
GOOGLE LLC: Helena World Sues Over Digital News Monopoly

GROUP HEALTH: Plavin Appeals Suit Dismissal to 3rd Cir.
HORNBLOWER CRUISES: Violates PUMP Act, Vera Class Suit Says
INOTIV INC: Continues to Defend Grobler Securities Class Suit
JB HI-FI: Faces Class Suit Over "Junk" Warranties
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Carefirst Sues Over Antibody Drug Monopoly

KENTUCKY: Faces Class Action Suit Over Effects of Abortion Ban
KIPLING APPAREL: Faces Calcagno Suit Over Deceptive Pricing Scheme
LAFARGE CANADA: Faces Class Suit Over Carcinogenic Cement Dust
LENOIR-RHYNE: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Espinal Says
MEDICAL EYE: Fails to Safeguard Users' Personal Info, Sheets Says

MERCK & CO: Appeals Ruling in Mumps Vaccine Antitrust Suit
MONTANA UNIVERSITY: Babcock Appeals Claims Dismissal to 9th Circuit
NATIONAL RIFLE: Crawford Appeals TCPA Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir.
NEW YORK, NY: Caldwell Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Fire Inspectors
NEW YORK: Bianculli Files Appeal in N.Y. Appellate Division

NEWKIRK LOGISTICS: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Dishmon Suit Says
OPTIMA FOODS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Abreu Alleges
ORAL ESSENTIALS: Faces Shafee Suit Over Whitening Strips' False Ads
OREGON: Court Certifies Class Suit Over Children in Foster Care
PAPA JOHN'S: Jones Appeals Suit Dismissal to 8th Circuit

POMPEI PIZZERIA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Echevarria Alleges
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Fails to Secure Clients' Info, Feagins Claims
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Fails to Secure Consumers' Info, Shahbazian Says
RAMON LOPEZ: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Aguirre Suit Alleges
RECKITT BENCKISER: Taylor Sues Over Honey Products' False Ads

REPUBLICAN NATIONAL: Howard Appeals TCPA Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir.
SENIOR SOLUTIONS: Franks Suit Seeks Caregivers' Unpaid Overtime
SIKA AG: 570 Concrete Sues Over Concrete Mixtures Monopoly
SILVER CINEMAS: Osheske Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir.
STABLE ROAD: $8.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on April 22

UNION PACIFIC: Files Bids to Dismiss Class Suit Over Contamination
UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal AI Programs
UP FAITH: Tejon Sues Over Unwanted Disclosure of Users' Video Info
ZEROED-IN TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Suit Over Data Breach

                            *********

3M CO: Hardwick Files Bids for Revival of Massive PFAS Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Clark Mindock of Reuters reports that an Ohio resident has told a
U.S. appeals court its recent ruling putting an end to a massive
class action lawsuit that accused 3M (MMM.N), Corteva Inc (CTVA.N)
subsidiary E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co and other companies of
putting people's health at risk by exposing them to toxic "forever
chemicals" could send a dangerous message to chemical manufacturers
facing similar claims, and deserves a second look.

Kevin Hardwick, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit, on December 11,
2023 asked the full 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider
a November decision that dismantled the class action that would
have allowed roughly all of Ohio's 11.8 million residents to sue
the companies as a group.

Hardwick said the decision would allow companies to escape
potential liability for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or
PFAS, pollution at early stages of litigation if numerous
defendants produced the mostly identical chemicals allegedly
causing harm.

He said the 6th Circuit's ruling incorrectly concluded he did not
sufficiently trace his harms to the companies and the chemicals
they produced, and said he provided enough evidence for the case to
proceed.

"If the decision stands, the lesson is that companies should
conspire together to poison people with the same poison and none of
them can be held responsible," Hardwick said.

PFAS are a family of thousands of chemicals that have been used in
a wide range of products including non-stick pans and clothing, and
have been tied to cancer and other diseases.

A 3M spokesperson said the company disagrees with Hardwick's
arguments. A Corteva representative did not immediately respond to
requests for comment on December 12, 2023.

A three-judge panel had found Hardwick filed too broad a complaint
against the manufacturers, and had not shown that the PFAS found in
his body could be traced directly to the defendants, noting there
are potentially thousands of companies that have manufactured
PFAS.

But Hardwick said that was not true, since there are just 10
companies that actually manufactured the specific PFAS at issue in
the case. While many other companies may have sold products with
the chemicals, each of the 10 defendants is ultimately responsible
for contaminating Ohio residents' blood with those PFAS, Hardwick
said.

PFAS are often referred to as forever chemicals because they do not
easily break down once released into the environment or absorbed
into the human body.

The lawsuit seeks to establish a fund to monitor Ohio residents for
health impacts from PFAS exposure, and other relief. It is among
thousands that have been filed against 3M, DuPont and others in
recent years over alleged PFAS contamination.

3M agreed in June to pay $10.3 billion to settle hundreds of claims
the company polluted public drinking water with the chemicals,
while Chemours Co (CC.N) DuPont de Nemours (DD.N) and Corteva
reached a similar deal with U.S. water providers for $1.19
billion.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has called PFAS an "urgent
public health and environmental issue," and has taken steps to
regulate PFAS, including in drinking water.

The case is Hardwick v. 3M Co, 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals,
No. 22-3765.

For Hardwick: Robert Bilott, Aaron Herzig and William Braff of Taft
Stettinius & Hollister

For the chemical companies: Theodore Grossman, Louis Chaiten and
James Saywell of Jones Day [GN]

3M CO: Pender County, NC Joins Water Contamination Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Daily News Staff of The Daily News reports that Pender County
recently entered a landmark class action suit against 3M Company.

3M Company agreed to pay a settlement of up to $10.3 billion to
resolve lawsuits over the contamination of drinking water systems.
If approved, the settlement funds will be paid out over 13 years to
public water providers across the country.

In a similar case, the county has joined a settlement where U.S.
chemical titans Chemours, Corteva and DuPont will pay an estimated
$1.19 billion. The manufacturers settled both cases after
allegations that they polluted drinking water with per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), also known as "forever
chemicals." The settlement will help remove PFAS from public
drinking water systems.

Both cases are scheduled for upcoming final fairness hearings in
South Carolina.

For many years, PFAS have been used in packaging, non-stick
cookware, firefighting foam and other common applications.
According to the Environmental Protection Agency (E.P.A.) website,
studies have shown that exposure to some PFAS in the environment
may be linked to harmful health effects in humans and animals.

The E.P.A. has proposed a maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 4.0
parts per trillion for PFAS and Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) in
drinking water. They announced that the government would, for the
first time, propose a regulation requiring near-zero levels of PFAS
in drinking water after determining nearly no amount is safe.

Pender County was one of the first surface water treatment plants
in southeastern North Carolina to implement Granular Activated
Carbon (GAC) in 2012. The system was designed to remove organics
from the water for the reduction of disinfection by-products in the
finished water.

Coincidently, GAC is also an effective treatment for removing PFAS.
The GAC system has shown great success in removing PFAS. However,
with the expansion of capacity comes the need for Pender County
Utilities (PCU) to make improvements. These settlements could be
used to improve the GAC system at the surface water treatment plant
without increasing utility costs.

The funds in the class settlement are intended to address the
additional costs of treatment of water containing PFAS by water
systems not by individuals.

Any person who feels they may have been injured or incurred damages
because of PFAS should consult with an attorney as the funds the
county will receive do not cover any individual damages. If you
have a private well, you may be eligible for free testing. Check
out the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality for more
information. [GN]

ACRISURE LLC: Dias Sues Over Failure to Protect Customers' Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS DIAS JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ACRISURE, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-01288-JMB-PJG (W.D. Mich., December 8, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of third-party
beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment, and violation of the
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard personally identifiable information (PII) and protected
health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals stored within its networks following a data breach that
believed to occur from December 1, 2022 to January 28, 2023. The
Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly
situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the
private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was
compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown
and unauthorized third parties, the suit alleges.

Acrisure, LLC is an insurance company with its principal place of
business located in Grand Rapids, Michigan. [BN]

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

                 - and -

         Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
         MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC
         227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
         Chicago, IL 60606
         Telephone: (866) 252-0878
         E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com

                 - and -

         Aaron D. Radbil, Esq.
         GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
         5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
         Boca Raton, FL 33431
         Telephone: (561) 826-5477
         E-mail: aradbil@gdrlawfirm.com

ALABAMA: Faces Class Suit Over Forced Prison Labor Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Gregg of The Washington Post reports that ten current and
former Alabama prisoners say they were forced to participate in
work programs that raised money for the state while providing cheap
labor to public- and private-sector employers, including
franchisees of Burger King, McDonald's and Kentucky Fried Chicken,
according to a lawsuit filed on December 12, 2023.

A complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Alabama describes a system in which prisoners who refuse to work
are threatened with disciplinary action, such as solitary
confinement or citations that could interfere with their parole.

The plaintiffs, who also include several labor unions and the
criminal justice nonprofit Woods Foundation, say the system amounts
to a "modern-day form of slavery" comparable to convict-leasing
programs that existed after the Civil War. They accused more than
two dozen defendants -- including state officials, government
agencies and private employers -- of violating the Trafficking
Victims Protection Act, among other charges.

The plaintiffs "have been entrapped in a system of 'convict
leasing' in which they are forced to work, often for little or no
money, for the benefit of the numerous government entities and
private businesses that 'employ' them," the complaint alleges.

The complaint was filed as a class-action lawsuit, meaning the
court will have to certify the plaintiffs as a class before the
case can proceed.

The office of Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey (R), the state's Department of
Corrections, Burger King, McDonald's and KFC parent company Yum
Brands did not immediately respond to requests for comment on
December 12, 2023.

The catch with 'work release'

One of the plaintiffs is Robert Earl Council, also known by the
moniker Kinetik Justice, a prisoner who co-founded the Free Alabama
Movement, a labor group for incarcerated workers that has sought to
use work stoppages inside Alabama prisons to "combat the
multibillion dollar Prison Industrialized Complex," according to
the group's website.

Stuart Appelbaum, president of the Retail, Wholesale and Department
Store Union, said the plaintiffs are prepared to take on the state
for what they view as a clear violation of human rights. Appelbaum
and his union were part of an effort to organize Amazon workers in
Alabama, which sputtered in 2021 after losing a crucial vote.
(Amazon founder Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post. The Post's
interim CEO, Patty Stonesifer, sits on Amazon's board.)

"When people's labor is owned by others rather than the workers
themselves, they're unable to obtain the rights that they deserve,"
Appelbaum said in an interview.

So-called work release programs, common across the country, let
prisoners who have shown good behavior or are otherwise trusted
leave confinement to work for specific shifts. But states can take
a hefty share of the wages. After fees and taxes are deducted, the
workers' net wages can be as low as $2 per hour, according to
plaintiffs.

In Alabama, the state typically takes 40 percent, while other fees
can be applied for things like transportation.

According to the class action complaint, some 575 private employers
have "leased" incarcerated labor through this system since 2018,
which plaintiffs say is enough to generate more than $450 million
annually.

The private companies named as defendants include food-and-beverage
distributors, manufacturers, fast-food franchisees and a
laundry-cleaning service. Prisoners working at fast-food
restaurants work run-of-the-mill jobs such as fry cooks or others,
while those in manufacturing firms sometimes carry out skilled
duties such as metal fabrication, welding and precision die
casting, according to the class action complaint.

Government agencies benefit from their work, as well. The city of
Montgomery, named as a defendant, procured at least 343
incarcerated laborers to work in various capacities over the first
eight months of 2023, according to the complaint.

Plaintiff Lakiera Walker said in an interview that she entered the
prison system at 19 when she was 6½ months pregnant. She was
incarcerated on assault charges but later received parole after the
plaintiffs in her case testified on her behalf, according to Walker
and an attorney representing her.

During most of her incarceration, which lasted from 2007 until
2023, Walker says she was made to understand that she had to work
or face punishment. Refusing to work would have given her a
"disciplinary," she said, which would go on her record and affect
her chances of parole. She also worried that refusing to work could
lead the prison to withhold the regular "family day" that allowed
her to see her son for an extended period.

She described a "job board" at the prison where work would be
assigned. "There is no way around going to the job board," she
said. "If you don't go [to work], you'll go into solitary."

So she worked long hours, typically seven days a week, she says.
Her jobs inside the prison included uncompensated work stripping
floors, helping in the prison's hospice unit and unloading chemical
trucks, according to the complaint. A work release program landed
her with a job in industrial freezers and later at Burger King,
where she served burgers alongside teenagers and other free
"civilians."

To take a sick day, "you had to go through the officers, and it was
like you're taking money out of their wallet if you didn't go to
work that day," Walker said in an interview. [GN]

AMAZON.COM INC: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Sept. 16, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER BROWN, et al.,
v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00965-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the
Hon. Judge John H. Chun entered a Rule 16(b) scheduling order
regarding class certification motion as follows:

  Deadline to complete discovery on class         August 17, 2024
  certification (not to be construed as a
  bifurcation of discovery)

  Deadline for Plaintiffs to file motion for      September 16,
2024
  class certification (noted on the reply
  deadline)

  Opposition to class certification motion        December 16,
2024

  Reply in further support of class               March 27, 2025
  certification motion

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

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3t8PM8f at no extra charge.[CC]

AMAZON.COM INC: Filing for Class Cert. Extended to April 29, 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TERESA CARLISLE, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation; AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC,
a Delaware limited liability corporation; AMAZON WEB SERVICES,
INC., a Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
Case No. 3:22-cv-06856-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Rita F. Lin
entered an order granting stipulation to continue class
certification motion deadlines as follows:

   1. The last day to file Plaintiff's motion for class
certification
      shall be continued from February 27, 2024 to April 29, 2024.

   2. The last day to file Defendants’ opposition to motion for
class
      certification shall be continued from March 12, 2024 to May
28,
      2024.

   3. The last day to file Plaintiff’s reply brief in support of

      motion for class certification shall be continued from March
19,
      2024 to June 10, 2024.

   4. The class certification hearing shall be continued from April
9,
      2024 at 2:00 p.m. to June 25, 2024 at 10:00 a.m.

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

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

ANGLO AMERICAN: Court Denies Class Suit Over Kabwe Pollution
------------------------------------------------------------
Olivia Kumwenda-Mtambo and Felix Njini of Mining.com report that
South Africa's High Court has ruled that a class action lawsuit
against miner Anglo American brought by victims of alleged historic
lead poisoning in Zambia should not go ahead, lawyers for the
claimants said on December 16, 2023.

Victims of the alleged poisoning had accused Anglo's South African
unit of negligence in controlling emissions of lead into the local
environment at a mine it part-owned 50 years ago in Zambia's Kabwe
district.

Sign Up for the Africa, Europe & Middle East Digest

Anglo has previously denied the allegations and vowed to defend
itself.

"We have stated from the outset that this claim is entirely
misconceived and it is clear that the court recognized its multiple
legal and factual flaws, deeming it not in the interest of justice
for the class action to proceed," an Anglo American spokesperson
said.

Anglo partly owned the Kabwe lead mine some 50 years ago. The mine
was later owned by Zambian state-owned firm ZCCM-IH until 1994 when
it was closed.

In a statement, lawyers for the claimants said the Johannesburg
High Court had ruled in a 126-page judgment delivered on December
15, 2023 evening that a claim against Anglo American South Africa
(AASA) over widespread lead poisoning across Kabwe, Zambia, could
not proceed as a class action.

The victims will appeal the ruling, the lawyers said.
'Unmanageable class action'

Among the concluding arguments in the ruling, the court said the
application was seeking permission to advance an untenable claim
that would set a grave precedent.

"The precedent is that a business could be held liable half a
century after its activities have ceased, to generations not yet
born, as a result of being tested against future knowledge and
standards unknown at the time," the ruling said.

The court also said the class action would be "unmanageable" in
that it would take a long time to be completed, after the
applicants estimated it would take ten years for their legal team
to take instructions from every member of the proposed classes.

"If this is so, it would take much longer for a South African court
to assess the claim of each class member in the second stage."

"It bears emphasis that an unmanageable class action is not only
adverse to Anglo's interests: It undermines the applicants' access
to justice," the court said.

"Under the circumstances it is proper and necessary to dismiss the
certification application."

South African law firm Mbuyisa Moleele and UK-based Leigh Day,
acting on behalf of about 140,000 women and children of Kabwe, want
Anglo held liable for failing to curb lead emissions from a smelter
and waste dumps.

They also allege that Anglo was aware, before 1974, of the
environmental damage and lead poisoning, including deaths of local
children, and had ignored expert advice to remedy the situation
before it handed over the assets to ZCCM-IH. [GN]

ANTHEM COMPANIES: Seeks More Time for Class Cert Response in Midkif
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WINIFRED MIDKIFF, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. THE ANTHEM
COMPANIES, INC., ANTHEM HEALTH PLANS OF VIRGINIA, INC. d/b/a ANTHEM
BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD, and AMERIGROUP CORPORATION, Case No.
3:22-cv-00417-HEH (E.D. Va.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter
an order granting their motion for extension of time for the
parties to respond to certification and summary judgment briefing.

-- Deadlines to respond from December 14, 2023 to January 10,
2024

-- The parties' reply deadlines from December 20, 2023 to January
24,
    2024

Anthem is an American health insurance company

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Dec. 7, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46SoctK at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christine M. Costantino, Esq.
          Brett C. Bartlett, Esq.
          Kevin M. Young, Esq.
          Lennon B. Haas, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          975 F Street, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 463-2400
          Facsimile: (202) 828-5393
          E-mail: CCostantino@seyfarth.com
                  bbartlett@seyfarth.com
                  KYoung@seyfarth.com
                  lhaas@seyfarth.com

ANTHONY ANNUCCI: Coggins Class Action Letter Tossed w/o Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVIDE G. COGGINS, et al.,
v. ANTHONY J. ANNUCCI, et al., Case No. 9:23-cv-01153-AMN-TWD
(N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Anne M. Nardacci entered an order
denying without prejudice the Coggins Class Action Letter insofar
as it seeks certification of a proposed class.

The Court further ordered that:

  -- the Coggins Withdrawal Request is denied without prejudice;

  -- it will hold the Leao IFP Application, Azaz IFP Application,
and
     Powell IFP Application in abeyance for 30 days to afford all
of
     the plaintiffs an opportunity to either sign the Coggins
     Withdrawal Request or submit a similar request on their own
     Behalf;

  -- Each plaintiff's filing in accordance with this Decision and
     Order, or at the expiration of the time set to comply,
whichever
     is earlier, the Clerk shall return this file to the Court for

     further review; and

  -- all pleadings, motions and other documents relating to this
     action must bear the case number assigned to this action and
be
     filed with the Clerk of the United States District Court,
     Northern District of New York, 7th Floor, Federal Building,
100
     S. Clinton St., Syracuse, New York 13261-7367.

A copy of the Court's decision and order dated Dec. 6, 2023 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Nok8dD at no
extra charge.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.[CC]

APPLE INC: Faces Class Suit Over Anti-Trust Violations
------------------------------------------------------
FineExtra reports that the anti-trust lawsuit, first reported on by
Reuters and filed by US beverage business Mirage Wine & Spirits,
alleges that Apple reached agreements with Visa and then with
Mastercard not to use the iPhone to establish its own independent
POS network. In return, the two schemes agreed to pay the computer
giant a portion of transaction fees for Apple Pay payments running
over their respective networks.

The lawsuit alleges that this arrangement constitutes a "very large
and ongoing cash bribe," removing any reason for Apple to build its
own payment network in competition with Visa and Mastercard.

The suit further alleges that the three companies acted to deflect
competition by blocking third parties from accessing the iPhone's
'Secure Element', which could have been used to buiild mobile
payment networks that bypassed Visa and Mastercard routing.

Earlier this week, Reuters reported that Apple has offered to open
up the Apple Pay NFC system to third parties, in an effort to stave
off an ongoing antitrust investigation in the European Union. [GN]

APPLE INC: Settles Class Suit Over Family Sharing Feature for $25M
------------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Friedman of Phone Arena reports that per USA Today, Apple
might owe you some money after settling a class-action lawsuit over
the Family Sharing feature. The suit, known as Walter Peters v.
Apple, was settled by Apple for $25 million which means that Apple
might owe you as much as (are you sitting down?) a whopping $30!
Family Sharing is an App Store feature that allows purchased apps
to be shared with up to six family members. The "initiating user"
lists the five additional family members in the initiator's Apple
Account.

Apple forced app developers to include ads for Family Sharing on
their apps' landing pages

If the family members consent to be included in the Family Sharing
program, when any family member purchases an app that supports
Family Sharing from the App Store, the app is downloaded on the
devices of the other family members even though only one payment is
necessary to purchase the app for all six family members. The
complaint noted that "Apple places and/or demands that its software
developers place a small advertisement on the landing pages for its
apps which states that the app supports Family Sharing."

Up until January 30, 2019, Apple included an advertisement on each
app's landing page that said, "Supports Family Sharing. With Family
Sharing set up, up to six family members can use this app." Apple
included this statement on the landing pages of apps that did not
support the feature. The complaint alleges that even though Apple
knew that the vast majority of the apps in the App Store did not
support Family Sharing, the landing page for most
subscription-based apps included the ad.

Obviously, as the complaint points out in black and white, "This
advertisement is materially misleading, in that it plainly states
that the App is available for Family Sharing, when it is not." As
you might have expected, millions of App Store visitors purchased
apps that they thought would be automatically shared with the five
family members they previously designated. These Apple device
owners were upset to find out that a particular app they paid for,
which featured the Family Sharing ad on its landing page, did not
actually support the feature.

The crux of the complaint against Apple reads like this: "As a
result of Apple's deceptive and misleading practices, Plaintiffs
and the Class Members were induced to purchase subscription-based
Apps for which Apple receives hefty fees, believing that those Apps
could be shared with up to six family members -- when in fact they
were available only to the single user who set up the
subscription."

The complaint adds that "Apple has made millions of dollars in
fraudulent sales to individuals who Apple told were receiving up to
six copies of an App when they were receiving only one. Apple's
customers did not receive the benefit of their bargain. They were
misled.

In the document containing the settlement, "Apple denies that it
made any misleading misrepresentations with respect to the sharing
of third-party subscriptions using Family Sharing or that the Named
Plaintiffs or Class have suffered any injury or damages or are
entitled to any restitution." So then, why not let the whole thing
play out in court? Apple explains that "taking into account the
uncertainty and risks inherent in litigating this case, Apple has
concluded that continuing to defend this Action would be burdensome
and expensive. Apple enters into this Agreement without in any way
acknowledging any fault, liability, or wrongdoing of any kind."

If you haven't been notified but believe you are eligible for your
share of the settlement, here is how you file a claim

If you signed up for Family Sharing between June 21st, 2015, and
January 30th, 2019 with at least one other person and purchased a
third-party app, you are eligible to make a claim. And those who
are eligible will receive an email with details about the
settlement. But if you don't receive any notification and believe
that you are eligible to make a claim, you can register by heading
to the settlement website by tapping this link. The deadline to opt
into the settlement is March 1st, 2024.

Depending on the number of legitimate claims received, each
participant agreeing to the settlement could find themselves as
much as $30 richer. The final approval hearing will take place on
April 2nd, 2024. Members of the class can decide in advance whether
to have their percentage of the settlement sent to them via
electronic bank transfer or by check. [GN]

AUTOZONE INC: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Alvarez Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
DAVID ALVAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AUTOZONE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-02766 (W.D. Tenn., Dec. 11, 2023) is an action arising from
the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data of the
Plaintiff and the Class.

According to the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly
sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") about its
current and former employees, employment applicants, and current
and former customers. But the Defendant lost control over that data
when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected
computer systems in a data breach (the "Data Breach").

The Defendant disclosed the PII of Plaintiff and Class members for
criminals to use in the conduct of criminal activity. Specifically,
the Defendant opened up, disclosed, and exposed the PII of
Plaintiff and Class members to people engaged in disruptive and
unlawful business practices and tactics, including online account
hacking, unauthorized use of financial accounts, and fraudulent
attempts to open unauthorized financial accounts (i.e., identity
fraud), all using the stolen PII.

The Defendant's failure to promptly and properly notify Plaintiff
and Class members of the Data Breach exacerbated Plaintiff and
Class members' injury by depriving them of the earliest ability to
take appropriate measures to protect their PII and take other
necessary steps to mitigate the harm caused by the Data Breach, the
suit alleges.

AUTOZONE, INC. is a retailer of automotive replacement parts and
accessories. The Company offers an extensive product line for cars,
sport utility vehicles, vans, and light trucks, including new and
remanufactured automotive hard parts, maintenance items,
accessories, and non-automotive products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
         Andrew E. Mize, Esq.
         STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
         The Freedom Center
         223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
         Nashville, TN 37203
         Telephone: (615) 254-8801
         Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
         Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
                amize@stranchlaw.com

              - and -

         Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
         COHEN & MALAD, LLP
         One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
         Indianapolis, IN 46204
         Telephone: (317) 636-6481
         Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com

              - and -

         Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
         Raina Borrelli, Esq.
         Brittany Resch, Esq.
         TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
         613 Williamson Street, Suite 201
         Madison, WI 53703
         Telephone: (608) 237-1775
         Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
         Email: sam@turkestrauss.com
                raina@turkestrauss.com
                brittanyr@turkestrauss.com

AUTOZONE INC: Fails to Secure Consumers' Info, Walles Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN WALLES and JOSE VARGAS, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. AUTOZONE, INC. and PROGRESS SOFTWARE
CORPORATION, Case No. 1:23-cv-12889-ADB (D. Mass., Nov. 29, 2023)
sues the Defendants for their failure to properly secure and
safeguard Plaintiffs' and other similarly situated AutoZone
employees' sensitive information, including their full names and
Social Security numbers ("personally identifiable information" or
"PII").

On an undisclosed date, AutoZone learned that Pension Benefit
Information, LLC's network, to whom PSC provided software services,
and for which AutoZone relied on for the sending and receiving of
sensitive information, had been penetrated by a cyberattack. As a
result of the investigation, AutoZone concluded -- on August 15,
2023 -- that "the exploitation of the vulnerability in the MOVEit
application had resulted in the exfiltration of certain data.

The Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered injury as a result
of the Defendants' conduct. These injuries include: invasion of
privacy; theft of their PII; lost or diminished value of PII; lost
time and opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate
the actual consequences of the Data Breach; loss of benefit of the
bargain; and experiencing an increase in spam calls, texts, and/or
emails.

The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all persons whose PII
was compromised as a result of Defendants' failure to warn the
Plaintiffs and Class Members of Defendants' inadequate information
security practices; and effectively secure hardware containing
protected PII using reasonable and effective security procedures
free of vulnerabilities and incidents.

AutoZone is a retailer and distributor of automotive replacement
parts and accessories in the U.S.[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

BAE SYSTEMS: Cabrales Class Certification Bid Partly Granted
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FEDERICO CABRALES and
TYCHICUS STANSLAS, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, v. BAE SYSTEMS SAN DIEGO SHIP REPAIR, INC., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
3:21-cv-02122-AJB-DDL (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Anthony J.
Battaglia entered an order:

   (1) granting in part and denying in part defendant's motion for

       partial summary judgment; and

   (2) granting in part and denying in part plaintiffs' motion for

       class Certification.

Specifically, the Court grants class certification as to the
following subclasses:

    1. Minimum Wage Security Subclass;

    2. Overtime Security Subclass;

    3. Rounding Minimum Wage Subclass;

    4. Rounding Overtime Subclass;

    5. Overtime Regular Rate of Pay Subclass;

    6. Meal Break Subclass (to the extent it is based upon whether

       Defendant provided late first meal breaks);

    7. Second Meal Break Subclass (to the extent it is based upon
       whether Defendant denied second meal breaks altogether);
and

    8. Wage Statement Subclass.

The Court further grants Plaintiffs' motion to appoint Plaintiffs
as class representatives and to appoint Matern Law Group, PC as
class counsel.

Finally, the Court denies with leave to amend the following
subclasses:

    1. Meal Break Subclass (to the extent it is based upon whether

       Defendant failed to provide employees with full meal breaks
due
       to time spent walking to and from break areas, U.S. Navy
       checks, donning/doffing, and tending to equipment);

    2. Rest Break Subclass (to the extent it is based upon whether

       Defendant failed to provide employees with full rest breaks
due
       to time spent walking to and from break areas, U.S. Navy
       checks, donning/doffing, and tending to equipment);

    3. Reimbursement Cellphone Subclass; and

    4. Reimbursement Personal Protective Gear and Tools/Equipment
       Subclass.

The Court finds these derivative claims are suitable for class
certification, but only as it relates to the subclasses and
underlying claims that this Court has granted class certification
in the preceding sections of this Order.

The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following class:

   "All current and former non-exempt employees of Defendant in the
State of California at any time within the period beginning four
(4) years prior to the filing of this action and ending at the time
this action is certified."

The Plaintiffs alternatively move to certify the following
subclasses:

   1. Minimum Wage Security Subclass: all non-exempt employees
working
      at the BAE shipyards located in California from October 26,
2017
      through March 30, 2020 who were required to go through a
      security screening.

   2. Overtime Security Subclass: all non-exempt employees working
at
      the BAE shipyards located in California from October 26, 2017

      through March 30, 2020 who were required to go through a
      security screening and who worked a shift longer than 8 hours
in
      a workday and/or more than 40 hours in a workweek.

   3. Rounding Minimum Wage Subclass: all non-exempt employees
working
      at the BAE shipyards located in California during the Class
      Period, whose time punches were rounded.

   4. Rounding Overtime Subclass: all non-exempt employees working
at
      the BAE shipyards located in California during the Class
Period,
      whose time punches were rounded and who worked shifts longer

      than 8 hours in a workday and/or more than 40 hours in a
      workweek.

   5. Overtime Regular Rate of Pay Subclass: all non-exempt
employees
      working at the BAE shipyards located in California during the

      Class Period, who received overtime pay in the same workweek
as
      additional remuneration, including shift differentials and
other
      forms of non-discretionary pay, other than regular or
overtime
      earnings.

   6. Meal Break Subclass: all non-exempt employees working at the
BAE
      shipyards located in California during the Class Period, who

      worked one or more shifts longer than five hours.

   7. Second Meal Break Subclass: all non-exempt employees working
at
      the BAE shipyards located in California during the Class
Period,
      who worked one or more shifts longer than ten hours.

   8. Rest Break Subclass: all non-exempt employees working at the
BAE
      shipyards located in California during the Class Period, who

      worked one or more shifts of 3.5 hours or longer.

   9. Reimbursement Cellphone Subclass: all non-exempt employees
      working at the BAE shipyards located in California during the

      Class Period, who were not reimbursed for the cost of using
      their personal cell phones for work-related purposes.

  10. Reimbursement Personal Protective Gear and Tools/Equipment
      Subclass: all non-exempt employees working at the BAE
shipyards
      located in California during the Class Period, who were not
      reimbursed for the cost of purchasing personal protective
gear
      and tools for work-related purposes.

  11. Wage Statement Subclass: all non-exempt direct hire employees

      working at the BAE shipyards located in California during the

      Class Period, who received wage statements from October 26,
2020
      through August 31, 2021 that did not include a line item
showing
      total hours worked.

BAE Systems is a provider of non-nuclear ship repairs,
modernization, conversion, and overhaul for government and
commercial customers.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Rge0p4 at no extra charge.[CC]

BANK OF AMERICA: Class Cert. Bid in Aseltine Due August 23, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON ASELTINE, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA,
N.A., Case No. 3:23-cv-00235-MOC-WCM (W.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge W.
Carleton Metcalf entered an initial pretrial order and case
management plan as follows:

  -- Rule 26 Disclosures:                         completed

  -- Phase I Expert Reports:                  

                     Plaintiffs:                  April 23, 2024

                     Defendants:                  May 23, 2024

  -- Phase I Discovery Completion:                July 23, 2024

  -- Mediation:                                   July 31, 2024

  -- Class Certification Motion:                  Aug. 23, 2024

Bank of America is a bank and financial holding company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47SXO42 at no extra charge.[CC]

BON SECOURS: Durbin Sues Over Unpaid Overtime for Police Officers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH DURBIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BON SECOURS MERCY HEALTH, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:23-cv-02345-JZ (N.D. Ohio, December 8, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act.

Mr. Durbin worked as an armed police officer at the Defendant's
facility located at 2600 Navarre Ave., Oregon, Ohio from
approximately May 9, 2020 until February 21, 2022.

Bon Secours Mercy Health, Inc. is a provider of specialty and
primary health care services, headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Daniel I. Bryant, Esq.
         BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
         4400 N. High St., Suite 310
         Columbus, OH 43214
         Telephone: (614) 704-0546
         Facsimile: (614) 573-9826
         E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com

                 - and -

         Matthew B. Bryant, Esq.
         Esther E. Bryant, Esq.
         BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
         3450 W Central Ave., Suite 370
         Toledo, OH 43606
         Telephone: (419) 824-4439
         Facsimile: (419) 932-6719
         E-mail: Mbryant@bryantlegalllc.com
                 Ebryant@bryantlegalllc.com

                 - and -

         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
         11925 Pearl Rd., Suite 310
         Strongsville, OH 44136
         Telephone: (216) 912-2221
         Facsimile: (440) 846-1625
         E-mail: kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com

BOULDER BJ: Knerr Suit Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Robert Knerr, On Behalf Of
Himself And Those Similarly Situated, v. Boulder BJ, LLC et al.,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00799-JLK-MEH (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order granting conditional certification of a
collective action under Section 16(b) the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), 29
U.S.C. section 216(b), comprised of:

   "all delivery drivers employed by Defendants since the time
three
   years proceeding this Motion plus all periods of tolling; an
Order
   requiring Defendants to identify all delivery drivers they have

   employed at any time in the last three years plus periods of
   tolling."

The Plaintiff further asks the Court to enter an order:

  -- Requiring the Defendants to provide notice-related information
to
     Plaintiff’s attorneys within 14 days; and

  -- directing the issuance of Plaintiff's proposed notice and
consent
     form to all such persons. In support of the Motion, Plaintiff

     incorporates his Memorandum in Support filed contemporaneously

     herewith.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
          BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
          8044 Montgomery Rd, Suite 515
          Cincinnati OH 45236
          Telephone: (513) 715-8711
          Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
          E-mail: akimble@billerkimble.com

                - and -

          Mark Potashnick, Esq.
          WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
          11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
          St. Louis, MO 63141
          Telephone: (314) 997-9150 ext. 2
          Facsimile: (314) 997-9170
          E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com

                - and –

          David Lichtenstein, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DAVID LICHTENSTEIN, LLC
          1556 Williams St., Suite 100
          Denver, CO 80218
          Telephone: (303) 831-4750
          E-mail: dave@lichtensteinlaw.com
                  matt@lichtensteinlaw.com
                  kristina@lichtensteinlaw.com

CANO HEALTH: Faces Shareholder Suit Over SEC Disclosures
--------------------------------------------------------
Cano Health, 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 13, 2023, that it is
facing a putative class action lawsuit filed by a purported
stockholder of the company, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on March 18, 2022, against it and
certain of its former officers, captioned "Alberto Gonzalez v. Cano
Health, Inc. f/k/a Jaws Acquisition Corp., et al.," No.
1:22-cv-20827. An amended complaint was filed on February 21, 2023.
Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on April 7,
2023.

The lawsuit alleges violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 against all
defendants in connection with allegedly false and misleading
statements made by the company regarding compliance with GAAP and
the timing of its revenue recognition from Medicare Advantage
contracts in 2021. The lawsuit seeks, among other things,
certification of a class action and unspecified compensatory
damages for purchasers of the company's common stock between May 7,
2021 and February 25, 2022, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

On October 25, 2023, plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend
the complaint, which amendment would extend the putative class
period to end on August 10, 2023. Defendants filed an opposition to
said motion for leave to amend on November 8, 2023.

Cano Health, Inc., formerly known as Primary Care (ITC)
Intermediate Holdings, LLC, provides value-based medical care for
its members, providing high-touch population health and wellness
services to Medicare Advantage, Accountable Care Organization
Realizing Equity, Access, and Community Health, Medicare patients
under ACO and Medicaid capitated members, particularly in
underserved communities by leveraging its platform to deliver
high-quality health care services. It also operates pharmacies in
the network for the purpose of providing a full range of managed
care services to its members.


CANOO INC: Third Amended Complaint Reply Due Feb. 8, 2024
---------------------------------------------------------
Canoo Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Form for the quarterly period
ending September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on November 14, 2023, that the court has set deadline
for third amended consolidated complaint on December 7, 2023, for
lead plaintiff to respond to opposition to a motion to dismiss on
January 11, 2024, and reply in support of a motion to dismiss the
third amended consolidated complaint on February 8, 2024.

On April 2, 2021 and April 9, 2021, the Company was named as a
defendant in putative class action complaints filed in California
on behalf of individuals who purchased or acquired shares of the
Company's stock during a specified period.

Through the complaint, plaintiffs are seeking, among other things,
compensatory damages.

The Company has filed a pending motion to dismiss the complaints.

On February 28, 2023, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss with leave to amend.

On March 10, 2023, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended
consolidated complaint.

On March 23, 2023, the court entered a stipulated order setting a
briefing schedule on the Company's anticipated motion to dismiss
the second amended consolidated complaint.

On April 10, 2023, the court entered a stipulated order granting
the lead plaintiff leave to file a third amended consolidated
complaint and relieving defendants of any obligation to respond to
the second amended consolidated complaint.

Under the April 10, 2023 order, within 14 days of the release of
any order regarding a settlement between the Company and the SEC,
the parties shall confer and jointly submit a proposed schedule for
the filing of any third amended consolidated complaint and for the
filing of the defendant's response to the third amended
consolidated complaint.

The lead plaintiff filed a third amended consolidated complaint on
September 8, 2023.

The court entered a stipulated order setting the deadline to
respond to the third amended consolidated complaint to December 7,
2023 and setting January 11, 2024 as the deadline for lead
plaintiff's opposition to a motion to dismiss and February 8, 2024
as the deadline for a reply in support of a motion to dismiss the
third amended consolidated complaint.

Canoo Inc. is a mobility technology company into electric vehicles
development.


CITADEL SERVICING: Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to Feb. 8, 2024
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FALON BALLARD AND MATTHEW
BALLARD, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, v. CITADEL SERVICING CORPORATION, A/K/A ACRA LENDING; AND
DOES 1-5, Case No. 8:22-cv-01679-FWS-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Fred W. Slaughter entered an order modifying briefing
schedule for motion for class certification:

                   Event                                Date

  Final Pretrial Conference & Hearing on             July 18, 2024
  Motions in Limine  

  Last Date to Hear Motion to Amend                  Sept. 14, 2023

  Pleadings/Add Parties

  Deadline for Plaintiff's Class                     Feb. 8, 2024
  Certification Motion

  Deadline for Defendants' Opposition                Mar. 7, 2024
  to Class Certification

  Deadline for Plaintiff's Reply to Opposition       Mar. 28, 2024


  Hearing on Class Certification Motion              Apr. 18, 2024


  Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off                       Jan. 31, 2024
  (no later than deadline for filing dispositive
  motions)

  Last Date to Hear Motions                          Apr. 18, 2024

  Deadline to Complete Settlement Conference         May 2, 2024
  [L.R. 16-15]

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47QKH3u at no extra charge.[CC]

CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Riverdale Brings Appeal to N.Y. Appeal Div.
----------------------------------------------------------------
RIVERDALE JEWISH CENTER filed an appeal in its lawsuit entitled
Riverdale Jewish Center, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Consolidated Edison Company of
New York, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 651032/2022.

The case type is stated as Civil Action - General.

The appellate case is captioned Riverdale Jewish Center, on behalf
of itself and all others similarly situated vs. Consolidated Edison
Company of New York, Inc., Case No. 23-06098, in the First Judicial
Department of New York Appellate Division, filed on November 27,
2023. [BN]

Plaintiff-Petitioner Riverdale Jewish Center, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, is represented by:

            Shawn Rabin, Esq.
            SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
            1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
            New York, NY 10019
            Telephone: (212) 336-8330

CONSUMER FINANCIAL: Jones Suit Seeks Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARZANNA JONES and HEYNARD
L. PAZ-CHOW, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. ROHIT CHOPRA, in his official capacity as Director,
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and CONSUMER FINANCIAL
PROTECTION BUREAU, Case No. 1:18-cv-02132-BAH (D.D.C.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting final approval
to the Settlement and certifying the class for settlement
purposes.

On September 15, 2023, the Court preliminarily approved the
Settlement and provisionally certified the class, finding in a
thorough opinion that the proposed Settlement and class
sufficiently satisfied the Rule 23(e) requirements for approval and
the Rule 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) requirements for certification.


Consumer Financial is an independent agency of the United States
government responsible for consumer protection in the financial
sector.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 6, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tdY3aR at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          George S. Robot, Esq.
          Linda D. Friedman, Esq.
          Truscenialyn Brooks, Esq.
          Caitlin M. Kearney, Esq.
          STOWELL & FRIEDMAN, LTD.
          303 W. Madison St., Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 431-0888
          E-mail: lfriedman@sfltd.com
                  grobot@slftd.com
                  tbrooks@sfltd.com
                  ckearney@sfltd.com

                - and -

          Justin L. Leinenweber, Esq.
          JUSTIN L. LEINENWEBER, P.C.
          120 N LaSalle St Ste 2000,
          Chicago, IL 60618
          Telephone: (312) 857-3405
          E-mail: justin@ilesq.com

COOK COUNTY, IL: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
Cook County Record reports that Cook County Health & Hospitals
System has again been hit with a class action lawsuit accusing it
of allowing patient information to be exposed in a data breach.

In September, the hospital began notifying  patients of the breach,
which occurred between March 27 and May 2, according to the lawsuit
filed in Cook County Circuit Court.

An "unauthorized party" accessed files of 1.2 million CCH patients,
according to the notice, states the lawsuit, which also names a CCH
technology contractor, Perry Johnson & Associates, as a defendant.

"Defendants failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and class
members' private information - and failed to even encrypt or redact
this highly sensitive information," the lawsuit states. "This
unencrypted, unredacted Private Information was compromised due to
Defendants' negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and their
utter failure to protect its affiliates' patients' sensitive
data."

Hackers targeted the patient's private information, "because of its
value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and
class members," the suit states. "The present and continuing risk
to victims of the data breach will remain for their respective
lifetimes."

The lawsuit seeks a court order requiring tighter security for
patient medical information, damages and attorney fees.

The plaintiffs are represented by attorney Gary M. Klinger, of
Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman LLC, of Chicago.

Martin v. Cook County Health and Hospital System, Cook County
Circuit Court, 2023CH09558 [GN]

COREPOWER YOGA: Bid to Dismiss Suit Continued to Jan. 19, 2024
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLEMENS D. KANG, an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
COREPOWER YOGA LLC, a Colorado limited liability company; KADA
O'CONNOR, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No. 2:23-cv-09054-JLS-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Josephine L.
Staton entered an order approving joint stipulation to stay the
Defendant's motion to dismiss pending ruling on the Plaintiff's
motion to remand.

   1. The Defendant's motion to dismiss is continued to Friday,
      January 19, 2024, at 10:30 a.m. so that it may be heard after

      Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand.

   2. The Court will not set any deadlines as to a motion for class

      certification, nor is the case stayed in any manner. The
      deadline for a motion for class certification will be set by

      the Court's Scheduling Order.

CorePower offers fitness classes that practice various styles and
levels of yoga.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4a77J7E at no extra charge.[CC]

CORTEVA INC: Scheduling Order Entered in Cockerill Class Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT F. COCKERILL, et
al., v. CORTEVA, INC. et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-03966-MMB (E.D.
Pa.), the Hon. Judge Michael M. Baylson entered a scheduling order
as follows:

   1. The attached notice is the final court approved notice in
this
      action.

   2. The notice must be sent out by December 18, 2023, unless
      Defendants file their anticipated petition for interlocutory

      appeal by December 14, 2023.

   3. If Defendants file a petition for interlocutory appeal by
      December 14, 2023, the Court will postpone sending the notice

      until any appellate matters regarding class certification are

      resolved by the Third Circuit. Plaintiff shall respond to
      the petition by December 30, 2023.

Corteva is a major American agricultural chemical and seed
company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3GFQXz7 at no extra charge.[CC]

COVIA HOLDINGS: $6MM Class Settlement to be Heard on April 11
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. on Dec. 18 disclosed that the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio-Eastern
Division has approved the following announcement of a proposed
class action settlement that would benefit purchasers of Covia
Holdings Corporation f/k/a Fairmount Santrol Holdings, Inc.
securities (NYSE: CVIA, OTC: CVIAQ, and NYSE: FMSA):

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT

TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED THE SECURITIES OF COVIA HOLDINGS
CORPORATION F/K/A/ FAIRMOUNT SANTROL HOLDINGS, INC. ("COVIA") FROM
MARCH 10, 2016 THROUGH JUNE 29, 2020, BOTH DATES INCLUSIVE.
   
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, that a hearing
will be held on April 11, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable
J. Philip Calabrese, United States District Judge of the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Carl B.
Stokes U.S. Court House, 801 West Superior Avenue, Courtroom 16B,
Cleveland, OH 44113, or by telephonic or videoconference means as
directed by the Court, for the purpose of determining:

(1) whether the proposed Settlement of the claims in the
above-captioned Action for consideration including the sum of
$6,000,000 ("Settlement Amount") should be approved by the Court as
fair, reasonable, and adequate;

(2) whether the proposed plan to distribute the Settlement proceeds
is fair, reasonable, and adequate;

(3) whether the application of Lead Counsel for an award of
attorneys' fees of up one third of the Settlement Amount,
reimbursement of expenses of not more than $95,000, and awards to
Plaintiffs of no more than $25,000 total, should be approved; and

(4) whether this Action should be dismissed with prejudice as set
forth in the Stipulation of Settlement, dated October 25, 2023.

If you purchased Covia common stock, or purchased call options or
sold put options on Covia common stock during the period from March
10, 2016 through June 29, 2020, both dates inclusive ("Settlement
Class Period"), your rights may be affected by this Settlement,
including the release and extinguishment of claims you may possess
relating to your ownership interest in Covia securities.

If you have not received a postcard providing instructions for
receiving a detailed Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of
Class Action ("Long Notice") and a copy of the Proof of Claim and
Release Form ("Proof of Claim"), you may obtain copies by writing
to or calling Covia Holdings Corporation Securities Litigation, c/o
Strategic Claims Services, 600 N. Jackson St., Ste. 205, P.O. Box
230, Media, PA 19063; (Tel) (866) 274-4004; (Fax) (610) 565-7985;
info@strategicclaims.net, or going to the website,
www.strategicclaims.net/CVIA. If you are a member of the Settlement
Class, in order to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement
Fund, you must submit a properly completed Proof of Claim
electronically at www.strategicclaims.net/CVIA or postmarked no
later than March 11, 2024 to the Claims Administrator, establishing
that you are entitled to recovery. Unless you submit a written
exclusion request, you will be bound by any judgment rendered in
the Action whether or not you make a claim.

If you desire to be excluded from the Settlement Class, you must
submit a request for exclusion in the manner and form explained in
the Long Notice to the Claims Administrator so that it is received
no later than March 20, 2024. All members of the Settlement Class
who have not requested exclusion from the Settlement Class will be
bound by any judgment entered in the Action.

Any objection to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation, or Lead
Counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement
of expenses and an award to Plaintiffs must be in the manner and
form explained in the Long Notice and received no later than March
20, 2024, by each of the following:

Clerk of the Court
United States District Court
Northern District of Ohio
Carl B. Stokes U.S. Court House
801 West Superior Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44113

LEAD COUNSEL:
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
Phillip Kim
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016

COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT:
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
Gabor Balassa
300 North LaSalle Street
Chicago, IL 60654

If you have any questions about the Settlement, you may call or
write to Lead Counsel:

THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
Phillip Kim
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: 212-686-1060

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING
THIS NOTICE.

Dated: November 20, 2023

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO


CREDIT UNION: Court OK's Plaintiffs' Bid to Leave to Amend Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lucero, Brenda et al v.
Credit Union Retirement Plan Association, et al., Case No.
3:22-cv-00208 (W.D. Wisc., Filed April 12, 2022), the Hon. Judge
James D Peterson entered an order granting Plaintiffs' motion for
leave to amend their complaint in this Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) case.

The suit alleges violation of the ERISA involving Breach of
Fiduciary Duties.

The Plaintiffs do not ask to assert any new claims or otherwise
change the scope of the case. Rather, the sole purpose of the
amendment is to substitute as defendants the Board of Trustees of
Retirement Plans and the Plan Administrative Committee for the
Board of Trustees of the Credit Union Retirement Plan Association.

The Defendants do not oppose the motion, and neither side suggests
that the amendment will have any effect on either the pending
motion for class certification or the case schedule.

The Plaintiffs are directed to promptly file the amended complaint
as a separate docket entry.[CC]



CROWN EQUIPMENT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brown Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANDRE BROWN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CROWN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION, Defendant, Case
No. 2:23-cv-08993 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 7, 2023) seeks to recover from
the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.

Plaintiff Brown was employed by the Defendant as a forklift
technician.

CROWN EQUIPMENT CORPORATION is an Ohio corporation, operates as
manufacturers of industrial forklift trucks. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Peter A. Romero, Esq.
         ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC
         490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277
         Hauppauge, NY 11788
         Telephone: (631) 257-5588
         Email: promero@romerolawny.com

CSX TRANSPORTATION: Breaches Fiduciary Duties, Francisco Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
LAUREN WEBB and DEBBIE FRANCISCO, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Case No.
6:23-cv-00211-REW-HAI (E.D. Ky., Nov. 29, 2023) alleges that the
Defendant negligently breached its duty of care by causing the
train to derail by failing to adhere to industry standards, and by
allowing the release of molten sulfur from the train car, causing
the Plaintiffs and Class Members to be significantly exposed to
dangerous toxins far higher than normal background levels.

On November 22, 2023, at 2:30 p.m., Thanksgiving Eve became a day
of chaos and catastrophe for residents living in Rockcastle County,
Kentucky, when a nearby train derailment caused a devastating chain
reaction -- a chemical spill followed by a deadly fire that poured
poisonous gases into their community. The train derailment involved
at least 16 train cars operated by CSX. CSX confirmed that at least
the cars containing molten sulfur were breached, and part of the
spilled sulfur caught on fire. The fire continued to burn for
nearly 24-hours. While the fire was burning, sulfur dioxide poured
into the atmosphere and the neighboring communities, the lawsuit
says.

Accordingly, the Plaintiffs and others in the community have
suffered significant and sustained irritation to their throats,
eyes, lungs, mouths and lips, and had their properties invaded by
dangerous plumes of chemical smoke. As a direct and proximate
result of the Defendant's ultrahazardous activities, the Plaintiffs
and Class Members were significantly exposed to toxic chemicals,
and have suffered discomfort, inconvenience, loss of use and
enjoyment of property, emotional distress, diminution in property
value, increased risks of future illness, and the present need for
medical monitoring to ensure early detection of any such disease or
illness, asserts the lawsuit.

The Plaintiffs bring this class action seeking relief from CSX’s
reckless and willfully indifferent conduct.

CSX is a supplier of rail-based freight transportation in North
America.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Josh Autry, Esq.
          Jean S. Martin, Esq.
          Francesca K. Burne, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          333 W. Vine St, St 1200
          Lexington, KY 40507
          Telephone: (859) 899-8785
          E-mail: jautry@forthepeople.com
                  jeanmartin@forthepeople.com
                  fburne@forthepeople.com

CUPERTINO ELECTRIC: Crowl Suit Consolidated with Wise
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN CROWL, v. CUPERTINO
ELECTRIC, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-04007-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an order consolidating cases for
all purposes.

-- Crowl v. Cupertino Electric, Inc., Case No. 23-cv-4007, and

-- Wise v. Cupertino Electric Inc., Case No. 23-cv-4232.

The consolidated action will be captioned In re Cupertino Electric
Inc. Litigation and all future filings will be filed in Case No.
23-cv-4007.

The Court orders that the Clerk of the Court administratively close
Case No. 23-cv-4232.

Counsel for Crowl and Wise shall propose a schedule for filing a
consolidated complaint and file the proposed schedule within 10
days of the date of this Order.

Cupertino Electric is a privately owned electrical engineering and
construction company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3RhPfJ1 at no extra charge.[CC]

CVS HEALTH: Filling for Class Cert Bid Due March 7, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRENDAN BAKER,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. CVS
HEALTH CORPORATION and CVS PHARMACY, INC., Case No.
1:23-cv-11483-PBS (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Patti B. Saris entered
a scheduling order as follows:

   a. Initial Disclosures:                    Dec. 15, 2023

   b. Amendments to Pleadings:                21 days after
Defendants
                                              answer the Complaint

   c. Close of Fact Discovery:                Oct. 11, 2024

   d. Plaintiffs' experts (for class          Nov. 22, 2024
      certification and merits):

   e. The Defendant's experts:                Dec. 22, 2024

   f. Close of Expert Discovery:              Feb. 7, 2025

   g. Motion for Summary Judgment,            March 7, 2025
      Class Certification Motions,
      and Daubert Motions:

CVS Health offers prescription medications, healthcare and wellness
products, beauty products, and personal care products.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3NlWYVe at no extra charge.[CC]

CYBELANGEL USA: Unopposed Bid for Extension of Time OK'd in Koeller
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Koeller v. CybelAngel USA
Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-00319 (E.D. Mo., Filed March 14, 2023), the
Hon. Judge Sarah E. Pitlyk entered an order granting unopposed
motion for extension of time to file response/reply as to21 motion
to certify class.

The nature of suit states Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

CybelAngel is a leader in cybersecurity solutions focused on
External Attack Surface Protection and Management.[CC]



D & M BOLANOS: Gomez Seeks Court-Approved Notice to Employees
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Carlos Gomez, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. D & M Bolanos
Drywall, LLC, Mirna Bolanos, individually, David Bolanos,
individually, and Benjamin Ward, individually, Case No.
2:23-cv-02334-SHM-atc (W.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:

   (1) granting court-approved notice of this matter to other
       employees, thus allowing those receiving notice to join this

       group action as plaintiffs, with the eligible class of
       employees defined as follows:

       "All individuals employed and paid by D & M Bolanos Drywall,

       LLC from May 25, 2020 to present in jobs involving painting
and
       construction who were compensated on an hourly basis and who

       were not paid an overtime premium for all hours worked in
       excess of forty hours in a work week;"

   (2) directing the Defendants to produce to Plaintiff's counsel
       within 10 days of the Order granting this Motion a list
       containing the names, last known addresses, last known email

       addresses, and last known phone numbers for the class of
       employees defined above; and

   (3) authorizing him to send notice and consent to join to all
       individuals whose names appear on the list produced by
       Defendants' counsel by first-class mail and email so that
they
       may assert their claims on a timely basis as part of this
       litigation.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan G. Crone, Esq.
          Philip Oliphant, Esq.
          THE CRONE LAW FIRM, PLC
          88 Union Avenue, 14th Floor
          Memphis, TN 38103
          Telephone: (901) 737-7740
          Facsimile: (901) 474-7926
          E-mail: acrone@cronelawfirmplc.com
                  poliphant@cronelawfirmplc.com


DBI SERVICES: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 31, 2024
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN PRIEST, ET AL. On
Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, v. DBI
SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-00712-RCY (E.D. Va.), the Hon.
Judge Roderick C. Young entered an order:

   (1) granting the Plaintiffs' motion to modify the Dismissal
       deadline;

   (2) vacating the Dec. 14, 2023 deadline for dismissal; and

   (3) directing the Plaintiffs' to file a Motion for Class
       Certification and a Motion for Default Judgment on or by
       January 31, 2024.

DBI Services operates as an asset management and infrastructure
services company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Dec. 5, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4acGsAO at no extra charge.[CC]

DENTSPLY SIRONA: Parties Seek More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Dentsply Sirona, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:18-cv-07253-NG-PK (E.D.N.Y.), the Parties
ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadlines for:

   (a) Defendant's opposition to the motion for class
certification,
       from December 21, 2023 to February 8, 2024; and

   (b) for Lead Plaintiff's reply to that motion, from February 23,

       2024 to April 10, 2024.

A copy of the Parties motion dated Dec. 5, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3uLcROz at no extra charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christopher P. Malloy, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          One Manhattan West
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 735-3000
          Facsimile: (212) 735-2000
          E-mail: christopher.malloy@skadden.com



DENTSPLY SIRONA: Parties Seek to Extend May 31, 2023 Sched Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action re Dentsply Sirona, Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 1:18-cv-07253-NG-PK (E.D.N.Y.), the Parties ask the Court
to enter an order extending the deadlines set forth in the May 31,
2023 Scheduling Order for the Defendants to file their opposition
papers and for Lead Plaintiff to file its reply papers in
connection with Lead Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

Lead Plaintiff has advised Defendants of the recent unavailability
for a deposition of its representative due to an unexpected medical
leave.

Accordingly, the parties filed a joint request to Magistrate Judge
Kuo to extend from December 7, 2023 to January 25, 2024 the
deadline for the Lead Plaintiff's deposition to occur.

Because the extension of this deadline (which relates to class
certification discovery) impacts the parties’ briefing on the
class certification motion, the parties also requested an extension
of the deadlines for Defendants' opposition to the class
certification motion to February 8, 2024 and for Lead Plaintiff’s
reply to April 10, 2024.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Dec. 6, 2023 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at at no extra charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christopher P. Malloy, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          One Manhattan West
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 735-3000
          Facsimile: (212) 735-2000
          E-mail: christopher.malloy@skadden.com




DOTERRA INT'L: Bingham Seeks Conditional Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DUSTIN BINGHAM, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated in the proposed FLSA
Collective Action, v. DOTERRA INTERNATIONAL, LLC, DOTERRA UNITED
STATES, LLC, and DOTERRA, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00707-DBB-DBP (D.
Utah), the Plaintiffs asks the Court to enter an order granting
their motion for Conditional Certification and Court-Authorized
Notice Pursuant to 29 U.S.C.A. section 216(b) in its entirety.

Finally, the Defendants falsely claimed that the underpayment
amount was doubled "to compensate for the inconvenience" rather
than the statutory compulsion to do so, the Plaintiffs contend.

The Plaintiff, Dustin Bingham, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situation in the Proposed FLSA Collective Action,
pursuant to 29 U.S.C.A. section 206, F. R. Civ. P. 7, and DUCivR7-1
brings this Motion for Preliminary Certification in FLSA Collection
Action.

The Plaintiffs assert as follows:

  -- The Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants doTERRA
     International, LLC and doTERRA, Inc., which own, operation,
and
     do business as, to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
and
     statutory damages, attorney’s fees, and costs under the Fair

     Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

  -- The Plaintiffs assert their FLSA claims, individually and on
     behalf of those similarly situated, as a collective action,
     pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b).

The Plaintiffs seek an order from the court:

     (1) conditionally certifying the collective action;

     (2) requiring specific discovery (to be provided within ten
days
         of conditional certification) a computer-readable list of
the
         names, addresses, email address, social security numbers,
and
         telephone number for all persons employed by Defendant as

         hourly non-exempt employee from October 6, 2020 to the
         present;

     (3) authorizing notice be sent to all non-exempt employees who

         work or have worked for Defendants in Pleasant Grove, Utah

         since October 6, 2020 to present; and

     (4) equitably toll the statute of limitation from the date of
         filing the complaint until 30 days after Defendants
discloses
         the names and contact information requested herein to
afford
         potential collective class members to opt-in.

doTERRA sources, tests, manufactures, and distributes essential
oils and wellness products nationally and internationally with
principal offices located in Pleasant Grove, Utah.

A copy of the the Plaintiffs' motion dated Dec. 6, 2023 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tbldP6 at no
extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and -

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

DRIVE NEW JERSEY: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTIN PETRI, and SHERDON
GREEN, themselves and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. DRIVE NEW JERSEY INSURANCE COMPANY, a New Jersey corporation,
and PROGRESSIVE GARDEN STATE INSURANCE COMPANY, a New Jersey
corporation, Case No. 1:21-cv-20510-CPO-EAP (D.N.J.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to
extend the deadline to file their opposition to the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

The Defendants request that the time to file a response to
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification be extended to 14 days
following the Court's ruling on their motion for Leave to Amend
their Answer and Defenses to the First Amended Complaint and Assert
a Counterclaim against Plaintiff Green.

The Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification on
September 21, 2023. The Defendants' deadline to respond is December
15, 2023.

Drive New Jersey offers property and casualty insurance products.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Dec. 5, 2023 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/46VN57L at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Craig Carpenito, Esq.
          Thomas J. Scrivo, Esq.
          Jeffrey S. Cashdan, Esq.
          Zachary A. McEntyre, Esq.
          J. Matthew Brigman, Esq.
          Daniel S. Sanders III, Esq.
          Julia C. Barrett, Esq.
          KING & SPALDING LLP
          1185 6th Avenue of the Americas, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 556-2100
          Facsimile: (212) 556-2222
          E-mail: ccarpenito@kslaw.com
                  tscrivo@kslaw.com
                  jcashdan@kslaw.com
                  zmcentyre@kslaw.com
                  mbrigman@kslaw.com
                  awhite@kslaw.com
                  jbarrett@kslaw.com

EBERJEY HOLDINGS: Bilbao Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Axel Bilbao, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. EBERJEY HOLDINGS, INC., Case No.
23- 02067 was removed from the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth
Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida on Dec. 4, 2023, and
assigned Case No. 0:23-cv-62308-RKA.

The Plaintiff contends that, with each promotional text message
sent, Eberjey "transmitted a telephone number to the Caller ID
Service of Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class that was not capable
of receiving telephone calls and failed to connect the recipients,
including Plaintiff," to Eberjey. The Plaintiff contends that by
doing so, Eberjey violated the "Caller ID Rules" contained in the
Florida Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA").[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Laura Ganoza, Esq.
          FOLEY &LARDNER LLP
          One Biscayne Tower, Suite 1900
          Two South Biscayne Boulevard
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: 305-482-8400
          Email: lganoza@foley.com

               - and -

          Caroline C. Dunkle, Esq.
          FOLEY &LARDNER LLP
          100 N. Tampa Street, Suite 2700
          Tampa, Florida 33602
          Phone: 813-229-2300
          Email: cdunkle@foley.com

               - and -

          Irina N. Kashcheyeva, Esq.
          FOLEY &LARDNER LLP
          500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 2700
          Detroit, Michigan 48226
          Phone: (313) 234-7170
          Email: ikashcheyeva@foley.com


EMERGENT BIOSOLUTIONS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emergent Biosolutions Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on December 11, 2023, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the consolidated federal
securities class suits in the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland.

On April 20, 2021, May 14, 2021, and June 2, 2021, putative class
action lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its
current and former senior officers in the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland on behalf of purchasers of the
Company’s common stock, seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

These complaints were filed by Palm Tran, Inc. – Amalgamated
Transit Union Local 1577 Pension Plan; Alan I. Roth; and Stephen M.
Weiss, respectively.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the defendants made
false and misleading statements about the Company's manufacturing
capabilities with respect to COVID-19 vaccine bulk drug substance
(referred to herein as "CDMO Manufacturing Capabilities").

These cases were consolidated on December 23, 2021, under the
caption In re Emergent BioSolutions Inc. Securities Litigation, No.
8:21-cv-00955-PWG (the "Federal Securities Class Action").

The lead plaintiffs in the consolidated matter (the "Lead
Plaintiffs") are Nova Scotia Health Employees' Pension Plan and The
City of Fort Lauderdale Police & Firefighters' Retirement System.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on May 19, 2022 and the
Lead Plaintiffs filed an opposition to that motion on July 19,
2022.

A hearing on the motion to dismiss was conducted on April 19, 2023
and an order was entered on September 1, 2023, granting in part and
denying in part the motion to dismiss.

The defendant's answer to the complaint was filed on October 30,
2023.

The defendants believe that the allegations in the complaints are
without merit and intend to defend the matters vigorously.

Headquartered in Gaithersburg, Maryland, Emergent BioSolutions
Inc. is a life sciences company that provides pharmaceuticals,
vaccines, medical devices and contract manufacturing services
related to public health threats affecting civilian and military
populations.



ENVIRONMENTAL ALTERNATIVES: Lomeli Sues Over Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Baneli Lomeli, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. ENVIRONMENTAL ALTERNATIVES, a
California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
23CV02958 (Cal. Super. Ct., Butte Cty., Oct. 23, 2023), is brought
violation of California Labor Code for unpaid overtime; unpaid meal
period premiums; unpaid rest period premiums; unpaid minimum wages;
final wages not timely paid; wages not timely paid during
employment; non-compliant wage statements; failed to keep requisite
payroll records; unreimbursed business expenses; and Violation of
California Business & Professions Code.

The Plaintiff and the other class members worked over eight (8)
hours in a day, and/or 40 hours in a week during their employment
with Defendants. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants
engaged in a pattern and practice of wage abuse against their
hourly-paid or non-exempt employees within the State of California.
This pattern and practice involved, inter alia, failing to pay them
for all regular and/or overtime wages earned and for missed meal
periods and rest breaks in violation of California law, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants and other persons as
hourly-paid or non-exempt employees.

Environmental Alternatives was and is a California
corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arby Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
          410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Phone: (818) 265-1020
          Fax: (818) 265-1021
          Email: aa@calljustice.com


ENVISION HEALTHCARE: $$177.5MM Settlement to be Heard on March 21
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP issued a statement regarding the
Envision Securities Litigation:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

In re ENVISION HEALTHCARE CORPORATION
SECURITIES LITIGATION

Civil Action No. 3:17-cv-01112
(Consolidated with Case Nos.
3:17-cv-01323 and 3:17-cv-01397)

CLASS ACTION

Honorable William L. Campbell, Jr.
Magistrate Judge Jeffery S. Frensley

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

TO:

ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED THE
COMMON STOCK OF ENVISION HEALTHCARE CORPORATION ("EHC") AND/OR
ENVISION HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, INC. ("EHH" AND COLLECTIVELY WITH
EHC, "ENVISION")1 BETWEEN FEBRUARY 3, 2014 AND OCTOBER 31, 2017,
INCLUSIVE ("CLASS" OR "CLASS MEMBERS")

THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on March 21,
2024, at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable William L. Campbell, Jr.
at the United States District Court, Middle District of Tennessee,
Nashville Division, Fred D. Thompson U.S. Courthouse and Federal
Building, Courtroom 6D, 719 Church Street, Nashville, TN 37203, to
determine whether: (1) the proposed settlement (the "Settlement")
of the above-captioned Litigation as set forth in the Stipulation
of Settlement ("Stipulation")2 for $177.5 million in cash should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) the
Judgment as provided under the Stipulation should be entered
dismissing the Litigation with prejudice; (3) to award Plaintiffs'
Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as
defined in the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class
Action ("Notice"), which is discussed below) and, if so, in what
amount; (4) to pay Plaintiffs for their costs and expenses in
representing the Class out of the Settlement Fund and, if so, in
what amount; and (5) the Plan of Allocation should be approved by
the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate.

There exists the possibility that the Court may decide to conduct
the Settlement Hearing by video or telephonic conference, or
otherwise allow Class Members to appear at the hearing by phone or
videoconference, without further written notice to the Class. In
order to determine whether the date and time of the Settlement
Hearing have changed, or whether Class Members must or may
participate by phone or video, it is important that you monitor the
Court's docket and the Settlement website,
www.EnvisionSecuritiesLitigation.com, before making any plans to
attend the Settlement Hearing. Any updates regarding the Settlement
Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of the hearing
or updates regarding in-person or telephonic appearances at the
hearing, will also be posted to that website. Also, if the Court
requires or allows Class Members to participate in the Settlement
Hearing by telephone or videoconference, the access information
will be posted to the Settlement website,
www.EnvisionSecuritiesLitigation.com.

IF YOU PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED ENVISION COMMON STOCK
BETWEEN FEBRUARY 3, 2014 AND OCTOBER 31, 2017, INCLUSIVE, YOUR
RIGHTS ARE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION.

To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must
establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release
form ("Proof of Claim") by mail (postmarked no later than April 8,
2024) or electronically (no later than April 8, 2024). Your failure
to submit your Proof of Claim by April 8, 2024 will subject your
claim to rejection and preclude your receiving any of the recovery
in connection with the Settlement of this Litigation. If you
purchased or otherwise acquired Envision common stock between
February 3, 2014 and October 31, 2017, inclusive, and do not
request exclusion from the Class, you will be bound by the
Settlement and any judgment and release entered in the Litigation,
including, but not limited to, the Judgment, whether or not you
submit a Proof of Claim.

The Notice, which more completely describes the Settlement and your
rights thereunder (including your right to object to the
Settlement), the Proof of Claim, the Stipulation (which, among
other things, contains definitions for the defined terms used in
this Summary Notice), and other important documents, may be
accessed online at www.EnvisionSecuritiesLitigation.com, or by
writing to:

Envision Securities Litigation
Claims Administrator
c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
P.O. Box 301170
Los Angeles, CA 90030-1170

Inquiries should NOT be directed to Envision, Defendants, the
Court, or the Clerk of the Court.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of
Claim, may be made to Class Counsel:

ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
Ellen Gusikoff Stewart
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 1-800-449-4900
settlementinfo@rgrdlaw.com

IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A
REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED BY FEBRUARY 29,
2024, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. ALL CLASS
MEMBERS WILL BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT EVEN IF THEY DO NOT SUBMIT
A TIMELY PROOF OF CLAIM.

IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE
SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, THE REQUEST BY PLAINTIFFS'
COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES NOT TO EXCEED 30% OF THE
$177.5 MILLION SETTLEMENT AMOUNT AND EXPENSES NOT TO EXCEED $1.9
MILLION, PLUS INTEREST ON BOTH AMOUNTS, AND/OR THE PAYMENT TO
PLAINTIFFS FOR THEIR COSTS AND EXPENSES NOT TO EXCEED $95,000 IN
THE AGGREGATE. ANY OBJECTIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND SENT
TO CLASS COUNSEL AND DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL BY FEBRUARY 29, 2024, IN
THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE.

DATED: November 20, 2023

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

1 On May 15, 2023, Envision Healthcare Corporation filed a
voluntary petition under Title 11 of the United States Code,
Chapter 11, Case No. 23-90342, in the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the Southern District of Texas.

2 The Stipulation can be viewed and/or obtained at
www.EnvisionSecuritiesLitigation.com.


EXP WORLD HOLDINGS: Faces Phillips Class Suit in Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------
Exp World Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K Report  filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on December 11, 2023,
that the Company faces the Phillips class suit in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

On November 22, 2023, a putative class action complaint under the
original caption Phillips, et al. v. The National Association of
Realtors et. al. (Case No.:1:23-cv-05392-SEG, the “Class
Action”) was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, naming The National
Association of Realtors and certain unaffiliated real estate
brokerages as defendants.  

On December 6, 2023, the putative class action complaint was
amended to expand the scope of the Class Action, replace the
putative class representatives and name additional real estate
brokerages, including the Company, as defendants.

The amended Class Action complaint alleges that defendants
participated in a system that resulted in sellers of residential
property paying inflated buyer-broker commissions in violation of
federal and Georgia antitrust laws and in violation of Georgia
deceptive trade practice and consumer protection statutes.

The plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants
from requiring home sellers to pay buyer brokers or from otherwise
restricting competition among buyer brokers and seller brokers and
an award of declaratory relief and damages or restitution in an
amount to be proven at trial, exemplary damages, pre-and
post-judgment interest, as well as attorneys’ fees, expenses and
costs of suit.

Plaintiffs assert defendants are jointly and severally liable for
the actions of their alleged co-conspirators, regardless of whether
the co-conspirators are explicitly named as defendants in the
amended complaint.

The Company believes that additional antitrust litigation may be
possible.

The Company cannot provide any assurances that results of such
litigation will not have a material adverse effect on its business,
results of operations or financial condition.


EXPENSIFY INC: Faces Wilhite Suit Over 36.89% Stock Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------------------
CODY WILHITE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. EXPENSIFY, INC., DAVID BARRETT, RYAN SCHAFFER, BLAKE
BARTLETT, and ROBERT LENT, Case No. 3:23-cv-01784-JR (D. Or., Nov.
29, 2023) is a securities class action on behalf of all those who
purchased or otherwise acquired Expensify common stock pursuant
and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in connection
with the Company's initial public offering conducted on November
11, 2021 (the "IPO" or "Offering"), pursuant to the the Securities
Act of 1933.

On November 12, 2021, Expensify filed a prospectus on Form 424B4
with the SEC in connection with the IPO, which incorporated and
formed part of the Registration Statement (the "Prospectus" and,
together with the Registration Statement, the "Offering
Documents"). The Offering Documents made false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that: Expensify's revenue
growth was highly susceptible to structural and macroeconomic
headwinds; as a result, the Company overstated the efficacy of its
business model and the likelihood it would meet the long-term
growth projections touted in the Offering Documents, the lawsuit
asserts.

On June 12, 2023, Morgan Stanley downgraded Expensify to
Underweight from Equal-weight, citing structural headwinds and the
Company's risk-reward profile. On this news, Expensify's stock
price fell $0.45 per share, or 6.28%, to close at $6.72 per share
on June 12, 2023.

Then, on August 8, 2023, Expensify issued a press release
announcing its second quarter 2023 financial and operating results.
Expensify reported GAAP EPS of -$0.14, missing consensus estimate
of -$0.07, and revenue of $38.9 million, which likewise missed the
consensus estimate of $41.5 million.

Finally, after the market closed on November 7, 2023, Expensify
issued a press release announcing third quarter 2023 financial and
operating results that once again missed consensus estimates amid
macroeconomic headwinds. Expensify reported a Q3 GAAP loss of $0.21
per share and a 14.1% year-over-year revenue decline.

On this news, Expensify's stock price fell $1.07 per share, or
36.89%, to close at $1.83 per share on November 8, 2023. As of the
time this Complaint was filed, Expensify's securities continue to
trade below the $27 per share Offering price, damaging investors,
the lawsuit claims.

As a result of the Defendants' alleged wrongful acts and omissions,
and the precipitous decline in the market value of Expensify's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages.

The Plaintiff purchased or otherwise acquired Expensify securities
pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering Documents issued in
connection with the IPO.

Expensify provides a cloud-based expense management software
platform to individuals, small businesses, and corporations in the
U.S. and internationally.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aurelia Erickson, Esq.
          Robert J. McGaughey, Esq.
          CHENOWETH LAW GROUP, PC
          510 SW Fifth Ave., Fourth Floor
          Portland, Oregon 97204
          Telephone: (503) 221-7958
          Facsimile: (503) 221-2182
          E-mail: aerickson@chenowethlaw.com
                  bobm@chenowethlaw.com

                - and -

          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: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com

FARADAY FUTURE: Faces Consolidated Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Faraday Future Intelligent Electric 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 13, 2023,
that it is currently facing a consolidated securities class action
pending in the Court of Chancery in Delaware.

In June 2022, a verified stockholder class action lawsuit alleging
breaches of fiduciary duties was filed in the Court of Chancery
(Yun Class Action). It was consolidated into another action that
was designated as the operative pleading.

On April 7 2023, the defendants filed opening briefs in support of
their respective motions to dismiss the complaint. Plaintiffs filed
an omnibus answering brief in opposition to defendants' motions to
dismiss on September 26, 2023.

Faraday Future Intelligent Electric Inc. conducts its operations
through the subsidiaries of FF Intelligent Mobility Global Holdings
Ltd. and its consolidated subsidiaries. The operate a global shared
intelligent electric mobility ecosystem company with a vision to
reformat the automotive industry.


FARADAY FUTURE: Settles Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Faraday Future Intelligent Electric 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 13, 2023,
that in October 2023, the company agreed, in principle, to settle a
putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The company denies all allegations but deemed a settlement to be in
its best interest based on the facts and circumstances of the case
and recommendation of a neutral mediator. The settlement agreement
provides for a non-reversionary cash payment of $7.5 million for
the benefit of the settlement class in exchange for the release of
all claims asserted against the company by the lead plaintiffs.

On November 7, 2023, preliminary approval for the settlement was
granted, consequently, the company and plaintiffs will move forward
with the settlement process.

Faraday Future Intelligent Electric Inc. conducts its operations
through the subsidiaries of FF Intelligent Mobility Global Holdings
Ltd. and its consolidated subsidiaries. The operate a global shared
intelligent electric mobility ecosystem company with a vision to
reformat the automotive industry.


FLIPPS MEDIA: Discloses Video Habits to Facebook, Sancruzado Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD SANCRUZADO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLIPPS MEDIA, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:23-cv-24659 (S.D. Fla., December 9, 2023) is a class
action against the Defendant for violation of the Video Privacy
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has disclosed to Meta
Platforms, Inc. (Facebook) information regarding the video viewing
habits of the visitors to its website, www.fite.tv, without
consent. The Defendant embedded within its website a "Meta Pixel"
that was provided to it by Facebook. That pixel tracked the
Plaintiff's and the Class members' video viewing history while on
the Defendant's website and reported their viewing history to
Facebook along with their unique Facebook Identification numbers.
As a result, the Defendant violated the Plaintiff's and the Class
members' statutorily protected privacy rights.

Flipps Media, Inc. is a video tape service provider, with its
principal place of business in Uniondale, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
         110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
         Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301

                 - and -

         Manuel Hiraldo, Esq.
         HIRALDO P.A.
         401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
         Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
         Telephone: (305) 336-7466
         E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

                 - and -

         Michael Eisenband, Esq.
         EISENBAND LAW. P.A.
         515 E. las Olas Blvd., Ste. 120
         Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
         Telephone: (954) 533-4092
         E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com

FRESH DINING: Faces Carter Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
KIERA CARTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FRESH DINING CONCEPTS LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 7:23-cv-10713 (S.D.N.Y., December 8, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the New York Labor Law
including unpaid spread of hours, unpaid uniform maintenance pay,
failure to pay schedule change premiums, failure to pay timely
wages, and failure to provide wage notice.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant to work full-time as a
shift leader at one of their combined Auntie Anne's & Cinnabon's
locations at 2857 Third Avenue, Bronx, New York from May 10, 2023,
until her termination on or about July 24, 2023.

Fresh Dining Concepts LLC is a food establishment owner and
operator based in Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
         LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
         675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810
         New York, NY 10017
         Telephone: (718) 669-0714
         E-mail: mgangat@gangatllc.com

GEORGE ARCHOS: Flood Enterprises Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against George Archos, et al.
The case is styled as Flood Enterprises, Inc., BKJ Holding Corp,
LLC, BKJ Holding Corp, LLC, Christine Heck, and others similarly
situated v. George Archos, Cary Millstein, Darren Weiss, Rockview
Capital Inc., Ronald Schmeichel, Samuel Dorf, Case No. 2023-1125-SG
(Del. Chancery Ct., Dec. 5, 2023).

The case type is stated as "Breach of Fiduciary Duties."

George Archos is the founder & CEO of Verano Holdings. He is a
logistics and operations guru..[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David J. Margules, Esq.
          Phone: (302) 252-4432
          Fax: (215) 864-8999

               - and -

          Elizabeth A. Sloan, Esq.
          BALLARD SPAHR LLP-WILMINGTON
          919 N Market St 11th Fl
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Phone: (302) 252-4465
          Fax: (302) 252-4466
          Email: SloanE@ballardspahr.com


GOOGLE LLC: Helena World Sues Over Digital News Monopoly
--------------------------------------------------------
HELENA WORLD CHRONICLE, LLC, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOOGLE LLC and ALPHABET
INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-03677 (D. Col., Dec. 11, 2023)
alleges violation of the Sherman Act and Clayton Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant siphons off billions of
readers and billions of dollars from Publishers through an
anticompetitive scheme that extracts their content, publishes it on
Google, and diverts readers and ad revenue. This scheme is part of
an unlawful strategy to attract, trap, and maximize users within a
"walled garden" that entrenches Google's monopoly as the world's
largest search engine. Google has coerced Publishers into a
Hobson's choice: surrender their content or disappear from search
and lose the single largest source of referral traffic and
associated revenue.

Google maintains its search monopoly and abuses it dominance
through various tying arrangements that lock in and exploit
Publishers as input suppliers; through foreclosure contracts that
block rival search engines, and through more than 260 mergers and
acquisitions that enable it to entrench and enlarge its dominant
position. The anticompetitive effects of Google's scheme cause
profound harm in its monopoly markets to digital news and reference
Publishers, and ultimately to the marketplace of ideas. Google has
created a zero-click world in which users remain in its ecosystem
and are siphoned away from Publishers, says the suit.

GOOGLE LLC operates as a global technology company specializes in
internet related services and products. The Company focuses on
web-based search and display advertising tools, search engine,
cloud computing, software, and hardware. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
          Scott A. Gilmore, Esq.
          Mandy Boltax, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          888 16th Street N.W., Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          Email: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com
                 sgilmore@hausfeld.com
                 mboltax@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Scott Martin, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (646) 357-1100
          Email: smartin@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Michael P. Lehmann, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3200
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 633-1908
          Email: mlehmann@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Roberts, Esq.
          Erich P. Schork, Esq.
          Kelly A. Rinehart, Esq.
          ROBERTS LAW FIRM US, PC
          1920 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Telephone: (501) 821-5575
          Email: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us
                 erichschork@robertslawfirm.us
                 kellyrinehart@robertslawfirm.us

GROUP HEALTH: Plavin Appeals Suit Dismissal to 3rd Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------
STEVEN PLAVIN, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing their lawsuit entitled Steven Plavin, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Group Health Inc., Defendant, Case No.
3-17-cv-01462, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Pennsylvania.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
alleges unjust enrichment and violations of New York's General
Business Law and Insurance Law based on Group Health's marketing
statements about coverage benefits for its health insurance plan,
which was bargained for and sponsored by Plavin's employer, the
City of New York.

On Nov. 15, 2023, Nicholas Carullo and Jared Kagan filed a letter
stipulation for dismissal, which the Court approved through an
Order entered Judge Robert D. Mariani on Nov. 16, 2023. The
Plaintiffs' remaining claim on unjust enrichment was dismissed with
prejudice. The Clerk of Court was directed to close the case.

The appellate case is captioned Steven Plavin, et al. v. Group
Health Inc., Case No. 23-3100, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on November 28, 2023. [BN]

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

            William C. Carmody, Esq.
            Nicholas C. Carullo, Esq.
            Mark H. Hatch-Miller, Esq.
            Ari S. Ruben, Esq.
            Steven M. Shepard, Esq.
            SUSMAN GODFREY
            1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
            New York, NY 10019
            Telephone: (212) 336-8334
                       (212) 336-8330
                       (212) 336-8332
                       (212) 729-2010

                    - and -

            Steve M. Cohen, Esq.
            15 Broad Street
            New York, NY 10005
            Telephone: (917) 364-4197

                    - and -

            Michael F. Cosgrove, Esq.
            J. Timothy Hinton, Jr., Esq.
            HAGGERTY HINTON & COSGROVE
            1401 Monroe Avenue, Suite 2
            Dunmore, PA 18509
            Telephone: (570) 340-9845

                    - and -

            Halley W. Josephs, Esq.
            SUSMAN GODFREY
            1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
            Los Angeles, CA 90067
            Telephone: (310) 789-3100

Defendant-Appellee GROUP HEALTH INC. is represented by:

            John Gleeson, Esq.
            Jared I. Kagan, Esq.
            Maura K. Monaghan, Esq.
            DEBEVOISE & PLIMPTON
            66 Hudson Boulevard
            New York, NY 10001
            Telephone: (212) 909-7281
                       (212) 909-6000

                    - and -

            Peter H. LeVan, Jr., Esq.
            LEVAN STAPLETON SEGAL COCHRAN
            1760 Market Street, Suite 403
            Philadelphia, PA 19103
            Telephone: (215) 561-1500

HORNBLOWER CRUISES: Violates PUMP Act, Vera Class Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brecarri Vera, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Hornblower Cruises and Events, LLC d/b/a City
Experiences, Case No. 1:23-cv-16330 (N.D. Ill., Nov. 29, 2023)
alleges that the Defendant fails to provide a "reasonable break
time for an employee to express breast milk" and fail to provide a
"place that is shielded from view and free from intrusion from
coworkers and the public, which may be used by an employee to
express breast milk," in violation of the Providing Urgent Maternal
Protections for Nursing Mothers Act (PUMP) Act.

According to the complaint, the employees are forced to pump breast
milk in common areas such as, for example, the deck of cruise
boats, behind the bar, or in bathrooms. The Defendant's failure to
comply with the PUMP Act has significantly impacted Ms.Vera and
other breastfeeding employees of the Defendant. Instead of
supporting breastfeeding mothers, the Defendant's practices forced
those mothers into a Hobson's choice between using demeaning,
non-private spaces to express milk, abandoning pumping at work
altogether, or quitting their jobs, the lawsuit alleges.

As a result of the foregoing, Ms. Vera experienced engorgement and
a reduction in her milk supply for her new baby. This reduction and
the lack of accommodations provided by the Defendant, have caused
Ms. Vera to endure pain, anguish, anxiety, hardship, humiliation,
and emotional distress.

The Plaintiff brings this claim on behalf of herself and a
nationwide collective of similarly situated former and current
employees of Hornblower. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive and
declaratory relief, compensatory and punitive damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees, litigation costs, and pre-and post-judgment
interest.

Plaintiff Brecarri Vera was an employee of Hornblower at Chicago
Navy Pier at 600 E. Grand Avenue in Chicago, Illinois. Ms. Vera had
her baby in February 2023 and commenced her employment in May
2023.

Hornblower is a San Francisco–based charter yacht, dining cruise
and ferry service company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mason Barney, Esq.
          Oren Faircloth, Esq.
          Lisa R. Considine, Esq.
          SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
          745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
          New York, NY 10151
          Telephone: (212) 532-1091
          Facsimile: (646) 417-5967
          E-mail: mbarney@sirillp.com
                  ofaircloth@sirillp.com
                  lconsidine@sirillp.com

INOTIV INC: Continues to Defend Grobler Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Inotiv, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly
period ending September 30, 2023 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on December 12, 2023, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Grobler securities class suit
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Indiana.

On June 23, 2022, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of Indiana, naming the Company and Robert W. Leasure and Beth A.
Taylor as defendants, captioned Grobler v. Inotiv, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 4:22-cv-00045 (N.D. Ind.).

The complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), as amended,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on alleged false and
misleading statements and material omissions regarding the
Company's acquisition of Envigo RMS and its regulatory compliance.


On September 12, 2022, Oklahoma Police Pension and Retirement
System was appointed by the Court as lead plaintiff.

Thereafter, on November 14, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed an
amended complaint against the same defendants, in addition to John
E. Sagartz and Carmen Wilbourn, that asserted the same claims along
with a claim under Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act.

On November 23, 2022, the lead plaintiff filed a further amended
complaint against the aforementioned defendants asserting the same
claims as the amended complaint and further alleging that false and
misleading statements and material omissions were made concerning
the Company's non-human primate business.

The purported class in the operative complaint includes all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's common stock
between September 21, 2021 and November 16, 2022, and the complaint
seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages, interest, fees and
expenses of attorneys and experts, and other relief.

On January 27, 2023, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.

That motion has been fully briefed since April 28, 2023, and is
currently pending.

While the Company cannot predict the outcome of this matter, the
Company believes the class action to be without merit and plans to
vigorously defend itself.

Inotiv purports to be a contract research organization which
provides nonclinical and analytical drug discovery and development
services and research models and related products and
services.[BN]





JB HI-FI: Faces Class Suit Over "Junk" Warranties
-------------------------------------------------
Tom Watson of Money Mag reports that qre extended warranties worth
it? That's one of the questions at the heart of a new class action
launched by law firm Maurice Blackburn on behalf of eligible
customers of electronics retailer JB Hi-Fi.

The class action alleges that JB Hi-Fi misled customers on the
value provided by its extended warranties (often called Extra Care
or Extended Care Plans) for more than a decade - plans which are
actively promoted by the retailer with purchases of electronics and
other appliances.

Maurice Blackburn states that the plans offer "little or no value"
to customers beyond the consumer rights they are already entitled
to under Australian Consumer Law.

"These warranties are in most cases little more than a junk add-on
to consumers' purchase of the household goods they actually want,"
says Miranda Nagy, principal lawyer for Maurice Blackburn.

"JB's extended warranties expire just 3-6 years after purchase, but
they add substantially to the cost. Our case alleges they added
nothing meaningful to the strong rights for repair, replacement or
refund under the Australian Consumer Law rights that consumers
already enjoy."

The class action is seeking compensation for customers who
purchased an extended warranty plan from JB Hi-Fi between January
2011 and November 2023.

In a statement released on December 11, 2023, JB Hi-Fi said that it
believes it has complied with the relevant laws at all times and
would therefore be defending the proceedings.

The right to repair, replacement or refund  

According to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission
(ACCC), if someone purchases a product which ends up being faulty,
doesn't work at all, is unsafe or simply doesn't appear as it
should, they are entitled to a repair, replacement or a refund. The
same applies to services.

There are caveats though. In some situations the customer will be
able to choose their preferred remedy, while in others the business
will be able to choose - it depends on whether the problem is
related to a product or service, and whether the issue is a major
or minor one.

Importantly, these rights can't be taken away by businesses - no
matter what the fine print may say. Nor can a business direct
customers to a manufacturer if something goes wrong, for example,
if a television stops working. The retailer is responsible for
solving the issue.

Mark Serrels, spokesperson for consumer advocacy group Choice, says
that many Australians are simply not aware of these rights though.

"A lot of people just don't know. The last research we did in June
2023 found that seven in ten people thought they wouldn't be able
to receive a refund, repair or replacement for a faulty product
after their manufacturer's warranty had expired.

"So a lot of people aren't really aware of what their rights are
here, which is one of the big reasons why companies like JB Hi-Fi
are able to so easily convince consumers to buy extended
warranties."

Are extended warranties worth it?

One point of confusion for some consumers in this realm comes in
the difference between consumer rights on the one hand and
warranties on the other.

Simply put, rights and guarantees are enshrined under law, while
warranties are essentially promises made by businesses about the
standard of a product or service they offer. Warranties don't
negate or supersede consumer rights.

One of the most common types of warranties is a manufacturer's
warranty which may promise that if a product (e.g. a toaster)
becomes defective during a certain timeframe after purchase, they
will fix or replace it. These are generally included as part of the
purchase.

Then there are extended warranties. These typically extend the
period of cover provided by a manufacturer's warranty for an extra
cost, and are sold by retailers and manufacturers.

Serrels believes that because they don't always provide additional
cover that is not already guaranteed under Consumer Law though,
extended warranties are hardly ever worth the money.

"There's a handful of times when an extended warranty might be
worth it, but they're very, very rare. And I would say, as a
baseline, it's usually just best to say no to them.

"Australian Consumer Law is quite good and it really covers you in
almost every way that you would expect an extended warranty to
cover you, so there's really no need to go ahead and buy one of
those extended warranties."

Avoiding the extended warranty upsell

Saying no to an extended warranty can be hard though, especially if
you're shopping in-store and talking to someone face-to-face. After
all, sales agents can often play on your emotions and uncertainty.

In fact, in their research, Choice found that 39% of customers who
ended up purchasing an extended warranty hadn't planned to do so
beforehand.

For Serrel, this highlights the importance of consumers being privy
to their rights and then, should they wish to, using this
information to push back against unwanted warranties.

"Very recently I had to return a broken laptop. I just had my phone
ready with a tab open with Australian Consumer Law on it, so as
soon as I got pushback and was told to take it back to Apple, I
just opened that tab and told them that they either had to give me
a refund or fix it in-store.

"That did the job, and they just backed into the bushes like Homer
Simpson."
How to join the JB Hi-Fi class action

While JB Hi-Fi customers who purchased an Extra Care or Extended
Care Plan between 2011 and the end of November won't need to sign
up to be part of the class action, they can register their interest
with Maurice Blackburn to receive updates in the future. [GN]

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Carefirst Sues Over Antibody Drug Monopoly
-------------------------------------------------------------
CAREFIRST OF MARYLAND, INC.; GROUP HOSPITALIZATION AND MEDICAL
SERVICES, INC.; CAREFIRST BLUECHOICE, INC.; and CFA, LLC d/b/a
CAREFIRST ADMINISTRATORS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON; and JANSSEN
BIOTECH, INC. Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-00629 (E.D. Va., Dec. 7,
2023) alleges violation of the Sherman Act.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants are
engaged in unlawfully delaying the introduction of biosimilar
competition for Ustekinumab, a human immunoglobulin G1 (IgG1)
monoclonal antibody that treats a range of life-threatening
autoimmune diseases, including Crohn's disease, plaque psoriasis,
active psoriatic arthritis, and ulcerative colitis, all conditions
linked to the IL-12/IL-23 pathway, onto the U.S. market. The
Defendants continue to delay biosimilar competition through a
series of unlawful acts. To avoid losing exclusivity over Stelara
and to maintain its supra-competitive prices, the Defendants
implemented a scheme to unlawfully prolong patent protection for
Stelara well beyond September 2023.

The Defendants used their fraudulently acquired method-of-use
patent and its unlawfully procured biosimilar manufacturing patents
to extract settlements from each of the would-be biosimilar
entrants. Because of these unlawful acts, purchasers of ustekinumab
have paid, and continue to pay, supra-competitive prices for
ustekinumab. U.S. purchasers of ustekinumab are paying
substantially more for the drug than they would if J&J had not
engaged in the scheme, says the suit.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON manufactures health care products and provides
related services for the consumer, pharmaceutical, and medical
devices and diagnostics markets. The Company sells products such as
skin and hair care products, acetaminophen products,
pharmaceuticals, diagnostic equipment, and surgical equipment in
countries located around the world. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William H. Monroe, Jr., Esq.
          Marc C. Greco, Esq.
          Kip A. Harbison, Esq.
          Michael A. Glasser, Esq.
          GLASSER AND GLASSER, P.L.C.
          Crown Center, Suite 600
          580 East Main Street
          Norfolk, VA 23510
          Telephone: (757) 625-6787
          Facsimile: (757) 625-5959
          Email: bill@glasserlaw.com
                 marcg@glasserlaw.com
                 kip@glasserlaw.com
                 michael@glasserlaw.com

               - and -

          Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
          Kristen A. Johnson, Esq.
          Hannah W. Brennan, Esq.
          Rebekah Glickman-Simon, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          One Faneuil Hall Square, 5th Floor
          Boston, MA 02109
          Telephone: (617) 482-3700
          Facsimile: (617) 482-3003
          Email: tom@hbsslaw.com
                 kristenj@hbsslaw.com
                 hannahb@hbsslaw.com
                 rebekahgs@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Peter D. St. Phillip, Esq.
          Uriel Rabinovitz, Esq.
          Raymond Girnys, Esq.
          Charles Kopel, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
          44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
          White Plains, NY 10601
          Telephone: (914) 997-0500
          Email: PStPhillip@lowey.com
                 URabinovitz@lowey.com
                 Rgirnys@lowey.com
                 Ckopel@lowey.com

KENTUCKY: Faces Class Action Suit Over Effects of Abortion Ban
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brigitte Amiri of ACLU reports that on December 11, 2023, attorneys
informed a Kentucky court that after filing a class-action lawsuit
challenging the state's abortion ban last on December 8, 2023, lead
plaintiff Jane Doe learned her embryo no longer had cardiac
activity.

ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project deputy director Brigitte Amiri,
who represents Jane Doe, released the following statement:

"Jane Doe sought an abortion in Kentucky, and when she could not
get one, she bravely came forward to challenge the state's abortion
ban.

Although she decided to have an abortion, the government denied her
the freedom to control her body. Countless Kentuckians face the
same harm every day as the result of the abortion ban.

Kentuckians like Jane should be able to focus solely on their
health and should not have to worry about bringing a lawsuit. But
the Kentucky Supreme Court previously held that health care
providers could not raise the constitutional rights of their
patients. Unfortunately, patient-led challenges like Jane's are our
only path forward to strike down the bans under the right to
privacy and right to self-determination.

We encourage others in Kentucky who are currently pregnant and
seeking abortion to reach out to us if they are interested in
joining the case—call or text us at (617) 297-7012. We will do
everything we can to restore abortion access in Kentucky."

The complaint for Jane Doe, et al. v. Daniel Cameron, et al. can be
found here.

The motion for class action can be found here.

The motion for leave for Jane Doe and others similarly situated to
proceed under pseudonym can be found here. [GN]

KIPLING APPAREL: Faces Calcagno Suit Over Deceptive Pricing Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINA CALCAGNO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KIPLING APPAREL CORP. and DOES
1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-02247-BAS-BLM (S.D.
Cal., December 8, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants
for violations of California's Unfair Competition Laws,
California's False Advertising Laws, and California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated consumers who have purchased one or more
handbags, backpacks, luggage, apparel, accessories, and other items
at the Defendant's Kipling Outlet stores that were deceptively
represented as discounted from a false advertised reference price.
The Defendant marketed the sale prices as discounts from the
original prices set forth on the products' price tags for
merchandise sold at the Defendant's Kipling Outlet stores. However,
the advertised discounts are nothing more than phantom markdowns
because (1) the represented original prices, i.e., the prices
listed on the price tags for the merchandise, are artificially
inflated; (2) the products are never offered for sale at the full
original price for any substantial period of time (if at all); and
(3) the original prices are never the true market price for the
products the Defendant sells, says the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff seeks to halt the dissemination of this false,
misleading, and deceptive pricing scheme, to correct the false and
misleading perception it has created in the minds of consumers, and
to obtain redress for those who have overpaid for merchandise
tainted by this deceptive pricing scheme.

Kipling Apparel Corp. is an apparel company, with its principal
executive offices in Denver, Colorado. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
         Scott G. Braden, Esq.
         LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
         1234 Camino Del Mar
         Del Mar, CA 92014
         Telephone: (619) 762-1900
         Facsimile: (724) 656-1556
         E-mail: todd@lcllp.com
                 scott@lcllp.com

LAFARGE CANADA: Faces Class Suit Over Carcinogenic Cement Dust
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cement Products reports that Neighbors of Lafarge Canada's Exshaw
cement plant have filed a class action lawsuit, alleging that the
facility is a source of ongoing dust and noise since its expansion
in 2016, according to the Calgary Herald.

"Following these expansions, the amount of dust leaving the cement
plant greatly increased," said law firm Napoli Shkolnik Canada.
"Huge clouds of carcinogenic cement dust now regularly leave the
plant and blanket nearby properties."

The plaintiffs from in and around the hamlets of Exshaw and Lac des
Arcs are seeking punitive damages for the plant's impact on
residents and for Lafarge's allegedly misleading statements about
the facility's environmental effects.

Lafarge has yet to respond to the suit but said it has invested
more than $30 million this year to reduce the facility's carbon
emissions. [GN]

LENOIR-RHYNE: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Espinal Says
------------------------------------------------------------
FRANGIE ESPINAL, individually and on behalf of and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LENOIR-RHYNE UNIVERSITY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-10776 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 11, 2023) alleges
Defendant's violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://lr.edu, is not fully or equally accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in
violation of the ADA.

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

LENOIR-RHYNE UNIVERSITY offers degrees in both undergraduate and
graduate level curriculum. The University offers programs including
undergraduate degree programs in nursing and business as well as
graduate degree programs in accounting and biology. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MEDICAL EYE: Fails to Safeguard Users' Personal Info, Sheets Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER SHEETS and MICHELLE WILLIAMS, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. MEDICAL EYE SERVICES, INC. d/b/a
MESVISION and PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION, Case No.
1:23-cv-12892-ADB (D. Mass., Nov. 29, 2023) sues the Defendants for
their failure to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiffs' and
other similarly situated individuals' sensitive information,
including their full names, dates of birth, addresses, Social
Security numbers, group IDs, and subscriber IDs ("personally
identifiable information" or "PII").

On August 23, 2023, MESVision learned that Pension Benefit
Information, LLC's network, which PSC provided software services to
and MESVision relied on for the sending and receiving of sensitive
information, had been penetrated by a cyberattack. As a result of
investigation, MESVision concluded -- on an undisclosed date --
that "the unauthorized individual exfiltrated information from the
server on May 28, 2023, and May 31, 2023."

On November 14, 2023, MESVision, on behalf of the Defendants, began
sending the Plaintiffs and other Data Breach victims a Notice of
Data Security Incident letter.

The Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered injury as a result
of the Defendants' conduct. These injuries include: invasion of
privacy; theft of their PII; lost or diminished value of PII; lost
time and opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate
the actual consequences of the Data Breach; loss of benefit of the
bargain; and experiencing an increase in spam calls, texts, and/or
emails, the lawsuit claims.

The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of all persons whose PII
was compromised as a result of Defendants' failure to: adequately
protect the PII of Plaintiffs and Class Members; warn the
Plaintiffs and Class Members of the Defendants' inadequate
information security practices; and effectively secure hardware
containing protected PII using reasonable and effective security
procedures free of vulnerabilities and incidents.

The Plaintiffs and Class Members are current and former users of
MESVision healthcare services. As a condition of obtaining benefits
at MESVision, the Plaintiffs and Class Members were required to
entrust the Defendants, directly or indirectly, with highly
sensitive personal information.

MESVision is a "consumer activation company" that provides products
and/or services to "healthcare organizations" and other
companies.[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

MERCK & CO: Appeals Ruling in Mumps Vaccine Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
MERCK & CO. INC. is taking an appeal from a court order in the
lawsuit captioned In Re: Merck Mumps Vaccine Antitrust Litigation,
et al., Case No. 2-12-cv-03555, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case is a
consolidated putative antitrust and consumer protection class
action. On June 25, 2012, Chatom Primary Care P.C., Andrew Klein,
M.D., and John I. Sutter, M.D., filed the complaint against
Defendant Merck alleging monopolization in violation of the Sherman
Act, and various state consumer protection laws. The Plaintiffs are
direct purchasers of a mumps containing vaccine from Merck.

A Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed on Sept. 20, 2012. The
Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on Nov.
19, 2012. After a ruling on the Defendant's motion to dismiss,
discovery commenced in October 2014.

The parties engaged in extensive discovery over a protracted period
of time. The Defendant began rolling productions on Oct. 31, 2014.
The discovery included, inter alia, Merck's production of nearly
144,000 documents, depositions of 24 current and former Merck
employees, and third party discovery. After multiple joint requests
for extension of the scheduling deadlines, fact discovery closed on
June 1, 2017.

On Aug. 21, 2017, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend
the Consolidated Amended Complaint to add a claim for attempted
monopolization in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. The
Defendant opposed the proposed amendment, arguing that the
Plaintiff unduly delayed seeking leave to add a new cause of action
after the close of fact discovery, thereby prejudicing Merck's
ability to defend against the new claim.

On Oct. 30, 2017, the Court agreed with the Defendant, and denied
the Plaintiffs' motion. The Court's decision focused on the
Plaintiff's undue delay in seeking leave to amend, which would
prejudice Merck if a new claim was added after fact discovery
closed.

The Plaintiffs filed objections to the Oct. 30, 2017, Order. On
March 13, 2018, Judge C. Darnell Jones, II issued an Order
remanding the matter to the Magistrate Judge for an in-depth
analysis of the extent to which the Defendant would be prejudiced
by amendment, and the extent to which undue delay was the basis for
the Court's ultimate decision not to grant the Plaintiffs' motion.

On Jul. 27, 2023, the Honorable Chad F. Kenney ruled that Merck's
motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part;
judgment was entered in favor of defendant Merck on Count II and
Count II is dismissed in full and with prejudice; Merck's motion to
exclude evidence from Dr. Thomas Copmann and Daubert is denied; the
accompanying memorandum shall remain under seal for seven days; any
party or non-party seeking to preclude public access to the
accompanying memorandum must show particularized good cause in a
memorandum not exceeding five pages no later than 12:00 pm on
August 3, 2023.

On Aug. 3, 2023, the Court filed a redacted memorandum of the July
27 Order.

The appellate case is captioned In re: Merck Mumps Vaccine
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 23-3089, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on November 27, 2023. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellees CHATOM PRIMARY CARE PC, et al., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, are represented by:

            Lee Albert, Esq.
            GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY
            122 E. 42nd Street, Suite 2920
            New York, NY 10168
            Telephone: (212) 682-5340

                    - and -

            Natalie F. Bennett, Esq.
            MILLER SHAH
            1845 Walnut Street, Suite 806
            Philadelphia, PA 19103
            Telephone: (610) 540-5505

                    - and -

            Frederick A. Braunstein, Esq.
            Jennifer C. Jones, Esq.
            ROBINS KAPLAN
            399 Park Avenue
            New York, NY 10022
            Telephone: (212) 980-7400

                    - and -

            M. Stephen Dampier, Esq.
            DAMPIER LAW FIRM
            55 North Section Street
            P.O. Box 161
            Fairhope, AL 36533
            Telephone: (251) 929-0900

                    - and -

            Dan Drachler, Esq.
            LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN
            1215 Fourth Avenue
            Seattle, WA 98161
            Telephone: (206) 895-5005

                    - and -

            Jayne A. Goldstein, Esq.
            MILLER SHAH
            1625 N. Commerce Parkway, Suite 320
            Fort Lauderdale, FL 33326
            Telephone: (954) 903-3170

                    - and -

            Richard M. Golomb, Esq.
            GOLOMB SPIRT GRUNFELD
            1835 Market Street, Suite 2900
            Philadelphia, PA 19103
            Telephone: (215) 985-9177

                    - and -

            Reena Jain, Esq.
            BLANK ROME
            1271 Avenue of the Americas
            New York, NY 10020
            Telephone: (212) 885-5381

                    - and -

            Robert S. Kitchenoff, Esq.
            WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER
            24 W. Lancaster Avenue, Suite 201
            Ardmore, PA 19003
            Telephone: (215) 545-7200

                    - and -

            Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Esq.
            John A. Macoretta, Esq.
            Diana J. Zinser, Esq.
            SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF
            2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
            Philadelphia, PA 19103
            Telephone: (215) 496-0300

                    - and -

            Kellie Lerner, Esq.
            Dan Rochelson, Esq.
            ROBINS KAPLAN
            1325 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 2601
            New York, NY 10019
            Telephone: (212) 980-7400

                    - and -

            Helina Manesis, Esq.
            ZAREMBA BROWNELL & BROWN
            40 Wall Street, 28th Floor
            New York, NY 10005
            Telephone: (212) 380-6700

                    - and -

            Eamon O'Kelly, Esq.
            ARENTFOX SCHIFF
            1301 Avenue of the Americas, 42nd Floor
            New York, NY 10019
            Telephone: (212) 484-3900

                    - and -

            Steven D. Resnick, Esq.
            PARAFINCZUK WOLF
            5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
            Boca Raton, FL 33431
            Telephone: (954) 678-0263

                    - and -

            Robert S. Schachter, Esq.
            ZWERLING SCHACHTER & ZWERLING
            41 Madison Avenue, 32nd Floor
            New York, NY 10010
            Telephone: (212) 223-3900

                    - and -

            Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
            James B. Zouras, Esq.
            STEPHAN ZOURAS
            222 W. Adams Street, Suite 2020
            Chicago, IL 60606
            Telephone: (312) 233-1550

                    - and -

            Andra Waniek, Esq.
            LABATON SUCHAROW
            140 Broadway, 34th Floor
            New York, NY 10005
            Telephone: (202) 907-0700

                    - and -

            John D. Zaremba, Esq.
            ZAREMBA BROWNELL & BROWN
            40 Wall Street, 28th Floor
            New York, NY 10005
            Telephone: (212) 380-6700

Defendant-Appellant MERCK & CO. INC. is represented by:

            Sally W. Bryan, Esq.
            Christina L. Gaarder, Esq.
            Kathleen S. Hardway, Esq.
            Dino S. Sangiamo, Esq.
            Craig A. Thompson, Esq.
            VENABLE
            750 E. Pratt Street, Suite 900
            Baltimore, MD 21202
            Telephone: (410) 244-7704
                       (410) 244-7638
                       (410) 528-2842
                       (410) 244-7400
                       (410) 244-7605

                    - and -

            Lisa C. Dykstra, Esq.
            R. Brendan Fee, Esq.
            Zachary M. Johns, Esq.
            Margaret E. Rodgers Schmidt, Esq.
            Eric W. Sitarchuk, Esq.
            MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS
            2222 Market Street, 12th Floor
            Philadelphia, PA 19103
            Telephone: (215) 963-5699
                       (215) 963-5136
                       (215) 963-5340
                       (215) 963-5163
                       (215) 963-5840

                    - and -

            Eyitayo St. Matthew-Daniel, Esq.
            MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS
            101 Park Avenue
            New York, NY 10178
            Telephone: (212) 309-7156

                    - and -

            Scott A. Stempel, Esq.
            MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS
            1111 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 800 North
            Washington, DC 20004
            Telephone: (202) 739-5211

MONTANA UNIVERSITY: Babcock Appeals Claims Dismissal to 9th Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
COURTNEY BABCOCK is taking an appeal from a court order granting
the Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment in the lawsuit
entitled Catherine Cole, et al., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Montana University
System, et al., Defendants, Case No. 9:21-cv-00088-BMM, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Montana.

The Plaintiffs filed this action alleging breach of contract claims
and claims under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20
U.S.C. Sec. 1681, et seq. against the Montana University System
(MUS) and the University of Montana.

The Plaintiffs and the Defendants filed competing motions, in
support of class certification, and to deny class certification,
respectively, in the fall of 2022. The Court granted the
Defendants' motion to deny class certification and denied without
prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification on October
3, 2022. The Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on January
6, 2023, in which they seek to add Jackie Hedtke and Laura John as
Plaintiffs. The Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the
claims of Hedtke and John. The Defendants argue that their claims
fall outside the statute of limitations. The Plaintiffs have filed
a motion to amend their third amended complaint and a motion to
continue scheduling order dates.

On July 28, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion for partial summary
judgment, which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge
Brian Morris on Oct. 23, 2023.

The Court agrees with the Defendants' arguments. The claims of
Plaintiffs Babcock and Berkhouse were dismissed.

The appellate case is captioned Babcock v. Montana University
System, et al., Case No. 23-3794, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on November 28, 2023.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Mediation Questionnaire was due on December 4,
2023;

   -- Appellant Transcript Due is due on January 8, 2024;

   -- Appellant Opening Brief is due on February 14, 2024; and

   -- Appellee Answering Brief is due on March 15, 2024. [BN]

NATIONAL RIFLE: Crawford Appeals TCPA Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA CRAWFORD is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing
her lawsuit entitled Patricia Crawford, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. National Rifle
Association of America Political Victory Fund, Defendant, Case No.
2:23-cv-00903-SPL, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (TCPA) for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment.

On Sept. 11, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim, which the Court granted through an Order
entered by Judge Steven P. Logan on Nov. 6, 2023. The Plaintiff's
claims were dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend.

In sum, the Court found that the Plaintiff has failed to state a
claim against the Defendant, both in Count I under Sec.
227(b)(1)(A)(iii) and Count II under Sec. 227(b)(1)(B) of the TCPA.
The Plaintiff's claims were dismissed with prejudice as well, as
the Plaintiff cannot possibly cure the deficiencies of those claims
by the allegation of other facts. Leave to amend was, therefore,
deemed inappropriate.

The appellate case is captioned Crawford v. National Rifle
Association of America Political Victory Fund, Case No. 23-3830, in
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on
November 29, 2023.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Mediation Questionnaire was due on December 4,
2023;

   -- Appellant Opening Brief is due on January 8, 2024; and

   -- Appellee Answering Brief is due on February 7, 2024. [BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant PATRICIA CRAWFORD, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

            Jon Phelps, Esq.
            PHELPS & MOORE, PLLC
            6424 E. Greenway Parkway, Suite 100
            Scottsdale, AZ 85254

NEW YORK, NY: Caldwell Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Fire Inspectors
----------------------------------------------------------------
GARY CALDWELL, AFUWAPE ABOLADE, BARBARA ABRAMSON, OPEYEMI AFOLAYAN,
TUNDE AKINDUTI, FESTUS AKINRODOYE, ZIMARO ALI, MARITZA ARBOLEDA,
ANGEL AYALA, TAGENARINE BALGOBIN, STEVEN BERAS, MICHAEL BEROLATTI,
RICHARD BLAKE, RICHARD BONI, ANIROOD BUDHOO, MICHAEL CHIN, SHIBLI
CHOWDHURY, ILIR COBAJ, CHRISTOPHER CREARY, DOMINICK CRESCENZO,
MICHAEL CRUZ, JOHN DALY, RONALD EVELYN, ROBERT FANTAUZZI, SHAUN
FEATHERSTONE, and GEORGE FLORES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF NEW YORK and THE
FIRE DEPARTMENT OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-10730 (S.D.N.Y., December 8, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act including failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked,
failure to properly calculate the regular rate of pay, and failure
to pay overtime in a timely manner.

The Plaintiffs are current and former employees of the Defendants
who work or have worked in the position of fire inspector in the
New York City Fire Department.

The City of New York is a juridical entity, with a principal office
and place of business located at Broadway and Park Row, New York,
New York.

The Fire Department of the City of New York (FDNY) is an
administrative division of New York City. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:                
      
         Molly A. Elkin, Esq.
         Sara L. Faulman, Esq.
         Sarah M. Block, Esq.
         Sophia Serrao, Esq.
         McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP
         1101 Vermont Ave., N.W., Suite 1000
         Washington, DC 20005
         Telephone: (202) 833-8855
         E-mail: mae@mselaborlaw.com
                 slf@mselaborlaw.com
                 smb@mselaborlaw.com
                 ss@mselaborlaw.com

NEW YORK: Bianculli Files Appeal in N.Y. Appellate Division
-----------------------------------------------------------
MARGARETANN BIANCULLI, et al. filed an appeal in the lawsuit
entitled Margaretann Bianculli, et al., on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. City of New York
Office of Labor Relations, et al., Defendants, Case No.
160234/2022, in the lower court of New York.

The case type is stated as Civil Action - General.

The appellate case is captioned Margaretann Bianculli, et al. vs.
City of New York Office of Labor Relations et al., Case No.
23-06096, in the First Judicial Department of New York Appellate
Division, filed on November 27, 2023. [BN]

NEWKIRK LOGISTICS: Underpays Delivery Drivers, Dishmon Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHAQUICA DISHMON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEWKIRK LOGISTICS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-02708-B (N.D. Tex., December 8, 2023)
is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was an intrastate delivery driver employee of the
Defendant at 750 North Royal Lane, Suite 200, DFW Airport, Texas,
within the last three years and through approximately July of
2023.

Newkirk Logistics, Inc. is a logistics company in Dallas County,
Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Katherine Serrano, Esq.
         FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
         400 N. St. Paul Street, Ste. 700
         Dallas, TX 75201
         Telephone: (214) 346-5909
         Facsimile: (214) 210-2100
         E-mail: kserrano@foresterhaynie.com

OPTIMA FOODS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Abreu Alleges
------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER ABREU, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OPTIMA FOODS, INC.; DEMETRIOS
HADZIPOLIHRONIS; and KONSTANTINOS MASTORAS, Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-09000 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 7, 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 Abreu was employed by the Defendants as a driver.

OPTIMA FOODS, INC. provides food products. The Company offers
bakery products, beans, rice, candies, canned goods, cheese
products, coffee, and other food products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Yale Pollack, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF YALE POLLACK, P.C.
         66 Split Rock Road
         Syosset, NY 11791
         Telephone:(516) 634-6340
         Email: ypollack@yalepollacklaw.com

ORAL ESSENTIALS: Faces Shafee Suit Over Whitening Strips' False Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Marwan Shafee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Oral Essentials, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-08788
(E.D.N.Y., Nov. 29, 2023) alleges that the Defendant markets its
products in a systematically misleading manner by misrepresenting
that its Lumineux Whitening Strips are able to whiten teeth within
"30 Minutes" of a single application.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant deliberately lied to
consumers about the products' efficacy without any evidence to
support its claims. In fact, the scant scientific studies that
Defendant possesses, as well as ample feedback from dissatisfied
consumers, demonstrate that the products fail to noticeably whiten
teeth after a single 30-minute application. To make matters worse,
the products' poor design makes them fall off consumers' teeth well
before the recommended 30-minute treatment.

According to the Plaintiff, the products did not whiten his teeth
after a single 30-minute application or reliably adhere to his
teeth for the recommended 30-minute treatment. After receiving his
first shipment of the 7 treatment product, for example, Plaintiff
Shafee had to discard multiple whitening strips because they peeled
off from his teeth within a few minutes after applying them.
Furthermore, the few strips that managed to stay on his teeth for
30 minutes, failed to whiten his teeth as promised on the products'
packaging. Nonetheless, the Plaintiff proceeded to purchase the 7
treatment product again a week later but encountered the same
issues as he did before, says the suit.

As a result, the Plaintiff ended up having to throw away most of
the products' strips due to their poor adhesion and was unable to
reap the benefit of noticeably whiter teeth
Altogether. The Defendant's misleading and deceptive practices
proximately caused harm to the Plaintiff and the proposed class
members who suffered an injury in fact and lost money or property
as a result of the Defendant's deceptive conduct, the suit claims.

The Plaintiff purchased the Defendant's products for his personal
use online, with his most recent purchases taking place on November
of 2023. The Plaintiff made these purchases from Amazon.com while
residing in Brooklyn, New York.

The Defendant formulates, manufactures, advertises, and/or sells
Lumineux Whitening Strips throughout the United States, including
in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adrian Gucovschi, Esq.
          GUCOVSCHI ROZENSHTEYN, PLLC
          140 Broadway, Suite 4667
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 884-4230
          E-mail: adrian@gr-firm.com

OREGON: Court Certifies Class Suit Over Children in Foster Care
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allison Frost of OPB reports that Oregon and its child welfare
system have been in and out of court since 2019, defending against
a class action lawsuit on behalf of every child in foster care. The
national advocacy group A Better Childhood and Disability Rights
Oregon are pushing for adequate facilities and support and an end
to the trauma they say kids suffer in state custody. Similar class
action lawsuits have been brought in other states, including
Tennessee, which implemented reforms following a settlement that
resulted in improved outcomes for the children and youth in its
care. A trial date is set for next year in the Oregon case, and
another round of settlement talks is scheduled for next week. We'll
get an update from the lead attorney in the case and the director
of A Better Childhood, Marcia Robinson Lowry. [GN]

PAPA JOHN'S: Jones Appeals Suit Dismissal to 8th Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------
ANN JONES, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing their lawsuit entitled Ann Jones, et al., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Papa
John's International, Defendant, Case No. 4:23-cv-00023-SRC, in the
U.S. District Court for Eastern District of Missouri.

The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action alleging Papa
John's violation of the Missouri Wiretap Act, the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy
Act, and the Stored Communications Act by using session replay code
on its website and app to record website and app users' mouse
movements, clicks, keystrokes, and other electronic communications
in real time. The Plaintiffs also bring common-law
intrusion-upon-seclusion and trespass-to-chattels claims.

On Mar. 3, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim and for lack of jurisdiction, which the
Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Stephen R. Clark on
Oct. 31, 2023. The Court concluded that it lacks personal
jurisdiction over Papa John's. Accordingly, the Court granted the
motion, and dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims without prejudice.

The appellate case is captioned Ann Jones, et al. v. Papa John's
International, Case No. 23-3606, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on November 30, 2023.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appendix is due on January 9, 2024;

   -- Brief of Appellant Ann Jones and Jane Tenzer is due on
January 9, 2024; and

   -- Appellee Brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues
the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of Appellant. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants ANN JONES, et al., on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, are represented by:

            Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
            Maureen Kane Berg, Esq.
            Karen Riebel, Esq.
            LOCKRIDGE & GRINDAL
            Suite 2200
            100 Washington Avenue, S.
            Minneapolis, MN 55401
            Telephone: (612) 339-6900

                    - and -

            Tiffany M. Yiatras, Esq.
            CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGAL
            308 Hutchinson Road
            Ballwin, MO 63011
            Telephone: (314) 541-0317

Defendant-Appellee PAPA JOHN'S INTERNATIONAL, INC. is represented
by:

            Tanner Cook, Esq.
            Randal K. Mullendore, Esq.
            HUSCH & BLACKWELL
            Suite 1500
            8001 Forsyth Boulevard
            Saint Louis, MO 63105
            Telephone: (314) 480-1500

                    - and -

            Emily Johnson Henn, Esq.
            COVINGTON & BURLING
            5 Palo Alto Square, 10th Floor
            3000 El Camino Real
            Palo Alto, CA 94306
            Telephone: (650) 632-4715

                    - and -

            Cortlin Hall Lannin, Esq.
            COVINGTON & BURLING
            Suite 5400
            415 Mission Street
            San Francisco, CA 94105
            Telephone: (415) 591-7078

                    - and -

            Taryn Winston, Esq.
            COVINGTON & BURLING
            One City Center
            850 Tenth Street, N.W.
            Washington, DC 20001
            Telephone: (202) 662-5533

POMPEI PIZZERIA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Echevarria Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN C. ECHEVARRIA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. POMPEI PIZZERIA & RESTAURANT,
INC., d/b/a POMPEI PIZZA RESTAURANT; FRANCESCO LAFATA; VINCENZO
"DOE"; and GIUSEPPE "DOE", Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-09092
(E.D.N.Y., Dec. 11, 2023) seeks to recover from the Defendants
unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Plaintiff Echevarria was employed by the Defendants as a cook.

POMPEI PIZZERIA & RESTAURANT, INC. operates a restaurant located at
Rocky Point, NY. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sara V. Messina, Esq.
          ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC
          490 Wheeler Road, Suite 250
          Hauppauge, New York 11788
          Telephone: (631) 257-5588
          Email: smessina@romerolawny.com

PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Fails to Secure Clients' Info, Feagins Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
RICKY FEAGINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION and CBIZ,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-13030 (D. Mass., December 8,
2023) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence,
breach of third-party beneficiary contract, negligence per se,
unjust enrichment, and declaratory and injunctive relief.

The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and
safeguard personally identifiable information (PII) of the
Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within CBIZ's
MOVEit Transfer server following a data breach between May 29 and
June 5, 2023. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the
Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach.
As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class
members was compromised and damaged through access by and
disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the
suit.

Progress Software Corporation is a software company based in
Massachusetts.

CBIZ, Inc. is a professional business services provider,
headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Kristen A. Johnson, Esq.
         HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
         1 Faneuil Hall Square, 5th Floor
         Boston, MA 02109
         Telephone: (617) 482-3700
         Facsimile: (617) 482-3003
         E-mail: kristenj@hbsslaw.com

                 - and -

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

                 - and -

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

                 - and -

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

                 - and -

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

PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Fails to Secure Consumers' Info, Shahbazian Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ARAYIK SHAHBAZIAN and MIKE SPANOS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION,
Case No. 1:23-cv-12903 (D. Mass., Nov. 29, 2023) alleges that the
Defendant failed to secure consumers' PII from the data breach
concerning Progress's MOVEit Transfer and MOVEit Cloud software.

As of August 2023, the data breach has affected more than 600
organizations and over 40 million people. The compromised PII
includes individuals' Social Security Numbers; dates of birth;
driver's license/state identification numbers; taxpayer
identification numbers; student identification numbers; medical
information (e.g., diagnosis, treatment type, admission date);
health insurance information; and billing/claim information.

The Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of all similarly
situated consumers harmed by the 2022 Data Breach, assert claims of
negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of third-party
beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy,
violation of California Unfair Competition Law and violation of
California Customer Records Act and seek compensatory damages,
including restitution and disgorgement, punitive damages,
declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees.

As a result of the Defendant's negligence and negligence per se,
the Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered and will suffer
injury, including actual identity theft, loss of the opportunity of
how their PII and financial information is used, the compromise,
publication, and/or theft of their PII and financial information,
and out-of-pocket expenses associated with the prevention,
detection, and recovery from identity theft, tax fraud, and/or
unauthorized use of their PII and financial information.
Furthermore, the Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered and
will continue to suffer other forms of injury and/or harm,
including anxiety, emotional distress, loss of privacy, and other
economic and non-economic losses, says the suit.

Plaintiff Shahbazian is a citizen and resident of the State of
California. Progress obtained the Plaintiff Shahbazian's PII
through Progress's customer, Vio Bank, which is a division of
MidFirst Bank Corporation, a federally chartered savings
association.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq.
          WHATLEY KALLAS LLP
          101 Federal Street | 19th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 203-8459
          E-mail: psheehan@whatleykallas.com

                - and -

          Andrea R. Gold, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW | Suite 1010
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          E-mail: agold@tzlegal.com

RAMON LOPEZ: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Aguirre Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN AGUIRRE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RAMON LOPEZ CONSTRUCTION CORP.; and RAMON
LOPEZ, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-09012 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 7, 2023)
is an action against the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff
and the class minimum wages, and overtime compensation for hours
worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Plaintiff Aguirre was employed by the Defendants as a construction
worker.

RAMON LOPEZ CONSTRUCTION CORP. operates in the construction
industry. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Lina Stillman, Esq.
         STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
         42 Broadway, 12t Floor
         New York, New York 10004
         Telephone: (212) 203-2417

RECKITT BENCKISER: Taylor Sues Over Honey Products' False Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------
TIFFANY TAYLOR, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. RECKITT BENCKISER PHARMACEUTICALS INC., Case No.
1:23-cv-08783 (E.D.N.Y., Nov. 29, 2023) seeks to redress the
Defendant's false and misleading marketing campaign in which four
Mucinex branded, non-prescription liquid cold and cough medicine
products are marketed as though they contain honey.

The Defendant's product packaging is replete with honey-based
imagery and words including: a honey dripper dripping honey over a
honeycomb; a swirling liquid honey background; Mucinex's cartoon
"Mr. Mucus" green monster character, dressed in a yellow and black
honeybee colored shirt; holding a honey dripper dripping honey;
surrounded by honeybees. The list of inactive ingredients in the
Adult Mucinex Honey Products does not include honey, which the
Defendant would be required by law to list if those products
contained honey. They do not contain honey. Honey is not listed as
one of the inactive ingredients in the Children Mucinex Honey
Products because those products also do not contain honey, the
lawsuit says.

The Plaintiff and the Class members have been aggrieved by and have
suffered losses as a result of the Defendant's violations of
Section 349 of the New York General Business Law. By virtue of the
foregoing unfair, unconscionable, and deceptive acts in the conduct
of trade or commerce, the Plaintiff and the members of the Class
have been substantially injured by purchasing and/or overpaying for
a product that is not what Defendant represents it to be.

The Plaintiff purchased one of the Mucinex Honey Products, namely
the Mucinex Fast-Max Chest Congestion Honey & Berry Flavor product,
at a Stop & Shop supermarket near her home in Queens, New York in
May 2023.

The Defendant markets, sells, and distributes various consumer
non-prescription drugs in New York and throughout the United
States, including drugs for cold, flu, cough, congestion, and
related symptoms.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Denlea, Esq.
          Jeffrey I. Carton, Esq.
          Steven R. Schoenfeld, Esq.
          Stan Sharovskiy, Esq.
          DENLEA & CARTON LLP
          2 Westchester Park Drive, Suite 410
          White Plains, NY 10604
          Telephone: (914) 331-0100
          Facsimile: (914) 331-0105
          E-mail: jdenlea@denleacarton.com
                  jcarton@denleacarton.com
                  sschoenfeld@denleacarton.com
                  ssharovskiy@denleacarton.com

REPUBLICAN NATIONAL: Howard Appeals TCPA Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JACOB HOWARD is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his
lawsuit entitled Jacob Howard, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Republican National
Committee, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00993-SPL, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (TCPA) for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment.

On Aug. 24, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim, which the Court granted through an Order
entered by Judge Steven P. Logan on Nov. 6, 2023. The Plaintiff's
claims were dismissed with prejudice and without leave to amend.

In sum, the Court found that the Plaintiff has failed to state a
claim against the Defendant, both in Count I under Sec.
227(b)(1)(A)(iii) and Count II under Sec. 227(b)(1)(B) of the TCPA.
The Plaintiff's claims were dismissed with prejudice as well, as
the Plaintiff cannot possibly cure the deficiencies of those claims
by the allegation of other facts. Leave to amend was, therefore,
deemed inappropriate.

The appellate case is captioned Howard v. Republican National
Committee, Case No. 23-3826, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, filed on November 29, 2023.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Mediation Questionnaire was due on December 4,
2023;

   -- Appellant Opening Brief is due on January 8, 2024; and

   -- Appellee Answering Brief is due on February 7, 2024. [BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant JACOB HOWARD, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

            Jon Phelps, Esq.
            PHELPS & MOORE, PLLC
            6424 E. Greenway Parkway, Suite 100
            Scottsdale, AZ 85254

SENIOR SOLUTIONS: Franks Suit Seeks Caregivers' Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
TRESA JUNE FRANKS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SENIOR SOLUTIONS AT HOME, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01261-STA-jay (W.D. Tenn., December 8,
2023) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of Fair Labor Standards Act.

Ms. Franks has been employed by the Defendant as a caregiver in
Hardin County, Tennessee.

Senior Solutions at Home, Inc., is a provider of senior home care,
companion care and veteran care services, with its headquarters at
209 Ward Circle, Brentwood, Tennessee. [BN]

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

SIKA AG: 570 Concrete Sues Over Concrete Mixtures Monopoly
----------------------------------------------------------
570 CONCRETE, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIKA AG; SIKA CORPORATION; CHRYSO,
INC.; GCP APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; COMPAGNIE DE SAINT-GOBAIN
S.A.; SAINTGOBAIN NORTH AMERICA; MASTER BUILDERS SOLUTIONS
ADMIXTURES U.S., LLC; MASTER BUILDERS SOLUTIONS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH;
CINVEN LTD.; CINVEN, INC.; THE EUCLID CHEMICAL COMPANY; and RPM
INTERNATIONAL INC.; Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-04845 (E.D., Pa.
Dec. 7, 2023) alleges violation of the Sherman Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants are
engaged in unlawful agreement to fix the prices for: (a) concrete
admixtures, (b) cement additives, (c) admixtures for mortar, and
(d) products containing or bundled with any of the foregoing
(collectively, "CCAs").

The Defendants' unlawful agreement caused direct purchasers of CCAs
in the United States and its territories, including Plaintiff and
the Class, to pay supra-competitive prices for CCAs sold by
Defendants in the United States and its territories from the period
beginning no later than May 11, 2018 and running through the date
on which any Class herein is certified (the "Class Period"). The
Defendants' scheme included both price increases and the imposition
of surcharges on CCAs sold in the United States. By reason of the
alleged violations of the antitrust laws, the Plaintiff and the
members of the Class have sustained injury to their businesses or
property, having paid higher prices for CCAs than they would have
paid in the absence of Defendants' illegal contract, combination,
or conspiracy and, as a result, have suffered damages, says the
suit.

SIKA AG manufactures construction materials. The Company produces
concrete and mixtures, mortar, sealants and adhesives, tooling
resins, anti-static industrial flooring, and acoustic materials.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua H. Grabar, Esq.
          GRABAR LAW OFFICE
          One Liberty Place
          1650 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (267) 507-6085
          Facsimile: (267) 507-6048
          Email: jgrabar@grabarlaw.com

              - and -

          Joseph E. Mariotti, Esq.
          CAPUTO & MARIOTTI, P.C.
          730 Main Street
          Moosic, PA 18507
          Telephone: (570) 342-9999
          Facsimile: (570)457-1533
          Email: jmariotti@caputomariotti.com

              - and -

         Mindee J. Reuben, Esq.
         Steven J. Greenfogel, Esq.
         LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR, LLC
         1515 Market Street, Suite 1200
         Philadelphia, PA 19102
         Telephone: (215) 854-4060
         Facsimile: (973) 623-0858
         Email: mreuben@litedepalma.com
                sgreenfogel@litedepalma.com

              - and -

         Joseph J. DePalma
         LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR, LLC
         570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
         Newark, NJ 07102
         Telephone: (973) 623-3000
         Facsimile: (973) 623-0858
         Email: jdepalma@litedepalma.com

              - and -

         Marc H. Edelson
         EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
         411 S. State Street Suite N300
         Newtown, PA 18940
          Telephone: (215) 867-2399
         Email: medelson@edelson-law.com

              - and -

         Eric L. Cramer
         Patrick F. Madden
         Michaela L. Wallin
         BERGER MONTAGUE PC
         1818 Market Street Suite 3600
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 875-3000
         Email: ecramer@bm.net
                pmadden@bm.net
                mwallin@bm.net

SILVER CINEMAS: Osheske Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------
PAUL OSHESKE is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing his
lawsuit entitled Paul Osheske, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Silver Cinemas Acquisition
Company, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-09463-HDV-JC, in the U.S.
District Court for Central the District of California.

The case type is stated as Civil, Private.

On Mar. 8, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which the
Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Hernan D. Vera on
Oct. 31, 2023. The Plaintiff's claims were dismissed without leave
to amend.

The appellate case is captioned Osheske v. Silver Cinemas
Acquisition Company, Case No. 23-3882, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on November 30, 2023.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant Mediation Questionnaire was due on December 5,
2023;

   -- Appellant Opening Brief is due on January 12, 2024; and

   -- Appellee Answering Brief is due on February 12, 2024. [BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant PAUL OSHESKE, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

            Sophia Marie Rios, Esq.
            BERGER MONTAGUE PC
            401 B Street, Suite 2000
            San Diego, CA 92101
            Telephone: (619) 489-0300

Defendant-Appellee SILVER CINEMAS ACQUISITION COMPANY is
represented by:

            Teresa Carey Chow, Esq.
            BAKER & HOSTETLER, LLP
            11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
            Los Angeles, CA 90025

STABLE ROAD: $8.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on April 22
------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP on Dec. 18 disclosed that the United
States District Court for the Central District of California has
approved the following announcement of a proposed class action
settlement that would benefit purchasers of Stable Road Acquisition
Corp. ("SRAC") publicly traded units, publicly traded SRAC Class A
common stock, and publicly traded SRAC warrants:

SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, CERTIFICATION OF
SETTLEMENT CLASS, AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS
HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND
REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO:   All persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded Stable Road Acquisition Corp. ("SRAC") units,
publicly traded SRAC Class A common stock, and publicly traded SRAC
warrants between October 7, 2020 and July 13, 2021, inclusive, and
were damaged thereby (the "Settlement Class")1 :

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Central District of California, that the litigation
captioned In re Stable Road Acquisition Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 2:21-CV-5744-JFW(SHKx) (the "Action") has been
certified as a class action on behalf of the Settlement Class,
except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the
Settlement Class by definition as set forth in the full printed
Notice of (I) Pendency of Class Action, Certification of Settlement
Class, and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Fairness Hearing;
and (III) Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement
of Litigation Expenses (the "Notice").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that the Lead Plaintiff in the Action has
reached a proposed settlement of the Action for $8,500,000 in cash
(the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will resolve all claims in
the Action.

A hearing will be held on April 22, 2024 at 1:30 p.m., before the
Honorable John F. Walter at the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, United States Courthouse,
Courtroom 7A, 350 W. 1st Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012, to
determine (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved as
fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be
dismissed with prejudice against Defendants, and the Releases
specified and described in the Stipulation (and in the Notice)
should be granted; (iii) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation
should be approved as fair and reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead
Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses should be approved.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund.  If you have not yet
received the Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these
documents by contacting the Claims Administrator at In re Stable
Road Acquisition Corp. Securities Litigation, c/o Strategic Claims
Services, P.O. Box 230, 600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205, Media, PA
19063, 1-866-274-4004.  Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can
also be downloaded from the website maintained by the Claims
Administrator, www.StableRoadSecurities.com.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you
must submit a Claim Form postmarked or online no later than April
5, 2024 to the Claims Administrator.  If you are a Settlement Class
Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be
eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the
Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by any judgments or
orders entered by the Court in the Action.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and wish to exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a request for
exclusion such that it is received no later than April 1, 2024, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.  If you
properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not
be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action and you will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the
Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Lead Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses, must be filed with the Court and
delivered to Lead Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they
are received no later than April 1, 2024, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, Stable Road
Acquisition Corp., or its counsel regarding this notice. All
questions about this notice, the proposed Settlement, or your
eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to
Lead Counsel or the Claims Administrator.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form,
should be made to Lead Counsel:

Casey E. Sadler, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
(888) 773-9224
settlements@glancylaw.com

Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to:
In re Stable Road Acquisition Corp. Securities Litigation
c/o Strategic Claims Services
P.O. Box 230
600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205
Media, PA 19063
(866) 274-4004
www.StableRoadSecuritiesSettlement.com

By Order of the Court

1 All capitalized terms used in this Summary Notice that are not
otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them
in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated August 18,
2023 (the "Stipulation"), which is available at
www.StableRoadSecurities.com.


UNION PACIFIC: Files Bids to Dismiss Class Suit Over Contamination
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jocelyn Schifferdecker of Kake.com reports that Union Pacific is
filing to have a class action lawsuit against it dismissed saying
it violates both Kansas and federal law. The plaintiff's head
attorney says he doesn't think its reasons are strong enough and he
believes the community effected needs to be compensated.

Environmental lawyer and one of the head attorneys for the
plaintiff's Chris Nidel says the property value being damaged from
living in a contaminated area is only the tip of the iceberg in
ways people living in a northeast Wichita neighborhood have been
impacted.

"You talk to families with a legacy of cancer and other health
effects that is likely the direct result of this irresponsible,
negligent, reckless behavior on behalf of Union Pacific," said
Chris Nidel, environmental lawyer and one of the head attorneys
representing the plaintiffs in this case.

In his opinion Union Pacific is hiding behind what he calls
formalities in the law to try to get the lawsuit dismissed.

"They're not denying that they are the source of this contamination
or that it has had an effect on the community at large. But they're
simply trying to escape responsibility or shirk responsibility for
what it is they've done," he said.

In the motion to dismiss, Union Pacific's lawyers say the lawsuit
is barred by federal law and violates two Kansas laws, one being
the statue of limitations. This meaning the plaintiffs didn't file
the lawsuit in a timely manner since the accident.

Nidel thinks there are protections in the law for the community
affected, and he is ready to fight to prove it.

"We believe in our claim. We believe that this community was
deceived," he said.

The lawsuit, which was filed in federal court says Union Pacific
hid the presence of the contaminants and their release decades ago.
It spread from the 29th and Grove environmental site to a large
portion of a nearby neighborhood causing decades worth of harm.
Nidel says Union Pacific didn't let people in the area know about
it and those affected didn't know until fall of 2022.

This is really about human lives and the effect on real people that
have now long suffered as a result of this contamination," he said

Nidel explains if any change were to come from the motion to
dismiss it would likely be an amendment to the original complaint.
He says he wants union pacific to stop hiding and take
accountability.

"Union Pacific and their conduct from the past is the source for
this contamination. This contamination needs to be cleaned up and
these people need to be compensated," he said.

In a statement Union Pacific tells KAKE News:

"We will continue to cooperate with the Kansas Department of Health
and Environment (KDHE) to investigate and address the spill's
effects. KDHE oversees Union Pacific's cleanup efforts at the site
under state and federal regulations. Union Pacific remains
dedicated to working in collaboration with KDHE, the Sedgwick
County Health Department, the City of Wichita and community leaders
on the cleanup and remediation of the site." [GN]

UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal AI Programs
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sara E. Teller of Legal Reader reports that in a groundbreaking
legal move, a potential class action lawsuit has been filed against
the nation's largest insurer, accusing it of illegally leveraging
artificial intelligence (AI) programs to override medical
professionals' decisions. In doing so, the defendant is allegedly
forcing seniors from nursing homes.

The case alleges that UnitedHealthcare, the defendant in question,
used its nH Predict AI Model to terminate post-acute care coverage
for Medicare Advantage beneficiaries, leading to a potential class
that could include tens of thousands of plaintiffs with damages
claims reaching billions of dollars.

The lawsuit, brought by the estates of Gene B. Lokken and Dale
Henry Tetzloff, sheds light on the abrupt termination of their
skilled nursing care coverage just days into their stays. Despite
doctors advocating for further in-patient services, both appeals
were denied, compelling the families to cover months of continued
care out-of-pocket until the seniors' unfortunate demise earlier
this year.

According to court documents filed in the US District Court in
Minnesota, the attorneys argue that UnitedHealthcare's use of AI to
determine coverage needs constitutes a breach of fiduciary duties,
including good faith and fair dealing. The lawsuit contends that
the insurer allowed its AI model to wholly determine coverage
requirements, prioritizing its economic interests over those of the
insureds.

This legal action comes amid growing scrutiny of insurers employing
AI in decision-making processes. Congress has addressed denial
patterns, with STAT News unveiling investigations into the issue.
Former UnitedHealthcare employees cited algorithm-based
calculations influencing claims denials, even in cases involving
seriously ill patients.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has taken steps
to limit how Medicare Advantage (MA) insurers deny care, but these
changes won't take effect until January 1. Critics remain uncertain
about the efficacy of the updated MA rule in prompting real
change.

The recent lawsuit seeks to impact UnitedHealthcare financially,
alleging a fraudulent scheme that benefits the insurer while
prematurely displacing elderly individuals from care facilities or
forcing them to deplete family savings to continue necessary
medical care.

The legal document argues that the insurer's AI model, by
disagreeing with real-life doctors' determinations, provides a
financial windfall for UnitedHealthcare. This occurs through policy
premiums without the corresponding fulfillment of promised care.

The plaintiffs' lawyers emphasize that the elderly are bearing the
brunt of this alleged fraudulent scheme, experiencing premature
discharges from care facilities or exhausting savings due to the
insurer's reliance on an AI model that overrides medical
professionals' decisions.

The lawsuit accuses UnitedHealthcare of systematically denying
claims using its AI model, knowing that a majority of policy
holders won't be appealing their denied claims. It was argued by
the plaintiffs that most of these policy holders will bear
out-of-pocket costs or sacrifice the remainder of their prescribed
post-acute care due to impaired conditions, lack of knowledge, and
limited resources to contest the AI-powered decisions.

UnitedHealthcare, with health insurance plans covering 52.9 million
Americans, has yet to respond to the latest legal action concerning
forcing seniors from nursing homes, maintaining its previous stance
that the case lacks merit. The outcome of this lawsuit could have
far-reaching implications, potentially reshaping the use of AI in
insurance decision-making and its impact on vulnerable populations.
[GN]

UP FAITH: Tejon Sues Over Unwanted Disclosure of Users' Video Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
ROGER TEJON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UP FAITH & FAMILY, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:23-cv-24660 (S.D. Fla., December 9, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendant for violation of the Video Privacy Protection
Act (VPPA).

According to the complaint, the Defendant has disclosed to Meta
Platforms, Inc. (Facebook) information regarding the video viewing
habits of the visitors to its website, www.upfaithandfamily.com,
without consent. The Defendant embedded within its website a "Meta
Pixel" that was provided to it by Facebook. That pixel tracked the
Plaintiff's and the Class members' video viewing history while on
the Defendant's website and reported their viewing history to
Facebook along with their unique Facebook Identification numbers.
As a result, the Defendant violated the Plaintiff's and the Class
members' statutorily protected privacy rights, says the suit.

Up Faith & Family, LLC is a video tape service provider, with its
principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
         110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744
         Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301

                 - and -

         Manuel Hiraldo, Esq.
         HIRALDO P.A.
         401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
         Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
         Telephone: (305) 336-7466
         E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

                 - and -

         Michael Eisenband, Esq.
         EISENBAND LAW. P.A.
         515 E. las Olas Blvd., Ste. 120
         Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
         Telephone: (954) 533-4092
         E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com

ZEROED-IN TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Class Suit Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
Jon Styf of Top Class Actions reports that Zeroed-In Technologies
is facing a class action lawsuit claiming it did not do enough to
prevent a data breach that impacted more than 1.9 million
individuals including employees and clients of Dollar Tree and
Family Dollar.

Zeroed-In is a cloud-based human resource analytics platform that
collects, analyzes and visualizes workforce data while collecting
information from those who applied for work at Zeroed-In or its
client Dollar Tree, which owns Family Dollar.

Zeroed-In reported on Nov. 27 that it had found unusual activity on
its servers on Aug. 8 and launched an investigation that found that
sensitive information of employees and clients of Dollar Tree and
Family Dollar had been accessed by an unauthorized person, the
lawsuit claims.

The data access included the names, dates of birth, and/or Social
Security numbers of 1.977 million individuals.

"Zeroed-In provided limited details about the Data Breach,
including whether or not the cybercriminal(s) responsible for
breach were identified or whether the information exfiltrated was
held for ransom," the Dollar Tree class action lawsuit says.
"Zeroed-In also did not disclose whether its investigation detected
the compromised information on the dark web."

Zeroed-In offered Single Bureau Credit Monitoring to individuals
but the class action claims that the offer is woefully inadequate
related to the damage done.

Family Dollar agreed to a class action lawsuit settlement to
resolve claims that its distribution center in Arkansas was
infested with rodents, resulting in contaminated products.

Were you impacted by the Dollar Tree data breach? Let us know in
the comments.

The plaintiff is represented by Jeff Ostrow of Kopelwitz Ostrow
Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert along with Tina Wolfson and Andrew W.
Ferich of Ahdoot and Wolfson PC.

The Dollar Tree data breach class action lawsuit is Biles v.
Zeroed-In Technologies LLC, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-01139, in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. [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 ***