/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240201.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, February 1, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 24

                            Headlines

1-800-GOT-JUNK? LLC: Records Telephonic Communications, Serna Says
10 WEST FERRY: Lundeen Sues Over Staff's Unpaid Wages
23ANDME HOLDING: Faces Another Suit Over Unprotected Genetic Info
ADF ENTERPRISES: Michel Sues Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses
AF LLC: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Business Practices

AJ BELLA: Faces Rodriguez Suit Over Nonpayment of Overtime
ALLOVIR INC: Zerbato Sues Over 67.38% Decline of Stock Price
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Berry Suit Transferred to E.D. California
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Johnson Appeals Labor Suit Dismissal
AMERICAN MOTOR: Hessee Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Texas

ANKER INNOVATIONS: Court Partially Dismisses Privacy Claims Suit
ANNA JAQUES HOSPITAL: Faces Class Suit Over Unprotected Info
APPLE INC: Files Motion to Dismiss $1-Bil. App Store Class Suit
ARCHDIOCESE OF QUEBEC: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Sexual Assault
ARCHER DANIELS: Faces Class Action Over Executive Compensation

AVEN FINANCIAL INC: Waden Files Suit in D. South Carolina
B. RILEY FINANCIAL: Faces Class Suit Over Securities Fraud
BATH SAVER INC: Rawlings Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
BIONTECH SE: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 12
BIOVIE INC: Olmstead Alleges Securities Law Breaches

BLUETRITON BRANDS: Slowinski Suit Removed to W.D. Louisiana
BMO INVESTORLINE: Bid for Certification of Trailer Fee Suit Denied
BRISTOL COMPRESSORS: Court Authorizes $2.4M Award in ERISA Suit
BRITISH AMERICAN: Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set for March 25
BROWN UNIVERSITY: Settles Antitrust Admissions Suit for $19.5M

BYD COACH & BUS: Bonito Suit Removed to C.D. California
CHICK-FIL-A INC: Agrees to Settle Delivery Fees' Suit for $4.4MM
CHIRO INC: Zepeda Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CINEPLEX INC: Faces Class Action Over Movie Tickets' Booking Fees
CITRIX SYSTEMS: Clark Files Suit in S.D. Florida

COLE HAAN LLC: Bunkley Suit Removed to E.D. California
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Settles Financial Aid Class Suit for $24M
COMCAST CABLE: McCauley Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
COMCAST CABLE: Smith Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
COMCAST CORPORATION: Roseman Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania

COMMCARE CORPORATION: Bowie Suit Removed to W.D. Louisiana
CORTECH INTERNATIONAL: Vazquez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
D'ORE JEWELERS NY: Tarr Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DEACON CONSTRUCTION: Watson Suit Removed to S.D. California
DIEHLUX LLC: Faces Wasley Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.

DOLLAR GENERAL: Hartline Files Suit in E.D. Oklahoma
DORA MAAR USA: Tarr Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
DSW SHOE WAREHOUSE: Carter Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
EQUIFAX INC: Agrees to Settle Class Suit Over Tribal Loan Accounts
EXACT SCIENCES: Martinez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website

FIGS INC: Court Dismisses Ryan Suit Over Securities Violations
FIRST ENERGY: Frand Seeks to Clarify Class Certification Order
FIRST ENERGY: Owens Seeks Clarification of Class Cert Order
FKA DISTRIBUTING: Mitchell Sues Over Undisclosed Product Defects
FLY JAMAICA: Court Approves Settlement in Aircraft Accident Suit

FRONT GENERAL STORE: Erkan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
FULL SAIL LLC: Beckwith Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
GEICO GENERAL: Court Approves Amended Class Notice in Lanzillotta
GROVESTARS MOVING: Errante Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
H.F. COX: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Rawles Claims

HAWAIIAN HOLDINGS: Meek Sues Over Misleading Proxy Statements
HEALTH-ADE LLC: Beverages Contain Toxic Chemicals, Morton Says
HEALTHEC LLC: Cappas Files Suit in D. New Jersey
HEALTHEC LLC: Figurel Files Suit in D. New Jersey
HEALTHEC LLC: Marano Sues Over Unprotected Personal, Health Info

HEALTHEC LLC: Roach Files Suit in D. New Jersey
HEART OF TEXAS: Faces Class Action Over Patient Data Breach
HERTZ CORP: Retherford Seeks Conditional Status of Collective
HMG HEALTHCARE: Townsend Files Suit in S.D. Texas
HOME DEPOT: Floyd Suit Removed to C.D. California

HOMEADVISOR INC: Court Certifies Four Classes in Airquip Lawsuit
HOUSE OF ELEVEN: Karim Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HUME SUPERNATURAL: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
HUNAN MANOR: Taste of Mao Appeals Ruling in Chen FLSA Suit
IC MARKETS: Misleads Investors Over Financial Products, Suit Says

IMA FINANCIAL GROUP: Zerbe Files Suit in D. Kansas
INDIANA: Court Certifies Class Suit Over Gender Affirming Care Ban
INLINE PLASTICS: Crawley Files Suit in D. Connecticut
INMATE CALLING SOLUTIONS: Israelson Files Suit in D. Kansas
INTEGRIS HEALTH: Johnston Files Suit in W.D. Oklahoma

J.M. SMUCKER: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Humphrey Due April 25
J.M. SMUCKER: Parties Wants April 25 Deadline for Class Cert Bid
JAMES LEBLANC: Class Certification Bid Filing Due Sept. 30
JENNIFER FISHER: Durantas Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
JETBLUE AIRWAYS: La Grow Suit Removed to C.D. California

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Suit Over Neutrogena Shampoo False Ads
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Morris Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
KAY IVEY: Feb. 8 Provisional Class Cert Hearing in Kinetic OK'd
KEEP YOUR CADENCE: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
LAND O'LAKES: Arana Suit Removed to E.D. California

LAZER SPOT: Faces Class Suit Over "Yard Jockeys" Unpaid Overtime
LIBERTY INSURANCE: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Dec. 18
LIQUID LAB: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Martinez Says
LIVE WELL: Class Suit Settlement in Mass Layoffs Suit Gets Final OK
LOS ANGELES, CA: Class Cert Opposition Deadline Continued to Feb. 2

MAGNA INTERNATIONAL: Court Certifies 401(k) Class Action Suit
MANTL INC: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MAPLEBEAR INC: Faces Class Action Over IPO False Information
MARATHON REFINING: Butel Seeks to Certify Two Classes
MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Lopez Suit Removed to D. Colorado

MARTIN LUTHER: Fails to Properly Pay Healthcare Staff, Roldan Says
MASTER LOCK: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Pan Suit Due March 5
MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL: Jones Suit Removed to C.D. California
MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Nod
MDL 2918: EUPs Consider Sealing Class Cert Materials

ME&I CONSTRUCTION: Filing of Class Cert Bid in Stock Due April 19
MEDITERRANEAN FOODS: Durantas Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
MENZIES AVIATION: Douglass Suit Removed to S.D. California
MIAMI IM REST: Martinez Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
MINNESOTA: Mount Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling to 8th Cir.

MODERNISTIC II: Murphy Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
MONROW LLC: Karim Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
MOTT'S LLP: "Preservative-Free" Mix Claims Misleading, Suit Says
N.IO INNOVATION: Court Sets Class Certification Schedule in Karaba
NATIONAL DEBT: Vincent Sues Over Unauthorized Collection of IPs

NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Sunday Ticket Package Suit to be Heard June 2024
NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Class Settlement in Woodard Gets Final Nod
NEW INDY: Higher Court Hears Arguments in Class Suit Over Foul Odor
NEW LONDON PHARMACY: Erkan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Doe Moves to Certify Sex Discrimination Suit

NEW YORK, NY: Miller Suit Seeks Final Approval of Settlement Deal
NEW YORK, NY: Police Officers Get Conditional Class Certification
OFF HOURS SPIRITS: Bullock Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
OPENAI INC: Seeks More Time for Class Cert Briefing Schedule
OSLO COFFEE ROASTERS: Durantas Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York

PACCAR INC: 10th Gear Files Suit in W.D. Washington
PACCAR INC: Long Files Suit in S.D. Illinois
PACIFIC MARITIME: Hill Suit Removed to N.D. California
PALOMA POINTE: Palacio-Grant Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
PARAMOUNT PICTURES: Murphy Sues Over Unpaid Compensations

PATRIOT PICKLE: Mayer Suit Removed to W.D. New York
PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP: Torres Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
PHARMERICA PS: Thao Suit Removed to S.D. California
PLOW & HEARTH: Langston Files Suit in D. Utah
PRECISION PARTNERS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ramirez Suit Says

PROVIDENT TITLE: Agito Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensation
PUBLISHERS CLEARING: Camoras Files Suit in D. Utah
PURPLE INNOVATION: Julian Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
QUAKER WINDOW PRODUCTS: Byrd Files Suit in W.D. Missouri
QUAKER WINDOW PRODUCTS: Noakes Files Suit in W.D. Missouri

REJOICE DELIVERS: Amazon Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Webb
REJOICE DELIVERS: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Webb Suit
RENAL TREATMENT: Leon Suit Removed to C.D. California
RENTGROW INC: Szewczyk Suit Seeks to Certify Three Classes
RESURGENT CAPITAL: Haston Seeks Initial OK of Settlement Deal

RETENTION BRANDS: Bongiovi Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York
RHODE ISLAND: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class of Inmates
RUMPL INC: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
RXO LAST: May File Third-Party Complaint in Mejia Suit
S. CAROL MASSIE: Paiz Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages

SALESFORCE INC: Roy Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SAMPSON BLADEN: Gbete Must File Class Cert. Bid by July 29
SAUCE VENTURES: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SBARRO LLC: Filing for Class Certification Due April 12
SCHRADER MECHANICAL: Brazeau Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.

SEASONS RECOVERY: Mangus Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE: Torres Files Suit in D. Kansas
SHOP-ALEXIS.COM: Karim Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SITE SAFE TRAFFIC: Gilbert Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SL GREEN REALTY: Newman Files Suit in S.D. New York

SLEEP NUMBER: Casillas Suit Removed to C.D. California
SMARTE CARTE: Facio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
SMARTY LLC: Foster Suit Removed to S.D. California
SUTTER HEALTH: Copans Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
T&T FARMS: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Certification Bid

TAPESTRY INC: Parties Seek May 24 Extension for Class Cert Filing
THUNDER CARRIER: Sends Unsolicited Text Messages, Sancruzado Claims
TIMES PUBLISHING: Agrees to Settle Data Sharing Class Suit
TURQUOISE HILL: Lead Plaintiff Allowed Leave to File TAC
U.S. STEEL: Settles Class Suit Over Fire, Power Outages

UNITED INDUSTRIES: Faces Class Suit Over Hot Shot Bedbug
UNITED INDUSTRIES: Martin Sues Over Product's Deceptive Labeling
UNITED STATES: Muhumed Seeks Certification as Class Rep
UNITED STATES: Settles Discrimination Class Action Suit for $6M
VERIZON WIRELESS: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Illegal Fees for $100M

VICTORIA: Faces Class Suit Over Public Housing Demolition Plan
VIRGINIA: Hatcher Must File Reply to Opposition by Feb. 5
VISA INC: Bids to Decertify Class Suit Over Transaction Fees
VISION LOGISTICS: Morley Sues Over Wage and Hour Law Violations
WEST VILLAGE: Plaintiffs Seek Extension of Discovery Deadlines

WORKDAY INC: Court Dismisses Suit Over AI Applicant Screening Tool
YOSHINOYA AMERICA: Mendoza Sues Over Labor Law Breaches
[*] Emergencies Act Ruling Affirms Claims in Proposed Class Action

                            *********

1-800-GOT-JUNK? LLC: Records Telephonic Communications, Serna Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN SERNA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 1-800-GOT-JUNK? LLC, Defendant, Case No.
5:24-cv-00047 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 9, 2024) is a class action suit
brought against the Defendant for surreptitiously monitoring and
recording the telephonic communications between consumers and its
customer service representatives without first providing notice or
obtaining the customer's consent in violation of the California
Invasion of Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant provides support to
customers over the phone and provides quotes and scheduling
appointments for its junk removal services. The Defendant allegedly
monitors and records these interactions. What Defendant fails to
do, however, is disclose this fact to customers, including
Plaintiff, who receive calls initiated by Defendant.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and a class
of all persons whose telephonic communications were surreptitiously
recorded by the Defendant.

1-800-GOT-JUNK? LLC is a waste management company that provides
junk removal services to residential customers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, 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: ltfisher@bursor.com

10 WEST FERRY: Lundeen Sues Over Staff's Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
GRAHAM LUNDEEN, on behalf of himself and similarly situated
employees, Plaintiff v. 10 WEST FERRY STREET OPERATIONS LLC (d.b.a.
Logan Inn), Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00109 (E.D. Pa., Jan. 9,
2024) is a class/collective action lawsuit brought against the
Defendant seeking all available relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a bartender and server
at the Inn from approximately September 2021 until approximately
December 2022. He alleges that the Defendant pays the Inn's
bartenders an hourly wage of either $2.83 plus tips or $5 plus
tips. Plaintiff Lundeen asserts that Defendant violated the FLSA
and PMWA by distributing tip pool proceeds to bar manager (and,
possibly, other management-level employees).

10 West Ferry Street Operations LLC owns and operates the Logan Inn
in New Hope, Pennsylvania, which includes, inter alia, a restaurant
and bar areas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884-2491

23ANDME HOLDING: Faces Another Suit Over Unprotected Genetic Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Benzinga reports that genetic testing company 23andMe Holding Co.
(NASDAQ:ME) is under fire in a class action lawsuit, accused of
inadequately protecting the privacy of nearly 7 million customers
whose personal information was compromised in a data breach last
year.

The lawsuit, filed yesterday in federal court in San Francisco,
alleges that the company failed to notify customers with Chinese
and Ashkenazi Jewish heritage about being specifically targeted,
reported The New York Times.

Their genetic information was reportedly compiled into "specially
curated lists" that were shared and sold on the dark web, the
report added.

The legal action was initiated following 23andMe's submission to
the California Attorney General's Office, revealing a data breach
spanning five months, from late April 2023 to September 2023.

The company became aware of the breach on Oct. 1, when a hacker
claimed to have customer data and posted a sample on a 23andMe
subreddit.

The company disclosed the breach on Oct. 6, attributing it to the
use of recycled login credentials.

Data Breach Details And Fallout

The breach reportedly exposed information from 5.5 million "DNA
Relatives" profiles, including geographic location, birth year,
family tree and uploaded photos.

An additional 1.4 million customers' profile information was
accessed through a feature called "Family Tree." The lawsuit
underscores concerns about the use of breached data, particularly
amid rising antisemitic hate speech and violence, the report
added.

On Oct. 1, a hacker named "Golem" leaked the personal data of over
1 million 23andMe users with Jewish ancestry in an online forum.

This included full names, home addresses and birth dates.
Subsequently, Golem provided profile information of 100,000 Chinese
customers, raising fears about potential misuse of the exposed
data, according to the report.

Representative Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) has called for an FBI
investigation into the breach, expressing concerns about the leaked
data's possible use by extremist groups.

"The leaked data could empower Hamas, their supporters, and various
international extremist groups to target the American Jewish
population and their families," Gottheimer wrote in a letter to FBI
Director Christopher Wray, according to The New York Times. [GN]

ADF ENTERPRISES: Michel Sues Over Drivers' Unreimbursed Expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------
CHRIS MICHEL, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. ADF ENTERPRISES, INC., and DAIN F.
FUNDERBURG, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00063 (W.D. Tex., January
19, 2024) arises from the Defendants' failure to reimburse delivery
drivers for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of
their vehicles in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from approximately January
2013 to October 2022 as a delivery driver at Defendants' Domino's
store located in Fredericksburg, TX. Allegedly, Defendants use a
flawed method to determine reimbursement rates that provides such
an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable approximation of
the expenses they incur that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses
cause their wages to fall below the federal minimum wage during
some or all workweeks, says the Plaintiff.

ADF Enterprises, Inc. owns and operates numerous Domino's franchise
stores in Texas. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Katherine Serrano, Esq.
           FORESTER HAYNIE, PLLC
           400 N. St. Paul Street Suite 700
           Dallas, TX 75201
           Telephone: (214) 210-2100
           Facsimile: (469) 399-1070 fax
           E-mail: kserrano@foresterhaynie.com

AF LLC: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Business Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
SooLeader Staff of SooLeader.com reports that Michigan Attorney
General Dana Nessel served a class action lawsuit upon a
Mississippi man and his limited liability company (LLC) AF LLC,
operating as ACF Wholesale, alleging statutory conversion and other
illegal business practices in violation of the Michigan Consumer
Protection Act (MCPA). The lawsuit was filed in the 30th Circuit
Court in Ingham County.

Benjamin Moody, of Columbus, MS, sells furniture via ACF Wholesale
as a drop-shipping model business. A drop-shipper acts only as an
intermediary between a customer and a manufacturer, typically
another retailer or wholesaler, who ships the product directly to
the buyer. The typical drop-shipper is positioned between the
customer and supplier, does not maintain a stock of merchandise,
places orders to suppliers after items are ordered from their
storefront, charges in excess of the price they pay for the
merchandise as profit, and never sees or handles the products they
sell. Drop-shipping itself is not illegal, but potential pitfalls
exist for both buyers and sellers, and the Attorney General has
previously issued a consumer alert advising residents on
precautions to take when purchasing from such operations.

In November of 2023, the Department of Attorney General received
dozens of Michigan consumer complaints from the Better Business
Bureau (BBB) against ACF Wholesale dating from mid-2020 to 2023.
The BBB website details approximately 2,000 complaints against the
company over that period of time, more than half filed in the last
year. The complaints demonstrate a clear pattern showing ACF
Wholesale taking orders and payment for furniture and failing to
deliver the product, fabricating excuses for delay and
non-delivery, and in many instances failing to provide refunds
despite promises to do so. BBB complaints from Michigan cover every
region of the state.

In December of 2023, the Attorney General sent ACF Wholesale and
Moody a Notice of Intended Action, requesting documentation
identifying all Michigan consumers still owed refunds and the
amounts owed to each. This was never provided. The Department of
Attorney General was meanwhile contacting BBB complainants to
identify such Michigan consumers. The lawsuit specifically seeks
monetary damages for individual customers in Suttons Bay, Norton
Shores, and Midland who have been denied refunds for undelivered
furniture purchases in the amounts of $281, $624, and $1,153
respectively.

ACF Wholesale's website is presently not operational, though no
legal barrier prevents the company from soliciting future purchases
from Michigan consumers.

"When a business completely fails to deliver products, and further
abandons refund requests, my department will continue to rise to
the defense of Michigan consumers," said Nessel. "ACF Wholesale
still wrongfully holds thousands of dollars, maybe more, owed back
to the people of our state and others. I strongly encourage any
Michigan residents who have been harmed by this company to file a
complaint with my consumer protection team. We know there are more
victims out there and we want to help."

The Attorney General alleges unlawful violations of four distinct
subsections of the MCPA, including "failing, in a consumer
transaction that is rescinded, canceled, or otherwise
terminated...to promptly restore to the person or persons entitled
to it a deposit, down payment, or other payment." Additionally
alleged is statutory conversion, based on failing to return money
for canceled orders.

The Attorney General's complaint seeks as relief:

    -- an order finding Moody and his LLC jointly and severally
liable;
    -- an award of monetary damages to the three specified
complainants, as well as, all similarly situated Michigan
consumers;
    -- injunctions prohibiting ACF from engaging in further
transactions with Michigan consumers;
    -- injunctions against Moody and any entity he creates, owns,
or manages from engaging in business with Michigan consumers; and
    -- civil fines, and enforcement costs and fees.

Concerning the class action status, the lawsuit claims, "The class
of consumers to which these claims relate consists of all Michigan
consumers who have placed and paid for orders with ACF Wholesale
for goods that were not delivered, and who did not receive a
refund."

Any Michiganders who have been similarly treated by Moody and ACF
Wholesale and have not filed complaints with the BBB are strongly
encouraged to file complaints with the Department of Attorney
General's Consumer Protection Team. Furthermore, Michigan consumers
who believe they have been defrauded by any drop-shipper, or
suspect they are the victims of illegal or predatory business
practices, are encouraged likewise. [GN]

AJ BELLA: Faces Rodriguez Suit Over Nonpayment of Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------
VIDIEK RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff v. AJ BELLA CONTRACTORS INC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:24-cv-14015-XXXX (S.D. Fla., January 19, 2024) is a
class action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of other similarly
situated individuals, seeking to recover money damages from the
Defendant for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as driver from 2015
until his wrongful termination on November 14, 2023. The Plaintiff
worked between 60-73 hours per week with no payment for overtime.

AJ Bella Contractors Inc. is a construction company based in St
Lucie County, Florida. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

ALLOVIR INC: Zerbato Sues Over 67.38% Decline of Stock Price
------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER ZERBATO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLOVIR, INC., DIANA M. BRAINARD,
and VIKAS SINHA, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-10152 (D. Mass.,
January 19, 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 AlloVir's business, operations,
and prospects in order to trade AlloVir securities at artificially
inflated prices between March 22, 2022 and December 21, 2023.
Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors that:
(i) the posoleucel Phase 3 Studies were unlikely to meet their
primary endpoints; (ii) as a result, it was likely that the Company
would ultimately discontinue the posoleucel Phase 3 studies; (iii)
accordingly, AlloVir overstated the efficacy and clinical and/or
commercial prospects of posoleucel; and (iv) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times, says the suit.

When the truth emerged, AlloVir's stock price fell $1.57 per share,
or 67.38 percent, to close at $0.76 per share on December 22,
2023.

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.

AlloVir, Inc. is a clinical-stage cell therapy company, with
principal executive offices located at 1100 Winter Street, Waltham,
Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Emily C. Finestone, Esq.
         Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
         J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
         POMERANTZ LLP
         600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 661-1100
         Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
         E-mail: efinestone@pomlaw.com
                 jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                 ahood@pomlaw.com

AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Berry Suit Transferred to E.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Cheyenne Berry, on behalf of themselves and
all other similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM, SERVICES LLC;
AMAZON.COM, INC.; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-03614
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California on Jan. 19, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-00093 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Jobs Civil Rights.

Amazon.com Services LLC -- https://www.amazon.com/ -- provides
e-commerce services. The Company retails books, diamond jewelry,
electronics, appliances, apparels, and accessories.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Lindsay Hutner, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          101 Second Street, Suite 2200
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: (415) 655-1300
          Facsimile: (415) 707-2010
          Email: Lindsay.Hutner@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          Timothy J. Long, Esq.
          Samuel S. Hyde, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2400
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Phone: (916) 442-1111
          Facsimile: (916) 448-1709
          Email: longt@gtlaw.com
                 hydes@gtlaw.com

               - and -

          Matthew J. Weber, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
          1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2121
          Phone: (310) 586-7700
          Facsimile: (310) 586-7800
          Email: Matthew.Weber@gtlaw.com


AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Johnson Appeals Labor Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs LISA JOHNSON and GALE MILLER ANDERSON filed an appeal
from the District Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated
December 7, 2023 and Final Judgment dated January 4, 2024 entered
in the lawsuit entitled LISA JOHNSON AND GALE MILLER ANDERSON, on
behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:23-cv-00685, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit was
removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the
Northern District of Illinois on February 3, 2023.

On behalf of herself and a putative class, Plaintiff Anderson
asserted causes of action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act for alleged unpaid wages arising from time spent
passing through required "COVID-19 screenings" before starting
shifts at an Amazon warehouse.

On December 7, 2023, Amazon's motion to dismiss was granted. The
Plaintiff's claims were dismissed without prejudice.

On January 4, 2024, Final Judgment was entered and the case was
closed.

The appellate case is captioned as LISA JOHNSON and GALE MILLER
ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC,
Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 24-1028, in the United States Court
for Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on January 8, 2024.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that Appellants'
brief is due on February 20, 2024.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants LISA JOHNSON AND GALE MILLER ANDERSON, on
behalf of themselves and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
          Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
          WERMAN SALAS P.C.
          77 W. Washington St., Suite 1402
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 419-1008
          E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
                  msalas@flsalaw.com

               - and -

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

AMERICAN MOTOR: Hessee Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Texas
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against American Motor Car
Consulting, LLC. The case is styled as Robert Hessee, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Motor
Car Consulting, LLC, Case No. 4:24-cv-00224 (S.D. Tex., Jan. 19,
2024).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

American Motors Corporation was an American automobile
manufacturing company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amy Lynn Bennecoff Ginsburg, Esq.
          GINSBURG LAW GROUP, P.C.
          1012 N. Bethlehem Pike, Suite 103, Box 9
          Ambler, PA 19002
          Phone: (855) 978-6564
          Fax: (855) 777-0043
          Email: Efilings@ginsburglawgroup.com


ANKER INNOVATIONS: Court Partially Dismisses Privacy Claims Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Alex W. Karasik, and Tyler Zmick, who write
for Duane Morris, report that in Sloan, et al. v. Anker Innovations
Ltd., No. 22-CV-7174 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 9, 2024), Judge Sarah Ellis of
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
granted in part a motion to dismiss privacy claims brought against
the companies that manufacture and sell "eufy" security products.
The Court dismissed the claims asserted under the federal Wiretap
Act because Defendants were "parties" to the communication during
which the eufy products sent security recordings to Plaintiffs'
mobile devices (notwithstanding that the products also sent the
data to a server owned by Defendants). In addition, the Court
partially dismissed Plaintiffs' claims under the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act and under four state consumer protection
statutes, thereby allowing Plaintiffs to proceed with their case
only with respect to some of their claims.

For businesses who are embroiled in facial recognition software and
related privacy class actions, this ruling provides a helpful
roadmap for fracturing such claims at the outset of the lawsuit.

Case Background

Plaintiffs were individuals from various states who purchased and
used Defendants' "eufy" branded home security cameras and video
doorbells. The eufy products can, among other things, detect motion
outside a person's home and apply a facial recognition program
differentiate "between known individuals and strangers by
recognizing biometric identifiers and comparing the face template
against those stored in a database." Eufy products sync to a user's
phone through eufy's Security app, which notifies a user of motion
around the camera by sending the use a recorded thumbnail image or
text message.

Defendants advertised that the video recordings and facial
recognition data obtained through eufy cameras are stored locally
on user-owned equipment owned and that the data would be encrypted
so that only the user could access it. Media reports later
revealed, however, that the eufy products uploaded thumbnail images
used to notify users of movement to Defendants' cloud storage
without encryption, and that users could stream content from their
videos through unencrypted websites.

Claiming they relied to their detriment on Defendants' (allegedly
false) privacy-related representations when purchasing the eufy
products, the eight named Plaintiffs filed a putative class action
against corporate Defendants involved in the manufacture and sale
of "eufy" products. In their complaint, Plaintiffs asserted that
Defendants violated:

     (1) the Federal Wiretap Act;

     (2) the Biometric Information Privacy Act (the "BIPA"); and

     (3) the consumer protection statutes of Illinois, New York,
Massachusetts, and Florida. Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiffs'
claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

The Court's Decision

The Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion,
holding that:

     (1) the Wiretap Act claim should be dismissed because
Defendants were a party to the relevant communication (i.e., the
transmission of data from eufy products to Plaintiffs via the eufy
Security app);

     (2) the BIPA claims should be dismissed as to non-Illinois
resident Plaintiffs; and

     (3) the claims brought under the relevant consumer protection
statutes should be dismissed only to the extent they were premised
on certain of Defendants' public-facing privacy statements.

Wiretap Act Claims

The Court first addressed Plaintiffs' Wiretap Act claims,
explaining that the statute "empowers a private citizen to bring a
civil claim against someone who 'intentionally intercepts [or]
endeavors to intercept . . . any wire, oral, or electronic
communication.'"

Defendants argued that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the
Wiretap Act because the statute does not apply to a party to the
relevant communication. Specifically, the Wiretap Act exempts a
person who intercepts an electronic communication "where such
person is a party to the communication or where one of the parties
to the communication has given prior consent to such interception."
18 U.S.C. Sec. 2511(2)(d).

The Court agreed with Defendants and thus dismissed Plaintiffs'
Wiretap Act claim. The Court described the relevant "communication"
as the transmission of data from eufy products to Plaintiffs'
devices and explained that the transmission "is not between the
eufy product and Plaintiffs, but rather between the eufy product
and the eufy Security app, which Defendants own and operate. As
such, the communication necessarily requires Defendants'
participation, even if Plaintiffs did not intend to share their
information with Defendants." The Court thus held that Defendants
were parties to the communication, and Defendants also uploading
the data to their own server (without Plaintiffs' knowledge) did
not change that conclusion.

BIPA Claims

Regarding Plaintiffs' BIPA claims, Defendants argued that
Plaintiffs failed to allege that the relevant data (which
Defendants described as "thumbnail images") qualifies for
protection under the BIPA because photographs are not biometric
data under the statute. The Court rejected this argument since
Plaintiffs alleged that Defendants uploaded thumbnail information
and facial recognition data (namely, "scans of face geometry") to
their server.

The Court agreed with Defendants' second argument, however, which
asserted that Plaintiffs' BIPA claim failed to the extent it was
brought by or on behalf of Plaintiffs who are not Illinois
residents. The BIPA applies only where the underlying conduct
occurs "primarily and substantially" in Illinois. The Court
determined that the relevant communications between Plaintiffs and
Defendants "occurred primarily and substantially in the state of
residency for each Plaintiff." Id. at 12-13. And the End User
License Agreement for eufy Camera Products and the Security App
stating that the agreement is governed by Illinois law did not
change the result that the BIPA claim brought by non-Illinois
residents must be dismissed.

Statutory Consumer Protection Claims

Finally, the Court turned to Defendants' contentions relative to
the alleged violations of the four state consumer protection
statutes. In beginning its analysis, the Court explained that "[t]o
state a claim for deceptive practices under any of the alleged
state consumer fraud statutes, Plaintiffs must allege a deceptive
statement or act that caused their harm." Moreover, "a statement is
deceptive if it creates a likelihood of deception or has the
capacity to deceive." Defendants argued in their motion to dismiss
that Plaintiffs did not allege cognizable deceptive statements
because the statements at issue constitute either puffery or are
not false.

The Court dismissed Plaintiffs' statutory fraud claims in part.
Specifically, the Court held that Defendants' advertising in the
form of certain "statements relating to privacy" (e.g., "your
privacy is something that we value as much as you do") constituted
nonactionable "puffery." The Court therefore dismissed Plaintiffs'
statutory fraud claims insofar as they were premised on the
similarly vague "statements relating to privacy."

However, the Court denied Defendants' attempt to dismiss the claims
premised on their more specific statements about (1) end-user data
being stored only on a user's local device, (2) the use of alleged
facial recognition, and (3) end-user data being encrypted.
Defendants argued that these were "accurate statements" and thus
could not serve as the basis for consumer fraud claims. The Court
disagreed, ruling that Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged that the
storage, encryption, and facial recognition statements may have
misled a reasonable consumer. Accordingly, the Court granted in
part and denied in part Defendants' motion to dismiss.

Implications For Corporate Counsel

The most significant aspect of Sloan v. Anker Innovations Limited
is the Court's analysis of Plaintiffs' Wiretap Act claims, given
the rapidly emerging trend among the plaintiff class action bar of
using traditional state and federal laws -- including the Wiretap
Act -- to seek relief for alleged privacy violations. In applying
modern technologies to older laws like the Wiretap Act (passed in
1986), courts have grappled with issues such as the determination
of who is a "party to the communication" such that an entity is
exempt from the statute's scope. As data exchanges and data storage
become more complex, the "party to the communication" determination
reciprocally becomes more nebulous.

In Sloan, the "communication" was the eufy products transmitting
data to Plaintiffs' device and "contemporaneously intercept[ing]
and sen[ding] [the data] to [Defendant's] server." Because
Plaintiffs had to use the eufy Security app to access the data, and
because Defendants owned and operated the app, the Court determined
that Defendants necessarily participated in the communication. But
the result may have been different if, for instance, Plaintiffs
could use a different app (one not owned by Defendants) to access
the data, or if unbeknownst to Plaintiffs, the eufy Securty app was
actually owned and operated by a third-party entity. The upshot is
that corporate counsel should keep these principles in mind with
respect to any data-flow processes regarding end-user or employee
data. [GN]

ANNA JAQUES HOSPITAL: Faces Class Suit Over Unprotected Info
------------------------------------------------------------
CyberTalk.org reports that in the U.S. state of Massachusetts, Anna
Jaques Hospital experienced a shutdown of its electronic record
systems and networked computers late last year.

The attack forced administrators to redirect ambulances to other
hospitals until service was restored two days later.

A ransomware extortion group known as Money Message publicly
admitted that it catalyzed the breach. Neither the hackers nor the
hospital disclosed how much of a ransom was demanded.

The lawsuit

The proposed class action lawsuit alleges negligence and breach of
implied contract and good faith on the part of the hospital, as it
failed to effectively safeguard data.

The suit seeks $5.4 million, or $200 each, in damages for an
assumed class of 27,000 plaintiffs. At this time, the actual number
of individuals whose personal data was compromised remains unknown
– it could be far above the estimated figure.

The complaint also requests for the court to order the hospital to
improve its data security system.

The hospital allegedly concealed " . . . the existence and extent
of the data breach for an unreasonable duration of time" and is
said to have failed to provide accurate notice of the breach.

The lawsuit claims that the hospital has still not yet notified its
patients about the data breach.
A hospital spokesperson has stated that if it finds that data has
been impacted by the incident, it will send required notifications
in accordance with state and federal laws.

The data that may have been exposed or stolen through this incident
includes personal health information, such as medical records and
history, test results, procedure descriptions, diagnoses and
personal or family medical histories.

It's also possible that personally identifiable information (PII),
such as social security numbers, passport numbers, driver's license
numbers and financial account numbers were breached.

The individual who initiated the lawsuit claims that he only found
out about the breach from local news reports and asserts that it's
"likely" that some of the exposed information has already been
misused. [GN]

APPLE INC: Files Motion to Dismiss $1-Bil. App Store Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
William Gallagher of AppleInsider reports that a UK tribunal is
considering a bid by Apple to have a $1 billion lawsuit over App
Store fees be dismissed on the grounds that the case's argument is
"unsustainable."

In July 2023, a class action suit was brought against Apple on
behalf of 1,566 UK-based developers. It argued that Apple is
abusing its monopoly position, and charging excessive fees.

According to Reuters, the UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT)
has now heard from Apple's lawyers. They contend that the case's
argument is "unsustainable," because 85% of developers on its App
Store do not pay any commission fees at all.

Further, Apple's lawyer Daniel Piccinin argues that developers
cannot have a claim in the UK unless it were over purchases
customers made in the UK's version of the App Store. Piccinin says
that would only apply to a small minority of the case's claimants.

However, the claimants' lawyer Paul Stanley, has reportedly said in
court filings that Apple "has come to the UK to offer services to
UK businesses on a UK market and has abused its position by
overcharging them."

The lawsuit was brought by Sean Ennis, a professor at the Centre
for Competition Policy at the University of East Anglia and a
former economist at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD.) Previously he has said that "Apple's charges to
app developers are excessive, and only possible due to its monopoly
on the distribution of apps onto iPhone and iPad."

"The charges are unfair in their own right, and constitute abusive
pricing," he continued when the lawsuit was filed. "They harm app
developers and also app buyers."

At the time of the original filing, an Apple spokesperson told
AppleInsider that the company has never increased fees in the
(then) 15 years of the App Store. That point is disingenuous since
the fee is a percentage of app costs which have risen, though.

Apple did further say that it has added exemptions and overall
reduced fees for developers. The company also called out how it had
created jobs in the UK, the most recent figures for which now say
Apple supports over half a million workers in the country.

The case is not expected to come to trial until 2025. [GN]

ARCHDIOCESE OF QUEBEC: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Sexual Assault
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Antoni Nerestant, writing for CBC News, reports that as part of an
ongoing class-action lawsuit against the Archdiocese of Quebec, a
high-ranking member of the Roman Catholic Church in the province is
now facing allegations of sexual assault.

The class action lawsuit targeting the archdiocese was authorized
in June 2022.

Cardinal Gerald Cyprien Lacroix has now also been named in court
documents that were presented Thursday morning.

The class action now also names the Seminaire de Quebec, a revered
institution responsible for creating Universite Laval, the first
francophone university in North America.

The alleged incidents involving Lacroix took place between 1987 and
1988 in Quebec City when the plaintiff was 17. Lacroix is accused
of touching her without her consent.

The woman is not named in the court documents.

From 1982 to 1987, Lacroix served as the secretary-general of the
Pie-X secular institute in Quebec City. From 1985 to 1987, he was
also the director of the Maison du Renouveau du Quebec, which is
described on its website as a gathering place for prayer open to
people of all walks of life.

Lacroix was ordained as a priest in 1988.

Lacroix, who is now 66, became archbishop of Quebec in February
2011. He was appointed as a cardinal by Pope Francis in 2014.

Last year, he was elevated to the Council of Cardinals, a group of
cardinals who serve as advisers to the Pope.

Alain Pronkin, a columnist who specializes in religious affairs,
expects the Pope to stand by the cardinal.

"For sure the Pope will defend him because he's a cardinal,"
Pronkin said. "In the past, he's defended every cardinal he's had
[who faced similar accusations]."

Pronkin also said this latest development will hit church members
hard because it shows that sexual assault and misconduct
allegations within the Catholic Church's ranks aren't going away
anytime soon.

"And that's what profoundly will hurt people," he said.

Allegations against archdiocese piling up

Lacroix is the latest high-ranking member of the Catholic Church in
the province of Quebec to face sexual assault allegations stemming
from the class-action lawsuit.

In August 2022, Marc Ouellet, a prominent Vatican cardinal, was
named in the lawsuit for allegedly assaulting a woman between 2008
and 2010, while she was doing an internship as a pastoral agent.

The woman, Pamela Groleau, was 24 at the time.

Ouellet then launched a lawsuit of his own, accusing Groleau of
defaming him.

Since August 2022, 46 more alleged victims have come forward to be
part of the class-action lawsuit against the archdiocese, bringing
that total up to 147, according to the Arsenault Dufresne Wee
Avocats law firm.

And since then, 15 more people with ties to the archdiocese have
been named in court documents.

At least seven people allege they were sexually assaulted by
priests either at the Seminaire or on grounds it controlled. A
person speaking on behalf of the Seminaire declined to comment on
the allegations.

Neither Lacroix nor Ouellet has been charged in criminal court.
[GN]

ARCHER DANIELS: Faces Class Action Over Executive Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Feed & Grain reports that Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman LLC has
filed a class action lawsuit against Archer Daniels Midland (ADM)
due to the revelations about the company's nutrition division,
which is under investigation for its accounting practices.
Reporting for Fortune by Tarso Veloso, Anders Melin and Bloomberg
shined light on how this division accounts for less than 10% of
ADM's revenue but has had a disproportionate influence on recent
executive bonuses.

Influence on executive compensation

Records indicate that in 2020 and 2021, ADM's board significantly
linked a portion of senior executives' stock award payouts to the
profitability growth of its nutrition unit. The company's success
in surpassing goals for the first round of these awards led to
executives receiving shares collectively worth more than $70
million. The payouts for the second round were to be determined
early this year.

This scrutiny emerged alongside the lawsuit filed by Bronstein,
Gewirtz & Grossman LLC, which accuses ADM of making misleading
statements and failing to disclose information about the Nutrition
segment's performance and accounting practices.

Stock awards and performance metrics

ADM's executives, like those at many large public companies,
receive a substantial part of their compensation in stock awards.
About half of these awards vest over three years based on specific
performance metrics, while the remainder vests as long as the
executive remains employed.

Shift in performance metrics

In a significant shift in 2020, ADM's board replaced the adjusted
earnings metric with a more targeted one: the growth of average
operating profit in the nutrition segment. This change meant that
executives would receive their target payout if this segment's
three-year average growth exceeded 10%, with the potential to
double their shares if growth reached 20%.

Impact of the investigation:

The investigation into ADM's nutrition unit, disclosed earlier, has
significantly affected the company's market standing. The
revelation of the CFO's suspension and the probe into the unit's
accounting practices led to a major selloff in ADM's shares,
erasing nearly a quarter of its market value.

ADM has declined to comment on the situation.

The lawsuit by Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman LLC, continues to
gather attention, especially as it highlights the intersection of
corporate governance, executive compensation, and shareholder
interests. Affected investors are encouraged to join the lawsuit,
with the firm representing on a contingency fee basis.[GN]

AVEN FINANCIAL INC: Waden Files Suit in D. South Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Aven Financial, Inc.
The case is styled as Dodie Waden, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Aven Financial, Inc., Case No.
3:24-cv-00266-MGL (D.S.C., Jan. 18, 2024).

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

Aven -- https://www.aven.com/ -- provides the most cost-effective,
convenient, and transparent access to capital.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blake Garrett Abbott, Esq.
          Paul J. Doolittle
          POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO LLC
          32 Ann Street
          Charleston, SC 29403
          Phone: (843) 834-4712
          Email: blake@akimlawfirm.com
                 pauld@akimlawfirm.com


B. RILEY FINANCIAL: Faces Class Suit Over Securities Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, captioned Coan v. B. Riley
Financial, Inc., et al., Case No. 24-cv-662, on behalf of persons
and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired B. Riley
Financial, Inc. ("B. Riley" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: RILY) common
stock between May 10, 2023 and November 9, 2023, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

Investors are hereby notified that they have until 60 days from
this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.

In May 2023, B. Riley entered into an agreement to assist its
client, Brian Kahn, in leading a management buyout of Franchise
Group, Inc. ("FRG"). Kahn is CEO of FRG. The $2.8 billion deal was
completed on August 21, 2023.

On November 2, 2023, Kahn was implicated as the unnamed
coconspirator in a conspiracy to defraud investors of $294 million
in funds. Specifically, the Department of Justice announced that
Prophecy Asset Management ("Prophecy") president John Hughes
("Hughes") had pled guilty to the charge with two unnamed
co-defendants, and the SEC filed a complaint against Hughes for the
same misconduct. Bloomberg reported on that same day that Kahn had
been identified by "a person familiar with the matter" as one of
the unnamed conspirators.

On November 3, 2023, after the market closed, The Friendly Bear
tweeted, doubting whether B. Riley knew of Kahn's involvement and
disclosed the same to Nomura. The Friendly Bear also commented that
the DOJ's "charging document clearly implicates him [i.e., Kahn] in
Hughes' crime. There is a high chance of indictment here." On this
news, the Company's stock price dropped $9.02, or 22%, to close at
$32.54 per share on the next trading day, November 6, 2023, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

On November 9, 2023, after the market closed, the Company revealed
significant details concerning the FRG transaction and the
years-long series of complex financial transactions between B.
Riley, Kahn, and the Company's respective subsidiaries, which
culminated in the August 21, 2023 transaction. Analyzing these
complex transactions, The Friendly Bear reported that "B Riley
ended up funding 281MM of what was around a 560MM equity check.
That's over 50% ownership. Yet they claim to have only 31% voting
rights. It looks like B Riley engaged in some funny business to
avoid consolidation and placed control of FRG in the hands of the
star of 'Prophecy' -- Brian Kahn."

On this news, the Company's stock price fell $4.47, or 15%, to
close at $25.60 per share on November 10, 2023, on unusually heavy
trading volume. The Company's stock price continued to fall $4.59,
or 14%, over the next consecutive trading session to close at
$22.01 per share on November 13, 2023, on unusually heavy trading
volume.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors:

     (1) that Brian Kahn had been credibly implicated in a
conspiracy to defraud investors of millions of dollars;

     (2) that, in spite of this involvement, B. Riley continued to
finance the transaction enabling Kahn and others to take FRG
private through complex arrangements;

     (3) that the foregoing was reasonably likely to draw
regulatory scrutiny to B. Riley; and

     (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased B. Riley common stock during the Class Period, you
may move the Court no later than 60 days from this notice to ask
the Court to appoint you as lead plaintiff. To be a member of the
Class you need not take any action at this time; you may retain
counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent
member of the Class. If you purchased B. Riley common stock, have
information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have
any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or
interests with respect to these matters, please contact Frank R.
Cruz, of The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz, 2121 Avenue of the
Stars, Suite 800, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-914-5007, by
email to info@frankcruzlaw.com, or visit our website at
www.frankcruzlaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your
mailing address, telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

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

BATH SAVER INC: Rawlings Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bath Saver, Inc. The
case is styled as Meira Avauni Rawlings, Individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bath Saver, Inc. doing
business as: Bath Fitter, Case No. 1:24-cv-00073-CCC (M.D. Pa.,
Jan. 16, 2024).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

Bath Fitter -- https://www.bathfitter.com/ -- offers top-quality,
customized bathroom remodeling products & services installed in as
little as 1 day.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher E. Roberts, Esq.
          BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES LLC
          231 South Bemiston Avenue, Suite 260
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Phone: 314-863-5700
          Email: croberts@butschroberts.com

               - and -

          Craig Thor Kimmel, Esq.
          Jacob U. Ginsburg, Esq.
          KIMMEL & SILVERMAN, P.C.
          30 E. Butler Ave
          Ambler, PA 19002
          Phone: (267) 468-7638
          Fax: (877) 600-2112
          Email: kimmel@creditlaw.com
                 jginsburg@creditlaw.com


BIONTECH SE: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due March 12
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (www.ktmc.com)
informs investors that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California against BioNTech SE ("BioNTech") (NASDAQ: BNTX). The
action charges BioNTech with violations of the federal securities
laws, including omissions and fraudulent misrepresentations
relating to the company's business, operations, and prospects. As a
result of BioNTech' s materially misleading statements and
omissions to the public, BioNTech' s investors have suffered
significant losses.

YOU CAN ALSO CLICK ON THE FOLLOWING LINK OR COPY AND PASTE IN YOUR
BROWSER:
https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/biontech-se?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=bntx&mktm=r

LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: MARCH 12, 2024

CLASS PERIOD: MARCH 30, 2022 THROUGH OCTOBER 13, 2023

CONTACT AN ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS YOUR RIGHTS:

Jonathan Naji, Esq. at (484) 270-1453 or via email at
info@ktmc.com

Kessler Topaz is one of the world's foremost advocates in
protecting the public against corporate fraud and other wrongdoing.
Our securities fraud litigators are regularly recognized as leaders
in the field as well as the firm itself which is continuously
awarded for the successful results we've achieved. We are proud to
have recovered billions of dollars for our clients and the classes
of shareholders we represent.

In addition to representing investors in cases where the fraud has
been revealed, Kessler Topaz also represents whistleblowers -
persons who expose wrongdoing to those in positions of authority or
to the public- in cases brought under federal and state qui tam
statutes, and through financial fraud whistleblower programs, such
as those run by the SEC, CFTC and IRS. If you have information
about fraud against government programs (such as Medicare), or
violations of federal securities, commodities, tax or anti-foreign
bribery laws, contact Kessler Topaz at (866) 369-7779 or at
wbinfo@ktmc.com or go to https://www.ktmc-whistleblower.com.

DEFENDANTS' ALLEGED MISCONDUCT

The Class Period begins on March 30, 2022, when BioNTech issued a
press release during pre-market hours announcing the company's
fourth quarter and full year 2021 financial results. That same day,
BioNTech also filed its annual report with the SEC wherein the
company discussed Comirnaty, its COVID-19 vaccine in collaboration
with Pfizer, and Comirnaty's widespread adoption and use in
commercial markets, while simultaneously touting the vaccine's
continued demand prospects.

On August 8, 2022, during pre-market hours, BioNTech issued a press
release announcing its second quarter 2022 financial results. Among
other things, BioNTech's reported earnings-per-share and revenue
both missed consenus estimates. BioNTech attributed the result, in
part, to the "dynamic" development of the pandemic, which "caus[ed]
a re-phasing of orders and . . . le[d] to fluctuations in quarterly
revenues." According to BioNTech, "[t]his revenue fluctuation
caused by the re-phasing of orders is expected to remain over the
rest of the financial year with an uptake in demand in key markets
in the fourth quarter of 2022 related to the Omicron-adapted
bivalent vaccine, subject to regulatory approval." Following this
news, BioNTech's American Depositary Share ("ADS") price fell
$13.81 per ADS, or 7.54%, to close at $169.30 per ADS on August 8,
2022.

Then on March 27, 2023, during pre-market hours, BioNTech issued a
press release announcing its fourth quarter and full year 2022
financial results. In the results, BioNTech forecasted
approximately €5 billion in COVID-19 vaccine revenues for the
2023 financial year, significantly below market estimates of over
€8 billion. Following this news, BioNTech's ADS price fell $4.60
per ADS, or 3.59%, to close at $123.60 per ADS on March 27, 2023.

On Friday, October 13, 2023, during after-market hours, Pfizer
issued a press release announcing, among other things, that due to
lower-than-expected utilization for its COVID products, Pfizer was
recording a non-cash charge of $5.5 billion to Cost of Goods Sold
in the third quarter of 2023 which consisted of inventory
write-offs and other charges relating to Comirnaty. Pfizer also
reduced its full-year 2023 revenue expectations for Comirnaty by
approximately $2.0 billion.

On Monday, October 16, 2023, during pre-market hours, BioNTech
issued a press release disclosing that, as a result of Pfizer's
inventory write-offs and other charges related to Comirnaty,
BioNTech, too, would likely recognize up to €0.9 billion in
inventory write-offs and other charges related to Comirnaty in the
third quarter of 2023. The company also reported that "[a]ny such
write-offs will reduce the revenues the Company would report for
2023." According to BioNTech, Pfizer indicated "that the majority
of the write-offs relate to raw materials, mainly
formulation-related lipids, purchased during the pandemic, as well
as COVID-19 vaccine doses adapted to other, non-XBB.1.5 variants
produced at risk." Following this news, BioNTech's ADS price fell
$6.61 per ADS, or 6.38%, to close at $96.97 per ADS on October 16,
2023.

WHAT CAN I DO?

BioNTech investors may, no later than March 12, 2024, move the
Court to serve as lead plaintiff for the class, through Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose to do
nothing and remain an absent class member. Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP encourages BioNTech investors who have suffered
significant losses to contact the firm directly to acquire more
information. The class action complaint against BioNTech, Ladewig
v. BioNTech, et al., Case No. 24-cv-00337, is filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.

WHO CAN BE A LEAD PLAINTIFF?

A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of
all class members in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff
is usually the investor or small group of investors who have the
largest financial interest and who are also adequate and typical of
the proposed class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel
to represent the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys,
if approved by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability
to share in any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether
or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.

ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country and around the
world. The firm has developed a global reputation for excellence
and has recovered billions of dollars for victims of fraud and
other corporate misconduct. All of our work is driven by a common
goal: to protect investors, consumers, employees and others from
fraud, abuse, misconduct and negligence by businesses and
fiduciaries. The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For more information about Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please visit www.ktmc.com.

CONTACT:

     Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
     Jonathan Naji, Esq.
     280 King of Prussia Road
     Radnor, PA 19087
     Phone: (484) 270-1453
     Email: info@ktmc.com [GN]

BIOVIE INC: Olmstead Alleges Securities Law Breaches
----------------------------------------------------
ERIC OLMSTEAD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BIOVIE INC., CUONG DO, JOANNE WENDY KIM, and
JOSEPH PALUMBO, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00035 (D. Nev.,
January 19, 2024) seeks to recover compensable damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Plaintiff Olmstead brings this class action on behalf of persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded BioVie
securities from August 5, 2021 through November 29, 2023,
inclusive. During the said period, the Defendants allegedly made
materially false and/or misleading statements and failed to
disclose that material adverse facts, including: (1) that the
ongoing COVID-19 pandemic caused "limited access" to clinical trial
sites, significantly affecting the Company's ability to conduct
proper oversight of the clinical trial; and (2) due to the "limited
access" to the clinical trial sites, the trial was at higher risk
of having "significant deviation from protocol and Good Clinical
Practice (GCP) violations" and "anomalous data;" (3) that the
Company was already experiencing issues with the contract research
organization it had retained, creating greater risk of the trial
being in non-compliance with GCPs; and (4) the Company had already
identified “higher than expected levels of deviations" in the
data, says the suit.

Headquartered in Carson City, NV, BioVie is a clinical stage
biopharmaceutical company that purports to engage in the discovery,
development, and commercialization of innovative drugs therapies,
including for treatment of neurological and neurodegenerative
disorders and advanced liver disease. The company's stock trades on
the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "BIVI." [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David O'Mara , Esq.
          O'MARA LAW FIRM, PC
          311 E. Liberty St.
          Reno, NV 89501
          Telephone: (775) 323-1321

BLUETRITON BRANDS: Slowinski Suit Removed to W.D. Louisiana
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Christine Slowinski and David Hayes,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
BLUETRITON BRANDS, INC., Case No. 2023LA001376 was removed from the
18th Judicial Circuit Court of DuPage County, Illinois, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District Court of Illinois on Jan.
19, 2024, and assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-00513.

The Plaintiffs allege the claim "100% Natural Spring Water" on the
label of Ice Mountain bottled water is false, misleading, and
deceptive because the water contains microplastics. The Plaintiffs
allege the following claims for relief: violation of Illinois'
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ILCFA");
common law fraud; and unjust enrichment.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brienne Letourneau, Esq.
          WHITE & CASE LLP
          111 South Wacker Drive, Suite 5100
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 881-5400
          Fax: (312) 881-5450
          Email: brienne.letourneau@whitecase.com


BMO INVESTORLINE: Bid for Certification of Trailer Fee Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------------------
James Langton of Investment Executive reports that a proposed class
action against several major discount brokers over the payment of
mutual fund trailer fees has suffered another blow. An Ontario
court again declined to certify the case as a class action, finding
that there was nothing wrong with the firms collecting the fees
before regulators outlawed the practice.

The Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) banned the payment of
trailer fees to discount brokers in June 2022 on the basis that the
fees are paid, at least partly, for ongoing advice that discount
firms can't provide under the limitations of their registration.

A proposed class action against seven of those brokers -- BMO
Investorline Inc., CIBC Investor Services Inc., Credential Qtrade
Securities Inc., Desjardins Securities Inc., HSBC Securities
(Canada) Inc., Scotia Capital Inc. and TD Waterhouse Canada Inc. --
alleged that they harmed investors when they collected trailer fees
for advice they didn't provide in the years prior to the CSA's
ban.

In January 2023, an Ontario judge dismissed a motion seeking to
certify the case as a class action, finding that the plaintiffs
couldn't establish evidence that the firms violated securities laws
by receiving the trailers before the CSA changed the rules and
banned the practice.

On appeal, the proposed plaintiffs argued that the motion made
several errors of law, including that the judge improperly demanded
evidence of wrongdoing at the certification stage, and that the
allegations against the firms don't rely on whether the conduct was
legal or not.

However, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice rejected those
arguments and sided with the firms, dismissing the appeal.

In its decision on appeal, the court said "the motion judge was
correct that, in order to perform his necessary screening function
at the certification stage, it was necessary for him to examine the
evidentiary record with a view to determining whether there was
some basis in fact for the proposition that the receipt of trailing
commissions by online brokers was contrary to applicable Canadian
securities law."

It found that the motion judge's "weighing of the evidence on this
issue is entitled to considerable deference from this court and is
not being challenged by the plaintiffs."

Similarly, the court found that the motion judge's decision on
whether it was illegal for the discount brokers to accept trailer
fees was relevant to the plaintiffs' other claims alleging that the
brokers were negligent and knowingly took improper fees.

"The motion judge considered the evidence of the standards of
conduct in securities industry rules and legislation that could
possibly underpin a negligence action and found no basis in fact
for their existence, as he was entitled to do," the court said.

The appeal was dismissed and the court ordered costs of $50,000 to
the defendants in the case. [GN]

BRISTOL COMPRESSORS: Court Authorizes $2.4M Award in ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Jennifer A. Riley and Kathryn R. Brown of
DuaneMorris.com report that on January 16 and 17, 2024, in Messer
v. Bristol Compressors International, LLC, No. 1:18-CV-00040 (W.D.
Va.), on remand from a Fourth Circuit decision, Judge James P.
Jones of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Virginia issued an opinion and order entering judgment in the
amount of $2,407,471.90 for severance pay benefits owed under an
ERISA employee benefits plan based on violations of the 60-day
notice requirement of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act (WARN Act), 29 U.S.C. Section 2102(a)(1). The
multi-million dollar ruling stems from a 2018 WARN-covered "plant
closing" and follows an earlier award on November 23, 2021 of $1.39
million to certain class members for damages including back pay and
interest owed pursuant to the WARN Act for the same notice
violation underlying the recent ruling.

The decision highlights the extremely technical nature and high
stakes of WARN Act litigation in the class action context.

Case Background

On July 31, 2018, Bristol Compressors International (BCI) notified
employees that it would close its manufacturing facility in
Bristol, Virginia, and their employment would terminate on or
before September 30, 2018. BCI implemented several rounds of
terminations over the next three and a half months, beyond the
originally anticipated date of September 30, 2018 for the final
terminations. However, BCI did not issue additional notice under
the WARN to those whose employment ended after September 30, 2018.
The manufacturing facility ultimately closed on November 16, 2018.

On October 19, 2018, a group of former employees sued BCI under the
WARN Act. The plaintiffs alleged that the company failed to provide
60 days' notice of their terminations in accordance with the
specific requirements of the WARN Act.

On June 20, 2019, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
certification of three sub-classes of former employees terminated
due to the plant closing under Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3). Sub-class
One included employees involuntarily terminated between July 31,
2018 and August 31, 2018. Sub-class Two included employees
involuntarily terminated after August 31, 2018 who signed a stay
bonus agreement that included an express waiver of claims under the
WARN Act. Sub-class Three included employees involuntarily
terminated after August 31, 2018 who had not signed a stay bonus
agreement.

Following a bench trial, the Court in 2020 granted summary judgment
to BCI on the plaintiffs' claim for benefits owed under a company
severance pay plan. The Court found that BCI validly terminated its
severance pay plan before the employment terminations. In a
separate 2020 opinion, the Court dismissed upon summary judgment
the WARN Act claims of four class members whose employment ended on
October 19, 2018. The Court reasoned that BCI’s July 31, 2018
notification was adequate to prepare them for their later job
losses. The plaintiffs appealed those prior rulings to the Fourth
Circuit.

The Fourth Circuit's Ruling

On April 3, 2023, the Fourth Circuit, in an unpublished opinion,
reversed and remanded parts of the 2020 rulings. Messer v. Bristol
Compressors International, LLC, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 7826 (4th Cir.
Apr. 3, 2023) (per curiam).

The Fourth Circuit reversed the denial of severance pay benefits to
the class, concluding the company did not terminate the severance
pay plan in accordance with the ERISA's requirements for modifying
or terminating an ERISA-governed benefits plan. As a result, the
severance pay plan was in effect when the employment terminations
occurred.

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the decision upholding the release of
claims under the WARN Act to members of Sub-class Two. However,
because the release of claims in the stay bonus agreements those
class members signed explicitly carved out claims for vested
benefits under the company's "written benefit plans," members of
Sub-class Two did not waive their claims for severance pay benefits
owed to them under the ERISA-governed employee benefit plan.

The Fourth Circuit also vacated the grant of summary judgment to
BCI on the WARN Act claims of the four plaintiffs whose employment
ended on October 19, 2018. The Fourth Circuit pointed to the
regulation under the WARN Act providing that, if an employer
postpones a covered plant closure for 60 days or more, additional
60 days' notice under the WARN Act is owed to affected employees.
See 20 C.F.R. Section 639.10. Because the company issued no
additional notice to those four individuals after July 31, 2018,
but terminated their employment after September 30, 2018, the
Fourth Circuit opined that a WARN Act violation was established.

The District Court's Decision

On remand, the Court granted the plaintiffs' unopposed motion for
summary judgment on the two issues on which the Fourth Circuit
reversed and remanded. Consistent with the Fourth Circuit's ruling,
the Court held that all class members were entitled to severance
pay benefits under the severance pay plan, plus interest, and the
four plaintiffs whose employment ended on October 19, 2018 were in
addition owed back pay and prejudgment interest for a 60-day
period.

On January 17, 2014, the Court ordered the case closed, with leave
granted to class counsel to file a supplemental motion for
attorneys' fees and costs within 30 days.

Implications For Employers

The Messer case is illustrative of the many decisions in recent
years in which plaintiffs have recovered multi-million dollar
judgments following class certification of WARN Act claims.
Employers should remain vigilant to the WARN Act, and the potential
exposure to 60 days' worth of back pay, lost benefits and
prejudgment interest in the event of violations, well before
implementing any mass layoff or plant closure that may trigger its
strict notification requirements. [GN]

BRITISH AMERICAN: Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set for March 25
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of British American Tobacco p.l.c. (NYSE: BTI) between
February 9, 2023 and December 6, 2023, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"). A class action has already been filed. If you wish
to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
March 25, 2024 in the securities class action commenced by the
Firm.

SO WHAT: If you purchased British American Tobacco securities
during the Class Period you may be entitled to compensation without
payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency
fee arrangement.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the British American Tobacco class action,
go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=20894 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. 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 25, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. 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
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, defendants
throughout the Class Period made materially false and/or misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose that:

     (1) British American Tobacco materially understated the risks
and potential likelihood of an impairment to its Premium American
Cigarette Brands as a result of longstanding headwinds and;

     (2) 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. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

To join the British American Tobacco class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=20894 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.

No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
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 Information:

     Laurence Rosen, Esq.
     Phillip Kim, Esq.
     The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
     275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Tel: (212) 686-1060
     Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
     Fax: (212) 202-3827
     Emai: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
           pkim@rosenlegal.com
           cases@rosenlegal.com
           www.rosenlegal.com [GN]

BROWN UNIVERSITY: Settles Antitrust Admissions Suit for $19.5M
--------------------------------------------------------------
Owen Dahlkamp of The Brown Daily Herald reports that Brown
University has agreed to pay $19.5 million to settle an antitrust
admissions lawsuit filed against the University and 16 other
co-defendants, according to a Jan. 23 press release.

The class action lawsuit, filed in January 2022, alleges Brown
colluded with institutions in the 568 Presidents Group -- a
consortium of colleges with need-blind admission policies -- to set
financial aid calculation methodologies that "artificially inflated
net prices of attendance."

The plaintiffs claim these colleges did not practice need-blind
admission as it was intended under federal law.

Section 568 of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 allows
schools who make admission decisions "without regard to the
financial circumstances of the student involved or the student's
family" to collaborate on financial aid calculations.

But the lawsuit filed against the University stated that members of
the 568 Presidents Group gave preference to applicants who were
children of donors. As such, they claim these institutions were not
need-blind as the Act defined and are not permitted to collaborate
on these calculations.

Brown was a member of the Group from 2003 to 2012, a decade before
it disbanded in Nov. 2022.

Previous Herald reporting also found evidence that Brown's
need-blind admission policies may allow admission officers to give
preference to applicants from low-income households.

When the lawsuit was filed, University Spokesperson Brian Clark
told The Herald that the filing "has no merit" and affirmed that
"Brown is prepared to mount a strong effort to make this clear."

In the statement released on January 23, 2024, the University also
made clear they believe there is no merit to the case.

"Given the time and financial resources required to take this case
to trial, we determined that our resources are better spent
resolving this matter and supporting the education of our
students," Clark wrote.

"At all times before, during and after its participation, Brown
made financial aid decisions independently guided by its own
institutional methodologies," the statement added.

Brown's settlement follows earlier settlements by the University of
Chicago, Emory University, Rice University and Vanderbilt
University, according to court and financial documents reviewed by
The Herald.

Columbia, Duke and Yale also agreed to settle, according to court
filings on January 23, 2024 reported on by the New York Times.

As additional schools agreed to settle, the pressure mounted for
Brown to do the same.

"In general, the defendants who settle the earliest get the most
favorable settlement terms from the plaintiffs," wrote Spencer
Weber Waller, director of the Loyola Institute for Consumer
Antitrust Studies, in an email to The Herald. "Defendants who agree
to cooperate with the plaintiffs in providing evidence and access
to documents/witnesses to help the plaintiffs going forward may
also get more favorable settlement terms."

The $19.5 million settlement contrasts both UChicago's $13.2
million settlement in April 2023 and Rice's settlement for $33.7
million in October, which are record lows and highs in the case so
far.

"Brown's settlement agreement does not include any obligation to
provide information about other defendants," Clark wrote in an
email to The Herald. "The settlement agreement expressly limits
Brown's discovery obligations going forward, and Brown will
continue to adhere to the court's orders regarding discovery."

If any of these universities continue to trial, they risk "having
their admissions policies exposed," said Harry First, professor
emeritus of law at New York University in an interview with The
Herald. "They have probably had enough bad publicity by now."

Such an occurrence is not uncommon: Details of Harvard's admission
policies were made public in the recent Supreme Court case that
outlawed affirmative action. Much of the evidence demonstrated a
preference for applicants with connections to high-dollar donors.

Brown faced a similar lawsuit in the 1990s in which the U.S.
government alleged that MIT and the eight Ivy League universities
violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by "collectively determining the
amount of financial assistance awarded to students." In that case,
Brown and its Ivy counterparts settled almost immediately. MIT
litigated the allegations and attained a partial victory.

According to the press release, Brown's settlement will be
"distributed to eligible current and former students from the 17
defendant institutions, in accordance with a plan that will be
submitted for court approval." [GN]

BYD COACH & BUS: Bonito Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jose Bonito, as an individual and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. BYD COACH & BUS LLC, a
California Limited Liability Company; BYD MOTORS LLC, a California
Limited Liability Company; BYD MOTORS, INC., a California
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 23STCV30810 was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California on Jan. 19, 2024, and assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-00538.

The Plaintiff seeks penalties pursuant to the California's Private
Attorneys General Act of 2004 ("PAGA") for the following alleged
violations of the California Labor Code: failing to pay Plaintiff
and other aggrieved employees the statutory minimum wage for all
hours worked in violation of California Labor Code; failing to pay
Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees all earned overtime
compensation in violation of California Labor Code; failing to
provide Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees all legally
required meal periods, and failure to pay meal period premium wages
to Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees at their regular rate of
pay, in violation of California Labor Code; failing to authorize
and permit Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees to take all
lawful rest periods to which they are entitled, and failing to pay
rest period premium wages to Plaintiff and other aggrieved
employees at their regular rate of pay, in violation of Labor Code;
failing to furnish Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees with
complete, accurate, itemized wage statements, in violation of Labor
Code; failing to timely pay final wages to Plaintiff and other
aggrieved employees in violation of Labor Code; failing to pay
Plaintiff and other aggrieved employees all earned wages at least
twice during each calendar month, in violation of Labor Code; and
failing to maintain accurate records on behalf of Plaintiff and
other aggrieved employees, in violation of Labor Code.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Natalie R. Alameddine, Esq.
          Nicole N. Wentworth, Esq.
          BLANK ROME LLP
          2029 Century Park East, 6th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: 424.239.3400
          Facsimile: 424.239.3434
          Email: natalie.alameddine@BlankRome.com
                 nicole.wentworth@blankrome.com


CHICK-FIL-A INC: Agrees to Settle Delivery Fees' Suit for $4.4MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
CBS New York Team of CBS News reports that some Tri-State Area
residents who have ordered Chick-Fil-A in recent years could be
eligible for a refund.

A class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of customers in New
York, New Jersey, California and Florida.

Chick-fil-A agreed to pay $4.4 million to settle the suit for
overcharging customers for delivery during the pandemic.

The lawsuit alleges the restaurant chain promised low delivery fees
on its app and website, but later increased menu prices by 30%.

Eligible customers will receive a $30 gift card. [GN]

CHIRO INC: Zepeda Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chiro, Inc. The case
is styled as Yasmin Maldonado Zepeda, individually, and on behalf
of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Chiro,
Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0000575 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Joaquin Cty., Jan. 17, 2024).

The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."

Chiro, Inc. retails janitorial services. The Company provides
concrete polishing, sealing and restoration of polished concrete
floors, and maintenance services.[BN]

CINEPLEX INC: Faces Class Action Over Movie Tickets' Booking Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joey Chini of CTVNews reports that Cineplex is facing a pair of
proposed class-action lawsuits in two Canadian provinces for
allegedly not disclosing additional booking fees when customers buy
movie tickets on its website.

The movie theatre giant is accused of not being upfront with its
customers "in a transparent and meaningful way during the
purchasing process."

The class actions allege customers who were not members of the
company's CineClub program were charged an additional $1.50 or $1
when buying tickets online or through the mobile app.

The actions were filed in Quebec and British Columbia by Slater
Vecchio LLP and allege that Cineplex's failure to disclose booking
fees "constitutes false and misleading advertising."
The allegations have not been proven in court.

"The two actions seek to represent all Canadians who purchased a
Cineplex movie ticket and were charged an online booking fee," the
law firm said in a statement posted to its website.

Slater Vecchio characterized the booking fees as "price dripping,"
meaning they were new mandatory fees that were not
government-imposed and not included in the first price that was
advertised to customers. The law firm asserts that by charging
these fees and not properly informing the customer about them,
Cineplex is "in violation of" the Competition Act.

A spokesperson for Cineplex told CTVNews.ca the company is
confident its online booking fee is not misleading and "fully
complies with the spirit and letter of the law."

"Our online booking fee is an entirely optional service that
provides consumers with instantaneous advanced seat selection.
Cineplex's guests also have the option of purchasing their tickets
at their local theatre without paying this modest fee. All of this
information is on our website in a clear and conspicuous manner,"
Michelle Saba, vice-president of communications at Cineplex said.

Plaintiffs in the actions are seeking their money back on those
fees plus taxes.

"To ensure fairness and transparency in the online marketplace, it
is of paramount importance that companies accurately display the
price they are charging Canadians from the moment these prices are
first shown to consumers," Sam Jaworski, a partner at Slater
Vecchio, said in a statement.

The law firm added anyone who is thinking of joining one of the
class actions should keep any receipts they have that show they
paid an online booking fee.

CTVNews.ca has reached out to Cineplex for comment.

In May 2023, the Competition Bureau sued Cineplex these same
booking fees, calling the added charges "junk" and "harmful."

Cineplex introduced the fees in June 2022, according to the federal
government. The company said the legal action from the competition
watchdog should be dismissed because it is based on a
"mischaracterization."

"Cineplex denies each and every allegation in the application," the
company said at the time.

"Cineplex denies any wrongdoing at all." [GN]

CITRIX SYSTEMS: Clark Files Suit in S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Citrix Systems, Inc.,
et al. The case is styled as Michelle Clark, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Citrix Systems, Inc.,
Case No. 0:24-cv-60118-RS (S.D. Fla., Jan. 19, 2024).

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

Citrix Systems, Inc. -- http://www.citrix.com/-- is an American
multinational cloud computing and virtualization technology company
that provides server, application and desktop virtualization,
networking, software as a service, and cloud computing
technologies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Buckner, Esq.
          BUCKNER AND MILES, P.A.
          2020 Salzedo Street, Suite 302
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Phone: (305) 964-8003
          Fax: (786) 523-0485
          Email: David@bucknermiles.com

               - and -

          James A. Barry, Esq.
          POGUST GOODHEAD LLC
          505 S. Lenola Rd., Suite 126
          Moorestown, NJ 08057
          Phone: (610) 941-4204

               - and -

          Meghan J. Talbot, Esq.
          POGUST GOODHEAD LLC
          161 Washington St., Ste. 250
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Phone: (610) 941-4204

               - and -

          Michael A. Galpern, Esq.
          WIKSTROM & SININS, P.C.
          1000 Haddonfield-Berlin Road, Suite 203
          Voorhees, NJ 08043
          Phone: (856) 596-4100


COLE HAAN LLC: Bunkley Suit Removed to E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Keith Bunkley, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated v. COLE
HAAN, LLC, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100
inclusive, Case No. FCS052197 was removed from the Superior Court
of California for the County of Solano, to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California on Jan. 18, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 2:24-at-00068.

The Complaint alleges ten state law class action claims: unpaid
overtime; unpaid meal period premiums; unpaid rest period premiums;
unpaid minimum wages; final wages not timely paid; wages not timely
paid during employment; non-compliant wage statements; failure to
keep requisite payroll records; unreimbursed business expenses; and
violation of California Business & Professions Code.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Catherine Dacre, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: (415) 397-2823
          Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
          Email: cdacre@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Michael W. Kopp, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2300
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Phone: (916) 448-0159
          Facsimile: (916) 558-4839
          Email: mkopp@seyfarth.com


COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY: Settles Financial Aid Class Suit for $24M
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Spurr and Joseph Zuloaga of Columbia Spectator report that
Columbia settled for $24 million on January 23, 2024 in a
five-university settlement totaling $104.5 million to resolve a
class-action lawsuit over an alleged conspiracy to price fix when
determining financial aid eligibility. The suit, filed in January
2022, accuses 17 universities of conspiring in a way that
disadvantages students with financial need by offering them less
aid.

University spokesperson Ben Chang wrote in a statement to Spectator
that "While Columbia disputes the merit of this case, the
University has determined to put this matter behind us," adding
that the decision to settle "is not an admission of wrongdoing."

Among the defendants are peer Ivy League institutions Cornell
University, Dartmouth College, and the University of Pennsylvania.
All three, along with Columbia, were members of the 568 Presidents
Group, a group of universities that say they practice need-blind
admissions and were protected under Section 568 of the 1994
Improving America's Schools Act, affording them immunity from
antitrust legislation. The special protection expired on Sept. 30,
2022, and the 568 Presidents Group was dissolved on Nov. 4, 2022.

"Columbia denies the allegations and stands by its position that
plaintiffs' claims are without merit," Chang wrote. "The
University's participation in the 568 Group was intended to benefit
our students. Columbia's mission is to help all students admitted,
regardless of individual financial circumstances, achieve their
goal of pursuing a world class education at our university."

The lawsuit claims that Columbia failed to qualify for the Section
568 exemption from antitrust laws because of its need-aware
admissions process at the School of General Studies, which has a
less wealthy student body than Columbia College and the School of
Engineering and Applied Science.

"The burden of supporting Columbia's preservation of prestige and
financial accumulation therefore falls on those who can least
afford it," the lawsuit states.

Columbia, Brown University, Duke University, Emory University, and
Yale University comprise the five universities in the settlement.
The University of Chicago settled for $13.5 million in August 2023,
according to The Chicago Maroon, and Rice University settled for
$33.75 million in October 2023, per a university financial
statement. Vanderbilt University reported last year that it planned
to settle, according to the New York Times.

The suit alleges that the 17 universities do not abide by their
commitments to not consider an applicant's financial background
during the admissions process. It further calls into question
whether the named institutions do as much as they can to lower
tuition costs for students.

The suit begins by acknowledging the prestige of the involved
universities, citing their long-standing presence in the top 25 of
the U.S. News & World Report rankings.

"[T]hese elite institutions occupy a place of privilege and
importance in American society," the suit reads.

The plaintiffs further stated that the universities "participated
and are participating in a price-fixing cartel that is designed to
reduce or eliminate financial aid as a locus of competition," thus
"artificially inflating" the net price of attendance for students
receiving financial aid.

Last April, the Office of the Provost announced a 4.3 percent
increase in the term bill, which became effective at the start of
this academic year. The cost of attendance rose to a record
$85,200—the highest in the Ivy League—but at a rate "below the
inflationary cost increases experienced by the University" and "in
light of significant cost pressure," according to the
announcement.

The lawsuit detailed the economic background of Columbia's
undergraduate student body, which it called "generally wealthy and
privileged" with a median undergraduate family income of $150,900.
According to the lawsuit, 13 percent of undergraduates come from
the top 1 percent of the country's income distribution, 62 percent
come from the top 20 percent, and 5.1 percent come from the bottom
20 percent of the income distribution. It also cited the size of
Columbia's endowment which, at the end of fiscal year 2023, was
$13.6 billion.

Senior Staff Writer Cameron Spurr can be contacted at
cameron.spurr@columbiaspectator.com. Follow Spectator on X
@ColumbiaSpec.

Staff Writer Joseph Zuloaga can be contacted at
joseph.zuloaga@columbiaspectator.com. Follow him on X
@josephzuloaga. [GN]

COMCAST CABLE: McCauley Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Comcast Cable
Communications, LLC, et al. The case is styled as David McCauley,
Jodi Wolfson, individually, and on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC
d/b/a Xfinity, Citrix Systems, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-00280-JMY
(E.D. Pa., Jan. 19, 2024).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Comcast Corporation -- http://corporate.comcast.com/--
incorporated and headquartered in Philadelphia, is the largest
American multinational telecommunications and media
conglomerate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony M. Christina, Esq.
          LOWEY DANNENBERG PC
          One Tower Bridge
          100 Front Street, Suite 520
          West Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Phone: (215) 399-4770
          Email: achristina@lowey.com


COMCAST CABLE: Smith Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Comcast Cable
Communications, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Robert Smith,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC d/b/a Xfinity, Citrix Systems,
Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-00258-CFK (E.D. Pa., Jan. 19, 2024).

The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.

Comcast Corporation -- http://corporate.comcast.com/--
incorporated and headquartered in Philadelphia, is the largest
American multinational telecommunications and media
conglomerate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Ste. 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Phone: (215) 592-1500
          Fax: (215) 592-4663
          Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com


COMCAST CORPORATION: Roseman Files Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Comcast Corporation,
et al. The case is styled as Robert M. Roseman, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Comcast Corporation
d/b/a Xfinity, Case No. 2:24-cv-00271-JMY (E.D. Pa., Jan. 19,
2024).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract
Default.

Comcast Corporation -- http://corporate.comcast.com/--
incorporated and headquartered in Philadelphia, is the largest
American multinational telecommunications and media
conglomerate.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John A. Macoretta, Esq.
          SPECTOR ROSEMAN & KODROFF, P.C.
          2001 Market Street, Suite 3420
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 496-0300
          Fax: (215) 496-6611
          Email: jmacoretta@srkattorneys.com


COMMCARE CORPORATION: Bowie Suit Removed to W.D. Louisiana
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as La Tisha Bowie, on behalf of decedent Juanita
Bowie, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. COMMCARE CORPORATION d/b/a OLD BROWNLEE COMMUNITY CARE CENTER
AND COMMCARE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Case No. C-171752 was removed
from the 26th Judicial District Court for the Parish of Bossier,
State of Louisiana, to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Louisiana on Jan. 19, 2024, and assigned Case No.
5:24-cv-00077.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants fraudulently represented that
they had sufficient nursing personnel under the federal and state
standards and allegedly concealed facts to the contrary As
remedies, Plaintiff seeks rescission, damages, a mandatory
injunction, and attorney's fees.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Thomas A Casey, Jr., Esq.
          JONES WALKER LLP
          201 St. Charles Avenue, 49th Floor
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Phone: 504-582-8294
          Facsimile: 504-589-8294
          Email: tcaseyjr@joneswalker.com

               - and -

          Blair Bright, Esq.
          THE BRIGHT LAW FIRM, LLC
          110 Veterans Blvd Suite 525
          Metairie, LA 70005
          Phone: 504-322-3945
          Facsimile: 504-322-3946
          Email: blair@cblairbright.com


CORTECH INTERNATIONAL: Vazquez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cortech International
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Lidia Santoyo Vazquez, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated v. Cortech International
LLC, Divine Pasta Co., Case No. 24STCV01523 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los
Angeles Cty., Jan. 19, 2024).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."

Cortech International LLC -- http://www.cor-tech.net/-- providing
temporary staffing and direct hire services across the United
States, Canada, Mexico, Puerto Rico, United Kingdom and
Germany.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638
          Phone: 310-432-0000
          Fax: 310-432-0001
          Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com


D'ORE JEWELERS NY: Tarr Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against D'ore jewelers NY,
Inc. The case is styled as Ellen Elizabeth Tarr, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. D'ore jewelers NY,
Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00426 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 19, 2024).

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

D'Ore Jewelry -- https://dorejewelry.com/ -- is an upscale, full
service jewelry store.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


DEACON CONSTRUCTION: Watson Suit Removed to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Diana Watson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. DEACON CONSTRUCTION, LLC, a
foreign limited liability company; and DOES 1 - 20, Case No.
23-2-24901-1 SEA was removed from the Superior Court for King
County, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Washington on Jan. 18, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00082.

Based on the allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint and facts known
to Deacon, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction under the
Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA").[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Sheryl J. Willert, Esq.
          Sean D. Leake, Esq.
          WILLIAMS, KASTNER & GIBBS PLLC
          601 Union Street, Suite 4100
          Seattle, WA 98101-2380
          Phone: (206) 628-6600
          Fax: (206) 628-6611
          Email: swillert@williamskastner.com
                 sleake@williamskastner.com


DIEHLUX LLC: Faces Wasley Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW WASLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DIEHLUX, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-00418 (E.D.N.Y., January 19, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

Mr. Wasley worked for Diehlux as an Environmental Monitor, a
Quantity Surveyor, and a Field Compliance Manager in Queens, Troy,
and Albany, New York from approximately September 2021 until
September 2023.

Diehlux, LLC is an environmental consultant headquartered in
Bloomfield, Ontario County, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
         PELTON GRAHAM LLC
         111 Broadway, Suite 1503
         New York, NY 10006
         Telephone: (212) 385-9700

                  - and -

         Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
         Andrew W. Dunlop, Esq.
         JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
         11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
         Houston, TX 77046
         Telephone: (713) 352-1100
         Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
         Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
                adunlap@mybackwages.com

                  - and -

         Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
         BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
         11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
         Houston, TX 77046
         Telephone: (713) 877-8788
         Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
         Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com

DOLLAR GENERAL: Hartline Files Suit in E.D. Oklahoma
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dollar General
Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Lori Hartline, on behalf
of herself and on behalf of those similarly situated v. Dollar
General Corporation doing business as: Dollar General,
individually, jointly, severally, or in the alternative;
DolGenCorp, LLC doing business as: Dollar General, individually,
jointly, severally, or in the alternative; Case No.
6:24-cv-00027-GLJ (E.D. Okla., Jan. 19, 2024).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Dollar General Corporation -- https://www.dollargeneral.com/ -- is
an American chain of variety stores headquartered in
Goodlettsville, Tennessee.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN AND SHERWOOD
          10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Phone: (405) 235-1560
          Fax: (405) 239-2112
          Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com


DORA MAAR USA: Tarr Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dora Maar USA, Inc.
The case is styled as Ellen Elizabeth Tarr, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated v. Dora Maar USA, Inc., Case No.
1:24-cv-00424-VSB (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 19, 2024).

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

Dora Maar -- https://dora-maar.com/ -- is a curated marketplace for
luxury fashion.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


DSW SHOE WAREHOUSE: Carter Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Tremain Carter, Annemarie Lespinasse,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. DSW Shoe
Warehouse, Inc., Case No. 7:23-cv-04761 was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on Jan.
19, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:23-cv-09613-SIL-ARL to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor for Employment
Discrimination.

Designer Shoe Warehouse -- https://www.dsw.com/ -- offers brand
name and designer dress, casual and athletic footwear and
accessories.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony Alesandro, Esq.
          Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW
          1 Old Country Road
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Phone: (516) 873-9550
          Fax: (516) 747-5024
          Email: aalesandro@leedsbrownlaw.com
                 bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jeffrey Howard Ruzal, Esq.
          Christopher Dyess, Esq.
          EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C.
          875 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Phone: (212) 351-3762
          Email: jruzal@ebglaw.com
                 CDyess@ebglaw.com

               - and -

          Kathleen Barrett, Esq.
          EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, PC
          227 West Monroe Street, Suite 3250
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 499-1400
          Email: kbarrett@ebglaw.com

               - and -

          Wayne A Graver, Esq.
          LAVIN, O'NEIL, CEDRONE & DISIPIO
          420 Lexington Avenue
          Graybar Building, Suite 335
          New York, NY 10170
          Phone: (215) 351-7912
          Fax: (212) 319-6932
          Email: wgraver@lavin-law.com

EQUIFAX INC: Agrees to Settle Class Suit Over Tribal Loan Accounts
------------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Equifax agreed to a class action
lawsuit settlement to resolve claims that it improperly reported
tribal loan accounts.

The settlement benefits individuals Equifax identified as having a
loan issued by Plain Green, Great Plains Lending or MobiLoans based
on information from Midwest Recovery and/or CACi between Oct. 4,
2019, and Aug. 21, 2023.

According to the class action lawsuit, Equifax reported Great
Plains Lending, Plain Green and MobiLoans debts to creditors. The
plaintiffs contend the company also allowed debt collectors to
change the dates related to these loans to make them appear more
recent.

Equifax is one of the three credit bureaus that report on consumer
debts and creditworthiness.

Equifax hasn't admitted wrongdoing but agreed to pay an undisclosed
sum to resolve the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) class action
lawsuit.

Under the settlement terms, each class member who files a claim
form can receive a $500 payment.

The settlement also includes non-monetary benefits. Equifax will
delete any accounts on consumer reports pertaining to a Plain
Green, Great Plains Lending or MobiLoans loan furnished to the
credit bureau by Midwest Recovery and/or CACi. The company also
agreed to make business practices to better serve class members and
other consumers.

The deadline for exclusion and objection is March 25, 2024.

The final approval hearing for the Equifax class action settlement
is scheduled for April 26, 2024.

In order to receive a settlement payment, class members must submit
a valid claim form by Feb. 20, 2024.

Who's Eligible

Individuals Equifax identified as having a loan issued by Plain
Green, Great Plains Lending or MobiLoans based on information from
Midwest Recovery and/or CACi between Oct. 4, 2019, and Aug. 21,
2023.

Potential Award

$500

Proof of Purchase

N/A

Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.

Claim Form Deadline

02/20/2024

Case Name

Meeks v. Equifax Information Services LLC, Case No.
3:21-cv-07727-CRB, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California

Final Hearing

04/26/2024

Settlement Website

TribalReportingSettlement.com

Claims Administrator

     Meeks v. Equifax
     c/o Settlement Administrator
     PO Box 16
     West Point, PA 19486
     questions@TribalReportingSettlement.com
     Tel: (833) 537-1794

Class Counsel

     Craig C Marchiando
     Leonard A Bennett
     CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES PC
     763 J Clyde Morris Blvd Suite 1A
     Newport News, VA 23601
     Phone: +1 757-930-3660

     GUPTA WESSLER PLLC
     2001 K Street, NW, Suite 850
     North Washington, DC 20006
     Phone: (202) 888-1741

     Kristi C Kelly
     Andrew Guzzo
     KELLY GUZZO PLC
     3925 Chain Bridge Rd STE 202
     Fairfax, VA 22030
     Phone: (703) 424-7570

Defense Counsel

     Zachary A McEntyre
     John C Toro
     Robert D Griest
     KING & SPALDING LLP
     1180 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 1600
     Atlanta, GA 30309
     Phone: (404) 572 4600 [GN]

EXACT SCIENCES: Martinez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO MARTINEZ, Plaintiff v. EXACT SCIENCES CORPORATION d/b/a
Cologuard, Defendant, Case No. 500851/2024 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty.,
January 9, 2024) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, on
behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated
visually-impaired and legally blind individuals, after Defendant
denied them full and equal access to its website,
www.cologuard.com, in violation of the New York State Human Rights
Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City
Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, Cologuard.com provides to the public a
wide array of the goods, services, price specials, employment
opportunities and other programs. Yet, cologuard.com contains
thousands of access barriers that make it difficult if not
impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the
website. In fact, the access barriers make it impossible for blind
and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the
website, says the suit.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Exact Sciences' policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Plaintiff for having been subjected to
alleged unlawful discrimination.

Exact Sciences Corporation is a molecular diagnostics company based
in Madison, Wisconsin specializing in the detection of early stage
cancers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

FIGS INC: Court Dismisses Ryan Suit Over Securities Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP of JD Supra reports that on January 17,
2024, Judge Otis D. Wright, II of the United States District Court
for the Central District of California dismissed a putative class
action asserting claims under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and
Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act against a medical
apparel company, certain of its officers, and the underwriters of
its stock offerings. Ryan v. FIGS, Inc., 2024 WL 187001 (C.D. Cal.
Jan. 17, 2024). Plaintiffs alleged that defendants made
misrepresentations about the company's performance and
capabilities. The Court dismissed the Exchange Act claims for
failure to plead scienter and dismissed the Securities Act claims
for failure to plead falsity, while also granting leave to replead
those claims.

With respect to the Exchange Act claims, the Court assessed five
theories plaintiffs offered regarding: (a) the "core operations"
theory, (b) access to contradictory data, (c) misleading statements
made on two earnings calls, (d) defendants' stock sales, and (e)
executive departures. The Court determined that each theory failed
to adequately support a strong inference of scienter. Id. at *8.

With respect to the "core operations" theory -- which can in some
circumstances allow an inference of scienter based on an individual
defendant's role in the company -- the Court noted that plaintiffs
only alleged two of the individual defendants had stated they were
"deeply involved" in or otherwise managed the day-to-day operations
of the company. Id. *8. The Court held that these amounted to
"blanket public statements of involvement" that did "not rise to
the level of specificity required to establish a strong inference
of scienter." Id. The Court further concluded that the "core
operations" theory did not apply to the remaining defendants, for
whom plaintiffs failed to allege that they had responsibility for
or control over the company's day-to-day operations. Id. at *9.

The Court further rejected plaintiffs' attempt to allege scienter
based on the allegation that defendants had access to data analyses
that allegedly were inconsistent with the company's public
statements. The Court explained that plaintiffs only alleged that
certain of the individual defendants were alleged to have made
statements suggesting knowledge of those analyses, and that even
for those defendants, plaintiffs failed to identify any data that
they supposedly learned that was inconsistent with the company's
public statements. Id. at *10.

With respect to certain challenged statements the company's CEO and
CFO made on an earnings call -- which plaintiffs argued were
misleadingly positive -- the Court reviewed the call transcript and
concluded that defendants had provided risk disclosures, the
"existence [of which] negates any strong inference of fraudulent
intent or deliberate recklessness." Id. at *10.

As for defendants' alleged stock sales, the Court found that
allegations about two defendants who sold shares for approximately
$97 million and $60 million did not raise a strong inference of
scienter because the total amounts were not "astronomical figures"
and were less than 15% of their total holdings. Id. at *11. The
Court concluded, however, that as to two other defendants, who
allegedly sold stock worth a combined $821 million, their sales
were on their face "suspicious." Id. Nevertheless, the Court noted
that this suspicion alone was not enough to raise a strong
inference of scienter because plaintiffs alleged only the combined
stock sales by these two defendants, rather than the amount each
sold individually. Id. The Court further explained that the timing
of a certain defendant's stock sales was not suspicious because the
sales were "tax related." Id. For another defendant, the Court
noted that the timing was suspicious because the sale occurred near
the date of an alleged corrective disclosure; however, the Court
explained that this factor alone was not enough to plead a strong
inference of scienter. Id. at *12. Moreover, the Court observed
that stock sales can be suspicious only when "dramatically out of
line with prior trading practices," but plaintiffs had not alleged
that information for certain defendants, and that certain other
defendants' sales were not suspicious where they followed a lock-up
period during which those defendants were prohibited from trading.
Id.

With respect to allegations concerning executive departures, the
Court held that plaintiffs failed to allege facts indicating that
these departures were under suspicious circumstances. Id. at
*12–13. Moreover, while plaintiffs also pointed to third-party
websites with anonymous posts suggesting high employee turnover at
the company, the Court treated these as "tantamount to confidential
witness statements," emphasizing that plaintiffs failed to allege
any facts supporting that these sources were reliable and possessed
knowledge of the company's alleged fraudulent conduct. Id. at *13.

Turning to plaintiffs' Securities Act claims, the Court first held
that, for Securities Act defendants against whom plaintiffs had
also asserted Exchange Act claims, those claims sounded in fraud
because they were based on the same underlying facts and course of
conduct alleged in the Exchange Act claims. Id. at *15. Applying
the heightened pleading standard for allegations of fraud, the
Court explained that plaintiffs "fall short in their explanation on
'why' a particular statement is false or misleading under Rule
9(b)." Id. at *15–16. As for claims against the remaining
Securities Act defendants, the Court held plaintiffs failed to
explain the involvement of two defendants in the company's
offerings and failed to identify any statements the underwriters
provided in the company's offering materials that were false and
misleading. Id. at *16. The Court also rejected claims based on
alleged violations of Items 105 and 303 of Regulation S-K, holding
that plaintiffs failed to provide any factual allegations
suggesting that adverse undisclosed facts were known to management.
Id. at *16–18. [GN]

FIRST ENERGY: Frand Seeks to Clarify Class Certification Order
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Frand v. First Energy Corp
et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-04287-ALM-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order clarifying its findings in the
March 30, 2023 Opinion & Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion to
Certify the Class.

FirstEnergy is an electric utility headquartered in Akron, Ohio.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 10, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O7ewFe at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph F. Murray, Esq.
          MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP
          1114 Dublin Road
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 488-0400
          Facsimile: (614) 488-0401
          E-mail: murray@mmmb.com

                - and -

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          Mark Solomon, Esq.
          Tor Gronborg, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com
                  marks@rgrdlaw.com
                  torg@rgrdlaw.com

FIRST ENERGY: Owens Seeks Clarification of Class Cert Order
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Owens v. FirstEnergy Corp.
et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-03785 (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff ask the
Court to enter an order clarifying its findings in the March 30,
2023 Opinion & Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify the
Class.

FirstEnergy is an electric utility headquartered in Akron, Ohio.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 10, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OziV43 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph F. Murray, Esq.
          MURRAY MURPHY MOUL + BASIL LLP
          1114 Dublin Road
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 488-0400
          Facsimile: (614) 488-0401
          E-mail: murray@mmmb.com

                - and -

          Darren J. Robbins, Esq.
          Mark Solomon, Esq.
          Tor Gronborg, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com
                  marks@rgrdlaw.com
                  torg@rgrdlaw.com




FKA DISTRIBUTING: Mitchell Sues Over Undisclosed Product Defects
----------------------------------------------------------------
Connie Mitchell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FKA DISTRIBUTING CO., LLC d/b/a HoMedics, Case No.
2:24-cv-00241-BHH (D.S.C., Jan. 16, 2024), is brought on behalf
persons who purchased any HoMedics (a brand owned by Defendant)
Therapist Select Percussion Personal Massagers ("Recalled
Massagers", "Class Massagers", or "the Massagers"), with a date
code ending in 20, 21, or 22 as a result of the Defendants' failure
to disclose defects in their product.

The Plaintiff brings this action to remedy various violations of
law in connection with Defendant's manufacturing, marketing,
advertising, selling, and warranting of the Recalled Massagers.
Specifically, these Recalled Massagers have dangerously defective
charging mechanisms whereby the massagers can overheat while
charging, posing fire and burn hazards ("the Defect"). The Defect
can and has overheated as evidenced by seventeen reports received
by HoMedics. On January 4, 2024, Defendant recalled nearly 46,000
of the Recalled Massagers in the United States.

When a manufacturer sells a product, it has a duty to ensure that
the product functions properly and safely for its advertised use,
free from any defects. Upon discovering a defect, a manufacturer
must explicitly disclose the defect and take corrective action or
cease selling the product. Additionally, when a product
manufacturer provides a warranty, it must stand by that warranty.
The present class action lawsuit arises from Defendant's breach of
these stated duties and obligations, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased the Massager, with the Model Number of
HHP-715 and date code 1120 from Defendant in 2020.

The Defendant designs, manufactures, markets, imports, distributes,
and sells personal health and wellness products, including the
subject "Therapist Select Percussion Personal Massagers."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
          Blake G. Abbott, Esq.
          POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC
          32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403
          Phone: 803-222-2222
          Fax: 843-494-5536
          Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com
                 blake.abbott@poulinwilley.com


FLY JAMAICA: Court Approves Settlement in Aircraft Accident Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Angelica Dino of Law Times reports that the Ontario Superior Court
of Justice has recently approved the settlement in the class action
related to the 2018 incident at an airport in Guyana, where an
aircraft's passengers sustained physical injuries and other
losses.

The Fly Jamaica Flight OJ 256 was en route to Toronto Pearson
International Airport when it turned back for an emergency landing
after developing problems with the plane's hydraulic system. Upon
touching down, the Boeing 757-23N aircraft went off the runway,
sustained substantial damage, and passengers suffered physical
injuries and other losses.

After years of negotiations, the parties reached a settlement in
December 2023, culminating in the execution of a settlement
agreement. The defendants have agreed to pay a lump sum of
$5,550,000.00 to settle the action, with the settlement funds
expected to be delivered to class counsel by March 1.

The settlement agreement covers all legal fees, noticing costs, and
claims administration costs, ensuring the class members are
adequately compensated. The court noted that no class member has
objected to the terms of the settlement agreement.

The class, defined to include passengers aboard Flight OJ256 and
family claimants, will receive compensation based on individualized
assessments of damages. The court noted that the settlement
agreement was designed to leave no class member uncompensated or
undercompensated.

The settlement also accounted for seven minor passengers in the
class, who are expected to receive settlements ranging from
$8,000.00 to $15,000.00. Under the Children's Law Reform Act, these
funds are not required to be paid into court as the total amount is
$35,000 or less. The funds may be paid to the child's parent if the
child resides with the parent.

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice explained that the key
question in evaluating the merits of a proposed settlement is
whether its terms lie within a range of reasonableness. In making
this assessment, the court must balance the need to scrutinize the
settlement against the recognition that there may be several
possible outcomes within the range of reasonableness.

Class counsel emphasized the fairness of the settlement terms,
considering factors such as the likelihood of success, extent of
investigation, representation by experienced counsel, and the risks
associated with airline liability. The proposed settlement, they
argued, is within the range of reasonableness.

The court considered the likelihood of success in the action, the
extent of the investigation and evidence in the case, the
representation of the class by experienced counsel, the likely
expense of continued litigation, and the engagement of the parties
in good faith, arm's-length bargaining.

The court concluded that the proposed terms and conditions of the
settlement are very reasonable and are in the best interests of the
class for the settlement to be approved. [GN]

FRONT GENERAL STORE: Erkan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Front General Store,
LLC. The case is styled as Nihal Erkan, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Front General Store, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-00413-DG-JAM (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 19, 2024).

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

Front General Store -- https://frontgeneralstore.com/ -- provides
every categories from vintage to brand new: dry goods, stationary,
vintage clothing, vintage designer bags/purses, gift cards, and
more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          14749 71st Ave.
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


FULL SAIL LLC: Beckwith Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Full Sail, LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Kristy Beckwith, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Full Sail, LLC d/b/a
Full Sail University, The Office Gurus, LLC, Case No. 6:24-cv-00136
(in M.D. Fla., Jan. 19, 2024).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

Full Sail, LLC doing business as Full Sail University --
https://www.fullsail.edu/ -- is a private for-profit university in
Winter Park, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ryan Lee McBride, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          2221 Camino Del Rio S., Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Phone: (800) 400-6808
          Email: ryan@kazlg.com


GEICO GENERAL: Court Approves Amended Class Notice in Lanzillotta
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY LANZILLOTTA,
individually on her own behalf and representatively on behalf of a
class of plaintiffs similarly situated, v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. 1:19-cv-01465-DLI-JRC (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
James R. Cho entered an order as follows:

   a) Approving the proposed amended class notice attached to
      plaintiff's reply brief with the modifications and with the
      proviso that the dates set forth therein comport with the
dates
      set forth in this Order;

   b) Authorizing the plaintiff to retain RG/2 Claims
Administration
      LLC as claims administrator, on the terms set forth in the
      proposal dated May 10, 2023;

   c) Directing theg Defendant to provide the plaintiff a list that

      encompasses all class members, from March 13, 2013 to the
      present, and which contains the names, addresses, and, if
known
      to defendant, the e-mail addresses of all persons on the
list,
      in Excel format, no later than April 10, 2024;

   e) Directing that the notice be sent to all individuals on the
list
      on or before May 10, 2024; and

   f) Establishing July 10, 2024 as the opt-out date.

In this class action, the plaintiff Lanzillotta seeks damages, on
behalf of herself and a class of similarly-situated plaintiffs,
alleging defendant GEICO General Insurance Company improperly
reduced the insurance benefits to which she and other covered
persons were entitled under New York's Comprehensive Automobile
Insurance Reparations Act, N.Y. Ins.

The Honorable Dora L. Irizarry certified a class pursuant to Rule
23(b)(3), and plaintiff now moves for approval of the class notice
and related procedures.

On August 27, 2016, the plaintiff was injured in an automobile
accident. At the time, the plaintiff held a motor vehicle insurance
policy with defendant, which provided coverage in accordance with
New York's No-Fault Statute.

Judge Irizarry certified the class according to the following class
definition:

   "All "Eligible Injured Persons," as that term is defined by 11
   NYCRR sections 65-1.1–65-1.3, covered under a policy of
insurance
   issued or administered by GEICO General Insurance Company,
subject
   to the provisions of Insurance Law section 5102, who earned
gross
   monthly wages in excess of two thousand dollars per month at any

   point during the period in which they were covered, who have
   submitted First Party Benefit claims to and received payment
from
   GEICO General Insurance Company for First Party Benefits that
   included claims for lost wages, and which, after paying at least

   one month of First Party wage benefits, GEICO General Insurance

   Company claimed fully exhausted coverage on or after March 13,
   2013."

   Excluded from the Class are the defendant company; any entity
that
   has a controlling interest in the defendant company; current or

   former directors, officers and counsel of the defendant company;

   and any Eligible Injured Persons who received full compensation

   under the applicable insurance policy.

GEICO is a private American auto insurance company.

A copy of the Court's memorandum & order dated Jan. 10, 2024 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4aZE2pL at no
extra charge.[CC]

GROVESTARS MOVING: Errante Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grovestars Moving,
LLC. The case is styled as David Errante, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Grovestars Moving, LLC
doing business as: Best American Movers, Case No.
1:24-cv-20212-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 18, 2024).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

GroveStars Moving, LLC -- http://www.grovestarsmoving.com/--
provides long distance moving in 48 states.[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


H.F. COX: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Rawles Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
TYLYN RAWLES, an individual, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. H.F. COX, INC., a California
corporation dba COX PETROLEUM TRANSPORT; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV01482 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., January 19, 2024) alleges violations of various
provisions of the California Labor Code, relevant orders of the
Industrial Welfare Commission, and the California Business &
Professions Code.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a dispatcher based out
of Defendants' Bakersfield, California facility. She generally
worked 40 to 48 hours per week, four days per week, which resulted
in shifts of approximately twelve hours in duration. During the
course of her employment with Defendants, she was not paid all
wages she was entitled to, says the Plaintiff.

Based in Bakersfield, CA, H.F. Cox, Inc. is a California
corporation that operates several transportation terminals within
Los Angeles County. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Emil Davtyan, Esq.
         David Yeremian, Esq.
         Alvin B. Lindsay, Esq.
         Tania Fonseca, Esq.
         D.LAW, INC.
         880 E Broadway
         Glendale, CA 91205
         Telephone: (818) 962-6465
         Facsimile: (818) 962-6469
         E-mail: emil@d.law
                      d.yeremian@d.law
                      a.lindsay@d.law
                      t.fonseca@d.law

HAWAIIAN HOLDINGS: Meek Sues Over Misleading Proxy Statements
-------------------------------------------------------------
BRYAN MEEK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. HAWAIIAN HOLDINGS, INC., PETER R. INGRAM, LAWRENCE S.
HERSHFIELD, WENDY A. BECK, EARL E. FRY, JAYNE HRDLICKA, MICHAEL E.
MCNAMARA, CRYSTAL K. ROSE, CRAIG E. VOSBURG, RICHARD N. ZWERN,
DANIEL W. AKINS, MARK D. SCHNEIDER, and DUANE E. WOERTH,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00031-DKW-KJM (D. Haw., January 19,
2024) alleges violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asserting claims against the
Individual Defendants for violations of their duty of candor under
Delaware law.

The Plaintiff's claims arise in connection with the proposed merger
between Hawaiian and Alaska Air Group, Inc. On December 2, 2023,
Hawaiian entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, pursuant to
which Hawaiian shareholders will receive $18.00 in cash for each
share of Hawaiian common stock they own. On January 9, 2024, to
convince Hawaiian stockholders to vote in favor of the Proposed
Merger, Defendants authorized the filing of a materially incomplete
and misleading definitive proxy statement on Schedule 14A with the
Section 14(a)/Rule 14a-9 and their fiduciary duty of candor.

In particular, the Proxy contains materially omissive and
misleading information concerning the financial projections
prepared for Hawaiian during its negotiations with Alaska and the
valuation analyses prepared by Hawaiian's financial advisor,
Barclays Capital Inc. Notably, Hawaiian management prepared three
sets of long-term financial projections during discussions with
Alaska: the August, September, and November Long Term Plans.
However, instead of fully disclosing all three Projections -- and
in stark contrast to the more fulsome disclosure provided to
shareholders regarding the November Long Term Plan -- the Proxy
only provides minimalistic summaries of the August and September
Long Term Plans, says the suit.

Headquartered in Honolulu, HI, Hawaiian Holdings, Inc. is the
parent company of Hawaiian Airlines, which operates 150 daily
flights to four Hawaiian islands, 15 gateway cities on the U.S.
mainland, and 10 international destinations in American Samoa,
Tahiti, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, and Japan. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Rodney P. Bridgers, Jr., Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF RODNEY BRIDGERS, L.L.L.C.
         707 Richards Street, Suite 526
         Honolulu, HI 96813
         Telephone: (808) 536-3255
         E-mail: rod@helpingemeployyeshi.com

HEALTH-ADE LLC: Beverages Contain Toxic Chemicals, Morton Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALANNA MORTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HEALTH-ADE LLC, Defendant, Case No.
7:24-cv-00173-CS (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 9, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for manufacturing, marketing and distributing
beverage products that contain dangerous levels of per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances, also known as "forever chemicals."

According to the complaint, independent laboratory testing has
revealed that Health-Ade products tested positive for PFAS
chemicals. These PFAS chemicals are all dangerous to human health
if ingested, even at very low levels. PFAS are known as "forever
chemicals" due to their extended half-life and extreme persistence
and bioaccumulation in human bodies, says the suit.

No reasonable consumer would expect that a product marketed for
one's health would contain dangerous PFAS, which are indisputably
linked to harmful health effects in humans. Accordingly, Plaintiff
and Class members suffered economic injuries as a result of
purchasing the products.

In August of 2023, Plaintiff purchased Defendant's Health-Ade
Kombucha Ginger Pineapple Belly Reset at a gas station in Liberty,
New York.

Health-Ade is a beverage company that sells kombucha and other soft
beverages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

HEALTHEC LLC: Cappas Files Suit in D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Healthec, LLC. The
case is styled as Caroline Cappas, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Healthec, LLC, Case No.
2:24-cv-00312 (D.N.J., Jan. 19, 2024).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract
Default.

HealthEC -- https://www.healthec.com/ -- develops and delivers
end-to-end technology solutions for exchanging healthcare
information and managing population health.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip Furia, Esq.
          THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C.
          85 Civic Plaza, Suite 200
          Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
          Phone: (201) 744-0064
          Email: furiap@thesultzerlawgroup.com


HEALTHEC LLC: Figurel Files Suit in D. New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HEALTHEC, LLC, et al.
The case is styled as Kathleen Figurel, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Healthec, LLC, Oakwood
Accountable Care Organization, LLC d/b/a Beaumont Aco, Case No.
2:24-cv-00300 (D.N.J., Jan. 18, 2024).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

HealthEC -- https://www.healthec.com/ -- develops and delivers
end-to-end technology solutions for exchanging healthcare
information and managing population health.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
          LAUKAITIS LAW FIRM LLC
          954 Avenida Ponce De Leon, Suite 205, #10518
          San Juan, PR 00907
          Phone: (215) 789-4462
          Email: klaukaitis@ecf.courtdrive.com


HEALTHEC LLC: Marano Sues Over Unprotected Personal, Health Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
BREE MARANO, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff v. HealthEC LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-00153 (D.N.J., Jan. 9, 2024) is a class action arising from
the recent targeted cyberattack and data breach at Defendant that
lost control of sensitive personal information of Plaintiff and
more than 4.5 million Class Members that includes personally
identifying information and protected health information.

The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit to address
Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' private
information that it collected, and for failing to provide timely
and adequate notice to Plaintiff and Class Members that their
information had been subject to the unauthorized access of an
unknown third party and precisely what specific type of information
was accessed. As a result of the data breach, Plaintiff and Class
Members have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of
fraud and identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members must now
and in the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard
against identity theft, the suit alleges.

The Plaintiff seeks remedies including, but not limited to,
compensatory damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and
injunctive relief including improvements to Defendant's data
security protocols, future annual audits, and adequate credit
monitoring services funded by Defendant.

HealthEC LLC operates as a population health management
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James A. Barry, Esq.
          POGUST GOODHEAD, LLC
          505 S. Lenola Rd., Suite 126
          Moorestown, NJ 08057
          Telephone: (610) 941-4204
          E-mail: jbarry@pogustgoodhead.com

               - and -

          Jean S. Martin, Esq.
          Francesca K. Burne, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 559-4908
          Facsimile: (813) 222-4795
          E-mail: jeanmartin@forthepeople.com
                  fburne@forthepeople.com

HEALTHEC LLC: Roach Files Suit in D. New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HEALTHEC, LLC. The
case is styled as Trunetta Roach, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. HEALTHEC, LLC, Case No.
2:24-cv-00281-JKS-ESK (D.N.J., Jan. 17, 2024).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Contract
Default.

HealthEC -- https://www.healthec.com/ -- develops and delivers
end-to-end technology solutions for exchanging healthcare
information and managing population health.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael M. Weinkowitz, Esq.
          LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Phone: (215) 592-1500
          Email: mweinkowitz@lfsblaw.com


HEART OF TEXAS: Faces Class Action Over Patient Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tommy Witherspoon of Gray News reports that a Waco woman is seeking
more than $1 million and class-action status for her lawsuit
against the Heart of Texas Behavioral Health Network over a
November cyber breach that potentially left patient personal health
information vulnerable to misuse.

Frances Neese is alleging officials at the network, formerly known
as Heart of Texas Region MHMR, were negligent by allowing the data
breach, which potentially exposed patients' names, addresses,
Social Security numbers, dates of birth, medical record numbers,
health insurance policy numbers and medical and treatment
information.

Neese and her attorneys, Roger Mandel, of Fort Worth, and Jibrael
Hindi and Manuel Hiraldo, both of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, are
asking 474th State District Judge Alan Bennett of McLennan County
to grant class-action status to the lawsuit on behalf of the 63,255
patients affected by the data breach incident.

Mandel declined comment Thursday on the lawsuit.

Vince Erickson, HOTBHN division director for community and
governmental relations, said the agency's attorney has informed
them about the lawsuit but officials have not been served. He
declined additional comment.

HOTBHN officials alerted the public and their patients to the cyber
breach in early December, reporting then that they had no reason to
believe that any individual's information had been misused. The
agency reported that "an unauthorized party" gained access to its
network and that they had shut off all access to the network and
engaged a "specialized third-party forensic incident response firm"
to assist in securing its system.

The lawsuit alleges that the intruder gained access to the agency's
network on Oct. 22, 2023, and that the agency didn't notify Neese
and the "class members" of the incident until Dec. 6.

"Plaintiff's and class members' (personal identifiable information
and financial information) and (protected health information) that
was acquired in the data breach incident can be sold on the dark
web," the lawsuit alleges. "Hackers can access and then offer for
sale the unencrypted, unredacted PII and PHI to criminals.
Plaintiff and class members face a lifetime risk of identity theft,
which is heightened here by the loss of Social Security numbers."

The lawsuit also alleges a breach of fiduciary duty by the agency,
a health care provider covered under the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA).

"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 their
PH and PHI was safeguarded, failing to take available steps to
prevent an 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," according to the lawsuit.

No hearing has been set on whether the lawsuit will be given
class-action status. If it is, those patients affected by the
breach will be sent notices that they are plaintiffs in the lawsuit
unless they opt out of the litigation. [GN]

HERTZ CORP: Retherford Seeks Conditional Status of Collective
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDY RETHERFORD,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, v. THE
HERTZ CORPORATION, Case No. 2:23-cv-00719-JLB-NPM (M.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

   (a) Conditionally certifying the nationwide Fair Labor Standards

       Act (FLSA) Collective of Operations Managers;

   (b) Requiring Hertz to produce in an electronic or computer-
       readable format the full name, address(es), dates of
       employment, work, personal, and cellular telephone
number(s),
       and email address(es) (including personal email addresses to

       the extent they are available) for each member of the FLSA
       Collective;

   (c) authorizing notice and Consent to Join form to the members
of
       the FLSA Collective, disseminated by U.S. Mail, email, text

       message, and via website (returnable via mail, email, fax,
or
       via website);

   (d) authorizing a reminder postcard notice halfway through the
60-
       day notice period; and

   (e) granting any further relief that this Court deems just and
       proper.

The Plaintiffs file their request for the entry of an Order
conditionally certifying this action to proceed collectively and
permitting Plaintiffs to issue Courtsupervised notice to:

   "All similarly situated salaried, exempt-classified Operations
   Managers ("OMs") who worked for Defendant The Hertz Corporation
at
   any location in the United States and its territories for at
least
   one workweek from June 10, 2021 to the present (the "FLSA
   Collective")."

The Plaintiffs includes Brandy Retherford and Opt-In Plaintiffs
namely Kevin Gross, Christopher Williams, Jamarkis Mitchell, Kaya
Black, Falicia Foster, Joseph Persons, Chris Gunnarson, Ayele
Foley, Chanekia Kilpatrick, Leslie Moran-Vaquero, Matthew Bianco,
Kareem Chery, Denielle Heckman, Jessica Chapman, Kevin Valencia,
Elijah Leyva,
Maria Martinez, Jeron Ledbetter, Miguel Llull, Zachery Korb, and
Angela Burton.

The named Plaintiff and the 21 Opt-In Plaintiffs worked for Hertz
as OMs at a combined total of over 14 locations in 10 different
states.

Hertz classifies all OMs as exempt from the FLSA's overtime
requirements, notwithstanding the fact that OMs primarily perform
the same duties as hourly-paid and overtime-eligible employees, and
without regard to any individual OM's job duties. Hertz has a
common corporate policy not to pay OMs overtime wages.

Hertz operates its vehicle rental business through multiple brands,
including Hertz, Dollar, and Thrifty.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 4, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47wtdsc at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
          Michael Palitz, Esq.
          SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
          951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
          Boca Raton, FL 33431
          Telephone: (561) 447-8888
          E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
                  mpalitz@shavitzlaw.com

                - and -

          Mitchell Feldman, Esq.
          FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
          6916 W. Linebaugh Avenue, Suite #101
          Tampa, FL 33625
          Telephone: (813) 639-9366
          E-mail: mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com

HMG HEALTHCARE: Townsend Files Suit in S.D. Texas
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HMG Healthcare, LLC.
The case is styled as Monica Townsend, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. HMG Healthcare, LLC, Case No.
4:24-cv-00156 (S.D. Tex., Jan. 16, 2024).

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

HMG -- https://www.hmghealthcare.com/ -- provides Health
Information Management and Medical Consulting centered around
Project Management.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


HOME DEPOT: Floyd Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Andrae Floyd, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a corporation and
DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2305845 was removed from the
Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 18,
2024, and assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-00127.

The Plaintiff alleges that Home Depot failed to pay minimum wages,
failed to pay overtime wages, failed to provide meal and rest
periods, failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements,
failed to provide wages when due at termination, failed to
indemnify employees for expenditures, and that Home Depot violated
California's unfair competition law.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Barbara J. Miller, Esq.
          John D. Hayashi, Esq.
          Matthew M. Arnold, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1800
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626-7653
          Phone: +1.714.830.0600
          Fax: +1.714.830.0700
          Email: barbara.miller@morganlewis.com
                 john.hayashi@morganlewis.com
                 matthew.arnold@morganlewis.com


HOMEADVISOR INC: Court Certifies Four Classes in Airquip Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Airquip, Inc. v.
HomeAdvisor, Inc et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-01849-PAB-KAS (D. Colo.),
the Hon. Judge Philip A. Brimmer entered an order:

-- Granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for

    class certification and appointment of class counsel Pursuant
to
    Fed. R. Civ. P. 23;

-- Certifying a Nationwide Misappropriation Class, defined as:

    "All persons and entities who are/were Traditional SPs since
July
    13, 2015, (a) who were charged for a HomeAdvisor membership
    (including for HomeAdvisor's Pro ConnectTM, Total ConnectTM,
    and/or for the predecessor or subsequent HomeAdvisor home
service
    professional membership programs) within the 50 United States
or
    the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico or the U.S. Virgin
Islands,
    (b) who terminate or terminated their home service professional

    membership with HomeAdvisor, (c) for whom HomeAdvisor does not
    have express assent to use their names, likeness, or trademark
on
    HomeAdvisor’s website or any HomeAdvisor affiliate website."

-- Appointing Kourtney Ervine, Iva Haukenes, Brad McHenry, and
    Linda McHenry as representatives for the Nationwide
    Misappropriation Class;

-- Certifying a Colorado Misappropriation Class, defined as:

    "All persons and entities who are/were Traditional SPs since
July
    13, 2015, (a) who were charged for a HomeAdvisor membership
    (including for HomeAdvisor's Pro ConnectTM, Total ConnectTM,
    and/or for the predecessor or subsequent HomeAdvisor home
service
    professional membership programs) within the state of Colorado,

    (b) who terminate or terminated their home service professional

    membership with HomeAdvisor, (c) for whom HomeAdvisor does not

    have express assent to use their names, likeness, or trademark
on
    HomeAdvisor's website or any HomeAdvisor affiliate website."

-- Appointing the plaintiffs Brad McHenry and Linda McHenry as
class
    representatives for the Colorado Misappropriation Class;

-- Certifying a Florida Misappropriation Class defined as:

    "All persons and entities who are/were Traditional SPs since
July
    13, 2014, (a) who were charged for a HomeAdvisor membership
    (including for HomeAdvisor's Pro ConnectTM, Total ConnectTM,
    and/or for the predecessor or subsequent HomeAdvisor home
service
    professional membership programs) within the state of Florida,
(b)
    who terminate or terminated their home service professional
    membership with HomeAdvisor, (c) for whom HomeAdvisor does not

    have express assent to use their names, likeness, or trademark
on
    HomeAdvisor's website or any HomeAdvisor affiliate website;"

-- Appointing the plaintiff Kourtney Ervine as class
representative
    for the Florida Misappropriation Class;

-- Certifying an Idaho Misappropriation Class defined as:

    "All persons and entities who are/were Traditional SPs since
July
    13, 2016, (a) who were charged for a HomeAdvisor membership
    (including for HomeAdvisor's Pro ConnectTM, Total ConnectTM,
    and/or for the predecessor or subsequent HomeAdvisor home
service
    professional membership programs) within the state of Idaho,
(b)
    who terminate or terminated their home service professional
    membership with HomeAdvisor, (c) for whom HomeAdvisor does not

    have express assent to use their names, likeness, or trademark
on
    HomeAdvisor's website or any HomeAdvisor affiliate website;"

-- Appointing the Plaintiff Iva Haukenes is appointed class
    representative for the Idaho Misappropriation Class;

-- Appointing Chimicles Schwartz Kriner and Donaldson-Smith
("CSKD")
    and Sherman and Howard ("S&H") as class counsel; and

-- Denying the plaintiffs' request to certify a Nationwide
Deceptive
    Practices Class, a California Deceptive Practices Class, a
    Colorado Deceptive Practices Class, a Florida Deceptive
Practices
    Class, an Idaho Deceptive Practices Class, an Illinois
Deceptive
    Practices Class, an Indiana Deceptive Practices Class, a New
    Jersey Deceptive Practices Class, a New York Deceptive
Practices
    Class, and an Ohio Deceptive Practices Class.

The Plaintiffs bring this class action suit on behalf of themselves
and proposed classes of similarly situated home service
professionals against the Defendants.

The Plaintiffs allege that HomeAdvisor misrepresents the quality of
the leads it sells to SPs. Specifically, the plaintiffs claim that
HomeAdvisor advertises that its leads are from high quality,
"project-ready" customers.

The Plaintiffs allege that HomeAdvisor consistently conveyed a
"brand promise" during the putative class period that the leads
were "from serious, legitimate, and real homeowners, who were
serious about engaging with an SP to have work performed."

The Plaintiffs allege that HomeAdvisor conveyed the brand promise
to SPs through advertising and marketing statements directed to SPs
as well as during HomeAdvisor's enrollment calls with SPs.

HomeAdvisor is an online marketplace that helps connect home
service professionals with homeowners in need of home improvement
services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 10, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47OIwwq at no extra charge.[CC]



HOUSE OF ELEVEN: Karim Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against House of Eleven, LLC.
The case is styled as Jessica Karim, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. House of Eleven, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-00308-JGLC (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 16, 2024).

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

House of Eleven, LLC -- https://houseofeleven.com/ -- is an online
fashion and clothing brand founded by Darcey and Stacey Silva in
honor of their brother Michael Silva.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gabriel Levy, Esq.
          GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
          1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404
          Manhasset, NY 11030
          Phone: (516) 287-3458
          Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com


HUME SUPERNATURAL: Reid Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hume Supernatural,
Inc. The case is styled as Nadreca Reid, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Hume
Supernatural, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00313 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 16,
2024).

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

Hume Supernatural -- https://humesupernatural.com/ -- is a personal
care company that offers chemical-free deodorants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HUNAN MANOR: Taste of Mao Appeals Ruling in Chen FLSA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Defendants A TASTE OF MAO, INC. and Zhenqi Xiao filed an appeal
from the District Court's Memorandum Decision and Order and
Judgment dated December 5, 2023 entered in the lawsuit entitled SHI
MING CHEN, et al. v. HUNAN MANOR ENTERPRISE, INC., et al., Case No.
1:17-cv-00802-GBD-GWG, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

Plaintiffs Shi Ming Chen, Lianhe Zhou, Yong Kang Liu, Jixiang Wang,
Wei Min Zhu, Baojun Tian, Xinlong Liu, Qifang Chen, and Pingjin Fan
are former employees of Defendants' restaurants who brought suit
seeking unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge
Gabriel W. Gorenstein recommended that the following motions be
denied:

  -- the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification under Federal
     Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for their New York Labor Law
     claims; and

  -- a purported cross-motion to dismiss brought by Defendants A
     Taste of Mao, Inc., and Zhenqi Xiao.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1) and Rule 72(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties have 14 days
(including weekends and holidays) from service of the Report and
Recommendation to file any objections. A party may respond to any
objections within 14 days after being served. Any objections and
responses shall be filed with the Clerk of the Court. Any request
for an extension of time to file objections or responses must be
directed to Judge Daniels. If a party fails to file timely
objections, that party will not be permitted to raise any
objections to the Report and Recommendation on appeal.

The Court reviewed three motions for reconsideration of the Court's
Opinion: one filed by Plaintiffs on August 29, 2023; one filed by
Defendants Hunan Manor Enterprise, Inc., Hunan Manor LLC, Hunan
House Manor Inc., Hunan House Restaurant, Inc., Hunan House
Restaurant NY LLC, Hunan House. Inc., Zhida Li, and Jingchao Li on
September 20, 2023; and one filed by Defendants A Taste of Mao,
Inc. and Zhenqi Xiao, also on September 20, 2023.

On December 5, the Court entered a Memorandum Decision and Order
holding that the Plaintiffs' Motion is GRANTED; Hunan Manor
Defendants' Motion is GRANTED IN PART as to its request to amend
the damages calculation and DENIED as to its other requests; and
Taste of Mao Defendants' Motion is DENIED.

The appellate case is captioned as Chen v. Hunan Manor Enterprise,
Case No. 24-73, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, filed on January 8, 2024.[BN]

Defendant-Appellant ZHENQI XIAO is represented by:

          Michael R. Curran, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL R. CURRAN, ESQ.
          Main Street, Suite 9B-2
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (347) 549-2079

IC MARKETS: Misleads Investors Over Financial Products, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nassim Khadem, writing for ABC, reports that one of Australia's
richest men, Andrew Budzinski, faces a class action over
allegations that he and his company, IC Markets, misled thousands
of everyday investors who may have collectively lost hundreds of
millions of dollars trading in risky financial products.

Echo Law filed a class action against Mr Budzinski and IC Markets
in December, expecting that thousands of investors who lost money
trading the products -- known as contracts for difference (CFDs) --
could come forward.

CFDs are financial products that allow people to trade on how much
assets -- such as cryptocurrencies, shares and commodities -- will
increase or decrease in value.

They are illegal in the United States and Hong Kong but can be
traded in Australia, although the corporate regulator imposed
strict conditions on these products in 2021.

The class action alleges that, by offering these highly risky and
unsuitable financial products to retail investors (before the ASIC
restrictions came into force on March 29, 2021), IC Markets engaged
in misleading, deceptive and unconscionable conduct.

IC Markets was in 2007 founded by Andrew Budzinski, who in 2022
ranked number 50 on Australia's Richest 250, worth $2.5 billion.

The 49-year-old has grown his fortune from foreign exchange and
cryptocurrency trading.

IC Markets has its headquarters in Sydney, although Mr Budzinski
now reportedly lives in a luxury marina on the southern coast of
Cyprus.

IC Markets reaped almost $1 billion in net profits in three years
and court documents, lodged by the applicants, state that Mr
Budzinski paid himself at least $939 million in dividends through
his holding company Bud Corporation.

These constituted 99 per cent of the profits made by IC Markets in
the three years to September 30, 2020, the documents state.

The allegations against the company covered investors who acquired
CFDs with IC Markets between December 2017 and March 28, 2021.

The court documents allege Mr Budzinski maintained "extensive
control and management over, IC Markets's operations and business;
and considered himself to be the 'owner'."

The court documents also include emails Mr Budzinski sent to
employees of the company in 2022, after the period of the alleged
conduct, suggesting the money paid by IC Markets to its staff was
"his" money and threatening to not pay staff their wages.

The court documents state that on February 16, 2022, Mr Budzinski
sent an email stating "the company does not employ faggots (gay
people) . . . I pay your wages and that of others and I would fund
the lifestyles of faggots . . . Why did you not inform me that you
had intended to offer a gay a job who was subsequently employed and
has now been terminated" and that he was disgusted "that my money
has been given to such a human being."

They also state that in September 2022, Mr Budzinski directed IC
Markets not to approve or pay any wages to employees in Australia
pending his review of the employee's performance.

Mr Budzinski's direction, according to the court documents, was:
"Payroll approval. Just a reminder that all employee payroll is to
come past me this month for approval for all offices, including AU.
Four employees will have their pay withheld until such a time they
complete the task assigned to them in a professional manner, these
people know who they are. Upon satisfactory completion of the
assigned task, their pay will be released. This is not a threat.
THIS WILL HAPPEN".

An IC Markets spokesman told ABC News: "The claims in this case are
entirely meritless and will be vigorously defended."

It said its "CFD products have consistently complied with all
regulations, and we pride ourselves on providing efficient, honest
and fair services to our clients".

"This case is simply the latest in a series of copy-cat class
actions against, it seems, any and all CFD brokers in Australia,
driven by plaintiffs' lawyers and litigation funders," the
spokesman said.

"It has absolutely no bearing on our current operations and will
have no impact on our clients or our broader business."

CFDs 'akin to gambling'

Idil Mohamud, senior associate at Echo Law, said retail investors
who acquired CFDs with IC Markets between December 2017 and March
28, 2021, could learn more about the class action and register
their interest.

"CFDs are highly volatile and have historically been highly
leveraged products, exposing investors to rapid losses," she told
ABC News.

On March 29, 2021, corporate regulator the Australian Securities
and Investments Commission (ASIC) issued a product intervention
order imposing strict conditions on providers to protect retail
investors.

The limits followed a series of ASIC reviews in 2017, 2019 and 2020
finding most retail clients lose money trading CFDs, noting that
they are "confusing" along with characteristics "akin to
gambling".

In documents filed with the Federal Court, covering a three-year
period before the ASIC restrictions came into force, it's alleged
that IC Markets set "the buy and sell price for its CFDs in a way
that was not transparent to retail clients".

It states that the company sold "highly leveraged CFDs to retail
investors that were complex, highly risky and unsuitable for those
investors".

The company's website and operating platform "facilitated poor
decision-making and encouraged continuous trading, notwithstanding
significant or repeated losses".

IC Markets, the applicants allege, "made it easy for retail
investors to open an account and start trading; emphasised the ease
and quickness of trading and minimised the risks".

The company, it's alleged, "used language that made new users feel
comfortable, such as representations that users could 'trade with
the world's largest Forex CFD provider' and 'trade with the most
trusted CFD provider in the world' and did not contain prominent
warnings of the risks of CFDs."

ASIC's August 2019 review found CFDs were generally marketed to and
traded by retail investors, of whom 70 per cent earn an annual
income of $80,000 or less.

After ASIC imposed new rules around the issue and distribution of
CFDs in 2021, investor losses were curtailed.

Immediately after the new rules were introduced, losses plunged to
an average of $33 million per quarter, well below the average $371
million per quarter in the year prior.

ASIC has successfully prosecuted three cases against CFD providers
AGM Markets, OT Markets and Ozfin for breaching the Corporations
Act after Federal Court judge Jonathan Barry Beach in October 2020
handed them a combined penalty of $75 million for "engaging in
systemic unconscionable conduct".

Judge Beach at the time had described CFDs as "financial heroin
hits" sought by unsophisticated investors.

Investors 'still picking up pieces of their life'

Ms Mohamud said the investors in their class action were impacted
before the ASIC limits came into force.

She said one of the investors the law firm was representing had
lost about $50,000 and was financially devastated.

"The investors were not being properly informed about the nature of
the transactions," she said, noting tens of thousands of investors
potentially lost hundreds of millions of dollars during the period
and that many of them traded with debt such as credit cards.

"They're still picking up pieces of their life . . . and still
servicing the debt they incurred," she said.

She added that while some investors felt shame and guilt for
investing with IC Markets, "they didn't know the odds were stacked
against them".

The company does make investors carry out a questionnaire when they
invest but the court documents allege IC Markets did not take
sufficient steps to warn people of the risks they faced.

Lead applicant Nathaniel (who has asked that his surname not be
used) says he doesn't feel he was adequately warned of the risks.

He was 26 at the time of the investment.

In early 2020, he had been temporarily stood down during COVID
lockdowns from his job as an assistant director in the film
industry.

He says in October 2020 he lost $10,600 because of acquiring
contracts for difference via the IC Markets trading system.

While he had some experience in trading corporate stocks on the
ASX, he says he "within two and a half weeks, the money I invested
pretty much disappeared -- around 90 per cent was wiped out."

Nathaniel says had there been clear warnings before he invested
about the risks of the trade, he wouldn't have jumped in.

He was watching an IC Markets trader he was following on a Facebook
group, which he thought was reputable.

This trader, Nathaniel says, had appeared to over a 30-day period
double his money, and many others in the Facebook group were also
making investments with IC Markets as a result.

"We set it to copy someone's trades actions," he says.

"I watched and waited for a month before jumping in -- you'd be a
fool to jump in straight away on a whim.

"I figured that it was an account that was doing well and . . .
took that as a sign."

But Nathaniel feels he was misled into joining a platform that he
thought was safe and regulated.

He says he lost part of the deposit that he'd saved to buy a home
with his girlfriend at the time.

"Financially, it was a hit. Emotionally, it was very distressing.
It had an impact on my relationship at the time. Because it's a lot
to lose.

"It would be nice to get (the money) back." [GN]

IMA FINANCIAL GROUP: Zerbe Files Suit in D. Kansas
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against IMA Financial Group,
Inc. The case is styled as Jason Zerbe, Mark Masterson, Jessica
Abel, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
IMA Financial Group, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-02026-KHV-GEB (D. Kan.,
Jan. 18, 2024).

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

The IMA Financial Group, Inc. -- https://imacorp.com/ --  is a
diversified financial services company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J.B. Boulware, Esq.
          Jeremy M. Suhr, Esq.
          BOULWARE LAW, LLC
          1600 Genessee Street, Suite 416
          Kansas City, MO 64102
          Phone: (816) 492-2826
          Fax: (816) 492-2826
          Email: brandon@boulware-law.com
                 jeremy@boulware-law.com


INDIANA: Court Certifies Class Suit Over Gender Affirming Care Ban
------------------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Pierson of Reuters reports that a lawsuit by families and
healthcare providers challenging an Indiana law that would ban the
use of puberty blockers and hormones for transgender children under
the age of 18 can go forward as a class action, a federal judge has
ruled.

U.S. District Judge James Hanlon in Indianapolis, who previously
blocked the law from taking effect as scheduled last year while he
considers the lawsuit, certified three classes, encompassing minor
patients, parents and providers.

The order clears the way for the judge to issue a broad final order
applying to everyone in the state. Indiana had opposed class
certification, arguing that any final order would need to address
the specific circumstances of each plaintiff.

"We're pleased that the district court granted our motion for class
certification and look forward to defeating this dangerous law on
the merits," Harper Seldin of the American Civil Liberties Union, a
lawyer for the plaintiffs, said in a statement.

The office of Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita did not
immediately respond to requests for comment.

Four minor transgender patients, their families, a doctor and a
clinic sued the state last April, soon after the state passed a law
banning the use of puberty blockers, hormones or surgery for the
purpose of gender transition for minors. Such treatments are known
as gender-affirming care.

They said the law discriminates against transgender people,
violating the guarantee of equal protection under the 14th
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The plaintiffs have said they are not challenging a part of the law
banning gender reassignment surgery for minors because no Indiana
providers perform them.

Hanlon, who was appointed to the federal bench by Republican former
President Donald Trump, last June issued a preliminary order
stopping the law from taking effect the following month, finding
that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their claims.

He wrote at the time that the state had shown "legitimate reasons"
for wanting to regulate medical treatment of transgender minors,
but had not shown that a total prohibition was justified. He said
the plaintiffs had shown "some likelihood" of success, and that
they risked irreparable harm if the law were to take effect.

The state is currently appealing that ruling.

In opposing class certification, Indiana said differences between
plaintiffs — for example, the fact that some patients received
only puberty blockers, and others hormones — meant the case could
not go forward as a class action.

Hanlon, however, said the constitutionality of the law did not
depend on those differences.
"There are therefore common questions central to the classes' and
subclasses' claims, and a shared legal analysis will determine
whether plaintiffs are entitled to any of the injunctive relief
they seek," Hanlon wrote.

Indiana is one of more than 20 Republican-led states that have
sought to restrict gender-affirming care.

Courts have been divided on legal challenges to such measures. Most
lower level courts to consider the bans have blocked them so far,
but appeals courts have sided with states.
The case is K.C. v. The individual members of the Medical Licensing
Board of Indiana, U.S. District Court, Southern District of
Indiana, No. 1:23-cv-00595.

For plaintiffs: Chase Strangio and Harper Seldin of the ACLU

For the state: Solicitor General James Barta [GN]

INLINE PLASTICS: Crawley Files Suit in D. Connecticut
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Inline Plastics Corp.
The case is styled as Milton Crawley, III, on behalf of himself and
all oher similarly situated v. Inline Plastics Corp., Case No.
3:24-cv-00068 (D. Conn., Jan. 19, 2024).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for
Property Damage.

Inline Plastics Corp. -- https://www.inlineplastics.com/ -- is a
packaging and containers company providing clamshell,
tamper-resistant, and plastic packaging solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicole L. Barber, Esq.
          VENTURA LAW
          235 Main Street
          Danbury, CT 06810
          Phone: (203) 800-8000
          Email: nicole@venturalaw.com


INMATE CALLING SOLUTIONS: Israelson Files Suit in D. Kansas
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Inmate Calling
Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Vanessa Israelson, Donna
Levan, individually and all for others similarly situated v. Inmate
Calling Solutions, LLC doing business as: IC Solutions, Case No.
2:24-cv-02027-HLT-BGS (D. Kan., Jan. 19, 2024).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Inmate Calling Solutions, LLC doing business as ICSolutions --
https://www.icsolutions.com/ -- provides inmate telecommunications
services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Wyatt, Esq.
          MANN WYATT TANKSLEY
          201 East 1st Avenue
          PO Box 1202
          Hutchinson, KS 67501
          Phone: (620) 662-2400
          Fax: (620) 662-2443
          Email: mike@mannwyatt.com

               - and -

          Ruth Anne French-Hodson, Esq.
          SHARP LAW, LLP
          4820 W. 75th Street
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Phone: (913) 901-0505
          Fax: (913) 347-4819
          Email: rafrenchhodson@midwest-law.com


INTEGRIS HEALTH: Johnston Files Suit in W.D. Oklahoma
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Integris Health, Inc.
The case is styled as Teresa Johnston, individually as parent and
natural guardian of M.J., a minor and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Integris Health, Inc., Case No.
5:24-cv-00069-HE (W.D. Okla., Jan. 19, 2024).

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

Integris Health -- https://integrisok.com/ -- is an American 501
not-for-profit organization which manages health care facilities in
the state of Oklahoma.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry D. Lahman, Esq.
          Roger L. Ediger, Esq.
          MITCHELL & DECLERCK
          202 W Broadway Ave
          Enid, OK 73701
          Phone: (580) 747-3114
          Email: ldl@mdpllc.com
                 rle@mdpllc.com


J.M. SMUCKER: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Humphrey Due April 25
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBIN HUMPHREY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE
J.M. SMUCKER COMPANY and POST CONSUMER BRANDS LLC, Case No.
3:22-cv-06913-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William H. Orrick
entered an order regarding class certification schedule as
follows:

   1. The Plaintiff's Motion for Class            April 25, 2024
      Certification will be due by:

   2. The Defendants' Opposition will be          June 20, 2024
      due by:

   3. The Plaintiff’s Reply will be               Aug. 1, 2024.
      due by:

   4. The hearing will be reset to:               Sept. 4, 2024

J.M. Smucker is an American manufacturer of food and beverage
products.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 8, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48QQAON at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Emily A. Horne, Esq.
          Jonathan L. Wolloch
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  ehorne@bursor.com
                  jwolloch@bursor.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael J. Ruttinger, Esq.
          Ethan W. Weber, Esq.
          Bart L. Kessel, Esq.
          Anna-Sophie Tirre, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS LLP
          950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 592-5000
          Facsimile: (216) 592-5009
          E-mail: michael.ruttinger@tuckerellis.com
                  Ethan.weber@tuckerellis.com
                  bart.kessel@tuckerellis.com
                  Anna-sophie.tirre@tuckerellis.com

J.M. SMUCKER: Parties Wants April 25 Deadline for Class Cert Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBIN HUMPHREY,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE
J.M. SMUCKER COMPANY and POST CONSUMER BRANDS LLC, Case No.
3:22-cv-06913-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order regarding class certification schedule:

   1. The Plaintiff's Motion for Class           April 25, 2024
      Certification will be due by:

   2. The Defendants' Opposition will            June 20, 2024
      be due by:

   3. The Plaintiff's Reply will be              Aug. 1, 2024
      due by:

   4. The hearing will be reset to:              Sept. 4, 2024

J.M. Smucker is an American manufacturer of food and beverage
products.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 8, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3tSsnZ5 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Emily A. Horne, Esq.
          Jonathan L. Wolloch
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  ehorne@bursor.com
                  jwolloch@bursor.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael J. Ruttinger, Esq.
          Ethan W. Weber, Esq.
          Bart L. Kessel, Esq.
          Anna-Sophie Tirre, Esq.
          TUCKER ELLIS LLP
          950 Main Avenue, Suite 1100
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 592-5000
          Facsimile: (216) 592-5009
          E-mail: michael.ruttinger@tuckerellis.com
                  Ethan.weber@tuckerellis.com
                  bart.kessel@tuckerellis.com
                  Anna-sophie.tirre@tuckerellis.com

JAMES LEBLANC: Class Certification Bid Filing Due Sept. 30
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VOICE OF THE EXPERIENCED,
ET AL., v. JAMES LEBLANC, ET AL. Case No. 3:23-cv-01304-BAJ-EWD
(M.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Erin Wilder-Doomes entered an order that
in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), the
following deadlines are established:

   1. The deadline to join other parties or to amend the pleadings
is
      Jan. 31, 2024.

   2. Discovery must be completed as follows:

      a. Exchanging initial disclosures required by F.R.C.P.
26(a)(1):
         7 days before the scheduling conference by Local Civil
Rule,
         unless otherwise ordered.

      b. Class related discovery deadline           June 17, 2024
         (except expert discovery):

      c. Opening class expert reports:              July 1, 2024

      d. Rebuttal class expert reports:             July 22, 2024

      e. Class expert depositions:                  Aug. 16, 2024

      f. Class certification motion due:            Sept. 30, 2024

      g. Opposition to Class Certification:         Oct. 31, 2024

      h. Filing all discovery motions               April 15, 2025
         and completing all discovery
         except experts:

      i. Disclosure of identities and
         resumes of experts:

                           Plaintiff(s):            April 15, 2025

                           Defendant(s):            May 15, 2025
      j. Expert reports must be submitted
         to opposing parties as follows:

                           Plaintiff(s):            June 15, 2025

                           Defendant(s):            July 15, 2025

      k. Rebuttal reports, if any, due 14 days after the initial
         expert report.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 8, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Smpb07 at no extra charge.[CC]

JENNIFER FISHER: Durantas Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jennifer Fisher, LLC.
The case is styled as Hakan Durantas, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Jennifer Fisher, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-00419-BMC (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 19, 2024).

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

Jennifer Fisher -- https://jenniferfisher.com/ -- is an American
Jewelry Designer.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          14749 71st Ave.
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


JETBLUE AIRWAYS: La Grow Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Stephanie La Grow, an individual, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. JETBLUE AIRWAYS
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation and DOES 1-50, Case No.
23STCV28880 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California on Jan. 19, 2024, and assigned
Case No. 2:24-cv-00518.

The Complaint alleges eight causes of action on behalf of Plaintiff
and a putative class under California law: violation of the Unfair
Competition Law; failure to pay all state minimum wages; failure to
pay overtime wages; failure to provide meal periods and pay meal
period premiums; failure to provide rest periods and pay rest
period premiums; failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements; failure to reimburse required business expenses; and
failure to pay sick pay wages.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Andrew P. Frederick, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1400 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Phone: +1.650.843.4000
          Fax: +1.650.843.4001
          Email: andrew.frederick@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Mecole L. Tate, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          One Market, Spear Street Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: +1.415.442.1000
          Fax: +1.415.442.1001
          Email: mecole.tate@morganlewis.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Suit Over Neutrogena Shampoo False Ads
---------------------------------------------------------------
Georgina Caldwell of Global Cosmetics News reports that a class
action lawsuit has been filed in a New York federal court alleging
that Neutrogena's T/Sal Therapeutic Shampoo is being falsely
marketed as 'preservative free'.

According to a report published by Top Class Actions, the product
contains citric acid, which is known to serve as a preservative.
The suit charges the brand with violating New York General Law,
breach of express warranty and unjust enrichment.

The Kenvue-owned brand stands accused of 'capitalizing on
consumers' preference for products with no preservatives'. The
plaintiff is seeking redress in the form of damages for them and
other shoppers similarly affected. [GN]

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Morris Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Rethea Morris, Robert Haid, an individual, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Johnson &
Johnson Consumer Inc., The Procter & Gamble Company, Procter &
Gamble Distributing, LLC, Walmart Inc., and John Does 1-200, whose
true name is unknown, Case No. 1:23-cv-03409 was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, to
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on
Jan. 18, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-00269-BMC to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending for
Product Liability.

Johnson & Johnson (J&J) -- https://www.jnj.com/ -- is an American
multinational, pharmaceutical, and medical technologies
corporation.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin S. Hannon, Esq.
          SINGLETON SCHREIBER LLC
          1641 North Downing Street
          Denver, CO 80218
          Phone: (720) 704-6028
          Fax: (619) 255-1515
          Email: khannon@singletonschreiber.com


KAY IVEY: Feb. 8 Provisional Class Cert Hearing in Kinetic OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT EARL COUNCIL AKA
KINETIK JUSTICE, et al., v. KAY IVEY, et al., Case No.
2:23-cv-00712-CLM-JTA (M.D. Ala.), the Hon. Judge Corey L. Maze
entered an order setting a motion hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary injunction and provisional class certification for Feb.
8, 2024, at 9:00 AM Central in Courtroom 2-F, Frank M. Johnson, Jr.
Federal Building and United States Courthouse Complex, One Church
Street, Montgomery, Alabama before Judge Corey L. Maze.

The court directs the Clerk of Court to provide a court reporter.

Kay Ivey is an American politician who is the 54th governor of
Alabama.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 10, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3Ht5wq0 at no extra charge.[CC]



KEEP YOUR CADENCE: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Keep Your Cadence,
Inc. The case is styled as Sanjay Sookul, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Keep Your Cadence, Inc., Case No.
1:24-cv-00302-ER (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 16, 2024).

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

Keep Your Cadence, Inc. -- https://keepyourcadence.com/ -- offers
customizable, leakproof, magnetic travel containers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


LAND O'LAKES: Arana Suit Removed to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Sandra Becerra Arana, on behalf of herself
and other similarly situated v. LAND O'LAKES, INC.; KOZY SHACK
ENTERPRISES, LLC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No.
CV-23-007421 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Stanislaus, to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of California on Jan. 19, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00273-DJC-DB.

The Complaint alleges claims for: failure to pay wages for all
hours worked at the minimum wage; failure to pay overtime wages for
daily overtime worked; failure to authorize or permit meal periods;
failure to timely pay all earned wages and final paychecks due at
the time of separation of employment; and unfair business
practices.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Joan B. Tucker Fife, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          101 California Street, 34th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-5840
          Phone: (415) 591-1000
          Facsimile: (415) 591-1400
          Email: jfife@winston.com

               - and -

          Emilie C. Woodhead, Esq.
          Zarouhi Papazyan, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          333 S. Grand Ave., 38th Fl.
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1543
          Phone: (213) 615-1700
          Facsimile: (213) 615-175
          Email: ewoodhead@winston.com
                 zpapazyan@winston.com


LAZER SPOT: Faces Class Suit Over "Yard Jockeys" Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cook County Record reports that Trucking company Lazer Spot, Inc.
is facing a class action lawsuit for allegedly failing to pay
overtime wages to its "yard jockeys", thereby violating federal and
state wage laws.

The named plaintiffs, Nate Ruthven and Danielle Harmon, have
accused the Georgia-based corporation of categorizing its yard
spotters as exempt from overtime requirements under the federal
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Illinois and Missouri state
law.

According to the complaint, Ruthven and Harmon, who were employed
by Lazer Spot as yard spotters in Illinois and Missouri
respectively, allege that they regularly worked between 10-12 hours
a day, five to six days a week. Despite frequently working over 40
hours per week, the plaintiffs claim they were not paid
time-and-a-half their regular rate for overtime work.

The case was filed in Chicago federal court on Jan. 15.

It seeks compensation under the FLSA as well as under Illinois
Minimum Wage Law and Missouri Minimum Wage Law for the named
plaintiffs and for all others who may have worked at Lazer Spot
facilities in Illinois and Missouri.

Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys James B. Zouras, Ryan F.
Stephan, Anna M. Ceragioli and Justin M. Carparco, of the firm of
Stephan Zouras LLP, of Chicago. [GN]

LIBERTY INSURANCE: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Dec. 18
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHELE WHITING, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. LIBERTY INSURANCE
CORP., Case No. 2:23-cv-04169-MDH (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge
Douglas Harpool entered a class certification scheduling order:

   1. Any motion to join additional parties shall      April 10,
2024
      be filed on or before:

   2. Any motion to amend the pleadings shall be       April 10,
2024
      filed on or before:

   3. Class and fact discovery will close:             Nov. 18,
2024

   4. All class discovery motions shall be             Oct. 15,
2024
      filed by:

   5. The Plaintiff shall file all motions             Dec. 18,
2024
      seeking class certification by:

   6. The Defendant shall file any responsive          Feb. 3, 2025

      motions objecting to class certification
      by:

   7. The Plaintiff shall reply to Defendant's         Feb. 18,
2025
      response to Plaintiff's motion seeking
      class certification no later than:

   8. The Plaintiff will designate any expert          Oct. 18,
2024
      witnesses as to class certification by:

   9. The Defendants will designate any expert         Dec. 2,
2024
      witnesses as to class certification by:

Liberty operates as an insurance firm.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 10, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48DXMxm at no extra charge.[CC]

LIQUID LAB: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Martinez Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO MARTINEZ, Plaintiff v. LIQUID LAB NYC LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 500849/2024 (N.Y. Sup., Kings Cty., January 9, 2024) is a class
action brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other
persons similarly situated visually-impaired and legally blind
individuals, after Defendant denied them full and equal access to
its website, www.liquidlabnyc.com, in violation of the New York
State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and
the New York City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, Liquidlabnyc.com provides to the public
a wide array of the goods, services, price specials, employment
opportunities and other programs. Yet, the website contains
thousands of access barriers that make it difficult if not
impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the
website. In fact, the access barriers make it impossible for blind
and visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the
website, says the suit.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Exact Sciences' policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Plaintiff for having been subjected to
alleged unlawful discrimination.

LIQUID LAB NYC LLC provides to the public the website,
liquidlabnyc.com, which offers consumers with access to an array of
goods and services, including, the ability to schedule and book
in-person cocktail making classes and view the large variety of
apparel and barware and cocktail making equipment for the
home.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

LIVE WELL: Class Suit Settlement in Mass Layoffs Suit Gets Final OK
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Clow of Housingwire reports that a cohort of former employees
at now-defunct reverse mortgage lender Live Well Financial has been
granted final settlement approval in a class action lawsuit brought
against the company's estate in May 2019.

Monica Williams, a former loan account manager in Live Well's
Richmond, Va. headquarters, initially filed the suit days after
Live Well had halted funding for new loans and subsequently ceased
operations entirely.

"After reviewing the terms of the settlement agreement, the court
has determined that the legal and factual bases [outlined] in the
motion establish just cause for the relief granted herein," the
order reads based on court filings reviewed by RMD.

The class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the District of Delaware seeking 60 days of wages and benefits,
alleging termination without cause and notice as required by law.
Live Well initially announced its intent to challenge the suit a
month after its filing.

Williams brought the suit on behalf of herself and other former
Live Well employees who were terminated "without cause, as part of,
or as the result of, mass layoffs or plant closings ordered by
[Live Well] on or about May 3, 2019," the initial court complaint
said.

After dragging on for the better part of four years while an
adjacent criminal case against former executive leaders was playing
out in the U.S. Southern District Court of New York, the class in
the Delaware suit received pending approval for a $1.1 million
settlement last November.

At that time, attorneys for Williams and the class at large said
the figure "provides for payment more than sixty-six (66) percent
of the maximum priority [Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification (WARN)] damages and eliminates any further accrual of
litigation expenses in prosecuting the action against [Live Well],
including trial and possible appeals."

In a 92-minute court hearing held on Jan. 18, presiding Judge
Laurie Selber Silverstein gave final approval for the settlement to
Williams' attorneys and David Carickhoff, the Chapter 7 bankruptcy
trustee overseeing the estate of Live Well Financial.

Alongside the preliminary approval, court filings indicated that
the settlement would cap the payment at $13,650 per employee. This
included all counsel fees and expenses, making the class consist of
roughly 81 people. A class of 125 people was initially estimated
when the suit was filed in 2019.

RMD reached out to attorneys for Williams but did not hear back
before this article was published.

This is the latest chapter in the saga of Live Well Financial. The
government indicted three former company executives over what
prosecutors called a reverse mortgage bond pricing scheme, with the
company's former CFO and former portfolio manager avoiding prison
time after consideration of their cooperation with authorities.

A dispute over restitution continues to play out in court between
the government and counsel for the lender's former CEO, who remains
free on bond pending an appeal of a prison sentence. [GN]

LOS ANGELES, CA: Class Cert Opposition Deadline Continued to Feb. 2
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Krizia Berg, et al., v.
County of Los Angeles, etc., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-07870-DMG-PD
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dolly M. Gee entered an order approving
joint stipulation to continue deadlines for motion for class
certification by one week:

            Matter                     Current Date       New Date

  Opposition deadline (Class          Jan. 26. 2024     Feb. 2,
2024
  Certification)

  Reply deadline (Class               Feb. 23, 2024     Mar. 1,
2024
  Certification)

  Hearing on Class                    Mar. 15, 2024     Mar. 22,
2024
  Certification Motion

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 10, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3S3OMux at no extra charge.[CC]

MAGNA INTERNATIONAL: Court Certifies 401(k) Class Action Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille of Bloomberg Law reports that a lawsuit challenging
Magna International of America Inc.'s retirement plan fees was
certified as a class action by a federal judge who denied an
earlier bid for class status based on problems with the workers
tapped to lead the case.

Judge Nancy G. Edmunds on January 25, 2024 certified a class of
more than 20,000 people covered by Magna's 401(k) plan since 2014.

Edmunds said the proposed class representatives -- Scott Vollmar,
Cory Harris, and Bobby Garrett -- were equipped to lead the case
because they were familiar with the facts of the lawsuit and their
roles as class representatives, had prepared and sat for
depositions. [GN]

MANTL INC: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mantl, Inc. The case
is styled as Sanjay Sookul, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Mantl, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00300
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 16, 2024).

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

Mantl -- https://www.mantl.com/ -- is a banking technology company
that provides workflow management and automation tools for banks
and credit unions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


MAPLEBEAR INC: Faces Class Action Over IPO False Information
------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Maplebear Inc. d/b/a Instacart ("Instacart" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: CART) and certain officers and directors. The
class action, filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, and docketed under 24-cv-00465, is
on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other
than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired:

     (a) Instacart common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the
Offering Documents issued in connection with the Company's initial
public offering conducted on or about September 19, 2023 (the "IPO"
or "Offering"); and/or

     (b) Instacart securities between September 19, 2023 and
October 1, 2023, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").
Plaintiff pursues claims against the Defendants under the
Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired
Instacart common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Offering
Documents issued in connection with the IPO and/or Instacart
securities during the Class Period, you have until March 25, 2024
to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A
copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To
discuss this action, contact Danielle Peyton at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free,
Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares
purchased.

Instacart provides online grocery shopping services to households
in North America. The Company sells and delivers a range of
products in the food, alcohol, consumer health, pet care, and
ready-made meals categories, in addition to others. The Company
offers its services through a mobile application and website, while
also providing software-as-a-service solutions to retailers.

On August 25, 2023, Instacart filed a registration statement on
Form S-1 with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC")
in connection with the IPO, which, after several amendments, was
declared effective by the SEC on September 18, 2023 (the
"Registration Statement").

On September 19, 2023, pursuant to the Registration Statement,
Instacart's common stock began publicly trading on the Nasdaq
Global Select Market ("NASDAQ") under the ticker symbol "CART".

On September 20, 2023, Instacart filed a prospectus on Form 424B4
with the SEC in connection with the IPO, which incorporated and
formed part of the Registration Statement (the "Prospectus" and,
collectively with the Registration Statement, the "Offering
Documents").

Pursuant to the Offering Documents, Instacart and other selling
stockholders identified in the Prospectus sold 14.1 million and 7.9
million shares of the Company's common stock to the public,
respectively, at the Offering price of $30.00 per share for total
proceeds of approximately $400 million and $224 million to
Instacart and the selling stockholders, respectively, after
applicable underwriting discounts and commissions.

The complaint alleges that the Offering Documents were negligently
prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material
fact or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading and were not prepared in accordance
with the rules and regulations governing their preparation. In
addition, the complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, the Offering Documents and Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
Instacart had overstated the extent to which online grocery
shopping and delivery habits among consumers were accelerating;
(ii) Instacart had downplayed the extent of the competition that it
faced in the online grocery shopping and delivery market; (iii)
accordingly, Defendants overstated the Company's post-IPO growth,
business, and financial prospects; and (iv) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

On September 22, 2023, Reuters published an article noting, among
other things, that Instacart's stock price was falling after
"lukewarm analyst reports" indicated that the Company would
struggle from heavy competition. For example, the article noted
that "BTIG analyst Jake Fuller gave Instacart a 'neutral' rating
and warned that the company faces heavy competition from DoorDash
(DASH.N) and Uber Technologies (UBER.N) in the slowly expanding
market of grocery delivery."

On this news, Instacart's stock price fell $0.65 per share, or
2.12%, to close at $30.00 per share on September 22, 2023.

Then, on October 2, 2023, investment research firm Gordon Haskett
initiated coverage of Instacart with a "hold" rating, stating that
it "ha[s] doubts that online grocery delivery adoption will
continue to materially increase at a time when consumers are
becoming increasingly cautious about spending", while similarly
citing the competitive environment in the online grocery shopping
and delivery market as a headwind to the Company's business.

On this news, Instacart's stock price fell $2.73 per share, or
9.2%, to close at $26.96 per share on October 2, 2023.

As of the time the complaint was filed, Instacart's common stock
continues to trade below the $30.00 per share Offering price,
damaging investors.

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

Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.

CONTACT:

     Danielle Peyton
     Pomerantz LLP
     dpeyton@pomlaw.com
     646-581-9980 ext. 7980

MARATHON REFINING: Butel Seeks to Certify Two Classes
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOUIS BUTEL and PAM
MOCHERNIAK, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
current and former employees, v. MARATHON REFINING AND LOGISTICS
SERVICES LLC, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
2:23-cv-04547-DSF-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs Louis Butel and
Pam Mocherniak move to certify two classes of employees pursuant to
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Plaintiffs seek to certify two classes: a "standby class" and a
"travel time class."

The proposed standby class includes:

   "All current and former operators of Marathon (or any of its
   affiliates or successors) who worked at the Los Angeles
Refinery,
   and who have been assigned primary relief shifts, since November

   25, 2019."

The proposed travel time class includes:

   "All current and former employees of Marathon (or any of its
   affiliates or successors) who worked at the Los Angeles
Refinery,
   were required to wear personal protective equipment, and who
were
   not paid for time between the time they entered the facility and

   the time they clocked in for work, and were not paid for time
   between the time they clocked out and the time they exited the
   facility, since November 25, 2019."

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 8, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48Yt4z0 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jay Smith, Esq.
          Joshua F. Young, Esq.
          Nicole Grinstein, Esq.
          Emily Olivencia-Audet, Esq.
          GILBERT & SACKMAN
          3699 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (323) 938-3000
          Facsimile: (323) 937-9139
          E-mail: js@gslaw.org
                  jyoung@gslaw.org
                  ngrinstein@gslaw.org
                  eolivencia@gslaw.org

                - and -

          Randy Renick, Esq.
          Cornelia Dai, Esq.
          Sarah Cayer, Esq.
          HADSELL STORMER RENICK & DAI, LLP
          128 North Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 204
          Pasadena, CA 91103-3645
          Telephone: (626) 585-9600
          Fax: (626) 577-7079
          E-mail: rrr@hadsellstormer.com
                  cdai@hadsellstormer.com
                  scayer@hadsellstormer.com

MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL: Lopez Suit Removed to D. Colorado
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Daniel Esteban Camas Lopez, individually and
on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. Marriott
International, Inc., Case No. 2023CV30109 was removed from the
District Court for the State of Colorado, Pitkin County, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on Dec. 15, 2023,
and assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-03308.

The Complaint alleges four causes of action: Violation of the
Colorado Consumer Protection Act (Fraudulent Internships);
Violation of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (Human
Trafficking); Violation of the Colorado Organized Crime Control
Act; Violation of the Colorado Human Trafficking Statute.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael P. O'Day, Esq.
          Ellen E. Dew, Esq.
          William W. Reichart III, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          650 S. Exeter St., Suite 1100
          Baltimore, MD 21202
          Phone: (410) 580-3000
          Fax: (410) 580-3001
          Email: michael.oday@us.dlapiper.com
                 ellen.dew@us.dlapiper.com
                 wes.reichart@us.dlapiper.com

               - and -

          D. Rockwell Bower, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          1900 N. Pearl St., Suite 2200
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Phone: (214) 743-4585
          Fax: (214) 665-5955
          Email: rockwell.bower@us.dlapiper.com


MARTIN LUTHER: Fails to Properly Pay Healthcare Staff, Roldan Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
JESUS ROLDAN, JR., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. - LOS
ANGELES (MLK-LA) HEALTHCARE CORPORATION dba MLK COMMUNITY
HEALTHCARE and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
24STCV01475 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., January 19, 2024) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of California
Labor Code including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay
overtime wages, failure to provide second meal periods, failure to
provide accurate wage statements, and failure to pay all wages owed
upon termination.

The Plaintiff worked as a non-exempt employee for the Defendant in
Los Angeles, California from approximately June 27,2022 until
August 16,2023.

Martin Luther King Jr. - Los Angeles (MLK-LA) Healthcare
Corporation, doing business as MLK Community Healthcare, is a
healthcare services provider in Los Angeles, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Gregory N. Karasik, Esq.
         KARASIK LAW FIRM
         16021 Aiglon St.
         Pacific Palisades, CA 90272
         Telephone: (310) 463-9761
         Facsimile: (310) 943-2582
         E-mail: greg@karasildawfirm.com

                  - and -

         Sahag Majarian, II, Esq.
         Garen Majarian, Esq.
         MAJARIAN LAW GROUP, APC
         18250 Ventura Blvd.
         Tarzana, CA 91356
         Telephone: (818) 609-0807
         Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
         E-mail: saliagii@aol.com
                 garen@majarianlawgroup.com

MASTER LOCK: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Pan Suit Due March 5
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY PAN, an
individual; v. MASTER LOCK COMPANY, LLC., a Delaware corporation;
Case No. 2:22-cv-08943-JLS-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Josephine
L. Staton entered an order granting stipulation to extend filing
deadline for
the Plaintiff's motion for class certification:

-- Last Day to File a Motion for Class             March 5, 2024
    Certification:

-- Last Day to File an Opposition to               May 15, 2024
    Motion for Class Certification:

-- Last Day to File a Reply to Motion              July 3, 2024
    for Class Certification:

Master Lock is an American company that develops padlocks,
combination locks, safes, and related security products.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/41WFS6B at no extra charge.[CC]

MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL: Jones Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Misty D. Jones, Robert Lipton, Elliot Ivins,
Rebecca Lien, Renee Alice Watroba, an individual, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Mastercard
International Incorporated, Does 1 through 200 inclusive, Case No.
23STCV28742 was removed from the Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on Jan. 18, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00458-FLA-AGR to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Mastercard Inc. -- https://www.mastercard.com/global/en.html -- is
the second-largest payment-technology corporation worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher Ross Rodriguez, Esq.
          Andrew Daniel Bluth, Esq.
          John R. Ternieden, Esq.
          Trent J. Nelson, Esq.
          YuQing Min, Esq.
          SINGLETON SCHREIBER LLP
          1414 K Street Suite 470
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Phone: (916) 248-8478
          Fax: (619) 255-1515
          Email: crodriguez@singletonschreiber.com
                 abluth@singletonschreiber.com
                 jternieden@singletonschreiber.com
                 tnelson@singletons.chreibet.com
                 emin@sirtgletortschreiber.com

               - and -

          Thomas A. Leary, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS LEARY APC
          3023 First Avenue
          San Diego, CA 92103
          Phone: (619) 291-1900

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jessica Megan Leano, Esq.
          Faisal M Zubairi, Esq.
          DORSEY AND WHITNEY LLP
          600 Anton Boulevard Suite 2000
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Phone: (714) 800-1400
          Fax: (714) 800-1499
          Email: leano.jessica@dorsey.com
                 zubairi.faisal@dorsey.com


MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Nod
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OREGON LABORERS EMPLOYERS
PENSION TRUST FUND, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. MAXAR TECHNOLOGIES INC., HOWARD L. LANCE,
and ANIL WIRASEKARA, Case No. 1:19-cv-00124-WJM-SKC (D. Colo.), the
Hon. Judge William J. Martinez entered an order granting the Lead
plaintiff's motions for final approval of class action settlement
and for attorneys' fees and expenses:

   1. Lead Plaintiff's motion for final approval of class action
      settlement and approval of Plan of Allocation and Memorandum
of
      Points and Authorities in Support Thereof is granted;

   2. Lead Counsel's Motion for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and
      Expenses and Award to Lead Plaintiff Pursuant to 15 U.S.C.
      section 78u-4(a)(4) and Memorandum of Points and Authorities
in
      Support Thereof is granted;

   3. The Stipulation of Settlement is approved; and

   4. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over the interpretation
and
      implementation of the Settlement Agreement.

Oregon Laborers sued the Defendants for alleged violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Logan Durant filed this securities class action on Jan. 14, 2019.
On Aug. 7, 2019, the Court consolidated this action with a
later-filed "lawsuit that was substantially the same as Durant's
action but had a longer proposed class period."

Maxar Technologies is a space technology company, specializing in
manufacturing communication, Earth observation, radar, and on-orbit
servicing satellites, satellite products, and related services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 9, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48NhW7U at no extra charge.[CC]

MDL 2918: EUPs Consider Sealing Class Cert Materials
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: Hard Disk Drive Suspension
Assemblies Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:19-md-02918-MMC (N.D.
Cal.), the End-user plaintiffs' administrative motion to Consider
whether another Party's material should be Sealed pursuant to civil
local Rule 79-5(f).

EUPs are required to file these documents under seal pursuant to
the Stipulated Protective Order, because materials contained
therein are derived from documents and other information designated
"Confidential" or "Highly Confidential" by third party Western
Digital.

Sealing is sought for the material or documents identified in the
chart below.

    Material/Document – Page/Ex. No.              Designating
Party

  EUPs' Supplemental Memorandum in Support        Western Digital
  of Class Certification: gray highlighting
  on pages i-iii, 1-5, and 8-9

  Declaration of Janet S. Netz, Ph.D., in         Western Digital
  Support of EUPs' Supplemental Memorandum:
  gray highlighting on pages 1-5

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 9, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O83jEi at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher T. Micheletti, Esq.
          Qianwei Fu, Esq.
          ZELLE LLP
          555 12th Street, Suite 1230
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (415) 693-0700
          Facsimile: (415) 693-0770
          E-mail: cmicheletti@zellelaw.com
                  qfu@zellelaw.com

                - and -

          William V. Reiss, Esq.
          Ellen Jalkut, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          1325 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 2601
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 980-7400
          Facsimile: (212) 980-7499
          E-mail: wreiss@robinskaplan.com
                  ejalkut@robinskaplan.com

ME&I CONSTRUCTION: Filing of Class Cert Bid in Stock Due April 19
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STOCK v. ME&I CONSTRUCTION
SERVICES USA, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00064 (W.D. Pa.), the Hon.
Judge Mark R. Hornak entered an order extending the deadlines for
the remainder of the class certification phase as follows:

-- The Defendant's Expert Report shall              March 1, 2024
    be filed on or before:

-- The Plaintiff's Expert Report shall              March 22,
2024
    be filed on or before:

-- The class discovery deadline shall be:           March 22,
2024

-- The Plaintiff's Motion for Class                 April 19,
2024
    Certification shall be filed on or
    Before:

-- The Defendant's Response to said                 May 17, 2024
    Motion shall be filed on or before:

-- The Plaintiff's Reply to said Response           June 7, 2024
    shall be filed on or before:

The nature of suit states Civil Rights – Employment.

ME&hgeI is a full-service maintenance and construction services
company.[CC]

MEDITERRANEAN FOODS: Durantas Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mediterranean Foods,
Inc. The case is styled as Hakan Durantas, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Mediterranean Foods, Inc., Case
No. 1:24-cv-00421-RER-PK (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 19, 2024).

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

Mediterranean Food, Inc. -- http://www.medfoodinc.com/-- are a
wholesale company that specializes in importing and distributing
food and beverage commodities across North America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          14749 71st Ave.
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


MENZIES AVIATION: Douglass Suit Removed to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Richard Douglass, an individual, on behalf of
himself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. MENZIES
AVIATION (USA) INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION; AIRCRAFT SERVICE
INTERNATIONAL, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION; AIR MENZIES
INTERNATIONAL (USA) INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION; AND DOES 1-50,
INCLUSIVE, Case No. 37-2023-00049985-CU-OE-CTL was removed from the
Superior Court of California, San Diego County, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California on Jan. 17,
2024, and assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-00115-JO-DDL.

The Complaint alleges eight causes of action premised on the
following alleged violations of the California Business and
Professions Code and California Labor Code: Unlawful Business
Practices; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime
Compensation; Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods; Failure to
Provide Required Rest Periods; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized
Statements; Failure to Pay Wages When Due; Failure to Reimburse
Employees for Required Expenses.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christopher Ward, Esq.
          Kaleb N. Berhe, Esq.
          FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
          555 South Flower Street, Suite 3300
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2418
          Phone: 213.972.4500
          Facsimile: 213.486.0065
          Email: cward@foley.com
                 kberhe@foley.com


MIAMI IM REST: Martinez Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Carlos Giovani De Jesus Martinez, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. Miami IM Rest, LLC
and Brian Galligan, Case No. 2023-182124-CC-24 was removed from the
County Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade
County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on Jan. 16, 2024, and assigned Case No.
1:24-cv-20182-XXXX.

The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Phone: 305.865.6766
          Facsimile: 305.865.7167
          Email: zabogado@aol.com
          Secondary: assistant.jhzidell@gmail.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Miguel A. Morel, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
          333 SE 2nd Avenue, Suite 2700
          Miami, FL 33131
          Phone: 305.400.7500
          Facsimile: 305.603.2552
          Email: mamorel@littler.com

               - and -

          Justin O. Scott, Esq.
          111 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1750
          Orlando, FL 32801.2366
          Phone: 407.393.2900
          Facsimile: 407.393.292
          Email: juscott@littler.com


MINNESOTA: Mount Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling to 8th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jeremy David Mount filed an appeal from the District
Court's Order dated August 2, 2023 entered in the lawsuit entitled
JEREMY D. MOUNT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WARDEN J. FIKES, individually and in his
official capacity as Warden of FCI Sandstone of PINE County; D.
DRILLING, individually and in his official capacities as
correctional officer for the mail room of FCI‐Sandstone PINE
County; and J. BEST, individually and in his official capacities as
Correctional Officer of FCI‐Sandstone Mail Room of PINE County,
Defendants, Case No. 0:21-cv-01489-NEB, in the United States
District Court for the District of Minnesota.

On June 28, 2021, pro se Plaintiff Jeremy D. Mount sued several
Defendants over constitutional violations in connection with
mailroom practices at the Federal Correctional Institution in
Sandstone, Minnesota.  

On January 9, 2023, the Defendants, who work at the Sandstone
facility, moved to dismiss the case.

On January 23, 2023, Plaintiff Mount moved for partial summary
judgment. On February 6, he moved for an extension of time to seek
settlement or resolution.

In a Report and Recommendation dated April 4, 2023, United States
Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Cowan Wright recommended granting
Defendants' motion to dismiss and denying Mount's motions as moot.


On April 26, 2023, Plaintiff Mount filed an objection to the R&R.

On August 2, 2023, Judge Nancy E. Brasel entered an Order
overruling the objection, accepting the R&R, granting the motion to
dismiss, and denying the remaining motions as moot.

The appellate case is captioned as Jeremy Mount v. J. Fikes, et
al., Case No. 24-1047, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Eighth Circuit, filed on January 8, 2024.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant Jeremy David Mount, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, appears pro se.

Defendants-Appellees Warden J. Fikes, individually and in his
official capacity as Warden of FCI Sandstone of PINE County, et
al., are represented by:

          Lucas B. Draisey, Esq.
          U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
          600 U.S. Courthouse
          300 S. Fourth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55415-0000
          Telephone: (612) 664-5600

MODERNISTIC II: Murphy Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
------------------------------------------------------
Cleo Murphy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MODERNISTIC II, LLC; MODERNISTIC, LLC; MODERNISTIC
CARPET CLEANING CO., LLC; MODERNISTIC LANSING, LLC; LBK, LTD, LLC;
SCHUSTER'S LLC; TITANS CARPET, LLC; MODERNISTIC RUGOLOGY, LLC;
MODERNISTIC WATER RESTORATION, LLC; MODERNISTIC PRODUCTS & SUPPLY
SERVICES, LLC; MODERNISTIC DUCT CLEANING, LLC; and MODERNISTIC
LEASING, LLC, d/b/a Modernistic, jointly and severally, Case No.
2:24-cv-10119-PDB-CI (E.D. Mich., Jan. 16, 2024), is brought to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

The Defendants maintained a corporate policy and practice of
willfully refusing to pay Plaintiff and all similarly situated
employees the legally required amount of overtime compensation for
all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, in violation
of the FLSA. In particular, Defendants failed to include
non-discretionary on-call bonuses and commission payments into the
regular rate of pay for Plaintiff and all others similarly situated
when calculating their overtime rates. As a result of Defendants'
willful failure to compensate Plaintiff and all similarly situated
employees at a rate not less than 1.5 times the regular rate of pay
for work performed in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, Defendants
have violated and continue to violate the FLSA, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff has worked for Modernistic as a non-exempt, hourly
employee since April 5, 2021.

The Defendants jointly own and operate "Michigan's #1 Cleaning and
Restoration company."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jesse L. Young, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600
          Kalamazoo, MI 49007
          Phone: (269) 250-7501
          Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com

               - and -

          Paulina R. Kennedy, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          One Town Square, 17th Floor
          Southfield, MI 48076
          Phone: (248) 355-0300
          Email: pkennedy@sommerspc.com


MONROW LLC: Karim Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monrow, LLC. The case
is styled as Jessica Karim, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Monrow, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00316
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 16, 2024).

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

Monrow -- https://www.monrow.com/ -- is inspired by the finest
fabrics to create stylish staples that complement women and men
wardrobes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gabriel Levy, Esq.
          GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
          1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404
          Manhasset, NY 11030
          Phone: (516) 287-3458
          Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com


MOTT'S LLP: "Preservative-Free" Mix Claims Misleading, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action claims the companies behind Mr & Mrs T Original Bloody Mary
mix have misled consumers by advertising the product as
preservative-free when it, in fact, contains the additive citric
acid.

The 30-page lawsuit alleges that although defendants Mott's and
parent company Keurig Dr Pepper, Inc. "unequivocally and boldly"
claim the Bloody Mary mix contains "No Added Preservatives," the
product's ingredients list reveals the presence of citric acid --
an additive commonly used as a preservative in foods and
beverages.

The suit contends the product's label claim is misleading because
citric acid functions as a preservative regardless of whether it is
added for a separate purpose.

Per the case, the alleged misrepresentation is meant to attract
health-conscious consumers seeking products free from artificial or
chemical additives like preservatives. The complaint argues the
companies are well aware that shoppers are willing to pay premium
prices for "clean," less processed products that are perceived to
be healthier than others.

By falsely labeling the Bloody Mary mix as preservative-free, the
defendants have capitalized on the increasing preference for
"clean" products at the expense of "hundreds of thousands of
unsuspecting consumers," the filing alleges.

The lawsuit looks to represent any California or New York residents
who purchased Mr & Mrs T original Bloody Mary mix within those
states during the applicable statute of limitations period. [GN]

N.IO INNOVATION: Court Sets Class Certification Schedule in Karaba
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IRA KARABA, et al., v.
N.IO INNOVATION, INC., et al. Case No. 2:23-cv-08047-FMO-PD (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an order setting
class certification schedule as follows:

   1. Counsel for the parties shall attend a scheduling conference
on
      February 22, 2024, at 10:00 AM, in Courtroom 6D of the 1st
      Street Courthouse.

   2. No later than February 1, 2024, counsel for all appearing
      parties and all unrepresented appearing parties, if any,
shall
      meet, in person, telephonically or via video conference, and

      discuss the matters set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) ("Rule

      26(f)") as well as those items identified in paragraph 4,
below.

   3. No later than February 8, 2024, counsel for all appearing
      parties, and all unrepresented appearing parties, if any,
shall
      file a Joint Rule 26(f) Report.

   4. The Joint Rule 26(f) Report shall be drafted by plaintiff
      (unless the parties agree otherwise) but shall be submitted
and
      signed jointly.

N.IO Innovation is a company that provides Software, Data
integration, Computer hardware and more.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 9, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/47JC2id at no extra charge.[CC]

NATIONAL DEBT: Vincent Sues Over Unauthorized Collection of IPs
---------------------------------------------------------------
GILDA VINCENT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL DEBT RELIEF LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-00440-LJL (S.D.N.Y., January 19, 2024) is a class
action against the Defendant for violation of the California
Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA).

According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in unlawful
collection of website visitors' IP addresses using the Claritas
TRKN Tracker that it installed on Website visitors' internet
browsers. By installing and using the Tracker without the
Plaintiff's and similarly situated visitors' prior consent and
without a court order, the Defendant violated CIPA.

National Debt Relief LLC is a company that owns and operates the
website, nationaldebtrelief.com, with its principal place of
business in New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
         Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
         Max S. Roberts, 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: ykopel@bursor.com
                 aleslie@bursor.com
                 mroberts@bursor.com

NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Sunday Ticket Package Suit to be Heard June 2024
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo Sports reports that for years, the NFL's Sunday Ticket
package has walked, talked, and quacked like an antitrust
violation. Later this year, a lawsuit aimed at proving that fact
will come to a head.

Via Ben Fischer of Sports Business Journal, a class action
attacking the Sunday Ticket approach will go to trial in June. If
the league loses, the damages award could be more than $6 billion
-- or the cost of the Commanders at its recent sale.

Earlier this month, the NFL took an "L" in its effort to have the
case dismissed by summary judgment, a common tool for corporate
defendants to avoid juries by arguing there's nothing for a jury to
resolve. The judge denied the NFL's motion. Trial had been set for
February 22; it has since been delayed to June.

The core argument is that the NFL and the Sunday Ticket provider
(previously, DirecTV) have created a "premium product" that must be
purchased in a full-season, every-game bundle, with no option to
buy the ability to buy a smaller package, such as the games
featuring one specific out-of-market team. Indeed, Sunday Ticket is
regularly marketed to fans who live in one market and who want to
watch a team that plays in a different market. To watch, for
example, all Packers games if you live in Pittsburgh, you have to
plunk down the trumped-up price for the entire package, covering
every team and every week.

The end result is an alleged monopoly for the Sunday Ticket
provider and an alleged conspiracy to create it. The presiding
judge rejected a long list of arguments from the NFL as to why it
should win the case without a trial.

The question now becomes whether the league will want to allow this
case to go to trial in open court. Even with a win, it could create
a P.R. problem for the league and its teams. A settlement is always
possible.

It's an important test to the limits of the league's desire to do
whatever it wants, however it wants, whenever it wants. When it
comes to Sunday Ticket, it has always relied on consumers caring
enough about seeing all games of one specific out-of-market team to
pay full freight for all games of all out-of-market teams.

Football is family, right? In this case, football is more like
forcing fans to dig deeper into the family's budget than necessary
to watch only the games they want to see.

If the end result is that a Packers fan in Pittsburgh can pay a
lower price for only the Green Bay games instead of full price for
all of them, it will be good for fans.

It will be bad for the NFL, but it will be good for fans. [GN]

NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Class Settlement in Woodard Gets Final Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH JOSEPH WOODARD, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. NAVIENT
SOLUTIONS, LLC and NAVIENT CREDIT FINANCE CORPORATION, Case No.
8:23-cv-00301-RFR (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Robert F. Rossiter, Jr.
entered an order granting the Woodard's motion for final approval
of class
action settlement:

-- The settlement class is certified under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3).

-- Woodard's motion to Accept Late-Filed Claims is granted.

-- Class counsel's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses, and Class

    Representative Service Awards granted in part and denied in
part.

-- Class counsel are awarded $10,750,000 in attorney fees, to be
paid
    from the common fund and allocated appropriately among
themselves.

-- Class counsel are awarded $86,562.76 in litigation fees and
    expenses, to be paid from the common fund and allocated
    appropriately among themselves.

-- Class counsel are awarded $500,000 in notice and settlement
    administration costs, to be paid from the common fund.

-- Class representatives Kenneth Joseph Woodard, Stephanie
Mazloom,
    Kelly K. Coyle, Oscar D. Teran, Michael Shahbazi, and Robert
and
    Molly Crandall are each awarded $15,000, to be paid from the
    common fund, for their service in the proceedings against
Navient.

The parties' stipulation of settlement in this matter represents
the resolution of years-long disputes over the defendants allegedly
unlawful collection of dischargeable student-loan debt.

Navient provides financial services.

A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Jan. 9, 2024 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3vBqZui at no
extra charge.[CC]

NEW INDY: Higher Court Hears Arguments in Class Suit Over Foul Odor
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Shaquira Speaks of Carolina's Own Queen City News reports that
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals judges listened to arguments in the
case of U.S. v. Enrique Lizano on January 25, 2024 morning.

Lizano is one of thousands who live or have lived within 15 miles
of the New Indy Containerboard Plant in Lancaster County.

Attorneys at the hearing are arguing about a 2023 case in a U.S.
District Court in Columbia. The legal team representing community
members against New Indy filed the lawsuit.

The EPA's Clean Air Act Emergency Order against the New Indy
containerboard plant -- outlined evidence that the mill's
operations "are emitting hydrogen sulfide into the air."

It also states that if owners were allowed to continue the same
operations, they would present "an imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health and the environment."
Residents want more help in fight

Attorneys for the class action lawsuits against the New Indy claim
that's not enough from the EPA to keep them safe.

"The essential question before the court is whether the victims of
new Indy's violations of the Clean Air Act should have a right to
intervene in an enforcement action brought by EPA for the very
purpose of protecting their health," said the attorney representing
class action lawsuit.

They claim that despite the issued Clean Air Act emergency order --
and New Indy's acceptance of the order -- plant operators have
continually violated the agreement.

Now, neighbors want to intervene on their own behalf.

"They should be able to intervene, and federal law expressly
authorizes them to do so," class action lawyers stated.

Homeowners' lawyers say the EPA disagrees on whether New Indy met
the standards for intervention under the law.

Attorneys argue that neighbors have a right to intervene if they
meet that standard.

Several parts of the Clean Air Act grant citizens the right to
bring a claim against anyone they believe is violating the act.

"It was therefore entirely appropriate for the interveners to seek
to intervene to join in that action, particularly when they became
concerned that EPA was allowing the mills to get away with a
prolonged delay in implementing and coming into compliance with the
terms of the order," said the class action lawyers.

EPA lawyers argue New Indy followed the 2021 agreement that the
plant was not permitted to exceed a certain level of emissions.

They argue the district court judge who ruled on the case -- got it
right.

"Congress said that citizen plaintiffs could sue for violations of
standards, limitations, and orders, except when the United States
is bringing a suit already for a violation of the same standard, a
limitation or order with respect to such," said the attorney
representing the EPA.

EPA attorneys argue that because the original order expired, the
intervention suit isn't applicable here.

Regulators say if homeowners want to sue -- they can, but not under
the 2021 order. That's why they agree with the district court judge
who rejected the initial intervention motion.

There's no date for when appeals court judges will issue their
ruling. [GN]

NEW LONDON PHARMACY: Erkan Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against New London Pharmacy,
Inc. The case is styled as Nihal Erkan, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. New London Pharmacy, Inc., Case
No. 1:24-cv-00414 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 19, 2024).

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

New London Pharmacy -- https://www.newlondonpharmacy.com/ -- is to
provide maximum health-care benefits through traditional medical
services, homeopathy, and natural remedies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          14749 71st Ave.
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Doe Moves to Certify Sex Discrimination Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Sloan of Reuters reports that the anonymous plaintiff in a
race and sex discrimination lawsuit challenging the selection
process for New York University School of Law's flagship law review
is seeking class action status for all current and future white,
heterosexual male students who hope to participate.

John Doe, as the plaintiff is called in court filings, on January
24, 2024 asked a federal judge to certify the case as a class
action before May 10, when the law review's writing competition
begins to determine membership for the following academic year.
Student editor and other law review staff positions are prestigious
credentials that can open doors to sought-after legal jobs.

Doe's lawsuit, filed in October in Manhattan federal court, claims
the NYU Law Review gives preference to women and minorities in
violation of Title VI and Title IX, which prohibit racial and sex
discrimination in education programs that receive federal funds. A
judge in November allowed him to proceed with the case anonymously
for now.

NYU has hired prominent attorney Roberta Kaplan of Kaplan Hecker &
Fink to fight the case. Kaplan, who was in federal court in
Manhattan on January 26, 2024 representing E. Jean Carroll in her
defamation trial against former Republican President Donald Trump,
could not be reached for comment. An NYU Law spokesperson declined
to comment on Doe's class action bid.

NYU's motion to dismiss the case is due January 29, though the
school called Doe's suit "baseless" in a motion opposing expedited
discovery.

Doe is represented by America First Legal, an organization headed
by former Trump adviser Stephen Miller. Conservative lawyer
Jonathan Mitchell, who unsuccessfully sued both the NYU Law Review
and the Harvard Law Review in 2018 for discrimination, is also on
Doe's legal team. Mitchell did not immediately respond to a request
for comment on January 26, 2024.

Doe's lawsuit is the first legal challenge to law review diversity
policies following the U.S. Supreme Court's June decision that
prohibited race-conscious college and university admissions. It
asks the court to enjoin the NYU Law Review from considering "race,
sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity" when selecting editors
or staffers.

According to the motion for class action status, figures from the
American Bar Association show there are 96 white men in NYU Law's
current class of first-year students. Doe claims that most of those
students are "likely to intend to apply" to the law review.

The case is John Doe v. New York University, U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, No. 1:23-cv-10515.

For Doe: Ronald A. Berutti of Murray-Nolan Berutti LLC; Christopher
Mills of Spero Law LLC; Jonathan F. Mitchell of Mitchell Law PLLC;
Gene P. Hamilton of America First Legal Foundation.

For New York University: Roberta A. Kaplan, Gabrielle E. Tenzer,
Amit Jain, Raymond P. Tolentino of Kaplan Hecker & Fink LLP. [GN]

NEW YORK, NY: Miller Suit Seeks Final Approval of Settlement Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAHKEEM MILLER; JOSE
GUITY; TRAVIS BUTLER; ARIAN PERALTA; GARY GARCIA, JR.; BOBBY DEE
CRUZ, and ISAIAH MUHAMMAD, on their own behalf and on behalf of
others similarly situated, v. CITY OF NEW YORK; CYNTHIA BRANN;
TIMOTHY FARRELL; HAZEL JENNINGS; and BRENDA COOKE, Case No.
1:21-cv-02616-PKC-JW (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23 and
54:

   (1) granting final approval of the settlement Stipulation;

   (2) finally certifying the proposed settlement class under
Federal
       Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3);

   (3) finally appointing the Plaintiffs' counsel as Class Counsel;


   (4) approving the requests for Class Representative service
awards;
       and

   (5) approving an award of attorneys' fees and costs.

New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River
meets the Atlantic Ocean.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 10, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3u4PcJ5 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Eric Hecker, Esq.
          John R. Cuti, Esq.
          Alexander Goldenberg, Esq.
          Daniel Mullkoff, Esq.
          Jazly Liriano, Esq.
          CUTI HECKER WANG LLP
          305 Broadway, Sixth Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212) 620-2600
          E-mail: ehecker@chwllp.com
                  jcuti@chwllp.com
                  agoldenberg@chwllp.com
                  dmullkoff@chwllp.com
                  jliriano@chwllp.com

The Defendant are represented by:

          Sylvia O. Hinds-radix, Esq.
          CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
          100 Church Street, 3rd Floor
          New York, NY 10007

NEW YORK, NY: Police Officers Get Conditional Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BURBRAN PIERRE, on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, et
al., Case No. 1:20-cv-05116-ALC-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Andrew L. Carter, Jr., entered an order:

-- granting the Patties' motion for preliminary approval of the
    Settlement Agreement, Certification of the Settlement Class,
    Appointment of Class Counsel, and Approval of Plaintiffs Notice
of
    Settlement and Claim Form;

-- Conditionally certifying, for settlement purposes only, a Rule
23
    class consisting of all current and former Officers,
Detectives,
    Sergeants, and Lieutenants who provided services at any B&H
    location in New York State at any time from July 3, 2014
through
    the date of this order through the Paid Detail Program;

-- Appointing, for settlement purposes only, Plaintiff Burbran
Pierre
    to represent the Class;

-- Appointing the following firm as Class Counsel because they
meet
    all of the requirements under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
    23(g):

          Innessa M. Huot, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 983-9330
          Facsimile: (212) 983-9331
          E-mail: ihuot@faruqilaw.com

-- Adopting the settlement approval process as set fo1th in the
    Settlement Agreement.

On, Nov. 9, 2023, the Plaintiff Pierre, with the consent of the
Defendants filed his motion for preliminary approval of a
settlement between the Parties.

New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River
meets the Atlantic Ocean.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 9, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48Tra2q at no extra charge.[CC]

OFF HOURS SPIRITS: Bullock Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Off Hours Spirits,
Inc. The case is styled as Justin Bullock, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. Off
Hours Spirits, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00305 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 16,
2024).

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

Off Hours -- https://drinkoffhours.com/ -- is a modern bourbon made
for the moments in between.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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



OPENAI INC: Seeks More Time for Class Cert Briefing Schedule
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Authors Guild et al., v.
OpenAI Inc., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-08292-SHS (S.D.N.Y.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting extension of
briefing schedule on any motion(s) filed in response to
amended complaints in the Authors Guild and Alter cases as
follows:

                                      Current           Proposed
                                      Deadline          Deadline

  Last Day for Defendants to       Jan. 12, 2024     Jan. 26, 2024

  Answer or Move In   Response
  to Amended Complaints

  Last Day for Parties to File     Jan. 12, 2024     Jan. 26, 2024

  Their Positions on Which
  Should Proceed First,
  Summary Judgment or Class
  Certification

  Last Day for Plaintiffs to       Jan. 26, 2024     Feb. 9, 2024
  Respond to Any Motion In
  Response to the Amended
  Complaints


  Last Day for Defendants to       Feb. 2, 2024      Feb. 16, 2024
  File a Reply to any Motion
  In Response to the Amended
  Complaints

OpenAI is a U.S. based artificial intelligence research
organization.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Jan. 10, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/491rdcv at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Parties are represented by:

          Joseph C. Gratz, Esq.
          MORRISON FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Telephone: (415) 268-7000
          Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
          E-mail: JGratz@mofo.com

OSLO COFFEE ROASTERS: Durantas Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oslo Coffee Roasters,
Inc. The case is styled as Hakan Durantas, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Oslo Coffee Roasters, Inc., Case
No. 1:24-cv-00422 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 19, 2024).

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

Oslo Coffee Roasters -- https://oslocoffee.com/ -- is Brooklyn's
first specialty coffee shop.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          14749 71st Ave.
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


PACCAR INC: 10th Gear Files Suit in W.D. Washington
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paccar, Inc. The case
is styled as 10th Gear LLC, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Paccar, Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-01933 (W.D.
Wash., Dec. 15, 2023).

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

Paccar Inc. -- http://www.paccar.com/-- is an American company
primarily focused on the design and manufacturing of large
commercial trucks through its subsidiaries DAF, Kenworth and
Peterbilt sold across markets worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sally W. Harmeling, Esq.
          JEFFERS DANIELSON SONN & AYLWARD
          Po Box 1688
          Wenatchee, WA 98801
          Phone: (509) 662-3685
          Fax: (509) 662-2452
          Email: sallyh@jdsalaw.com


PACCAR INC: Long Files Suit in S.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Paccar, Inc. The case
is styled as Joel Long, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Corporation of the President of the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Ensign Peak Advisers, Inc., Case
No. 3:23-cv-03950-NJR (S.D. Ill., Dec. 15, 2023).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Contract Default.

Paccar Inc. -- http://www.paccar.com/-- is an American company
primarily focused on the design and manufacturing of large
commercial trucks through its subsidiaries DAF, Kenworth and
Peterbilt sold across markets worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James J. Rosemergy, Esq.
          CAREY & DANIS, L.L.C.
          8235 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1100
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Phone: (314) 725-7700
          Fax: (314) 721-0905
          Email: jrosemergy@careydanis.com


PACIFIC MARITIME: Hill Suit Removed to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Pamela Hill, Jeri Stewart, Rhonda Johnson,
Shyraun Ruffin, Sheila Seals, La Tina Blackmon, Derrick Young, Cory
Brown, and Stephen Johnson, individually, on behalf of other
aggrieved employees pursuant to California Private Attorneys
General Act of 2004, and on behalf of all similarly situated
employees v. PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION, a California
corporation; APM TERMINALS NORTH AMERICA INC., a corporation; APM
TERMINALS PACIFIC LLC, a Limited Liability Company; COSCO SHIPPING
TERMINALS (NORTH AMERICA) INC., a California corporation;
EVERGLADES COMPANY TERMINAL, INC., a corporation; EVERPORT TERMINAL
SERVICES, INC., a corporation; FENIX MARINE SERVICES, LTD., a
Limited Company; INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICE, LLC, a
Limited Liability Company; LBCT, LLC, a Limited Liability Company;
MAERSK A/S, a corporation; MARINE TERMINALS CORPORATION, a
corporation; METRO CRUISE SERVICES LLC, a California corporation;
METROPOLITAN STEVEDORE COMPANY, a California corporation; PACIFIC
TERMINAL SERVICE COMPANY, LLC, a Limited Liability Company; PASHA
STEVEDORING & TERMINALS, INC., a California corporation; PASHA
STEVEDORING & TERMINALS, L.P., a California Limited Partnership;
PORTS AMERICA CRUISE, INC., a corporation; SSA CONTAINERS, INC., a
corporation; SSA MARINE, INC., a corporation; SSA PACIFIC, INC., a
corporation; SSA TERMINALS, LLC, a Limited Liability Company;
STEVEDORING SERVICES OF AMERICA 811-WA, an unknown business entity;
TOTAL TERMINALS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, a Limited Liability Company;
TRAPAC, LLC, a Limited Liability Company; WEST BASIN CONTAINER
TERMINAL, LLC, a Limited Liability Company; YANG MING (AMERICA)
CORPORATION, a corporation; YUSEN TERMINALS LLC, a California
Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No. CGC-23-609661 was removed from the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of San Francisco, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California on Jan. 19, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-00336.

The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated the California Labor
Code and/or the Los Angeles Municipal Code and assert seven causes
of action: Violation of California Labor Code (California Labor
Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 or "PAGA") failure to
provide sick pay wage compensation; Violation of Los Angeles
Municipal Code; failure to pay wages due after demand; Retaliation
in Violation of Labor Code; failure to provide accurate wage
statements; Violation of Labor Code; failure to timely pay all
earned wages during employment and upon termination; Violation of
Labor Code; failure to pay sick pay wages due after demand;
Violation of Labor Code; and failure to provide accurate wage
statements; Violation of California Business & Professions
Code.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christian J. Rowley, Esq.
          Kent M. Roger, Esq.
          Jesse L. Miller, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: (415) 397-2823
          Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
          Email: crowley@seyfarth.com
                 kroger@seyfarth.com
                 jmiller@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Clifford D. Sethness, Esq.
          601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5793
          Phone: (213) 270-9600
          Facsimile: (213) 270-9601
          Email: csethness@seyfarth.com


PALOMA POINTE: Palacio-Grant Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Malva Mae Palacio-Grant, individually, and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated v. PALOMA POINTE
ON THE BOULEVARD LLC, a California limited liability company; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV01195 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 16, 2024), is brought against the
Defendants for iolation of California Labor Code as a result of
unpaid overtime wages.

The Plaintiff and the other class members worked over 8 hours in a
day, and/or 40 hours in a week during their employment with
Defendants. The Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based
thereon alleges, that Defendant engaged in a pattern and practice
of wage abuse against their hourly-paid or non-exempt employees
within the State of California. This pattern and practice involved,
inter alia, failing to pay them for all regular and/or overtime
wages earned and for missed meal periods and rest breaks in
violation of California law. The Defendants knew or should have
known that Plaintiff and the other class members were entitled to
receive certain wages for overtime compensation and that they were
not receiving accurate overtime compensation for all overtime hours
worked, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as an hourly-paid,
non-exempt employee, from January 2020 to August 2021, in the State
of California, County of Los Angeles.

PALOMA POINTE ON THE BOULEVARD LLC is a California limited
liability company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PARAMOUNT PICTURES: Murphy Sues Over Unpaid Compensations
---------------------------------------------------------
Kenny Jerome Murphy, an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PARAMOUNT PICTURES CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation; STEVEN SCHROEDER, an individual; and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV01127 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles
Cty., Jan. 16, 2024), is brought pursuant to, including but not
limited to, Labor Code, and California Code of Regulations, Title
8, section 11040, seeking overtime wages, minimum wages, payment of
premium wages for missed meal and rest periods, failure to pay
timely wages, waiting time penalties, wage statement penalties,
failure to indemnify work related expenses, failing to pay vested
vacation time at the proper rate of pay, other such provisions of
California law, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs.

The Defendant failed to pay overtime wages to Plaintiff and Class
Members, or some of them, in violation of California state wage and
hour laws as a result of, without limitation, Plaintiff and Class
Members working over 8 hours per day, 40 hours per week, and seven
consecutive work days in a work week without being properly
compensated for hours worked in excess of 8 per day in a work day,
forty 40 per week in a work week, and/or hours worked on the
seventh consecutive work day in a work week by, among other things,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt
employee.

Paramount is a corporation organized and existing under and by
virtue of the laws of the State of Delaware and doing business in
the County of Los Angeles, State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq.
          Henry G. Glitz, Esq.
          BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
          8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 500
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Phone: (310) 438-5555
          Fax: (310) 300-1705
          Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com
                 jeff@tomorrowlaw.com
                 henry@tomorrowlaw.com


PATRIOT PICKLE: Mayer Suit Removed to W.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Dennis Mayer, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. PATRIOT PICKLE INC., ARKK FOOD
COMPANY, and WAHLBURGERS I, LLC, Case No. 814871/2023 was removed
from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Erie, to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York on
Dec. 15, 2023, and assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-01299-LJV.

The Plaintiff filed an unverified Complaint which alleged eight
causes of action: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay
overtime compensation; failure to provide meal periods; failure to
authorize and permit rest breaks; failure to indemnify necessary
business expenses; failure to timely pay final wages upon
termination; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements;
and unfair business practices.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kathleen Barnett Einhorn, Esq.
          GENOVA BURNS LLC
          115 Broadway, 15th Floor
          New York, NY 10006
          Phone: (973) 533-0777
          Fax: (856) 533-1112
          Email: keinhorn@genovaburns.com

               - and -

          Jacob D. Radecki, Esq.
          300 N. LaSalle St., Ste. 1400
          Chicago, IL 60605
          Phone: (312) 280-0111
          Email: jradecki@mcdonaldhopkins.com


PERFORMANCE FOOD GROUP: Torres Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Performance Food
Group, Inc. The case is styled as Julio Torres, on behalf of
Himself and all others similarly situated v. Performance Food
Group, Inc., Case No. 2479CV00042 (Mass. Super. Ct., Hampden Cty.,
Jan. 19, 2024).

The nature of suit is stated as Contract / Business Cases for
Employment Contract.

Performance Food Group Company -- https://www.pfgc.com/ -- is an
American company that was founded in 1885 in Richmond,
Virginia.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Raymond Dinsmore, Esq.
          Ryan B. Guers, Esq.
          HAYBER, MCKENNA AND DINSMORE, LLC
          One Monarch Place, Suite 1340
          Springfield, MA 01144

PHARMERICA PS: Thao Suit Removed to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Brandon Thao, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. PHARMERICA PS, LLC dba PHARMERICA
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LLC, a Delaware limited liability company;
RES-CARE, INC. dba BRIGHTSPRING AN ENTITY OF UNKNOWN FORM HEALTH
SERVICES, a Kentucky corporation; PHARMERICA CORPORATION, ;
PHARMERICA, INC., an entity of unknown form; RX RELIEF dba RX
RELIEF, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 23CECG05086 was removed from the Fresno County
Superior Court of California, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California on Jan. 18, 2024, and assigned Case
No. 1:24-at-00053.

In his Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that he was an employee of
Defendants and alleges various wage and hour violations. The
Plaintiff's Complaint asserts claims for failure to pay minimum
wages, failure to pay wages and overtime, meal period and rest
period liability, failure to pay vacation wages, failure to comply
with Labor Code, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to
keep required payroll records, Labor Code penalties and violation
of Business and Professions Code.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Theodore E. Bacon, Esq.
          FROST BROWN TODD LLP
          235 Pine Street, Suite 1150
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Phone: (415) 624-8665
          Fax: (415) 391-1751
          Email: tbacon@fbtlaw.com


PLOW & HEARTH: Langston Files Suit in D. Utah
---------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Plow & Hearth LLC.
The case is styled as Teresa Langston, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Plow & Hearth LLC, Case No.
2:23-cv-00909 (D. Utah, Dec. 15, 2023).

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

Plow & Hearth -- http://www.plowhearth.com/-- is a United States
retailer based in Madison, Virginia, specializing in hearth and
fireplace accessories, furniture and home furnishings.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amber Weekes, Esq.
          Alexander Cyclone Covey, Esq.
          Kevin Michael Kneupper, Esq.
          KNEUPPER AND COVEY PC
          17011 Beach Boulevard Suite 900
          Huntington Beach, CA 92647
          Phone: (215) 999-9767
          Email: lorraine@kneuppercovey.com
                 cyclone@kneuppercovey.com
                 kevin@kneuppercovey.com


PRECISION PARTNERS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ramirez Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
AYLIN RAMIREZ aka AILEEN NAVARRETE, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRECISION PARTNERS, INC., a
California corporation; PRECISION PARTNERS RESTAURANTS, LLC., a
California corporation; PRECISION PARTNER RESTAURANTS INC., a
California corporation; PRECISION PARTNERS RANCHO, INC., a
California corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 24STCV01466 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., January 19,
2024) seeks to recover unpaid wages, restitution, statutory
penalties, and injunctive relief and other equitable relief,
reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to the California Labor Code,
costs, interest, and liquidated damages.

The Defendants employed Plaintiff as an hourly non-exempt employee
from in or around 2020 to the date of this complaint. Allegedly,
Defendants paid Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees similarly
situated for their scheduled hours instead of properly keeping
track of their time. As a result, Defendants failed to properly
track the actual hours Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees
worked. Otherwise, Defendants unlawfully rounded down or shaved
Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees' hours worked at the time
of their clock-in and clock-out to the nearest quarter of an hour
and failed to properly compensate them for time spent working in a
given shift, says the suit.

The Plaintiff also accuses the Defendants of violating the
California Business and Professions Code in connection with their
unfair business practices.

Precision Partners, Inc. operates restaurants in Los Angeles
County, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         David Lavi, Esq.
         Arie Ebrahimian, Esq.
         E&L, LLP
         8889 W. Olympic Blvd., 2nd Floor
         Beverly Hills, CA 90211
         Telephone: (213) 213-0000
         Facsimile: (213) 213-0025
         E-mail: dlavi@ebralavi .com
                 arie@ebralavi.com

PROVIDENT TITLE: Agito Sues Over Failure to Pay Compensation
------------------------------------------------------------
Robyn F. Agito, an individual, on behalf of herself and in her
representative capacity as private attorney general v. PROVIDENT
TITLE COMPANY, a California corporation, PROVIDENT TITLE COMPANY,
INC, a California business entity, BRIAN LENOX, an individual,
MITCH BADER, an individual, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No. 24STCV01404 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 18, 2024),
is brought for Violation of The Private Attorneys General Act Of
2004 ("PAGA") and seeks to obtain all applicable relief for
Defendants' violations, including all available relief under PAGA
and the applicable Labor Code as a result of the Defendants'
failure to pay compensation.

The Defendants have implemented a uniform policy to willfully
misclassify its California Assistant Marketing Director and/or
Marketing Director and upon information and belief other management
employees ("Aggrieved Employees"), as exempt when they are plainly
non-exempt employees under California law, and to pay employees
improperly under the applicable California Wage Orders. Going back
many years, Defendants have blatantly and intentionally
misclassified Plaintiff and, upon information and belief, other
Aggrieved Employees as exempt employees when they are plainly
non-exempt, hourly employees under California law. Defendants
misclassified Plaintiff and other Aggrieved Employees as an exempt
employee by, among other things, wantonly and inexplicitly failing
to meet the minimum salary threshold required for her to be
classified as "exempt." This misclassification has deprived, and
continues to deprive, Plaintiff and Aggrieved Employees of various
protections under the California Labor Code, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is employed by Defendants as an Assistant Marketing
Director and/or Marketing Director from November 2019, through the
present.

The Defendants operate a real estate escrow and title company doing
business in California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kyle C. Worrell, Esq.
          WORRELL LAW FIRM, APC
          1717 Old Tustin Avenue, Unit E
          Santa Ana, CA 92705
          Phone: (657) 232-1450
          Fax: (657) 232-1430
          Email: kcw@worrell-law.com


PUBLISHERS CLEARING: Camoras Files Suit in D. Utah
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Publishers Clearing
House, LLC. The case is styled as James Camoras, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Publishers Clearing
House, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-00903 (D. Utah, Dec. 15, 2023).

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

Publishers Clearing House -- http://www.pch.com/-- is an American
company founded in 1953 by Harold Mertz.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David W. Scofield, Esq.
          PETERS SCOFIELD
          7430 Creek Rd., Ste. 303
          Salt Lake City, UT 84093-6160
          Phone: (801) 322-2002
          Email: dws@psplawyers.com


PURPLE INNOVATION: Julian Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Purple Innovation,
LLC. The case is styled as Mason Julian, Alexander Tat,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Purple Innovation, LLC, Case No. CGC24611689 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Francisco Cty., Jan. 17, 2024).

The case type is stated as "Business Tort."

Purple Innovation, LLC -- https://purple.com/ -- operates as a
technology company. The Company designs and manufactures cushions,
pillows, and other comfort products.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER P.A.
          1900 California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Phone: (206) 491-2207
          Fax: (925) 407-2700
          Email: ndeckant@bursor.com


QUAKER WINDOW PRODUCTS: Byrd Files Suit in W.D. Missouri
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Quaker Window
Products Co. The case is styled as Kevin Byrd, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Quaker Window Products
Co., Case No. 2:24-cv-04007-WJE (W.D. Mo., Jan. 21, 2024).

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

Quaker Windows & Doors -- https://www.quakerwindows.com/ -- is a
leading manufacturer of residential and commercial window and door
products in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tiffany M. Yiatras, Esq.
          CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGAL
          308 Hutchinson Road
          Ellisville, MO 63011
          Phone: (314) 541-0317
          Fax: (855) 710-7706
          Email: tiffany@consumerprotectionlegal.com


QUAKER WINDOW PRODUCTS: Noakes Files Suit in W.D. Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Quaker Window
Products Co., et al. The case is styled as Kylie Noakes,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Quaker Window Products Co., Case No. 2:24-cv-04006-WJE (W.D. Mo.,
Jan. 18, 2024).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

Quaker Windows & Doors -- https://www.quakerwindows.com/ -- is a
leading manufacturer of residential and commercial window and door
products in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tiffany M. Yiatras, Esq.
          CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGAL, LLC
          308 Hutchinson Road
          Ellisville, MO 63011-2029
          Phone: (314) 541-0317
          Fax: (855) 710-7706
          Email: tiffany@consumerprotectionlegal.com


REJOICE DELIVERS: Amazon Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Webb
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants AMAZON LOGISTICS and AMAZON LOGISTICS filed an appeal
from the District Court's Order dated December 5, 2023 entered in
the lawsuit entitled Ian Webb, individually, and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated v. REJOICE
DELIVERS LLC, a California limited liability company; AMAZON
LOGISTICS, INC., a Delaware corporation; AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 5:22-cv-07221-BLF, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.

The case was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Santa Clara, to the Northern District
of California on Nov. 16, 2022.

The Plaintiff asserts causes of action for: unpaid overtime; unpaid
meal period premiums; unpaid rest period premiums; unpaid minimum
wages; final wages not timely paid; non-compliant wage statements;
unreimbursed business expenses; collection of due and unpaid wages;
violation of Business & Professions Code.

On May 18, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion to compel individual
arbitration, dismiss class claims, and dismiss or stay action.

On December 5, Judge Beth Labson Freeman ruled that 1) Defendants'
motion to compel individual arbitration is DENIED; 2) Defendants'
motion to dismiss Mr. Webb's class claims is DENIED; and 3)
Defendants' motion to stay this action pending completion of
individual arbitration is DENIED.

The appellate case is captioned as Webb v. Amazon Logistics, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 24-120, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on January 8, 2024.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Mediation Questionnaire for Appellant was due on January 16,
2024;

   -- Appeal Transcript Order for Appellant was due on January 19,
2024;

   -- Appeal Transcript for Appellant is due on February 19, 2024;

   -- Appeal Opening Brief for Appellant is due on March 29, 2024;

   -- Appeal Answering Brief for Appellant is due on April 29,
2024; and

   -- All briefs shall be served and filed pursuant to Federal
Rules of Appellate Procedure 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1. Failure of
the petitioner(s)/appellant(s) to comply with this briefing
schedule will result in automatic dismissal of the appeal.[BN]

REJOICE DELIVERS: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Webb Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
REJOICE DELIVERS LLC filed an appeal from a District Court Order
dated December 5, 2023 entered in the lawsuit entitled Ian Webb,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated v. REJOICE DELIVERS LLC, a California limited
liability company; AMAZON LOGISTICS, INC., a Delaware corporation;
AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 5:22-cv-07221-BLF, in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

The case was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Santa Clara, to the Northern District
of California on Nov. 16, 2022.

The Plaintiff asserts causes of action for: unpaid overtime; unpaid
meal period premiums; unpaid rest period premiums; unpaid minimum
wages; final wages not timely paid; non-compliant wage statements;
unreimbursed business expenses; collection of due and unpaid wages;
violation of Business & Professions Code.

On May 18, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion to compel individual
arbitration, dismiss class claims, and dismiss or stay action.

On December 5, Judge Beth Labson Freeman ruled that 1) Defendants'
motion to compel individual arbitration is DENIED; 2) Defendants'
motion to dismiss Mr. Webb's class claims is DENIED; and 3)
Defendants' motion to stay this action pending completion of
individual arbitration is DENIED.

The appellate case is captioned as Webb v. Rejoice Delivers LLC, et
al., et al., Case No. 24-123, in the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit, filed on January 8, 2024.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Mediation Questionnaire for Appellant was due on January 16,
2024;

   -- Appeal Transcript Order for Appellant was due on January 19,
2024;

   -- Appeal Transcript for Appellant is due on February 19, 2024;

   -- Appeal Opening Brief for Appellant is due on March 29, 2024;

   -- Appeal Answering Brief for Appellant is due on April 29,
2024; and

   -- All briefs shall be served and filed pursuant to Federal
Rules of Appellate Procedure 31 and 9th Cir. R. 31-2.1. Failure of
the petitioner(s)/appellant(s) to comply with this briefing
schedule will result in automatic dismissal of the appeal.[BN]

RENAL TREATMENT: Leon Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Osvaldo Leon, as an individual and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. RENAL TREATMENT CENTERS -
CALIFORNIA, INC., a Delaware Corporation; DAVITA INC., a Delaware
Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. CVRI2305646 was
removed from action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Riverside, to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California on Dec. 15, 2023, and
assigned Case No. 5:23-cv-02570-SSS-DTB.

The Plaintiffs Complaint alleges seven causes of action: Failure to
Pay Minimum Wages: Failure to Pay Overtime Wages: Meal Periods
Violations; Rest Period Violations; Waiting Time Penalties; Failure
to Reimburse Business Expenses; and Unfair Competition.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Aaron H. Cole, Esq.
          Omar M. Aniff, Esq.
          Catherise L. Brackett, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAX'KS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.c.
          400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: 213-239-9800
          Email: aaron.cole@ozletree.com
                 omar.aniff@ozletree.com
                 catherine.bracketta@ozletree.com


RENTGROW INC: Szewczyk Suit Seeks to Certify Three Classes
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUSTIN SZEWCZYK,
individually and on Behalf of other persons similarly situated, v.
RENTGROW, INC.; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No.
1:22-cv-10734-MJJ (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order:

-- Certifying his class claims;

-- Approving him as the class representative; and

-- Appointing DHF Law, P.C. as counsel for the class.

The Plaintiffs contend that the superiority requirement is
satisfied. The Defendant has violated the rights of large number of
geographically dispersed persons to such an extent that the cost of
pursuing individual litigation to seek recovery against a
well-financed adversary is not feasible. Thus, the alternatives to
a class action are either no recourse for thousands of consumers,
or even in the unlikely event that they all become aware of their
rights and could locate counsel, a multiplicity of scattered suits
resulting in the inefficient administration of litigation.

Accordingly, a class action is superior to other available methods
for the fair and efficient adjudication of this matter.

Finally, this case presents no manageability difficulties that
would preclude class certification because only statutory damages,
not individual actual damages, will be sought.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff to certify the following three classes:

-- Class I

    "All consumers for whom Defendant, in the two years predating
the
    filing of the Complaint sold a consumer report disclosing the
sex
    offender records of a consumer which do not appear on the
National
    Sex Offender Registry.

-- Class II

    "All consumers for whom Defendant, in the two years predating
the
    filing of the Complaint sold a consumer report disclosing the
sex
    offender records where the name of the offense is not
specified."

-- Class III

    "All consumers for whom Defendant, in the two years predating
the
    filing of the Complaint sold a consumer report disclosing
Colorado
    sex offender records where the name of the offense is not

RentGrow provides resident screening services to property owners
and managers.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 10, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SqUXdp at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy R. Bombard, Esq.
          BOMBARD LAW OFFICE, PC
          2 Summer St, Suite 307
          Natick, MA 0160
          E-mail: jbombard@bombardlaw.com

                - and -

          Devin H. Fok, Esq.
          DHF LAW
          2304 Huntington Drive, Suite 210
          San Marino, CA 91108
          Telephone: (888) 651-6411
          Facsimile: (818) 484-2023
          E-mail: devin@devinfoklaw.com

RESURGENT CAPITAL: Haston Seeks Initial OK of Settlement Deal
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY HASTON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, L.P., FRONTLINE ASSET STRATEGIES, LLC,
and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No. 2:20-cv-01008-WSH (W.D. Pa.), the
Plaintiff Haston seeks preliminary approval of the Parties'
proposed Settlement
Agreement.

The Plaintiff requests that the Court grant:

-- preliminary approval of the Agreement;

-- certify the Class defined in the Agreement for purposes of
    settlement and proving notice of the Agreement to the Class;
and

-- approve the content, form, and method of delivering notice to
the
    Class as set forth in the Agreement; and schedule a final
approval
    hearing in accordance with the deadlines proposed in the
    Agreement.

Resurgent manages debt portfolios for credit grantors and debt
buyers.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 9, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3U1DKbC at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Abramowicz, Esq.
          Kevin Tucker, Esq.
          Chandler Steiger, Esq.
          Stephanie Moore, Esq.
          EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC
          6901 Lynn Way, Suite 215
          Pittsburgh, PA 15208
          Telephone: (412) 223-5740
          Facsimile: (412) 626-7101
          E-mail: kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com
                  ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com
                  csteiger@eastendtrialgroup.com
                  smoore@eastendtrialgroup.com

                - and -

          Eugene D. Frank, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF EUGENE D. FRANK, P.C.
          3202 McKnight East Drive
          Pittsburgh, PA 15237
          Telephone: (412) 366-4276
          Facsimile: (412) 366-4305
          E-mail: efrank@edf-law.com

RETENTION BRANDS: Bongiovi Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Retention Brands WV
LLC. The case is styled as Rita Bongiovi, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Retention Brands WV LLC
doing business as: Beachly, Case No. 1:24-cv-00425 (S.D.N.Y.., Jan.
19, 2024).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.

Beachly -- https://beach.ly/ -- offers premium surf subscription
boxes that will keep you in style for every season at the
beach.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
          14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: (305) 479-2299
          Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com


RHODE ISLAND: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class of Inmates
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Inmates of Rhode Island,
Department of Corrections, v. Rhode Island General Assembly et al.,
Case No. 1:24-cv-00018-WES-PAS (D.R.I.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order certifying class of inmates pursuant to the
Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23(B)(2).

Rhode Island General Assembly is composed of the lower Rhode Island
House of Representatives and the upper Rhode Island Senate.

A copy of the dated Jan. 10, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3u2I4Ni at no extra charge.[CC]

RUMPL INC: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Rumpl, Inc. The case
is styled as Sanjay Sookul, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Rumpl, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00311
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 16, 2024).

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

Rumpl, Inc. -- https://www.rumpl.com/ -- offers versatile and
durable outdoor blankets for hiking, picnics, beach, and more.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


RXO LAST: May File Third-Party Complaint in Mejia Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAYNOR MEJIA, v. RXO LAST
MILE, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-08976-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Susan Illston entered an order granting the Defendant's motion for
leave to file a third-party complaint.

The Court finds that granting RXO's motion will not impact key case
management deadlines, the class certification hearing, or trial.

In addition, allowing the third-party complaint to be filed does
not mean RXO will necessarily prevail on it. Whether RXO can
prevail on the indemnification claim remains to be seen.
Consequently, the Court does not find that the prejudice to
plaintiff factor weighs against permitting impleader.

In sum, construing Rule 14(a) liberally in favor of impleader, to
the extent RXO has an actionable claim against ABC Logistics, that
claim belongs in this Court. Resolving all disputes arising from
plaintiff's alleged misclassification in one litigation will
further judicial economy, outweighing any prejudice to plaintiff
and additional complications that may result.

RXO provides managed transportation and last-mile logistics.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 9, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O7Mycp at no extra charge.[CC]

S. CAROL MASSIE: Paiz Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Paiz, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly
situated v. S CAROL MASSIE, INC., and DOES 1 through 50, Case No.
24STCV01283 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 17, 2024), is
brought arising out of the following illegal employment practices
committed by Defendants with respect of their failure to pay wages,
meal period violations, rest break violations, failure to pay
vested vacation benefits, sick and covid period/benefits
violations, failure to produce employee records, unreimbursed
business expenses, release of claims for wage violations, reporting
time violations, untimely payment of wages, failure to timely pay
wages at separation, wage statements violations, unfair business
practices.

The Defendants have had a consistent policy of failing to pay their
employees (including Plaintiff and the putative class members),
their vested vacation pay at the time of separation. Defendants
were required to pay said employees their vacation pay as wages at
the final rate. The Defendants have had a consistent policy of
failing to pay their employees (including Plaintiff and the
putative class members), all the wages they were due at the time of
their termination or separation from employment with Defendants, in
violation of California state wage and hour laws, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendants from 10/2021 through
09/28/2023, the date of her termination.

The Defendants have been engaged in the business of restaurant &
food services from McDonald's restaurants.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zorik Mooradian, Esq.
          Andrina G. Hanson, Esq.
          Haik Hacopian, Esq.
          Nanor C. Kamberian, Esq.
          MOORADIAN LAW, APC
          24007 Ventura Blvd., Suite 210
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Phone: (818) 487-1998
          Facsimile: (888) 783-1030
          Email: zorik@mooradianlaw.com
                 andrina@mooradianlaw.com
                 haik@mooradianlaw.com
                 nanor@mooradianlaw.com


SALESFORCE INC: Roy Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Salesforce, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Dr. Lisbeth W. Roy, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated and the general public v.
Salesforce, Inc., Does 1-5, Case No. CGC23611156 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
San Francisco Cty., Dec. 15, 2023).

The case type is stated "Business Tort."

Salesforce, Inc. -- http://www.salesforce.com/-- is an American
cloud-based software company headquartered in San Francisco,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan M. Genish, Esq.
          BLACKSTONE LAW
          8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442
          Phone: 855-786-6355
          Fax: 855-786-6356
          Email: jgenish@blackstonepc.com


SAMPSON BLADEN: Gbete Must File Class Cert. Bid by July 29
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEANNE LYLIANE GBETE, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. SAMPSON
BLADEN OIL COMPANY, INC., d/b/a HAN-DEE HUGO'S, Case No.
5:23-cv-00355-BO-KS (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Kimberly A. Swank
entered a scheduling order pursuant to Rule 16 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure:

   1. Phase I discovery shall commence in time          June 28,
2024
      to be concluded by:

   2. The Defendant shall provide to Plaintiff's        Feb. 8,
2024
      counsel a redacted Excel spreadsheet
      identifying putative class and collective
      members in the format more particularly
      described in Section C(3)(e) of the parties'
      Joint Rule 26(f) Report on or before:

   3. The Plaintiff shall file any motion for           July 29,
2024
      Rule 23 class certification or conditional
      certification as a 29 U.S.C. section 216(b)
      collective action no later than:

   4. Motions to join additional parties or to          March 15,
2024
      amend pleadings must be made promptly after
      the information giving rise to the motion
      becomes known and in no event later than:

Sampson is a family owned full-line petroleum & petrochemical
marketer.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 10, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/48KjnV8 at no extra charge.[CC]

SAUCE VENTURES: Sookul Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sauce Ventures, LLC.
The case is styled as Sanjay Sookul, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Sauce Ventures, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-00304 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 16, 2024).

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

Sauce Ventures LLC doing business under the Truff Moniker --
https://www.truff.com/ -- manufactures a wide array of premium
condiments with truffle at their core.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mars Khaimov, Esq.
          10826 64th Avenue, Ste. 2nd Floor
          Forest Hills, NY 11375
          Phone: (917) 915-7415
          Email: mars@khaimovlaw.com


SBARRO LLC: Filing for Class Certification Due April 12
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Karina Flanagan v. Sbarro
LLC, et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-02074-SSS-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Sunshine S. Sykes entered scheduling order regarding the
Parties' joint 26(f) report and class certification motion and
hearing deadlines:

               Event                            Deadline

  Deadline to Complete Class                  Apr. 12, 2024
  Certification Discovery

  Deadline to File Motion for Class           Apr. 12, 2024
  Certification

  Deadline to File Opposition to Motion       May 24, 2024
  for Class Certification

  Deadline to File Reply to Motion for        June 21, 2024
  Class Certification

  Class Certification Hearing                 July 19, 2024

Sbarro is an American fast food restaurant that specializes in New
York–style pizza sold by the slice and other Italian-American
cuisine.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 10, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3U8Hicn at no extra charge.[CC]

SCHRADER MECHANICAL: Brazeau Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Schrader Mechanical,
Inc. The case is styled as Cory Turner Brazeau, an Individual on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Schrader
Mechanical, Inc., Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0000482 (Cal. Super.
Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Jan. 16, 2024).

The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."

Schrader Mechanical, Inc. -- https://www.smiwest.com/ -- provide a
true single-source solution for project engineering, design,
manufacturing, fabrication, construction, and service support.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Emil Davtyan, Esq.
          D.LAW, INC.
          400 N Brand Blvd., Fl. 7
          Glendale, CA 91203-2364
          Phone: 818-875-2008
          Fax: 818-722-3974
          Email: emil@d.law


SEASONS RECOVERY: Mangus Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Krystal Mangus, an individual, and all persons similarly situated
v. SEASONS RECOVERY CENTERS LLC, a California Limited Liability
Company, DON VARDEN, an individual, and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive, Case No. 24STCV01307 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.,
Jan. 18, 2024), is brought as a result of the Defendants failure to
pay minimum wages in violation of Labor Code, Wage Order No. 5 OF
THE IWC; failure to furnish wage and hour statements; failure to
maintain payroll records; failure to provide meal and rest period
compensation; failure to pay overtime compensation; failure to pay
wages in a timely manner; waiting time penalties; unfair
competition; retaliation in violation of labor code (whistleblower
retaliation); and wrongful constructive termination in violation of
public policy.

Throughout Plaintiffs employment with Defendants, Defendants
routinely required Plaintiff to work shifts that exceeded eight
hours of work per day. Additionally, many, if not most, of
Plaintiff s weekly hours totaled over 40 hours per week. Defendants
routinely failed to pay Plaintiff an overtime rate of pay for all
hours worked, exceeding eight in one day and 40 in one week, says
the complaint.

The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as a site manager on
January 10, 2021.

SEASONS RECOVERY CENTERS was and is a California Limited Liability
Company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan p. LaCour, Esq.
          Lisa Noveck, Esq.
          Jameson Evans, Esq.
          Amanda M. Thompson, Esq.
          EMPLOYEES FIRST LABOR LAW P.C.
          1 S. Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 200
          Pasadena, CA 91 105
          Phone: (310) 853-3461
          Facsimile: (949) 743-5442
          Email: jonathanl@pierrelacour.com
                 lisan@pienelacour.com
                 jamesone@pierrelacour.com
                 amandat@pierrelacour.com



SELECTQUOTE INSURANCE: Torres Files Suit in D. Kansas
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SelectQuote Insurance
Services. The case is styled as Valerie Torres, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. SelectQuote Insurance
Services, SelectQuote Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-02020-EFM-GEB (D.
Kan., Jan. 17, 2024).

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

Selectquote Insurance Services -- https://www.selectquote.com/ --
provides insurance agent and broker services. The Company offers
auto and home, life, and medical insurance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lucy McShane, Esq.
          Maureen M. Brady, Esq.
          MCSHANE & BRADY LLC
          1656 Washington Street Suite 140
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Phone: (816) 888-8010
          Email: lmcshane@mcshanebradylaw.com
                 mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com


SHOP-ALEXIS.COM: Karim Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shop-alexis.com, LLC.
The case is styled as Jessica Karim, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Shop-alexis.com, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-00320 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 16, 2024).

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

Shop-Alexis.com, LLC doing business as ALEXIS --
https://www.shopalexis.com/ -- is a fashion design company that
sells womenswear.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gabriel Levy, Esq.
          GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
          1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404
          Manhasset, NY 11030
          Phone: (516) 287-3458
          Email: glevy@glpcfirm.com


SITE SAFE TRAFFIC: Gilbert Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Site Safe Traffic
Safety and Signs, et al. The case is styled as Todd Gilbert, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Site Safe Traffic Safety
and Signs, et al., Case No. 24CV000666 (Cal. Super. Ct., Sacramento
Cty., Jan. 16, 2024).

Site Safe -- https://sitesafetrafficsafety.com/ -- is a one-stop
source for traffic control signs & equipment.[BN]

SL GREEN REALTY: Newman Files Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SL Green Realty
Corp., et al. The case is styled as Joel Newman, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SL Green Realty
Corp., Summit OVA Tenant LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00335-VSB (S.D.N.Y.,
Jan. 16, 2024).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

SL Green Realty Corp. -- http://slgreen.com/-- is a real estate
investment trust that primarily invests in office buildings and
shopping centers in New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Y. Kroub, Esq.
          MIZRAHI KROUB LLP
          225 Broadway, Ste. 39th Floor
          New York, NY 10007
          Phone: (212) 595-6200
          Email: ekroub@mizrahikroub.com


SLEEP NUMBER: Casillas Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Miltita Casillas, individually and on behalf
of all other similarly situated v. SLEEP NUMBER CORPORATION, a
Delaware entity d/b/a www.SLEEPNUMBER.com, Case No. 23STCV28330 was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California on Dec. 15, 2023, and assigned Case No.
2:23-cv-10540-WLH-MAR.

In the Complaint Plaintiff asserted a single cause of action for a
violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA").[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Chad Fuller, Esq.
          TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP
          11682 El Camino Real, Suite 400
          San Diego, CA 92130-2092
          Phone: 858.509.6000
          Facsimile: 858.509.6040
          Email: chad.fuller@troutman.com


SMARTE CARTE: Facio Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Smarte Carte, Inc.
The case is styled as Frank Facio, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Smarte Carte, Inc., Case No.
3:23-cv-02294-H-MMP (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 15, 2023).

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

Smarte Carte -- https://smartecarte.com/ -- is the leading provider
of self-serve vended luggage carts, electronic lockers, commercial
strollers and massage chairs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jordan Tyler Porter, Esq.
          NYE, STIRLING, HALE, MILLER & SWEET, LLP
          33 West Mission Street, Suite 201
          Santa Barbara, CA 93101
          Phone: (805) 963-2345
          Email: jordan@nshmlaw.com


SMARTY LLC: Foster Suit Removed to S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Catherine Foster, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. SMARTY, LLC, Case No.
37-2023-00054414-CU-NP-CTL was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of San Diego, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California on Jan. 17,
2024, and assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-00113-BAS-BGS.

The Plaintiff alleges that Smarty violated California and
Massachusetts law by allegedly charging consumers monthly fees
after the consumers have attempted to cancel their membership.
Smarty denies liability, denies that plaintiff or any punitive
class member suffered any damages by reason of any allegation in
the complaint, and denies that any class can or should be
certified.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ari N. Rothman, Esq.
          Allison C. Nelson , Esq.
          Abigail C. Zeimis, Esq.
          VENABLE LLP
          2049 Century Park East, Suite 2300
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 229-9900
          Facsimile: (310) 229-9901
          Email: anrothman@venable.com
                 acnelson@venable.com
                 aczeimis@venable.com


SUTTER HEALTH: Copans Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Amanda Copans, individually and on behalf of
other similarly situated individuals v. SUTTER HEALTH, and WELLTOK,
INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-02619 was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of California, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Massachusetts on Dec. 15, 2023.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:23-cv-13098-ADB to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.

Sutter Health facilities -- https://www.sutterhealth.org/ -- are
conveniently located across Northern California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Julie C. Erickson, Esq.
          ERICKSON KRAMER OSBORNE
          44 Tehama Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: (415) 635-0631
          Fax: (415) 599-8088
          Email: julie@eko.law


T&T FARMS: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL PORTER, an
individual, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. T&T FARMS, INC., an Indiana Corporation, and THOMAS
HALLECK, JR., an individual, Case No. 3:21-cv-00529-DRL-MGG (N.D.
Ind.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting a
120-day extension of the deadline to engage in mediation, and a
60-day extension of the deadline for the Plaintiff to move for
class certification and the discovery deadline.

The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is presently due
January 19, 2024, and the current discovery deadline is February 5,
2024.

The deadline to engage in mediation be extended by 120 days, to and
including March 9, 2024.

The class certification motion deadline be extended by 60 days, up
to and including March 19, 2024.

The discovery deadline be extended by 60 days, up to and including
April 5, 2024.

T&T Farms is an active interstate freight carrier.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 10, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4aZDeBf at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard E. Shevitz, Esq.
          Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD, LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          E-mail: rshevitz@cohenandmalad.com
                  sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com
                - and -

          Robert S. Boulter, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT S. BOULTER
          1101 5th Ave. 310
          San Rafael, CA 94901
          E-mail: rsb@boulter-law.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Dina M. Cox, Esq.
          Janelle P. Kilies, Esq.
          LEWIS WAGNER, LLP
          1411 Roosevelt Avenue, Suite 102
          Indianapolis, IN 46201
          E-mail: dcox@lewiswagner.com
                  jkilies@lewiswagner.com
                  mwatkins@lewiswagner.com

TAPESTRY INC: Parties Seek May 24 Extension for Class Cert Filing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SABRINA REED,
individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public
similarly situated, v. TAPESTRY, INC. which will do business in
California as COACH LEATHERWARE CALIFORNIA, INC., a Maryland
corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
5:22-cv-04546-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Parties file joint stipulation
to continue class certification briefing schedule:

             Event                    Original         Proposed
New
                                      Deadline         Deadline

  Deadline to file motion for       Feb. 27, 2024     May 24, 2024
  class certification

  Deadline to file opposition       Apr. 23, 2024     July 19,
2024
  to motion for class
  certification

  Deadline to file reply to         May 21, 2024      Aug. 16,
2024
  motion for class
  certification

Tapestry is an American multinational luxury fashion holding
company.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 10, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3U6xFuA at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bevin Allen Pike, Esq.
          Daniel S. Jonathan, Esq.
          Trisha K. Monesi, Esq.
          CAPSTONE LAW APC
          1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 229-1000
          Facsimile: (310) 229-1001
          E-mail: Bevin.Pike@capstonelawyers.com
                  Daniel.Jonathan@capstonelawyers.com
                  Trisha.Monesi@capstonelawyers.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gregory W. Knopp, Esq.
          Sehreen Ladak, Esq.
          Jennifer J. Mcdermott, Esq.
          SABRINA REED
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 557-2900
          Facsimile: (310) 557-2193
          E-mail: gknopp@proskauer.com
                  sladak@proskauer.com
                  jmcdermott@proskauer.com

THUNDER CARRIER: Sends Unsolicited Text Messages, Sancruzado Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD SANCRUZADO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THUNDER CARRIER SERVICES, LLC d/b/a THUNDER
FUNDING, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00129-CAB-BLM (S.D. Cal.,
January 19, 2024) is a class action against the Defendant for
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sends out text messages
to consumers in order to solicit business for its goods and
services without prior consent. The Plaintiff's phone number is
also registered to the National Do-Not-Call Registry and it never
consented to receive calls or messages from the Defendant regarding
solicitations, says the suit.

Thunder Carrier Services, LLC, doing business as Thunder Funding,
is a trucking and freight carrier services company, with its
principal place of business located at 2433 Impala Drive, Suite A,
Carlsbad, California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         John J. Nelson, Esq.
         MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
         402 W. Boadway, Suite 1760
         San Diego, CA 92101
         Telephone: (858) 209-6941
         Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
         E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com

                  - and -

         Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
         CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
         100 Washington Avenue South, 1700
         Minneapolis, MN 55401
         Telephone: (612) 339-7300
         Facsimile: (952) 336-2940
         E-mail: Pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com

                  - and -

         Kevin M. Cox, Esq.
         THE LYON FIRM
         2754 Erie Ave.
         Cincinnati, OH 45208
         Telephone: (513) 496-1880
         E-mail: kcox@thelyonfirm.com

TIMES PUBLISHING: Agrees to Settle Data Sharing Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Dan Sullivan, writing for Tampa Bay News, reports that The Times
Publishing Co. has agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit that
accused the Tampa Bay Times of disclosing to Facebook its online
customers' identities and video viewing histories.

The company announced Thursday that it expects to pay $950,000 to
resolve the matter. The lawsuit was brought on behalf of
subscribers to the Times' digital products and involved allegations
that a code embedded in tampabay.com, known as Facebook Pixel,
shared subscriber information with Facebook.

"Privacy is of the utmost importance to us," said Conan Gallaty,
the Times Publishing Co.'s chairman and chief executive officer.
"No customer information was shared at any point in time. We
disagree completely with the plaintiff's points in this case."

The lawsuit was filed last year in federal court in Tampa. The
plaintiff, Jennifer Waller, was described in the civil complaint as
a digital subscriber to the Times. A similar lawsuit was filed on
behalf of two other subscribers, Lewis Darden and Sal Rivera. The
cases were later combined.

The complaints alleged that the Times website included the Facebook
Pixel, which collected data about videos that subscribers watched
on tampabay.com that was then shared with Facebook.

The Times chose to resolve the case to avoid a protracted and
expensive litigation, Gallaty said. The settlement will have no
long-term impact on the company's business or finances, he said.
Most of the settlement funds will be paid through the company's
insurance policy. Those eligible to receive a portion of the
settlement will be contacted beginning in February.

"To move on with business, we're settling this case," Gallaty said.
"And we will continue to produce great journalism. That's our
goal."

Many similar legal actions have in recent years targeted
businesses, including the Boston Globe, NASCAR, Chick-fil-A, the
National Football League and General Mills.

The lawsuits invoke a 1988 federal law known as the Video Privacy
Protection Act, which was designed to prevent video stores from
sharing their customers' rental history and personal information.

Courts have reached differing conclusions about whether the law can
apply in cases that deal with online privacy. [GN]

TURQUOISE HILL: Lead Plaintiff Allowed Leave to File TAC
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Turquoise Hill Resources Ltd.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:20-cv-08585-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Lewis J. Liman entered an order:

  -- Lead Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Third Amended
Complaint (TAC) is granted.

  -- Lead Plaintiff and Defendants' Letter Motions to Seal are
granted
     in part and denied in part.

The Court will stay the effect of this Order for a period of seven
days to allow the parties to bring to its attention any basis for
continued sealing the Court may have overlooked.

A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Jan. 8, 2024 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3O64MLh at no
extra charge.[CC]

U.S. STEEL: Settles Class Suit Over Fire, Power Outages
-------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Varine of The Mon Valley Independent reports that U.S.
Steel officials have entered into a consent decree with the
Allegheny County Health Department and two environmental groups to
address a 2018 fire at its Clairton facility that crippled the
plant's pollution controls and caused power outages at the plant in
2019 and 2022. The agreement will include nearly $20 million of
investment in upgrades to coke-oven gas cleaning infrastructure,
$4.5 million in contributions to support local communities affected
by the incidents, and the permanent idling of one of the Mon Valley
Works "batteries," which is a group of coke ovens connected by
common walls.

To read the rest of the story, please see a copy of Saturday's Mon
Valley Independent, call 724-314-0035 to subscribe or subscribe to
our online edition at http://monvalleyindependent.com.[GN]


UNITED INDUSTRIES: Faces Class Suit Over Hot Shot Bedbug
--------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action accuses the makers of Hot Shot Bedbug & Flea Fogger of false
advertising, given that the product is allegedly ineffective in
killing bedbugs.

The 19-page lawsuit centers around a 2012 study conducted by
researchers at the Ohio State University's Department of Entomology
that tested the effectiveness of the bedbug fogger. The study
concluded that the Hot Shot product, which is designed to eradicate
the pests by dispersing insecticides known as pyrethrins and
pyrethroids through an aerosol mist, showed "little, if any,"
impact on modern-day bedbugs commonly found in homes, the case
relays.

According to the complaint, defendants United Industries
Corporation and Spectrum Brands continue to misrepresent on the
fogger's front label that it "KILLS BED BUGS" despite knowing the
product has been scientifically proven ineffective. By doing so,
the companies have unlawfully tricked consumers into buying or
significantly overpaying for the Hot Shot Bedbug & Flea Fogger, the
filing alleges.

The suit specifies that in the 2012 study, researchers tested the
Hot Shot fogger in vacant office rooms on the Ohio State campus to
analyze its effect on five different types of bedbugs collected
from homes within the surrounding area. In the first round of
experiments, the insects were directly exposed to the aerosol mist
in "open, unprovisioned" Petri dishes, the case explains.

Per the lawsuit, another set of bedbugs were placed in Petri dishes
with a "filter paper disc" they could hide underneath while exposed
to the insecticide.

"The optional harborage experiment is more analogous to use in a
home setting," the complaint says, explaining that bedbugs often
hide in hard-to-reach areas like under furniture, in the walls or
in cracks and crevices.

The filing shares that in both experiments, all five
field-collected bedbug populations exhibited "low mortality" even
when assessed several days after exposure. Even a bedbug population
particularly susceptible to pyrethroids, which the researchers used
as an internal control for the experiment, showed "significantly
reduced acute mortality" when given the option to hide, the suit
says.

"In other words, bedbugs with pyrethroid resistance are the ones
that would commonly be found in a consumer's home, rendering the
product ineffective," the case claims.

What's more, the Hot Shot fogger only treats areas where its
insecticide lands, which is limited to exposed surfaces, the filing
points out. Since bedbugs tend to hide in protected spaces, the
product is "completely ineffective for real-world use," the
complaint alleges.

The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States who
purchased the Hot Shot Bedbug & Flea Fogger. [GN]

UNITED INDUSTRIES: Martin Sues Over Product's Deceptive Labeling
----------------------------------------------------------------
JON MARTIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED INDUSTRIES CORPORATION and SPECTRUM
BRANDS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 7:24-cv-00433 (S.D.N.Y., January
19, 2024) arises from the Defendants' deceptive labeling of the Hot
Shot Bedbug & Flea Fogger and asserts claims for breach of express
warranty, breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, unjust
enrichment, fraud, and for violations of New York's General
Business Law.

The said product prominently advertises on the front panel of the
packaging that it kills bed bugs. However, a 2012 study conducted
by researchers at the Department of Entomology at the Ohio State
University, titled Ineffectiveness of Over-the-Counter
Total-Release Foggers Against the Bed Bug (Heteroptera: Cimicidae),
found that there was “strong evidence that Hotshot Bedbug and
Flea Fogger was ineffective as a bed bug control agent, says the
suit.

Headquartered in Earth City, MO, United Industries Corporation is a
subsidiary of Spectrum Brands and a leading manufacturer of
consumer pest control products in the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

UNITED STATES: Muhumed Seeks Certification as Class Rep
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASHA MUSE MUHUMED,
Individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, V.
ALEJANDRO MAYORKAS, in his official capacity as Secretary of the
United States Department of Homeland Security, Case No.
9:24-cv-00007-MJT (E.D. Tex.), Muhumed moves the Court to certify
her as the representatives of a class consisting of:

   "All persons whose facially valid Medical Certifications for
   Disability Exemptions (Form N-648) have been or will be rejected
by
   United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
without
   USCIS obtaining medical evidence controverting the
Certification,
   and in support of such Motion would show:

On information and belief, over 200 people per year have their
Medical Certifications For Disability Exemptions rejected by USCIS
without USCIS obtaining medical evidence controverting the
Certification. The proposed class is therefore so numerous that
joinder of all members is impracticable, the Plaintiff contends.

United States Department of Homeland Security is the U.S. federal
executive department responsible for public security, roughly
comparable to the interior or home ministries of other countries.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 10, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3HsMHDy at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard S. Fischer, Esq.
          FISCHER AND FISCHER ATTORNEYS AT LAW
          114 South Pecan Street
          Nacogdoches, TX 75961
          Telephone: (936)564-2222
          Facsimile: (936)564-1346

UNITED STATES: Settles Discrimination Class Action Suit for $6M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elliot Johnson of Consumer Finance Monitor reports that after
nearly a decade of litigation, Judge Beryl A. Howell of the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia has approved the
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's $6.0 million settlement of
class claims of alleged discrimination by the CFPB against 85 Black
and Hispanic employees. The class consists of all "minority
employees and women who work or worked as Consumer Response
Specialists and have been subjected to and harmed by the Bureau's
agency-wide pattern or practice of discrimination and retaliation
and discriminatory policies and practices," according to the
complaint. The settlement fund will be distributed to the 85 class
members. In addition to the $6.0 million settlement fund, the
settlement provides for an award of $1.5 million in attorney's fees
for class counsel.

The class action lawsuit was filed in 2018 against the CFPB's
former Acting Director Mick Mulvaney. Class representatives alleged
that they were consistently paid less than their White male
colleagues, unfairly denied promotions since 2011, and faced
retaliation for making discrimination complaints.

The CFPB does not admit wrongdoing as part of the settlement. In a
statement, the CFPB said it remains committed to ensuring all
employees are treated fairly. The CFPB recently updated its pay
structures, but advised that the compensation reform is independent
of the discrimination allegations.

We view as ironic that the CFPB, which has been vigorously, and
sometimes zealously enforcing fair lending laws, would be sued for
employee discrimination and pay out $6.0 million in damages and 1.5
million in attorney's fees. The optics are not very pleasant. [GN]

VERIZON WIRELESS: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Illegal Fees for $100M
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Jones-Gorman, writing for The Daily News, reports that if
you were a Verizon Wireless customer between Jan. 1, 2016, and Nov.
8, 2023, you may be eligible for a class action payout.

A lawsuit, recently filed in New Jersey, alleges that customers who
had some of the network's monthly plans were charged undisclosed
administration fees in a "deceptive and unfair manner."

"As part of this settlement, Verizon will amend its Customer
Agreement to include revised Administrative Charge disclosures,"
according to the settlement agreement posted to
www.verizonadministrativechargesettlement.com.

And while Verizon has denied any wrongdoing, or that the lawsuit
has any merit, the company has reached a proposed settlement to
resolve the issue on a class action basis.

So who will receive payments and how much will they get?

According to the website, the $100 million settlement should net
all current and former individual consumer account holders in the
United States who received postpaid wireless or data services from
Verizon over the past seven years a maximum payment of about $100.

By agreeing to the receive payment, the settlement class, as well
as Verizon, make no admission that Verizon is liable or that the
allegation and defense in this case has any merit.

Those who opt into the lawsuit cannot sue Verizon over the issue in
the future.

Verizon will continue to charge the administrative charge in
question, according to the settlement website reads and contends
that it has the right to increase the charge.

Those who qualify will either receive a letter in the mail or an
email with instructions on how to get paid. Eligible customers must
file a claim by April 15, 2024, to receive a settlement payment.

If you do nothing, you will not receive any settlement payment and
will lose any rights to sue Verizon over these issues. If you’d
like to opt-out of the lawsuit, you must mail a signed request for
exclusion to: Verizon Administrative Charge Settlement
Administrator, Attn: Exclusions, P.O. Box 58220, Philadelphia, PA
19102, by Feb. 20, 2024. [GN]

VICTORIA: Faces Class Suit Over Public Housing Demolition Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Greens Victoria reports that The Victorian Greens have welcomed
reports of a class action being launched against the Victorian
Labor Government's plan to demolish 44 public housing towers.

The plan -- which was announced last year as part of Labor's
Housing Statement -- would see all of the towers demolished and the
majority of the land privatised, leaving thousands of public
housing residents displaced.

Leader of the Victorian Greens, Samantha Ratnam, said she'd spoken
to dozens of residents in recent weeks who were confused and
heartbroken, and wanting answers.

She added that the upcoming class action would likely be one of
many actions the community would take to stop this devastating plan
in its tracks.

Quotes attributable to Leader of the Victorian Greens, Samantha
Ratnam MLC:

"Labor's mass privatisation of public housing is making the housing
crisis worse."

"There are over 120,000 people on the public housing wait list in
Victoria yet this government's solution is to knock down all of our
towers and hand the majority of the land over to private developers
with no commitment to rebuild public housing."

"I've spoken with dozens of residents since this devastating plan
was announced who are confused, heartbroken and want answers.
People who have called these towers home for decades and do not
want to be displaced from their community."

"The Greens won't accept the contempt Labor is showing for public
housing. If this demolition and privatisation goes ahead it could
mean the end of public housing in Victoria." [GN]

VIRGINIA: Hatcher Must File Reply to Opposition by Feb. 5
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER HATCHER,
individually on behalf of himself, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. DAVID R. HINES, SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY OF
HANOVER, VIRGINIA AND THE COUNTY OF HANOVER, VIRGINIA, Case No.
3:23-cv-00325-JAG (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge John A. Gibney entered
an order extending class certification dates:

-- Defendants' opposition to Plaintiff's motion       Jan. 12,
2024
    For class certification from Jan, 12, 2024 to:

-- Plaintiff's reply:                                 Feb. 5,
2024

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 10, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OennF8 at no extra charge.[CC]

The Counsel of the County of Hanover, Virginia

          David P. Corrigan, Esq.
          Melissa Y. York, Esq.
          HARMAN CLAYTOR, CORRIGAN & WELLMA
          P.O, Box 70280
          Richmond, Virginia 23255
          Telephone: (804) 747 5200

               - and -

Counsel for Davids R. Hines, Sheriff of the County of Hanover,
Virginia

          William W. Tunner, Esq.
          William D. Prince, IV, Esq.
          Peter S. Askin, Esq.
          THOMPSON MCMILLAN P.C.
          100 Shockoe Slip, Third Floor
          Richmond, VA 23210-4140
          Telephone: (804) 649 7545
          E-mail: wtnner@t-mlaw.com
                  wprince@t-mlaw.com

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig Juraj Curwood, Esq.
          Zev H. Antell, Esq.
          Samanthan 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@butlecurwood.com
                  samantha@butlecurwood.com

VISA INC: Bids to Decertify Class Suit Over Transaction Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Scarcella of Reuters reports that Visa (V.N) and Mastercard
(MA.N) have asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a judge's
order allowing consumers and a group of ATM operators to band
together in class actions seeking billions of dollars in damages
over transaction fees.

The two payment card giants in a filing at the high court argued
that a Washington, D.C., federal judge was wrong to approve the
class actions and that the decision would contribute to "rampant
confusion" and "disarray" about what legal standard to use for
class certification.

Attorneys for Visa and Mastercard contend the trial judge failed to
conduct a thorough review to determine whether the proposed class
members had enough in common.

The classes comprise hundreds of millions of plaintiffs, court
records show.

"The entirety of the district court's 'rigorous analysis' to
certify the three classes in this case spans a handful of
sentences," lawyers at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison and
Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer told the Supreme Court.

The petition, led by Kannon Shanmugam of Paul Weiss, will give the
justices a new chance to weigh the contours of class action
litigation, a topic the court has considered multiple times in
recent years.

Granting class action status can place extra pressure on a
corporate defendant to settle, especially in cases where a company
faces claims of billions of dollars.

Representatives for Visa and Mastercard on January 26, 2024 did not
immediately respond to requests for comment.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to a
similar request.

The underlying litigation dates to 2011, when individuals and
operators of independent ATMs sued Visa, Mastercard and a group of
banks for alleged violations of U.S. antitrust law.

The plaintiffs argue that the rules for ATM transaction fees have
caused them to pay artificially higher amounts. There are fees tied
to all sides of an ATM transaction, from the consumer to the
financial institutions involved. The class actions seek damages of
more than $9 billion.

Several banks have agreed to settle, paying tens of millions of
dollars and leaving only Visa and Mastercard remaining in the
case.

Visa and Mastercard have faced other claims over transaction fees.

A federal appeals court last year affirmed a $5.6 billion
class-action settlement that resolved price-fixing claims against
the two companies from 12 million retailers.

The case is Visa Inc and Mastercard Inc v. National ATM Council et
al, U.S. Supreme Court, unassigned. [GN]

VISION LOGISTICS: Morley Sues Over Wage and Hour Law Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
ZACHARY MORLEY, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHER SIMILARLY
SITUATED PLAINTIFFS, KNOWN AND UNKNOWN, Plaintiff, v. VISION
LOGISTICS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00498 (N.D. Ill.,
January 19, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Plaintiff Morley is a current employee who performs a variety of
duties, including but not limited to, clerical, dispatch, and
account representative duties for Defendant under the direction of
Defendant's management, and who was and is compensated as an
salary-exempt employee and denied overtime compensation for hours
worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. Over the course of his
employment with Defendant, Plaintiff Morley performed various
non-exempt clerical work, including dispatching, such that
Plaintiff did not qualify for any salary exemptions under the FLSA
and should have been compensated as a non-exempt hourly employee,
says the suit.

Vision Logistics, LLC. provides logistics and other transportation
services to its freight transport clients. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         John William Billhorn, Esq.
         BILLHORN LAW FIRM
         53 West Jackson Blvd., Suite 1137
         Chicago, IL 60604
         Telephone: (312) 853-1450

WEST VILLAGE: Plaintiffs Seek Extension of Discovery Deadlines
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kaloshi et al., v. West
Village Oasis, Inc. et al, Case No. 1:22-cv-04593-AS-BCM
(S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
extending by 30 days all pending discovery and motion deadlines in
this action, pursuant to rules 6(b)(1)(A) and 16(b)(4) of the
Federal Rules of Procedure.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 9, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/4aTsKTT at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brandon Sherr, Esq.
          MKC LAW GROUP
          1250 Broadway, 36th Fl. Ste. 300
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 726-1104
          Facsimile: (212) 726-3104
          E-mail: bsherr@mkclawgroup.com

WORKDAY INC: Court Dismisses Suit Over AI Applicant Screening Tool
------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph C O'Keefe , Evandro C Gigante , Hannah D. Morris of
Proskauer Rose LLP-Law and the Workplace of National Law Review
report that in a recent development in Mobley vs. Workday, Inc.,
the novel class action lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California alleging that
Workday's algorithm-based applicant screening tools discriminate
against job applicants based on race, age, and disability, the
Court granted Workday's motion to dismiss on January 19, 2024, with
leave for plaintiff to amend the Complaint. As we previously
reported here, lead plaintiff Derek Mobley filed this lawsuit,
alleging that all of his applications for 80-100 jobs with
employers who use Workday's screening tool were rejected and that
these tools allow Workday's customers to use "discriminatory and
subjective judgments" when evaluating applicants and even allow for
"preselection" of applicants not within certain protected
categories. He further alleged that Workday's administration and
dissemination of the screening tools constituted a "pattern or
practice" of discrimination and that this conduct amounted to
intentional and disparate impact discrimination.

The Court agreed with Workday that Mobley's Complaint did not
sufficiently allege facts showing that Workday qualifies as an
"employment agency" that could be subject to liability under the
anti-discrimination laws. Under Title VII and the ADA, an
"employment agency" is defined as "any person regularly undertaking
with or without compensation to procure employees for an employer
or to procure for employees opportunities to work for an employer
and includes an agent of such a person." The ADEA definition is
slightly narrower, excluding the clause about procuring
opportunities for employees. The Court found Mobley's allegations
that Workday was an employment agency to be sparse and conclusory,
noting that the Complaint alleged very few details about his
application process and did not address whether Workday helps to
recruit and select applicants. Moreover, Mobley never alleged
whether the AI tools "perform[ed] screening based solely on
employer criteria, Workday's own algorithm(s), or some combination
of the two." Overall, the Court held that Mobley's allegations did
not plausibly state that Workday was sufficiently involved in
procuring employees to be held liable as an employment agency.
However, the Court noted that Mobley could amend his Complaint to
cure the pleading deficiency and to plead two additional theories
of liability identified at the motion hearing and in his opposition
brief—that Workday is covered as either an "indirect employer" or
an "agent" under the relevant anti-discrimination statutes.

In granting leave to amend, the Court also provided observations on
how Mobley could strengthen his intentional discrimination and
disparate impact claims. On intentional discrimination, the Court
noted gaps in allegations about Mobley disclosing his protected
traits to Workday and his qualifications for the numerous jobs he
applied for. As to disparate impact, the Court found Mobley's
reliance on his own experience insufficient to show a broad
disparity caused by a specific employment practice. Although his
Complaint focused on the AI screening tools, it was unclear "what
or whose specific use of the tools is allegedly discriminatory."

This Order allows Mobley's case to move forward if he can amend his
Complaint to plead sufficient facts in support of his claims.
Mobley has until February 20, 2024, to file an amended Complaint
curing the deficiencies outlined in the Order. We will be
monitoring this case for further developments. [GN]

YOSHINOYA AMERICA: Mendoza Sues Over Labor Law Breaches
-------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINA MENDOZA, individually and on behalf of all other
Aggrieved Employees; Plaintiff v. YOSHINOYA AMERICA, INC., a
California Corporation, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 24STCV01461 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
January 19, 2024) arises from the Defendants' violations of the
California Labor Code.

Plaintiff Mendoza was hired by Defendants with the job title of
cashier on or about March 24, 2023. While employed with Defendants,
Plaintiff was regularly required to work off-the-clock, and/or
during their rest and/or meal periods. She also regularly worked in
excess of eight hours, and in excess of 12, hours in a workday
and/or hours in a workweek. However, the Defendants willfully
failed to pay her all the wages to which she was entitled, says the
Plaintiff.

Yoshinoya America, Inc. operates as Japanese-style rice bowl
restaurant with over 3000 locations around the world, including Los
Angeles, CA. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
          Cathy Gonzalez, Esq.
          HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
          801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 970
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 696-2306
          Facsimile: (818) 696-2307
          E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com
                  cathy@hbklawyers.com

[*] Emergencies Act Ruling Affirms Claims in Proposed Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Aedan Helmer, writing for Postmedia, reports that this week's
Federal Court ruling that the Emergencies Act was "unreasonable and
unjustified" won't harm a pending civil lawsuit against
participants of the 2022 convoy protest in Ottawa, according to the
lawyer who launched the proposed $300-million class action.

Paul Champ, the Ottawa human rights lawyer who filed the civil
lawsuit on behalf of downtown residents and businesses, said the
recent federal court ruling would actually "affirm" some of the
claims by the plaintiffs.

Federal Court Justice Richard Mosely said in Tuesday's ruling he
could not support a conclusion that the 2022 convoy created "a
critical, urgent and temporary situation" that was national in
scope and could not be dealt with effectively under any other
Canadian law.

Although the harm being caused to Canada's economy, trade and
commerce was very real and concerning, the judge wrote, it did not
constitute threats or the use of serious violence to persons or
property.

The ruling, Champ said Thursday, "will not harm the civil suit in
any way because our claim is about what the trucks were doing in
Ottawa: occupying and causing harm to downtown Ottawa. This federal
court ruling is about whether the federal government over-reached
in the way they brought that protest to an end.

"That aspect doesn't harm us at all, and, if anything, this Federal
Court judgment affirms what we've been saying: that the truck
protests were not a legitimate form of protest . . . There was an
unacceptable breakdown in public order," Champ said.

The Federal Court ruling is far from a slam-dunk for the civil
case, but Champ said it equated to one more judge who had reviewed
the case and come to the conclusion that Ottawa residents and
businesses were negatively impacted by the convoy protest.

"That's what we've been saying, and the Federal Court in a couple
of different passages says that the lives of residents and workers
and businesses were impacted by the truckers. Clearly, the court
was saying that's not acceptable," Champ said.

"We can't just rely on this and say, 'Well, that's it, we win,' but
this is yet another judge who reviewed the matter -- as has Justice
Paul Rouleau (during the Public Order Emergency Commission), along
with two other judges in preliminary motions on our civil claim --
to make findings that the truck protesters unreasonably interfered
with the lives of residents in Ottawa.

"So, to that extent, it just affirms yet again (there are merits to
the civil case), and we'll keep moving it forward," Champ said.

Champ said the judgments that would carry more weight in relation
to the civil lawsuit would come in convoy-related criminal cases
progressing through the court system.

"Some of these cases have resolved with criminal convictions, some
of the participants have pleaded guilty that what was happening in
downtown Ottawa amounted to mischief," Champ said.

In the closely-watched trial of accused convoy organizers Tamara
Lich and Chris Barber, Champ said, the defence teams have already
conceded there were "elements of mischief" in the convoy.

In their ongoing criminal trial, defence teams for Lich and Barber
said there were likely elements of mischief within the convoy as a
whole, though they have denied their clients' involvement in any
criminal mischief and have denied they counselled others to commit
mischief.

"The bigger point is that everyone is conceding that there was
unlawful mischief," Champ said.

"In the Criminal Code, mischief is a broad crime where people are
causing significant disruption and disorder . . .  We have convoy
participants being convicted of mischief, organizers conceding
there was mischief downtown, we have Justice Rouleau in the Public
Order Emergency Commission who said it was 'unacceptable' what was
happening downtown. And here's another Federal Court judge (with a
similar finding)."

When someone has been convicted of a criminal offence, Champ said,
that person can't contest the issue in a civil action.

"So, anyone who is convicted of mischief will have difficulty
defending the civil claim," Champ said. "We can't rely on the
Federal Court ruling, but with criminal convictions we can. And we
will."

The proposed class action seeks compensation for "private and
public nuisance," alleging Ottawa residents suffered due to diesel
fumes and the blaring of vehicle horns, while businesses and
employees lost income during the three-week protest.

The suit seeks $60 million in general damages "for pain and
suffering and psychological distress," special damages of $70
million for business losses and $150 million for lost wages in
addition to other punitive damages. Claims made by the plaintiffs
have not yet been tested in court.

Champ said the lawsuit was progressing with several lengthy motions
and was still awaiting certification as a class action. [GN]


                            *********

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

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

Copyright 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 ***