/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240207.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, February 7, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 28

                            Headlines

2200 RESTAURANT: Lorenzo Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
23ANDME HOLDING: Faces Class Suit Over Privacy Breach
ADENA HEALTH: Faces Suit Over Illegal Wiretapping
AGAVE AZUL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ayala Suit Alleges
ALAMANCE COUNTY, NC: Feb. 14 Extension to File Class Cert. Sought

AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Engler Says
AMERICAN HONDA: Files Motion to Dismiss Shattered Rear Window Suit
AMIGOS HOSPITALITY: Faces Lander Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
APPLE INC: Plaintiffs Consider Sealing of Docs
BANK OF AMERICA: Bids to Seal Granted in Part in Nia Class Suit

BANK OF AMERICA: Court Sets March 11 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline
BETTER BRAND: Fails to Include Protein % Value in Panel, Myles Says
BIOVENTUS INC: Class Cert Proceedings Stayed in Grogan Class Suit
BIS BAS MEDITERRANEAN: Faces Hernandez Suit Over Labor Practices
BLOCK INC: Fact Discovery Cut-Off in Thomas Due Sept. 30

BLUE DIAMOND: Mann Sues Over Smokehouse Almonds' Misleading Ads
BOTTOM'S UP: McKenzie Seeks Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Overtime
BT GROUP: GBP1.3-Bil. Class Suit Over Overcharged Landline Begins
CEDARS MEDITERRANEAN: Moore Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid OT
CHARGEPOINT HOLDINGS: Faces Smith Suit Over Drop in Share Price

CLEVELAND-CLIFFS STEEL: Plaintiffs Seek Rule 23 Class Certification
COCA-COLA CO: Karabas Sues Over Mislabeled Fruit Juices, Drinks
CUMMINS INC: Baker Files Suit Over Share Price Drop
D.M. BASS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chapman Alleges
DEMARCO BROS: Faces Cruz Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Discrimination

DRIVEN EQUITY: Taylor Sues Over Illegal CEO Approval Right
DUNKIN DONUTS: Faces Suit Over Non-Dairy Milk Alternatives' Charges
DYCK-O'NEAL INC: Seeks Feb. 9 Extension for Class Certification Bid
EDGE OFS HOLDINGS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barrick Alleges
ESSILORLUXOTTICA SA: Ringgold Sues Over Branded Eyewear Conspiracy

ESSILORLUXOTTICA SA: Rozo Sues Over Eyewear Market Monopoly
FINCANTIERI MARINE: Fails to Secure Employees' Info, Malvitz Says
FLINT, MI: Court Refused to Block Targeted Ads in Water Crisis Suit
HAUSBECK PICKLE: Henderson Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT
HERSHEY CREAMERY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Henriquez Alleges

HONEYWELL INT'L: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Steward Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
INDIANA COUNTY, IN: Court Certifies Child Transition Ban Class Suit
INTRUSION INC: $3.25MM Class Settlement to be Heard on April 3
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Hall Suit

LAKEVIEW LOAN: Agree to Settle Convenience Fee Class Suit
LASALLE CORRECTIONS: Class Cert. Bid in Powell Due March 27
LAZER SPOT: Ruthven Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
LUNDBECK LLC: MSP Recovery Appeals Ruling in RICO Suit to 4th Cir.
MADONNA FOOD: Pineda Seeks to Recover Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA

MDL 2704: Class Cert Deadlines Stayed in Genesee v. Bank of America
MDL 2704: Class Cert Deadlines Stayed in Harrison County v. BoA
MDL 2704: Class Cert Deadlines Stayed in IRS Antitrust Litigation
MDL 2704: Class Cert Deadlines Stayed in Javelin v. Bank of America
MDL 2704: Class Cert Deadlines Stayed in Kansas City v. BOA

MDL 2704: Class Cert Deadlines Stayed in LD Construction v. BoA
MDL 2704: Class Cert Deadlines Stayed in Policemen v. BoA
MEAD JOHNSON: Fails to Disclose Heavy Metals in Enfamil, Lopez Says
MEDILODGE GROUP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bellenir Alleges
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Whaley Balks at Real Estate Market Conspiracy

NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Court Issues Final Judgment in Woodard Suit
PENSKE LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Milam Says
PERMIAN RESOURCES: Faces Andrew Suit Over Oil Monopoly
PERRY JOHNSON: Jon Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Rehm Balks at Unprotected Personal, Health Info

RELIANT REHABILITATION: Fails to Pay Proper OT, Hinojos Claims
ROTHY'S INC: Mackey Sues Over Unwanted Text Messages
ROYALTY CARPET: Highest Court Barred PAGA Claims
SIKA AG: Charles Sues Over Concrete Admixtures Monopoly
SYSCO LOS ANGELES: Valdez Sues Over Underpaid Pension Funding

TATTLE TAIL: Glessing Alleges Unpaid Wages, Illegal Tip Retention
TDS TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Mott Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
TEMPUS UNLIMITED: Smolinski Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
TINTRI INC: $7MM Class Settlement to be Heard on August 15
TREMENDOUS LLC: Liou Files Suit in D. New Jersey

TRIDANT SOLUTIONS: Scott Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
TRUEACCORD CORP: Williams Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Mississippi
TSG INTERACTIVE US: Sykes Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
UNITED AIRLINES: Sambrano Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
UNITED GROUND: Francis Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT

UNITED GROUND: Hernandez Suit Removed to C.D. California
UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: Faces Suit Over Anticompetitive Conduct
UNLIMITED AMMO: Bolton Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
VALLEY, AL: Little Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling
VANGUARD GROUP: Lardizabal Suit Removed to S.D. California

VERTEX ENERGY: Levson Suit Transferred to S.D. Texas
VERTEX ENERGY: Passmore Suit Transferred to S.D. Texas
VICTORY AUTO: Polanco Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
VICTORY STARTS NOW: Palmer Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
VITACUP INC: Karim Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York

WANABANA LLC: Food Products Contain Lead, Johnson Claims
WARRIOR MET COAL: Gibson Files Suit in N.D. Alabama
WAYFAIR LLC: Frost Files ADA Suit in D. Minnesota
WE OLIVE LLC: Karim Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
WEEE! INC: Jia Suit Transferred to S.D. New York

WEIBEL INCORPORATED: Hunter Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
WELLS FARGO BANK: Xiong Suit Removed to C.D. California
WELLTOK INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Griffith-Sullivan Says
WHITEPAGES INC: Klaneski Files Suit in W.D. Washington
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Mader Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime

WILMAR OILS & FATS: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
YESCOM USA INC: Liz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
[*] Registration Now Open for 8th Annual Class Action Conference

                            *********

2200 RESTAURANT: Lorenzo Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
JULIAN LORENZO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 2200 RESTAURANT PARTNERS, LLC d/b/a DUNE BY
LAURENT TOURONDEL, Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-60078 (S.D. Fla.,
Jan. 12, 2024) is a class and collective action brought by the
Plaintiff against the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the Florida Minimum Wage Act, and Art. X, Sec. 24 of the Florida
Constitution.

According to the complaint, the Defendant committed state and
federal minimum wage violations because it: (1) compensated
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees at the reduced wage for
tipped employees, but failed to provide them with statutory notice
of taking a tip credit; (2) required Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated to perform non-tipped side duties and side work
that exceeded 20% of all work performed in at least one workweek;
(3) required Plaintiff and all others similarly situated to perform
non-tipped duties and side work in excess of 30 continuous minutes
in at least one shift; and (4) required Plaintiff and all others
similarly situated to attend off-the-clock mandatory meal periods
while still performing work for Defendant's benefit.

Additionally, Defendant violated federal overtime wage requirements
because it required Plaintiff and all other similarly situated to
work off-the-clock during mandatory meal periods, which regularly
caused them to work more than 40 hours in a single workweek. As a
result, Plaintiff and all similarly situated have been denied
federal and state minimum wages and federal overtime wages during
various workweeks within the relevant time period, says the suit.

Plaintiff Lorenzo worked for the Defendant as a bartender in Fort
Lauderdale, Florida from January of 2022 through September of
2022.

2200 Restaurant Partners, LLC owns the DUNE by Laurent Tourondel
restaurant located in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

23ANDME HOLDING: Faces Class Suit Over Privacy Breach
-----------------------------------------------------
Nabaparna Bhattacharya of Benzinga reports that Genetic testing
company 23andMe Holding Co. 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 on January 28, 2024 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]

ADENA HEALTH: Faces Suit Over Illegal Wiretapping
-------------------------------------------------
R.J., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. ADENA HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendant, Case No.:
1:24-cv-00025-MWM (S.D. Ohio, Jan. 19, 2024) seeks to address the
Defendant's unlawful practice of disclosing the Plaintiff's and
Class Members' confidential personally identifiable information
("PII") and protected health information, (collectively referred to
as "Private Information") to third parties, including Meta
Platforms, Inc. d/b/a Meta ("Facebook") and Google, Inc., without
consent, through the use of tracking software that is embedded in
Defendant's website.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant installed
tracking technologies onto its Website, including the MyChart page
on Defendant's Website that navigates to the login page for the
MyChart Portal. These Tracking Tools, including Meta Platforms,
Inc.'s Tracking Pixel and Google, Inc.'s Google Analytics tool,
track and collect communications with the Defendant via the Website
and surreptitiously force the user's web browser to send those
communications to undisclosed third parties, such as Facebook or
Google.

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

Adena Health System provides medical and surgical hospital
services. The Company offers cancer care, heart and vascular
treatment, orthopedics, women's health, pain management, radiology,
robotic surgery, rehabilitation, and emergency care services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

AGAVE AZUL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ayala Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
ANNA AYALA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. AGAVE AZUL, LLC d/b/a BLUE AGAVE; LUZ
ALEJANDRA LOPEZ DE ALVAREZ; and ABEL LOPEZ DE ALVAREZ, Defendants,
Case No. 1:24-cv-00265-ELR-RDC (N.D. Ga., Jan. 19, 2024) seeks to
recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation,
interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Ayala was employed by the Defendants as a bartender.

AGAVE AZUL, LLC operates as restaurant and bar called "Blue Agave",
located at Douglasville, GA. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan P. Drew, Esq.
          John L. Mays, Esq.
          PARKS, CHESIN & WALBERT, P.C.
          1355 Peachtree St., NE, Suite 2000
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 873-8000
          Facsimile: (404) 873-8050
          Email: edrew@pcwlawfirm.com
                 jmays@pcwlawfirm.com

ALAMANCE COUNTY, NC: Feb. 14 Extension to File Class Cert. Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW S. BEERS and
KATHERINE WHITE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. TERRY S. JOHNSON, in his official capacity as SHERIFF
OF ALAMANCE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, Case No. 1:23-cv-00367-TDS-JLW
(M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
extending the deadline to file the Plaintiffs' motion seeking Rule
23 class certification
by 30 days, to and including Feb. 14, 2024.

   1. The Plaintiffs filed their Amended Complaint on Oct. 16,
2023.

   2. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 23.1(b), the Plaintiffs have 90
      days from the date they filed their complaint in a class
action
      to file a motion under Fed. R. Civ.P 23(c)(1).

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 12, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YwWYSr at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Philip J. Gibbons, Jr., Esq.
          Corey M. Stanton, Esq.
          GIBBONS LAW GROUP, PLLC
          14045 Ballantyne Corporate Place, Suite 325
          Charlotte, NC 28277
          Telephone: (704) 612-0038
          E-mail: phil@gibbonslg.com
                  corey@gibbonslg.com

AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Engler Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
DALLAS ENGLER; and LUCKY AGUSTIN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC;
and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
8:24-cv-00155 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 22, 2024) is an action against the
Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation,
authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage
statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses.

Plaintiff Engler was employed by the Defendants as an assistant
station manager.

AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC provides e-commerce services. The Company
retails books, diamond jewelry, electronics, appliances, apparels,
and accessories. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jerusalem F. Beligan, Esq.
          Leah M. Beligan, Esq.
          BELIGAN LAW GROUP, LLP
          19800 MacArthur Blvd., Suite 300
          Newport Beach, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 224-3881
          Email: jbeligan@bbclawyers.net
                 lmbeligan@bbclawyers.net

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
          FRADIN LAW
          8401 Crawford Ave., Ste. 104
          Skokie, IL 60076
          Telephone: (847) 986-5889
          Email: mike@fradinlaw.com

AMERICAN HONDA: Files Motion to Dismiss Shattered Rear Window Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood of CarComplaints.com report that a 2023 Honda HR-V
shattered rear window class action lawsuit alleges the back glass
is defective due to the materials used for the window.

The plaintiffs also claim the windows can shatter from structural
defects in the HR-Vs.

Six owners of 2023 Honda HR-V vehicles filed the class action by
contending no external impacts are needed for the back windows to
shatter.

The plaintiffs also assert Honda refuses to cover the broken glass
under the vehicle warranty and further refuses to recall the HR-V
SUVs to repair or replace the shattered back windows.

According to the Honda class action, the rear windows can shatter
if the HR-Vs are in motion or parked, distracting drivers when the
glass breaks. If the back window shatters and breaks when the HR-V
is parked, there is nothing to prevent a thief from climbing into
the vehicle.

Though no recall has been issued for 2023 Honda HR-V shattered back
windows, the lawsuit references documents sent to Honda dealerships
asking that technicians be on notice for the problem.

In May and June 2023, Honda sent messages to dealerships which said
Honda was investigating HR-V shattered back windows.

Honda told dealerships the automaker was "searching for certain
2023 HR-Vs with a customer complaint of rear windshield shattering"
and "[t]o better understand the cause of this condition, [Honda]
would like to collect specific parts from the vehicle prior to
[dealers] attempting a repair of any kind."

Motion to Dismiss: 2023 Honda HR-V Back Window Lawsuit
Honda filed a motion to dismiss what it calls a "sweeping class
action" that includes all 2023 Honda HR-V SUVs in the U.S.

However, Honda argues what is missing from the allegations is
"notable."

Honda alleges the plaintiffs do not specify what information the
automaker should have revealed about the back windows. And the
plaintiffs also do not claim when Honda had knowledge of the
alleged window defects.

According to Honda, the earliest possible date the plaintiffs can
point to in their class action lawsuit for Honda's knowledge is
March 6, 2023, which is the date of the earliest complaint made to
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

But by that date, all the plaintiffs had already purchased their
2023 Honda HR-Vs.

As for fraud-based claims, Honda argues the plaintiffs lack
"factual details to support their conclusory and sweeping theories
of liability." Fraud-based claims must be very specific to advance
the claims in court.

The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claim must allegedly be dismissed
because the Act only allows class action claims if there are 100 or
more named plaintiffs, but there are only six named plaintiffs in
the HR-V shattered back window lawsuit.

For a few plaintiffs, Honda says the express warranty claims must
be dismissed because the plaintiffs fail to allege the mileage on
their HR-Vs when the rear windows shattered.

Honda further argues implied warranty claims of four plaintiffs
must be dismissed because the plaintiffs had a relationship with
Honda dealers, not directly with Honda.

In other words, the plaintiffs purchased their HR-V vehicles from
dealerships, not directly from the defendant, American Honda Motor
Company.

Honda recently announced what it is calling a "voluntary product
update campaign," likely to begin in April or May 2024.

The class action lawsuit alleges the structure of the HR-V or the
materials of the back window glass cause the glass to shatter. But
following an internal investigation, Honda says the rear windows
can shatter due to the rear window defrosters.

“American Honda has received a limited number of reports of
rear-hatch glass breaking on 2023 Honda HR-V vehicles associated
with rear defroster use.  Our investigation has revealed that
during the assembly process for some vehicles, the sealer used to
secure the rear glass may come into contact with the heating
elements of the defroster, leading to a hot spot and weakening of
the glass over time as the defroster is used." — Honda

The 2023 Honda HR-V shattered rear window class action lawsuit was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania: Sherry Fry, et al., v. American Honda Motor Co.,
Inc.

The plaintiffs are represented by Lemberg Law, L.L.C. [GN]

AMIGOS HOSPITALITY: Faces Lander Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
EMILY LANDER and SABRINA ROJAS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMIGOS HOSPITALITY LLC,
AMIGOS HOSPITALITY GROUP 1 LLC, AMIGOS HOSPITALITY GROUP 2 LLC,
ANTONIO TURBAY, ALAN DAHDAH SAYEGH, CIRO SAMPIETRO RICCI and HECTOR
CLAVERIA, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00287 (S.D.N.Y., January 12,
2024) is brought by the Plaintiffs seeking to recover damages from
the Defendants arising from minimum wage violations, tip credit
notice violations, misappropriated tips, and retaliation pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Plaintiffs Lander and Rojas worked as waitresses from approximately
January 2023 to June 2023. They assert that Defendants' unlawful
conduct has been intentional, willful, and in bad faith and has
caused significant monetary damage to them and the FLSA
Collective.

The Defendants are owners and operators of nightclubs under the
common name "La Victoria." [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Clifford Tucker, Esq.
          SACCO & FILLAS LLP
          3119 Newtown Ave, Seventh Floor
          Astoria, NY 11102
          Telephone: (718) 269-2243
          Facsimile: (718) 559-6517
          E-mail: CTucker@SaccoFillas.com

APPLE INC: Plaintiffs Consider Sealing of Docs
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ORSHAN, et al.,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
APPLE INC., Case No. 5:14-cv-05659-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to consider whether Apple's material should be
sealed.

The material is included within the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. The Plaintiffs reserve their right to oppose
Apple’s request to seal.

Apple designs, develops, and sells consumer electronics, computer
software, and online services.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 12, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ueXwje at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael A. McShane, Esq.
          Ling Y. Kuang, Esq.
          AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
          711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
          San Francisco, CA 94102-3275
          Telephone: (415) 568-2555
          Facsimile: (415) 568-2556
          E-mail: mmcshane@audetlaw.com
                  lkuang@audetlaw.com

                - and -

          William H. Anderson, Esq.
          Matthew K. Handley, Esq.
          Nicholas J. Jackson, Esq.
          Rebecca P. Chang, Esq.
          HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
          5353 Manhattan Circle, Suite 204
          Boulder, CO 80303
          Telephone: (303) 800-9109
          E-mail: wanderson@hfajustice.com
                  njackson@hfajustice.com
                  rchang@hfajustice.com

                - and -

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

                - and -

          Jon M. Herskowitz, Esq.
          BARON & HERSKOWITZ
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1704
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 670-0101
          Facsimile: (305) 670-2393
          E-mail: jon@bhfloridalaw.com

                - and -

          Charles J. Laduca, Esq.
          CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 789-3960
          Facsimile: (202) 789-1813
          E-mail: charlesl@cuneolaw.com

BANK OF AMERICA: Bids to Seal Granted in Part in Nia Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOHAMMAD FARSHAD ABDOLLAH
NIA, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., a National Banking Association, Case No.
3:21-cv-01799-BAS-BGS (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cynthia Bashant
entered an order granting in part and denying in part parties'
motions to seal.

If Plaintiff or Defendant wishes to file a renewed motion to seal
for the denied requests, they may do so no later than January 24,
2024, after the issuance of this order.

The Plaintiff Nia brings a putative class action against Bank of
America, N.A. ("BANA") for violations of the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act, federal civil rights law, and the California Unruh
Civil Rights Act. Before the Court are five motions by Parties to
file documents under seal.

Bank of America is one of the Big Four banking institutions of the
United States.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 12, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=psoEAH at no extra
charge.[CC]



BANK OF AMERICA: Court Sets March 11 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------
If, from February 1, 2008 through November 30, 2015, you paid
interest on a VRDO that had rate resets on a daily or weekly basis,
your rights may be affected

JND Legal Administration reports that a class action suit has been
filed against Bank of America, Barclays, Citigroup, Goldman Sachs,
JPMorgan Chase, Morgan Stanley, the Royal Bank of Canada, and Wells
Fargo ("Defendants") for allegedly conspiring to fix interest rates
on Variable Rate Demand Obligations ("VRDOs") for VRDOs they
remarketed during the period from February 1, 2008 through November
30, 2015. Plaintiffs have asserted claims for violation of federal
antitrust law and various states' contract laws. The class action
lawsuit is known as City of Philadelphia et al. v. Bank of America
Corporation et al, Case No. 19-cv-1608, and it is in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
Court has allowed this lawsuit to be a class action on behalf of a
nationwide class and a sub-class that could include you.

You are a potential class member if you directly paid the interest
expenses on a VRDO that had interest rates reset on a weekly or
daily basis pursuant to a remarketing agreement with any Defendant
at any point from February 1, 2008 through November 30, 2015. You
are a potential sub-class member if, in addition to meeting the
class requirements, you were party to a remarketing agreement with
any Counterparty Defendant that applies to a VRDO that had interest
rates reset on a weekly or daily basis at any point from February
1, 2008 through November 30, 2015. The Counterparty Defendants are
Banc of America Securities LLC; Barclays Capital, Inc.; Citigroup
Global Markets Inc.; Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC; J.P. Morgan
Securities LLC; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.; RBC
Capital Markets LLC; Wachovia Bank N.A.; and Wells Fargo Bank,
N.A.

If you are a member of the Class, you have to decide whether to
stay in the lawsuit or ask to be excluded before March 11, 2024.
There is no money available now and no guarantee there ever will
be. The Court has made no decision as to the merits of the legal
claims against Defendants, and Defendants deny all claims in this
lawsuit. A trial date has not yet been set.

YOUR RIGHTS AND OPTIONS

Do nothing.  Stay in this lawsuit and await the outcome. Lose
certain rights. If you remain in the Class, you keep the
possibility of getting money or benefits that may come from a trial
or settlement. You will be bound by any judgment in this case,
whether favorable to Plaintiffs or Defendants. You may lose any
rights to sue Defendants at your own expense over claims that arise
from the same factual predicate alleged in this lawsuit. The Court
has appointed the law firms Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan,
L.L.P., Wollmuth Maher & Deutsch L.L.P., and Susman Godfrey L.L.P.
as Class Counsel. You do not need to hire your own lawyer because
Class Counsel is working on behalf of the Class. You may hire and
appear through your own lawyer at your own expense.

Exclude yourself. Get no benefits from this lawsuit. Keep certain
rights. If you ask to be excluded from this lawsuit and money is
later awarded, you will not be allowed to request payment. But, you
keep your right to sue Defendants at your own expense and with your
own attorney about the claims that arise from the same factual
predicate alleged in this lawsuit. In order to exclude yourself
from the lawsuit, you must send a letter requesting exclusion from
City of Philadelphia et al. v. Bank of America Corporation et al,
Case No. 19-cv-1608, with your name, address, telephone number,
email address, signature, and the CUSIP number(s) for your VRDO(s)
to: VRDO Litigation Notice Administrator, c/o/ JND Legal
Administration, P.O. Box 91484, Seattle, WA 98111. Your request for
exclusion must be postmarked no later than March 11, 2024.

This Notice is only a summary.

Questions?  Visit www.VRDOClassAction.com or call 1-877-595-0089.

You can also contact Class Counsel.
Please do not contact the Court.


BETTER BRAND: Fails to Include Protein % Value in Panel, Myles Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ZOKWEZO MYLES AND ERIN SCOTT, on behalf of themselves, the general
public, and those similarly situated, v. A BETTER BRAND, INC., Case
No. 4:24-cv-00495-KAW (N.D. Cal., Jan. 26, 2024) sues the Defendant
for its unlawful and deceptive practices in labeling and marketing
of the Better Brand consumer food products, which make protein
claims on the front of the product packages but fail to include the
percent of daily value for protein in the Nutrition Facts Panel.

The Products' front label protein claims, such as "25g PROTEIN,"
are unlawful because the Defendant did not: calculate the
"corrected amount of protein per serving" based on the quality of
the product's protein using the PDCAAS method; and provide a
statement of that corrected amount of protein per serving in the
NFP, expressed as %DV, the suit asserts.

Had the Defendant included a statement of the corrected amount of
protein per serving in the NFP, as they were required to do under
the law, it would have revealed that the product contains low
quality proteins and provides nutritionally as little as 50% of
their total protein quantity.

The Defendant's unlawful and misleading protein claims caused the
Plaintiffs and members of the class to pay a price premium for The
Better Brand products. In or around December 2023, the Plaintiff
Myles purchased The Better Bagel Everything flavor from the
William's Natural Foods store in Contra Costa, CA. The Plaintiff
Myles made each of his purchases after reading and relying on the
truthfulness of the Defendant's front labels that promised the
Products provided 25 grams of protein per serving for The Better
Bagel Everything flavor, the suit claims.

The Defendant manufactures, distributes, markets, advertises, and
sells food products, including bagels, buns, and rolls under the
brand name "Better Brand."[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth A. Safier, Esq.
          Marie A. McCrary, Esq.
          Hayley A. Reynolds, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 639-9090
          Facsimile: (415) 449-646
          E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com
                  marie@gutridesafier.com
                  hayley@gutridesafier.com

BIOVENTUS INC: Class Cert Proceedings Stayed in Grogan Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY GROGAN, DERIVATIVELY
ON BEHALF OF BIOVENTUS INC., v. KENNETH M. REALI, MARK L.
SINGLETON, GREGORY O. ANGLUM, SUSAN M. STALNECKER, WILLIAM A.
HAWKINS, PATRICK J. BEYER, PHIL COWDY, MARY KAY LADONE, MICHELLE
MCMURRY HEATH, GUIDO J. NEELS, GUY P. NOHRA, DAVID J. PARKER, and
MARTIN P. SUTTER, the Defendants, and BIOVENTUS INC., Nominal
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01099-RGA (D. Del.), the Hon. Judge
Richard G. Andrews entered an order as follows:

  1. Each of the Defendants to the extent not already served hereby

     accepts service.

  2. All proceedings and deadlines in the Derivative Action,
     including discovery and Defendants’ obligation to answer or

     otherwise respond to the Complaint, shall be stayed pending
     final resolution of the lead plaintiff's motion for class
     certification in the Securities Class Action.

  3. The stay shall remain in effect until the final resolution of

     the lead plaintiff's motion for class certification in the
     Securities Class Action.

  4. If any related derivative lawsuit is filed but not stayed for
the
     same or longer duration as the stay of the Derivative Action,

     Plaintiff may lift the agreed-to stay upon 14 business days.

  5. During the pendency of this stay, Plaintiff may file one
amended
     or consolidated complaint in the Derivative Action; provided,

     however, that during the pendency of this stay, the Defendants

     shall consent to any motion by Plaintiff for leave to file an

     additional amended complaint in the Derivative Action. The
     Defendants shall be under no obligation to respond to any
     amended or consolidated complaint while the stay is in effect.


on Oct. 4, 2023, the Plaintiff Grogan filed this putative
stockholder derivative action on behalf of Bioventus, asserting
claims against certain of Bioventus's current and former directors
and officers for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse
of control, gross mismanagement, corporate waste, contribution, and
violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Bioventus operates as a medical device company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 12, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Pz8x5E at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J Farnan, Esq.
          Brian E. Farnan, Esq.
          FARNAN LLP
          919 N. Market St., 12th Floor
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 777-0300
          E-mail: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
                  mfarnan@farnanlaw.com

                - and -

          Timothy Brown, Esq.
          THE BROWN LAW FIRM, P.C.
          767 Third Avenue, Suite 2501
          New York, BY 10017
          Telephone: (516) 922-5427
          E-mail: tbrown@thebrownlawfirm.net

                - and -

          Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
          Eitan Kimelman, Esq.
          BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 697-6484
          E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com
                  eitank@bgandg.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kevin M. Coen, Esq.
          MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
          1201 N. Market St.
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 351-9301
          E-mail: kcoen@mnat.com

                - and -

          Colleen C. Smith, Esq.
          Michele D. Johnson, Esq.
          Kristin N. Murphy, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          12670 High Bluff Drive
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 523-5400
          E-mail: colleen.smith@lw.com
                  michele.johnson@lw.com
                  kristin.murphy@lw.com

BIS BAS MEDITERRANEAN: Faces Hernandez Suit Over Labor Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
OMAR HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff v. BIS BAS MEDITERRANEAN GRILL LLC and
NORMAN ALSAIDI, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00284
(E.D.N.Y., Jan. 12, 2024) is a class action brought by the
Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
employees, arising from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor
practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New
York Labor Law and related provisions from Title 12 of New York
Codes, Rules, and Regulations.

Plaintiff Hernandez was employed by the Defendants from
approximately November 2022 up to the present date, where his
primary work duty was as a kitchen assistant, in addition to other
duties that involved cashiering, customer service, dishwashing, and
unloading and storing merchandise. He alleges Defendants' failure
to pay overtime, failure to provide notice at time of hiring, and
failure to provide accurate wage statements.

Bis Bas Mediterranean Grill LLC owns and operates a restaurant
based in Brooklyn, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

BLOCK INC: Fact Discovery Cut-Off in Thomas Due Sept. 30
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHEMICA THOMAS, et al., v.
BLOCK, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-05015-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Trina L. Thompson entered a case management and scheduling order as
follows:

   1. Trial Date:                          Oct. 6, 2025

   2. Final Pretrial Conference:           Sept. 4, 2025

   3. Dispositive Motions:                 Aug. 21, 2025

   4. Last day to file dispositive         June 1, 2025
      motions:

   5. Last day to be heard:                Aug. 5, 2025

   6. Fact Discovery Cut-Off:              Sept. 30, 2024

   7. Expert reports:

      -- Opening reports by:               May 31, 2024

      -- Rebuttal reports by:              June 28, 2024

   8. Expert Discovery Cut-Off:            Oct. 10, 2024

Block is a technology company with a focus on financial services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 12, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aMqI2B at no extra
charge.[CC]

BLUE DIAMOND: Mann Sues Over Smokehouse Almonds' Misleading Ads
---------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER MANN and ELENI KATZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BLUE DIAMOND GROWERS, Case No.
2:24-cv-00114-WSH (W.D. Pa., Jan. 28, 2024) contends that the
Defendant made false and misleading representations of its
"Smokehouse Almonds" by describing the almonds' taste as deriving
from a smokehouse.

The labeling is allegedly false and misleading because despite the
representations that the almonds were made in a smokehouse, their
taste is provided entirely by liquid smoke flavoring. Though the
ingredients include "Natural Hickory Smoke Flavor," a form of
pyroligneous acid or synthesized liquid smoke, this information
does not tell consumers the almonds were not subject to any smoking
over hardwoods, the Plaintiffs add.

Accordingly, the Defendant's deceptive and misleading statements
deceived the Plaintiff and Class Members and a substantial segment
of the target consumer audience and improperly influenced
consumers' purchasing decisions, as the Plaintiff and Class Members
relied on such misrepresentations in violation of the
Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.

As a result of the false and misleading representations, the
Product is sold at a premium price, approximately $3.19 for 12 oz
pouches, $1.19 for 1.5 oz pouches, $9.99 for 40 oz pouches and
$5.19 for 6 oz tins, excluding tax and sales, higher than similar
products, represented in a non-misleading way, and higher than it
would be sold for absent the misleading representations and
omissions, says the suit.

Plaintiff Mann purchased the Blue Diamond Smokehouse Almonds with
the statement, "Smokehouse," across a red ribbon with glowing
orange borders, above a fiery orange polygon, evocative of fire, in
one or more formats, such as cans or pouches, at stores in
Allegheny County between December 2020 and December 2023.

The Defendant is a California agricultural cooperative of almond
growers.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steffan T. Keeton, Esq.
          THE KEETON FIRM LLC
          100 S Commons, Ste. 102
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (888) 412-5291
          E-mail: stkeeton@keetonfirm.com

BOTTOM'S UP: McKenzie Seeks Restaurant Staff's Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA MCKENZIE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BOTTOM'S UP BEVERAGE OF FLORIDA, LLC and
JULIANN PETTICREW, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-14403 (S.D. Fla.,
Dec. 15, 2023) is an action against the Defendant arising under the
Fair Labor Standards Act for its failure to pay Plaintiff overtime
pay for all hours worked over 40 in one or more work weeks.

The Plaintiff worked as a restaurant staff at the Defendant's Sand
Ridge location from approximately May 2022 until approximately May
2023 and at The Manor location from approximately February 2023
through approximately May 2023.

Bottom's Up, LLC, amongst other things, owns and operates
restaurant facilities at two separate occasions: The Manor of
Meadowwood and Sand Ridge Golf Club.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Dennis Card, Jr., Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW ORGANIZATION, P.A.
          6231 PGA Blvd, Ste 104-1003
          Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418
          Telephone: (561) 822-3446
          Facsimile: (305) 574-0132
          E-mail: dennis@cloorg.com

BT GROUP: GBP1.3-Bil. Class Suit Over Overcharged Landline Begins
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Saf Malik of Capacity reports that the case begins on January 29,
2024 at the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) on behalf of over
three million customers.

More than three million people could receive GBP300-GBP400 if
Justin Le Patourel, the man representing the consumers in court
wins the case.

In 2017, Ofcom said that BT charged too much for home phones since
2015 and the company were made to lower their prices after that.

Le Patourel said: "We believe BT has been systematically
overcharging millions of customers over many years, and those
customers could be owed hundreds of pounds each."

"Time really is of the essence. More than 40% of our claimants are
aged over 70, and over 150 of them are dying every day. It really
is vital that BT should refund every one of them as soon as
possible."

BT has denied that the pricing at the time was "anti-competitive"
and would be "robustly defending our position at the trial".

Recruitment drive

This news comes as the firm announced it would recruit more than
500 more UK apprentices and graduates in 2024 - up from 400 in
2023.

The roles will span across areas such as engineering 5G, FTTP,
customer service, applied research, data analytics and
cybersecurity.

The new roles will be spread across a number of UK locations
including Belfast, Birmingham, Cardiff, Ipswich, Leeds, London,
Manchester and Sheffield.

"As one of the largest private sector employers of apprentices and
graduates in the UK, we continue to recruit and attract brilliant
people into our business and we offer unparalleled opportunities to
those who join us," said Elaine Bergin, director of colleague
experience at BT Group.

"As we build a better BT Group, we're developing a pipeline of
future talent to help grow our business, deliver great outcomes for
our customers and to help underpin economic growth in the UK." [GN]

CEDARS MEDITERRANEAN: Moore Sues Over Delivery Drivers' Unpaid OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHAUN MOORE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CEDARS MEDITERRANEAN FOODS, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:23-cv-13106-ADB (D. Mass., Dec. 15, 2023) seeks to
recover unpaid wages, overtime wages, plus interest, liquidated
damages and related penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Missouri Wage and Hour Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant maintained a common
policy of misclassifying its "last-mile" delivery drivers as
independent contractors, thereby failing to pay them at
time-and-a-half of their regular rate of pay for all hours worked
in excess of 40 in a workweek.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant in the position of
delivery driver from approximately June 2020 until May 12, 2023.

Cedars Mediterranean Foods, Inc. retails food products. The Company
offers products such as hommus, tzatziki, wraps, salads, salsa,
pita chips, spreads, dips, and yogurt. Cedars Mediterranean Foods
serves customers in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin Knox Steffans, Esq.
          STEFFANS LEGAL PLLC
          10 Wendell Ave. Ext. Suite 208
          Pittsfield, MA 01201
          Telephone: (413) 418-4176
          E-mail: bsteffans@steffanslegal.com

               - and -

          Edmund C. Celiesius, Esq.
          BROWN, LLC
          111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
          Jersey City, NJ 07310
          Telephone: (877) 561-0000
          E-mail: ed.celiesius@jtblawgroup.com

CHARGEPOINT HOLDINGS: Faces Smith Suit Over Drop in Share Price
---------------------------------------------------------------
COLBY SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CHARGEPOINT HOLDINGS, INC.; PASQUALE ROMANO;
and REX S. JACKSON, Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-00363 (N.D. Cal.,
Jan. 22, 2024) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities
that purchased or otherwise acquired ChargePoint securities between
December 7, 2021 and November 16, 2023, inclusive, seeking to
pursue claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint 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, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1)
the Company was experiencing higher component costs and supply
overruns for first generation DC charging products; (2) that, as a
result, the Company was likely to incur impairment charges; (3)
that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's profitability
would be adversely impacted; and (4) that, as a result of the
foregoing, the Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and
lacked a reasonable basis.

The Company's share price fell $1.11, or 35 percent, to close at
$2.02 per share on November 17, 2023, on unusually heavy trading
volume.

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

CHARGEPOINT HOLDINGS, INC. operates as a holding company. The
Company, through its subsidiaries, provides electric vehicle
charging solutions which enables the electrification of mobility
for all people and goods. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lucas E. Gilmore, Esq.
          Reed R. Kathrein, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 300
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725-3000
          Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
          Email: lucasg@hbsslaw.com
                 reed@hbsslaw.com

CLEVELAND-CLIFFS STEEL: Plaintiffs Seek Rule 23 Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOUIS CROCKER, DANIELLE
AND JASON CHARLES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. CLEVELAND-CLIFFS STEEL CORP. (d/b/a AK STEEL DEARBORN
WORKS), Case No. 4:21-cv-11937-SDK-CI (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order:

-- Granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification
pursuant
    to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23;

-- Appointing the Plaintiffs Louis Crocker, Danielle Charles, and
    Jason Charles as class representatives; and

-- Appoint the Plaintiffs' Counsel at Liddle Sheets Coulson as
Class
    Counsel.

The Plaintiffs request certification of a proposed class of:

   "all owner/occupants and renters of residential property
residing
   within one and a half (1.5) miles of the Steel Facility's
property
   boundary" pursuant to Rule 23(a), (b)(3), or in the alternative,

   (c)(4)."

Cleveland-Cliffs is a flat-rolled steel producer and supplier of
iron ore pellets.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 12, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SeH2Wr at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Laura L. Sheets, Esq.
          Steven D. Liddle, Esq.
          D. Reed Solt, Esq.
          LIDDLE SHEETS COULSON, PC
          975 E. Jefferson Avenue
          Detroit, MI 48207-3101
          Telephone: (313) 392-0015
          Facsimile: (313) 392-0025
          E-mail: lsheets@lsccounsel.com

COCA-COLA CO: Karabas Sues Over Mislabeled Fruit Juices, Drinks
---------------------------------------------------------------
METE KARABAS, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated,
and the general public, Plaintiff v. THE COCA-COLA COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-09218 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 15, 2023) is a
class action against the Defendant for alleged unfair and deceptive
business practices and false advertising of its products in
violation of the N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law and the New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act and for breach of express warranty, negligent
misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation, and unjust
enrichment.

According to the complaint, Coca-Cola exploits and deceptively
perpetuates the misperception that fruit juice is healthy by
marketing and labeling its Minute Maid juice and drink boxes as
being "Good for You!" and "Part of a Healthy, Balanced Diet." These
and other representations, together with Coca-Cola's omissions of
material facts are, however, false and misleading, because
consuming fruit juices and drinks like the products actually
increases the risk of chronic diseases, says the suit.

Plaintiff Mete Karabas purchased the products in New York while
residing in Brooklyn and is currently a resident of Hackensack, New
Jersey.

The Coca-Cola Company is an American multinational corporation that
manufactures, sells, and markets non-alcoholic beverage
concentrates and syrups, as well as alcoholic beverages.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
          FITZGERALD JOSEPH LLP
          2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Telephone: (619) 215-1741
          E-mail: jack@fitzgeraldjoseph.com

CUMMINS INC: Baker Files Suit Over Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------
TOM BAKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CUMMINS INC., N. THOMAS LINEBARGER, JENNIFER
RUMSEY, and MARK A. SMITH, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00369 (C.D.
Cal., January 15, 2024) is a class action on behalf of the
Plaintiff and other persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded Cummins securities between April 30, 2019
and December 21, 2023, inclusive, seeking to recover compensable
damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities
laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the Defendants materially made false
and/or misleading statements because they misrepresented and failed
to disclose the adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business,
operations and prospects, which were known to Defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1)
Contrary to its post-April 2019 Announcement assurances about its
commitment to compliance, Cummins continued to produce engines with
unlawful emission defeating devices from 2019 to 2023; (2)
accordingly, Cummins understated its legal and regulatory risk, and
overstated its commitment to environmental protection; and (3) as a
result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times, says the suit.

On this news, the price of Cummins stock fell by $7.01 per share,
or 2.87%, to close at $236.99 on December 22, 2023.

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

Cummins Inc. is an American multinational corporation that designs,
manufactures, and distributes engines, filtration and power
generation products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 785-2610
          Facsimile: (213) 226-4684
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

D.M. BASS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Chapman Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------
NICHOLAS CHAPMAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. D.M. BASS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 2:24-cv-00196-JCZ-DPC (E.D. La., Jan. 19, 2024) is an action
against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.

Plaintiff Chapman was employed by the Defendant as a laborer.

D.M. BASS, INC. provides logistics and self-perform project sizes
from residential to industrial applications. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth W. DeJean, Esq.
          Adam R. Credeur, Esq.
          Natalie M. DeJean, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH W. DEJEAN
          417 W. University Avenue
          P.O. Box 4325
          Lafayette, LA 70502
          Telephone: (337) 235-5294
          Facsimile: (337) 235-1095
          Email: kwdejean@kwdejean.com
                 adam@kwdejean.com
                 natalie@kwdejean.com

               - and -

          Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
          Melinda Arbuckle, Esq.
          WAGE AND HOUR FIRM
          5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700
          Dallas, Texas 75254
          Telephone: (214) 489-7653
          Facsimile: (469) 319-0317
          Email: rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com
                 marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com

DEMARCO BROS: Faces Cruz Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Cruz, Mynor Polanco and Carlos Vasquez, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. Demarco Bros
Landscaping & Tree Service Corp d/b/a Frank Giovinazzo Tree Service
d/b/a Frank Giovinazzo North Shore Tree Service d/b/a North Shore
Tree Service, and Theodore Passelis, Defendants, Case No.
2:23-cv-09200 (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 15, 2023) is a class action against
the Defendants for alleged unlawful labor practices in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the New
York State Human Rights Law

This complaint is filed by Plaintiffs against Defendants to
recover: a) overtime premium pay as required by FLSA, NYLL, and the
supporting New York State Codes, Rules and Regulations, 12 NYCRR;
b) statutory damages for wage statement violations of NYLL; c)
statutory damages for wage notice violations under NYLL; and d)
damages for national origin discrimination under the New York State
Human Rights Law.

Plaintiffs Cruz, Polanco, and Vasquez were employed by Demarco as
drivers and laborers from approximately 2006 until July 15, 2023,
from June 2022 until July 15, 2023, and from approximately March
2017 until July 15, 2023, respectively.

Demarco Bros Landscaping & Tree Service Corp. offers tree cutting
and removal services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Steven John Moser, Esq.
          MOSER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          5 E Main Street
          Huntington, NY 11743
          Telephone: (631) 824-0200
          E-mail: steven.moser@moserlawfirm.com

DRIVEN EQUITY: Taylor Sues Over Illegal CEO Approval Right
----------------------------------------------------------
BRUCE TAYLOR, Plaintiff v. DRIVEN EQUITY LLC, RC IV CAYMAN HOLDINGS
LLC, NEAL K. ARONSON, JONATHAN FITZPATRICK, CATHERINE HALLIGAN,
CHADWICK HUME, RICK PUCKETT, KAREN STROUP, PETER SWINBURN, MICHAEL
THOMPSON, and JOSE TOMAS, Defendants, and DRIVEN BRANDS HOLDINGS,
INC. Nominal Defendant, Case No. 2023-1256 (Del. Ch., Dec. 15,
2023) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, directly on
behalf of himself and all other similarly situated public
stockholders of nominal defendant Driven Brands, against the
Director Defendants and Driven Brands' controlling stockholders due
to alleged unlawful conduct.

The Plaintiff seeks declaratory relief invalidating a provision of
the Stockholders Agreement between Driven Brands and RC IV Cayman
ICW Holdings LLC ("RC IV" and collectively, with Driven Equity, the
"Roark Entities") dated January 15, 2021 that requires the
Company's board of directors to seek the Roark Entities' approval
to hire or fire the Company's Chief Executive Officer --
effectively ceding to the Roark Entities a veto right over the
Board's decision-making authority to control who serves as the
Company's Chief Executive Officer (the "CEO Approval Right").
Driven Brands is named as nominal defendant in its capacity as
signatory to the Stockholders Agreement.

The complaint asserts that the CEO Approval Right violates Section
141(a) of the Delaware General Corporation Law. Section 141(a)
provides that the "business and affairs" of every Delaware
corporation "shall be managed by or under the direction of a board
of directors, except as may be otherwise provided in this chapter
or in its certificate of incorporation."

Driven Brands Holdings, Inc. is an automotive services
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kimberly A. Evans, Esq.
          Lindsay K. Faccenda, Esq.
          Robert Erikson, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          3801 Kennett Pike, Suite C-305
          Wilmington, DE 19807
          Telephone: (302) 499-3600
          E-mail: kim@blockleviton.com
                  lindsay@blockleviton.com
                  robby@blockleviton.com

               - and -

          Joel Fleming, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 398-5600

DUNKIN DONUTS: Faces Suit Over Non-Dairy Milk Alternatives' Charges
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Lovebscott reports that according to Business Insider, a group of
10 plaintiffs across the U.S. have accused the coffee company of
charging an extra $0.50 to $2.15 for non-dairy milk alternatives in
drinks per a $5 million class action lawsuit filed last month in
the District Court in Northern California.

The plaintiffs — who are lactose intolerant and have milk
allergies — have all ordered beverages that contained non-dairy
milk such as soy, coconut, or almond milk from Dunkin' locations
since 2018 and suggest that extra charges for the alternatives are
discriminatory, citing the Americans with Disabilities Act.

According to ABC News, the plaintiffs paid surcharges in
California, New York, Texas, Colorado, Massachusetts, and Hawaii.

"It is medically necessary for persons like Plaintiffs to avoid
consuming drinks that contain milk," reads the lawsuit, per
Business Insider. "Plaintiffs will suffer adverse health effects if
they ingest milk or milk-containing products, including stomach
pain, digestive tract inflammation, bloating, bowel irregularities
and vomiting."

The suit also states that Dunkin' doesn't charge for other
accommodations to their customers. For example, the coffee giant
won't charge extra for caffeine-free drinks for individuals with
hypertension. The stores also have the option to remove sugar or
use sugar-free alternatives at no additional cost for customers
living with diabetes.

"Defendant's Surcharge is the same for all Non-Dairy Alternatives,
making no distinction among the costs of the various different
Non-Dairy Alternatives. In fact, Dunkin created a separate,
higher-priced menu, aimed at customers who cannot ingest milk,"
says the lawsuit.

In addition to the $5 million in damages, the plaintiffs also
demanded a jury trial, per ABC News.

On January 26, 2024, the Massachusetts-based company reportedly
filed a waiver that acknowledged the lawsuit and has until Mar. 4
to respond.

First exploding toilets, now this? Dunkin' has been going through
it. [GN]

DYCK-O'NEAL INC: Seeks Feb. 9 Extension for Class Certification Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FREDIS ANTONIO HERNANDEZ,
on behalf of himself and all similarly situated individuals, v.
DYCK-O'NEAL, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-01029-AJT-IDD (E.D. Va.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order enlarging the class
certification deadline until February 9, 2024.

Dyck O'Neal operates as a debt collection law firm.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 12, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pgC29P at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
          Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq.
          Casey S. Nash, Esq.
          J. Patrick McNichol, Esq.
          Matthew Rosendahl, Esq.
          KELLY GUZZO, PLC
          3925 Chain Bridge, Suite 202
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424-7572
          Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
          E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com
                  aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com
                  casey@kellyguzzo.com
                  pat@kellyguzzo.com
                  matt@kellyguzzo.com

EDGE OFS HOLDINGS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barrick Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL BARRICK; and SCOTT WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EDGE OFS HOLDINGS LLC;
and GLADIATOR ENERGY, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-00003 (W.D.
Tex., Jan. 19, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid
wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as inspectors.

EDGE OFS HOLDINGS LLC is an oilfield services platform that
operates in North American oil and gas basins. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Katherine Serrano, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
          400 N. St. Paul Street, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 210-2100
          Email: kserrano@foresterhaynie.com


ESSILORLUXOTTICA SA: Ringgold Sues Over Branded Eyewear Conspiracy
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pamela Ringgold, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. EssilorLuxottica S.A., Luxottica Group, S.p.A., Essilor
International SAS, EssilorLuxottica USA Inc., Luxottica U.S.
Holdings Corp., Essilor of America Holding Company, Inc., Luxottica
of America, Inc., Essilor of America Inc., EyeMed Vision Care, LLC,
Essilor Laboratories of America, Inc., and Vision Source, LP, Case
No. 7:24-cv-00510 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 24, 2024) alleges that the
Defendants conspired with Fashion Houses, other Competing Eyewear
Entities, and Third-Party Sellers to raise, fix, and stabilize the
price of Branded Eyewear in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendants formed a scheme to
create an illegal monopoly and to dominate the Eyewear market in
the United States. The Defendants have entered into unlawful
agreements to fix the price of Eyewear at supra-competitive rates.
As a result of the Scheme and Defendants' unlawful agreements,
patients and individuals in the United States have been overcharged
by the Defendants and the Defendants have obtained hundreds of
millions of dollars in supra-competitive, illegal profits. The suit
claims that EssilorLuxottica has monopoly power in the market for
Eyewear and it controls most Corrective Lens processing and
Corrective Lens fabricating equipment.

This is an action brought under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman
Act, 15 U.S.C. sections 1 & 2, and Section 16 of the Clayton Act,
15 U.S.C. section 26 for injunctive relief and under certain state
antitrust and consumer protection statutes based on
EssilorLuxottica's anticompetitive conduct to remedy the harm this
conduct has inflicted on hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of
consumers.

The Plaintiff purchased Ray-Ban frames and Essilor branded lenses,
from Davis Visionworks located in Garden City, New York in October
2021.

EssilorLuxottica is a vertically integrated, multinational,
corporate conglomerate that designs, manufactures, distributes, and
sells Eyewear, which is defined as eyeglasses, sunglasses, and
corrective lenses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sahil S. Koul, Esq.
          Richard M. Paul, III, Esq.
          Laura C. Fellows, Esq.
          PAUL LLP
          601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Telephone: (816) 984-8100
          Facsimile: (816) 984-8101
          E-mail: Sahil@PaulLLP.com
                  Rick@PaulLLP.com
                  Laura@PaulLLP.com

ESSILORLUXOTTICA SA: Rozo Sues Over Eyewear Market Monopoly
-----------------------------------------------------------
FREDERICK ROZO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ESSILORLUXOTTICA S.A., LUXOTTICA GROUP,
S.P.A., ESSILOR INTERNATIONAL SAS, ESSILORLUXOTTICA USA INC.,
LUXOTTICA U.S. HOLDINGS CORP., ESSILOR OF AMERICA HOLDING COMPANY,
INC., LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA, INC., ESSILOR OF AMERICA INC., AND
EYEMED VISION CARE, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 0:23-cv-03822 (D.
Minn., Dec. 15, 2023) is an action brought under Sections 1 and 2
of the federal Sherman Act and Section 3 of the Clayton Act to
restrain anticompetitive conduct by EssilorLuxottica and to remedy
the harms of its anticompetitive scheme.

According to the complaint, EssilorLuxottica has abused, and
continues to abuse, its monopoly power by preventing, delaying,
excluding, or otherwise restraining or suppressing retail
competition in the Premium-Branded Eyewear Market, in the United
States to impose supra-competitive prices in the Premium-Branded
Eyewear Market. The Plaintiff and the Class have paid, and continue
to pay, supra-competitive prices for Premium-Branded Eyewear
purchased directly from EssilorLuxottica, says the suit.

Through its unlawful conduct, EssilorLuxottica has insulated its
Proprietary Brands, Licensed Fashion House Brands, and the brands
of Premium-Branded Eyewear Competitors from price competition,
allowing EssilorLuxottica to charge artificially high prices in the
Premium-Branded Eyewear Market that has been, and continues to be,
higher than it would be, but for its monopolization, restraint of
trade, price coordination, and unlawful conduct, the suit asserts.

The Plaintiff and the Class are threatened with impending future
harm in the form of additional overcharges if EssilorLuxottica's
anticompetitive conduct is not enjoined.

EssilorLuxottica S.A. engages in the design, manufacture, and sales
of ophthalmic lenses and instruments.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lindsey Davis, Esq.
          James S. Dugan, Esq.
          ZELLE LLP
          500 Washington Avenue South, Suite 4000
          Minneapolis, MN 55415
          Telephone: (612) 339-2020
          Facsimile: (612) 336-9100
          E-mail: ldavis@zellelaw.com
                  jdugan@zellelaw.com

               - and -

          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

FINCANTIERI MARINE: Fails to Secure Employees' Info, Malvitz Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CRYSTAL MALVITZ, on behalf of herself individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. FINCANTIERI MARINE GROUP, LLC,
Case No. 1:24-cv-00238 (D.D.C., Jan. 26, 2024) is a class action
arising out of the recent cyberattack and data breach that was a
direct result of the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and
reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to
protect employees' and their beneficiaries' personally identifiable
information.

The PII compromised in the Data Breach included the Plaintiff's and
Class Members' names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers,
dates of service, (insurance) participant IDs, and members numbers,
the suit asserts.

As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's conduct, the
Plaintiff and approximately 16,000 Class Members, suffered concrete
injury, including invasion of privacy; lost or diminished value of
PII; lost time and opportunity costs associated with attempting to
mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; experiencing
an increase in spam calls, texts, and/or emails; and the continued
and certainly increased risk to their PII. Additionally, the
Plaintiff and Class Members have been exposed to a present and
continuing risk of fraud and identity theft, says the suit.

The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those
similarly situated to address the Defendant's inadequate
safeguarding of the Class Members' PII that it collected and
maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice
to that Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information
had been subject to the unauthorized access by an unknown third
party and precisely what specific type of information was
accessed.

The Plaintiff seeks remedies including compensatory damages and
injunctive relief, including improvements to the Defendant's data
security systems, future annual audits, and adequate credit
monitoring services funded by the Defendant.

The Defendant is a company that builds, repairs and sustains
Maritime Vessels.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David K. Lietz, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
          PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 440
          Washington, DC 20015-2052
          Telephone: (866) 252-0878
          Facsimile: (202) 686-2877
          E-mail: dlietz@milberg.com

FLINT, MI: Court Refused to Block Targeted Ads in Water Crisis Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Beth LeBlanc of The Detroit News reports that a federal judge
overseeing litigation against Flint water consultants hired prior
to the city's water crisis has rejected a request to bar one of the
companies, Veolia North America, from targeting jurors with social
media communication regarding the case.

U.S. District Court Judge Judith Levy acknowledged Jan. 22 that
there was a concern by plaintiffs' lawyers that Veolia North
America would target jurors with social media posts or
advertisements about the case. But she declined to block the
company from doing so, noting such an order may infringe on First
Amendment rights and that, as of yet, she hadn't seen enough
evidence to prove there was ever targeted advertising toward
jurors, according to transcripts from a January 22, 2024 hearing.

"I learned that they were not. That there isn't evidence to show
that that happened," Levy said of allegations Veolia was targeting
specific jurors with social media ads about the case.

"And certainly there was nothing attached to this motion from
plaintiffs that would add to the body of knowledge about that."

Veolia celebrated the statement, arguing it cleared them of the
"desperate attempt" to lay blame on the company after an initial
bellwether trial against Veolia ended in a mistrial in 2022.

"VNA will continue to use our First Amendment right to share the
truth about this tragedy and the government officials who lied
about, hid from, and ignored the crisis for nearly a year and a
half," the company said in a January 24, 2024 statement.

Levy's on January 22, 2024 statement came after The Detroit News
reported in September 2022 that Veolia ramped up a digital
advertising campaign to push information on the company's innocence
in late 2021 ahead of jury selection in a multimillion-dollar civil
lawsuit over the firm's culpability in the Flint water crisis.
Plaintiffs' attorneys raised concerns about whether the timing was
meant to target the prospective jury pool or judge, but Veolia
denied targeting any specific state or region.

A judge declared a mistrial in the bellwether case in August 2022
after jurors deadlocked on whether Veolia and Lockwood, Andrews &
Newnam (LAN) carried some blame for Flint's water becoming tainted
with lead in 2014-15.

Jury selection is underway in a separate but related class-action
lawsuit brought by adults and property owners in Flint.

In preparation for the current trial, Levy was asked in November by
plaintiffs' counsel to block Veolia North America or anyone acting
on its behalf from "directing micro-focused social and digital
media advertisement to potential jurors and empaneled jurors,
including but no limited to a social media campaign addressing
actions related to the Flint Water Crisis."

"Class plaintiffs request that the court prohibit VNA from social
and digital media advertising as to its views of the case in the
counties from which jurors are summoned in this judicial division
until trial's end," the request said. "The jury should reach its
verdict based only on evidence and arguments made in court."

In a hearing on the motion last January 22, 2024, attorney Theodore
Leopold said he was concerned the defendant would "micro-target"
the six counties from which jurors will be pulled for the case.

"We're not seeking a broad brush total shutdown of their social
media or anything of that sort, but in those particular areas, we
are concerned about what is alleged at least from the earlier trial
that they micro-targeted those particular areas in social media and
other aspects," Leopold said. "And we would like to prevent that.
We're just seeking a level playing field here."

Kelly Kramer, an attorney for Veolia North America, argued case law
dictated that the type of gag order plaintiffs were requesting
couldn't be granted "without finding that there is a serious and
imminent threat to a fair trial." The allegations brought by
plaintiffs don't meet that standard, Kramer said.

The only paid advertisement the company has, Kramer said, is a
Google ad that's been running for several years all across North
America and not concentrated to any region. The ads, the Veolia
attorney argued, largely don't appear unless someone is researching
the case, which jurors are instructed not to do.

The exposure to the ad in the six counties at issue is minor,
Kramer added.

"I think the number is something like 600 clicks within the venire
of the six counties all time, and only 83 during the bellwether
trial," Kramer said.

Levy ultimately ruled that she'd seen no evidence of targeted juror
advertisement. And prohibitions on the types of advertisements
Veolia could engage in, Levy said, stepped crosswise with free
speech rights.

"Imposing a gag order on general statements about the case or about
the progress of the trial that specifically, if I understand it,
are not coming from lawyers but are coming from the public
relations people at VNA, I think would be an unconstitutional
required restraint on speech," Levy said.

The judge asked the lawyers to keep her updated on any actions that
could prejudice a jury and said she'd "keep an eye on that
throughout the case." Levy also said she planned to remind jurors
repeatedly not to research the case. [GN]

HAUSBECK PICKLE: Henderson Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK HENDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HAUSBECK PICKLE COMPANY, INC., a
Michigan corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-10096-LVP-CI
(E.D. Mich., January 12, 2024) arises from the Defendant's
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing to pay
Plaintiff and others similarly situated required overtime.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendant from approximately June 2022
through October 24, 2023 as a non-exempt, hourly employee. He
asserts that he and those similarly situated have regularly worked
in excess of 40 hours a week and have been paid some overtime for
those hours but at a rate that does not include Defendant's
non-discretionary bonuses as required by the FLSA.

Hausbeck Pickle Company, Inc. is a manufacturer of pickles and
peppers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jesse L. Young, Esq.
          SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
          141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600
          Kalamazoo, MI 49007
          Telephone: (269) 250-7500
          E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

HERSHEY CREAMERY: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Henriquez Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDEN HENRIQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HERSHEY CREAMERY COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 601205/2024 (N.Y. Sup., Nassau Cty., Jan. 22,
2024) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs.

Plaintiff Henriquez was employed by the Defendant as a staff.

HERSHEY CREAMERY COMPANY manufactures ice cream, including
hand-dipped, pre-packaged, and novelty items. The Company sells its
products to consumers, retailers, schools, institutions, and other
customers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873-9550

HONEYWELL INT'L: Plaintiffs Seek Leave to File Exhibits Under Seal
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROGER STEWARD, SAUNDRA
STEWARD, CLYDE SCHMIDT, JOAN SCHMIDT, TIM BECK, CHARLOTTE BECK,
RANDY
LANGFORD, BRENDA LANGFORD, TODD FAULKNER, KIM FAULKNER, Illinois
residents, on behalf of themselves individually and all others
similarly situated, v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. a Delaware
corporation, individually and as successor-in-interest to
Allied-Signal, Inc., Case No. 3:18-cv-01124-SMY (S.D. Ill.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for
leave to file Exhibits 3 through 37 to their Motion for Class
Certification and
Memorandum in Support under seal.

In Nov. 2022, the Plaintiffs and Honeywell International entered
into a Stipulated Revised Confidentiality and Export Control Order.
The Plaintiffs and their attorneys agreed that documents produced
pursuant to this Agreement and designated as confidential would be
treated as confidential by the parties.

Honeywell is an American publicly traded, multinational
conglomerate corporation.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 12, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yb2Dpw at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
          111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 750-1265
          Facsimile: (312) 212-5919
          E-mail: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com
                  kshamberg@carlsonlynch.com

                - and -

          James F. Clayborne, Jr., Esq.
          CLAYBORNE, SABO AND WAGNER LLP
          525 W. Main Street, Suite 105
          Belleville, IL 62220
          Telephone: (618) 239-0187
          Facsimile: (618) 416-7556
          E-mail: jclayborne@cswlawllp.com

                - and -

          Richard Kruger, Esq.
          Paul Henry, Esq.
          KRUGER, HENRY AND HUNTER, LLC
          110 W. Fifth Street
          Metropolis, IL 62960
          Telephone: (618) 524-9302
          Facsimile: (618) 524-9305
          E-mail: khh@khhlaw.com
                  phenry@khhlaw.com

                - and -

          Celeste Brustowicz, Esq.
          Stuart H. Smith, Esq.
          Stephen H. Wussow, Esq.
          Victor Cobb, Esq.
          COOPER LAW FIRM, LLC
          1525 Religious Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 399-0009
          E-mail: cbrustowicz@sch-llc.com
                  swussow@sch-llc.com

                - and -

          Kevin W. Thompson, Esq.
          David R. Barney, Jr., Esq.
          THOMPSON BARNEY
          2030 Kanawha Boulevard, East
          Charleston, WV 25311
          Telephone: (304) 343-4401
          Facsimile: (304) 343-4405
          E-mail: kwthompsonwv@gmail.com
                  drbarneywv@gmail.com

                - and -

          Ron A. Austin, Esq.
          Catherine Hilton, Esq.
          RON AUSTIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          920 Fourth Street
          Gretna, LA 70053
          Telephone: (504) 227-8100
          Facsimile: (504) 227-8122
          E-mail: raustin@ronaustinlaw.com

HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Steward Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROGER STEWARD, CLYDE
SCHMIDT, JOAN SCHMIDT, TIM BECK, CHARLA BECK, RANDY LANGFORD,
BRENDA LANGFORD, TODD FAULKNER, KIM FAULKNER, Illinois residents,
on behalf of themselves individually and all others similarly
situated, v. HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. a Delaware corporation,
individually and as successor-in-interest to Allied-Signal, Inc.,
Case No. 3:18-cv-01124-SMY (S.D. Ill.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court that the case be certified as a class action under Rules
23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3).

The Plaintiffs and Putative Class Representatives move this
Honorable Court to grant this motion to certify this matter as a
Class Action, appoint Class Representatives and appoint James
Clayborne, Jr., Katrina Carroll, Ron Austin, Paul Henry, Richard
Kruger and Kevin Thompson as Class Counsel.

This motion is brought on behalf of a putative property damage
class and a putative medical monitoring class of persons who have a
possessory interest or who occupy real property in the Class Area
described in the Class Map.

In addition to monetary and punitive damages, the Plaintiffs seek
injunctive relief to: 1) remediate their properties (2) implement
medical monitoring, (3) independently monitor Honeywell’s
emissions, 4) reduce emissions and 5) make relocation available.

The Plaintiffs propose ascertainable classes pursuant to Rule 23:

  -- Property Damage Class

     "All non-governmental legal persons who currently own real
     property within the boundaries of the Class Area depicted by
the
     Class Area Line on Exhibit 1 and who occupy or have a
possessory
     interest in said property."

     The Plaintiffs Roger Steward, Clyde Schmidt, Joan Schmidt, Tim

     Beck, Charla Beck, Randy Langford, Brenda Langford, Todd
     Faulkner, and Kim Faulkner shall represent this class.

  -- Medical Monitoring Class

     "All real persons within the boundaries of the Class Area
     depicted by the Class Area Line on Exhibit 1 who currently own

     and occupy real property or who provide proof they occupied  
     property within said boundaries for more than one year since
the  
     Defendant began operations."

     The Plaintiffs Roger Steward, Clyde Schmidt, Joan Schmidt,
Tim
     Beck, Charla Beck, Randy Langford, Brenda Langford, Todd
     Faulkner, and Kim Faulkner shall represent this class.

     Excluded from both classes are 1) Honeywell (including
     Honeywell's officers, directors, agents, employees, and
members
     of their immediate families), and any entity in which
Honeywell
     has a controlling interest, and legal representatives, heirs,
and
     assigns of Honeywell; and 2) judicial officers to whom this
case
     is assigned, staff, and members of their immediate families.

Honeywell is an American publicly traded, multinational
conglomerate.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 12, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3OmwbJ4 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
          111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 750-1265
          Facsimile: (312) 212-5919
          E-mail: kcarroll@carlsonlynch.com
                  kshamberg@carlsonlynch.com

                - and -

          James F. Clayborne, Jr., Esq.
          CLAYBORNE, SABO AND WAGNER LLP
          525 W. Main Street, Suite 105
          Belleville, IL 62220
          Telephone: (618) 239-0187
          Facsimile: (618) 416-7556
          E-mail: jclayborne@cswlawllp.com

                - and -

          Richard Kruger, Esq.
          Paul Henry, Esq.
          KRUGER, HENRY AND HUNTER, LLC
          110 W. Fifth Street
          Metropolis, IL 62960
          Telephone: (618) 524-9302
          Facsimile: (618) 524-9305
          E-mail: khh@khhlaw.com
                  phenry@khhlaw.com

                - and -

          Celeste Brustowicz, Esq.
          Stuart H. Smith, Esq.
          Stephen H. Wussow, Esq.
          Victor Cobb, Esq.
          COOPER LAW FIRM, LLC
          1525 Religious Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 399-0009
          E-mail: cbrustowicz@sch-llc.com
                  swussow@sch-llc.com

                - and -

          Kevin W. Thompson, Esq.
          David R. Barney, Jr., Esq.
          THOMPSON BARNEY
          2030 Kanawha Boulevard, East
          Charleston, WV 25311
          Telephone: (304) 343-4401
          Facsimile: (304) 343-4405
          E-mail: kwthompsonwv@gmail.com
                  drbarneywv@gmail.com

                - and -

          Ron A. Austin, Esq.
          Catherine Hilton, Esq.
          RON AUSTIN & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          920 Fourth Street
          Gretna, LA 70053
          Telephone: (504) 227-8100
          Facsimile: (504) 227-8122
          E-mail: raustin@ronaustinlaw.com

INDIANA COUNTY, IN: Court Certifies Child Transition Ban Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Bonilla Muñiz of Local Digital News reports that a federal
judge has granted class action certification in a lawsuit
challenging Indiana's recent ban on transition-related care for
Hoosier youth diagnosed with gender dysphoria.

U.S. District Court Judge James Patrick Hanlon certified three
classes -- for minor patients, their parents, and their medical
providers -- plus two subclasses for patients and providers using
Medicaid.

Hanlon, of the Southern District of Indiana, issued a preliminary
injunction in June mostly blocking enforcement of the ban. He
upheld a prohibition on surgical procedures, but court filings and
public testimony at the Statehouse last year indicated Hoosier
children aren't receiving such operations.

Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb approved Senate Enrolled Act 480 in April
2023. The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed suit
almost immediately.

The plaintiffs include four transgender children, their parents,
Goshen-based family practice physician Dr. Catherine Bast, and her
employer Mosaic Health and Healing Arts. The defendants are
Indiana's Medical Licensing Board and a variety of state
officials.

Hanlon applied a four-part case law test in making his decision
which you can read more about in this Indiana Capital Chronicle
article, here. [GN]

INTRUSION INC: $3.25MM Class Settlement to be Heard on April 3
--------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

NATHAN PRAWITT, derivatively on behalf
of INTRUSION, INC.,
Plaintiff

JACK B. BLOUNT, MICHAEL L. PAXTON,
B. FRANKLIN BYRD, P. JOE HEAD, GARY
DAVIS, JAMES F. GERO, ANTHONY
SCOTT, ANTHONY J. LEVECCHIO,
KATRINKA B. MCCALLUM, JAMIE M.
SCHNUR, GREGORY K. WILSON,
Defendants,

-and INTRUSION, INC.,
Nominal Defendant

NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF ACTION

TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO HELD SHARES OF COMMON STOCK OF
INTRUSION, INC., EITHER OF RECORD OR BENEFICIALLY, AS OF
SEPTEMBER 28, 2023

IF YOU HOLD COMMON STOCK OF INTRUSION, INC. FOR THE
BENEFIT OF ANOTHER, PLEASE PROMPTLY TRANSMIT THIS
DOCUMENT TO SUCH BENEFICIAL OWNER.

The purpose of this Notice is to inform you of (i) the pendency of
the above-captioned action (the "Action"), which was brought in the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the
"Court") by a stockholder of Intrusion, Inc. ("Intrusion" or the
"Company") asserting claims derivatively on behalf of the Company;
(ii) the proposed settlement of the Action (the "Settlement"),
subject to Court approval as provided for in a Stipulation of
Compromise and Settlement dated September 28, 2023 (the
"Stipulation"), which was filed with the Court and is publicly
available for review; and (iii) your right to participate in a
hearing to be held on April 3, 2024, at 10:00 a.m., before the
Honorable Maryellen Noreika, at the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware, J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building, 844 N. King
Street, Courtroom 4A, Wilmington, DE 19801-3555 (the "Settlement
Hearing"). The purposes of the Settlement Hearing are to determine
whether the Court should: (i) approve the proposed Settlement as
fair, reasonable and adequate; (ii) dismiss the Action with
prejudice; (iii) enter an Order and Final Judgment approving the
Settlement; (iv) approve a petition for an award of attorneys' fees
and expenses to counsel for plaintiff Nathan Prawitt ("Plaintiff")
in the Action; (v) approve an application for a Plaintiff Service
Award to Plaintiff in the Action; and (vi) hear and determine any
objections to the Settlement, Plaintiff's counsel's application for
attorneys' fees and expenses, or to Plaintiffs' application for a
service award.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY.
THIS NOTICE RELATES TO A PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF THE
LITIGATION REFERRED TO IN THE CAPTION AND CONTAINS
IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING YOUR RIGHTS. IF THE
COURT APPROVES THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, YOU WILL BE
FOREVER BARRED FROM CONTESTING THE FAIRNESS,
REASONABLENESS OR ADEQUACY OF THE PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT, AND FROM PURSUING THE RELEASED CLAIMS (AS
DEFINED BELOW).

The Stipulation was entered into as of September 28, 2023 by and
among (i) Plaintiff; (ii) defendants Jack B. Blount, Michael L.
Paxton, B. Franklin Byrd, P. Joe Head, Gary Davis, James F. Gero,
Anthony Scott, Anthony J. Levecchio, Katrinka B. McCallum, Jamie M.
Schnur, and Gregory K. Wilson (collectively, the "Individual
Defendants"); and (iii) nominal defendant Intrusion (together with
the Individual Defendants, "Defendants"). Plaintiffs and Defendants
are collectively referred to herein as the "Parties."

This Notice describes the rights you may have in the Action and
pursuant to the Stipulation and what steps you may take, but are
not required to take, in relation to the Settlement. If the Court
approves the Settlement, the Parties will ask the Court at the
Settlement Hearing to enter an Order and Final Judgment dismissing
the Action with prejudice in accordance with the terms of the
Stipulation.

This Action was brought as a shareholder derivative action on
behalf of the Company. The benefits of the Settlement will go to
the Company. Other than any award by the Court of attorneys' fees
and expenses to Plaintiff's counsel or service award to Plaintiff,
there are no monetary payments under the Settlement.

On April 16, 2021, a securities class action, Celeste v. Intrusion,
Inc. et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00307 (E.D. Tex.), was filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, for
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act"). On May 14, 2021, a second securities class action, Neely v.
Intrusion, Inc. et al., was filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas, also alleging violations
of the Exchange Act. On November 23, 2021, the securities class
actions were consolidated (the "Securities Action") and, on
February 7, 2022, an amended complaint was filed in the Securities
Action (the "Securities Complaint"). On April 13, 2022, the
Securities Action was stayed to permit the parties to file a motion
for preliminary approval of class action settlement.

On June 3, 2022, Plaintiff filed the Verified Stockholder
Derivative Complaint in the Action, alleging violation of the Sec.
10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, as well as state law
claims for breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, and waste
of corporate assets against the Individual Defendants on behalf of
the Company.

On December 16, 2022, the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas entered a Final Judgment approving the
settlement of the Securities Action which, inter alia, provided for
the payment of $3,250,000 in cash to the members of the class.

On December 20, 2022, Plaintiff and Defendants (collectively, the
"Parties") filed a Stipulation and Proposed Order Staying Case to
stay the Action for sixty (60) days to permit counsel for the
Parties an opportunity to meet and confer about how to proceed and
submit a proposed schedule for the Court's consideration. That
Proposed Order was granted the same day. Thereafter, the Court
entered Orders extending the stay to permit the Parties to discuss
possible settlement of the Action.

In or about January 2023, the Parties commenced arm's-length
negotiations concerning a possible resolution of the Action. After
approximately seven (7) months of arduous negotiations, the Parties
reached an agreement-in-principle to fully resolve all claims in
the Action on or about July 21, 2023.

The Parties executed the Stipulation on September 28, 2023.

Concurrent with seeking final approval of the Settlement,
Plaintiff's Counsel intend to petition the Court for an award of
attorneys' fees and litigation expenses, which is no greater than
two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000.00) (the "Fee and
Expense Award"). Any Fee and Expense Award will be paid by
Intrusion. Defendants and Intrusion will not object to or otherwise
take any position on the Fee and Expense Application, provided that
it does not seek an amount in aggregate in excess of two hundred
and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000.00).

Plaintiff's Counsel also intend to apply to the Court for a service
award to Plaintiff for the time and expenses they expended in the
prosecution of the Actions of up to two thousand dollars
($2,000.00) for Plaintiff to be payable from the fees and expenses
the Court awards to Plaintiff's Counsel in connection with the Fee
and Expense Award (the "Plaintiff Service Award"). Defendants and
Intrusion take no position on the Plaintiff Service Award.

Any award to Plaintiff's Counsel for fees and expenses and any
service award to Plaintiff shall be determined by the Court.

The Court will consider the Settlement and all matters related to
the Settlement at the Settlement Hearing. The Settlement Hearing
will be held before The Honorable Maryellen Noreika on April 3,
2024 at 10:00 a.m., United States District Court, J. Caleb Boggs
Federal Building,844 N. King Street, Wilmington, Delaware
19801-3555, Courtroom 4A, or as may be undertaken via a remote
proceeding such as Zoom or by telephone. Any current shareholder
who objects to the Settlement, the Attorneys' Fee and Expense
Application by Plaintiff's Counsel, or Plaintiffs' Service Award
Application, or who otherwise wishes to be heard, may appear in
person or through his, her, or its attorney at the Settlement
Hearing and present any evidence or argument that may be proper and
relevant; provided, however, that no such person shall be heard or
entitled to contest the approval of the terms and conditions of the
Settlement, or, if approved, the Order and Final Judgment to be
entered thereon, or the allowance of fees and expenses to
Plaintiff's Counsel, or otherwise be heard with respect to the
matters considered at the Settlement Hearing unless, no later than
twenty (20) calendar days before the Settlement Hearing, such
person files with the Clerk of the Court, United States District
Court, J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building,844 N. King Street,
Wilmington, Delaware 19801-3555, the following: (a) proof of
ownership of the Company's stock as of October 14, 2020 and
continuously to the present; (b) a written and signed notice of the
Objector's intention to appear, which states the name, address and
telephone number of the Objector and, if represented, his, her, or
its counsel; (c) a detailed statement of the objections to any
matter before the Court; and (d) a detailed statement of all of the
grounds thereon and the reasons for the Objector's desire to appear
and to be heard, as well as all documents or writings which the
Objector desires the Court to consider. Any such filings with the
Court must also be served upon each of the following counsel (by
e-service, hand, or overnight mail) such that they are received no
later than twenty (20) calendar days prior to the Settlement
Hearing:

Herbert W. Mondros
Timothy J. MacFall
RIGRODSKY LAW, P.A.
300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 210
Wilmington, DE 19801
(302) 295-5310
hwm@rl-legal.com
tjm@rl-legal.com
Counsel for Plaintiff Nathan Prawitt

Steven T. Margolin
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1600
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 661-7376

David Klaudt
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 5200
Dallas, Texas 75201
Telephone: (214) 665-3616
Email: David.Klaudt@gtlaw.com
Counsel for Individual Defendant Jack B. Blount
Andrew Dupre

MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP
Renaissance Centre
405 North King Street, 8th Floor
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Telephone: (302) 984-6328
Email: adupre@mccarter.com
Counsel for Nominal Defendant Intrusion, Inc. and Individual
Defendants

Michael L. Paxton, B. Franklin Byrd, P. Joe Head, Gary Davis, James
Gero, Anthony Scott, Anthony J. LeVecchio, Katrinka B. McCallum,
Jamie M. Schnur, and Gregory K. Wilson
Counsel for Intrusion

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
HONORABLE MARYELLEN NOREIKA
Dated: December 21, 2023


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Hall Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson, et al., filed an appeal from the District
Court's Order dated December 29, 2023 entered in the lawsuit styled
FRANK HALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et al., Case No.
3:18-cv-01833-ZNQ-TJB, in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey.

The suit, filed on February 8, 2018, seeks to recover compensable
damages caused by violations of the federal securities laws and to
pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Johnson and Johnson talc products, such as its Baby Powder,
allegedly include asbestos fibers and that the exposure to those
fibers can cause ovarian cancer and mesothelioma. On this news,
shares of Johnson and Johnson fell $7.29 per share or over 5% from
its previous closing price to close at $130.39 per share on
February 5, 2018, damaging investors, including the Plaintiff.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Hon. Judge
Zahid N. Quraishi entered an Order on December 29, 2023, granting a
motion for class certification. The court certified the class
defined as "All persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded J&J equity securities, as defined in 15 U.S.C.
section 78c(11) and 17 C.F.R. section 240.3a11-1, between February
22, 2013 and December 13, 2018." The following will be excluded
from the class: defendants, present or former executive officers of
defendants and members of their immediate families, present or
former directors of defendants and members of their immediate
families, any entity in which a defendant has a controlling
interest, and the legal representatives, heirs, successors or
assigns of any such excluded party.

The appellate case is captioned as Frank Hall, et al. v. Johnson &
Johnson, et al., Case No. 24-8001, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on January 12, 2024.[BN]

Defendants-Petitioners JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et al., are represented
by:

          Neil H. Conrad, Esq.
          Robert N. Hochman, Esq.
          Kristen R. Seeger, Esq.
          John M. Skakun, II, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN
          One S Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 853-7000
    
               - and -

          Jack N. Frost, Jr., Esq.
          FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH
          600 Campus Drive
          Florham Park, NJ 07932
          Telephone: (973) 549-7338

Plaintiffs-Respondents SAN DIEGO CITY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM
and FRANK HALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, are represented by:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700

LAKEVIEW LOAN: Agree to Settle Convenience Fee Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that a proposed settlement has been
reached in a class action lawsuit that claimed Nationstar Mortgage,
doing business as Mr. Cooper and Lakeview Loan Servicing LLC,
violated the law by collecting an unauthorized convenience fee for
mortgage payments made over the phone.

The settlement class comprises all individuals in Maryland who paid
a "convenience fee" collected in whole or in part by Mr. Cooper or
Lakeview to make a payment on a residential mortgage debt from
April 15, 2019, to the present.

The term "convenience fee" was not specifically enumerated in the
original agreement between class members and Mr. Cooper. The
plaintiff alleges that this action violates the Maryland Consumer
Debt Collection Act (MCDCA) and the Maryland Consumer Protection
Act (MCPA). After the lawsuit was filed, the Maryland Commissioner
of Financial Regulation affirmed this sentiment, stating in a
notice that these fees would be deemed illegal if they were not
"specifically authorized by the applicable loan documents" before
being charged.

Mr. Cooper Group is an umbrella corporation that holds companies
like Nationstar Mortgages LLC, one of the largest mortgage
servicers in the country. As of September, Mr. Cooper had more than
4.3 million customers throughout the United States.

Lakeview Loan Servicing LLC assists more than 1.4 million customers
annually. It is the fourth-largest mortgage loan servicer in the
country.

Between April 15, 2019, and April 15, 2022, Mr. Cooper collected
65,894 instances of convenience fees, totaling $982,907.22. The
company has denied all wrongdoing but agreed to a settlement to
resolve the class action lawsuit.

Customers may have already had certain amounts refunded to them. If
the proposed settlement is approved, Mr. Cooper will donate $37,200
to Habitat for Humanity and the Housing Initiative Partnership; 50%
will go to each charity organization. The company will also pay the
class counsel's legal fees of $114,240.

Class members will not receive any benefits for taking part in the
settlement.

The deadline for exclusion and objection is Feb. 14, 2024.

A final approval hearing in the Mr. Cooper and Lakeview Loan
Servicing settlement will take place March 15, 2024.

Who's Eligible
All individuals in Maryland who paid a "convenience fee" collected
in whole or in part by Mr. Cooper or Lakeview to make a payment on
a residential mortgage debt from April 15, 2019, to the present.

Potential Award
N/A

Proof of Purchase
N/A

Address Change Form
CLICK HERE TO UPDATE ADDRESS »
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.

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.

Exclusion Deadline
02/14/2024

Case Name
Tonda Baxter v. Lakeview Loan Servicing LLC, et al., Case No.
C-02-CV-22-000654, in the Circuit Court of Pulaski County,
Arkansas

Final Hearing
03/15/24

Settlement Website
BaxterConvenienceFeeSettlement.com

Claims Administrator
N/A

Class Counsel
Phillip R Robinson
CONSUMER LAW CENTER LLC

David Hoskins
LAW OFFICES OF E DAVID HOSKINS LLC

Defense Counsel
N/A [GN]

LASALLE CORRECTIONS: Class Cert. Bid in Powell Due March 27
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEADRA POWELL,
Individually and for Others Similarly Situated, v. LASALLE
CORRECTIONS, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00391-DCJ-KDM (W.D. La.), the
Hon. Judge Kayla D. Mcclusky entered an order granting the
Defendant LaSalle Corrections unopposed motion to continue
preliminary discovery deadlines.

The deadlines set for in this Court's Discovery Order are hereby
reset as follows:

-- Deadline for Completion of Pre-Notice Discovery:   March 13,
2024

-- Deadline to Move for Class Certification:          March 27,
2024

LaSalle is an established developer and operator of correctional
centers throughout the States of Louisiana, Texas, New Mexico,
Arizona, and Georgia.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 12, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6gQRSF at no extra
charge.[CC]



LAZER SPOT: Ruthven Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
NATE RUTHVEN and DANIELLE HARMON, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LAZER SPOT, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00359 (N.D. Ill., January 15, 2024) is
a class action brought against the Defendant under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Missouri Minimum Wage Law, and the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law to recover Plaintiffs' unpaid earned overtime
compensation and for other relief.

According to the complaint, both Plaintiffs Ruthven and Harmon were
paid by the Defendant on an hourly basis during their employment.
The Defendant did not pay them time-and-a-half their regular rate
of pay for time worked in excess of 40 hours in given workweeks,
say the Plaintiffs.

The Plaintiffs were employed as yard spotters for the benefit and
at the direction of Defendant whose duties include driving a
spotter truck and/or day cab within the distribution center to and
from loading doors.

Lazer Spot, Inc. provides yard management services and
solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          Anna M. Ceragioli, Esq.
          Justin M. Carparco, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          222 West Adams Street, Suite 2020
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550
          Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
          E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                  rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  aceragioli@stephanzouras.com
                  jcarparco@stephanzouras.com

LUNDBECK LLC: MSP Recovery Appeals Ruling in RICO Suit to 4th Cir.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC, et al., filed an appeal
from the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated January 3, 2024
entered in the lawsuit styled MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, et
al., Plaintiffs v. LUNDBECK LLC, et al., Defendants, Civil Action
No. 3:22-cv-422-HEH, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia at Richmond.

The case is brought by purported purchasers of third-party
healthcare payors' claims. At issue is whether a pharmaceutical
manufacturer, Lundbeck; a data analysis company, Theracom LLC; and
a now defunct patient assistance nonprofit charity, Caring Voice
Coalition, Inc. ("CVC") (collectively, "Defendants") worked in
concert to artificially inflate the unit price and quantity
dispensed of Xenazine -- a specialty drug used to treat symptoms
associated with Huntington's Disease.

Lundbeck manufactures specialty neuroscience medications including
Xenazine, a medication used to treat chorea (involuntary muscle
movement) associated with Huntington's Disease. Xenazine was the
only drug specifically "indicated" to treat that disease until
2015, when generic competitors entered the market. CVC was a
nonprofit charity created to assist qualifying patients afford the
prescription co-pay obligations imposed by the patients'
third-party insurance companies. CVC is now defunct. Adira was
established in 2018 and is essentially a replica of CVC. While the
Plaintiffs do not allege that Adira played a role in the alleged
RICO enterprise, they assert that Adira is the successor
corporation of CVC and thus jointly and severally liable to them.

The Plaintiffs allege several counts in total -- five against all
Defendants and two against only CVC and Adira. The five counts
against all Defendants are: a substantive RICO claim under 18
U.S.C. Section 1962(c) (Count I); a RICO conspiracy claim under 18
U.S.C. Section 1962(d) (Count II); consumer protection claims under
the laws of twelve states: California, Connecticut, Florida,
Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Puerto Rico, South Carolina, and Wisconsin (Count III); an unjust
enrichment claim "under state law" (Count IV); and a claim under
Florida's state RICO law, the Civil Remedies for Criminal Practices
Act, Fla. Stat. 7701, et seq. (Count V). The two counts against CVC
and Adira are: a violation of Va. Stat. Section 55.1-400, et seq.
(Count VI); and successor liability as to Adira (Count VII).

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on April 6, 2023, Judge
Henry E. Hudson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Virginia, Richmond Division:

   a. granted the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss;

   b. denied the Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining
      Order and Preliminary Injunction; and

   c. granted the Plaintiffs' Motion to Supplement the Complaint.

On April 21, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion to alter judgment
or amend judgment or for relief from judgment.

On January 3, 2024, the Court entered a Memorandum Opinion and
Order signed by Judge Hudson denying Plaintiff's motion.

The appellate case is captioned as MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC
v. Lundbeck LLC, Case No. 24-1043, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on January 12, 2024.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Opening Brief and Appendix are due on February 21, 2024; and

   -- Response Brief is due on March 22, 2024. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants MSP RECOVERY CLAIMS, SERIES LLC, a Delaware
series limited liability company, et al., are represented by:

          Adam Shereef Akeel, Esq.
          Shereef Hadi Akeel, Esq.
          Daniel William Cermak, Esq.
          Emad Rashed Hamadeh, Esq.
          Hayden Eugene Pendergrass, Esq.
          Samuel Robert Simkins, Esq.  
          AKEEL & VALENTINE, PLC
          888 West Big Beaver Road
          Troy, MI 48084-4736
          Telephone: (248) 269-9595

               - and -

          John William Cleary, Esq.
          MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM
          2701 South LeJeune Road
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 614-2222  

               - and -

          Joseph Langone, Esq.
          David Hilton Wise, Esq.
          WISE LAW FIRM, PLC
          10640 Page Avenue
          Fairfax, VA 22030-7409  

Defendants-Appellees LUNDBECK LLC, a Delaware corporation, et al.,
are represented by:

          Kolya David Glick, Esq.
          ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
          601 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20001-3743
          Telephone: (202) 942-6077

               - and -

          Kristen Marie Ashe, Esq.
          REED SMITH, LLP
          3 Logan Square
          1717 Arch Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 851-8100

               - and -

          Douglas Edward Pittman, Esq.
          REED SMITH, LLP
          Riverfront Plaza, West Tower
          901 East Byrd Street
          Richmond, VA 23219-4069
          Telephone: (804) 344-3400   

               - and -

          Douglas Edward Pittman, Esq.
          REED SMITH, LLP
          Riverfront Plaza, West Tower
          901 East Byrd Street
          Richmond, VA 23219-4069
          Telephone: (804) 344-3400

MADONNA FOOD: Pineda Seeks to Recover Minimum, OT Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE PINEDA, v. MADONNA FOOD SALES, INC. (DBA CHICKEN DELIGHT) and
VINCENT J MADONNA, individually, Case No. 1:24-cv-00526 (E.D.N.Y.,
Jan. 24, 2024) is a class action seeking to recover unpaid minimum
wage and overtime wage compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants were required to pay and compensate the Plaintiff at
a minimum rate of $15.00 per hour; however, the Plaintiff was only
compensated at a rate of $10 per hour at the beginning of his
employment for 40 hours workweek. The Defendants also failed to pay
the Plaintiff his lawful overtime pay when he worked in excess of
40 hours per workweek, the lawsuit claims.

From March 10, 2020, until December 31, 2020, the Plaintiff was
paid $10 per hour, the underpayment per week was $262, and the
total underpayment of that period of time was $11,025. From January
1, 2021, until December 31, 2021, the Plaintiff was paid $10 per
hour, the underpayment per week was $262.50, and the total
underpayment of that period of time was $13,650. The total amount
of unpaid wages is approximately $38,582.

The Plaintiff also brings this action under the Wage Theft
Prevention Act for the Defendants' failure to provide written
notice of wage rates violating said laws.

Mr. Pineda was employed by the Defendant at its offices at 476
Maple Ave Westbury, NY 11590, from March 2020 until January 7,
2024, where he was employed as a kitchen assistant, delivery and
also did some cleaning chores.

Madonna Food is a chain of restaurants offering eat-in, take-out,
and delivery service with a menu featuring chicken, pizza, and
ribs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MDL 2704: Class Cert Deadlines Stayed in Genesee v. Bank of America
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Genesee County Employees'
Retirement System v. Bank of America Corporation, et al., Case No.
1:16-cv-04089 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge J. Paul Oetken entered an
order that "all the deadlines are stayed until 30 days after the
Second Circuit decides class plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) petition,"
following the Jan. 10, 2024 telephone conference.

The deadlines in the scheduling order related to expert discovery
that are currently defined in relation to this Court's decision on
class certification will now be calculated from (a) the Second
Circuit's decision on Class Plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) petition, or (b)
April 13, 2024, whichever is later.

In other words, all expert discovery shall be completed no later
than 8.5 months from the Second Circuit's decision on Class
Plaintiffs'
Rule 23(f) petition to permit an immediate appeal, or eight and
one-half (8.5) months from April 13, 2024, whichever is later; and
Plaintiffs shall serve expert reports on Defendants no later than
60 days from the Second Circuit's decision on Class Plaintiffs'
Rule 23(f) petition, or 60 days from April 13, 2024, whichever is
later. This Order supersedes the minute entry for the January 10,
2024 telephone conference.

The Genesee suit is consolidated in MDL 2704, Interest Rate Swaps
Antitrust Litigation. The plaintiffs allege that the Defendants
conspire to engineer and maintain a collusive and anti-competitive
stranglehold over the interest rate swaps (IRS) market.

Bank of America is an American multinational investment bank and
financial services holding company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 12, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QsvpgS at no extra
charge.[CC]

MDL 2704: Class Cert Deadlines Stayed in Harrison County v. BoA
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Harrison County,
Mississippi, et al., v. Bank of America Corporation, et al., Case
No. 1:16-CV-04561 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge J. Paul Oetken entered
an order that "all the deadlines are stayed until 30 days after the
Second Circuit decides class plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) petition,"
following the Jan. 10, 2024 telephone conference.

The deadlines in the scheduling order related to expert discovery
that are currently defined in relation to this Court's decision on
class certification will now be calculated from (a) the Second
Circuit's decision on Class Plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) petition, or (b)
April 13, 2024, whichever is later.

In other words, all expert discovery shall be completed no later
than 8.5 months from the Second Circuit's decision on Class
Plaintiffs'
Rule 23(f) petition to permit an immediate appeal, or eight and
one-half (8.5) months from April 13, 2024, whichever is later; and
Plaintiffs shall serve expert reports on Defendants no later than
60 days from the Second Circuit's decision on Class Plaintiffs'
Rule 23(f) petition, or 60 days from April 13, 2024, whichever is
later. This Order supersedes the minute entry for the January 10,
2024 telephone conference.

The Harrison County suit is consolidated in MDL 2704, Interest Rate
Swaps Antitrust Litigation. The plaintiffs allege that the
Defendants conspire to engineer and maintain a collusive and
anti-competitive stranglehold over the interest rate swaps (IRS)
market.

Bank of America is an American multinational investment bank and
financial services holding company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 12, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=J0uGPN at no extra
charge.[CC]

MDL 2704: Class Cert Deadlines Stayed in IRS Antitrust Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust
Litigation (MDL No. 2704), the Hon. Judge J. Paul Oetken entered an
order that "all the deadlines are stayed until 30 days after the
Second Circuit decides class plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) petition,"
following the Jan. 10, 2024 telephone conference.

The deadlines in the scheduling order related to expert discovery
that are currently defined in relation to this Court's decision on
class certification will now be calculated from (a) the Second
Circuit's decision on Class Plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) petition, or (b)
April 13, 2024, whichever is later.

In other words, all expert discovery shall be completed no later
than 8.5 months from the Second Circuit's decision on Class
Plaintiffs'
Rule 23(f) petition to permit an immediate appeal, or eight and
one-half (8.5) months from April 13, 2024, whichever is later; and
Plaintiffs shall serve expert reports on Defendants no later than
60 days from the Second Circuit's decisionrs on Class Plaintiffs'
Rule 23(f) petition, or 60 days from April 13, 2024, whichever is
later. This Order supersedes the minute entry for the January 10,
2024 telephone conference.

The plaintiffs allege that the Defendants conspire to engineer and
maintain a collusive and anti-competitive stranglehold over the
interest rate swaps (IRS) market.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 12, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GYhHCX at no extra
charge.[CC]


MDL 2704: Class Cert Deadlines Stayed in Javelin v. Bank of America
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Javelin Capital Markets
LLC et al v. Bank Of America Corporation, et al., Case No.
1:16-cv-05361 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge J. Paul Oetken entered an
order that "all the deadlines are stayed until 30 days after the
Second Circuit decides class plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) petition,"
following the Jan. 10, 2024 telephone conference.

The deadlines in the scheduling order related to expert discovery
that are currently defined in relation to this Court's decision on
class certification will now be calculated from (a) the Second
Circuit's decision on Class Plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) petition, or (b)
April 13, 2024, whichever is later.

In other words, all expert discovery shall be completed no later
than 8.5 months from the Second Circuit's decision on Class
Plaintiffs'
Rule 23(f) petition to permit an immediate appeal, or eight and
one-half (8.5) months from April 13, 2024, whichever is later; and
Plaintiffs shall serve expert reports on Defendants no later than
60 days from the Second Circuit's decision on Class Plaintiffs'
Rule 23(f) petition, or 60 days from April 13, 2024, whichever is
later. This Order supersedes the minute entry for the January 10,
2024 telephone conference.

The Javelin suit is consolidated in MDL 2704, Interest Rate Swaps
Antitrust Litigation. The plaintiffs allege that the Defendants
conspire to engineer and maintain a collusive and anti-competitive
stranglehold over the interest rate swaps (IRS) market.

Bank of America is an American multinational investment bank and
financial services holding company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 12, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JyGuEK at no extra
charge.[CC]



MDL 2704: Class Cert Deadlines Stayed in Kansas City v. BOA
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kansas City, Missouri
Employees' Retirement System v. Bank Of America Corporation et al
Case No. 1:16-cv-04005 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge J. Paul Oetken
entered an order that "all the deadlines are stayed until 30 days
after the Second Circuit decides class plaintiffs' Rule 23(f)
petition," following the Jan. 10, 2024 telephone conference.

The deadlines in the scheduling order related to expert discovery
that are currently defined in relation to this Court's decision on
class certification will now be calculated from (a) the Second
Circuit's decision on Class Plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) petition, or (b)
April 13, 2024, whichever is later.

In other words, all expert discovery shall be completed no later
than 8.5 months from the Second Circuit's decision on Class
Plaintiffs'
Rule 23(f) petition to permit an immediate appeal, or eight and
one-half (8.5) months from April 13, 2024, whichever is later; and
Plaintiffs shall serve expert reports on Defendants no later than
60 days from the Second Circuit's decision on Class Plaintiffs'
Rule 23(f) petition, or 60 days from April 13, 2024, whichever is
later. This Order supersedes the minute entry for the January 10,
2024 telephone conference.

The Kansas City suit is consolidated in MDL 2704, Interest Rate
Swaps Antitrust Litigation. The plaintiffs allege that the
Defendants conspire to engineer and maintain a collusive and
anti-competitive stranglehold over the interest rate swaps (IRS)
market.

Bank of America is an American multinational investment bank and
financial services holding company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 12, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BTTGVD at no extra
charge.[CC]

MDL 2704: Class Cert Deadlines Stayed in LD Construction v. BoA
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LD Construction LLC, et
al., v. Bank Of America Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-04239
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge J. Paul Oetken entered an order that
"all the deadlines are stayed until 30 days after the Second
Circuit decides class plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) petition," following
the Jan. 10, 2024 telephone conference.

The deadlines in the scheduling order related to expert discovery
that are currently defined in relation to this Court's decision on
class certification will now be calculated from (a) the Second
Circuit's decision on Class Plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) petition, or (b)
April 13, 2024, whichever is later.

In other words, all expert discovery shall be completed no later
than 8.5 months from the Second Circuit's decision on Class
Plaintiffs'
Rule 23(f) petition to permit an immediate appeal, or eight and
one-half (8.5) months from April 13, 2024, whichever is later; and
Plaintiffs shall serve expert reports on Defendants no later than
60 days from the Second Circuit's decision on Class Plaintiffs'
Rule 23(f) petition, or 60 days from April 13, 2024, whichever is
later. This Order supersedes the minute entry for the January 10,
2024 telephone conference.

The LD Construction suit is consolidated in MDL 2704, Interest Rate
Swaps Antitrust Litigation. The plaintiffs allege that the
Defendants conspire to engineer and maintain a collusive and
anti-competitive stranglehold over the interest rate swaps (IRS)
market.

Bank of America is an American multinational investment bank and
financial services holding company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 12, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6ffePf at no extra
charge.[CC]



MDL 2704: Class Cert Deadlines Stayed in Policemen v. BoA
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Policemen's Annuity and
Benefit Fund of Chicago v. Bank of America Corporation et al Case
No. 1:16-cv-04566 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge J. Paul Oetken entered
an order that "all the deadlines are stayed until 30 days after the
Second Circuit decides class plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) petition,"
following the Jan. 10, 2024 telephone conference.

The deadlines in the scheduling order related to expert discovery
that are currently defined in relation to this Court's decision on
class certification will now be calculated from (a) the Second
Circuit's decision on Class Plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) petition, or (b)
April 13, 2024, whichever is later.

In other words, all expert discovery shall be completed no later
than 8.5 months from the Second Circuit's decision on Class
Plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) petition to permit an immediate appeal, or
eight and one-half (8.5) months from April 13, 2024, whichever is
later; and Plaintiffs shall serve expert reports on Defendants no
later than 60 days from the Second Circuit's decision on Class
Plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) petition, or 60 days from April 13, 2024,
whichever is later. This Order supersedes the minute entry for the
January 10, 2024 telephone conference.

The Policemen suit is consolidated in MDL 2704, Interest Rate Swaps
Antitrust Litigation. The plaintiffs allege that the Defendants
conspire to engineer and maintain a collusive and anti-competitive
stranglehold over the interest rate swaps (IRS) market.

Bank of America is an American multinational investment bank and
financial services holding company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 12, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3v26TL at no extra
charge.[CC] 


MEAD JOHNSON: Fails to Disclose Heavy Metals in Enfamil, Lopez Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dominique Lopez, Bianca Raya, Laurie Thomas, and Amanda Seutter,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals v. MEAD JOHNSON NUTRITION COMPANY and MEAD JOHNSON &
COMPANY, LLC, Case No. (N.D. Ill., Jan. 26, 2024) sues the
Defendants for its knowing, reckless, and/or intentional practice
of failing to disclose the lack of quality controls in
manufacturing its infant formula and also failing to disclose the
presence of Heavy Metals in its Enfamil(TM) infant formulas.

The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendant's packaging is designed to
induce reasonable consumers to believe in the high quality and
safety of its infant formula while omitting any information about
the inclusion (or material risk of inclusion) of Heavy Metals and
the utter failure to use quality control measures in its
manufacturing.

The Omissions allowed the Defendant to capitalize on, and reap
enormous profits from, reasonable consumers who paid a premium
price for Infant Formulas that did not disclose material
information as to the Products' true quality and value.

In August 2023, the FDA found that the Defendant ignored its duties
to ensure proper quality control measures in its manufacturing
facilities. This came after the Defendant voluntarily recalled two
batches of infant formula products in February 2023 due to
bacterial contamination. Independent testing also confirmed the
presence of Heavy Metals, such as arsenic, cadmium, and lead, in
two of the Defendant's Infant Formula.

The Plaintiffs bring this proposed consumer class action
individually and on behalf of all other members of the Classes,
who, from the applicable limitations period up to and including the
present, purchased for household use and not resale any of the
Defendant's Infant Formulas.

Plaintiff Lopez currently resides in Contra Costa County in the
State of California. She purchased the Infant Formula, including
Enfamil (TM) Nutramigen, Enfamil (TM) ProSobee, and Enfamil (TM)
NeuroPro for household use.

Mead Johnson is a producer of infant formula products.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
          Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
          Krista K. Freier, Esq.
          Catherine A. Peterson, Esq.
          Develyn J. Mistriotti, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: rkshelquist@locklaw.com
                  rapeterson@locklaw.com
                  kkfreier@locklaw.com
                  capeterson@locklaw.com
                  djmistriotti@locklaw.com

                - and -

          Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
          Kara A. Elgersma, Esq.
          WEXLER BOLEY & ELGERSMA LLP
          55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222
          Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
          E-mail: kaw@wbe-llp.com
                  kae@wbe-llp.com

                - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Catherine Sung-yun K. Smith, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK, PLLC
          Canadian Pacific Plaza
          120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  csmith@gustafsongluek.com

                - and -

          Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
          David J. George, Esq.
          Brittany L. Brown, Esq.
          Janine L. Pollack, Esq.
          Michael Liskow, Esq.
          GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC
          102 Half Moon Bay Drive
          Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520
          Telephone: (917) 983-9321
          Facsimile: (888) 421-4173
          E-mail: LFeldman@4-Justice.com
                  DGeorge@4-Justice.com
                  jpollack@4-Justice.com
                  mliskow@4-Justice.com

                - and -

          Katrina Carroll, Esq.
          Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
          LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
          111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 750-1265
          Facsimile: (312) 212-5919
          E-mail: katrina@lcllp.com
                  kyle@lcllp.com

                - and -

          Simon B. Paris, Esq.
          Patrick Howard, Esq.
          SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY, PC
          1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor
          One Liberty Place
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 496-8282
          Facsimile: (215) 754-4443
          E-mail: sparis@smbb.com
                  phoward@smbb.com

                - and -

          Jason Gustafson, Esq.
          THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
          222 South Ninth Street, Suite 1600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (763) 515-6110
          E-mail: jason@throndsetlaw.com

MEDILODGE GROUP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bellenir Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
CODY BELLENIR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. THE MEDILODGE GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-10153-JJCG-DRG (E.D. Mich., Jan. 19, 2024) is an action
against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
week.

Plaintiff Bellenir was employed by the Defendant as a patient care
employee.

THE MEDILODGE GROUP, INC. owns and operates nursing homes and an
assisted living center. The Company provides physical therapy
services for various conditions, including stroke, head trauma,
joint replacement, multiple sclerosis, and orthopedic injuries.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Carl A. Fitz, 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
                 cfitz@mybackwages.com

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com

               - and -

          Jennifer L. McManus, Esq.
          FAGAN MCMANUS, PC
          25892 Woodward Avenue
          Royal Oak, MI 58067-0910
          Telephone: (248) 542-6300
          Email: jmcmanus@faganlawpc.com

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Whaley Balks at Real Estate Market Conspiracy
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NATHANIEL WHALEY, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS;
LAS VEGAS REALTORS; NEVADA REALTORS; SIERRA NEVADA REALTY; INCLINE
VILLAGE REALTORS; ELKO COUNTY REALTORS; MESQUITE REAL ESTATE
ASSOCIATION; and NORTHERN NEVADA REGIONAL MLS, Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-00105 (D. Nev., January 15, 2024) is a class action brought
by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and on behalf of the
Plaintiff classes, alleging that Defendants have conspired to
require home sellers to pay the broker representing the buyer of
their homes, and to pay an inflated amount, in violation of federal
antitrust law, the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the
Nevada Antitrust Law.

The Plaintiff, home sellers who listed their homes on one of seven
Multiple Listing Services, bring this action against Defendants for
agreeing, combining, and conspiring to impose and enforce an
anticompetitive restraint that requires home sellers to pay the
broker representing the buyer of their homes, and to pay an
inflated amount, in violation of Nevada Law.

This commission structure has remained isolated from market forces
because of a long running conspiracy among Defendants to implement
and enforce anticompetitive restraints in the residential real
estate market. The Defendants' conspiracy also forces home sellers
to pay a cost that, in a competitive market and but for Defendants'
anticompetitive restraint, would be paid by the buyer. The
Defendants' conspiracy further compels home sellers to make blanket
offers of compensation to buyer brokers regardless of the buyer
broker's experience, the services provided, or any financial
arrangement between the buyer broker and buyer. All of this is done
so buyer brokers do not "steer" the seller's property away from
prospective buyers, says the suit.

National Association of Realtors is a lobbying group overseeing
fifty-four state and territorial realtor associations and over
1,200 local realtor associations. NAR is headquartered in Chicago,
Illinois.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stefany "Miley" Tewell, Esq.
          Ben Lehavi, Esq.
          BEN'S LAW
          5940 South Rainbow Boulevard
          Las Vegas, NV 89118
          Telephone: (702) 518-9236
          E-mail: judgestefany@benslaw.com

NAVIENT SOLUTIONS: Court Issues Final Judgment in Woodard Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Robert F. Rossiter, Jr., of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Nebraska issued a Final Judgment and
Order in the lawsuit entitled KENNETH JOSEPH WOODARD, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NAVIENT
SOLUTIONS, LLC and NAVIENT CREDIT FINANCE CORPORATION, Defendants,
Case No. 8:23-cv-00301-RFR (D. Neb.).

In accordance with the Memorandum and Order entered on Jan. 9,
2024, the Court enters this Final Judgment and Order, which
incorporates by reference the definitions in the Stipulation of
Settlement (Bankr. D. Neb. Case No. 21-08023-TLS, Filing No.
77-3).

By entering this Final Judgment and Order, the Court does not make
any determination as to the merits of this case.

Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the
Court finally certifies this Action as a class action, with the
Class defined as all Discharged Non-Title IV Borrowers on all
Non-Title IV Covered Loans. The Court finds, for settlement
purposes only, that class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) is
appropriate.

The Court confirms the prior appointments of the Plaintiff Kenneth
Joseph Woodard as Class Representative, and the law firms of
Fishman Haygood LLP; Jones Swanson Huddell LLC; Boies Schiller
Flexner LLP; Francis Mailman Soumilas, PC; and the Law Offices of
James Michel as Class Counsel.

Pursuant to Rule 23, the Court approves the Settlement set forth in
the Stipulation and finds that the Settlement is, in all respects,
fair, reasonable, and adequate. The Court further finds that the
Settlement set forth in the Stipulation is the result of good
faith, arm's-length negotiations between experienced counsel
representing the interests of the Parties.

Accordingly, Judge Rossiter holds that the Settlement embodied in
the Stipulation is finally approved in all respects. Final Judgment
is entered with respect to the Released Claims of all Settlement
Class Members, and the Released Claims in the Action are dismissed
in their entirety with prejudice and without costs. All claims in
the Action are dismissed, and the case will be closed pursuant to
the Final Judgment and Order.

The order entered by the Court regarding Class Counsels'
application for attorney fees, litigation expenses, Notice and
Administrative Costs, and class-representative service awards will
in no way disturb or affect this Final Judgment and Order and will
be considered separate from this Final Judgment and Order.

Judge Rossiter orders that no later than 30 days after the
Effective Date (as defined in the Stipulation), the Settlement
Administrator will file with the Court, under seal pursuant to the
Protective Order entered in this litigation (in order to protect
the names and addresses of Class Members), a list of the names and
addresses of all Class Members to whom the Class Notice was sent.

Upon the Effective Date, the Defendants will have no obligation to
preserve documents and evidence with respect to Released Claims,
and the Class Representative and Class Counsel may not pursue any
spoliation claims or other actions or sanctions against the
Defendants with respect to documents or evidence related to the
Released Claims.

Judge Rossiter directs the Clerk of the Court to close the Action.

A full-text copy of the Court's Final Judgment and Order dated Jan.
11, 2024, is available at http://tinyurl.com/3bf586z7from
PacerMonitor.com.


PENSKE LOGISTICS: Fails to Pay Minimum & OT Wages, Milam Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
James Milam, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Penske Logistics LLC; and Does 1 through 20, inclusive,
Case No. 4:24-cv-00506 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 26, 2024) alleges that the
Defendants failed to pay minimum wages and overtime wages when the
Defendants required the Plaintiff and Class Members to work
off-the-clock, in violation of the California Labor Code and IWC
Wage Orders.

The suit contends that the Plaintiff and Class Members' workloads
could not be reasonably completed within their scheduled hours, and
the Defendants directed, pressured, compelled, and/or otherwise
coerced the Plaintiff and Class Members to regularly perform their
job duties while clocked out for their meal periods, and the
Defendant improperly considered time spent by the Plaintiff and
Class Members working through meal periods as non-compensable and
failed to provide any remuneration.

The Defendants often failed to pay the Plaintiff and Class Members
meal period premiums and rest period premiums at their regular rate
of compensation, including all non-discretionary bonuses. As a
result of the Defendants' failure to pay the Plaintiff and Class
Members an additional hour of pay for each day a meal period was
not provided and a rest period were not provided, the Plaintiff and
Class Members suffered and continue to suffer a loss of wages and
compensation, the suit adds.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a Material
Handler.

Penske provides supply chain management and logistics
solutions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq.
          Zachary Gershman, Esq.
          Brielle D. Edborg, Esq.
          LEBE LAW, APLC
          777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90021
          Telephone: (213) 444-1973
          E-mail: Zachary@lebelaw.com
                  Brielle@lebelaw.com

PERMIAN RESOURCES: Faces Andrew Suit Over Oil Monopoly
------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW CAPLEN INSTALLATIONS LLC; and EDWARD ALLEGRETTI D/B/A ALFRED
AUTO CENTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. PERMIAN RESOURCES CORP. f/k/a CENTENNIAL
RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, INC.; CHESAPEAKE ENERGY CORPORATION;
CONTINENTAL RESOURCES INC.; DIAMONDBACK ENERGY, INC.; EOG
RESOURCES, INC.; HESS CORPORATION; OCCIDENTAL PETROLEUM
CORPORATION; and PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES COMPANY, Defendants,
Case No. 2:24-cv-00150 (D. Nev., Jan. 22, 2024) alleges violation
of the Sherman Act.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants are
engage in a conspiracy to coordinate, and ultimately constrain,
domestic shale oil production, which has had the purpose and effect
of fixing, raising, and maintaining the price of crude oil in and
throughout the United States of America, and worldwide.

The Defendants have also conspired with the Organization of the
Petroleum Exporting Countries ("OPEC"), the international oil
cartel that believes that it can escape U.S. antitrust law because
its members are sovereign nations. Defendants agreed with OPEC to
constrain production of crude oil worldwide, with the purpose and
effect of fixing, raising, and maintaining the price of crude oil
in and throughout the United States of America, and worldwide, the
suit says.

PERMIAN RESOURCES CORPORATION operates as an oil and gas company.
The Company focuses on the development of unconventional oil and
associated liquid-rich natural gas reserves in the Permian Basin,
as well as offers geology, engineering, and drilling services.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert T. Eglet, Esq.
          Artemus W. Ham, Esq.
          Erica D. Entsminger, Esq.
          EGLET ADAMS EGLET HAM & HENRIOD
          400 South Seventh Street, Suite 400
          Las Vegas, NV 89101
          Telephone: (702) 450-5400
          Facsimile: (702) 450-5451
          Email: eservice@egetlaw.com

               - and -

          Brent W. Johnson, Esq.
          Benjamin Brown, Esq.
          Robert W. Cobbs, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Ave. NW Fifth Floor
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          Email: bjohnson@cohenmilstein.com
                 bbrown@cohenmilstein.com
                 rcobbs@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Michael Eisenkraft, Esq.
          Christopher Bateman, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          88 Pine Street, 14th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 883-7797
          Email: meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com
                 cbateman@cohenmilstein.com

PERRY JOHNSON: Jon Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info
-------------------------------------------------------------
ROBERT JON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PERRY JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, INC. and
NORTHWELL HEALTH, INC. Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-10100-JEL-DRG
(E.D. Mich., Jan. 12, 2024) is a class action against Defendants
for their failure to secure and safeguard the personally
identifying information and protected health information of
Plaintiff and the proposed Class members and asserts claims for
negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of
implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the New York
Deceptive Acts and Practices Act.

Between approximately March 27, 2023, and May 2, 2023, and
specifically between April 7, 2023 and April 19, 2023, an
unauthorized third party gained access to PJA's network system and
obtained files containing information about Northwell Health's
current and former patients.

The Defendants owed a duty to Plaintiff and Class members to
implement and maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to
secure, protect, and safeguard their PII/PHI against unauthorized
access and disclosure. The Defendants breached that duty by, among
other things, failing to implement and maintain reasonable security
procedures and practices to protect Northwell's patients' PII/PHI
from unauthorized access and disclosure, including failing to
implement industry standards for data security, and failing to
properly train employees on cybersecurity protocols, resulting in
the data breach, says the suit.

The Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of New York and obtained
healthcare or related services from Northwell.

Perry Johnson & Associates, Inc. is a third-party vendor of health
information technology solutions used by Northwell, Health, Inc.,
the largest health system in New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          E. Powell Miller, Esq.
          Emily E. Hughes, Esq.
          MILLER LAW FIRM
          950 W. University Drive, Suite 300
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: (248) 791-9813
          Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
          E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
                  eeh@millerlawpc.com

               - and -

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

PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Rehm Balks at Unprotected Personal, Health Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER REHM and MATTHEW OLDANIE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE
CORPORATION, WELLTOK LLC, and OSF HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, Defendants,
Case No. 1:24-cv-01014-JES-JEH (C.D. Ill., Jan. 15, 2024) seeks to
redress and curtail Defendants' failure to properly secure and
safeguard Plaintiffs' and the Class' personally identifiable and
private health information.

On May 27, 2023, cyber criminals linked with the Russian cyber
gang, Cl0p, exploited a well-known flaw in PSC's MOVEit file
transfer service to gain access to its servers, ultimately
acquiring data containing sensitive PII and PHI held by Welltok and
belonging to OSF patients. Cl0p is known for using stolen data to
extort its victims, as well as publishing and selling the stolen
data to other bad actors on the dark web. On August 10, 2023, it
threatened to release the stolen data of all companies which had
not paid the ransom by August 15, 2023.

The Plaintiffs and members of the Class furnished their sensitive
PII and PHI directly or indirectly to OSF and Welltok, including
their names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, and health
insurance information. OSF also kept and provided additional
sensitive PII and PHI to Welltok, including medical treatment and
diagnosis information, provider names, patient IDs, and treatment
cost information, says the suit.

As a result of Defendants' negligence, Plaintiffs and members of
the Class now face an increased risk of identity theft and fraud,
if not actual identity theft and resulting losses and need to take
immediate action to protect themselves from such identity theft.
The Plaintiffs and members of the Class are immediately and
imminently in danger of sustaining further direct or indirect
injuries as a result of Defendants' failure to safeguard and
protect their sensitive PII and PHI, the suit asserts.

Progress Software Corporation is a publicly traded, international
software company offering a wide range of products and services to
corporate and governmental entities throughout the United States,
including cloud hosting and file transfer services such as
MOVEit.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Molly E. Stemper, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          222 W. Adams St, Suite 2020
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550
          Facsimile: (312) 233-1560
          E-mail: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
                  jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                  mstemper@stephanzouras.com

RELIANT REHABILITATION: Fails to Pay Proper OT, Hinojos Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
KALLEIGH HINOJOS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RELIANT REHABILITATION HOLDINGS,
INC. Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-00032-SDJ (E.D. Tex., Jan. 12,
2024) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay
proper overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to pay her time and
one-half her regular hourly rate (overtime pay) for working weekly
hours in excess of 40. The Defendant misclassified her as exempt
from FLSA requirements and paid her on a salaried basis with no
regard to the number of hours she actually worked, the Plaintiff
says.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant during the three years
prior to the filing of this suit through approximately December
2021 to provide physical rehabilitation treatments to Defendant's
clients.

Reliant Rehabilitation Holdings, Inc. operates as a holding
company. The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides physical,
occupational, and speech therapy services. Reliant Rehabilitation
Holdings serves patients in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew McCarley, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
          400 N. St. Paul St. #700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 210-2100
          Facsimile: (214) 346-5909
          E-mail: mccarley@foresterhaynie.com

ROTHY'S INC: Mackey Sues Over Unwanted Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------
HUNTER MACKEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROTHY'S, INC., Defendant, Case No.
CACE-24-000485 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., Jan. 12,
2024) is an action for injunctive and declaratory relief, and
damages for Defendant's violations of the Caller ID Rules of the
Florida Telephone Solicitation Act.

The Plaintiff brings this action alleging that Defendant violated
the FTSA's Caller ID Rules by transmitting a phone number that was
not capable of receiving phone calls and does not connect to either
the telephone solicitor or the Defendant when it made telephonic
sales calls by text message.

Rothy's, Inc. is a foreign corporation which sells various goods to
persons throughout Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

ROYALTY CARPET: Highest Court Barred PAGA Claims
------------------------------------------------
McDermott Will & Emery of JD Supra reports that on January 18,
2024, in a highly anticipated and unanimous decision, the Supreme
Court of California barred striking a claim under the Private
Attorneys General Act (PAGA) on trial manageability grounds alone,
instead authorizing due process defenses to PAGA claims (Estrada v.
Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc.). The decision also commented
approvingly on representative testimonies, surveys and statistical
analyses. As a result of the decision, employers now face a new
challenge of marshalling such evidence to their defenses and
challenging the misuse of such evidence on due process grounds in
future PAGA litigation.

Enacted in 2004, PAGA authorizes allegedly aggrieved employees to
sue their employers for additional civil penalties for various
alleged Labor Code violations on behalf of themselves, other
employees and the state of California. Allegedly aggrieved
employees act as "private attorneys general" seeking remedies
against their employer for alleged violations against them and
other employees. Unique to PAGA, typical class action requirements
such as superiority and the predominance of common issues do not
apply. Under PAGA, an allegedly aggrieved employee only needs to
demonstrate that a single violation of a particular Labor Code
statute was committed against them during the PAGA period to
prosecute the case as a representative action and represent other
employees as to any and all allegedly violated Labor Code statutes.
In other words, a plaintiff need only be aggrieved as to a
particular violation (e.g., missed meal periods) to assert that
they may represent all other employees as to all other alleged
violations (such as wage statement noncompliance, missed rest
periods, overtime or failure to pay paid sick leave using the
regular rate calculation). This concept has led to trial
manageability and due process issues in these cases.

CALIFORNIA COURTS OF APPEAL SPLIT

Prior to the California Supreme Court's recent ruling, the
California Courts of Appeal were split on whether trial courts
possess the inherent authority to strike or dismiss a PAGA claim
with prejudice by employing manageability requirements. (See
Estrada v. Royalty Carpet Mills, Inc. (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 685,
697 (concluding that trial courts lack such inherent authority.))
(See also Wesson v. Staples the Office Superstore, LLC (2021) 68
Cal.App.5th 746, 766-767 (concluding that trial courts possess such
inherent authority.))

ESTRADA LOWER COURT DECISION

Royal Carpet Mills, a California carpet manufacturer, employed
Jorge Luis Estrada at one of its two Orange County locations.
Estrada filed a complaint against Royalty, alleging various class
action claims, including a failure to provide first and second meal
periods, and a PAGA claim seeking penalties for various alleged
Labor Code violations. Additional plaintiffs later joined as named
plaintiffs, and the claims largely remained the same in each
iteration of the complaint.

After the meal period class was certified, the trial court held a
bench trial where the plaintiffs presented live testimony from a
dozen named plaintiffs, deposition testimony from different
managers and officers of Royalty, live testimony from two of
Royalty's human resources employees and live testimony from an
expert witness. In its defense, Royalty presented testimony from
two former employees and a single expert witness.

Following the presentation of evidence, the trial court decertified
the class on the basis that too many individualized issues
predominated, citing inconsistent testimonies from the plaintiffs
and varying reasons why meal periods were late. The trial court
also dismissed the PAGA action as unmanageable for trial. The Court
of Appeal overturned, leading Royal to petition the California
Supreme Court to resolve the conflict among the Courts of Appeal
over a trial court's inherent authority to manage PAGA claims.

TRIAL MANAGEABILITY

Defendants have often successfully argued that the California
Supreme Court's decade-old Duran decision applies to representative
actions insofar as the representative action must be manageable for
trial. In Duran v. U.S. Bank National Assn., the California Supreme
Court reversed a $15 million judgment based on a flawed statistical
sample and acknowledged the importance of due process and managing
individual issues fairly and efficiently in a class action.

THE DECISION

In the opinion and at oral argument, the California Supreme Court
grappled with the source of the trial court's authority to strike
claims, concluding that the inherent authority of trial courts to
dismiss claims is limited to circumstances not present in Estrada.
The decision is not too surprising considering the US Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently came to the same conclusion.
(See Hamilton v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (9th Cir. 2022) 39 F.4th
575, 590 ("The [manageability] requirement cannot be imposed in
PAGA actions under the guise of a court's inherent powers.")) Both
courts focused on whether trial courts possess the broad inherent
authority to dismiss claims.

In its January 18 opinion, the California Supreme Court highlighted
structural differences between class and PAGA actions to support
its view that imposing class-action-based manageability
requirements on PAGA actions is inappropriate, emphasizing that
concepts such as superiority and predominance do not apply to PAGA
claims. The California Supreme Court went so far as to suggest that
manageability is derived from class action requirements:

[M]anageability in the class action context is a factor in
demonstrating that class-wide issues predominate and that a class
action is superior to individual actions. Given that a PAGA
plaintiff need not demonstrate that common issues predominate or
that a representative or non-individual PAGA claim is superior to
other forms of adjudication, the requirement that a plaintiff
demonstrate the manageability of a class claim does not establish a
similar manageability requirement for any related PAGA action.

Op. at 23.

The Estrada court was quick to highlight that PAGA actions are not
class actions and the California legislature declined to add class
action requirements to the statute.

While the California Supreme Court found that PAGA claims cannot be
stricken, it is important to note that "striking" PAGA claims is
only one defense of many, including showing that the individual
employee is not aggrieved (on summary judgment, which if successful
precludes the PAGA representative action), due process issues,
dispositive evidence related to the allegedly aggrieved employees
and, of course, a host of legal arguments related to the various
Labor Code claims. Estrada suggests that the use of representative
testimonies, surveys and statistical analyses is allowable to
streamline evidence presented at trial, and that statistical
analysis can be used to "estimate the number of aggrieved
employees, even if the evidence cannot demonstrate the extent of
any particular injury." (Op. at 42.) This battle of the experts and
testimonies typically becomes a question of whether the sampling is
statistically sound and can be used to demonstrate that employees
were aggrieved and to estimate damages, or -- conversely -- whether
the employer's statistics and analysis show otherwise. The answer
is case specific and depends on the claims, data and evidence. (For
example, a standalone wage statement violation may lend itself to a
sound statistical sample, but a missed meal periods claim may
not.)

The California Supreme Court expressly made the important
distinction that striking claims may be an option to preserve a
defendant's due process rights but declined to comment on the
hypothetical situation where that may be necessary.

OTHER TOOLS AND CONSIDERATIONS TO LIMIT NEEDLESS, EXPENSIVE PAGA
CASES

While many in the plaintiff's bar may argue that Estrada is a death
knell to employers defending against PAGA claims, such is not the
case. Many tools remain at the disposal of employers (no two being
the same) that warrant individual consideration by each employer
facing the threat of PAGA claims:

Proactive Compliance Measures. Employers should review and ensure
compliant wage and hour policies and practices. Estrada
demonstrates the importance of having Labor-Code-compliant
timekeeping and meal and rest break policies and practices.
Employers should ensure that employees are accurately reporting
their time worked, completing attestations affirming their time and
meal break records, and training their managers and employees
regularly on wage and hour policies.

Review Existing Arbitration Agreements or Consider Whether
Implementing One Makes Sense. While employers are still reeling
from the California Supreme Court's rejection of the Viking River
case in Adolph v. Uber Technologies Inc. (holding that an employee
can pursue their individual claim under PAGA in arbitration without
losing standing to serve as the plaintiff of the representative
PAGA case as it moves forward in court), reviewing or implementing
arbitration agreements with mandatory class action waivers should
also be top of mind. These can be used to successfully compel
plaintiffs' individual claims to arbitration, avoid class actions
and limit representative cases to PAGA only until the Supreme Court
of the United States decides to weigh in.

Plaintiff Must Still Meet Their Burden. For employers already
facing PAGA claims, Estrada leaves undisturbed the requirement that
a plaintiff prove that they are an aggrieved employee -- meaning
that the plaintiff must be able to show a Labor Code violation
against them. A plaintiff also has the burden to show that all
aggrieved employees suffered violations. Where employers are
dedicated to compliance and documentation, this becomes a much more
difficult burden for an allegedly aggrieved employee. The plaintiff
also has the burden to produce a "trial plan" -- explaining how
they will seek to adjudicate their claims at trial. A PAGA
plaintiff must set forth some type of trial plan demonstrating how
the defendant's due process rights won't be infringed if they go to
trial on behalf of the entire PAGA class.

Narrowing PAGA Claims in Litigation. Estrada affirmed that where a
PAGA case is unwieldy, a court may still limit the scope of the
PAGA claims and the evidence presented at trial, including witness
testimony, and may limit penalties when a plaintiff who has alleged
widespread violations is unable to prove PAGA claims in an
efficient manner. The Estrada plaintiff limited his claim to two
Royalty locations with largely similar policies and practices. PAGA
defendants with varying work locations and practices should
highlight the challenges presented by a large and complex PAGA
action and the potential for dozens, hundreds or thousands of mini
trials involving diverse questions, depending on the breadth of the
plaintiff's claims. This can be done using tools such as a
demurrer, summary judgment/adjudication and judgment
notwithstanding the verdict.

Protecting Due Process. A PAGA action may cover a vast number of
employees, each of whom may have a markedly different experience
relevant to the alleged violations. Under those circumstances,
determining whether the employer committed Labor Code violations
with respect to each employee may raise practical difficulties and
lead to due process violations. While the California Supreme Court
declined to opine in its Estrada decision on the circumstances in
which due process violations may exist, it left open the
possibility that PAGA claims could be stricken where a defendant's
due process claims were infringed.

Repealing PAGA. In November 2024, California voters will have an
opportunity to vote on the future of PAGA directly by choosing
whether to repeal it and replace it with the California Fair Pay
and Employer Accountability Act of 2024 (CFPEAA). The purpose of
the CFPEAA is to streamline the current enforcement system and help
employees collect any amounts they are owed quickly without the
need for a private lawyer. Most importantly, a private right of
action and attorneys' fees would cease to exist under the proposed
CFPEAA. [GN]

SIKA AG: Charles Sues Over Concrete Admixtures Monopoly
-------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES W. HUGHES CONSTRUCTION, LLC, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIKA AG; SIKA
CORPORATION; CHRYSO, INC.; GCP APPLIED TECHNOLOGIES INC.; COMPAGNIE
DE SAINT-GOBAIN S.A.; MASTER BUILDERS SOLUTIONS ADMIXTURES US, LLC;
MASTER BUILDERS SOLUTIONS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH; CINVEN LTD.; CINVEN,
INC.; THE EUCLID CHEMICAL COMPANY; and RPM INTERNATIONAL INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00460-UA (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 22, 2024)
alleges violation of the Sherman Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants are
engaged in unlawful agreement to fix the prices for (a) concrete
admixtures, (b) cement additives, and (c) admixtures for mortar
(collectively, "CCAs").

On October 17, 2023, the Plaintiff were made aware of the
Defendants' unlawful scheme when the European Commission ("EC")
announced that it had, together with the United Kingdom's
Competition and Markets Authority ("CMA") and the Turkish
Competition Authority ("TCA"), carried out surprise antitrust
inspections (also known as "dawn raids") of "companies active in
the construction chemicals sector in several Member States."

The Defendants continued to consolidate the CCA market and with no
meaningful check on their pricing power, they instituted price
increases on CCAs, and surcharges on top of those price increases,
including shipping surcharges and raw material surcharges.
Defendants have an understanding that they will not undercut one
another on the one thing they can compete on, price. Beginning no
later than January 1, 2018, the Defendants entered into an
agreement to consolidate their control over the global CCA market
and thereafter, fix the prices for CCA. This agreement, which was
effectuated through, among other things, Defendants' continual,
close interactions with each other in connection with several
inter-defendant sales and acquisitions, says the suit.

This rapid industry consolidation, and the Defendants' effective
elimination of their independent competitors, helped cement
Defendants' cartel, which in turn resulted in Plaintiff and members
of the Class paying alleged supra-competitive prices for CCAs in
the United States.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert N. Kaplan, Esq.
          Matthew P. McCahill, Esq.
          Elana Katcher, Esq.
          Jason A. Uris, Esq.
          KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER, LLP
          800 Third Avenue, 38th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 687-1980
          Email: rkaplan@kaplanfox.com
                 mmccahill@kaplanfox.com
                 ekatcher@kaplanfox.com
                 juris@kaplanfox.com

               - and -

          John P. Marshall, Esq.
          Matthew S. Sullivan, Esq.
          WHITE & ALLEN, P.A.
          106 South McLewean Street
          PO Box 3169
          Kinston, NC 28501
          Telephone: (252) 527-8000
          Email: jmarshall@whiteandallen.com
                 msullivan@whiteandallen.com

SYSCO LOS ANGELES: Valdez Sues Over Underpaid Pension Funding
-------------------------------------------------------------
Johnny Valdez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Sysco Los Angeles, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-10504 (C.D. Cal., Dec. 15,
2023) is a class action against the Defendant for delinquent and
underpaid pension funding in violation of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974.

This ERISA class action seeks to recover Defendant's delinquent
contributions and underpayments of Plaintiff's and his co-workers'
annual pension contributions that Defendant agreed to pay to the
Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Trust, pursuant to Article
XVII of the applicable collective bargaining agreements between
Defendant and the Teamsters' Union, Local 848 pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23, but which were not fully paid, and are
thus delinquent, says the suit.

The Plaintiff further seeks injunctive relief requiring Defendant
to make the proper and agreed-upon contributions on a forward-going
basis.

Plaintiff Valdez is a truck driver currently employed by Sysco Los
Angeles, Inc. and who has been employed by Defendant for more than
30 years.

Sysco Los Angeles, Inc. sells, markets, and distributes food
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig J. Ackermann, Esq.
          ACKERMANN & TILAJEF, P.C.
          315 South Beverly Drive, Suite 504
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 277-0614
          Facsimile: (310) 277-0635
          E-mail: cja@ackermanntilajef.com

TATTLE TAIL: Glessing Alleges Unpaid Wages, Illegal Tip Retention
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MIA GLESSING, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TATTLE TAIL, INC. d/b/a "Tattletale Lounge,"
DENIS KAUFMAN, and RICHARD R. SCHRONCE, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-00174-TWT (N.D. Ga., Jan. 12, 2024) seeks all unpaid
minimum and overtime wages, recovery of unlawful deductions,
liquidated damages, interest, and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants required Plaintiff and
similarly situated waitresses to make certain payments to Tattle
Tale employees and others which caused Plaintiffs' (and those
similarly situated) wages to drop below the minimum wage and
applicable overtime wage, thereby constituting illegal deductions
under the FLSA. These unlawful deductions were an illegal retention
of earned tips under the FLSA, asserts the complaint.

Plaintiff Mia Glessing began her employment with the Defendants in
approximately March of 2021. The Plaintiff and the collective were
employed by Defendants as waitresses at the Tattle Tale during the
past three years.

Tattle Tail, Inc. owns and operates an adult entertainment club in
Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia known as the "Tattle Tale" or
"Tattletale Lounge."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonah A. Flynn, Esq.
          FLYNN LAW FIRM, LLC
          4200 Northside Parkway NW
          Building One, Suite 100
          Atlanta, GA 30327
          Telephone/Facsimile: (404) 835-9660
          E-mail: jflynn@flynnfirm.com

TDS TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Mott Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Mott, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TDS Telecommunications, LLC, and TDS Telecom Service
LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00185 (D. Colo., Jan. 22, 2024), is brought
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and to
recover unpaid wages under the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay
Standards Order (the "COMPS Order"), The Colorado Wage Claim Act
101 (the "Wage Claim Act"), and the Colorado Minimum Wage Act ("the
Minimum Wage Act").

The Plaintiff routinely worked more than 40 hours in a workweek but
were not paid an overtime premium for their overtime hours.
Defendants suffered and permitted Plaintiff and the other similarly
situated
individuals to work more than 40 hours per week without overtime
pay. The Defendants knew that Plaintiff and the other similarly
situated individuals worked unpaid overtime hours because
Defendants required Plaintiff and those similarly situated to
record their work hours in Defendants' electronic timekeeping
system. Plaintiff's timesheets reflected that Plaintiff worked over
40 hours per week on a regular basis. Upon information and belief,
those similarly situated also recorded overtime hours on their
timesheets. Although Defendants had a legal obligation to do so,
Defendants did not make, keep, or preserve adequate or accurate
records of all the hours Plaintiff and the other similarly situated
individuals worked, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a Network Specialist I
and II in Berthoud, CO, and remotely from his home in Severance,
Colorado from November 2019 to March 2023.

The Defendants are part of a U.S.-based organization offering high
speed internet, TV entertainment, and phone services to rural and
suburban communities.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel S. Brome, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          235 Montgomery St., Suite 810
          San Francisco, CA, 94104
          Phone: (415) 277-7239
          Fax: (612) 215-6870
          Email: dbrome@nka.com

               - and -

          Reena I. Desai, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4700 IDS Center, 80 South, 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 256-3200
          Fax: (612) 215-6870
          Email: desai@nka.com


TEMPUS UNLIMITED: Smolinski Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Rita Smolinski, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. TEMPUS UNLIMITED, INC., Case No. 00245
was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County,
Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania on Jan. 26, 2024, and assigned Case No.
2:24-cv-00389.

The Plaintiff She alleges Tempus has violated, and continues to
violate: the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA") by failing to
pay her for all hours worked as well as premium overtime wages for
all hours they worked over 40 in a workweek; the Wage Payment and
Collection Law ("WPCL") by failing to pay her all earned wages,
including overtime wages, for all hours worked; and the
Philadelphia Wage Theft Ordinance ("PWTO") by depriving her of
earned wages and premium overtime wages for work performed in
Philadelphia and/or under a contract made in Philadelphia.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          James N. Boudreau, Esq.
          Adam R. Roseman, Esq.
          GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP
          1717 Arch Street, Suite 400
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: 215.988.7833/7826
          Email: James.boudreau@gtlaw.com
                 rosemana@gtlaw.com


TINTRI INC: $7MM Class Settlement to be Heard on August 15
----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Bottini & Bottini, Inc., and
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP issued a statement regarding the Tintri
Securities Settlement:

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

In re TINTRI, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION

This Document Relates To:

ALL ACTIONS.

Lead Case No. 17-CIV-04312
(Consolidated with Nos. 17-CIV-04321;
17-CIV-04618; and 20-CIV-00980)

This Document Relates To:

CLASS ACTION

ALL ACTIONS.

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

Assigned for All Purposes to:
Honorable Susan L. Greenberg
Dept. 3
Date Action Filed: 09/20/17

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
TINTRI, INC. ("TINTRI") COMMON STOCK PURSUANT OR TRACEABLE TO THE
REGISTRATION STATEMENT AND PROSPECTUS FILED IN CONNECTION WITH
TINTRI'S INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING ("IPO") ON OR ABOUT JUNE 30,
2017.1

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

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on August 15,
2024, at 9:00 a.m., before the Honorable Susan L. Greenberg at the
Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, Department 3,
Courtroom 2B, 400 County Center, Redwood City, CA 94063, to
determine whether: (1) the proposed settlement (the "Settlement")
of the above-captioned action as set forth in the Stipulation of
Settlement ("Stipulation")2 for $7,000,000.00 in cash should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) the
Judgment as provided under the Stipulation should be entered; (3)
to award Plaintiffs' Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses out of
the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice of Pendency and
Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"), which is discussed
below) and, if so, in what amount; (4) to pay Plaintiffs for
representing the Class out of the Settlement Fund and, if so, in
what amount; and (5) the Plan of Allocation should be approved by
the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate.

This Action is a consolidated securities putative class action
brought on behalf of those Persons and entities who purchased or
acquired Tintri common stock pursuant or traceable to the
Registration Statement and Prospectus for Tintri's June 30, 2017
IPO, against Tintri and certain of its officers, directors, and
underwriters of Tintri's IPO (collectively, "Defendants") for,
among other things, allegedly misstating and omitting material
facts from the Registration Statement and Prospectus filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with Tintri's
IPO. Plaintiffs allege that these purportedly false and misleading
statements resulted in damage to Class Members when the truth was
revealed. Defendants deny all of Plaintiffs' allegations.

IF YOU PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED TINTRI COMMON STOCK BETWEEN JUNE 30,
2017 THROUGH AND INCLUDING DECEMBER 26, 2017, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE
AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION.

To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must
establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release
form ("Proof of Claim"), along with the required supporting
documentation, by mail (postmarked no later than April 16, 2024) or
online (no later than April 16, 2024). Your failure to submit your
Proof of Claim by April 16, 2024, will subject your claim to
rejection and preclude you from receiving any of the recovery in
connection with the Settlement of this Action. If you are a member
of the Class and do not request exclusion therefrom, you will be
bound by the Settlement and any judgment and release entered in the
Action, including, but not limited to, the Judgment, whether or not
you submit a Proof of Claim.

If you have not received a copy of the Notice, which more
completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder, and
a Proof of Claim, you may obtain these documents, as well as a copy
of the Stipulation (which, among other things, contains definitions
for the defined terms used in this Summary Notice) and other
settlement documents, online at www.TintriSecuritiesLitigation.com,
or by writing to:

Tintri Securities Litigation
Claims Administrator
c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
P.O. Box 301171
Los Angeles, CA 90030-1171

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

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

ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
James I. Jaconette
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 800-449-4900
settlementinfo@rgrdlaw.com

IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A
REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED BY JULY 25, 2024,
IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. ALL MEMBERS OF THE
CLASS WHO HAVE NOT REQUESTED EXCLUSION FROM THE CLASS WILL BE BOUND
BY THE SETTLEMENT EVEN IF THEY DO NOT SUBMIT A TIMELY PROOF OF
CLAIM.

IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE
SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, THE REQUEST BY PLAINTIFFS'
COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES, AND/OR THE
PAYMENT TO PLAINTIFFS FOR THEIR REPRESENTATION OF THE CLASS. ANY
OBJECTIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND SENT TO PLAINTIFFS'
COUNSEL AND DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL BY JULY 25, 2024, IN THE MANNER AND
FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE.

DATED: December 26, 2023

BY ORDER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
THE HONORABLE SUSAN L. GREENBERG

1 For purposes of this Settlement only, the Class consists of all
Persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Tintri
common stock between June 30, 2017 and December 26, 2017,
inclusive.
2 The Stipulation can be viewed and/or obtained at
www.TintriSecuritiesLitigation.com. All capitalized terms used
herein have the same meaning as the terms defined in the
Stipulation.


TREMENDOUS LLC: Liou Files Suit in D. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tremendous LLC. The
case is styled as Glenn Liou, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Tremendous LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00437
(D.N.J., Jan. 24, 2024).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Tremendous -- https://www.tremendous.com/ -- is the simplest way to
send rewards and payouts around the world.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tiffany Troy, Esq.
          TROY LEGAL, PLLC
          41-25 Kissena Blvd., #1A
          Flushing, NY 11355
          Phone: (718) 762-2332
          Email: troylegalpllc@gmail.com


TRIDANT SOLUTIONS: Scott Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tridant Solutions,
Inc. The case is styled as Everett Clinton Scott, on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Tridant Solutions, Inc., Case No.
BCV-24-100237 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Jan. 23, 2024).

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

Tridant Solutions -- https://tridantsolutions.com/ -- is a seasoned
professional services firm that combines service excellence with
operational responsiveness.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq.
          Farzan Bijan Amir Mohseni, Esq.
          BIBIYAN LAW GROUP PC
          8484 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 500
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Phone: (310) 438-5555
          Fax: (310) 300-1705
          Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com
                 jeff@tomorrowlaw.com


TRUEACCORD CORP: Williams Files FDCPA Suit in S.D. Mississippi
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against TrueAccord Corp. The
case is styled as Jessica Williams, on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated v. TrueAccord Corp., Case No.
3:24-cv-00049-TSL-RPM (S.D. Miss., Jan. 26, 2024).

The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

TrueAccord -- https://www.trueaccord.com/ -- is the
industry-leading recovery and collections platform powered by
machine learning and a consumer-friendly digital experience.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher E. Kittell, Esq.
          THE KITTELL LAW FIRM
          P. O. Box 568
          283 Losher Street, Suite B
          Hernando, MS 38632
          Phone: (662) 298-3456
          Fax: (855) 896-8772
          Email: ckittell@kittell-law.com


TSG INTERACTIVE US: Sykes Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Melanie Sykes, Brian Tucker, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. TSG Interactive US
Services Limited doing business as: Pokerstars, Case No.
1:23-cv-07210 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on Jan. 24, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-10183-ADB to the
proceeding.

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

TSG Interactive US Services Limited doing business as PokerStars --
https://www.pokerstars.com/ -- is an online poker cardroom.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO PA
          401 E Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 1400
          Ft Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 400-4713
          Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com

               - and -

          Rachel Nicole Dapeer
          DAPEER LAW, P.A.
          20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417
          Aventura, FL 33180
          Phone: (305) 610-5223
          Email: rachel@dapeer.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey Miles Ostrow, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA
          1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-4216
          Phone: (954) 525-4100
          Fax: (954) 525-4300
          Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jason K. Fagelman, Esq.
          NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
          2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 3600
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Phone: (214) 855-8120
          Email: jason.fagelman@nortonrosefulbright.com

               - and -

          Joseph Kenmore Morgan Hughes, Esq.
          NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP / NEW YORK
          1301 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (212) 318-3363
          Email: joe.hughes@nortonrosefulbright.com


UNITED AIRLINES: Sambrano Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID SAMBRANO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et
al., v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., Case No. 4:21-cv-01074-P (N.D.
Tex.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and Local Rule 23.2, certifying
a class and appointing his counsel as class counsel.

By doing so, United violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Accordingly, the Court should certify the following classes to
provide relief to the thousands of United employees who were harmed
by the United's refusal to comply with these important civil rights
laws:

-- Rule 23(b)(2) class

    "All individuals who submitted a request for a reasonable
    accommodation from United's COVID-19 vaccine mandate due to a
    sincerely held religious belief or medical disability and then

    faced the choice of: (1) abandoning their religious beliefs or
    medical needs (i.e., get vaccinated); (2) accepting indefinite
    leave; or (3) being fired or otherwise separated." This class
is
    entitled to injunctive relief and punitive damages for the
harmful
    impossible choice United imposed.

-- Rule 23(b)(3) subclasses

    "All employees United deemed customer facing who received an
    accommodation due to a sincerely held religious belief or
medical
    disability and who were put on unpaid leave." This subclass is
    due backpay and punitive damages.

    "All employees United deemed non-customer-facing who received
an
    accommodation due to a sincerely held religious belief or
medical
    disability and were subject to the purposely punitive
masking-and-
    testing accommodation." This subclass is due punitive damages
for
    being forced to endure United's impossible choice and then
being
    forced into unlawfully harsh accommodations.

United Airlines is a major American airline headquartered at the
Willis Tower in Chicago, Illinois.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 12, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://bit.ly/3SBvLBc at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:
          Mark R. Paoletta, Esq.
          Gene C. Schaerr, Esq.
          Brian J. Field, Esq.
          Cristina Martinez Squiers, Esq.
          SCHAERR |JAFFE LLP
          1717 K Street NW, Suite 900
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 787-1060
          Facsimile: (202) 776-0136
          E-mail: mpaoletta@schaerr-jaffe.com

                - and -

          John C. Sullivan, Esq.
          David Austin R. Nimocks, Esq.
          S|L LAW PLLC
          610 Uptown Boulevard, Suite 2000
          Cedar Hill, TX 75104
          Telephone: (469) 523-1351
          Facsimile: (469) 613-0891
          E-mail: john.sullivan@the-sl-lawfirm.com

UNITED GROUND: Francis Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper OT
---------------------------------------------------------
DERRICK FRANCIS, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED GROUND EXPRESS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:23-cv-16822 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 15, 2023) arises from the
Defendant's failure to fully compensate Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and Illinois Minimum Wage Law required overtime rate when they
worked more than 40 hours in a given workweek.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a "Passenger Assistant Agent"
from in or about March of 2022 up to and including the separation
of his employment which occurred in or about August of 2023.

United Ground Express, Inc. is a subsidiary of United Airlines that
supports airline operations including but not limited to checking
bags at counters and assisting passengers onto their planes.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
          Michael T. Petela, Jr., Esq.
          LEMBERG LAW
          43 Danbury Rd
          Wilton, CT 06897
          Telephone: (203) 653-2250
          Facsimile: (203) 653-3424
          E-mail: slemberg@lemberglaw.com
                  mpetela@lemberglaw.com

UNITED GROUND: Hernandez Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Luz Hernandez, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. UNITED GROUND EXPRESS, INC., a
corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB
2326322 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Bernardino, to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 25, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-00168.

In this action, Plaintiff's Complaint asserts eight causes of
action for: "Failure To Pay Minimum and Straight Time Wages";
"Failure to Pay Overtime Wages"; "Failure To Provide Meal Periods";
"Failure To Authorize and Permit Rest Periods"; "Failure to Timely
Pay Final Wages at Termination"; "Failure to Provide Accurate
Itemized Wage Statements"; "Failure To Indemnify Employees for
Expenditures"; and "Unfair Business Practices."[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jonathan L. Brophy, Esq.
          Heather E. Horn, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
          Phone: (310) 277-7200
          Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
          Email: jbrophy@seyfarth.com
                 hhorn@seyfarth.com

               - and -

          Bailey K. Bifoss, Esq.
          SHAW LLP
          560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Phone: (415) 397-2823
          Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
          Email: bbifoss@seyfarth.com


UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH: Faces Suit Over Anticompetitive Conduct
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bethany Rodgers of GoErie reports that an Erie nurse has filed a
class-action lawsuit accusing healthcare giant UPMC of exploiting
its market dominance by "artificially depressing" wages and
saddling employees with heavy workloads.

These issues are only worsening as the system continues to expand
its footprint in Pennsylvania, the antitrust complaint alleges, as
patients and health care workers have fewer alternatives and UPMC
faces less competition.

The federal lawsuit was brought forward in January by Victoria
Ross, a nurse who has worked at UPMC Hamot in Erie. However, the
class action is seeking redress for skilled healthcare workers
employed by UPMC since early 1996.

Based in Pittsburgh, UPMC is Pennsylvania's largest
non-governmental employer and the 18th-largest hospital system in
the nation, posting $26 billion in annual revenues, according to
the lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges the nonprofit has achieved much of its growth
through "anticompetitive conduct," as it acquires or merges with
other healthcare providers and, in many cases, forces cuts or
closures at thes facilities. UPMC has shut down four hospitals
between 1996 and 2019 and downsized several others, the lawsuit
states, adding that the system has eliminated more than 350 beds
and about 1,367 full-time jobs.

The accusations contained in the lawsuit echo many of the claims
raised in 2023 by SEIU Healthcare Pennsylvania, which asked the
U.S. Department of Justice to investigate whether UPMC is violating
federal labor laws.

How is UPMC harming workers, according to the lawsuit?

Ross, the nurse, is represented by Daniel C. Levin, a lawyer from
Philadelphia. The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court in
Erie, part of the Pittsburgh-based Western District of
Pennsylvania.

Ross' lawsuit alleges that the hospital system's market dominance
has allowed it to suppress workers' wages. In fact, employees have
a running joke that UPMC stands for "You Pay Me Cheap," according
to the filing.

The complaint also asserts that UPMC tends to increase staff
workloads in communities where it corners the healthcare market.
Requiring each staff member to handle more patients can result in
compromised work conditions and a degraded quality of care, the
nurse claims.

However, because of UPMC's sizable presence, healthcare workers in
many areas would struggle to find employment outside of the
system.

"The lack of viable options for employment outside of UPMC
hospitals, in effect, forces UPMC workers to accept UPMC's
increasingly onerous terms of employment," the complaint states.

And UPMC has effectively shut down workers' attempts to demand
better employment conditions, the lawsuit claims. Only 2% of UPMC
workers in Allegheny County belong to a labor union, it states.

More than 130 unfair labor practice charges have been lodged
against UPMC since 2012, with about three-quarters of them related
to workers' unionization attempts, according to the suit.

How does the lawsuit claim UPMC is exercising control over its
workers?
The lawsuit alleges that UPMC controls employees through
non-compete clauses and through the fear that if they leave their
jobs, they'll end up on a "'do not rehire' blacklist" that would
severely curtail their job opportunities in regions dominated by
the health system.

In addition, the way UPMC has crafted its salary structure limits
the ability of employees to increase their earnings by taking a job
in a different hospital within the network, according to the
lawsuit.

More:Brian Durniok, interim UPMC Hamot president, earns job
permanently. What led to new hire?

These factors deprive UPMC workers of employment mobility —
taking away one of their most important tools for professional
advancement, the complaint alleges.

"When workers are prevented from seeking alternative comparable
employment opportunities, they are not only inhibited from pursuing
better work opportunities, but they are also inhibited from being
able to negotiate better working conditions with their current
employer," the complaint says. "UPMC not only has the power to
exercise such restrictions but imposes them to the detriment of its
employees."
What does UPMC say about these allegations?

UPMC attorneys have not yet submitted a rebuttal to the initial
complaint, and a spokesperson did not respond to a request for
comment from the USA TODAY Network.

However, a spokesman did refer TribLive to a previous remark from
UPMC, saying the health system has no policy that would prevent an
employee from being hired elsewhere. They also asserted that their
staffing levels are related to patient needs and not to established
ratios. [GN]

UNLIMITED AMMO: Bolton Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Unlimited Ammo, LLC.
The case is styled as Aaron Bolton, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Unlimited Ammo, LLC, Case No.
8:24-cv-00226 (M.D. Fla., Jan. 24, 2024).

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

Unlimited ammo -- https://unlimitedammo.com/ -- is the best kept
secret in the ammo industry..[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


VALLEY, AL: Little Appeals Case Dismissal Ruling
------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Santori Little, et al., filed an appeal from the
District Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated December 15,
2023 entered in the lawsuit styled Santori Little, et al. v. The
City of Valley, Alabama, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00044-RAH-KFP, in
the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Alabama.

In this putative class action filed on January 19, 2023, the
Plaintiffs claim that they and other area residents were criminally
charged with misdemeanors and jailed by the City of Valley, Alabama
for failing to pay their monthly garbage bills. They also claim
that the City's garbage revenue structure constitutes an illegal
tax. They sue the City of Valley, Alabama and AmWaste, LLC for
violating and conspiring to violate their constitutional rights,
racketeering and extortion, and unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiffs bring five counts in the second amended complaint,
including three under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983: (1) violation of the
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Count I), against
the City only; (2) violation of the Eighth Amendment (Count IV),
against the City only; and (3) conspiracy to violate Plaintiffs'
constitutional rights (Count II), against both the City and
AmWaste. Count III alleges a claim under the Racketeering
Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act against the City and
AmWaste, and Count V is a state law claim of unjust enrichment
against the City only.

On February 17 and March 23, 2023, the Defendants each moved to
dismiss the claims against them.

On December 15, Honorable Judge R. Austin Huffaker, Jr. entered a
Memorandum Opinion and Order holding that: (1) Defendant AmWaste,
LLC's Motion to Dismiss Second Amended Complaint is GRANTED; (2)
Defendant City of Valley's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second
Amended Complaint is GRANTED; (3) Counts I, II, III, and IV of
Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint are DISMISSED with prejudice
and Count V is DISMISSED without prejudice; (4) The Clerk of Court
is DIRECTED to close the case.

The appellate case is captioned as Santori Little, et al. v. The
City of Valley, Alabama, et al., Case No. 24-10120, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, filed on January
12, 2024.[BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants SANTORI LITTLE, on behalf of herself and
those similarly situated, et al., are represented by:

          Allan L. Armstrong, Esq.
          ARMSTRONG LAW CENTER, LLC
          PO Box 2434
          Birmingham, AL 35201
          Telephone: (205) 205-1529

               - and -

          William J. Baxley, Esq.
          BAXLEY JACKSON LAW FIRM
          300 Vestavia Pkwy Ste 3200
          Vestavia Hills, AL 35216
          Telephone: (205) 290-5262

               - and -

          Darrell L. Cartwright, Esq.
          CARTWRIGHT LAW CORPORATION
          PO Box 383204
          Birmingham, AL 35238-3204
          Telephone: (205) 222-5900  

               - and -

          Brian Michael Clark, Esq.
          WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER & GOLDFARB, LLC
          301 19th St N
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 314-0500

               - and -

          John Mark White, Esq.
          WHITE ARNOLD & DOWD, PC
          2001 Park Pl Twr Ste 1400
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 323-1888

Defendants-Appellees THE CITY OF VALLEY, ALABAMA and AMWASTE, LLC
are represented by:

          Bart Gregory Harmon, Esq.
          ALEXANDER HYDE, LLC
          2138 Moores Mill Rd Ste A
          Auburn, AL 36830
          Telephone: (334) 246-2333

               - and -

          Callie Leopard Barrow, Esq.
          Benjamin Brock Coulter, Esq.
          BURR & FORMAN, LLP
          420 N 20th St Ste 3400
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 458-5308

VANGUARD GROUP: Lardizabal Suit Removed to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Aidan Lardizabal and Mayra Alejandra Puentes,
as individuals, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. THE VANGUARD GROUP, INC., a Pennsylvania corporation;
and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
37-2023-00055108-CU-MC-CTL was removed from the Superior Court of
the County of San Diego, California, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California on Jan. 25, 2024, and assigned
Case No. 3:24-cv-00172-BTM-DEB.

The Complaint seeks to assert claims for violation of California
Civil against Vanguard on behalf of Plaintiffs and "all other
similarly situated consumers who are residents of California" who
"used, visited, and/or engaged in transactions via" the
investor.vanguard.com website. The Complaint alleges that the
Vanguard Terms of Use (the "Terms") waive consumers' right "to make
negative statements regarding Defendants," including because the
Terms instruct website users "not to use the Site to: submit,
upload, post, e-mail, transmit, or otherwise make available any
statement or content that personally attacks or is derogatory
toward Vanguard as an entity, Vanguard employees, any Vanguard
products or services, or any Vanguard Materials," and because the
Terms require "users to agree not to use any of Vanguard's product
or brand names 'in any manner that disparages or discredits
Vanguard.'"[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          David R. Singh, Esq.
          Amy Tu Quyen Le, Esq.
          WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
          201 Redwood Shores Parkway, 4th Floor
          Redwood Shores, CA 94065-1134
          Phone: (650) 802-3000
          Facsimile: (650) 802-3100
          Email: david.singh@weil.com
                 amy.le@weil.com

               - and -

          David L. Yohai, Esq.
          Blake J. Steinberg, Esq.
          WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
          767 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10153
          Phone: (212) 310-8000
          Facsimile: (212) 310-8007
          Email: david.yohai@weil.com
                 blake.steinberg@weil.com


VERTEX ENERGY: Levson Suit Transferred to S.D. Texas
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Phil Levson, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated v. VERTEX ENERGY, INC., BENJAMIN P.
COWART, and CHRIS CARLSON, Case No. 1:23-cv-00197 was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama,
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas on
Jan. 25, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:24-cv-00291 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Securities/Commodities for
Securities Exchange Act.

Vertex Energy -- https://www.vertexenergy.com/ -- is a leading
energy transition company that specializes in producing both
renewable and conventional fuels.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James B. Eubank, Esq.
          Wilson Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
          BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
          218 Commerce Street
          Montgomery, AL 36104
          Phone: 334-269-2343
          Email: James.Eubank@BeasleyAllen.com
                 Dee.Miles@BeasleyAllen.com

               - and -

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ashwin J. Ram, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
          633 W. 5th Street, Ste 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 439-9443
          Email: aram@steptoe.com

               - and –

          Elizabeth Cassady, Esq.
          STEPTOE LLP
          1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20036
          Phone: (202) 429-3000
          Email: ecassady@steptoe.com

               - and -

          Allen E. Graham, Esq.
          P.O. Box 2727
          Mobile, AL 36652
          Phone: (251) 432-4481

               - and -

          Evan Goldstick, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
          1114 Avenue Of The Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Phone: (212) 378-7506
          Email: egoldstick@steptoe.com

               - and -

          William E. Shreve, Jr., Esq.
          PHELPS DUNBAR, LLP
          P.O. Box 2727
          Mobile, AL 36652
          Phone: (251) 432-4481
          Fax: (251) 433-1820

VERTEX ENERGY: Passmore Suit Transferred to S.D. Texas
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as William C. Passmore, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. VERTEX ENERGY, INC.,
BENJAMIN P. COWART, and CHRIS CARLSON, Case No. 1:23-cv-00128 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Texas on Jan. 25, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:24-cv-00290 to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Securities/Commodities for
Securities Exchange Act.

Vertex Energy -- https://www.vertexenergy.com/ -- is a leading
energy transition company that specializes in producing both
renewable and conventional fuels.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Danielle S. Myers, Esq.
          Darryl J. Alvarado, Esq.
          Juan Carlos Sanchez, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 231-1058
          Email: dmyers@rgrdlaw.com
                 dalvarado@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Roger H. Bedford, Jr., Esq.
          BEDFORD, BEDFORD & ROGERS
          P.O. Box 669
          Russellville, AL 35653

               - and –

          Sidney W. Jackson, III, Esq.
          P.O. Box 894
          Mobile, AL 36601
          Phone: (251) 433-3131

The Defendant is represented by:

          Ashwin J. Ram, Esq.
          STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
          633 W. 5th Street, Ste 1900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Phone: (213) 439-9443
          Email: aram@steptoe.com

               - and –

          Allen E. Graham, Esq.
          William E. Shreve, Jr., Esq.
          P.O. Box 2727
          Mobile, AL 36652
          Phone: (251) 432-4481


VICTORY AUTO: Polanco Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
JUAN POLANCO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VICTORY AUTO GROUP LLC; SPARTAN AUTO GROUP
LLC; VICTORY MOTORS LLC; PHILIP ARGYOPOULOS, individually; DIANE
ARGYOPOLOUS, individually; and SCOTT BONFORTI, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-10900 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 15, 2023) seeks
to recover minimum wages, overtime pay, unpaid commissions and
unlawful deductions for Plaintiff and any similarly situated
co-workers pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New
York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated current and former employees in the position of
sales representatives at Victory Auto who elect to opt into this
action pursuant to the FLSA, and specifically the collective action
provision of 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), to remedy violations of the
minimum wage provisions of the FLSA.

The Plaintiff also brings claims pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, for failure to pay minimum wage, overtime
pay, failure to pay agreed upon wages, unlawful retention of wages,
and unlawful deduction of commissions in violation of the NYLL and
the supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations, 12
N.Y.C.R.R. Part 142, and the common law.

Plaintiff Polanco was employed by Victory Auto at the dealership
located at 4070 Boston Road, Bronx, New York as a sales
representative from approximately March 13, 2016 through July 6,
2018.

Victory Auto Group LLC is a privately owned car dealership in the
Bronx, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank J. Mazzaferro, Esq.
          David J. Sack, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 300-0375

VICTORY STARTS NOW: Palmer Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nyesha Palmer, and other similarly situated aggrieved employees v.
VICTORY STARTS NOW, INC. and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Case No.
24STCV01775 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 23, 2024), is
brought under the California Labor Code, the Private Attorneys
General Act ("PAGA") and for violations of Business and Professions
Code as a result of the Defendants failure to compensate for all
hours worked; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay
overtime; failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements;
failure to pay wages owed every pay period; failure to pay wages
when employment ends; failure to provide rest breaks; failure to
provide meal breaks; failure to reimburse business expenses;
failure to provide personnel records; and failure to provide pay
records.

The Defendant did not provide Plaintiff and other similarly
situated aggrieved employees with the minimum wages to which they
were entitled for all work performed and did not compensate her and
others for all hours worked pursuant to California Labor Code.
Plaintiff and others were not paid for all hours worked and were
not paid for time that they worked "off the clock." This is so
because the company had a policy and practice of rounding down
hours worked and "time shaving," which led to the employees not
being paid for all hours worked, which would include the minimum
wage. Moreover, to the extent employees worked through their meal
periods and those meal periods were interrupted, they were not
compensated for that time, which would be akin to a minimum wage
violation. Moreover, Plaintiff and others would engage in
work-related tasks before clocking in or after clocking out for
which Plaintiff was not compensated at all in violation of
California's minimum wage laws, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff started working for the Defendant in 2020 as an
Inspiration Manager.

VICTORY STARTS NOW, INC. is a California corporation, doing
business in the County of Los Angeles, State of California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Harout Messrelian, Esq.
          MESSRELIAN LAW INC.
          500 N. Central Ave., Suite 840
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Phone: (818) 484-6531
          Facsimile: (818) 956-1983


VITACUP INC: Karim Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vitacup, Inc. The
case is styled as Jessica Karim, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Vitacup, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00578
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 26, 2024).

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

Vitacup, Inc. -- https://www.vitacup.com/ -- offers vitamin &
superfood coffee and tea company.[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


WANABANA LLC: Food Products Contain Lead, Johnson Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
MADISON JOHNSON and ELVIN DOWLING, individually and on behalf of a
Class of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WANABANA LLC
and WANABANA USA LLC, Defendants, Case No. 0:24-cv-60086 (S.D.
Fla., Jan. 12, 2024) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs,
on behalf of persons who purchased certain WanaBana apple sauce and
apple cinnamon fruit puree pouches, against the Defendants for
breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of
merchantability, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation,
and violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendants manufactured, marketed,
and sold these products while recklessly or intentionally failing
to disclose they were toxic and unfit for human consumption and
contained hazardous levels of lead, as well as high levels of
chromium and potentially other toxic materials. WanaBana
prominently advertises their products as "Only Fruit" and tout the
products as having high quality, purity, and safety. The
advertising and packaging of these products is consequently
materially false, deceptive, and misleading, and reasonably likely
to deceive the public, says the suit.

Through this action, Plaintiffs, both individually and on behalf of
classes of other similarly situated purchasers of WanaBana
products, seek all applicable and available relief and damages
under the laws of Florida and the United States.

WanaBana LLC is a national limited liability corporation organized
and existing under the laws of Florida.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Nathan C. Zipperian, Esq.
          MILLER SHAH LLP
          1625 N. Commerce Pkwy., Suite 320
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33326
          Telephone: (866) 540-5505
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          E-mail: nczipperian@millershah.com

               - and -

          Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
          Dustin L. Schubert, Esq.
          Amber L. Schubert, Esq.
          SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
          2001 Union St., Suite 200
          San Francisco, CA 94123
          Telephone: (415) 788-4220
          Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
          E-mail: rschubert@sjk.law
                  dschubert@sjk.law
                  aschubert@sjk.law

WARRIOR MET COAL: Gibson Files Suit in N.D. Alabama
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Warrior Met Coal Inc.
The case is styled as Douglas Gibson, on behalf of himself
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Warrior Met Coal Inc., Case No. 7:24-cv-00095-ACA (N.D. Ala., Jan.
26, 2024).

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

Warrior Met Coal, Inc. -- https://warriormetcoal.com/ -- provides
coal mining services. The Company produces and exports
metallurgical coal for the steel industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jessica Machelle Haynes, Esq.
          BEASLEY ALLEN LAW FIRM
          301 St. Louis Street
          Mobile, AL 36602
          Phone: (251) 266-5477
          Email: jessi.haynes@beasleyallen.com

               - and -

          Larry A. Golston, Jr., Esq.
          Lauren Elizabeth Miles, Esq.
          Leon Hampton, Jr., Esq.
          BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES PC
          272 Commerce Street
          P O Box 4160
          Montgomery, AL 36103-4160
          Phone: (334) 269-2343
          Fax: (334) 954-7555
          Email: larry.golston@beasleyallen.com
          lauren.miles@beasleyallen.com
          Leon.Hampton@beasleyallen.com

               - and -

          Wilson Daniel Miles, III, Esq.
          BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES PC
          P O Box 4160
          Montgomery, AL 36103-4160
          Phone: (334) 269-2343
          Fax: (334) 954-7555
          Email: dee.miles@beasleyallen.com


WAYFAIR LLC: Frost Files ADA Suit in D. Minnesota
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wayfair, LLC. The
case is styled as Clarence Frost, Tammy Frost, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wayfair, LLC doing
business as: Wayfair, Case No. 0:24-cv-00165-JMB-LIB (S.D.N.Y.,
Jan. 22, 2024).

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

Wayfair Inc. -- http://www.wayfair.com/-- is an American
e-commerce company based in Boston, Massachusetts that sells
furniture and home goods online.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason D. Gustafson, Esq.
          Patrick W. Michenfelder
          THRONDSET & MICHENFELDER LAW OFFICE LLC
          One Central Avenue West, Suite 101
          St. Michael, MN 55330-55376
          Phone: (763) 515-6110
          Fax: (763) 226-2515
          Email: jason@throndsetlaw.com
                 pat@throndsetlaw.com


WE OLIVE LLC: Karim Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against We Olive, LLC. The
case is styled as Jessica Karim, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. We Olive, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00590
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 26, 2024).

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

We Olive -- https://weolive.com/ -- combines California's finest
certified Extra Virgin Olive Oil, gourmet foods, and hand-crafted
wines into one delicious tasting experience.[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


WEEE! INC: Jia Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Helen Jia, Tingting Ding, Haoquan Liang,
Xiaofang Mei, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Weee! Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-02314 was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
Jan. 25, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-00534-AT to the
proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Weee! Inc. -- https://www.sayweee.com/en -- is America's largest
online Asian supermarket, offering the best and most up-to-date
Asian foods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blake Joseph Lindemann, Esq.
          Donna R. Dishbak, Esq.
          LINDEMANN LAW FIRM
          9777 Wilshire Blvd.
          Fourth Floor
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Phone: (310) 279-5269
          Fax: (310) 300-0267

The Defendants are represented by:

          John Tyler Mills, Esq.
          GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP
          1 Battery Plaza, 28th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Phone: (212) 269-5500
          Email: jtmills@grsm.com

               - and -

          Justin D. Knight, Esq.
          GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
          275 Battery Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 986-5900


WEIBEL INCORPORATED: Hunter Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Weibel Incorporated.
The case is styled as Maria Esther Hunter, Frank Weibel, Jr.,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Weibel Incorporated DBA Weibel Family Vineyards & Winery, RB Wine
Associates, LLC DBA Rack & Riddle, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0000950
(Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Jan. 25, 2024).

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

Weibel Incorporated doing business as Weibel Family Vineyards &
Winery offers custom wine services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
          3055 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 510
          Los Angeles, CA 90010-1145
          Phone: 213-381-9988
          Fax: 213-381-9989
          Email: justin@wilshirelawfirm.com


WELLS FARGO BANK: Xiong Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Pammy Xiong, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Case No.
23STCV30805 was removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court,
to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
on Jan. 22, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00564-CAS-AS to
the proceeding.

The nature of suit is stated as Consumer Credit.

Wells Fargo -- http://www.wellsfargo.com/-- is an American
multinational financial services company with a significant global
presence.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          Adrian Robert Bacon, Esq.
          Matthew R. Snyder, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN
          21031 Ventura Blvd., Suite 340
          Woodland Hills, CA 91364
          Phone: (323) 306-4234
          Email: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
                 abacon@toddflaw.com
                 msnyder@toddflaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          John Owen Campbell, Esq.
          Kristin Lee Walker-Probst, Esq.
          Tomio B. Narita, Esq.
          WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON US LLP
          400 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1700
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Phone: (714) 557-3800
          Email: owen.campbell@wbd-us.com
                 kristin.walker-probst@wbd-us.com
                 tomio.narita@wbd-us.com


WELLTOK INC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Griffith-Sullivan Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
VALERIE GRIFFITH-SULLIVAN, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WELLTOK, INC. and PROGRESS
SOFTWARE CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-13103-ADB (D.
Mass., Dec. 15, 2023) is a class action against Defendants for
their failure to properly secure and safeguard the sensitive
information of Plaintiff and other similarly situated Welltok
clients, patients, and/or employees including personally
identifiable information and protected health information as
defined by the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
of 1996.

On July 26, 2023, Welltok learned that Pension Benefit Information,
LLC's network, to which PSC provided software services, and upon
which Welltok relied for the sending and receiving of sensitive
information, had been penetrated by a cyberattack. The complaint
alleges that Defendants failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's
and Class Members' private information -- and failed to even
encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. Hackers
targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' private
information because of its value in exploiting and stealing the
identities of Plaintiff and Class Members, says the suit.

The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future
data compromise on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
persons whose personal data was compromised and stolen as a result
of the data breach and who remain at risk due to Defendants'
inadequate data-security practices.

Welltok, Inc. is a consumer activation company that provides
products and/or services to healthcare organizations and other
companies.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq.
          FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC
          923 Fayette Street
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (610) 234-6486
          E-mail: jjagher@fklmlaw.com

               - and -

          Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
          Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
          Emma Ritter Gordon, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
          100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
          E-mail: kmbaxter-kauf@locklaw.com
                  khriebel@locklaw.com
                  erittergordon@locklaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq.
          SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW
          The Helmsley Building
          230 Park Avenue, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10169
          Telephone: (212) 223-4478
          E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Andrea R. Gold, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEL LLP
          2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW #1010
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 973-0931
          E-mail: agold@tzlegal.com

WHITEPAGES INC: Klaneski Files Suit in W.D. Washington
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Whitepages Inc. The
case is styled as Rosa Lee Klaneski, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Whitepages Inc., Case No.
2:24-cv-00121-JCC (W.D. Wash., Jan. 26, 2024).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for the Computer Fraud
and Abuse Act.

Whitepages -- https://www.whitepages.com/ -- is a provider of
online directory services, fraud screening, background checks and
identity verification for consumers and businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Mader Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN MADER, individually and for others similarly situated v. THE
WILLIAMS COMPANIES, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-00145 (S.D. Tex., Jan.
12, 2024) is a collective action lawsuit by the Plaintiff to
recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages from the Defendant
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff Mader and the other similarly
situated employees regularly work more than 40 hours a week. But
Defendant does not pay them proper overtime. Instead, Williams
misclassifies Plaintiff Mader and similarly situated employees as
independent contractors and pays them a flat amount for each day
worked, regardless of the total number of hours they worked in a
workweek.

The Plaintiff worked for Williams as an inspector from
approximately January 2023 until November 2023 whose primary duties
include inspecting interstate pipelines to ensure the safe
transportation of oil and gas in interstate commerce.

The Williams Companies, Inc. is engaged in the business that is
related to the exploration, production, and transportation of oil
and gas goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

WILMAR OILS & FATS: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wilmar Oils & Fats
(Stockton), LLC. The case is styled as Marcelo Martinez,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Wilmar Oils & Fats (Stockton), LLC, Insperity PEO Services, L.P.,
Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0000945 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin
Cty., Jan. 25, 2024).

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

Wilmar Oils & Fats (Stockton), LLC is in the food and beverage
manufacturing industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin F. Marquez, Esq.
          WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC
          3055 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 510
          Los Angeles, CA 90010-1145
          Phone: 213-381-9988
          Fax: 213-381-9989
          Email: justin@wilshirelawfirm.com


YESCOM USA INC: Liz Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yescom USA, Inc. The
case is styled as Pedro Liz, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Yescom USA, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00570
(S.D.N.Y., Jan. 26, 2024).

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

YescomUSA -- https://www.yescomusa.com/ -- is an all-in-one
hobbyist store and wholesale distributor.[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


[*] Registration Now Open for 8th Annual Class Action Conference
----------------------------------------------------------------
Registration is now open for the 8th Annual Class Action Money &
Ethics Conference.

Join top professionals and thought leaders in the class action
industry for this one-day event.

CAME 2024 will be held in-person at The Harmonie Club on Monday,
May 6, 2024.  To register, visit
https://www.classactionconference.com/

For sponsorship or speakership opportunities, please contact:

     Will Etchison
     Tel: 305-707-7493
     E-mail: will@beardgroup.com



                            *********

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

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

Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***