/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240118.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, January 18, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 14

                            Headlines

123TIRES AND SERVICE: Ramos Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
3M COMPANY: Rickstrew Sues Over Exposure to Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Ridings Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Sanders Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
3M COMPANY: Shockley Sues Over Exposure to Chemicals & Foams

3M COMPANY: Sixth Circuit Tosses PFAs Class Action
3M COMPANY: Storm Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Swartz Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
A & M WARSHAW: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brown Suit Alleges
ABM AVIATION: Suchite Lawsuit Removed from Super. Ct. to S.D. Cal.

AMAZON.COM INC: SDBN Suit May Impact Future of EU Class Actions
AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Picciotti Suit Over Concealed Ticket Fees
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Debit Card Users' Class Action Can Proceed
ANASTASIA IVLEEVA: Moscow Court Dismisses Class Action
AON RISK: Skinner Insurance Suit Removed from Cir. Ct. to E.D. Wis.

APTDECO INC: Nelson Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
ARIZONA ASSOCIATION: Masiello Alleges Real Estate Market Conspiracy
ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: Shapiro Sues Over Stock Price's Precipitous Drop
BEST BUY: Dean Sues Over Sale of Defective Pressure Cookers
BIOXCEL THERAPEUTICS: Faces Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties

BLUE BUFFALO: Price Files False Ad Suit Over Pet Food Products
CITRIX SYSTEMS: Nunn Sues Over Privacy Data Breach
DADA NEXUS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 11
DELAWARE LIFE: McClendon Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
DERMATOLOGY AND COSMETIC: Patients Sue Over Surgery Malpractice

E.I. DU PONT: Faces Bell Suit Over Contaminated Drinking Water
E.I. DU PONT: Faces Class Suit Over Contaminated Drinking Water
E.I. DU PONT: Faces Wickline Suit Over Contaminated Drinking Water
EAST RIVER MEDICAL: Kuecher Sues Over Failure to Protect Info
ESTEE LAUDER: Averts Class Action Over Virtual "Try-on" Tool

EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Faces Price-Fixing Class Action in Washington
FLY JAMAICA: Class Action Over Guyana Crash Settled for $5MM
FOX BUILDING: Misclassifies Laborers, Vega Suit Claims
GIORDANO'S OF KISSIMMEE: Faces Palmquist Suit Over Tip Credit
GOURMET CLUB: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Stroude Says

HEALTH-ADE LLC: Faces Class Action Over PFAs in Kombucha Products
IDEXX LABORATORIES: Labelle Foundation et al. Sue Over VC+ Failure
KALAMAZOO AREA: Phillips Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT
KINDER MORGAN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Anderson Alleges
LA SALLE UNIVERSITY: Leonard Sues Over Refusal of Tuition Refund

LEGACY HEALTH: Discloses Personal Info to Third Parties, K.L. Says
LUNA GROCERY: Fails to Pay OT Premiums, Melo Suit Says
MAISON SOLUTIONS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 4
MERAKI INSTALLERS: Plenge Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
MERCURY SYSTEMS: Artificially Inflates Financial Results, Suit Says

MOLD RESTORATION: Faces Martinez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
MONTREAL, QC: Group of NDG Residents Sues Over July 2023 Floods
NASCO: Faces Lu Class Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Discloses Personal Info to FB, Myers Says
NATIONAL REALTOR: Recent Class Actions May Disrupt Housing Market

NATIONALE-NEDERLANDEN: Settles Class Action for EUR300 Million
NEW RIVER: Paris Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Delivery Drivers
NOVA LINES: Gadson Alleges Violation of the Truth in Lending Act
NSC HOLDINGS: Fails to Protect Private Info, Nicholas Says
PACIFICORP: Oregon Labor Day Fire Class Action Trial Begins

PAYCOM SOFTWARE: Artificially Inflates Stock Price, Schoenrock Says
PEPPERIDGE FARM: No Preservatives Label "False," Ward Suit Claims
PIONEER EXPLORATION: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Chavera Alleges
PROPAK LOGISTICS: Roberts Suit Removed from Super. Ct. to E.D. Cal.
R. JABBOUR & SONS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Colak Says

RAUDALES TRUCKING: Franco Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
SCORE MEDIA: Faces Class Action Over BIPA Law Violations
SEA WORLD: Prado Discrimination Suit Removed to S.D. Cal.
SEATTLE PACIFIC UNIVERSITY: Espinal Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
SELKIRK SPORT LLC: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

SIKA AG: Vera Construction Sues Over Unlawful Price Fixing
SOKU RESTAURANT: Colak Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
SP PLUS: Murry Class Suit Removed from Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal.
STANLEY STEEMER: Huber Files Suit in S.D. Ohio
SUNRUN INC: Fails to Pay Lead Qualifiers' OT Wages Under FLSA

TEXAS ASSOCIATION: Martin Sues Over Real Estate Market Conspiracy
TRANSPORT FOR NSW: Ironbridge Assumes Lead Role in Class Action
TRANSUNION RENTAL: Martinez Sues Over Misleading Consumer Reports
TWITTER INC: Frederick-Osborn Suit Alleges Gender Discrimination
UNCLE VINNY'S: Fails to Pay Overtime Compensation, Hernandez Claims

UNUM LIFE: Faces Threadgill Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
WALMART INC: Shoppers Seek to Revive Fraud Class Action
WESTFIELD BANK: Levy & Rondoletto Sue Over Overdraft Fee Assessment
WILLIAMSBURG VEGAN: Mediza Seeks Restaurant Servers' Unpaid Wages
ZONA RESTAURANT: Reyes Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages


                            *********

123TIRES AND SERVICE: Ramos Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Ramos, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated in
the proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiff v. 123Tires and
Service LLC, Aharon Biton, and Kijana Noel, Defendants, Case No.
1:23-cv-09146 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 13, 2023) is a class action arising
from Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and
violations of Articles 6 and 19 of the New York Labor Law and
NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act.

The Plaintiff was employed as a service writer at Defendants' tire
shop and automotive service center from August 2023 to, through and
including, October 2, 2023. He alleges the Defendants' failure to
pay overtime wages, failure to provide wage notices, and failure to
furnish wage statements.

123Tires and Service LLC owns the tire shop and automotive service
center known as "Tire Pro NYC" located in Brooklyn, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
          Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
          LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 792-0048
          E-mail: Jason@levinepstein.com

3M COMPANY: Rickstrew Sues Over Exposure to Chemicals & Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Rickstrew, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:23-cv-05686-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 6, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
          Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
          Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
          AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
          17 East Main Street, Suite 200
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Phone: (850) 202-1010
          Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
                 baylstock@awkolaw.com
                 jwitkin@awkolaw.com


3M COMPANY: Ridings Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charles H. Ridings, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM,
INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-05687-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 6,
2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
          Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
          Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
          AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
          17 East Main Street, Suite 200
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Phone: (850) 202-1010
          Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
                 baylstock@awkolaw.com
                 jwitkin@awkolaw.com


3M COMPANY: Sanders Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
---------------------------------------------------------
Brian Keith Sanders, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM,
INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:23-cv-05688-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 6,
2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
          Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
          Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
          AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
          17 East Main Street, Suite 200
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Phone: (850) 202-1010
          Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
                 baylstock@awkolaw.com
                 jwitkin@awkolaw.com


3M COMPANY: Shockley Sues Over Exposure to Chemicals & Foams
------------------------------------------------------------
Wysonia Shockley, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:23-cv-05689-RMG D.S.C., Nov. 6, 2023), is brought for damages for
personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to
AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's working career in the
military and/or as a civilian and was diagnosed with hypothyroidism
as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
          Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
          Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
          AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
          17 East Main Street, Suite 200
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Phone: (850) 202-1010
          Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
                 baylstock@awkolaw.com
                 jwitkin@awkolaw.com


3M COMPANY: Sixth Circuit Tosses PFAs Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Morgan Harrison and David Marmins, in an article for ABA, disclosed
that in an order that is sure to have far-reaching implications for
years to come, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit recently directed the dismissal of a class action lawsuit
brought by Kevin Hardwick, a former firefighter who sought to
represent a class comprising nearly every person residing in the
United States against ten manufacturers of per- and polyfluoroalkyl
substances (PFAS), including 3M and DuPont. Among other things,
Hardwick requested that the district court appoint a "Science
Panel" to investigate the potential health impacts of various PFAS,
whose conclusions would "be deemed definitive and binding on all
the parties."

The District Court for the Southern District of Ohio ultimately
certified a class comprising every person residing in the State of
Ohio, which defendants appealed on the basis that, among other
things, Hardwick lacked standing to bring the case. The Sixth
Circuit agreed, noting that based on the pleadings alone, combined
with certain undisputed facts, Hardwick could not show the
existence of his own "case or controversy" under Article III as to
every defendant.

After listing the cardinal elements of standing, the court
explained that to survive the defendants' challenge, Hardwick must
allege that he suffered a redressable injury that is traceable to
the defendant(s). Hardwick's complaint, however, failed to
establish standing for several reasons, not the least of which was
that "[t]he subject of nearly every verb in the 'General Factual
Allegations' section of Hardwick's First Amended Complaint is
'Defendants.'" In re E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. C-8 Pers. Inj.
Litig., 87 F.4th 315, 320 (6th Cir. 2023).

The court stressed that even at the initial pleading stage, a
plaintiff cannot lump defendants together and only make general
allegations without specifying what each defendant did to harm the
plaintiff. "[T]he Supreme Court has long made clear that 'standing
is not dispensed in gross.'" "For even a plaintiff 'who meets the
'actual-injury requirement' -- a point sharply contested here --
'does not thereby obtain a license to sue anyone over anything.'".

The court also held that Hardwick's claims were too conclusory to
survive to discovery. Indeed, in his complaint, Hardwick did not
tie the PFAS compounds in his blood to any particular manufacturer
or other source. "Nor did he allege any plausible pathway by which
any of these defendants could have delivered any of these five PFAS
to his bloodstream . . . . Hardwick does not know what companies
manufactured the particular chemicals in his bloodstream; nor does
he know, or indeed have much idea, whether those chemicals might
someday make him sick; nor, as a result of those chemicals, does he
have any sickness or symptoms now."

Hardwick provides a succinct and direct appellate opinion on which
defendants in PFAS litigation will rely across the country for
years to come. Plaintiffs should take note of the powerful language
in the Hardwick order. Many forthcoming briefs from defendants are
sure to invoke the first line of the court's order: "Seldom is so
ambitious a case filed on so slight a basis."

Hardwick, though, is unlikely to stem the present tide of PFAS
lawsuits The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is proposing a
National Primary Drinking Water Regulation to establish legally
enforceable levels, or Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs), for six
PFAS in drinking water. For the two original PFAS, PFOA and PFOS,
the MCL would be 4 ppt, a level most drinking water providers
cannot meet without significant upgrades to their filtration
systems. These regulations could become law any day, and when they
do it will embolden plaintiffs PFAS lawyers and increase the
already steady stream of PFAS suits. Also, studies attempting to
trace PFAS to health problems continue and, if findings are as most
suspect -- that these persistent chemicals are linked to illness or
disease -- an entire new era of PFAS suits is sure to follow. [GN]

3M COMPANY: Storm Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
James C. Storm, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTSLP, as successor-in-interest to The
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No.
2:23-cv-05690-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 6, 2023), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
          Bryan F. Aylstock, Esq.
          Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
          AYLSTOCK, WITKIN, KREIS & OVERHOLTZ, PLLC
          17 East Main Street, Suite 200
          Pensacola, FL 32502
          Phone: (850) 202-1010
          Email: dkreis@awkolaw.com
                 baylstock@awkolaw.com
                 jwitkin@awkolaw.com


3M COMPANY: Swartz Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
------------------------------------------------------------
Miles Elwood Swartz, III, and other similarly situated v. 3M
COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC
CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX,
LLC; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS
USA, INC.; KIDDE PLC; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY
LLC; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES,
INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI
PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION;
SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY;
TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS L.P. as successor-in-interest to The Ansul
Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and
W.L.GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-05664-RMG (D.S.C.,
Nov. 6, 2023), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting
from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.

AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment
designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect
firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up
of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner
layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with
additional PFAS.

The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it
contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose
end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS.
Further, defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which
contained PFAS for use in firefighting.

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

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen "Buck" Daniel, Esq.
          RUEB STOLLER DANIEL, LLP
          225 Ottley Drive NE, Suite 110
          Atlanta, GA 30624
          Phone: 404-381-2888
          Email: buck@lawrsd.com


A & M WARSHAW: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Brown Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY BROWN and ROBERT HENDERSON, individually and on behalf of
all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. A & M WARSHAW
PLUMBING & HEATING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 150040/2024 (N.Y.,
Sup., New York Cty., Jan. 2, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid
prevailing wages, supplemental benefits, as well as overtime
compensation which they are statutorily and contractually entitled
to receive.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as plumbers.

A & M WARSHAW PLUMBING & HEATING, INC. offers a complete range of
plumbing and heating services in the New York City area. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone:(212) 943-9080
          Email: Lambinder@vandallp.com

ABM AVIATION: Suchite Lawsuit Removed from Super. Ct. to S.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as Maria Felipe Suchite, an
individual on behalf of herself and others v. ABM Aviation, Inc., a
Georgia corporation; ABM Industries Incorporated, a Delaware
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, Case No.
2023-00051258-CU-OE-CTL (Filed Nov. 27, 2023) was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Diego to the United States District Court for the Southern District
of California, on Jan. 2, 2024.

The Southern California District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
3:24-cv-00003-LL-SBC to the proceeding.

The suit alleges the following causes of action against the
Defendants on behalf of herself and the putative class: failure to
pay minimum/regular wages; failure to pay state overtime; failure
to comply with meal break laws; failure to comply with rest break
laws; failure to reimburse expenses; failure to provide accurate
wage statements; failure to pay wages timely; failure to provide
and maintain records; and violation of Bus. & Prof. Code sections
17200, et seq.

The Plaintiff defines the class as "all of the Defendants' current
or former nonexempt employees who worked in the state of California
from November 26, 2019 to the present."

The Plaintiff was a citizen of the State of California when the
State Court Action incepted and when this Petition and Notice was
filed.

ABM provides a comprehensive list of airline services and aviation
services.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Laura Fleming, Esq.
          Matthew C. Lewis, Esq.
          Lukas R. Kramer, Esq.
          PAYNE & FEARS LLP
          4 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 851-1100
          Facsimile: (949) 851-1212
          E-mail: lf@paynefears.com
                  mcl@paynefears.com
                  lrk@paynefears.com

AMAZON.COM INC: SDBN Suit May Impact Future of EU Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea Burkhart, writing for Corporate Compliance Insights, repots
that late last year, a Dutch consumer rights group sued Amazon,
claiming that the company illegally tracks users' online activity
without their permission, an allegation eerily similar to a 2021
case in which Amazon was found to have violated the GDPR. The class
action is one of the first major cases since the EU made it easier
for consumers to file class-action claims. But whether the new law
will be a boon for wronged consumers or a boondoggle that will
overtax the court system remains to be seen, writes law student
Chelsea Burkhart.

The newest Amazon lawsuit in the Netherlands is poised to
potentially be a battleground for public policy considerations,
extending far beyond the individual case. Stichting Data
Bescherming Nederland (SDBN) filed a class-action lawsuit against
tech giant Amazon for violating EU privacy law after the EU
implemented a law in June making it easier for consumer groups to
bring class-action cases against companies. While class-action
suits have long been an expected staple in U.S. courts, this new
law will create a shift in not only how consumers seek redress, but
also in how EU law firms operate.

Background of the case
Looking at this case generally, SDBN alleges that Amazon collects
personal data from cookies and tracks consumers' behavior across
the internet to sell targeted advertising space without their
permission.

According to SDBN, the new class-action suit represents around 5
million Amazon account holders in the Netherlands whose behavior is
tracked across various websites and Amazon in order to sell
specifically targeted advertisement space.

If that sounds familiar, it might be because Amazon was fined a
record $887 million dollars for a similar EU data-protection law
violation in 2021. There, Amazon was fined for violating the 2018
GDPR, a piece of legislation aimed to protect consumers' data
collected by companies by ensuring consumers' consent to data
tracking is clear and easily revocable, as well as ensure that
companies must notify data protection authority about a data breach
within 72 hours of knowledge.

Luxembourg's privacy regulator fined Amazon the record $887 million
for noncompliance with the GDPR and required Amazon to revise
undisclosed business practices. Amazon responded that it was
undisputed that no data breach occurred and that how it shows
relevant advertising to customers is subject to interpretations of
the GDPR. The new SDBN suit partly mirrors the previous
record-breaking fine because of the dispute over tracked behavior
and targeted advertisement, which Amazon maintains is subject to
interpretation.

Given the fact that Amazon got well more than a slap on the wrist
for similar misconduct in recent years, combined with other tech
giants also being sued for similar personal data and targeting
advertisements, it seems that the nearly 5 million consumers in
this class-action suit have a firm leg to stand on. Amazon,
however, maintains that privacy and security of its customers is
its top priority, and the company has appealed the previous
Luxembourg privacy regulator's penalty.

A test of new EU law
Of course, a compliance program need not be perfect to be effective
and evidence of misconduct itself does not equate to
ineffectiveness. What is a good indicator of an ineffective
compliance system? One indicator might be when a company knows of a
problem and instead of self-remediation to prevent similar events
in the future, continues the same misconduct to maximize profits.

Whatever you might think of Amazon's action or the legal merits of
this new class-action suit, however, one central issue that might
silently dominate the outcome is the delicate balance between
bolstering consumer protection through robust compliance systems
and preserving court resources in light of the EU's new
class-action laws.

This battle of consumer protection is part of the broader challenge
of reconciling consumer interests while acknowledging the
practicalities of the legal system in a booming technological age.
EU legislation over the past five years has trended toward
protecting its citizens both through privacy regulation and the
ability to take part in class-action suits, which until recently
were predominantly an American form of redress.

The issue, however, is whether European courts are prepared for
this aggressive and costly form of action. Not only can
class-action suits be wildly expensive for companies, certainly
causing fear for companies' conduct in Europe, but they also weigh
heavy on court resources. The complexity of these suits and the
simple allocation of court resources to oversee class members,
manage the litigation process and ensure appropriate distribution
of settlement or judgment will be a huge new strain on European
courts and law firms.

This is especially true given that the latest EU class-action
regime doesn't actually create new corresponding courts. Instead,
EU members are directed to create legislation enabling suits within
existing court structures. Beyond the strain on EU member courts,
who are not as familiar with the aggressive U.S.-style class-action
suits, companies are still grappling with how suits in Europe will
affect their current conduct and exposure. Similar to the courts,
companies operating in Europe are either unfamiliar with the
magnitude of U.S.-style class actions, or they previously found
comfort in operating without the risk of these suits.

The outcome of this case, therefore, might not be as simple as
finding and addressing corporate wrongdoing in Amazon's practices
(again or for the first time -- pending the outcome of the 2021
fine and appeal). Instead, considering that this case represents
roughly 5 million Amazon account holders, the risk of waves of
similar class-action suits might be too great for European courts
at this time.

On top of the risk of court resources, companies across Europe will
also need to weigh the cost of continuing business practices as
they stand with the risk of reputational harm and monetary fines
from class-action suits, as well as the cost of complying with the
data protection regulations against their ad revenue. While
emboldening consumers, new class-action legislation will start to
pinch courts and companies alike.

All this to say: The outcome of this case will offer insights into
future implications for both businesses, mainly massive
corporations, and the EU's legal system as it navigates the
evolving terrain of modern consumer protection and class-action
litigation. Clearly passed to protect and offer consumers
aggressive redress for corporate harm, the EU legislation risks
biting off more than it can chew without adequate court resources.


Compliance officers across Europe for now have the ability to weigh
these risks before additional waves of class-action come.
Ultimately, though, compliance departments and businesses worldwide
will find some direction as they seek to tie all loose ends (or put
out fires) by watching Amazon deal first hand with Europe's newest
class-action legislation. The outcome of this battle for consumers'
rights against court resources and company profits might
simultaneously rely on and decide the future of European consumer
data privacy protection. [GN]

AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Faces Picciotti Suit Over Concealed Ticket Fees
------------------------------------------------------------------
VIVIAN PICCIOTTI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMC ENTERTAINMENT HOLDINGS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00110 (S.D.N.Y., January 5, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of the New York
Arts and Cultural Affairs Law.

The case arises from the Defendant's failure to disclose the total
cost of its tickets, including AMC's convenience fees, throughout
the online ticket purchase process in violation of the New York
Arts & Cultural Affairs Law.

AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc. is an entertainment company, with
its principal place of business in 11500 Ash St. Leawood, Kansas.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
         BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
         1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
         New York, NY 10019
         Telephone: (646) 837-7150
         Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
         E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com

                 - and -

         Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq.
         BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
         1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
         Walnut Creek, CA 94596
         Telephone: (925) 300-4455
         Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
         E-mail: sbogdanovich@bursor.com

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Debit Card Users' Class Action Can Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------
PYMNTS reports that debit card users in nearly a dozen states have
been granted the ability to pursue class-action claims against
American Express.

This follows a Tuesday (Jan. 9) ruling by U.S. District Judge
Nicholas Garaufis, Reuters reported Wednesday (Jan. 10).

The lawsuit accuses the company of driving up merchants' fees on
transactions, resulting in consumers paying hundreds of millions of
dollars in overcharges, according to the report.

Reached by PYMNTS, an American Express spokesperson declined to
comment on the report.

While credit card users were denied class-action status, this
ruling is the latest development in the ongoing litigation over
rules that restrict merchants from "steering," or encouraging
consumers to use certain cards, according to the report.

The class certified by Garaufis includes debit card users from
Illinois, Ohio, North Carolina and other states, as well as the
District of Columbia, the report said.

The plaintiffs contend that American Express' alleged restraints on
merchants accepting its cards led to higher prices for consumers at
popular retailers such as Ikea, Target, CVS and Dick's Sporting
Goods, per the report.

The lawsuit claims that these restrictions caused consumers to pay
inflated prices, resulting in overcharges amounting to more than
$319 million, according to the report.

While debit card users were granted class-action status, credit
card users were denied the same status, the report said. Garaufis
determined that the inclusion of credit card reward programs and
other variables introduced too many differences among potential
class members.

The judge's ruling did not address the merits of the plaintiffs'
claims, leaving the possibility of future dismissal, per the
report.

In another recent development around claims of steering, a
class-action lawsuit was filed against PayPal in October, alleging
that the company engaged in anti-competitive practices that
resulted in higher prices for consumers during eCommerce
transactions.

The lawsuit claimed that the anti-steering rules of the eCommerce
payment supplier and owner of Venmo stifled competition and
prevented merchants from discounting products purchased with
lower-cost payment options.

Reached for comment by PYMNTS at the time, a PayPal spokesperson
provided a statement: "PayPal continues to put our customers first
in everything that we do, and we take this responsibility
seriously." [GN]

ANASTASIA IVLEEVA: Moscow Court Dismisses Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
WFIN reports that a court in Moscow on Jan. 10 rejected a
class-action lawsuit against a Russian TV presenter that sought $11
million in moral damages after she hosted a party where guests were
encouraged to show up wearing next to nothing.

The suit against Anastasia Ivleeva was one element of a scandal
that erupted after her bash at a Moscow nightclub last month. A
well-known rapper who attended wearing only a sock around his
genitals and two on his feet was sent to jail.

Public denunciation of the party reflected the rise of fiercely
conservative sentiment in Russia amid President Vladimir Putin's
accusations against the West for trying to undermine "traditional
values" and the nationalism intensified by Russia's war in
Ukraine.

Invitations to Ivleeva's party described the dress code as "almost
naked." Photos from the party circulated on social media.
Conservative legislators, bloggers and others unleashed a storm of
criticism, contending the images were unseemly, even unpatriotic,
for a country embroiled in war.

In the wake of the outrage, several of Russia's biggest pop-culture
figures have issued public statements seeking forgiveness for
attending the bash.

The rapper Vacio, whose legal name is Nikolai Vasiliyev, was
sentenced to 15 days in jail for disorderly conduct and fined
200,000 rubles ($22,000) for allegedly spreading "LGBTQ propaganda"
in a video. He was to be released on Saturday, but was handed a
second sentence of 10 days.

He also was summoned to report to a military recruitment center, a
member of Russia's Public Monitoring Committee said.

The Moscow district court rejected the lawsuit against Ivleeva on
jurisdictional grounds, saying there is no record of her living in
the district.

It was unclear if the plaintiffs would try to file it elsewhere.

The suit called for the damages to be paid into a fund supporting
soldiers fighting in Ukraine.

Also on Jan. 10, another Moscow court ordered the nightclub where
the party was held closed on the grounds of violating sanitary
regulations. [GN]

AON RISK: Skinner Insurance Suit Removed from Cir. Ct. to E.D. Wis.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as SHANE SKINNER and SAMANTHA
SKINNER v. AON RISK SERVICES CENTRAL, INC., Case No. 2023CV008951
(Filed Nov. 29, 2023), was removed from the Circuit Court for
Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, to the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on Jan. 2, 2024.

The Wisconsin Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-00003-JPS to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs allege that they "had purchased travel insurance
from Defendant" to cover "flight disruptions due to a winter
storm," but after they filed a claim for benefits related to their
flight cancellations, Aon Risk "steadfastly denied the claim on the
basis that the delays were not the result of inclement weather."
The Plaintiffs dispute this claim determination, and contend that
the "Defendant has denied the claims of all travel insurance
customers that filed a claim for reimbursement due to the Southwest
inclement weather disruption identified above."

The suit asserts counts for breach of contract and bad faith. The
Plaintiffs assert that Aon Risk failed to properly and timely
adjust the claim, conduct a diligent investigation, relay accurate
information concerning the terms and conditions of the policy, and
breached certain express and implied duties to the Plaintiffs and
putative class. The Plaintiffs further contend that the Defendant
has breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by
intentionally or recklessly disregarding evidence to support the
underlying insurance claim and resolving uncertainties against its
insureds in order to deny coverage and that the Defendant failed to
proceed on the Plaintiffs' and putative class's subject insurance
claim in a manner that is honest and informed and has acted in bad
faith.

The Complaint alleges a nationwide class defined as follows:

       All persons who, a) who purchased travel insurance from
       the Defendant, b) had their travel plans adversely impacted

       by Winter Storm Elliott, c) filed a claim for reimbursement

       from the Defendant, and d) were denied coverage by the
       Defendant, within the one year preceding this case through
       the date of class certification, e) and who have not filed
       for relief under the United States Bankruptcy Code.

The Plaintiffs seek on behalf of themselves and the putative
nationwide class "all losses due and owing under the policy, all
other compensatory and pecuniary losses, attorney fees and costs,
and punitive damages."

Plaintiffs Shane Skinner and Samantha Skinner were domiciled and
residing in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin at the time the complaint
was filed.

Aon Risk provides retail insurance brokerage and risk management
services.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Stephen E. Kravit, Esq.
          Aaron H. Aizenberg, Esq.
          KRAVIT, HOVEL & KRAWCZYK S.C.
          825 North Jefferson Street - Fifth Floor
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          Telephone: (414) 271-7100
          Facsimile: (414) 271-8135
          E-mail: kravit@kravitlaw.com
                  aha@kravitlaw.com

APTDECO INC: Nelson Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
------------------------------------------------------
Vonda Nelson, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated in
the proposed FLSA Collective Action, Plaintiff v. AptDeco, Inc.,
Reham Fagiri, and Kalam Dennis, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-10816
(S.D.N.Y., Dec. 13, 2023) is a class action brought by the
Plaintiff, seeking recovery, for herself and all other similarly
situated individuals, against Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, and violations of Articles 6 and 19 of the New
York Labor Law and NYLL's Wage Theft Prevention Act.

The complaint alleges the Defendants' failure to pay overtime
wages, failure to provide wage notices, failure to furnish wage
statements, and unlawful deductions from tips.

Plaintiff Nelson was employed by the Defendants as a delivery
driver from June 2021 to, through and including, October 2021.

AptDeco, Inc. is an online marketplace for buying and selling used,
new and vintage furniture and decor.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Mizrahi, Esq.
          Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
          LEVIN-EPSTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4700
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 792-0048
          E-mail: Jason@levinepstein.com

ARIZONA ASSOCIATION: Masiello Alleges Real Estate Market Conspiracy
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Masiello, individually, and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Arizona Association of Realtors; The Phoenix
Board of Realtors, Inc., d/b/a The Phoenix Association of Realtors;
Scottsdale Area Association of Realtors; West and Southeast
Realtors of the Valley, Inc.; Tucson Association of Realtors, Inc.;
HomeSmart Holdings, Inc.; My Home Group, LLC; Realty One Group
Arizona, Inc.; West USA Realty, Inc.; Hague Partners Holdings, LLC;
Realty Executives, LLC; Valley Metro Investments, Inc., d/b/a
Arizona Best Real Estate; Corduroy IP, LLC, d/b/a North&Co.;
Silverleaf Realty, LLC; Retsy, LLC; Walt Danley Realty, LLC, d/b/a
Walty Danley Local Luxury, Christie’s International Real Estate;
Bortlock, LLC, d/b/a The Brokery; Roy H. Long Realty Company, Inc.,
d/b/a Long Realty; Tierra Antigua Realty, LLC., Defendants, Case
No. 2:24-cv-00045-JZB (D. Ariz., January 5, 2024) alleges
conspiracy among Defendants to implement and enforce
anticompetitive restraints in the residential real estate market.
Plaintiff claims that the Defendants violated the federal and state
antitrust laws.

Specifically, rules created by the National Association of REALTORS
(NAR) -- and implemented and enforced by Defendants in Arizona --
compel home sellers to pay inflated commissions to the home buyer's
broker, even though the buyer's broker does not represent the
seller. Further, NAR rules stifle negotiation over buyer-broker
commissions, fixing the commissions at an inflated rate regardless
of the experience or actual services rendered by the buyer broker,
says the suit.

Arizona Association of REALTORS is Arizona's largest trade
organization with a membership of over 55,000 real estate
professionals. The organization aims to lobby for policies that
benefit realtors and provide educational and professional
development opportunities for its members. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
          Ryan J. Ellersick, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
          14648 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 130
          Scottsdale, AZ 85254
          Telephone: (480) 348-6400
          E-mail: hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com
                  ryan.ellersick@zimmreed.com

                  - and -

          David M. Cialkowski, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
          80 S 8th Street, 1100 IDS Center
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 341-0400
          Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
          E-mail: david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com

                 - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
          Daniel J. Nordin, Esq.
          Mary M. Nikolai, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
                  dnordin@gustafsongluek.com
                  mnikolai@gustafsongluek.com

ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: Shapiro Sues Over Stock Price's Precipitous Drop
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PERRY SHAPIRO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ASSERTIO HOLDINGS, INC., DAN PEISERT, and
PAUL SCHWICHTENBERG, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00169 (N.D. Ill.,
January 5, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding Assertio's business,
operations, and prospects in order to trade Assertio securities at
artificially inflated prices between March 9, 2023 and November 8,
2023. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (i) the company's reliance on Indocin products to boost its
net income was unsustainable given the risk of generic competition;
(ii) the Spectrum Acquisition was less valuable than Assertio had
represented to investors; (iii) accordingly, Assertio had
overstated the positive impact the sale of Indocin products and the
Spectrum Acquisition were likely to have on the company's
profitability; and (iv) as a result, the Defendants' public
statements were materially false and/or misleading at all relevant
times.

When the truth emerged, the price of Assertio's stock declined
$2.44 per share, or 45.6 percent, to close at $2.91 per share on
August 4, 2023. The price of Assertio's stock continued to decline
$0.92 per share, or 43.19 percent, to close at $1.21 per share on
November 9, 2023 and $0.12 per share, or 10.96 percent, to close at
$1.01 per share on January 4, 2024.

As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, which
caused the precipitous decline in the market value of the company's
securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant damages, says the suit.

Assertio Holdings, Inc. is a pharmaceutical company, with principal
executive offices located at 100 S. Saunders Road, Suite 300, Lake
Forest, Illinois. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         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

BEST BUY: Dean Sues Over Sale of Defective Pressure Cookers
-----------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE DEAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BEST BUY CO., INC., Defendant, Case No.
4:24-cv-00007-WMR (N.D. Ga., January 5, 2024) arises from the
Defendant's breach of its duties and obligations of ensuring its
product to be safe and free from any defects. Plaintiff asserts
several claims against the Defendant, including breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, negligent
design defect, and for violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated persons who purchased any of these models of
Insignia: NS-MC60SS8, NS-MC60SS9, NS-MC80SS9, NS-MCRP6NS9,
NS-MCRP6SS9. The said pressure cookers have dangerously defective
and/or incorrect volume markings on the inner pot. The defect can
cause consumers to overfill the pot resulting in hot food and
liquids being ejected when the pressure cooker is vented using the
quick release method or opened while its contents are pressurized,
posing a burn hazard to consumers, says the Plaintiff.

Best Buy Co., Inc. is engaged in the retailing business of consumer
electronics, home office products, entertainment software,
appliances, and related services. The company also designs,
manufactures, markets, imports, distributes and sells consumer
electronics and kitchen products, including "Insignia
Multi-Function Pressure Cooker." [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brent Michael Kaufman, Esq.
          Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
          Blake G. Abbott, Esq.
          POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC
          32 Ann Street
          Charleston, SC 29403
          Telephone: (803) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (843) 494-5536
          E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com
                  blake.abbott@poulinwilley.com
                  brent.kaufman@poulinwilley.com

BIOXCEL THERAPEUTICS: Faces Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Vomvolakis, derivatively on behalf of Nominal Defendant
BIOXCEL THERAPEUTICS, INC. v. VIMAL MEHTA, RICHARD I. STEINHART,
PETER MUELLER, JUNE BRAY, SANDEEP LAUMAS, MICHAEL MILLER, MICHAL
VOTRUBA, AND KRISHNAN NANDABALAN, and BIOXCEL THERAPEUTICS, INC.,
Case No. 3:24-cv-00003 (D. Conn., Jan. 2, 2024) is a shareholder
derivative action that seeks to remedy wrongdoing committed by
BioXcel directors and officers from December 15, 2021 through the
present and to recover the excessive and unfair compensation they
have awarded to themselves in breach of their fiduciary duties, and
to set meaningful limits and controls on their ability to do so
going forward.

BioXcel's net revenue was $0 in 2021 and $375,000 for the full year
2022. Despite this lack of revenue in 2021, BioXcel's average total
compensation per non-employee director, excluding Defendant
Krishnan Nandabalan, was $612,952.75. The Company's lead and only
product derived from the BXCL501 molecule is sold and marketed
under its brand name IGALMI, which achieved FDA-approval in July
2022 to treat schizophrenia and bipolar disorder patients.
Piggybacking on its approval for a drug derived from the BXCL501
molecule, BioXcel sought to launch another new indication of
BXCL501 to treat Alzheimer's disease related agitation, says the
suit.

BioXcel is a fledgling New Haven, Connecticut based
biopharmaceutical company surviving solely on one commercial
product derived from the BXCL501 molecule utilizing artificial
intelligence approaches to develop transformative medicines in
neuroscience and immuno-oncology.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Fletcher Moore, Esq.
          MOORE LAW, PLLC
          30 Wall Street, 8th Floor
          New York, New York 10005
          Telephone: (212) 709-8245
          E-mail: fletcher@fmoorelaw.com

               - and -

          Lee Squitieri, Esq.
          SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
          305 Broadway, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 421-6492
          E-mail: lee@sfclasslaw.com

BLUE BUFFALO: Price Files False Ad Suit Over Pet Food Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
DENISE PRICE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE BLUE BUFFALO COMPANY, LTD., Defendant,
Case No. 1:23-cv-11096 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 21, 2023) assert claims for
Defendant's alleged violations of New York General Business Law and
for breach of express warranty for marketing its wet and dry pet
food in a misleading manner by misrepresenting that many of its
products are "natural."

According to the complaint, the Defendant clearly claims the
products are "natural" on the label, capitalizing on the preference
of health-conscious pet owners to purchase pet food that is free
from synthetic ingredients. However, Defendant's products contain
multiple synthetic ingredients.

As a result of its deceptive conduct, Defendant violates state
consumer protection statutes and has been unjustly enriched at the
expense of consumers, says the suit.

Plaintiff Price has purchased the products for personal use at
various times during the applicable statute of limitations.

The Blue Buffalo Company, Ltd. advertises, markets, manufactures,
distributes, and sells the pet food products throughout the United
States, including in the State of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

CITRIX SYSTEMS: Nunn Sues Over Privacy Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDER W. NUNN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CITRIX SYSTEMS, INC. and COMCAST CABLE
COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 0:24-cv-60029-KMW (S.D.
Fla., January 5, 2024) arises out of the recent cyberattack and
data breach resulting from Defendants' failure to implement
reasonable and industry standard data security practices and
asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied
contract, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, unjust
enrichment, and for violations of the the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices.

Among other things, Plaintiff Nunn alleges that the Defendants
breached their duties to Plaintiff and Class Members under the
Federal Trade Commission Act by failing to provide fair,
reasonable, or adequate computer systems and data security
practices to safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally
identifiable information.

Citrix is a Florida-based software corporation that provides
software products and services to its clients. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Alexandra Warren, Esq.
         Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
         Brendan Thompson, Esq.
         CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
         4725 Wisconsin Avenue NW Suite 200
         Washington, DC 20016
         Telephone: (202) 789-3960
         E-mail: awarren@cuneolaw.com
                 charles@cuneolaw.com
                 brendant@cuneolaw.com

                 - and -

         Charles Barrett, Esq.
         Daniella Bhadare-Valente, Esq.
         Morgan L. Burkett, Esq.
         NEAL & HARWELL, PLC
         1201 Demonbreun St. Suite 1000
         Nashville, TN 37203
         Telephone: (615) 244-1713
         E-mail: cbarrett@nealharwell.com
                 dbhadare-valente@nealharwell.com
                 mburkett@nealharwell.com

DADA NEXUS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 11
------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Jan. 10
disclosed that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Dada Nexus Limited (NASDAQ: DADA)
between May 11, 2023 and January 8, 2024, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Dada
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Dada class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=21670 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action.

According to the lawsuit, defendants throughout the Class Period
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (1) Dada revenues from online advertising, marketing
services, and operations and support costs were materially
overstated; (2) as a result, Dada would need to conduct an
independent review to ascertain the financial impact and the scope
of suspicious practices that led to overstated revenues and costs;
and (3) as a result, defendants' statements about its business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than March 11,
2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=21670 or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or
cases@rosenlegal.com.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN
ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S
ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT
UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF.

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1
by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities
class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the
top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest
ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company.
Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous
independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured
hundreds of millions of dollars for investors.

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

CONTACT:

Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40thFloor
New York, NY 10016

Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827

lrosen@rosenlegal.com
pkim@rosenlegal.com
cases@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]

DELAWARE LIFE: McClendon Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN MCCLENDON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DELAWARE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. 1:23-cv-13095-JCB (D. Mass., Dec. 14, 2023) is a class
action against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and
safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' personally identifiable
information stored within Defendant's information network.

On no later than February 9, 2023, upon information and belief,
unauthorized third-party cybercriminals gained access to
Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII as hosted with Defendant, with
the intent of engaging in the misuse of the PII, including
marketing and selling Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII.

According to the complaint, the Defendant disregarded the rights of
Plaintiff and Class Members by intentionally, willfully,
recklessly, or negligently failing to take and implement adequate
and reasonable measures to ensure that Plaintiff's and Class
Members' PII was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to
prevent unauthorized disclosure of data, and failing to follow
applicable, required and appropriate protocols, policies and
procedures regarding the encryption of data, even for internal use.


As a result, the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members was compromised
through disclosure to an unknown and unauthorized third party -- an
undoubtedly nefarious third party that seeks to profit off this
disclosure by defrauding Plaintiff and Class Members in the future,
says the suit.

Delaware Life Insurance Company is an insurance and annuity
provider with principal place of business located in Waltham,
Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James J. Reardon, Esq.
          REARDON SCANLON LLP
          45 South Main Street, 3rd Floor
          West Hartford, CT 06107
          Telephone: (860) 955-9455
          E-mail: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com

               - and -

          Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
          LAUKAITIS LAW LLC
          954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, #10518
          San Juan, PR 00907
          Telephone: (215) 789-4462
          E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com

DERMATOLOGY AND COSMETIC: Patients Sue Over Surgery Malpractice
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maddens Lawyers have commenced a class action against Dermatology
and Cosmetic Surgery Services Pty Ltd (DCSS) and the following
doctors (defendants):

   -- Dr Daniel Lanzer
   -- Dr Daniel Aronov
   -- Dr Daniel Darbyshire
   -- Dr Ryan Wells
   -- Dr Alieza Fallahi (Dr Ali)

The class action has been commenced in the Victorian Supreme Court
on behalf of all patients who have suffered loss or damage because
of cosmetic surgery being performed at DCSS or by one or more of
the defendants. The class action alleges that each of the
defendants engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct. It is also
alleged that cosmetic surgeries were not undertaken with an
appropriate level of care and skill.

Hundreds of patients of DCSS have reported devastating experiences
and outcomes in connection with cosmetic surgery procedures such
as:

   -- inadequate pre surgery consultations
   -- botched results
   -- a lack or complete absence of after care
   -- psychological trauma
   -- lasting physical deformities
   -- nerve pain
   -- numbness.

There is a range of procedures patients have undertaken such as:

   -- liposuction (including '360 lipo' and 'mega lipo')
   -- otoplasty
   -- face lifts
   -- tummy tucks
   -- BBLs
   -- treatments for lipodemia
   -- breast augmentation
   -- liposculpture.

Any patient who has had an adverse outcome as a result of their
cosmetic surgery at DCSS or by one of the defendants may be
eligible to participate in the class action. Patients are
encouraged to contact Maddens Lawyers to discuss their
circumstances, confidentially and with no obligation.

Maddens Lawyers is advancing the class action on a 'no win, no fee'
basis. [GN]

E.I. DU PONT: Faces Bell Suit Over Contaminated Drinking Water
--------------------------------------------------------------
DARWIN BELL and DAVINA BELL v. E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY
and THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, Case No. 2:24-cv-00007-EAS-EPD (S.D.
Ohio, Jan. 2, 2024) is a civil action for equitable relief,
compensatory and punitive damages, costs incurred and to be
incurred by the Plaintiffs and Class members, and any other damages
which the Court or jury may deem appropriate for bodily injury and
property damage arising from the intentional, knowing, reckless and
negligent acts and omissions of the Defendants in connection with
contamination of human drinking water supplies used by the
Plaintiff Darwin Bell.

As a result of the Defendant's negligent, improper, inadequate,
inappropriate and/or otherwise unlawful conduct in its ownership,
operation, maintenance, management and/or control of the Plant,
Plaintiffs have suffered injuries for which they seek redress and
damages. Additionally, the Defendant's acts and/or omissions which
give rise to injuries and damages alleged were substantially
conducted within the state and have caused tortious injury to the
Plaintiff as well as thousands of other similarly situated Leach
class members in the state who were exposed to the C8 contaminated
water which the Defendant released, says the suit.

The Defendant owned, operated, maintained, managed and/or otherwise
controlled a manufacturing facility in Wood County, West Virginia,
known as the "Washington Works Plant".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jon C. Conlin, Esq.
          F. Jerome Tapley, Esq.
          Mitchell Theodore, Esq.
          Brett Thompson, Esq.
          CORY WATSON, P.C.
          2131 Magnolia Ave., Suite 200
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: 205-328-2200
          Facsimile: 205-324-7896
          E-mail: jconlin@corywatson.com
                  jtapley@corywatson.com
                  mtheodore@corywatson.com
                  bthompson@corywatson.com

E.I. DU PONT: Faces Class Suit Over Contaminated Drinking Water
---------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID WASHINGTON and SHEILA WASHINGTON v. E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY and THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, Case No. 2:24-cv-00003
(S.D.W. Va., Jan. 2, 2024) is a civil action for equitable relief,
compensatory and punitive damages, costs incurred and to be
incurred by the Plaintiffs, and any other damages which the Court
or jury may deem appropriate for bodily injury and property damage
arising from the intentional, knowing, reckless and negligent acts
and omissions of the Defendants in connection with contamination of
human drinking water supplies used by the Plaintiff Darwin Bell.

As a result of the Defendant's negligent, improper, inadequate,
inappropriate and/or otherwise unlawful conduct in its ownership,
operation, maintenance, management and/or control of the Plant,
Plaintiffs have suffered injuries for which they seek redress and
damages.

Additionally, the Defendant's acts and/or omissions which give rise
to injuries and damages alleged were substantially conducted within
the state and have caused tortious injury to the Plaintiff as well
as thousands of other similarly situated Leach class members in the
state who were exposed to the C8 contaminated water which the
Defendant released, says the suit.

The Defendant owned, operated, maintained, managed and/or otherwise
controlled a manufacturing facility in Wood County, West Virginia,
known as the "Washington Works Plant".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jon C. Conlin, Esq.
          F. Jerome Tapley, Esq.
          Mitchell Theodore, Esq.
          Brett Thompson, Esq.
          CORY WATSON, P.C.
          2131 Magnolia Ave., Suite 200
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: 205-328-2200
          Facsimile: 205-324-7896
          E-mail: jconlin@corywatson.com
                  jtapley@corywatson.com
                  mtheodore@corywatson.com
                  bthompson@corywatson.com

E.I. DU PONT: Faces Wickline Suit Over Contaminated Drinking Water
------------------------------------------------------------------
BEVERLEE WICKLINE v. E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY and THE
CHEMOURS COMPANY, Case No. 2:24-cv-00005-EAS-EPD (S.D. Ohio, Jan.
2, 2024) is a civil action for equitable relief, compensatory and
punitive damages, costs incurred and to be incurred by the
Plaintiffs and Class members, and any other damages which the Court
or jury may deem appropriate for bodily injury and property damage
arising from the intentional, knowing, reckless and negligent acts
and omissions of the Defendants in connection with contamination of
human drinking water supplies used by the Plaintiff Darwin Bell.

As a result of the Defendant's negligent, improper, inadequate,
inappropriate and/or otherwise unlawful conduct in its ownership,
operation, maintenance, management and/or control of the Plant,
Plaintiffs have suffered injuries for which they seek redress and
damages. Additionally, the Defendant's acts and/or omissions which
give rise to injuries and damages alleged were substantially
conducted within the state and have caused tortious injury to the
Plaintiff as well as thousands of other similarly situated Leach
class members in the state who were exposed to the C8 contaminated
water which the Defendant released, says the suit.

The Defendant owned, operated, maintained, managed and/or otherwise
controlled a manufacturing facility in Wood County, West Virginia,
known as the "Washington Works Plant".[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jon C. Conlin, Esq.
          F. Jerome Tapley, Esq.
          Mitchell Theodore, Esq.
          Brett Thompson, Esq.
          CORY WATSON, P.C.
          2131 Magnolia Ave., Suite 200
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: 205-328-2200
          Facsimile: 205-324-7896
          E-mail: jconlin@corywatson.com
                  jtapley@corywatson.com
                  mtheodore@corywatson.com
                  bthompson@corywatson.com

EAST RIVER MEDICAL: Kuecher Sues Over Failure to Protect Info
-------------------------------------------------------------
RACHAEL KUECHER, on behalf of herself individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EAST RIVER MEDICAL
IMAGING, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 162080/2023 (N.Y. Sup., New York
Cty., Dec. 13, 2023) is a complaint brought by the Plaintiff
against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard
the sensitive information that it collected and maintained as part
of its regular business practices, including, but not limited to
names, contact information, Social Security numbers ("personally
identifying information") and medical treatment information, which
is protected health information as defined by the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act of 1996.

This class action arises from the recent cyberattack and data
breach resulting from East River's failure to implement reasonable
and industry standard data security practices. By obtaining,
collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Private
Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant assumed legal
and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard
that information from unauthorized access and intrusion, says the
suit.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to adequately
protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information -- and
failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information.
This unencrypted, unredacted private information was compromised
due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and
their utter failure to protect patients' and employees' sensitive
data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members'
private information because of its value in exploiting and stealing
the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and
continuing risk to victims of the data breach will remain for their
respective lifetimes, the suit contends.

East River Medical Imaging, P.C. is a privately owned, independent,
multi-modality radiology center in New York City on the Upper East
Side of Manhattan and in White Plains, Westchester County.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vicki J. Maniatis, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (212) 594-5300
          E-mail: vmaniatis@milberg.com

               - and -

          David K. Lietz, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
          5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW
          Washington, D.C. 20015-2052
          Telephone: (866) 252-0878
          Facsimile: (202) 686-2877
          E-mail: dlietz@milberg.com

ESTEE LAUDER: Averts Class Action Over Virtual "Try-on" Tool
------------------------------------------------------------
Diana Novak Jones, writing for Reuters, reports that Estee Lauder
and several of its well-known cosmetics brands on Jan. 10 dodged a
proposed class action claiming its virtual "try-on" tool violates
Illinois' biometric privacy law, after a judge said the plaintiffs
provided no proof that the company could connect facial scans to
customers' identities.

U.S. District Judge Lindsay Jenkins in Chicago granted Estee Lauder
Companies' motion to dismiss the lawsuit, brought under a stringent
Illinois biometric privacy law that sets standards for companies
collecting and storing information like retina scans, facial
geometry and fingerprints. The judge's decision said the customers
could file an amended complaint.

The lawsuit accused Estee Lauder and its brands Bobbi Brown,
Smashbox and Too Faced of failing to warn customers that their
biometric information would be collected when they used tools on
the companies' websites that allow people to submit a photo or use
a live camera feed to virtually "try on" cosmetics. The lawsuit
also named Perfect Corp, a Taiwanese company that makes the
technology in question.

Jenkins said the four customers who brought the lawsuit hadn't
shown how Estee Lauder could connect the facial scans the virtual
try-on widgets collect to a person's actual identity. She also
dismissed Perfect from the lawsuit, saying the company lacked
sufficient ties to Illinois to be sued there.

Representatives for the customers, Estee Lauder and Perfect did not
immediately respond to requests for comment. [GN]

EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Faces Price-Fixing Class Action in Washington
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rachel Riley, writing for Law360, reports that Cigna's pharmacy
benefit manager Express Scripts was slapped with a proposed class
action in Washington federal court on Jan. 10 by several locally
owned pharmacies who say it conspired with lesser rivals to deflate
reimbursement rates paid for prescription drugs and boost service
fees. [GN]

FLY JAMAICA: Class Action Over Guyana Crash Settled for $5MM
------------------------------------------------------------
Abby O'Brien, writing for CTV News, reports that passengers onboard
a flight to Toronto that crashed in Guyana in 2019 have agreed to a
$5 million settlement after filing a class-action lawsuit against
the airline and airplane manufacturer.

On Jan. 10, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice approved a
settlement of $5.55 million to be awarded to 84 class-action
members, made up of passengers and their families. Individual
class-action members can expect to receive $8,000 to $225,000 each,
depending on the severity of harm they suffered.

Fly Jamaica Flight OJ256 crashed on Nov. 9, 2018 with 120
passengers and eight crew members onboard.

Heading for Toronto from Timehri, Guyana, it departed just after 1
a.m. Those onboard claim it left about 40 minutes late after the
crew identified an issue with the aircraft's front door.

Approximately 20 minutes into the flight, court documents say the
pilot informed passengers that the aircraft was returning to Guyana
due to a "hydraulic problem." According to one passenger affidavit,
"nothing further" was communicated regarding the issue and they
were not informed of any sort of emergency.

As it attempted to land at the Timehri airport, "the aircraft
skidded violently past the end of the runway, through a perimeter
fence, and over a sand berm, ripping off its right-hand main
landing gear and its right-hand engine," the affidavit reads.

"The passenger cabin went dark and ceiling panels came loose
falling on several passengers along with other debris, injuring
them," the document reads.

The passengers, many of whom were crying and screaming, reported a
"chaotic" evacuation from the plane, which at that point had begun
to fill with dark smoke, according to the lawsuit.

Many of the 120 people on board suffered injuries and one
passenger, an 86-year-old woman, died in the week following the
crash.

After disembarking, the passenger claimed it took nearly three
hours for medical aid to arrive, during which they were forced to
wait on the tarmac in the dark. It wasn't until eight hours after
the crash that they were able to speak to an airline representative
and given access to the airport restaurant, the lawsuit claims.

Fly Jamaica Airways ceased operations in 2021 after declaring
bankruptcy. CTV News Toronto reached out to legal representation
for the former airline, along with Boeing, for further comment but
did not receive a response from either by publication.

In an affadavit sworn to the court, one passenger said the crash
has significantly impacted his quality of life.

"I continue to suffer from neck pain, shoulder pain, right foot
pain, lower back pain, PTSD, anxiety, and depression," he wrote.
"My stress and anxiety have impacted my relationship with [my
family], as well as my ability to fly or travel."

Within a few weeks of the crash, two class-action lawsuits were
filed against Fly Jamaica, Boeing, and an unidentified aircraft
mechanic on behalf of four passengers from the Toronto area. The
lawsuits eventually proceeded as a single action. The lawsuit
alleged the parties were liable for negligence, that the aircraft
was in disrepair when it took off, and that the crew had failed to
anticipate and properly declare an emergency.

On Jan. 11, Valérie Lord, a lawyer representing some of the
passengers, said the case "exemplifies why class actions remain an
important mechanism for access to justice for Canadians."

"We worked very hard to ensure that the agreement would leave no
class member uncompensated or undercompensated. Ultimately, the
funds provide recovery to real people with legitimate injuries,"
she said.

Out of the 120 passengers onboard, 31 settled directly with Fly
Jamaica Airways, and 5 opted out of this action. The remaining 84
were designated as class-action members. [GN]

FOX BUILDING: Misclassifies Laborers, Vega Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------
DARWIN JIMENEZ VEGA, WILMER ORELLANA, DAVID AGUILERA ALVAREZ,
ROBINSON AGUILERA RIVAS, OLVAN CRUZ MEJIA, EDWIN GARCIA MOLINA,
JECSON GONZALEZ MACHADO, GERMAN HERNANDEZ CASTRO, CLAUDIA ORELLANA
GOMEZ, JONATHAN CASTILLO LOPEZ, FRANKLIN LAINEZ ORDONEZ, THE ESTATE
OF MELVIN ORELLANA, JOSE LAINEZ, JUNIOR GONZALEZ, LUIS ORELLANA
MARTINEZ, Individually, and on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FOX BUILDING GROUP, INC., FENIX
FINISHING, LLC, VEGA'S DRYWALL CONTRACTING, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 3:23-cv-00852 (E.D. Va., Dec. 14, 2023) is a collective and
class action suit against the Defendants for unpaid overtime and
misclassification in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and
the Virginia Overtime Wage Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants violated FLSA by failing
to pay the correct overtime to Plaintiffs and the Putative
Collective Members when they worked over 40 hours in individual
workweeks. The Plaintiffs and others similarly situated, were
misclassified as independent contractors by Defendants despite not
meeting the "Internal Revenue Service guidelines" for evaluating
independent contractor status in violation of the state law, says
the suit.

The Plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals were hired
to work as laborers for Fox through labor brokers Fenix and Vega's.


Fox Building Group, Inc. is a construction company based in
Onondaga County, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq.
          Zev H. Antell, Esq.
          Samantha R. Galina, Esq.
          BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC
          140 Virginia Street, Suite 302
          Richmond, VA 23219
          Telephone: (804) 648-4848
          Facsimile: (804) 237-0413
          E-mail: craig@butlercurwood.com
                  zev@butlercurwood.com
                  samantha@butlercurwood.com

GIORDANO'S OF KISSIMMEE: Faces Palmquist Suit Over Tip Credit
-------------------------------------------------------------
JACOB PALMQUIST, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GIORDANO'S OF KISSIMMEE, LLC d/b/a
GIORDANO'S, Defendant, Case No. 6:23-cv-02386 (M.D. Fla., Dec. 13,
2023) is a collective and class action brought by the Plaintiff
under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Florida Minimum Wage Act,
and the Florida Constitution arising from the Defendant's unlawful
labor practices.

According to the complaint, the Defendant committed federal and
state minimum wage violations because it (1) failed to provide
servers and bartenders with state and federally mandated notice of
tip credit requirements; (2) claimed a tip credit for all hours
servers and bartenders worked, including workweeks wherein the
total amount of time that servers and bartenders spent performing
non-tipped duties and side work was at or in excess of 20% of all
of the total work performed; and (3) claimed a tip credit during
shifts when servers and bartenders were required to spend more than
30 continuous minutes on side work and other non-tipped duties. As
a result, Plaintiff and all similarly situated servers and
bartenders have been denied federal and state minimum wages during
various workweeks within the relevant time period, says the suit.

The Plaintiff and the FLSA putative collective members are/were
restaurant servers and bartenders who worked for Defendant within
the last three years at its restaurant located in Kissimmee,
Florida.

Giordano's of Kissimmee, LLC owns, operates, and controls a
restaurant doing business as Giordano's.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan Richards, Esq.
          Michael Miller, Esq.
          USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
          1800 SE 10th Ave, Suite 205
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (954) 871-0050

GOURMET CLUB: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Stroude Says
------------------------------------------------------------
COLETTE STROUDE, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GOURMET CLUB INDIA, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-00022 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 2, 2024) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

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

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

GOURMET CLUB INDIA, INC. operates as a restaurant serving authentic
Indian food. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

HEALTH-ADE LLC: Faces Class Action Over PFAs in Kombucha Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Clark Mindock, writing for Reuters, reports that beverage maker
Health-Ade has been hit with a proposed class action lawsuit
alleging several of the company's kombucha products contain toxic
"forever chemicals."

Alanna Morton, a New York resident, filed the lawsuit on Jan. 9 in
Manhattan federal court, claiming the company misleadingly marketed
and advertised its kombucha as a "health" product even though it
tested positive for dangerously high levels of per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS. The lawsuit claims PFAS were
found in the company's Ginger Pineapple Belly Reset, Mint Limeade,
Cayenne Cleanse, Pomegranate Berry and Strawberry Glow with bamboo
extract and biotin products.

Morton said she would not have purchased the products had the
company included labels indicating the drinks contained PFAS, which
are a class of thousands of chemicals used in a wide range of
consumer products like non-stick pans and stain resistant clothing.
PFAS have been tied to many health issues including cancer,
hormonal dysfunction and ulcerative colitis.

Health-Ade, a California-based company that sells kombucha and soft
drinks, did not immediately respond to a request for comment on
Jan. 10.

The lawsuit said the company misleads consumers by not putting
warnings on labels that the drinks contain PFAS, in violation of
New York business law. It seeks to represent all consumers in the
United States who recently bought the products.

PFAS have been dubbed "forever chemicals" because they do not break
down easily or quickly in the human body or the environment. The
U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said the
chemicals may be in the blood of 97% of Americans.

The presence of PFAS in consumer products, drinking water and the
environment has led to an increase in lawsuits against companies
that manufacture the chemicals or sell products containing them in
recent years.

Legal experts predict many more lawsuits against consumer companies
that produce clothing, personal hygiene products and other products
like food wrappers will be filed in the coming year accusing them
of failing to disclose their products contain PFAS, continuing a
growing trend seen in recent years.

Many of the existing cases are in early stages of litigation.
Companies defending similar lawsuits have argued that third-party
testing of their products was inaccurate and did not actually show
the products at issue contain PFAS. Other companies have argued
that their labels did not mislead consumers by omitting mentions of
the presence of alleged PFAS, since the companies were not aware of
it themselves.

Legal experts have said the lack of regulations addressing PFAS in
consumer products opens the door for companies to argue that they
do not have a duty to disclose the presence of the chemicals in
their products on labels.

The Health-Ade complaint said at least four PFAS compounds were
found in the drinks that were tested, and that the chemicals are
dangerous "even at very low levels."

The complaint alleges PFAS were found in the products at
concentrations between 13 and 75 parts per trillion.

The case is Morton v. Health-Ade LLC, U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, No. 7:24-cv-00173.

For the class: Joshua Arisohn, Philip Fraietta and Alec Leslie of
Bursor & Fisher

For Health-Ade: Not yet available [GN]

IDEXX LABORATORIES: Labelle Foundation et al. Sue Over VC+ Failure
------------------------------------------------------------------
THE LABELLE FOUNDATION, INC., ELOISE RESCUE, 4 PAWS KIDDO RESCUE,
ANIMALDEFENSERESCUE.ORG, WESTSIDE GERMAN SHEPHERD RESCUE OF LOS
ANGELES, INC., AND LISA RITZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. IDEXX LABORATORIES, INC.;
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 24STCV00360 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., January 5, 2024) is a class action
arising from the Defendants' failure to implement and maintain its
software, specifically, VC+, to perform in a reliable manner
consistent with reasonable standards and specifications and
asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract,
breach of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, fraud, unjust
enrichment, violations of California Unfair Competition Law, and
violations of California False Advertising Law against Defendant.

IDEXX's algorithm, which automatically merged patient records
without warning to VC+ users, caused veterinarians to misdiagnose
pets due to inaccurate test results, which led to infectious
disease outbreaks and patient death. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and
the Class Members by this action seek compensatory damages together
with injunctive relief to remediate Defendant’s failures.

IDEXX is a medical devices company, focused on developing,
manufacturing and distribution of products and provides services
for the companion animal veterinary, poultry and livestock, dairy,
and water testing markets. It also provides diagnostic and software
products and services to veterinary practices worldwide. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21031 Ventura Blvd., Suite 340
          Woodland Hills, CA 91364
          Telephone: (323) 306-4234
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                  abacon@toddflaw.com

                  - and -

          Alisa R. Adams, Esq.
          THE DANN LAW FIRM
          26100 Towne Centre Dr
          Foothill Ranch, CA 92610-3442
          Telephone: (949) 200-8755
          Facsimile: (866) 843-8308
          E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com
                  aadams@dannlaw.com

                  - and -

          Marc E. Dann, Esq.
          Brian D. Flick, Esq.
          DANNLAW
          15000 Madison Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44107
          Telephone: (216) 373-0539
          Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
          E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com

KALAMAZOO AREA: Phillips Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT
-----------------------------------------------------------
KWAMARIAN A. PHILLIPS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KALAMAZOO AREA CHRISTIAN
RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION, INC., a Michigan non-profit corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01338 (W.D. Mich., Dec. 21, 2023) seeks
to recover Plaintiff's unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate
from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The complaint asserts that Plaintiff and those similarly situated
have regularly worked in excess of 40 hours a week and have been
paid some overtime for those hours but at a rate that does not
include Defendant's shift differentials and other non-discretionary
remuneration as required by the FLSA.

The Plaintiff is an adult resident of Kalamazoo, Michigan and was
employed by Defendant as a non-exempt, hourly employee from
approximately January 2021 through September 22, 2023.

Kalamazoo Area Christian Retirement Association, Inc. is a Michigan
non-profit corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Town Square, 17th Floor
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Telephone: (248) 355-0300
          E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
          Laura Supanich, Esq.
          MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1801 Century Park East, Suite 850
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 824-3828
          E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com
                  lms@melmedlaw.com

KINDER MORGAN: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Anderson Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------
CATHERINE ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KINDER MORGAN, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 24STCVOOQ85 (Cal. Sup., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 2, 2024) is
an action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and
the class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week.

Plaintiff Anderson was employed by the Defendant as customer
service representative.

KINDER MORGAN, INC. of Delaware operates as a pipeline
transportation and energy storage company. The Company owns and
operates pipelines that transport natural gas, gasoline, crude oil,
carbon dioxide, and other products, as well as terminals that store
petroleum products and chemicals and handle bulk materials like
coal and petroleum coke. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott M. Lidman, Esq.
          Elizabeth Nguyen, Esq.
          Milan Moore, Esq.
          LIDMAN LAW, APC
          2155 Campus Drive, Suite 150
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 322-4772
          Facsimile: (424) 322-4775

               - and -

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292-2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292-2355

LA SALLE UNIVERSITY: Leonard Sues Over Refusal of Tuition Refund
----------------------------------------------------------------
ASIAH LEONARD, on behalf of herself  and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LA SALLE UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-00062-JS (E.D. Pa., January 5, 2024) arises from the
Defendant's refusal of providing Plaintiff with a prorated refund
of tuition or fees tied to its on-campus education, services, and
amenities that were not available to students for a significant
part of the Spring 2020 semester.

The Plaintiff lost the benefits of the bargain for services and the
experience she paid for but could no longer access or use following
the school's transition to remote learning in March 2020. Moreover,
by not giving prorated refunds for tuition or fees charged for
on-campus education and services not provided, La Salle breached
its contracts with its students or was otherwise unjustly enriched,
says the suit.

Located in Philadelphia, PA, La Salle offers around 40
undergraduate majors and around 40 graduate degree programs and
enrolls students from dozens of states and foreign countries. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

LEGACY HEALTH: Discloses Personal Info to Third Parties, K.L. Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
K.L., an individual; on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LEGACY HEALTH, an Oregon nonprofit
healthcare provider, Defendant, Case No. 3:23-cv-01886-SI (D. Ore.,
Dec. 14, 2023) brings causes of action against the Defendant for
(1) breach of confidence; (2) violation of the Electronics
Communication Privacy Act - unauthorized interception, use, and
disclosure; (3) invasion of privacy (intrusion upon seclusion); (4)
breach of implied contract; (5) unjust enrichment; and (6)
negligence.

The Plaintiff brings this case to address Defendant's unlawful
practice of disclosing Plaintiff's and Class Members' confidential
personally identifiable information and protected health
information to third parties, including Meta Platforms, Inc. d/b/a
Meta or Facebook and Google, Inc., without consent, through the use
of tracking software that is embedded in Defendant's website,
https://www.legacyhealth.org.

Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and similarly situated patients, the
Defendant installed tracking technologies onto its Website,
including the login page for the MyHealth Portal and within the
MyHealth Portal. These Tracking Tools, including Meta Platforms,
Inc.'s Tracking Pixel and Google, Inc.'s Google Analytics tool,
track and collect communications with the Defendant via the Website
and surreptitiously force the user's web browser to send those
communications to undisclosed third parties, such as Facebook or
Google, says the suit.

As a result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff and Class Members
have suffered numerous injuries, including: (i) invasion of
privacy; (ii) loss of benefit of the bargain, (iii) diminution of
value of their Private Information, (iv) statutory damages, and (v)
the continued and ongoing risk to their private information.

Legacy Health is an Oregon nonprofit healthcare provider.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy S. DeJong, Esq.
          STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C.  
          209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500
          Portland, OR 97204
          Telephone: (503) 227-1600
          Facsimile: (503) 227-6840
          E-mail: tdejong@stollberne.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Glen L. Abramson, Esq.
          Alexandra M. Honeycutt, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (866) 252-0878
          E-mail: gabramson@milberg.com
                  ahoneycutt@milberg.com

               - and -

          Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
          Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
          CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-7300
          Facsimile: (612) 336-2940
          E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
                  pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com

               - and -

          Terence R. Coates, Esq.
          Dylan J. Gould, Esq.
          MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
          119 E. Court St., Ste. 530
          Cincinnati, OH 4502
          Telephone: (513) 651-3700
          Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
          E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com
                  dgould@msdlegal.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

LUNA GROCERY: Fails to Pay OT Premiums, Melo Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------
YAN CARLOS CORDERO MELO, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiff v. LUNA GROCERY STORE CORP,
and MIGUEL LUNA, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00099 (E.D.N.Y.,
January 5, 2024) alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York State Earned Safe and
Sick Time Act.

On and around February 2015, the Plaintiff was hired by Defendants
to work, interchangeably, as a cook, counterman, cashier, or floor
staff on an as needed basis. Plaintiff's employment with Defendant
was terminated on June 16, 2022. Defendants later rehired Plaintiff
in July 2022 and Plaintiff worked until October 2023 before he
resigned. Allegedly, the Defendants operated their business with a
policy of not paying Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and
Class Members overtime premiums for all hours worked in excess of
40 in each workweek, says the suit.

Based in Brooklyn, NY, Luna Deli Grocery Corp. operates as a
grocery store providing deli products and produces to retail
consumers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Lee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          148 West 24th Street, 8th Floor
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (212) 465-1180
          Facsimile: (212) 465-1181

MAISON SOLUTIONS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 4
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP ("Wolf Haldenstein")
reminds investors that a federal securities class action has been
filed class on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Maison Solutions Inc. (NASDAQ: MSS)

Class A common stock in connection with the Company's October 2023
initial public offering ("IPO") or securities between October 5,
2023 and December 15, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period").

All investors who purchased shares and incurred losses are advised
to contact the firm immediately at classmember@whafh.com or (800)
575-0735 or (212) 545-4774. You may obtain additional information
concerning the action or join the case on our website,
www.whafh.com.

If you have incurred losses, you may, no later than March 4, 2024,
request that the Court appoint you as the lead plaintiff of the
proposed class. Please contact Wolf Haldenstein to learn more about
your rights.

Maison is a specialty grocery retailer offering Asian food and
merchandise to consumers in the United States

On October 5, 2023, the Company filed its prospectus on Form 424B4,
which forms part of the Registration Statement. In the IPO, the
Company sold 2.5 million shares at a price of $4.00 per share and
received net proceeds of approximately $10 million The proceeds
from the IPO were purportedly to be used for new store acquisitions
and expansion including acquisition of 90% equity interests in the
Alhambra Store from Grace Xu, spouse of John Xu, the Company's CEO,
and Dai Cheong from Mr. Xu, by paying off Small Business
Administration federal loans held by each entity in the amount of
$2 million and $2.4 million respectively.

On December 15, 2023, Hindenburg Research reported allegations
noting red flags concerning potential illegal activities. It noted
that CEO Xu is the President of J&C International Group, a company
which "supports immigration services for high-net-worth Chinese
investors", which along with a related entity, Hong Kong
Supermarkets, used supermarkets as a front to defraud the EB-5 visa
program. These claims are based on two separate lawsuits filed with
similar allegations. Furthermore, Hindenburg alleged that the
Company's stock was being pumped up in "WhatsApp chat rooms" with
screenshots showing "trading plans."

On this news, Maison's stock price fell $12.71 per share or 83.6%
to close at $2.50 per share. It presently trades below $1.00 per
share.

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country. The firm has
attorneys in various practice areas, and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in
shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein by telephone at (800) 575-0735 or via e-mail at
classmember@whafh.com.

Contact:

Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis
Email: gstone@whafh.com or classmember@whafh.com
Tel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774

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

MERAKI INSTALLERS: Plenge Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
TED W. PLENGE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MERAKI INSTALLERS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
0:24-cv-60022 (S.D. Fla., January 5, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for unpaid overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Plenge originally worked for Meraki in a Direct Seller
position. On or about March 1, 2021, Meraki promoted Mr. Plenge to
the District Manager position.

Meraki Installers, LLC is a solar sales and installation company
based in Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
       
         Warren D. Astbury, Esq.
         Michael P. Schuette, Esq.
         CANTRELL ASTBURY KRANZ, P.A.
         401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2340
         Tampa, FL 33602
         Telephone: (877) 858-6868
         E-mail: wastbury@caklegal.com
                 mschuette@caklegal.com

MERCURY SYSTEMS: Artificially Inflates Financial Results, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NORTH COLLIER FIRE CONTROL AND RESCUE DISTRICT FIREFIGHTERS'
PENSION PLAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MERCURY SYSTEMS, INC., MARK ASLETT, and
MICHAEL RUPPERT, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-13065 (D. Mass., Dec.
13, 2023) is a federal securities class action that Plaintiff
brings on behalf of itself and a class consisting of all persons
and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock
of Mercury between December 7, 2020 and June 23, 2023, inclusive,
asserting claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules and regulations
promulgated thereunder.

According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, Mercury
was hyper-focused on achieving its goal of generating $1 billion in
revenue and used its acquisition strategy and improper revenue
recognition practices to artificially inflate its financial results
so that it appeared on track to meet this goal. For example,
Mercury transitioned from "point-in-time" to "long-term contracts,"
which allowed for a greater degree of accounting subjectivity in
terms of revenue recognition. By pulling forward long-term contract
revenues to boost short-term results, Mercury was able to show a
rosy financial picture that simply was not true. Indeed,
unbeknownst to investors, those revenues were not sustainable and
caused the Company to have inflated unbilled receivables and
working capital that it falsely blamed on supply chain issues.
Mercury did nothing to alert investors of this transition or the
real problems that certain contracts were experiencing at the time,
says the suit.

The truth about Mercury's struggles was partially exposed in a July
26, 2022 short seller report issued by Glasshouse Research. In
reaction to the Report, the Company's share price fell $4.87 per
share, or 7.8%, from $62.13 per share on July 25, 2022 to $57.26
per share on July 26, 2022.

Then, on June 23, 2023, Mercury shocked investors when it announced
that Aslett had abruptly resigned and that the Company's recent
strategic review of acquisition alternatives did not result in the
sale of the Company. On this news, Mercury's share price declined
an additional $3.37 per share, or 9.6%, to close at $31.50 per
share on June 26, 2023.

In sum, since July 26, 2022 when the Glasshouse Report was issued,
Mercury's stock price has declined nearly 50%, to close at $31.50
per share on June 26, 2023, wiping out billions of dollars in
market capitalization and damaging investors, the suit alleges.

Mercury Systems, Inc. is a technology company that produces
component modules and subsystems for the aerospace and defense
industries.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Block, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          Franklin Street Suite 1860
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 398-5600
          Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
          E-mail: jeff@blockleviton.com

               - and -

          Daniel L. Berger, Esq.
          Caitlin M. Moyna, Esq.
          Lauren J. Salamon, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A.
          485 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 722-8500
          Facsimile: (610) 722-8501
          E-mail: dberger@gelaw.com
                  cmoyna@gelaw.com

MOLD RESTORATION: Faces Martinez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
JORGE HUMBERTO AGUILAR MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOLD RESTORATION INC. and
MOLD PRO RESTORATION SPECIALIST LLC and DOV GREENBAUM, as an
individual, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-09130 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 13,
2023) seeks to recover damages for Defendants' egregious violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law arising
from Plaintiff's employment with the Defendants.

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to pay overtime
wages, failure to pay his wages owed on a weekly basis, failure to
provide wage statements, and failure to furnish with a written wage
notice.

Plaintiff Martinez was employed by the Defendants as a demolition
worker while performing related miscellaneous manual labor duties
for the Defendants from January 2011 until October 2023.

Mold Restoration Inc. offers full mold remediation services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MONTREAL, QC: Group of NDG Residents Sues Over July 2023 Floods
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Ceausu, writing for The Suburban, reports that a group of NDG
residents affected by the July 2023 floods are seeking class action
status to sue the city of Montreal and CDN-NDG Borough Mayor Gracia
Kasoki Katahwa for negligence, willful blindness and bad faith.

About 80 millimeters of rain fell on Montreal over a few hours on
July 13; some neighborhoods hit much harder than others, including
parts of Loyola district where many victims faced municipal
responses highlighting the storm's rarity, residents'
responsibilities, and climate change. "Climate change is no free
pass," says lawyer Charles O'Brien representing applicants, and
faulting the city for "not doing their job. Instead, they blame the
victims. It's deceitful."

Presumed class representative Ilana Grostern and other residents
sent some 350 notices to the city within the 15-day claims window,
and with few exceptions received rejection letters from Montreal's
Bureau des réclamations stating: "an atmospheric disturbance
originating from the United States intensified, resulting in
exceptional precipitation. These unpredictable weather conditions
affected our operations." Then it continued: "Please note that we
will not be revising any decisions regarding the storm on July 13,
2023."

Out of pocket some $20,000 and looking at $30,000 more, Grostern
says when presented with evidence of infrastructure neglect, "the
party line denialism on the part of elected officials and
bureaucrats was so degrading and demeaning that I didn't want
anyone to feel as soiled as I did. So legal system it is."

A trial could begin within a year, the action representing some
1,000 Loyola residents in the quadrilateral of Coronation, Côte
Saint-Luc, Fielding, and Brock. The suit seeks tens of thousands of
dollars for material damages, increased insurance costs and more
for each member, as people's health, financial security and home
values continued to suffer, and peace of mind remains heavily
affected: "When it starts to rain people fear leaving the house,
they start sandbagging," says O'Brien. "The stress is
unbelievable."

The suit will highlight a voluminous, 2012 city-commissioned
engineering report recommending $270 million (2012 dollars) in
major infrastructure upgrades to ensure city-approved developments
like the MUHC super-hospital and others would not overload the
system. It figures in a similar pending lawsuit representing some
500 residents against the city and Lachine borough Mayor Maja
Vodanovic. "Given Defendants presumed knowledge of the Report"
reads the Lachine claim, "these omissions must be considered
intentional, justifying punitive and Charter damages."

As the Plante administration's point-person on water, Vodanovic
told Grostern at August city council that homeowners must upgrade
their properties and the city will help, including printing
brochures to guide them. Vodanovic would not comment on the matter
because it's before the courts. Katahwa told The Suburban "since
the July 13 flooding, we have been there for the affected citizens.
We understand it was a difficult situation." As the matter has now
become a subject of legal proceedings, she said she will "not issue
any comments pertaining to the lawsuit for the moment."

O'Brien says the city and borough mayors know there is a massive
amount of work to do. "They knew about it; they simply didn't do
it. They're happy to get tax revenue from development but are not
putting money into needed corrections for infrastructure -- some of
which dates from the 1890s." He says the city's repeated contention
that no city could have handled such flooding is a "crazy,
meaningless statement. It's all propaganda, making up stories to
not do what they are legally bound to do."

Grostern agrees: "The gaslighting and straw-manning I've
experienced both personally and at the few borough meetings I made
the mistake of attending makes me wonder why anyone bothers to deal
with these people. If politicking, personal image, and personal
agendas are more important to the people we elect and hire, then
let's let a higher authority determine responsibility."

As increasing numbers of residents lose insurance or insurance
affordability, O'Brien says the city must pay. "If the insurer
won't insure, then it's up to the state to pay, or put in place the
system to ensure this doesn't happen. The victim does NOT pay."
[GN]

NASCO: Faces Lu Class Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info
---------------------------------------------------------
XINDA LU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NASCO and PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-13078-ADB (D. Mass., Dec. 13, 2023) is
a class action arising from the recent targeted cyberattack and
data breach where unauthorized third-party criminals retrieved and
exfiltrated highly-sensitive consumer data belonging to Plaintiff
and nearly 805,000 Class Members, via a security vulnerability in
PSC's software program, MOVEit, which is used by NASCO to exchange
sensitive information and files.

According to Defendant NASCO, the private information compromised
in the data breach included names, demographic information
(including addresses, phone numbers, gender, dates of birth), email
addresses, Social Security numbers, health insurance numbers,
medical ID numbers, claim information, medical information (such as
diagnosis information), dates of service, treatment and/or
diagnosis codes, account information, medical devices or products
purchased, and provider/care giver names.

The complaint alleges that Defendant NASCO failed to adequately
safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' highly sensitive private
information that it collected and maintained. Specifically,
Defendant NASCO used Defendant PSC's MOVEit software to store and
transfer the private information of Plaintiff and Class Members,
and this private information was compromised as a result of a
security vulnerability in the MOVEit software. The Plaintiff's and
Class Members' private information was compromised due to
Defendants' negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and
Defendants' failure to reasonably and adequately protect
Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information, says the suit.

NASCO provides claims administration services to health plan
customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven B. Rotman, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          One Marina Park Drive, Suite 1410
          Boston, MA 02210
          Telephone: (617) 207-0600
          Facsimile: (617) 830-8312
          E-mail: srotman@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
          B. Annabelle Emuze, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          888 16th Street, N.W., Suite 300
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
          E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
                  aemuze@hausfeld.com

               - and -

          Steven M. Nathan, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          33 Whitehall Street, Fourteenth Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (646) 357-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 202-4322
          E-mail: snathan@hausfeld.com

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Discloses Personal Info to FB, Myers Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA MYERS, OSCAR RODRIGUEZ, PAUL SUTTON, TREVOR ADKINS, BRENT
RISH, DEREK SAMMELMAN, and MARY MARTIN, on Behalf of Themselves and
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs v. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
FOR STOCK CAR AUTO RACING, INC. and NASCAR DIGITAL MEDIA, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00888 (W.D.N.C., Dec. 21, 2023) is a
class action brought pursuant to the Video Privacy Protection Act
on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all persons who subscribed to the
NASCAR Website, https://www.nascar.com/, owned and operated by
Defendants.

According to the complaint, the Defendants do not disclose that
subscribers' personal identifying information would be captured by
the Facebook Pixel and then transferred to Facebook. The Website
does not inform site subscribers or site visitors that their
personal identifying information will be exposed, available and
readily usable by any person of ordinary technical skill who
receives that data. At no point during or after the subscription
sign up process -- or anywhere on the Website for that matter -- do
Defendants seek or obtain consent for the sharing of subscribers'
PII and web watching history, which NASCAR surreptitiously gathered
through the use of the Pixel that it chose to employ on the
website.

The Plaintiffs and other subscribers of the Website have been
allegedly harmed as a result of violations of the VPPA. In addition
to monetary damages, Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief requiring
Defendants to immediately (i) remove the Pixel from the Website, or
(ii) add adequate notices, and obtain the appropriate consent from,
subscribers.

National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc. is an American
auto racing sanctioning and operating company that is best known
for stock car racing.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David M. Wilkerson, Esq.
          THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM
          11 North Market Street
          Asheville, NC 28801
          Telephone: (828) 258-2991
          E-mail: dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
          Adam Schwartzbaum, Esq.
          EDELSBERG LAW
          20900 NE 30th Ave #417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Telephone: (786) 289-9471
          Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
                 adam@edelsberglaw.com

               - and -

          Mark S. Reich, Esq.
          Courtney Maccarone, Esq.
          Gary S. Ishimoto, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
          Email: mreich@zlk.com
                 cmaccarone@zlk.com
                 gishimoto@zlk.com

NATIONAL REALTOR: Recent Class Actions May Disrupt Housing Market
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Prann, writing for NewsNation, reports that recent
class-action lawsuits filed against the largest brokers in the U.S.
due to inflated commissions and collusion among agents are rattling
the housing industry and could change how Americans buy homes.

The National Realtor Association (NAR) has settled paying nearly $2
billion in damages to Missouri homeowners in October 2023. The
ruling came after a class-action lawsuit filed in 2019 on behalf of
500,000 home sellers, according to The Washington Post.

"That whole lawsuit is basically an attack on the American dream,"
said Tommy Choi, an Illinois realtor.

Like other agents across the nation, Choi is reeling from the shock
waves after a federal jury in Missouri found the NAR and other real
estate organizations guilty of artificially inflating home sale
commissions.

"The industry has colluded to set high uniform rates for many, many
decades," said Stephen Brobeck, senior fellow of the Consumer
Federation of America. "The first significant challenge to the
collusion are two class action lawsuits filed in Kansas City and
Chicago courts."

More class action lawsuits, including in New York and Illinois, are
scheduled for this year, which could spawn big changes in the
industry and loss of revenue for agents.

If commission rates were negotiable -- for example, 4% instead of
5.6% or above -- research shows sellers could have saved upwards of
$72 billion in 2022.

"The rates are just too high. On the sale of a $500,000 house,
that's going to cost, in most parts of the country, $25,000 to
$30,000 in fees -- that's essentially the price of a new car,"
Brobeck said.

The argument revolves around set commissions, the fees paid by the
sellers. The case attacks a standard requirement of around 6%
commission.

Choi argues the system is not broken and the ruling will break it.
Fees are calculated into the value of the home before a showing or
a sale.

"I have to stand out compared to my competitors. So, the consumer
ultimately has that choice to work with whoever they want based on
maybe, sometimes it's because someone's going to offer a less of a
professional fees and that's what they're focused on. Other times
people see the value in someone's resume their experience their
skill, but that has not changed.

It's common practice for agents to become a member of the NAR, but
the plaintiffs argue members are part of a conspiracy to drive up
home prices.

"I would not be surprised if early next year there is a global
settlement. The industry is very eager to get this behind them,"
Brobeck said.

Yet for realtors like Choi, this is all they've ever known.

"Right now, it's an even level playing field where the market is
set by what a buyer is willing to pay and the sellers are willing
to agree to sell," he said.

The NAR president Tracy Kasper, who had been in the role for a few
months, resigned on Jan. 8 after she received blackmail threats.
[GN]

NATIONALE-NEDERLANDEN: Settles Class Action for EUR300 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Harkavy, writing for CDR, reports that a 17-year struggle
related to insurance products has finally come to an end.

Nationale-Nederlanden (NN Group), the Dutch financial-services
company, which is a subsidiary of ING Group, announced that it has
agreed a final financial settlement with five consumer interest
groups representing a class of customers who bought unit-linked
insurance products from its subsidiaries. The settlement involves a
payment of approximately EUR 300 million to the customers and an
end to all legal proceedings related to the issue, which dates back
to 2007.

Unit-linked insurance products are life insurance policies that
invest part of the premiums in funds or other assets. NN Group
faced criticism that some of these products did not meet its
customers' expectations and were subject to high costs and fees.
The interest groups, namely Consumentenclaim, Woekerpolis.nl,
Woekerpolisproces, Wakkerpolis and Consumentenbond, claimed that NN
Group had misled the customers and violated its duty of care.

The settlement covers all customers who are affiliated with one of
the interest groups, and who bought unit-linked insurance products
from Nationale-Nederlanden, Delta Lloyd or ABN AMRO
Levensverzekering. The customers will receive their individual
proposals through their respective interest group, and the
agreement will be final once 90% of them accept the offer. NN Group
expects this process to take until the end of 2024.

The settlement follows earlier measures, including some settlement
agreements which date back as far as 2008 and which disbursed
approximately EUR 1 billion. To cover these latest settlements, NN
Group set aside a provision of approximately EUR 360 million in the
fourth quarter of 2023. This includes EUR 60 million for hardship
cases and customers who are not affiliated with any of the interest
groups, and who have not previously received compensation.

David Knibbe, CEO of NN Group, said that the settlement was an
important result for everyone involved in this long-standing
industry issue. He added that NN Group had taken the criticism
seriously, and was pleased to provide clarity to its customers and
resolve the issue. He also said that NN Group would continue to
focus on helping its customers care for what matters most to them.

The settlement was reached after several years of legal disputes
between NN Group and the interest groups. In 2017, the Dutch
Supreme Court ruled that NN Group had to compensate some of its
customers for the costs of the first premium of their unit-linked
insurance products. In 2019, the Amsterdam Court of Appeal ordered
NN Group to pay damages to a group of customers who had bought
unit-linked insurance products from Delta Lloyd. In 2020, the
Rotterdam District Court ruled that NN Group had to disclose the
costs and risks of its unit-linked insurance products to its
customers.

In NN Group v Consumentenclaim and Others, NN Group was represented
by Sullivan & Cromwell with additional advice from Goldman Sachs.
JP Morgan Securities and De Brauw Blackstone Westbroek served
respectively as the financial adviser and legal representative of
NN Group's parent company, ING Group. The consumer-interest groups
were represented by Stibbe, BarentsKrans, Van Diepen Van der Kroef
Advocaten and Beer Advocaten.

In November the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal for alleged
overcharging by its PlayStation Store. [GN]

NEW RIVER: Paris Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Delivery Drivers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rachele Paris, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. New River Valley Pizza, LLC and Kevin Shaw,
Defendants, Case No. 7:24-cv-00012-MFU-CKM (W.D. Va., January 5,
2024) seeks appropriate monetary, declaratory, and equitable relief
based on New River Valley Pizza Domino's Pizza franchise stores'
willful failure to compensate Plaintiff and similarly-situated
individuals with minimum wages as required by the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Virginia Minimum Wage Act, the Virginia Wage
Payment Act, and for unjust enrichment under the laws of Virginia.


Plaintiff Paris has worked for Defendants as a pizza delivery
driver at the New River Valley Pizza Domino's franchise stores
since February 2021. She seeks to represent are current and former
delivery drivers employed at the New River Valley Pizza Domino's
franchise stores. Allegedly, New River Valley Pizza Domino's
franchise stores do not reimburse their delivery drivers based on
the actual expenses the delivery drivers incur, says the
Plaintiff.

Headquartered in Christiansburg, VA, New River Valley Pizza is a
limited liability company that owns and operates Domino's Pizza
stores. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Brittany Haddox, Esq.
         Monica Mroz, Esq.
         STRELKA EMPLOYMENT LAW
         4227 Colonial Ave.
         Roanoke, VA 24018
         Telephone: (540) 283-0802
         E-mail: brittany@strelkalaw.com
                 monica@strelkalaw.com

                 -  and -

         Andrew Biller, Esq.
         Andrew Kimble, Esq.
         BILLER & KIMBLER LLC
         8044 Montgomery Rd, Suite 515
         Cincinnati, OH 45236
         Telephone: (513) 202-0710
         E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com
                 akimble@billerkimble.com

NOVA LINES: Gadson Alleges Violation of the Truth in Lending Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
SHAWN GADSON and PPRP LOGISTICS, LLC, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NOVA LINES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00009 (N.D. Il., Jan. 2, 2024) alleges
violation of the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA").

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant violated
the TILA by deducting significant chargebacks from owner-operators'
wages without disclosing those deductions in the Defendant's
equipment leases, not paying interest on their escrow deductions,
not returning their escrow in full, overcharging Plaintiffs for
fuel, and not adhering to the terms of the lease.

NOVA LINES, INC. is a midwest flatbed trucking company based in
Chicago IL dedicated to honesty, safety, and excellent service.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher J. Wilmes, Esq.
          Karen Villagomez, Esq.
          HUGHES SOCOL PIERS RESNICK & DYM
          70 W. Madison St., Ste. 4000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 580-0100
          Email: cwilmes@hsplegal.com

NSC HOLDINGS: Fails to Protect Private Info, Nicholas Says
----------------------------------------------------------
TERENCE NICHOLAS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NSC HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a NSC
TECHNOLOGIES, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-05720-JPB (N.D. Ga., Dec.
13, 2023) is a class action arising from the recent cyberattack and
data breach resulting from NSC's failure to implement reasonable
and industry standard data security practices.

The Plaintiff brings this Complaint against Defendant for its
failure to properly secure and safeguard the sensitive information
that it collected and maintained as part of its regular business
practices, including, but not limited to names and Social Security
numbers. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit
from the personally identifying information of Plaintiff and Class
Members, Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those
individuals to protect and safeguard that information from
unauthorized access and intrusion, says the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff further brings this action on behalf of all persons
whose PII was compromised as a result of Defendant's failure to:
(i) adequately protect the PII of Plaintiff and Class Members; (ii)
warn Plaintiff and Class Members of Defendant's inadequate
information security practices; and (iii) effectively secure
hardware containing protected PII using reasonable and effective
security procedures free of vulnerabilities and incidents.
Defendant's conduct amounts at least to negligence and violates
federal and state statutes.

NSC Holdings, LLC is a staffing company, with more than 30 offices
across the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq.
          N. Nickolas Jackson, Esq.
          THE FINLEY FIRM, PC
          3535 Piedmont Road
          Building 14, Suite 230
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (678) 642-2503
          E-mail: mgibson@thefinleyfirm.com
                  njackson@thefinleyfirm.com

               - and -

          David K. Lietz, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
          5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW
          Washington, D.C. 20015-2052
          Telephone: (866) 252-0878
          Facsimile: (202) 686-2877
          E-mail: dlietz@milberg.com

PACIFICORP: Oregon Labor Day Fire Class Action Trial Begins
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Siegel, writing for CVN, reports that an Oregon state court
jury heard opening statements on Jan. 9 in a class-action trial in
which nine plaintiffs who suffered property damage in widespread
wildfires over the 2020 Labor Day holiday seek at least $45 million
in damages from electric utility PacifiCorp.

The trial follows an earlier jury verdict from June of last year,
when Berkshire Hathaway-owned PacifiCorp was found liable for the
blaze, allegedly due to failing to preemptively deactivate portions
of their power grid ahead of a predicted major wind storm.

That proceeding, also webcast and recorded by CVN, then set the
stage for subsequent trials to determine damages for the roughly
5,000 members of the plaintiff class, all of whom claim they
suffered property damage in the fire. The verdict also included an
award of $72 million to 17 class representatives, and the total
damages for all class members -- including potential punitive
awards -- could reach into the billions.

PacifiCorp, which disputes the estimated class size of 5,000
members citing that roughly 2,500 lots were damaged in the fire,
has appealed the June verdict and maintains they took adequate
protective steps ahead of the fire, arguing a mass shutdown like
the plaintiff class says was necessary would have negatively
impacted first responders and emergency facilities like hospitals.

Plaintiff attorney Nicholas Rosinia of Edelson PC asked jurors in
his opening statement to award a minimum of $5 million to each of
the nine class members but suggested those amounts could reach as
high as $25 million per plaintiff in non-economic damages alone.

Rosinia painted a dramatic picture of the wildfires, showing images
of the charred remains of class members' homes and describing "the
deafening roar of the fire, like a freight train."

He recounted for jurors how one class member made a risky 30-foot
jump from a cliff into river to escape the fast-approaching flames,
which Rosinia said another class member described as wall of fire
reaching 20-feet high.

With PacifiCorp's liability already established, defense attorney
Per Ramfjord of Stoel Rives urged jurors to make their decisions
based solely on fairly compensating the nine individual plaintiffs
for their specific losses and harms.

"Punishing Pacific Power is not what this case is about," he said,
according to Courtroom View Network's webcast of the trial.

Ramfjord did not explicitly offer an alternative suggested amount
of damages for each plaintiff, but he did float potential awards in
the range of $750k -- $1 million while stressing that each damages
claim is unique, and this is "not a one-size-fits-all kind of
case."

Multnomah County Circuit Court Judge Steffan Alexander, who also
presided over the trial last June, plans to hold additional
"mini-trials" for small groups of class members in February and
April. He has indicated he may then order the parties into
mediation with the hopes the damages award reached so far could
shape a broader resolution for the full roughly 5,000-member
class.

The plaintiff class is represented by Edelson PC, Keller Rohrback
LLP and Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting & Shlachter PC.

PacifiCorp is represented by Stoel Rives LLP and by Hueston
Hennigan LLP.

The case is James, et al. v. PacifiCorp., case number 20CV33885 in
Multnomah County Circuit Court. [GN]

PAYCOM SOFTWARE: Artificially Inflates Stock Price, Schoenrock Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
COREY SCHOENROCK, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PAYCOM SOFTWARE, INC., CHAD
RICHISON, and CRAIG BOELTE, Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-00012-F
(W.D. Okla., January 4, 2024) is a class action against the
Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding Paycom's business, operations,
and prospects in order to trade Paycom securities at artificially
inflated prices between February 9, 2022 and November 1, 2023.
Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors that:
(a) that Paycom had been relying upon a significant, but
undisclosed, amount of one-off payroll correction fees to fuel its
past outsized revenue growth; (b) that increased adoption of Beti
by Paycom's payroll customers was cannibalizing the fees the
Company had previously been charging to correct common payroll
mistakes and to provide related services; (c) that the increased
Beti adoption was decreasing Paycom's gross profit margins; and (d)
that, as a result of the foregoing, the Defendants' statements
about Paycom's business, operations, and prospects were materially
false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.

When the truth emerged, the price of Paycom securities fell
precipitously, as the prior artificial inflation came out of the
price over time. As a result of their purchases of Paycom
securities and/or sales of Paycom put options during the Class
Period, the Plaintiff and other members of the Class suffered
economic loss, damages, under the federal securities laws, says the
suit.

Paycom Software, Inc. is a software company, located at 7501 W.
Memorial Road, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Mark A. Smith, Esq.
         Dennis A. Caruso, Esq.
         CARUSO & SMITH, PLLC
         2021 South Lewis Avenue, Suite 720
         Tulsa, OK 74104
         Telephone: (918) 583-5900
         Facsimile: (918) 583-5902
         E-mail: msmith@carusosmithok.com
                 dcaruso@carusosmithok.com

                 - and -

         Adam M. Apton, Esq.
         LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
         33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
         New York, NY 10004
         Telephone: (212) 363-7500
         Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
         E-mail: aapton@zlk.com

PEPPERIDGE FARM: No Preservatives Label "False," Ward Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VERONIKA WARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PEPPERIDGE FARM, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-00078 (S.D.N.Y., January 5, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for violation of the New York General Business Law,
breach of express warranty, and unjust enrichment.

The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of Goldfish Flavor
Blasted Baked Snack Crackers products. The Defendant claims that
the products have "No Artificial Flavors or Preservatives."
However, this representation is false and/or misleading because the
products contain citric acid, a known artificial preservative
commonly used in food products. Had the Plaintiff known that the
products contain citric acid, she would not have purchased the
products, or, at the very least, would have only been willing to
purchase at a lesser price, says the suit.

Pepperidge Farm, Inc. is a food company, with its principal place
of business located at 595 Westport Avenue, Norwalk, Connecticut.
[BN]

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

PIONEER EXPLORATION: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Chavera Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
EMEDE CHAVERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PIONEER EXPLORATION LLC, ATLAS OPERATING
LLC, and YOUNAS CHAUDHARY, Defendant(s), Case No. 4:24-cv-00059
(S.D. Tex., January 5, 2024), seeks to recover back wages,
liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938.

The Defendants employed Plaintiff Chavera as a driller from
approximately August 2019 through July of 2022. They required
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees for a workweek
longer than 40 hours. However, they refused to compensate these
employees for their employment in excess of 40 at a rate not less
than one and one-half times the regular rate at which they were or
are employed, says the suit.

Pioneer Exploration LLC is a Texas limited liability corporation
that operates as an independent oil and gas exploration company.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa Moore, Esq.
          MOORE & ASSOCIATES
          Lyric Centre 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 1110
          Houston, TX 77002-1063
          Telephone: (713) 222-6775
          Facsimile: (713) 222-6739
          E-mail: melissa@mooreandassociates.net
                  curt@mooreandassociates.net

PROPAK LOGISTICS: Roberts Suit Removed from Super. Ct. to E.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as KYLE ROBERTS, on his own
behalf and all similarly situated individuals v. PROPAK LOGISTICS,
LLC; and DOES 1 to 100, Case No. 23CV008439 (Filed Nov. 28, 2023)
was removed from the California Superior Court, Tehama County, to
the United States District Court, Eastern District of California on
Jan. 2, 2024.

The California Eastern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:24-at-00003 to the proceeding.

The suit asserts the minimum wage violations, overtime violations,
meal period violations, rest period violations, wage statement
penalties, waiting time penalties, and unfair competition.

The Plaintiff is bringing a class action on behalf of all current
and former employees employed by the Defendant in California within
the previous four years of the Plaintiff filing his Complaint.

The Plaintiff is also seeking to represent the putative class for
alleged wage and hour violations at any time between November 28,
2019, to the date the class is certified.

The Plaintiff purports to bring claims on behalf of a class of
nonexempt employees defined as:

   "All non-exempt employees who worked for Defendants in
   California as from four years prior tofiling the case to the
   date of certification or judgment, whichever is earlier."

   The Relevant Time Period is defined as "four years prior to
   filing the case to the date of certification or judgment" or
   from November 28, 2019 to the present.

Propak is a proactive provider of leading-edge logistics,
transportation and supply chain management solutions.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Rebecca M. Aragon, Esq.
          Nathaniel H. Jenkins, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
          633 West 5th Street, 63rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 443-4300
          Facsimile: (800) 715-1330
          E-mail: raragon@littler.com
                  njenkins@littler.com

R. JABBOUR & SONS: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Colak Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALI COLAK, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. R. JABBOUR & SONS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00010 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 2, 2024) alleges
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

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

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

R. JABBOUR & SONS, INC. sells luxury bed sheets, comforters,
tablecloths, and linen products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          PeterPaul Shaker, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 102
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com

RAUDALES TRUCKING: Franco Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
GERARDO ALBERTO PEREZ FRANCO, an individual, on behalf of himself
and similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RAUDALES TRUCKING LLC, a
California Limited Liability Company; SILVIO C. RAUDALES MONCADA,
an individual; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 23STCV30396 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Dec. 13, 2023)
arises from the Defendants' violations of the California Labor Code
and the California Business and Professions Code.

The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants' failure to pay minimum wage,
failure to compensate for all hours worked, failure to pay overtime
compensation, failure to pay rest period compensation, failure to
pay meal period compensation, failure to furnish accurate wage and
hour statements, failure to pay wages upon discharge failure to
indemnify and illegal deductions from wages, and unfair
competition.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a driver between
December 18, 2022 through August 22, 2023.

Raudales Trucking LLC is an intrastate freight carrier based in
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sarkis Sirmabekian, Esq.
          SIRMABEKIAN LAW FIRM, PC
          3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (818) 473-5003
          Facsimile: (818)476-5619
          E-mail: contact@slawla.com

SCORE MEDIA: Faces Class Action Over BIPA Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Cook County Record reports that Score Media and Penn Gaming, the
companies behind the Bet ESPN app, are facing a class action
lawsuit for allegedly violating Illinois' biometrics privacy law.

The suit accuses the companies of improperly scanning users'
faces.

The plaintiff, Joseph Faifer, filed the complaint on behalf of
himself and others who allegedly have been similarly affected.

The lawsuit targets Score Media and Gaming Inc., along with Penn
Entertainment, Inc., Penn Sports Interactive LLC, and Penn
Interactive Ventures, LLC. These companies are collectively
referred to as "Penn Entertainment" in the lawsuit.

Faifer alleges that these companies unlawfully collected, used,
stored, and disclosed his and other users' personal biometric
information. The complaint argues that this practice is in
violation of the Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) and seeks
to stop these alleged activities.

The lawsuit seeks potentially huge damages under BIPA for these
supposed violations. The law permits plaintiffs to demand damages
of $1,000-$5,000 per violation. The Illinois Supreme Court has
interpreted the BIPA law to define individual violations as each
time a user's biometrics are scanned over a period of the preceding
five years, not just the first time.

The defendants own and operate the ESPN Bet app which was launched
in November 2023. To access the app's services, users must create
an account which includes submitting a scan of their
government-issued ID, as well as a photograph of their face.

The complaint doesn't estimate how many Illinois residents may use
the Bet ESPN app.

The lawsuit, however, seeks to expand the action to include any
Illinois residents who used any Penn Gaming app, not just Bet
ESPN.

Plaintiffs are represented by attorney Michael Kozlowski, of
Esbrook P.C., of Chicago. [GN]

SEA WORLD: Prado Discrimination Suit Removed to S.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------
The case styled BREANNA ROMERO RIOS PRADO, an individual, Plaintiff
v. SEA WORLD LLC, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-5 inclusive,
Defendant, Case No. 37-2023-00050010-CU-WT-CTL, was removed from
the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California on
December 21, 2023.

The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:23-cv-02326-AJB-KSC to the proceeding.

On November 16, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a complaint in the
Superior Court of California. The complaint purports to assert
claims against Sea World for: (1) pregnancy discrimination; (2)
disability discrimination; (3) failure to accommodate; (4) failure
to engage in the interactive process; and (5) wrongful termination
in violation of Public Policy.

Sea World LLC was founded in 1977. The company's line of business
includes the operating of amusement parks and kiddie parks.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

           Tracie Childs, Esq.
           Michelle N. Gonzalez, Esq.
           OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
           4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900
           San Diego, CA 92122
           Telephone: (858) 652-3100
           Facsimile: (858) 652-3101
           E-mail: tracie.childs@ogletree.com
                   michelle.gonzalez@ogletree.com

SEATTLE PACIFIC UNIVERSITY: Espinal Files ADA Suit in S.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Seattle Pacific
University. The case is styled as Frangie Espinal, on behalf of
herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Seattle Pacific
University, Case No. 1:23-cv-11237-LGS (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 28, 2023).

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

Seattle Pacific University -- https://spu.edu/ -- is a private
Christian university in Seattle, Washington.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SELKIRK SPORT LLC: Calcano Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Selkirk Sport, LLC.
The case is styled as Marcos Calcano, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Selkirk Sport, LLC, Case No.
1:23-cv-11313 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 29, 2023).

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

Selkirk Sport -- https://www.selkirk.com/ -- is a leading
Pickleball equipment brand. Join the Selkirk Pickleball community
today.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SIKA AG: Vera Construction Sues Over Unlawful Price Fixing
----------------------------------------------------------
Vera Construction, L.L.C., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Sika AG; Sika Corporation; Chryso, Inc.; GCP
Applied Technologies, Inc.; Compagnie De Saint-Gobain S.A.; Saint
Gobain North America; Master Builders Solutions Admixtures U.S.,
LLC; Master Builders Solutions Deutschland GmbH; Cinven Ltd.;
Cinven, Inc.; The Euclid Chemical Company; RPM International Inc.;
And Does 1-10, Case No. 2:23-cv-05135-KNS (E.D. Pa., Dec. 27,
2023), is brought arising from Defendants' 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"). CCAs, which can
be either in liquid or powdered form, are added to concrete,
cement, and mortar before or during the aggregate's mixing with
water in order to give the finished product certain qualities, such
as reducing the amount of water needed for the aggregate to set,
reducing (or increasing) set time, reducing shrinkage, stabilizing
or preventing cracking, and inhibiting corrosion.

The Defendants agreed to fix, raise, and maintain the prices of
construction specialty chemicals--more specifically, numerous
"admixture" chemicals added to concrete and mortar to control their
setting and curing, and to improve the final product. Defendants
issued a series of price increase notices, citing excuses that do
not hold water. Behind the scenes, Defendants discreetly alluded in
investor communications to their pricing discipline, a coded phrase
potentially supporting their collective price increases.

Supporting their price-fixing, Defendants consolidated their
industry with numerous acquisitions in what an industry writer
called "a continuing global concrete admixtures transformation."
Defendants' consolidation included billion-dollar transactions and
numerous smaller acquisitions, which all enhanced their collective
market power.

The Defendants' secret agreement came to light this fall when
European regulatory authorities announced dawn raids and inspected
fourteen companies and two trade associations. The European
Commission and U.K.'s Competition and Markets Authority ("CMA")
issued the first announcements of these inspections, followed by
the Turkish Competition Authority. The CMA stated it was in contact
with other authorities, including the United States Department of
Justice. Thereafter, a U.K. court issued public orders concerning
the search warrants it had issued for the investigation.

The CMA's announcement stated it normally published names of
targets in an investigation unless such disclosure could prejudice
an investigation of CMA or its regulatory partner. CMA declined to
release names in that announcement about its investigation.
However, before long certain Defendants disclosed that they were
cooperating in the investigation, and that contact had been
established with the United States Department of Justice, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff, Vera Construction L.L.C., is a limited liability
company registered in the State of Minnesota with its primary place
of business in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Sika AG manufactured and sold CCAs around the World, including in
the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles J. Kocher, Esq.
          McOMBER McOMBER & LUBER, P.C.
          50 Lake Center Drive, Suite 400
          Marlton, NJ 08053
          Phone: (856) 985-9800
          Fax: (856) 263-2450
          Email: cjk@njlegal.com

               - and -

          Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
          Jessica N. Servais, Esq.
          Joseph C. Bourne, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Phone: (612) 339-6900
          Fax: (612) 339-0981
          Email: hmsilton@locklaw.com
                 jnservais@locklaw.com
                 jcbourne@locklaw.com


SOKU RESTAURANT: Colak Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Soku Restaurant, Inc.
The case is styled as Ali Colak, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Soku Restaurant, Inc., Case No.
2:23-cv-09547-ARL (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 28, 2023).

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

Soku Restaurant, Inc. is a Japanese restaurant.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          PeterPaul Elhamy Shaker, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          1 University Plaza, Ste. 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Email: pshaker@steinsakslegal.com


SP PLUS: Murry Class Suit Removed from Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned as CALVIN MURRY, on his own
behalf and all similarly situated individuals v. SP PLUS
CORPORATION, and DOES 1 to 100, Case No. 23STCV28978 (Filed Nov.
27, 2023) was removed from Los Angeles County for the Superior
Court of California to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on Jan. 2, 2024.

The California Central District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-00033 to the proceeding.

The suit asserts, on a class-wide basis, Minimum Wage Violations;
Overtime Violations; Meal Period Violations; Rest Period
Violations; Wage Statement Penalties; Waiting Time Penalties; and
Violation of Unfair Competition Law.

In the Complaint, the Plaintiffs seek the full unpaid balance of
all earned wages including but not limited to minimum wages and
overtime wages, and meal and rest premium pay, on behalf of himself
and the putative class.

The Plaintiff sues on behalf of himself and a proposed class of
current and former SP Plus employees "who worked for [SP Plus] in
California as from four years prior to filing the case to the date
of certification or judgment."

SP Plus Corporation is an American provider of parking facility
management services.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Spencer C. Skeen, Esq.
          Tim L. Johnson, Esq.
          Nikolas T. Djordjevski
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH,
          SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (858) 652-3100
          Facsimile: (858) 652-3101
          E-mail: spencer.skeen@ogletree.com
                  tim.johnson@ogletree.com
                  nikolas.djordjevski@ogletree.com

STANLEY STEEMER: Huber Files Suit in S.D. Ohio
----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Stanley Steemer
International, Inc. The case is styled as Marc Huber, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Stanley Steemer
International, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-04255-SDM-EPD (S.D. Ohio,
Dec. 28, 2023).

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

Stanley Steemer -- https://www.stanleysteemer.com/ -- is an
American company that provides carpet cleaning, tile and grout
cleaning, upholstery cleaning, hardwood floor cleaning and air duct
cleaning.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
          14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: (305) 479-2299
          Fax: (786) 623-0915
          Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com


SUNRUN INC: Fails to Pay Lead Qualifiers' OT Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN WEAVER, individually and for others similarly situated v.
SUNRUN INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:24-cv-00012 (N.D.
Cal., Jan. 2, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid "time and a half"
overtime premium from the Defendant, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Mr. Weaver and the other Straight Time Employees regularly worked
more than 40 hours a week. But SunRun did not pay Weaver and its
other Straight Time Employees overtime wages. Instead, SunRun paid
Weaver and its other Straight Time Employees the same hourly rate
for all hours worked, including those hours worked after 40 in a
workweek (a practice known as "straight time for overtime"), the
lawsuit asserts.

In addition to not paying Mr. Weaver and the other Straight Time
Employees overtime, SunRun also failed to pay them overtime wages
at the proper premium rate. Specifically, SunRun paid Mr. Weaver
and the other Straight Time Employees "lead approval bonuses,"
which SunRun intentionally excluded when calculating their regular
rates of pay for overtime purposes (SunRun's "bonus pay scheme"),
says the suit.

Mr. Weaver worked for SunRun as a Lead Qualifier from May 2014
until November 2023.

The putative collective of similarly situated employees is defined
as:

         All SunRun employees who were paid under SunRun's (1)
         straight time for overtime pay scheme and/or (2) bonus pay

         scheme at any time during the past 3 years (the "Straight

         Time Employees").

SunRun is a home solar and battery installer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William M. Hogg, Esq.
          JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
          Houston, Texas 77046
          Telephone: (713) 352-1100
          Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
          E-mail: whogg@mybackwages.com

TEXAS ASSOCIATION: Martin Sues Over Real Estate Market Conspiracy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JULIE MARTIN, MARK ADAMS, AND ADELAIDA MATTA, individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs V. TEXAS
ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, INC., AUSTIN BOARD OF REALTORS, SAN
ANTONIO BOARD OF REALTORS, INC., METROTEX ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS,
INC., HOUSTON ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, GREATER EL PASO ASSOCIATION
OF REALTORS, GREATER FORT WORTH ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, INC., FORT
HOOD AREA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, INC., FOUR RIVERS ASSOCIATION OF
REALTORS, INC., TEMPLE-BELTON BOARD OF REALTORS, INC., VICTORIA
AREA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, INC., WILLIAMSON COUNTY ASSOCIATION
OF REALTORS, INC., AUSTIN/CENTRAL TEXAS REALTY INFORMATION SERVICE,
CENTRAL TEXAS MULTIPLE LISTING SERVICE, INC., HOUSTON REALTORS
INFORMATION SERVICE, INC., NORTH TEXAS REAL ESTATE INFORMATION
SYSTEMS, INC., ABA MANAGEMENT, L.L.C., PENFED REALTY, LLC, EBBY
HALLIDAY REAL ESTATE, LLC, THE DAVE PERRY-MILLER COMPANY, KELLER
WILLIAMS REALTY, INC., HEYL GROUP HOLDINGS LLC, THE LOKEN GROUP,
INC., HEXAGON GROUP, LLC, DMTX, LLC, KELLER WILLIS SAN ANTONIO,
INC., SAN ANTONIO LEGACY GROUP, LLC, DSJMM, LLC, FATHOM REALTY,
LLC, SIDE, INC., CITIQUEST PROPERTIES, INC., HOMESERVICES OF
AMERICA, INC., JP PICCININI REAL ESTATE SERVICES, LLC, TEAM BURNS,
LLC, ABRE CAPITAL LLC, REALTY AUSTIN, LLC, ATX WIR LLC, THE MICHAEL
GROUP, LLC, SQUARE MB, LLC, MARK ANTHONY DIMAS, GREENWOOD KING
PROPERTIES II, INC., TURNER MANGUM LLC, MORELAND PROPERTIES, INC.,
REAL AGENT LLC, RFT ENTERPRISES, INC., ATC METRO PROPERTIES, INC.,
AND MJHM LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-01104 (E.D. Tex., Dec.
14, 2023) is a class action against the Defendants for alleged
violations of the Sherman Act and the Texas Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, seeking treble damages, injunctive relief, and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and on
behalf of the Class consisting of all persons who listed properties
on a Multiple Listing Service (MLS) in Texas using a listing agent
or broker affiliated with one of the Defendants named in this case,
and paid a buyer broker commission from November 13, 2019, until
the present.

According to the complaint, the Defendants leverage their control
over MLSs, their agreements with local franchisees and agents,
their employee policies, and their active roles within National
Association of Realtors and local realtor associations to compel
local residential real estate brokers to comply with NAR's
regulations, including the Mandatory Offer of Compensation Rule.  


The Defendants play a part in implementing the conspiracy by
reviewing NAR's Rules and consenting to them at annual meetings,
and NAR perpetuates the conspiracy by periodically reissuing its
Rules, which include the Mandatory Offer of Compensation Rule.
Additionally, Defendants are involved in the conspiracy by serving
on boards and committees that oversee compliance with NAR Rules.
The Defendants' conduct, as alleged, has led to the inflation of
buyer broker commissions nationwide, causing harm to home sellers
in numerous regions. Through Defendants, other NAR members, and
additional co-conspirators, NAR conducts business in interstate
commerce, engaging in activities that substantially impact
interstate trade within the United States, the suit asserts.

Texas Association of Realtors, Inc. is a non-profit corporation
organized under the laws of the state of Texas. TAR was founded in
1920 and is composed of over 153,000 realtors and has over 160,000
total members.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Julie Pettit, Esq.
          David B. Urteago, Esq.
          THE PETTIT LAW FIRM
          2101 Cedar Springs, Suite 1540
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 329-0151
          Facsimile: (214) 329-4076
          E-mail: jpettit@pettitfirm.com
                  durteago@pettitfirm.com

               - and -

          Michael K. Hurst, Esq.
          Chris Schwegmann, Esq.
          Yaman Dasai, Esq.
          LYNN PINKER HURST & SCHWEGMANN, LLP
          2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 2700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 981-3800
          Facsimile: (214) 981-3839
          E-mail: mhurst@lynnllp.com
                  cschwegmann@lynnllp.com
                  ydesai@lynnllp.com

               - and -

          Laurence D. King, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1560
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (415) 772-4700
          Facsimile: (415) 772-4707
          E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          Frederic S. Fox, Esq.
          Jeffrey P. Campisi, Esq.
          Matthew P. McCahill, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
          800 Third Avenue, 38th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 687-1980
          Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
          E-mail: ffox@kaplanfox.com
                  jcampisi@kaplanfox.com
                  mmccahill@kaplanfox.com

TRANSPORT FOR NSW: Ironbridge Assumes Lead Role in Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Freschia Gonzales, writing for Australasian Lawyer, reports that
Ironbridge Legal has assumed the leading role in a class action
filed against Transport for NSW over the WestConnex project.

The suit challenges land acquisitions made by the state government
in line with the project, which is looking to deliver a 33km
traffic-light-free motorway network in Sydney. The firm replaces
Quinn Emanuel as the lead plaintiff counsel in the case, which has
been brought before the NSW Supreme Court.

Since the project's launch in 2018, the WestConnex project has been
inundated by disputes concerning the land acquisition practices and
property damage, Ironbridge Legal said. The government had acquired
land for the M4 widening, the M5 East corridor expansion, and the
M4-M5 connection under The Land Acquisition (Just Terms
Compensation) Act 1991 (NSW).

Under this act, the NSW government and quasi-government entities
can "compulsorily acquire private land for public purposes,"
Ironbridge Legal partner Trevor Withane said.

"In general terms, whether you want to sell your land or not, the
NSW government and its entities can take private land or part of a
property for a public purpose," he explained. "It is critical that
the rights of landowners are respected by governments, and the
governments of Australia comply with the rule of law. To do
otherwise would be akin to the kind of objectionable expropriation
of land we see in some foreign jurisdictions."

Withane highlighted the importance of carefully examining the
legality of such acquisitions, especially when the landowners are
not compensated as in the case of the WestConnex project.
Ironbridge Legal pointed out that the class action is not only
looking to secure fair compensation, but also "aims to set a
precedent for future projects, ensuring that property rights and
legal obligations are duly respected."

On 23 November 2023, the firm filed a Further Amended Commercial
List Statement with the NSW Supreme Court. Withane is set to take
point on Ironbridge Legal's team, supported by Laura Coleclough and
Radith Khan.

In 2018, Transurban Group-led consortium Sydney Transport Partners
first acquired a 51% stake in WestConnex from Sydney Motorway
Corporation, a subsidiary that held the interests in the acquired
land. Sydney Transport Partners then secured the remaining 49%
interest in 2021 for $11.1bn.

Withane pointed out that Sydney motorists are "reported to pay over
$123bn in tolls by 2060, which will generate substantial revenue
for the New South Wales Government and the private road operators."
[GN]

TRANSUNION RENTAL: Martinez Sues Over Misleading Consumer Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DANNY MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRANSUNION RENTAL SCREENING SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-10678 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 21, 2023) is a
putative class action seeking to recover damages for violations of
the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

The suit is relevant in the context of consumer reports used for
the assessment for housing, as criminal record information can be a
significant factor impacting potential adverse action against a
consumer applicant, causing devastating impacts on their ability to
obtain a home.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has produced and sold
consumer reports concerning Plaintiff's and the proposed Class
members' backgrounds that wrongfully and misleadingly reported 1) a
number of incomplete and unidentifiable criminal records on their
consumer reports that lack any sufficient identifying information
and 2) are not properly associated with these consumers. As a
result of TURSS' wrongful reporting, Plaintiff and the Class
members' were damaged by, without limitation, suffering defamatory
harm to their reputations, impediment to their ability to gain
housing, and considerable stress and anguish, says the suit.

Transunion Rental Screening Solutions, Inc. is a consumer reporting
agency with primary place of business in Chicago, Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS & ZELMAN, LLC
          701 Cookman Ave, Suite 300
          Asbury Park, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695-3282
          E-mail: yzelman@marcuszelman.com

TWITTER INC: Frederick-Osborn Suit Alleges Gender Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
SYDNEY FREDERICK-OSBORN, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TWITTER, INC., and X CORP.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00125 (N.D. Cal., January 5, 2024)
arises from the company's constructive termination of female
employees and older employees who refused to agree to new working
conditions designed to result in the culling of female employees
from Twitter's workforce in the wake of Elon Musk's acquisition of
the company, claiming discrimination under Title VII, the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, and the California Fair
Employment and Housing Act.

Plaintiff Sydney Frederick-Osborn is an adult resident of San
Francisco, CA, where she worked for Twitter from June 2022 until
November 2022. Dr. Frederick-Osborn was employed by Twitter as a
Staff Software Engineer. Following Musk's purchase of Twitter in
late October 2022, Musk immediately began a mass layoff that
affected well more than half of Twitter’s workforce, including
Plaintiff. However, the data from these layoffs demonstrate that
this initial wave of layoffs was discriminatory towards women, says
the Plaintiff.

Headquartered in San Francisco, CA, Twitter, Inc. is an American
social media company. Its incorporated name is now changed to X
Corp. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
           Thomas Fowler, Esq.
           LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
           729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
           Boston, MA 02116
           Telephone: (617) 994-5800
           E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
                   tfowler@llrlaw.com

UNCLE VINNY'S: Fails to Pay Overtime Compensation, Hernandez Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS ALBERTO HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiff v. UNCLE VINNY'S ENTERPRISES
INC. d/b/a UNCLE VINNY'S, HUDSON VALLEY GREENS INC d/b/a UNCLE
VINNY'S, and VINCENT BONDI, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00092
(S.D.N.Y., January 5, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violating the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to work as a packer by
Defendants at Uncle Vinny's located at 641 Timpson Pl, Bronx, NY.
His employment was terminated in or around October 2023. Throughout
his employment, he was consistently required by Defendants to stay
beyond the end of his regular scheduled shift end time. The
Plaintiff recalls that as a result of Defendants' request, he
routinely worked extra two to three hours each shift, totaling
48.75 to 53.75 hours worked per week. However, Plaintiff was never
compensated by Defendants at the proper overtime rate for hours
worked over 40 in a workweek. In addition, he never received any
spread of hours premium for working more than 10 hours in duration,
says the Plaintiff.

Based in New York, Unlce Vinny's Enterprises, Inc. is engaged in
food manufacturing and distribution business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

UNUM LIFE: Faces Threadgill Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duty
--------------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH THREADGILL v. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA,
Case No. 3:24-cv-00007-LL-MSB (S.D. Cal., Jan. 2, 2024) is a class
action lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff and all similarly situated
Unum insureds whose claims are governed by the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 for claim for relief against Unum for
breach of fiduciary duty, enforcement, and clarification of
Rights.

UNUM breached its fiduciary duty via its failure to provide
Plaintiff with a full and fair review because of the acts set forth
above, and specifically, approving the payment of Short Term
Benefits insured by UNUM, which period encompassed the LTD
elimination period, where the STD and LTD definitions of disability
were indistinguishable, while denying LTD benefits on the ground
that she did not suffer from disabling impairments during the
entirety of the LTD Elimination Period, says the suit.

During the Plaintiff's employment, the Plaintiff became entitled to
benefits under the terms and conditions of the Policies.

Specifically, while the Plaintiff was covered under the Policies,
Plaintiff suffered an illness rendering Plaintiff disabled as
defined under the terms of the Policies and became entitled to
benefits following the end of the policy(s) elimination period,
effective her last date of employment, which was September 12,
2020.

The Plaintiff was employed by Flower Bulb, and was a covered
participant under the terms and conditions of the Policies at issue
in this action. The Policies were insured by UNUM, and UNUM was
also the claims administrator and made all decisions to pay or deny
benefit claims.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Glenn R. Kantor, Esq.
          KANTOR & KANTOR, LLP

WALMART INC: Shoppers Seek to Revive Fraud Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Dave Byrnes, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that a
class of Walmart shoppers asked Seventh Circuit on Jan. 10 to save
their fraud case against the world's largest retail chain.

The class, represented by an Ohioan who visited a Walmart in the
northwest Chicagoland suburbs, claims the chain lists different
prices for items on its shelves than what it actually charges
customers in the checkout lane.

"What does plaintiff allege? That Walmart, the largest retailer in
the world, has a widespread pervasive company-wide practice of
posting lower prices on its shelves than it charges at checkout,"
Stanley Bernstein, one of the class' attorneys, argued before a
three-judge federal appellate panel on Jan. 10.

This price discrepancy, the class argues, is a violation of
Illinois' Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act and Uniform
Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

The case began in August 2022 when the Ohioan shopper, Yoram Kahn,
bought snacks from a Walmart in Niles, Illinois, and noticed that
his receipt showed marked-up prices for the goods compared to the
prices listed at the display racks.

He paid $2.28 for a jar of salsa, for example, that was advertised
on the store shelf as only costing $2.00. Similarly, he paid $1.88
for a Kit-Kat bar that was listed at $1.64.

Though not exactly bank-breaking discrepancies, the increased costs
represented 9% - 15% markups.

In a federal class action Kahn filed a week later, he argued this
was a characteristic of Walmart stores nationwide, and cited
instances of state authorities in California and North Carolina
issuing five- to seven-figure fines against Walmart over similar
checkout price discrepancies.

He added that, for such a rich company, even fines in the
million-dollar range were insufficient deterrents.

"Store-specific fines in the thousands of dollars, and even a
statewide $2 million fine -- if and when Walmart is caught, and if
and when state agencies elect to investigate -- are not an
effective deterrent to this $500-billion corporation. Walmart
continues its false, misleading, unfair and deceptive pricing
practices unabated," Kahn argued.

It was an argument Bernstein echoed before the Seventh Circuit on
Jan. 10, pointing out the financial incentives for Walmart even to
modestly over-charge customers.

"If only 2% of Walmart's products are overpriced . . . and if
they're only overpriced by 5%, which is a very, very modest, modest
overprice . . . the math works out with a company that does $400
billion of sales per year to be a windfall to Walmart of $400
million per year, taken from consumers and given to Walmart just on
overpricing," Bernstein said.

The attorney also pointed to an amicus brief from the National
Retail Federation, The Food Industry Association and Illinois
Retail Merchants Association, which claims that "regulatory schemes
developed by government experts consider a store compliant if 98%
of items are labeled accurately on the shelf."

"This is the plan. This was in the amicus brief," Bernstein argued.
"They've confessed!"

It was an argument that, among others, a lower federal court didn't
buy.

U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis, a Barack Obama appointee, dismissed
Kahn's case last March on the grounds that Kahn was given a receipt
that displayed his overpayments. Kahn could contest the price
discrepancy using the receipt, Ellis reasoned, meaning Walmart had
not carried out any intentionally deceptive practice as defined by
the relevant state statutes.

"Kahn could, and indeed did, use [his] receipt to compare the
prices Walmart charged him with the advertised shelf pricing. This
comparison revealed the discrepancy and dispelled any potential
deception," Ellis wrote in her dismissal order, which Kahn appealed
a month later.

Daniel Blouin, Walmart's attorney, clung to Ellis' logic. He
claimed in Walmart's appellee brief filing that "neither the law
nor industry standard require perfection," and on Jan. 10 he deemed
Kahn and other customers' overcharges "honest mistakes."

"That's the underlying point that they're trying to make throughout
this entire lawsuit, is even in a simple situation where an honest
mistake is made, my client should be held liable," Blouin said.

The attorney further accused Kahn of "shopping for a lawsuit,"
pointing out that the same day Kahn bought overpriced snacks from
the Niles, Illinois, Walmart in August 2022, he also went to a
Target down the street to buy overpriced Ritz crackers.

Kahn also filed a near-identical class action against Target the
same day he filed suit against Walmart, only to voluntarily dismiss
the Target suit after it was transferred to Minnesota federal court
in 2023.

"He was seeking discrepancies here. He was seeking mistakes," said
Blouin, with U.S. Circuit Judge Diane Sykes, a George W. Bush
appointee, seeming to agree.

"He was a tester," Sykes said.

The other two judges on the appellate panel, the Barack
Obama-appointed U.S. Circuit Judge David Hamilton and Joe Biden
appointee U.S. Circuit Judge John Lee, seemed more skeptical of
Blouin's points. Lee clarified that, at least at the moment, Kahn
and his putative class weren't looking to hold Walmart liable for
anything per se; they were arguing their allegations were
sufficient to overturn the district court's dismissal order.

"Those are two very different things," Lee said.

Hamilton was even more pointed in his criticism, expressing
skepticism that simply offering customers a receipt "washes away
all potential for deception." He doubted the average Walmart
customer would audit their receipts for discrepancies as closely as
Kahn did.

"Retailers invest an awful lot of money into researching actual
consumer behavior . . . and every cashier I've been around, I'm
surrounded by impulse items," Hamilton said. "Candy, gum,
magazines, distractions, the latest celebrity divorce and so on,
everything to distract me from paying attention to whether scanned
prices match what I saw and might remember."

Even so, Blouin held to the stance that Kahn's over-charged items
were innocent human error by Walmart employees, not a deliberate
scheme to defraud consumers.

"There is no factual support for any reasonable inference that this
is anything other than a mistake," Blouin argued.

The trio of appellate judges took the case under advisement, but
did not say when they would issue a ruling. [GN]

WESTFIELD BANK: Levy & Rondoletto Sue Over Overdraft Fee Assessment
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW LEVY and ANTHONY RONDOLETTO, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WESTFIELD BANK,
Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-30004-MGM (D. Mass., January 5, 2024)
arises from the Defendant's routine practices of assessing an
overdraft fee on transactions that do not actually overdraw
checking accounts; and of assessing more than one insufficient
funds fee on the same transaction.

The Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract, including
breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, for
violations of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, and seek
damages, restitution, and injunctive relief.

Headquartered in Southwick, Massachusetts, Westfield Bank is
engaged in the business of providing retail banking services to
consumers. It has $2.1 billion in assets and maintains branch
locations across Massachusetts and Connecticut. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonathan M. Hixon, Esq.
          HACKETT FEINBERG P.C.
          155 Federal Street, 9th Floor
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 422-0200
          E-mail: jmh@bostonbusinesslaw.com

                  - and -

          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          Sophia G. Gold, Esq.
          KALIELGOLD PLLC
          1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 350-4783
          E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com
                  sgold@kalielgold.com

                  - and -

          David M. Berger, Esq.
          Tayler L. Walters, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLC
          1111 Broadway, Suite 2100
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 350-9700
          E-mail: dmb@classlawgroup.com
                  tlw@classlawgroup.com

WILLIAMSBURG VEGAN: Mediza Seeks Restaurant Servers' Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
NAHUEL DAVID MEDIZA and TOMAS ISAIAS MEDIZA, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WILLIAMSBURG
VEGAN CORP. (D/B/A THE VSPOT ORGANIC), WILLIAMSBURG VEGAN CORP.
(D/B/A ST. MARK'S COMEDY CLUB), THE V-SPOT RESTAURANT, LLC (D/B/A
THE VSPOT), VEGAN WHOLESALE FOODS CORP. (D/B/A THE VSPOT), DANIEL
CARABANO, ALEXIS CARABANO, and STEVEN SIMICICH, Defendants, Case
No. 1:23-cv-09185 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 14, 2023) is a class action
against the Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New York
Commissioner of Labor codified at N.Y. COMP. CODES R. & REGS.

The Plaintiffs allege the Defendants' failure to pay minimum and
overtime wages, failure to pay spread of hours compensation,
failure to provide written wage notices and accurate wage
statements, failure to pay on a regular weekly basis, and unlawful
deductions from tips.

Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as servers, a food
runner, and a busser in Brooklyn, New York.

Williamsburg Vegan Corp. owns two vegan restaurants and a comedy
club in Brooklyn, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

ZONA RESTAURANT: Reyes Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
DERIS REYES, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ZONA RESTAURANT OUT-EAST CORP., Case No.
2:23-cv-09147 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 13, 2023) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York
Labor Law, and the supporting New York State Department of Labor
Regulations.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a busboy from
August 2022 to October 2023. He alleges the Defendant's failure to
pay overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation,
failure to provide wage notices, and failure to furnish wage
statements.

Zona Restaurant Out-East Corp. operates a restaurant located in
Rocky Point, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


                            *********

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

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

Copyright 2024. 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 ***