/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240412.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, April 12, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 75

                            Headlines

2953 BROADWAY: Ye Suit Referred to Magistrate Judge for Settlement
AGILON HEALTH: Hope Sues Over Misleading Business Statements
AIR METHODS: Milton Sues Over Unprotected Personal, Health Info
ALLSTATE LIFE: Judge Recommends Denial of Class Cert. Bid
ALTA MESA: Court Sets May 17 Deadline for Class Action Opt-Out

AMAZON.COM INC: Johnson Sues Over Disclosure of Sensitive Info
AMAZON.COM INC: Order on Deposition Subpoena Entered in Mahone Suit
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Bid to Dismiss Hartwig Case Due April 12
AMERICAN BOTTLING: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Jones Claims
APPHARVEST INC: Court Approves Securities Class Action Settlement

APPLE INC: Faces Levine Suit Over Smartphone Market Monopoly
APPLE INC: Ultra Home Sues Over Antitrust Law Violations
AT&T INC: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Data Breach
AUSTRALIA: NFF Decries Latest Move In Cattle Export Class Action
BANK OF AMERICA: Court Tosses Class Certification Bid w/o Prejudice

BAYER HEALTHCARE: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Due Sept. 16
BEST BUY: Willis Sues Over Sale of Defective Pressure Cookers
BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD: Bid to Dismiss Paul Class Suit Denied
BLUEBIRD BIO: Faces Class Action Over Overstated Drug Prospects
BURNETT MEDICAL: Bid & Brief To Decertify Classes Due Jan. 24, 2025

CADENCE BANK: Fails to Protect Private Info, Triplett Suit Says
CALIFORNIA PAK: Figueroa Sues Over Breach of Caller ID Rules
CBR SYSTEMS: Faces Suit Over Umbilical Cord Blood Banking Services
CELGENE CORP: Faces Suit Over Alleged Pomalidomide Market Monopoly
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Therapy My Way Sues Over Private Data Breach

CHEMOURS COMPANY: Masel Sues Over Securities Laws' Violations
CIGNA HEALTH: RJ Appeals Denial of Bid to Renew Class Cert. Motion
CONTINENTAL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Mai Sues Over Tire Price-Fixing
CORSAIR GAMING: Court Vacates April 18 Daubert Motions Hearing
D & C LOOP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Guzman Suit Claims

D AND EAST: Court OKs Settlement in Mismanaged Apartments' Suit
DAS ACQUISITION: Nash et al. Sue Over Unlawful Pay Practices
DECKERS CONSUMER: Faces Monegan Suit Over Labor Law Violations
DELTA COUNTY, TX: Bid for Class Cert. Denied w/o Prejudice
DOCTORS BEST: Court Enters Order Closing Casey Class Action

DOXIMITY INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
DRAFTKINGS INC: Court OKs Request to Transfer Deceptive Ads' Suit
EQUIFAX INFO: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment vs Torres
EQUINIX INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
GENERAL MOTORS: Landman Sues Over Misleading Driving Information

GEORGE WASHINGTON: Sued Over Unregistered Foreign Agent Activities
GOOGLE LLC: Agrees to Destroy Private Browsing Data to Settle Suit
GT EXPRESS: Neisinger & Parker Sue Over Worker Misclassification
HBL BEAUTY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over False Advertising
HORIZON ACTUARIAL: Plaintiffs Seek Approval of Class Settlement

INSURANCE PIPELINE: Woods Sues Over Nonpayment of OT Wages
IROBOT CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 7
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Vishnoi Sues Over Acne Products' False Ads
KE HOLDINGS: Court Narrows Claims in Putative Class Action
KELLER WILLIAMS: Faces Class Action Over Profit-Sharing Program

KINDRED HOSPITALITY: Faces Verhaak Suit Over Tip Misappropriation
LARRY'S FURNITURE: Wint Suit Alleges Labor Law Breaches
LENNY & LARRY'S: Garica & Kotcher Sue Over False Product Labeling
LIMNI LLC: Faces Makaj Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
LINCOLN NATIONAL: Glover Insurance Suit Dismissed

LORDSTOWN MOTORS: $10MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 11
LUNA INNOVATIONS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Securities Fraud
M.G. TILE: Matamoros and Alonzo Sue Over Labor Law Breaches
MANPOWER US: Faces Williams Suit Over FLSA Breach
MAP FOODS: Ruiz Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages

MEADOW LARK: Quinn May Leave to File Amended Complaint
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Court Partly Favors Consumers in Diesel Suit
META PLATFORMS: Albemarle County Joins Social Media Platform Suit
MICHIGAN: Inmates' Family Members, Parents Sued Over Illegal Scheme
MOMENTUS INC: July 4 Claim Form Submission Deadline Set

NEW YORK, NY: Court Narrows Claims in Greene Suit
NEXT BRIDGE: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 14
NOHO HOSPITALITY: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Erkan Claims
OPEN DOOR: Court Stays Discovery in Sharma Suit
ORACLE AMERICA: Realscape Group Sues Over Breach of Contract

OXY USA: CRFT Class Cert Bid Overruled w/o Prejudice to Refiiling
PACIFIC RED: Faces Class Action Over Wage and Hour Violations
PANAMERICAN CONSULTING: Faces Class Action Over Consumer Fraud
PAPAYA GAMING: Kelly-Starkebaum Alleges Deceptive Gaming Practices
PLUG POWER: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set on May 21

PLUNKETT’S PEST: Followell Seeks Route Technician's Unpaid OT
PORSCHE CARS: Parties in Abel Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines
PRACTICE RESOURCES: Loses Bid to Dismiss Data Breach Suit
PRACTICE RESOURCES: Suit Seeks Initial OK of Settlement
PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Harker Sues Over Private Data Breach

PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Weaver Privacy Suit Transferred to D. Mass
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Class Settlement to be Heard on June 13
QIHOO 360: $29.75MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Aug. 1
QUEBEC: Court Hears Class Action Lawsuit by Taxi Drivers
RAY'S SMOOTHIES: Garcia Sues Over Labor Law Breaches

REPROSOURCE FERTILITY: Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $1.25-Mil
RESPIRONICS COLORADO: Faces Dillon Suit Over Private Data Breach
ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Sodha Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir.
SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Appeals Stay Bid Denial in Simon Suit to 9th Cir
SAS RETAIL: Faces Marbley Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif.

SONDER HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
SPRUCE SERVICES: Saleh Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
STAR PETROLEUM: Fishing Community Files Class Suit Over Oil Spill
STATE FARM: 11th Cir. Reverses Dismissal of Vehicle Valuation Suit
STOKE THERAPEUTICS: Carroll Seeks Advance Notice Bylaw Invalidation

T-MOBILE USA: May Appeal Pending Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit
TAQUERIA EMILIO: Gonzales Seeks Proper Overtime Wages
TATA CONSULTANCY: Faces Williams Suit Over Labor Code Breaches
TELEFLORA LLC: Cummings Sues Over Private Data Breach
TIMOTHY PADGETT: Gensey Suit Seeks to Certify Consumer Classes

TRADER JOE'S: Court Narrows Claims in Chocolate-Related Suit
TRANSFORM SEARS: Hoffman Sues Over Wage and Hour Law Violations
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Suits Prompt Accessibility for Wheelchair Users
WALMART INC: Faces Class Action Over Ezricare Artificial Tears
WALMART INC: Williams Sues Over Mislabeled Acne Cream Products

WALT DISNEY: Carano Files Class Action Over Wrongful Dismissal
WELLNOW URGENT: Maguire-Whipple Balks at Unprotected Personal Info
WELLS FARGO: Faces New Class Action Overcharging Servicemen
WELLS FARGO: Goldovsky Sues Over Sale of Unregistered Securities
WHALECO INC: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Eakins Suit

WILLIAMS-SONOMA STORES: Job Postings Lack Wage Info, Yount Says
[*] Levine Law Sponsors 8th Annual Class Action Conference
[*] Miller Kaplan Sponsors 8th Annual Class Action Conference
[*] Parabellum Sponsors 8th Annual Class Action Conference
[^] 2024 Class Action Conference Agenda


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Advance Auto Parts Defends PI Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Products Has 372 Pending Cases as of Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Reinsurance Still Receives Exposure Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Indemnity Has $10.7MM Net Loss Reserves
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graybar Electric Has 3,510 Exposure Cases Pending



                            *********

2953 BROADWAY: Ye Suit Referred to Magistrate Judge for Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as XING YE et al., v. 2953
BROADWAY INC. d/b/a VINE SUSHI et al., Case No.
1:18-cv-04941-JHR-JW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jennifer Rearden
entered an amended order referring to the designated Magistrate
Judge for the following purpose:

-- General Pretrial (includes scheduling, discovery,
non-dispositive
    pretrial motions, and settlement)’

-- Specific Non-Dispositive Motion/Dispute; and

-- Settlement.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 26, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bQbUmT at no extra
charge.[CC]

AGILON HEALTH: Hope Sues Over Misleading Business Statements
------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICK HARRIS HOPE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AGILON HEALTH, INC., STEVEN J.
SELL, AND TIMOTHY S. BENSLEY, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00305
(W.D. Tex., March 25, 2024) seeks to pursue remedies under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
Securities and Exchange Commission's Rule 10b-5.

The Plaintiff brings this federal securities class action on behalf
of a class of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired Agilon common stock between November 4, 2022, and January
4, 2024, inclusive. Throughout the said period, Defendants
repeatedly touted the strength of the Agilon's medical margin.
Additionally, Defendants downplayed the significant cost pressures
on the Agilon's medical margin and profitability. As a result of
Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the decline in the
market value of the Agilon's common stock when the truth was
revealed, Plaintiff and other members of the class have suffered
significant damages, says the suit.

Headquartered in Austin, TX, Agilon Health, Inc is a healthcare and
technology company that acts as an intermediary between physician
groups that provide medical services to senior citizens and
Medicare and Medicare Advantage insurers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Jeffrey J. Angelovich, Esq.
         Cody Hill, Esq.
         Jessica Underwood, Esq.
         NIX PATTERSON, LLP
         8701 Bee Cave Road
         Building 1, Suite 500
         Austin, TX 78746
         Telephone: (512) 328-5333
         Facsimile: (512) 495-1534
         E-mail: jangelovich@nixlaw.com
                 codyhill@nixlaw.com
                 junderwood@nixlaw.com

                 - and -

         Naumon A. Amjed, Esq.
         Jonathan Z. Naji, Esq.
         KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
         280 King of Prussia Road
         Radnor, PA 19087
         Telephone: (610) 667-7706
         Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
         E-mail: namjed@ktmc.com
                 jnaji@ktmc.com

AIR METHODS: Milton Sues Over Unprotected Personal, Health Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
GENOVEVA MILTON, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AIR METHODS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-00719-SBP (D. Colo., March 15, 2024) arises out of the
November 9, 2023 data security incident and data breach that was
perpetrated against Defendant Air Methods, which held in its
possession certain personally identifiable information and
protected health information (collectively, "the Private
Information") of Representative Plaintiff and other individuals
associated with Defendant.

According to the complaint, Representative Plaintiff and Class
Members have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of
fraud and identity theft as a result of the Data Breach.
Representative Plaintiff and Class Members must now and for years
into the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard
against identity theft. Representative Plaintiff and Class Members
have or soon may incur out of pocket costs for, e.g., purchasing
credit monitoring services, credit freezes, credit reports, or
other protective measures to deter and detect identity theft, says
the suit.

Through this Complaint, Representative Plaintiff seeks to remedy
these harms on behalf of herself and all similarly situated
individuals whose Private Information was accessed during the Data
Breach.

Air Methods Corporation provides air medical transportation
services throughout the United States and designs, manufactures,
and installs medical aircraft interiors.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Daniel Srourian, Esq.
          SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
          3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213) 474-3800
          Facsimile: (213) 471-4160
          E-mail: daniel@slfla.com

ALLSTATE LIFE: Judge Recommends Denial of Class Cert. Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSAN L. HOLLAND-HEWITT,
v. ALLSTATE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:20-cv-00652-KES-SAB
(E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stanley Boone recommends that the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification be denied.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district
judge assigned to this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(B) and this Court's Local Rule 304.

Within 21 days of service of this recommendation, any party may
file written objections to these findings and recommendations with
the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should
be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and
Recommendations."

The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the
specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent the following Class and Sub-Class
contending that all the requirements of Rule 23 are satisfied.

     The Class:

     "All owners, or beneficiaries upon a death of the insured, of

     the Defendant's individual life insurance policies issued in
     California before 2013 that the Defendant lapsed or terminated

     for the non-payment of premium in or after 2013 without first

     providing all the notices, grace periods, and offers of
     designation required by Insurance Code Sections 10113.71 and
     10113.72."

     The Elder Abuse Sub-Class:

     "All members of the Class defined above who were also 65 years
of
     age or older at the time the policy lapsed or terminated.

On May 8, 2020, the Plaintiff filed this putative class action
against the Defendant. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant
wrongfully lapsed or terminated life insurance policies, including
hers, without first providing all the consumer protections mandated
by California Insurance Code Sections 10113.71 and 10113.72,
namely: minimum grace periods, proper notices of lapse, and the
right to designate others to receive important duplicative notices
and information regarding the insurance policy.

Allstate is a financial services company.

A copy of the Court's recommendations dated March 27, 2024 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Bm2zlM
at no extra charge.[CC]

ALTA MESA: Court Sets May 17 Deadline for Class Action Opt-Out
---------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION

IN RE ALTA MESA RESOURCES, INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION

Case No. 4:19-cv-00957

Judge George C. Hanks, Jr

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION

TO: (1) ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO HELD SHARES OF ALTA MESA
(SILVER RUN II) COMMON STOCK AND/OR SILVER RUN II UNITS ON JANUARY
22, 2018; AND (2) ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR
OTHERWISE ACQUIRED SECURITIES OF ALTA MESA / SILVER RUN II FROM
AUGUST 16, 2017 THROUGH MAY 17, 2019, INCLUSIVE (THE "CLASS
PERIOD").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas (the "Court") that a class
action lawsuit is now pending in the Court under the above caption
(the "Action") against (i) Alta Mesa Resources, Inc. f/k/a Silver
Run II ("AMR"), (ii) Riverstone Holdings, LLC, (iii) HPS Investment
Partners, LLC, (iv) Bayou City Energy Management, LLC, (v) ARM
Energy Holdings, LLC and (vi) certain current and former officers
and directors of AMR.  The Action has been certified by the Court
to proceed as a class action on behalf of individuals and entities
meeting the precise definition below (the "Class" and "Class
Members").

THIS NOTICE IS NOT A SETTLEMENT NOTICE AND YOU ARE NOT BEING ASKED
TO SUBMIT A CLAIM AT THIS TIME.  NO ACTION ON YOUR PART IS
REQUIRED.  HOWEVER, IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS
WILL BE AFFECTED BY THIS ACTION.

This is a securities class action against Defendants for alleged
violations of the federal securities laws.  Class Representatives
allege that certain Defendants made material misrepresentations and
omissions of material facts in the Definitive Proxy Statement
("Proxy") issued in connection with the Business Combination in
which Silver Run II "De-SPAC'd," acquiring Alta Mesa Holdings and
Kingfisher Midstream and changing its name to Alta Mesa Resources,
Inc.  Class Representatives also allege that certain Defendants
made material misrepresentations and omissions of material facts in
other public statements during the Class Period.  Defendants deny
the allegations of wrongdoing asserted in the Action and deny any
liability whatsoever to any members of the Class.

By an order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification
dated January 24, 2022, the Court certified the following class
(the "Class"):

(a) All persons and entities that held shares of Alta Mesa (Silver
Run II) common stock (CUSIP 02133L109; ticker "SRUN"), and/or
Silver Run II Units ("Silver Run Units") (CUSIP 82812A202; ticker
"SRUNU") on the January 22, 2018 record date that were entitled to
vote on Alta Mesa's proposed transaction with AMH and Kingfisher
(the "Section 14a Class Members");

(b) All persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Alta Mesa (Silver Run II) common stock (CUSIP 02133L109; ticker
"SRUN"), Alta Mesa (Silver Run II) warrants (CUSIP 02133L117;
ticker "SRUNW"), and/or Silver Run II Units ("Silver Run Units")
(CUSIP 82812A202; ticker "SRUNU") on or after August 16, 2017 and
prior to the closing of the Business Combination on February 9,
2018 (the "Silver Run Class Members");

and

(c) All persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
Alta Mesa common stock (CUSIP 02133L109; ticker "AMR") or Alta Mesa
warrants (CUSIP 02133L117; ticker "AMRWW") (other than those
automatically converted from Silver Run Units by operation of the
Business Combination) between the February 9, 2018 closing of the
Business Combination and May 17, 2019 (inclusive) (the "Alta Mesa
Class Members").

(Dkt. No. 241).  Certain individuals and entities are excluded from
the Class.  (Dkt. No. 241).

A full Notice of Pendency of Class Action (the "Notice") is
available on the website
www.AltaMesaSecuritiesLitigation.com/notice. If you believe you may
be a member of the Class and you would like a printed copy of the
Notice, you may request one from:

Alta Mesa Resources Securities Litigation
c/o JND Legal Administration
P.O. Box 91218
info@AltaMesaSecuritiesLitigation.com
855-208-4124

If you are a Class Member, you have the right to decide whether to
remain a Class Member.  If you want to remain a Class Member, you
do not need to do anything at this time other than to retain your
documentation reflecting your transactions and holdings in
securities of Alta Mesa/Silver Run II.  If you are a Class Member
and do not exclude yourself from the Class, you will be bound by
the proceedings in the Action, including all past, present and
future orders and judgments of the Court, whether favorable or
unfavorable.  If you move, or if the Notice was mailed to an old or
incorrect address, please send the Notice Administrator written
notification of your new address.

As a member of the Class you will be represented by Class Counsel,
who are listed below.

ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP
Andrew J. Entwistle
500 W. 2nd Street, Suite 1900
Austin, TX  78701
Tel.: (512) 710-5960

ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
Trig Smith
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA  92101
Tel.: (619) 231-1058

If you would like to remain part of the Class but be represented
separately, you may hire your own attorney at your expense.

If you ask to be excluded from the Class, you will not be bound by
any order or judgment of the Court in this Action; however, you
will not be eligible to receive a share of any funds which might be
recovered for the benefit of the Class.  To exclude yourself from
the Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion
postmarked no later than May 17, 2024, in accordance with the
instructions set forth in the Notice.

Further information regarding this matter may be obtained by
writing to the Notice Administrator at the address provided above.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS


AMAZON.COM INC: Johnson Sues Over Disclosure of Sensitive Info
--------------------------------------------------------------
SOFAUNA JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-00424 (W.D. Wash., March 27, 2024) arises from Defendant's
unlawful data collection and sharing practices of highly specific
and sensitive information about consumers' video consumption habits
without their consent in violation of the Video Privacy Protection
Act.

According to the complaint, Amazon Services disclosed Plaintiff's
sensitive information to third-party, Amazon Inc., by providing
Amazon Inc. with direct access to Amazon Service's database with
information on Plaintiff Johnson, including access to Plaintiff
Johnson's data, including the titles of videos watched, playback
start dates and times, playback end dates and times, whether it was
a purchase or rental history, billing address, Internet service
provider information, and location information. Amazon Services
also disclosed Plaintiffs' personally identifiable information to
other non-Amazon affiliated third parties for audience measurement
purposes and market research without explicit written consent, says
the suit.

Headquartered in Seattle, WA, Amazon.com Services LLC is a Delaware
limited liability company. A wholly-owned subsidiary of Amazon
Inc., Amazon Services provides video services to United States
Amazon Prime Video consumers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Wright A. Noel, Esq.
          CARSON NOEL PLLC
          20 Sixth Avenue NE
          Issaquah, WA 98027
          Telephone: (425) 837-4717
          Facsimile: (425) 837-5396
          E-mail: wright@carsonnoel.com

                  - and -

          Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
          Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1300 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com
                  pfraietta@bursor.com

                  - and -

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

AMAZON.COM INC: Order on Deposition Subpoena Entered in Mahone Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YASMINE MAHONE and BRANDON
TOLE, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00594-MJP (W.D.
Wash.), the Hon. Judge Marsha Pechman order on LCR 37 joint
submission regarding deposition subpoena:

   (1) Plaintiffs' counsel, Gary Stonebarger, must sit for a
       deposition and answer questions as to how he prepared the
       summations of data contained in his two declarations;

   (2) the deposition must occur by April 5, 2024 and it may occur
by
       videoconference;

   (3) local counsel for Plaintiffs must be present during the
       deposition;

   (4) the Parties must work the Court's law clerk, Ian Mensher, to

       ensure the Court is available on the day of the deposition;
and

   (5) the Parties must file a copy of the complete deposition
       transcript as soon as it becomes available.

The Court will otherwise withhold ruling on Plaintiffs' motion for

class certification until it reviews the deposition transcript. The
clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all counsel.

Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online
advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0Y2Sk1 at no extra
charge.[CC]

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Bid to Dismiss Hartwig Case Due April 12
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Skylar Hartwig, v.
American Airlines Incorporated, Case No. 2:23-cv-00696-SMB (D.
Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Susan Brnovich entered an order setting the
following deadlines:

-- Deadline for filing a Motion to Dismiss:        April 12, 2024


-- Deadline for filing Plaintiff's FLSA Motion     30 days
following
    for Conditional Certification:                  a ruling on
                                                    Defendant's
Motion
                                                    to Dismiss

-- Deadline for filing Plaintiffs Rule 23          45 days
following
    Motion for Class Certification:                 a ruling on
                                                    Defendant's
Motion
                                                    to Dismiss

The court further orders that the parties meet and confer within 14
days following a ruling on either Plaintiff's FLSA Motion for
Conditional Certification or Plaintiff's Rule 23 Motion for Class
Certification and submit a new proposed scheduling order.

The Court additionally orders vacating the March 29, 2024
scheduling
conference.

The parties submitted a Rule 26(f) Case Management report on March
22, 2024.

American Airlines provides scheduled air transportation services
for passengers and cargo.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qoaIDw at no extra
charge.[CC]

AMERICAN BOTTLING: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Jones Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RECO DESHUN JONES, Individually, and on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE AMERICAN BOTTLING
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-02195-TLP-tmp (W.D. Tenn.,
March 27, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and other
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff and those similarly situated worked as hourly-paid
merchandisers for Defendant during the relevant statutory period.
They routinely worked for Defendant in excess of 40 hours per week
within weekly pay periods. However, they were not paid for all
their hours in excess of 40 per week at the applicable FLSA
overtime compensation rates of pay within weekly pay periods.

Headquartered in Frisco, TX, The American Bottling Company
manufactures, markets, and distributes beverages across the United
States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
           J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
           J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq.
           Joshua Autry, Esq.
           JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT
           262 German Oak Drive
           Memphis, TN 38018
           Telephone: (901) 754-8001
           Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
           E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                   rbryant@jsyc.com
                   jleatherwood@jsyc.com
                   jautry@jsyc.com

APPHARVEST INC: Court Approves Securities Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP announces that the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York has approved the
following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that
would benefit purchasers of AppHarvest, Inc. securities (NASDAQ:
APPH) and (NASDAQ: APPHW).

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED CLASS ACTION
SETTLEMENT, FINAL APPROVAL HEARING, AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES
AND EXPENSES

To: All persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of AppHarvest, Inc., during the period from February 1,
2021 and August 10, 2021, inclusive, and were injured thereby (the
"Settlement Class").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 and an Order of the United States District Court for
the District of Southern District of New York, that the
Court-appointed Lead Plaintiff, Alan Narzissenfeld, ("Lead
Plaintiff" or "Plaintiff") on behalf of himself and all members of
the Settlement Class, and Jonathan Webb, ("Webb"), Loren Eggleton
("Eggleton"), and David Lee ("Lee" and collectively with Webb and
Eggleton, the "Individual Defendants"), have reached a proposed
settlement of the claims in the above-captioned class action (the
"Action") in the amount of $4,850,000.00 (the "Settlement").
Plaintiff estimates this represents an average recovery of $0.14
per share of AppHarvest common stock and $0.07 per warrant,
respectively, before attorneys' fees and expenses, based on the
estimated number of allegedly damaged shares of AppHarvest
securities held through an alleged corrective disclosure that was
statistically significant.

In exchange for the Settlement and the release of the Released
Claims against the Released Defendant Parties, the Individual
Defendants have agreed to create a $4,850,000 cash fund, which may
accrue interest, to be distributed, after deduction of
Court-awarded attorneys' fees and litigation expenses, Notice and
Administration Expenses, Taxes, and any other fees or expenses
approved by the Court (the "Net Settlement Fund"), among all
Settlement Class Members who submit valid Claim Forms and are found
to be eligible to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement
Fund ("Authorized Claimants").

A hearing will be held before the Honorable Lewis J. Liman, on June
12, 2024 at 3:00 p.m., in Courtroom 15C of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Daniel
Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New
York, NY 10007 (the "Settlement Hearing") to, among other things,
consider: (i) whether the Settlement should be approved; (ii)
whether the proposed plan for allocating the proceeds of the
Settlement (the "Plan of Allocation") to Settlement Class Members
should be approved; and (iii) Lead Counsel's application for
attorneys' fees and expenses. This Notice describes important
rights you may have and what steps you must take if you wish to
participate in the Settlement, wish to object, or wish to be
excluded from the Settlement Class. The Court may change the date
of the Settlement Hearing, or hold it telephonically or via
videoconference, without providing another notice. You do NOT need
to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive a distribution from the
Net Settlement Fund.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A
MONETARY PAYMENT. A full Notice and Claim Form can be obtained by
visiting the website of the Claims Administrator,
www.strategicclaims.net/apph/, or by contacting the Claims
Administrator at:

     In re AppHarvest Securities Litigation
     c/o Strategic Claims Services
     600 N. Jackson Street., Suite 205
     Media, PA 19063
     Toll-free: (866) 274-4004
     Fax: (610) 565-7985
     Email: info@strategicclaims.net

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Claim Form or for
information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Lead
Counsel:

     LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
     Gregory M. Potrepka
     1111 Summer Street, Suite 403
     Stamford, CT 06905
     Phone: 203-992-4523
     Email: gpotrepka@zlk.com

If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a
Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later than May 22,
2024 to the Claims Administrator at the address above. If you are a
Settlement Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Claim
Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the
Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by all
judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the
Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable.

If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself
from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for
exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Notice such that it is post-marked if by mail, or e-mailed, no
later than May 22, 2024 to the Claims Administrator. If you
properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not
be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court relating
to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will
not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement
Fund.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Lead Counsel's Fee and
Expense Application, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation must be
filed with the Court, either by mail or in person, and be mailed to
counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions in the
Notice, such that they are received no later than May 22, 2024.
Settlement Class Members who exclude themselves from the Settlement
will not be able to object to the Settlement.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL
REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

DATED: MARCH 6, 2024

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK [GN]

APPLE INC: Faces Levine Suit Over Smartphone Market Monopoly
------------------------------------------------------------
LOUIS LEVINE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. APPLE INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-04284 (D.N.J., March 27, 2024) arises from the Defendant's
anticompetitive conduct in the smartphone market in violation of
the Sherman Act and the New Jersey Antitrust Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that Apple reduces competition in the markets
for performance smartphones and smartphones generally by delaying,
degrading, or outright blocking technologies that would increase
competition in the smartphone markets. The Plaintiff claims that
Apple suppresses such innovation through a web of contractual
restrictions that it selectively enforces through its control of
app distribution and its "app review" process, as well as by
denying access to key points of connection between apps and the
iPhone's operating system. Apple's anticompetitive acts include its
contractual restrictions against app creation, distribution, and
access to Application Programming Interface that have impeded apps
and technologies including super apps, cloud streaming, messaging,
wearables, and digital wallets, says the Plaintiff.

Apple is a global technology company with headquarters in
Cupertino, CA.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Andrew J. Heo, Esq.
         BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
         One Gateway Center, Suite 2600
         Newark, NJ 07102
         Telephone: (973) 297-1484
         E-mail: aheo@barrack.com

                 - and -

         Gerald J. Rodos, Esq.
         Daniel E. Bacine, Esq.
         BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
         3300 Two Commerce Square
         2001 Market Street
         Philadelphia, PA 19103
         Telephone: (215) 963-0600
         Facsimile: (215) 963-0838
         E-mail: grodos@barrack.com
                 dbacine@barrack.com

                 - and -

         William J. Ban, Esq.
         BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE
         Eleven Times Square
         640 8th Avenue, 10th Floor
         New York, NY 10036
         Telephone: (212) 688-0782
         Facsimile: (212) 688-0783
         E-mail: wban@barrack.com

APPLE INC: Ultra Home Sues Over Antitrust Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
ULTRA HOME SET, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APPLE INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-04223 (D.N.J., March 26, 2024) seeks to address Apple's
anticompetitive and exclusionary conduct and alleviate harm to
competition and consumers in the smartphone market in violation of
the Sherman Act and the New Jersey Antitrust Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that Apple reduces competition in the markets
for performance smartphones and smartphones generally by delaying,
degrading, or outright blocking technologies that would increase
competition in the smartphone markets by decreasing barriers to
switching to another smartphone. Apple suppresses such innovation
through a web of contractual restrictions that it selectively
enforces through its control of app distribution and its "app
review" process, as well as by denying access to key points of
connection between apps and the iPhone's operating system
(Application Programming Interfaces), says the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff further seeks to vindicate the interests of the
millions of consumers who have overpaid for iPhones they purchased
from Apple, missed out on the innovation and improved user
experiences that
competition would have made possible, and face ongoing harm of
Apple's monopolistic conduct in the performance smartphone and
smartphone markets.

Headquartered in Cupertino, CA, Apple manufactures smartphones,
computers, tablets, and related services and accessories. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           James E. Cecchi
           CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
           5 Becker Farm Road
           Roseland, NJ 07068
           Telephone: (973) 994-1700
           E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com

                   - and -

           Michael L. Roberts, Esq.
           Morgan T. Hunt, Esq.
           ROBERTS LAW FIRM US, P.C
           1920 McKinney Avenue, Suite 700
           Dallas, TX 75201
           Telephone: (501) 821-5575
           E-mail: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us
                   morganhunt-mackey@robertslawfirm.us

AT&T INC: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------
Tonya Riley, writing for bloomberglaw.com, reports that AT&T Inc.
was sued for allegedly exposing approximately 73 million current
and former users to privacy-related injuries as result of a recent
data breach.

AT&T recklessly "maintained, used, and shared" customers'
personally identifiable information and "intentionally, willfully,
recklessly, or negligently" failed to take measures to secure its
system despite knowing it was in a condition that made consumers'
sensitive data vulnerable, according to the purported class action
filed March 30 in the US District Court for the Northern District
of Texas.

AT&T said in a statement that data from about 7.6 million current
account holders and 65.4 million former account holder had been
leaked in hacker forums. The statement didn't reveal the cause of
the breach.

Plaintiff Alex Petroski, an Ohio citizen, claims that because of
AT&T's negligence he and other breach victims will endure lifelong
costs associated with their sensitive data being exposed online,
including the cost of identity fraud-protection services. The
complaint was brought in Dallas where AT&T is headquartered.

In addition to monetary damages, the complaint seeks an order
requiring AT&T to cover out-of-pocket expenses related to identity
theft-prevention and to implement new data-security measures such
as full encryption and an outside audit.

The complaint also accuses AT&T of of failing to properly implement
data safeguards suggested by the US Federal Trade Commission,
including failing to minimize the time PII is stored and limiting
access to sensitive data.

Petroski is represented by Kendall Law Group, PLLC, Milberg Coleman
Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC, and Hausfeld LLP. The defense hasn't
yet entered an appearance.

The case is Petroski v. AT&T Inc., N.D. Tex., No. 3:24-cv-00757,
complaint filed 3/30/24. [GN]

AUSTRALIA: NFF Decries Latest Move In Cattle Export Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shan Goodwin, writing for The North West Star, reports that
claimants in the long-running class action over the unlawful
closure of the live cattle export trade in 2011 say they will make
no compromises from here.

They plan to decline the Commonwealth's request for additional time
to analyse the method they have put forward for calculating
damages, saying it is just another attempt to delay the payment of
due compensation.

The matter will head back to the courts in April.

At the same time, the claimants say they are still waiting for an
explanation legally due for the Commonwealth's decision to reject
their latest offer to settle.

In January, the Commonwealth turned down their offer to accept $510
million, plus costs and interest, to break the legal deadlock.

A Federal Court ruling declared the 2011 Gillard Government
suspension of the trade to Indonesia invalid and ordered
compensation be paid to those whose livelihoods were devastated by
the decision.

Four years of court proceedings have so far failed to see agreement
on an amount to be paid.

To now request more delays to assess a formula that had been argued
in the courts for years was cruel and unnecessary, spokesperson for
the class action claimants Will Evans, from the Northern Territory
Cattlemen's Association, said.

The group of 215 parties to the class action includes cattle
producers, exporters and service providers such as veterinarians
and musterers.

"The Commonwealth's strategy is clearly to drag this out as long as
possible and that is brutal," Mr Evans said.

"But there will not be another offer from us. We'll spend another
20 years in court if need be but we are not compromising from here.
Attempts to lowball us won't work.

"What about this case does the Commonwealth have left to learn --
it's been more than a decade.

"This court case is now being taught to university students as a
rare case where malfeasance against a minister was proven. It's a
precedent-setting case."

National Farmers' Federation president David Jochinke described the
Commonwealth request for a delay in proceedings as a bitter blow.

"I was in the Territory when this news broke, and I've seen how
visibly angry and upset this has made people," he said.

"There is no reason for this delay besides petty politics. The
Federal Government is making it clear once again that justice for
the people who had their livelihoods destroyed isn't a priority.
They simply don't care."

The NFF has accused the government of "disgracing itself by
deceitful delaying tactics and shirking the responsibility to
fairly compensate cattle producers."

Agriculture Minister Murray Watt has continually defended the
Commonwealth's behaviour in the matter, pointing out the Federal
Court judge had criticised figures put forward by lawyers for the
class action around how many extra head of cattle might have gone
to Indonesia had the closure not occurred. [GN]

BANK OF AMERICA: Court Tosses Class Certification Bid w/o Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
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. ("BANA"), a National Banking Association,
Case No. 3:21-cv-01799-BAS-BGS (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cynthia
Bashant entered an order:

-- Denying Plaintiff's motions for partial summary judgment and
class
    certification without prejudice;

-- Granting in part Defendant's motion for summary judgment as to

    the Plaintiff's claims under ECOA's discrimination cause of
    action, under Section 1981, under the Unruh Act, and under
several
    prongs of the UCL;

-- Denying in part, without prejudice, the Defendant's motion for

    summary judgment as it relates to the Plaintiff's claim under
    ECOA's notice provision and all related claims under the UCL;
and

-- Denying as moot each party's motion to exclude the other's
expert
    witness, because the Court grants summary judgment in favor of

    BANA as to all claims related to BANA's CRM policy.

The Court relied on neither expert's opinions in reaching its
conclusions and each expert's testimony was confined to the
legitimacy of BANA's practices and policies to comply with the
economic and trade
sanctions regulatory regime. As such, they are irrelevant to the
remaining claims in the action and moot.

The Court orders parties to contact the Magistrate Judge's chambers
within fourteen days of today's date to coordinate future
scheduling and any potential for settlement.

The Court further orders Plaintiff to, within 30 days of this
order, either renew his motion for class certification or give
notice that he does not wish to pursue this case further as a class
action.

The Plaintiff, a citizen of Iran, currently resident in California,
brought this suit alleging various federal and state-law claims
against BANA—principally for discrimination. Near the end of
2015, he opened a credit account with BANA. The Plaintiff continued
to use this credit card account until October 2019 when BANA froze
and then closed the account.

Bank of America offers saving and current account, investment and
financial services.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 26, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qNBdIS at no extra
charge.[CC]

BAYER HEALTHCARE: Filing of Class Cert. Bid Due Sept. 16
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Camille Cabrera v. Bayer
Healthcare LLC et al., Case No. 2:17-cv-08525-JAK-JPR (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge John Kronstadt entered an order setting pretrial
deadlines:

  Apr. 8, 2024     Deadline to file Motion for Leave to Amend

  Apr. 29, 2024    Deadline to file Opposition to Motion for Leave
to
                   Amend

  Sept. 16, 2024   Deadline to file Motion for Class Certification

  Oct. 15, 2024    Deadline to file Opposition to Motion for Class

                   Certification

  Oct. 28, 2024    Deadline to file Reply in Support of Motion for

                   Class Certification

  Nov. 18, 2024    Hearing on Motion for Class Certification

  Jan. 15, 2025    Last day to participate in a settlement
                   conference/mediation

  Jan. 17, 2025    Last day to file notice of settlement / joint
                   report re settlement

  Apr. 14, 2025    Expert Discovery Cut-Off

  Apr. 14, 2025    Last day to file All Motions (including
discovery
                   motions)

Bayer discovers and manufactures healthcare and medical products.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Z0X9iz at no extra
charge.[CC]



BEST BUY: Willis Sues Over Sale of Defective Pressure Cookers
-------------------------------------------------------------
WANETA WILLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BEST BUY CO., INC., Defendant, Case No.
0:24-cv-01066 (D. Minn., March 26, 2024) asserts claims for breach
of implied warranty of merchantability, unjust
enrichment/quasi-contract, breach of express warranties, and for
violations of the Minnesota Unlawful Trade Practices Act and the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Practices Act in connection
with the sale of defective or unsafe pressure cookers.

The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of herself and
other similarly situated consumers who purchased 6-quart and/or
8-quart Insignia Multi-Function Pressure Cooker with model numbers
NS-MC60SS8, NS-MC60SS9, NS-MC60SS9-C, NS-MC80SS9 and NS-MC80SS9-C,
and/or who purchased the inner cooker pots with model numbers
NS-MCRP6NS9 and NS-MCRP6SS9 for personal or household use and not
for resale during the period October 2017 through June 2023.

The Plaintiff participated in the pressure cookers recall,
submitting her request for a replacement inner pot and other repair
parts in or about January 2024. In or about March 2024, Plaintiff
received her replacement inner pot and repair parts from Defendant,
and indeed the replacement pot Defendant provided holds less than
the pot she originally purchased, says the suit.

Headquartered in South Richfield, MN, Best Buy designs,
manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells consumer electronics
and kitchen products nationwide, including the Insignia
Multi-Function Pressure Cooker. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and -

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

                - and -

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

BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD: Bid to Dismiss Paul Class Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOUG PAUL and ALEXANDER
BEKO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF NORTH CAROLINA, Case No. 5:23-cv-00354-FL
(E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Louise Flanagan entered an order denying
Defendant's motion to dismiss and to strike.

The Court said that the Plaintiffs' claims may proceed. The
Plaintiffs are directed to file within 14 days of the date of this
order an amended complaint naming the state plan as a defendant as
to Plaintiffs' breach of contract claim and amending the title of
that claim to reflect the court's construction, and to serve
process on the state plan in accordance with Rule 4.

The Plaintiffs commenced this putative class action July 27, 2023,
arising out of Defendant's denial of coverage for Plaintiffs'
claims for medical treatment under their group healthcare plans and
Defendant's policy.

The Plaintiffs assert claims under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), for breach of contract, for breach
of fiduciary duty, and under the North Carolina Unfair and
Deceptive Trade Practices Act ("UDTPA").

The Plaintiffs bring the action on behalf of themselves and all
putative class members who have also been denied coverage for the
same type of medical treatment under that policy. The Plaintiffs
seek damages, individually and for the putative class, to recover
benefits due to them under the terms of their plans, and
injunctive, declaratory, and other equitable relief along with
attorneys' fees.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 26, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=C4hr5k at no extra
charge.[CC]

BLUEBIRD BIO: Faces Class Action Over Overstated Drug Prospects
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP informs investors that a shareholder filed a class
action on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired bluebird bio, Inc. (NASDAQ: BLUE) common stock
between April 24, 2023 and December 8, 2023. Bluebird is a
biotechnology company that researches, develops, and commercializes
gene therapies for severe genetic diseases.

For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas,
Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003.

The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating the Allegations that
bluebird bio, Inc. (BLUE) Overstated the Clinical and/or Commercial
Prospects of its Drug

According to the complaint, on April 24, 2023, defendants announced
submission of its Biologics License Application (BLA) to the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for lovotibeglogene autotemcel
(lovo-cel) gene therapy in patients with sickle cell disease (SCD)
ages 12 and older who have a history of vaso-occlusive events
(VOEs). The BLA also included a request for priority review, which,
if granted, would shorten the FDA's review of the application to
six months from the time of filing, versus a standard review
timeline of 10 months.

On December 8, 2023, Bluebird issued a press release announcing
that it received approval from the FDA for its ex-vivo gene therapy
drug Lyfgenia for sickle cell disease. Along with the approval came
a black box warning for haematological malignancies with a
requirement to monitor patients for cancer through complete blood
counts at least every six months for at least 15 years, plus viral
vector integration site analysis at month 6, 12 and as warranted.
Further, the Company's anticipated priority review voucher was
denied by the FDA. On this news, the price of Bluebird's common
stock declined from a closing market price of $4.81 per share on
December 7, 2023, to $2.86 per share on December 8, 2023.

Plaintiffs allege that defendants created the false impression
that:

     (i) they could obtain FDA approval for lovo-cel without any
box warnings for haematological malignancies;

     (ii) they would be granted a priority review voucher by the
FDA and in turn sell it in order to strengthen their financial
position for the lovo-cel launch; and

     (iii) as a result, the Company had significantly overstated
Lyfgenia's clinical and/or commercial prospects.

What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action
against bluebird bio, Inc. Shareholders who want to serve as lead
plaintiff for the class must file their papers with the court by
May 28, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You
do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a
recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent
class member.

All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.  

About Robbins LLP: Some law firms issuing releases about this
matter do not actually litigate securities class actions; Robbins
LLP does. A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the
attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping
shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance
structures, and hold company executives accountable for their
wrongdoing since 2002. Since our inception, we have obtained over
$1 billion for shareholders.

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

Contact:

     Aaron Dumas, Jr.
     Robbins LLP
     5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300
     San Diego, CA 92122
     adumas@robbinsllp.com
     (800) 350-6003
     www.robbinsllp.com [GN]

BURNETT MEDICAL: Bid & Brief To Decertify Classes Due Jan. 24, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINAE HICKS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BURNETT MEDICAL
CENTER, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00063-wmc (W.D. Wis.), the Hon.
Judge Stephen Crocker entered a preliminary pretrial conference
order as follows:

   1. Amendments to the Pleadings:                May 10, 2024

   2. Motion for Preliminary Class                Aug. 16, 2024
      Certification:

   3. Motion & Brief To Decertify Classes:        Jan. 24, 2025

   4. Deadline for Filing Dispositive             July 25, 2025
      Motions:

    5. Settlement Letters:                        Nov. 14, 2025

    6. Discovery Cutoff:                          Nov. 21, 2025
Burnett is a hospital that offers primary care, cardiology,
testing, emergency care, surgery and healthcare services.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ib6K0V at no extra
charge.[CC]

CADENCE BANK: Fails to Protect Private Info, Triplett Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
LATRICE TRIPLETT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CADENCE BANK and PROGRESS SOFTWARE
CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-10657 (D. Mass., March
15, 2024) arises out of the recent targeted cyberattack and data
breach where unauthorized third-party criminals retrieved and
exfiltrated the highly-sensitive consumer data of Plaintiff and
Class Members, via a security vulnerability in PSC's software
program, MOVEit, which is used by Cadence Bank to transfer files as
part of its normal business.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private
Information was compromised due to Defendants' negligent and/or
careless acts and omissions and their failure to reasonably and
adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private
Information. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class
Members face a substantial risk of imminent and certainly impending
harm heightened here by the loss of Social Security numbers, a
class of Private Information which is particularly valuable to
identity thieves. The Plaintiff and Class Members have and will
continue to suffer injuries associated with this risk, including
but not limited to a loss of time, mitigation expenses, and anxiety
over the misuse of their Private Information, says the suit.

Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants,
seeking redress for Defendants' unlawful conduct and asserting
claims for: (i) negligence; (ii) breach of implied contract; (iii)
unjust enrichment; (iv) bailment; and (v) breach of fiduciary duty.
Through these claims, Plaintiff seeks damages in an amount to be
proven at trial, as well as injunctive and other equitable relief,
including improvements to Defendants' data security systems,
policies, and practices, future annual audits, and adequate credit
monitoring services funded by Defendants.

Cadence Bank is a regional banking franchise based in
Mississippi.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven B. Rotman, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          One Marina Park Drive, Suite 14010
          Boston, MA 02210
          Telephone: (617) 207-0600
          Facsimile: (617) 830-8312
          E-mail: srotman@hausfeld.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

CALIFORNIA PAK: Figueroa Sues Over Breach of Caller ID Rules
------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY FIGUEROA, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CALIFORNIA PAK, Defendant, Case
No. CACE-24-004091 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., March
25, 2024) seeks for injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages
for violations of the Caller ID Rules of the Florida Telephone
Solicitation Act.

The complaint alleges that the Defendant made text message sales
calls that promoted CAL PAK and violated the FTSA's Caller ID Rules
when it transmitted to the recipients' caller identification
services a telephone number that was not capable of receiving
telephone calls.

California Pak, LLC produces luggage, backpacks, duffels and other
accessories. [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) 709-5774
         Facsimile: (866) 893-0416
         E-mail: josh@sjlawcollective.com
                 shawn@sjlawcollective.com

CBR SYSTEMS: Faces Suit Over Umbilical Cord Blood Banking Services
------------------------------------------------------------------
ClassAction.org reports that a new proposed class action lawsuit
accuses CBR Systems of charging families thousands for umbilical
cord blood banking services that are "largely worthless" as far as
their advertised purpose while diverting much-needed cord blood
units away from public banks.

The 26-page CBR Systems lawsuit says that although the company
aggressively markets its services as a potentially life-saving
treatment option for children, CBR does not relay to expectant
parents that the odds a child could ever use their own cord blood
or tissue to treat a medical condition are "virtually zero," or
that the "vast majority" of cord blood treatments have not been
approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Though CBR Systems claims in particular that stem cells within a
newborn's umbilical cord blood and tissue can be used later to
treat 80 serious conditions the child or a sibling might develop,
the FDA has approved the use of a child's own cord blood for the
treatment of only seven medical conditions, including certain kinds
of leukemia and lymphoma, the complaint relays. The case notes that
a child's own cord blood "most often contains the same defects that
caused the medical condition for which treatment is sought" and
that, in most cases, a child would require stem cell donation from
a public source. Moreover, despite CBR's representations, the use
of a child's cord blood for treatment of a sibling's medical
condition is "still incredibly rare," the case adds.

According to the complaint, CBR has admitted that, of the more than
one million cord blood units it has stored, only around 700
families have ever used their child's cord blood for any type of
treatment.  

The suit also alleges CBR does not reasonably disclose that the
"vast majority" of cord-blood transplants stem from public banks or
that there may not be enough stem cells in a newborn's cord blood
to be viable in a future medical treatment.

Despite the foregoing, CBR sells parents storage of stem cells and
tissue for up to 18 years or longer while knowing that the cells
collected at a child's birth will "be inadequate for any form of
treatment at all."  

"Unsurprisingly, CBR does not reasonably disclose this information
to expectant parents," the lawsuit says.

Additionally, CBR downplays the chances that a child may find a
stem cell match through public cord blood banks or other sources,
the filing alleges, accusing the defendant of diverting hundreds of
thousands of cord blood units away from public banks to its own
facilities, "where misinformed parents pay a premium to store cord
blood that will almost certainly sit dormant until it is
discarded."

The case, citing an article from the peer-reviewed journal Bone
Marrow Transplantation, states that around the world there are "six
times as many cord-blood units stored in private cord-blood banks
than in public banks."

"This does not appear to bother CBR, which has lined its pockets by
diverting over 1 million units of cord blood away from public
banks," the suit scathes.

According to the lawsuit, recent statistics suggest that global
cord-blood reserves could have increased by 125 percent had the
units given to CBR instead been donated to public banks.

The case looks to cover all consumers in the United States who, on
or after July 6, 2020, contracted with CBR systems for private cord
blood banking and have not used their child's banked cord blood or
tissue for any medical purpose. [GN]

CELGENE CORP: Faces Suit Over Alleged Pomalidomide Market Monopoly
------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW YORK HOTEL TRADES COUNCIL & HOTEL ASSOCIATION OF NEW YORK CITY,
INC., HEALTH BENEFITS FUND, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CELGENE CORPORATION,
BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY, ANTHONY INSOGNA, and JEROME ZELDIS,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-02230 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2024)
alleges that pharmaceutical giants Bristol Myers and Celgene
unlawfully extended, and continue to extend, a monopoly in the
market for pomalidomide, a blockbuster drug used in the treatment
of multiple myeloma and sold under the brand name Pomalyst.

The Plaintiff accuses the Defendants of violating the federal
Sherman Act and State law. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks to recover
damages, interest, costs of suit, and reasonable attorneys' fees
for the injuries sustained by Plaintiff and members of the class
resulting from Celgene's monopolization and from all the
Defendants' conspiracy to restrain trade in the United States
market for Pomalyst and its generic equivalents.

Headquartered in New Jersey, Celgene Corporation is a
pharmaceutical company.  In 2019, Celgene Corporation was acquired
by, and became a wholly owned subsidiary of, Bristol Myers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Frank R. Schirripa, Esq.
           Kathryn A. Hettler, Esq.
           HACH ROSE SCHIRRIPA & CHEVERIE LLP
           112 Madison Avenue, 10th Floor
           New York, NY 10016
           Telephone: (212) 213-8311
           Facsimile: (212) 779-0028
           E-mail: fschirripa@hrsclaw.com
                   kh@hrsclaw.com
               
                - and -

           Thomas M. Sobol, Esq.
           Whitney E. Street, Esq.
           Kristen A. Johnson, Esq.
           Claudia Morera, Esq.
           Sophia Weaver, Esq.
           HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
           One Faneuil Hall Square, 5th Floor
           Boston, MA 02109
           Telephone: (617) 482-3700
           Facsimile: (617) 482-3003
           E-mail: tom@hbsslaw.com
                   kristenj@hbsslaw.com
                   whitneyst@hbsslaw.com
                   claudiam@hbsslaw.com
                   sophiaw@hbsslaw.com

                - and -

           James R. Dugan II, Esq.
           David S. Scalia, Esq.
           TerriAnne Benedetto, Esq.
           Glenn E. Mintzer, Esq.
           THE DUGAN LAW FIRM, LLC
           One Canal Place, Suite 1000
           365 Canal Street
           New Orleans, LA 70130
           Telephone: (504) 648-0180
           Facsimile: (504) 648-0181
           E-mail: jdugan@dugan-lawfirm.com
                   dscalia@dugan-lawfirm.com
                   tbenedetto@dugan-lawfirm.com
                   gmintzer@dugan-lawfirm.com

CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Therapy My Way Sues Over Private Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
THERAPY MY WAY and THOMAS FRANCO THERAPY AND CONSULTING,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. CHANGE HEALTHCARE INC., OPTUM, INC. and UNITEDHEALTH
GROUP INCORPORATED, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-00345 (M.D. Tenn.,
March 26, 2024) arises from Defendants' failure to maintain the
security of their computer networks in accordance with state and
federal law.

Due to Defendants' negligence, failures, and omissions, a
well-known group of cybercriminals, called ALPHV/Blackcat that have
been known for some time to target healthcare organizations, was
able to infiltrate Defendants' computers networks and steal for
ransom confidential health data and source code, among other
things. Beginning on or around February 21, 2024, when Defendants'
systems were shutdown because of the data breach, Plaintiff Therapy
My Way (TMW) could no longer submit claims through Therapy Notes
and obtain payments for those claims. Since the shutdown, the
Plaintiff TMW has not been paid for any claims despite continuing
to treat patients, says the suit.

Headquartered in Nashville, TN, Change Healthcare Inc. is a
publicly-traded healthcare technology company that offers
healthcare providers such as doctors, hospitals, therapists,
pharmacies, laboratories, and clinics services and support in key
areas such as provider claim processing, pharmacy claim
transactions, verification of insurance, disbursement of provider
payments, and authorizations and medical necessity reviews. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          John T. Spragens, Esq.
          SPRAGENS LAW PLC
          311 22nd Ave. N.
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 983-8900
          Facsimile: (615) 682-8533
          E-mail: john@spragenslaw.com

                  - and -

          Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq.
          David M. Berger, Esq.
          Rosanne L. Mah, Esq.
          GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
          1111 Broadway, Suite 2100
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (510) 350-9700
          Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
          E-mail: rmr@classlawgroup.com
                  dmb@classlawgroup.com
                  rlm@classlawgroup.com

CHEMOURS COMPANY: Masel Sues Over Securities Laws' Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
TODD MASEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, MARK E. NEWMAN, SAMEER
RALHAN, and JONATHAN LOCK, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00377-UNA
(D. Del., March 25, 2024) seeks to recover compensable damages
caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded Chemours securities between April 28, 2023
and February 28, 2024,
inclusive. Moreover, Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that
The Chemours Company maintained weak internal controls and
Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

Headquartered in Wilmington, DE, The Chemours Company is a global
provider of performance chemicals that are key inputs in
end-products and processes in a variety of industries. Its common
stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol
"CC." [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Brian E. Farnan, Esq.
         Michael J. Farnan, Esq.
         FARNAN LLP
         919 N. Market Street, 12th Floor
         Wilmington, DE 19801
         Telephone: (302) 777-0300
         Facsimile: (302) 777-0301
         E-mail: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com
                 mfarnan@farnanlaw.com

                 - and -

         Phillip Kim, Esq.
         Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
         THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
         275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Telephone: (212) 686-1060
         Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
         E-mail: pkim@rosenlegal.com
                 lrosen@rosenlegal.com

CIGNA HEALTH: RJ Appeals Denial of Bid to Renew Class Cert. Motion
------------------------------------------------------------------
RJ, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying their
administrative motion to file renewed motion for class
certification in the lawsuit entitled RJ, as the representative of
her beneficiary son; DS, an individual, and on behalf of and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Cigna Health and Life
Insurance Company, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-02255-EJD,
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
challenge Cigna's alleged failure to reimburse covered mental
health provider claims at the usual, customary, and reasonable
("UCR") rates.

On April 2, 2020, RJ filed the original complaint. The Defendants
moved to dismiss the complaint, which the Court partially granted
on March 23, 2021. It dismissed with prejudice the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) Section 502(c) claim
for failure to provide plan materials and the ERISA Section
502(a)(3) claim for failure to provide a full and fair review. It
also dismissed the following claims with leave to amend: the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) claim
(Count I); claim for equitable relief to enjoin acts (Count VII),
and "claim for other appropriate equitable relief" (Count VIII).
Finally, the Court allowed RJ's ERISA Section 502(a)(1)(B) claims
for underpayment of plan benefits (Counts II and III), and
alternative claim under ERISA Section 502(a)(3) for violation of
fiduciary duties (Count V) to proceed.

On April 30, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint
(FAC). They assert the following claims: (1) violations of RICO, 18
U.S.C. Section 1962(c) against both Defendants; (2) RICO
conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(d) against both Defendants; (3)
underpayment of benefits in violation of ERISA against Cigna; (4)
breach of plan provisions in violation of ERISA Section
502(a)(1)(B) against Cigna; (5) violation of fiduciary duties of
loyalty and duty of care under ERISA and a request for declaratory
and injunctive relief against Cigna; and (6) violation of fiduciary
duties of loyalty and due care and request for declaratory and
injunctive relief against MultiPlan.

The Defendants moved to dismiss the FAC, which the Court granted in
part and denied in part through an Order entered by Judge Edward J.
Davila on Sept. 2, 2022.

On Jan. 17, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class
and an administrative motion to file under seal, which the Court
granted in part and denied in part on Dec. 27, 2023.

The Defendants filed a joint administrative motion to file under
seal and the Plaintiffs filed an administrative motion to file
under seal regarding class certification briefing on Dec. 29, 2023,
and Jan. 2, 2024, respectively.

On Jan. 22, 2024, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
parties' renewed sealing motions regarding class certification
briefing through an Order entered by Judge Davila. The Court,
having fully reviewed and considered all papers and arguments
submitted regarding the Plaintiffs' notion, found that a renewed
motion for class certification is not warranted. As discussed at
oral argument on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
in the Court's Class Certification Order, "every court asked to
certify a class based on alleged ERISA Sec. 502(a)(1)(B) violations
of UCR obligations has consistently denied certification." The
Plaintiffs have not shown an intervening change in controlling law,
emergence of new material facts, or clear error in the Court's
order denying class certification, and the Court found that the
Plaintiffs have not established any other basis justifying a
renewed class certification motion. Accordingly, the Court denied
the Plaintiffs' administrative motion for leave to file a renewed
motion for class certification.

The appellate case is captioned RJ, et al. v. Cigna Health and Life
Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 24-1028, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on February 27, 2024.
[BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners RJ, as the representative of her beneficiary
son, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, et al. are
represented by:

          Matthew M. Lavin, Esq.
          ARNALL GOLDEN GREGORY LLP
          1775 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 677-4030
          Facsimile: (202) 677-4031
          E-mail: matt.lavin@agg.com

                   - and -

          David M. Lilienstein, Esq.
          Katie J. Spielman, Esq.
          DL LAW GROUP
          345 Franklin Street
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (415) 678-5050
          Facsimile: (415) 358-8484
          E-mail: david@dllawgroup.com
                  katie@dllawgroup.com

CONTINENTAL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT: Mai Sues Over Tire Price-Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
PHUONG VIET MAI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CONTINENTAL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT; CONTINENTAL
TIRE THE AMERICAS, LLC; COMPAGNIE GENERALE DES ETABLISSEMENTS
MICHELIN SCA; MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.; NOKIAN TYRES PLC;
NOKIAN TYRES INC.; NOKIAN TYRES U.S. OPERATIONS LLC; THE GOODYEAR
TIRE & RUBBER COMPANY; PIRELLI & C. S.P.A.; PIRELLI TIRE LLC;
BRIDGESTONE CORPORATION; BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS, INC.; AND DOES
1-100, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01984 (S.D.N.Y., March 15,
2024) arises out of a conspiracy among Defendants to artificially
increase and fix the prices of new replacement tires for passenger
cars, vans, trucks and buses (as opposed to original equipment
tires that are specified by vehicle manufacturers and fitted onto
new vehicles; collectively, "Replacement Tires") sold in the United
States.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' conspiracy to fix
prices for Replacement Tires was motivated by a sharp decrease in
demand for Replacement Tires during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Beginning no later than January 1, 2020, and continuing until the
effects of their anticompetitive conduct have ceased, Defendants
effectuated their price fixing conspiracy by, among other means,
signaling price increases during earnings calls and other public
statements, implementing revenue management software to facilitate
and exchange pricing information, participating in annual industry
meetings and coordinating supply reductions to keep prices
artificially high.

The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of individuals who
purchased Replacement Tires indirectly from Defendants at
supracompetitive prices to recover treble damages, injunctive
relief, and other relief as is appropriate, based on Defendants'
alleged violations of federal and state antitrust laws.

Continental Aktiengesellschaft is a tire manufacturer in the
U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander W. Cogbill, Esq.
          ZELLE LLP
          45 Broadway, Suite 920
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (646) 876-4420
          E-mail: acogbill@zellelaw.com

               - and -

          Christopher T. Micheletti, Esq.
          Qianwei Fu, Esq.
          Rose Burnam, Esq.
          ZELLE LLP
          555 12th Street, Suite 1230
          Oakland, CA 94607
          Telephone: (415) 693-0700
          E-mail: cmicheletti@zellelaw.com
                  qfu@zellelaw.com
                  rburnam@zellelaw.com

CORSAIR GAMING: Court Vacates April 18 Daubert Motions Hearing
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTONIO MCKINNEY, CLINT
SUNDEEN, and JOSEPH ALCANTARA, each individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. CORSAIR GAMING, INC., Case No.
4:22-cv-00312-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an
order vacating April 18, 2024, hearing on Daubert motions and May
16, 2024 hearing on class certification:

   1. The April 18, 2024, hearing on Corsair's motions to exclude
and
      the May 16, 2024 hearing on Plaintiffs' class certification
      motion and Corsair's motion to strike are vacated while the
      Parties work to finalize a settlement agreement; and

   2. The Plaintiffs shall file their motion for preliminary
approval
      on May 14, 2024.

On March 22, 2024, the Parties filed a Joint Notice re Settlement
informing the Court that the Parties had a successful mediation
with Antonio Piazza and requesting to stay the scheduled April 18,
2024 hearing on Corsair's motions to exclude and the May 16, 2024
hearing on the Plaintiffs' class certification motion and Corsair's
motion to strike while they work to finalize a settlement
agreement.

Corsair is an American computer peripherals and hardware company.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 26, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2OOCjx at no extra
charge.[CC]

D & C LOOP: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Guzman Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
JOEL GUZMAN, Plaintiff v. D & C LOOP INC. (DBA SHINJUKU), and TENG
HUANG, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-02235 (S.D.N.Y.,
March 25, 2024) is a class action accusing the Defendants of
violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, the
Wage Theft Prevention Act, and related provisions from Title 12 of
New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations.

Plaintiff Guzman was employed by Defendants as a dishwasher/cleaner
from approximately July 28, 2023, until February 29, 2024. He
worked approximately 60 to 66 hours per week. However, Plaintiff
was not provided with a system or method to accurately record his
working hours. In addition, he was not paid appropriate minimum and
overtime wages from the beginning and until the end of his
employment with Defendants, says the Plaintiff.

Headquartered in New York, NY, D & C Loop Inc. is engaged in the
restaurant business. [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
         Website: www.StillmanLegalPC.com

D AND EAST: Court OKs Settlement in Mismanaged Apartments' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jan Wondra, writing for Ark Valley Voice, reports that the saga of
a group of tenant apartments known as the D Street, East First, and
F Street Apartments will go down in Salida history for several
reasons.

Not just because it was a neglected horror of buildings where
bathtubs fell through floors, cockroaches crawled walls, and
bedbugs were resistant to interventions. Not only because the heat
didn't work, and raw sewage poured into the basement. Not just
because children's health deteriorated from ailments from skin
infections to asthma caused by walls covered in black mold.

Now, the final chapter has been written, and it appears there is
soon-to-be justice for the victims of this place that no sane
person would want to call home.

This past week, a proposed order approved the settlement of the
class action lawsuit against defendants John G. Mehos, et al. The
settlement applies to the tenants of 102 D Street, 233 East First
Street and 117-1/2 F Street. It has taken seven years of legal
efforts to push forward a premises liability and breach of contract
case that was initially filed in 2018.

"I want to express that throughout these years, the clients really
expressed admirable patience and fortitude to see this through. I
can't thank them enough," said Attorney Matthew (Matt) Hobbs of the
seven-year battle. "It's individuals like these who don't have a
voice to speak out against power. We fought for their voice."

From its beginnings in 2017, the case was handled by Salida
Attorney Matthew Hobbs. Coming in a few years later was co-counsel
law firm Cain & Skarnulis with offices in Austin, Texas, and
Salida, Colorado.

Ark Valley Voice has obtained copies of the documents that grant a
$1 million settlement to the tenants of the buildings who endured
not just substandard conditions but threats and intimidation. The
order is Court-stamped,  meaning the court agreed to everything
described in the settlement documents.

One of the buildings (D Street) had sat empty since 2017 when it
was deemed uninhabitable by the Chaffee County Building Department
and Salida Police Department. Two sister buildings (on East First
and F Streets) were occupied for a while, before the city acquired
the East First and D Street sites in May, 2022. The structures were
demolished in August 2023, potentially making room for a
significant amount of workforce housing within walking distance of
the downtown Historic and Creative Districts. The F Street building
has been vacant for nearly two years, its entryway secured against
admittance, and its future fate unknown.

Justice for the Victims

It's taken longer than the two buildings' demolition to get justice
for the victims.

Hobbs explained, "We got an economic damage expert that placed
their damages at upwards of $3 million. There were policy limits on
their insurance policies and we got a fair settlement of $1
million. The conditions in those apartments were nightmarish. I
toured them and have to say it took me a few days to get over what
we saw there. It's rare that an insurance company wants to write a
check for a million dollars, but that's what they are going to
do."

The proposed order granting settlements into the five figures for
the former tenants is complex and lengthy. It breaks down the
various amounts awarded to each tenant and the reasoning for those
amounts.

The distribution depends on various factors, including how long the
individual tenants resided at the property, whether they had any
minor children living with them at the time, and whether the
individual member served as a class representative.

There were three different "classes" of settlement set up by the
court. The plan of distribution includes reimbursement to tenants
for rent they paid, non-economic damages, the return of damage
deposits, and additional compensation for class representatives.
The settlements will be paid by General Casualty Company of
Wisconsin, represented by QBE America's Inc.

The first group of 30 tenants were living in the D Street
Apartments on May 2, 2017, when they were shut down.

The second group of about 12 tenants (the number impacted by the
statute of limitations) called a security deposit class, consisted
of those impacted when the landlord routinely refused to return
security deposits to the tenants when they left the abysmal
conditions. "Conditions were horrible," said Hobbs. "Nothing was
fixed and the landlord wouldn't clean the apartments so when new
tenants moved in they would have to come in and do their own
cleaning. But all their security deposits would be retained when
they moved out."

The third group referenced as the breach of contract class, is a
group of 29 tenants set up by the court to receive a refund of all
rent payments that applied to the D Street, East First Street, and
F Street apartments.

"The plan of distribution was approved by the court, and a lot are
getting life-changing amounts of money," said Hobbs. "What they
endured was horrible; bed bugs, [in] one apartment the bathtub fell
through the ceiling into another apartment. There was black mold
everywhere, raw sewage in the basement. There was no heat, no
water, and the tenants were threatened that if they didn't pay
their rent, that DHS (Department of Human Services) would be
called. It's individuals like these who don't have a voice to speak
out against power that we fought for."

A special negligence class was set up for the children of the
families who endured these conditions. "The kiddos didn't pay rent,
so they're not part of the economic damages subclass, but the kids
who were living there as of May 2, 2017 will each receive $5,000,"
said Hobbs. "The court-ordered money will be put into what is known
as a "unified transfer of minor account" to be held by the court
until they turn 18."

Hobbs commended the tenant families for their patience and
fortitude in pursuing legal action. "This has dragged out since
2017 and the case was filed in 2018, so it's been on my desk for
years. All those individuals have pretty unique stories. Since
having been removed from those buildings, some have suffered
chronic homelessness, a couple have been able to rebuild their
lives, but all have horrific stories of landlord intimidation and
threats that silenced them."

Residual Fund to Stand up for Future Tenant Issues

With an eye to the fact that these were low-income working
families, the settlement includes a residual fund for leftover case
proceeds that will be donated in equal parts to the Chaffee County
Housing Trust and to the Colorado Lawyer Trust Account Foundation.

"It's been a long story and I'm glad the final chapter will be
written," concluded Hobbs. "Hopefully it sends a message to other
landlords that you can't treat tenants like this even if they are
voiceless and powerless."

The Mehos family members included brothers John Mehos, Dr. William
Mehos, Mark Mehos (representing the estate of William Mehos),and
Constantine Mehos. They owned these buildings outright (with Dr.
Mehos listed as an owner on the D and East First Street Apartments,
but not the F Street location).

"The Mehos were a prominent family. None of these buildings had a
penny of debt … not a dime of debt. I don't have a clue what they
were doing with this money," said Hobbs. "When I deposed Mehos he
said ‘This was my brother's deal, I had nothing to do with it'.
‘Well', I said, ‘your name's on the deeds. Your liability is
there'".

"It's individuals like these who don't have a voice to speak out
against power. What matters is how you treat people who have no
power," added Hobbs, speaking about the seven-year battle to win
justice for his clients. "They wouldn't have been getting away with
this if it were doctors, or journalists, or other professions."
[GN]

DAS ACQUISITION: Nash et al. Sue Over Unlawful Pay Practices
------------------------------------------------------------
RODERICK NASH, TERESA HILL, STEPHANIE TURNER, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DAS
ACQUISITION COMPANY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-00473-PLC
(E.D. Mo., March 27, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the
Fair Labor Standards Act and applicable state statutes and common
law by systematically applying unlawful pay practice to all hourly,
non-exempt employees.

According to the complaint, DAS did not pay Plaintiffs and other
mortgage loan originator employees for all their work hours
including overtime compensation despite the fact that they
routinely worked over eight hours per day and more than 40 hours
per week.

Headquartered in St. Louis, MO, DAS Acquisition Company LLC d/b/a
USA Mortgage is a Missouri limited liability company that provides
real estate-related capital and loans. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Tracey F. George, Esq.
          DAVIS GEORGE LLC
          1600 Genessee St., Suite 328
          Kansas City, MO 64102
          Telephone: (816) 569-2629 ext. 2
          Facsimile: (816) 447-3939
          E-mail: tracey@dgmlawyers.com
                  www.dgmlawyers.com

                  - and -

          Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq.
          ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP LLC
          8201 Mission Rd., Suite 250
          Prairie Village, KS 66208
          Telephone: (913) 766-5585
          Facsimile: (816) 875-5069
          E-mail: rowdy.meeks@rmlegalgroup.com
                  www.rmlegalgroup.com

DECKERS CONSUMER: Faces Monegan Suit Over Labor Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
CAITLYNNE MONEGAN, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DECKERS CONSUMER DIRECT CORPORATION, a
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-02412 (C.D. Cal., March
25, 2024) arises from Defendant's willful violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Wage Claim Act, the Colorado's
Minimum Wage Act, and common law.

The Defendant classified Plaintiff Monegan and its other hourly
employees as non-exempt and tasked them with the primary job duty
of providing customer service to customers of Defendant's portfolio
of brands. Allegedly, the Defendant violated the FLSA and common
law by systematically failing to compensate its hourly employees
for work tasks completed before and after their scheduled shifts,
when they were not logged into Defendant's timekeeping system,
which resulted in hourly employees not being paid for all overtime
hours worked, overtime gap time when associated with unpaid
overtime, and in non-overtime workweeks for regular hours.

Headquartered in Goleta, CA, Deckers designs, markets, and
distributes footwear, apparel, and accessories developed for both
everyday casual lifestyle uses and high-performance activities. Its
portfolio of brands includes UGG, Koolaburra, HOKA, Teva and SanuK.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
         SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
         1801 Century Park E #860
         Los Angeles, CA 90067
         Telephone: (310) 579-0600
         E-mail: Kstoops@sommerspc.com

                 - and -

         Alana A. Karbal, Esq.
         SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
         One Towne Square
         Southfield, MI 48076
         Telephone: (248) 355-0300
         Facsimile: (249) 746-4001
         E-mail: Akarbal@sommerspc.com

DELTA COUNTY, TX: Bid for Class Cert. Denied w/o Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICK ANDRE TAYLOR II &
TITUS WILEY, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. DELTA COUNTY, FORMER SHERIFF RICKY SMITH, SHERIFF
CHARLA SINGLETON, COUNTY ATTORNEY JAY GARRETT, COUNTY JUDGE JASON
MURRAY, and ZACH WILLIAMSON, Case No. 4:22-cv-00250-ALM (E.D.
Tex.), the Hon. Judge Amos Mazzant entered an order denying without
prejudice the Plaintiffs' opposed motion for class certification.

After additional discovery, Plaintiffs may refile this motion.

The Plaintiffs allege that from Oct. 2, 2019, to Nov. 8, 2019 (the
"Aggrieved Time Period"), the Defendant Williamson operated as an
employee of Delta County, "conduct[ing] traffic stops, issu[ing]
citations, and ma[king] arrests without lawful authority." The
Plaintiffs contend that the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement
(“TCOLE”) rejected the Defendant Williamson's appointment as a
Peace Officer in Delta County twice—once on Oct. 2, 2019, and
once on Oct. 24, 2019—because he did not possess an active Peace
Officer license.

The Plaintiff Patrick Andre Taylor II filed this action
individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated, on
Oct. 15, 2021, in the Marshall Division of the Eastern District of
Texas.

On January 13, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed their Opposed Motion for
Class Certification. In it, the Plaintiffs seek to certify two
classes:

   (1) "[a]ll persons issued citations by the Defendant Williamson

       while he operated unlawfully as a Delta County Sheriff's
       Deputy" (the "First Requested Class"), and

   (2) "[a]ll persons arrested or detained and issued criminal
charges
       by the Defendant Williamson while he operated unlawfully as
a
       Delta County Sheriff's Deputy."

On Jan. 9, 2024, the Court ordered the Plaintiffs to submit
supplemental briefing as to the numerosity and superiority
requirements under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and
23(b)(3).

Delta County is a county in the Upper Peninsula in the U.S. state
of Michigan.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ADnXb0 at no extra
charge.[CC] 

DOCTORS BEST: Court Enters Order Closing Casey Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sharae Casey v. Doctors
Best, Inc., Case No. 8:20-cv-01325-JLS-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Josephine Staton, entered an order closing Casey case.

In light of the Court's granting of Plaintiff's unopposed motion
for class certification; final approval of class action settlement;
award of incentive payment; and award of attorney fees costs, and
expenses, this case is administratively closed.

Doctor's Best manufactures and distributes dietary and nutritional
supplements.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 26, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yBxkpE at no extra
charge.[CC]

DOXIMITY INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an
investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Doximity, Inc. (NYSE: DOCS) resulting from
allegations that Doximity may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Doximity securities you may be entitled
to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=18273 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On April 1, 2024, during market hours,
Jehosaphat Research released a report on Doximity. In this report,
Jehosaphat stated that "[w]e believe this healthcare advertising
business is coming under pressure due to a variety of fundamental
issues, which we've investigated via forensic accounting analysis,
interviews with former employees and digital marketing agencies, [.
. . ] and other means." Further, Jehosaphat stated that it believed
Doximity's underlying sales had been declining, "but that this
decline has been masked through accelerated revenue recognition."

On this news, the price of Doximity stock fell in intraday trading
on April 1, 2024.

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

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

Contacts

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

DRAFTKINGS INC: Court OKs Request to Transfer Deceptive Ads' Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Welman, writing for SBCAmericas, reports that the class
action lawsuit filed by DraftKings patrons in Massachusetts is
heading for a venue change.

Last week, the Massachusetts Superior Court of Middlesex County
granted DraftKings's request to transfer the case to the state's
Business Litigation Session of the Superior Court (BLS).

The plaintiffs, working with the Public Health Advocacy Institute,
filed the class action in December, alleging that the $1,000
sign-up offer from DraftKings was deceptive.

The BLS is specifically designed to handle legal business disputes
using two-judge teams from the Superior Court to weigh in on cases.
This case has been delegated to the team of Judge Debra Squires-Lee
and Judge Kenneth Salinger.

DraftKings argued for the transfer was appropriate because the
class action relates to alleged unfair business practices and that
is a case that would require "close case management" and benefit
from the close oversight of BLS. The sportsbook also made it clear
it intends to file a motion to dismiss once it is in the care of
BLS.

The transfer comes over the objections of plaintiffs Melissa
Scanlon and Shane Harris. In a filing objecting to the move, the
pair argued that the Middlesex Superior Court was more than
qualified to handle matters of consumer protections and deceptive
advertising.

Additionally, the motion argued that Scanlon specifically chose
Middlesex County where she resides, so to move the court over to
BLS, which is in Suffolk County, moves the case into the
defendant's home turf.

Finally, the plaintiffs argued that there was not going to be an
onerous amount of discovery in the case that the argument that the
Middlesex County court lacked the resources to hear it lacked
merit.

At the heart of the case is the sign-up offer, which claimed to
give users $1,000 in bet credits. Scanlon and Harris argued that
the offer failed to properly foreground the fine print of the
offer, which included the fact users needed to deposit $5,000 in
order to get the full $1,000 offer and that those $1,000 of credits
would not be released without betting at least $25,000 on the app.
[GN]

EQUIFAX INFO: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment vs Torres
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DR. ANTHONY TORRES D.O.,
Individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated
consumers, v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
1:21-cv-02056-CCC (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Christopher C. Conner
entered an order that:

   1. Equifax's motion for summary judgment is granted.

   2. Dr. Torres's motions for class certification and to strike
the
      declaration of Marsha Tiaranai, as well as Equifax's motions
to
      exclude expert testimony are dismissed as moot.

   3. The Clerk of Court shall enter judgment on behalf of Equifax
and
      against Dr. Torres.

   4. The Clerk of Court shall thereafter close this case.

Equifax offers financial, consumer and commercial data, and
analytical solutions.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fNszxb at no extra
charge.[CC]

EQUINIX INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to
investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders
of Equinix, Inc. (NASDAQ: EQIX) resulting from allegations that
Equinix may have issued materially misleading business information
to the investing public.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Equinix securities you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=23498 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On March 20, 2024, before the market opened,
Hindenburg Research released a report entitled "Equinix Exposed:
Major Accounting Manipulation, Core Business Decay And Selling an
AI Pipe Dream As Insiders Cashed Out Hundreds of Millions." In
part, Hindenburg stated its "investigation, which included a review
of financial and litigation records and interviews with 37 former
Equinix employees, industry experts and competitors, revealed that
Equinix manipulates its accounting for AFFO ("adjusted funds from
operations"), the key profitability metric for REITs ["(Real Estate
Investment Trust")]. We estimate this metric was overstated by at
least 22% in 2023 alone."

On this news, Equinix's stock fell $19.70 per share, or 2.3%, to
close at $824.88 per share on March 20, 2024.

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

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

Contact Information:

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

GENERAL MOTORS: Landman Sues Over Misleading Driving Information
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leah Landman, Plaintiff v. General Motors LLC, OnStar LLC,
LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-02238
(S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2024) is a class action accusing the
Defendants of violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the New York
General Business Law, and the New York Civil Rights Law.

Plaintiff Landman brings this action for herself and on behalf of
all persons who had their driving data collected and shared by
Defendants without their knowledge and/or consent. She seeks to
challenge the actions of Defendants regarding erroneous reports of
derogatory and negative driving information made without
Plaintiff's knowledge and/or consent, and the illegal transfer and
publication of same. Allegedly, the uncontextualized, misleading,
and personal driving information on her consumer disclosure harmed
her car insurance by significantly raising her insurance premiums,
says the Plaintiff.

Headquartered in Detroit, MI, General Motors is a multinational
automotive manufacturing company. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey L. Haberman, Esq.
          Scott P. Schlesinger, Esq.
          Jonathan R. Gdanski, Esq.
          Lili D. Lowell, Esq.
          SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES, P.A.
          1212 S.E. 3rd Ave.
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (954) 467-8800
          Facsimile: (954) 320-9509
          E-mail: JHaberman@schlesingerlaw.com
                  Scott@schlesingerlaw.com
                  JGdanski@schlesingerlaw.com
                  Lowell@schlesingerlaw.com

GEORGE WASHINGTON: Sued Over Unregistered Foreign Agent Activities
------------------------------------------------------------------
DR. FARID HAFEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DR. LORENZO VIDINO, individually and in his
respective corporate capacities, THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY,
THE PROGRAM ON EXTREMISM AT THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, ALP
SERVICES, S.A. DILIGENCE SARL, MARIO BRERO, MURIEL CAVIN, LIONEL
BADAL, ARIAF STUDIES AND RESEARCH LLC and JOHN DOE NOS. 1-25,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00873 (D.D.C., March 27, 2024) arises
from Defendants' illicit undisclosed unregistered foreign agent
activities which included branding anyone whom the United Arab
Emirates perceived to be pro-Islamic as terrorists or extremists
with ties to groups like the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Plaintiff asserts claims for violations of the Foreign Agents
Registration Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, as well as for mail and wire fraud and money
laundering. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants made false
and misleading statements to the press, on Wikipedia and elsewhere
online, and to the world's top financial risk compliance monitors
as part of an overarching scheme to "destroy" their targets'
businesses and reputations by defrauding banks, their targets'
business partners, government decision makers, and the public. In
addition, the Plaintiff claims that the Defendants unlawfully
obtained his phone records and used those phone records to map out
purported network of associates.

Based in Washington, DC, the George Washington University is a
private, 501(c)(3) non-profit university chartered in 1821. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         David M. Schwartz, Esq.
         AIDALA, BERTUNA & KAMINS, P.C.
         546 Fifth Avenue, 6th Flr.
         New York, NY 10036
         Telephone: (212) 641-0499
         E-mail: dschwartz@aidalalaw.com

GOOGLE LLC: Agrees to Destroy Private Browsing Data to Settle Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Julia Shapero, writing for The Hill, reports that Google has agreed
to destroy "billions of data records" collected during private
browsing sessions to settle a class-action lawsuit that accused the
tech giant of improperly tracking people who thought they were
browsing the internet privately.

The company also agreed to rewrite the disclosure that appears at
the beginning of every "incognito mode" session to inform users
that it collects data from private browsing sessions, according to
court documents filed on April 1, 2024.

Google must also allow incognito mode users to block third-party
cookies for the next five years as part of the settlement.

"This settlement is an historic step in requiring dominant
technology companies to be honest in their representations to users
about how the companies collect and employ user data, and to delete
and remediate data collected," the filing, submitted by the
plaintiffs' attorneys, reads.

Google spokesperson Jose Castaneda also touted the settlement,
emphasizing that it does not require the company to make any
payments. However, individuals still retain the right to sue for
damages under the settlement.

"We are pleased to settle this lawsuit, which we always believed
was meritless," Castaneda said in a statement. "The plaintiffs
originally wanted $5 billion and are receiving zero."

"We never associate data with users when they use Incognito mode,"
he continued. "We are happy to delete old technical data that was
never associated with an individual and was never used for any form
of personalization." [GN]

GT EXPRESS: Neisinger & Parker Sue Over Worker Misclassification
----------------------------------------------------------------
JASON NEISINGER and NATHANIAL PARKER, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GT EXPRESS, INC. and
GHEORGHI TURCANU, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-02397 (N.D. Ill.,
March 25, 2024) challenges GT Express' unlawful practice of making
deductions from delivery drivers' wages and requiring them to bear
expenses which should have been properly borne by GT Express.

Plaintiff Neisinger worked for GT Express in Illinois as a truck
driver between approximately September 2023 and November 2023 and
Plaintiff Parker also worked for GT Express in Illinois as a truck
driver between approximately September 2023 and February 2024. The
Plaintiffs were both classified as independent contractors.
However, the behavior and financial control manifested over the
drivers by GT Express demonstrates that they were employees of GT
Express. Among other things, Plaintiffs Neisinger and Parker also
contend that, as a result of the deductions and expenses they and
other drivers were forced to incur, there were weeks in which the
delivery drivers' pay fell below the Illinois and federal minimum
wage.

Headquartered in Mokena, IL, GT Express is an Illinois corporation
that provides trucking services. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Bradley Manewith, Esq.
         LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
         5 Revere Drive, Suite 200
         Northbrook, IL 60062
         Telephone: (617) 994-5800
         Facsimle: (617) 994-5801
         E-mail: bmanewith@llrlaw.com

                 - and -

         Harold Lichten, Esq.
         Olena Savytska, Esq.
         LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
         729 Boylston Street, Ste. 2000
         Boston, MA 02116
         Telephone: (617) 994-5800
         Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
         E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com
                 osavytska@llrlaw.com

HBL BEAUTY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over False Advertising
-------------------------------------------------------------
ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit
alleges PurelyWhite Deluxe Tooth Whitening Kits are mislabeled and
misrepresented as approved by the United States Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), which does not issue clearance or approval
for cosmetic, over-the-counter teeth-whitening products.

The 25-page complaint says that although the packaging of the
purportedly "dental grade" teeth whitening kits includes the FDA
name and logo, these representations are false and likely to
deceive a reasonable consumer into believing the agency "favor[s],
endorse[s] or approve[s]" the products. The false advertising
lawsuit highlights that the products, which utilize a whitening gel
and LED light that supposedly accelerates the teeth-whitening
process, are categorized as low-risk Class I medical devices that
receive no FDA clearance or approval before being made available to
consumers nationwide.

Importantly, over-the-counter teeth whitening product are
considered cosmetics and thus regulated by the FDA pursuant to the
federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act, under which it is illegal to
distribute any type of cosmetic that is misbranded due to false or
misleading labeling, the suit relays. Further still, the FDA
prohibits private companies, such as defendant HBL Beauty & Co.,
from using its name and logo on their product materials, the
complaint shares.

"Any cosmetic product that is misbranded is illegal to sell," the
filing emphasizes. "Misbranded products thus have no economic value
and are legally worthless."

The lawsuit goes on to accuse the PurelyWhite Deluxe whitening kit
manufacturer of falsely touting limited-time discounts online,
namely by showing consumers "fake limited-time sales, fake regular
prices, and fake discounts based on the fake regular prices."

In reality, the PurelyWhite Deluxe teeth-whitening kits are "always
on sale, and these sales persist," the suit says, alleging the
company misleads consumers "into believing they are getting a good
deal."

"For example, Defendant has prominently displayed, since at least
August 2020, the Products on sale for $49.99 on its website. This
sale is designed to induce consumers to purchase its Products under
the mistaken belief that they are getting a significant bargain
because they are buying while the sale is going on."

The case contends that proposed class members would not have bought
the PurelyWhite Deluxe teeth-whitening kits had they known the
products were not endorsed or approved by the FDA or that their
supposed "sale" prices were false.

The lawsuit looks to cover all persons in the United States who,
within the applicable statute of limitations period, bought
PurelyWhite Deluxe Tooth Whitening Kits for personal, family or
household use and not for resale. [GN]

HORIZON ACTUARIAL: Plaintiffs Seek Approval of Class Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Todd D. Wozniak, Lindsey R. Camp, Bess Hinson, Cory A. Thomas, and
Mark Lennon, writing for Holland & Knight, report that
multi-employer plan participants involved in an Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) class action lawsuit against
Horizon Actuarial Services LLC (Horizon), a national retirement
services firm, have entered into an $8.733 million settlement
agreement. The agreement (originally proposed as a $7.75 million
non-revisionary fund), if approved by a Georgia federal judge,
would resolve all claims brought against Horizon in response to a
cyberattack that exposed the personally identifiable information
(PII) of more than 100,000 Horizon customers and a potential
settlement class of over 4 million individuals.

The proposed Horizon settlement highlights the importance of plan
sponsors and other plan fiduciaries conducting regular audits of
their data security practices -- and those of their third-party
service providers -- to mitigate cybersecurity risks in accordance
with the best practices identified by the Employee Benefits
Security Administration (EBSA).

Case Background

In November 2021, a group of cybercriminals breached two servers of
Horizon, an actuarial consulting firm that specializes in
multi-employer plan benefits. The group claimed to have stolen a
list of PII, including names, dates of birth, Social Security
numbers (SSNs) and health plan information, among other sensitive
financial information. In total, more than 100,000 participants in
25 different multi-employer plans administered by Horizon were
affected in the breach. Horizon ultimately negotiated a ransom
payment with the cybercriminal group in exchange for the group's
agreement to delete and not otherwise sell, publish or distribute
the stolen data in any way.

In April 2023, a class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia by several plan
participants whose PII data was compromised in the attack. The
plaintiffs alleged that Horizon's negligence jeopardized the
security of sensitive personal data when it failed to adequately
implement reasonable and appropriate systems and safeguards despite
the growing commonplace of data breaches and the havoc they wreak.
Specifically, the complaint alleged that Horizon failed to 1)
properly train and supervise employees and vendors, 2) comply with
industry-standard data security practices, including the use of
effective security procedures, and 3) comply with state and federal
laws and regulations governing data security practices. According
to the plaintiffs, Horizon also failed to inform the affected
individuals of the cyberattack for upward of five months.

The plaintiffs argued that by collecting and deriving benefit from
the personal information of its customers, Horizon had assumed
legal and equitable duties to protect such information. They
further claimed that they were -- and continued to be -- at risk of
identity theft, fraud and various other forms of personal, social
and financial harm. The plaintiffs sought restitution for the time,
expenses and hardship associated with securing their personal and
financial identities, as well as the fallout of having to protect
themselves from a lifetime risk of attack, a risk especially
heightened by the loss of their SSNs.

The parties reached an initial agreement in September 2023 that
proposed a $7.75 million non-reversionary settlement fund to pay
the following: 1) losses related to fraud or identity theft, 2)
professional fees, including attorneys, accountants and credit
repair services, 3) costs associated with freezing and unfreezing
credit with reporting agencies, 4) credit monitoring costs incurred
from the point of Horizon's notice of the breach until the date the
claim was submitted and 5) other miscellaneous out-of-pocket
expenses. The settlement was modified in December 2023 to the
$8,733,333 submitted for court approval. The settlement agreement
does not require Horizon to admit to any wrongdoing.

Prudent Mitigation of Cybersecurity Risks

Cybersecurity presents an increasing area of risk for ERISA-covered
plan fiduciaries, and the safeguarding of sensitive individual
health and financial information is paramount. United States
retirement plans hold trillions of dollars in assets on behalf of
individual investors, a wealth of personnel data along with such
funds and remote access points to all of this information. These
factors expose plan administrators as attractive targets to the
sophisticated underworld of cyberhacking, ransomware and wire
fraud. EBSA has now published guidance on the "best practices"
fiduciaries should follow to ensure prudent mitigation of
cybersecurity risks.

The best practices are as follows:

     1. Have a formal, well-documented cybersecurity program.

     2. Conduct prudent annual risk assessments.

     3. Have a reliable annual third-party audit of security
controls.

     4. Clearly define and assign information security roles and
responsibilities.

     5. Have strong access control procedures.

     6. Ensure that any assets or data stored in a cloud or managed
by a third-party service provider are subject to appropriate
security reviews and independent security assessments.

     7. Conduct periodic cybersecurity awareness training.

     8. Implement and manage a secure system development life cycle
program.

     9. Have an effective business resiliency program addressing
business continuity, disaster recovery and incident response.

    10. Encrypt sensitive data that is stored in transit.

    11. Implement strong technical controls in accordance with best
security practices.

    12. Appropriately respond to any past cybersecurity incidents.

If you would like assistance with auditing your data security
practices or if you have questions about EBSA's guidance on best
practices or litigation avoidance strategies, contact the authors,
another member of Holland & Knight's Executive Compensation and
Benefits Team, ERISA Litigation Team or your primary Holland &
Knight attorney. [GN]

INSURANCE PIPELINE: Woods Sues Over Nonpayment of OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
DAJAH D. WOODS, Plaintiff v. INSURANCE PIPELINE INC.; ANDREW T.
SHADER; COREY SHADER; JEREMY ROETTING; CHRISTOPHER KILPATRICK; AND
RODRIGO DA SILVA; Defendants, Case No. 0:24-cv-60483-XXXX (S.D.
Fla., March 26, 2024) is a class action accusing the Defendants of
violating of the overtime pay and anti-retaliation provisions of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Woods was employed by all Defendants from approximately
July 28, 2022 through January 25, 2023. During those time periods,
the Plaintiff frequently worked over 40 hours per workweek but were
not credited for all hours worked and were not paid for all
overtime pay hours worked. He was fired after complaining several
times to multiple supervisors about not receiving proper
compensation, says the Plaintiff.

Based in Florida, Insurance Pipeline Inc. is a health insurance
agency. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Steven F. Grover, Esq.
         STEVEN F. GROVER, P.A.
         5075 Regency Isles Way
         Cooper City, FL 33330
         Telephone: (954) 290-8826

IROBOT CORP: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 7
----------------------------------------------------------
If you suffered a loss on your iRobot Corporation (NASDAQ:IRBT)
investment and want to learn about a potential recovery under the
federal securities laws, follow the link below for more
information:

https://zlk.com/pslra-1/irobot-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=73566&wire=1

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or call (212) 363-7500 to speak to our team
of experienced shareholder advocates.

THE LAWSUIT: A class action securities lawsuit was filed against
iRobot Corporation that seeks to recover losses of shareholders who
were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between August
5, 2022 and January 26, 2024.

CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
false statements and/or concealed that:

     (i) the August 2022 merger of the Company and Amazon, would
place Amazon in a sufficiently dominant position in the market for
robot vacuum cleaners that U.S. and European antitrust regulators
were unlikely to approve the merger;

    (ii) iRobot had conducted inadequate due diligence into the
merger and/or ignored significant risks weighing against the
likelihood of regulatory approval;

   (iii) as a result of all the foregoing, iRobot overstated the
likelihood for successfully completing the merger; and

    (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times.

WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in iRobot stock during the
relevant time frame -- even if you still hold your shares -- go to
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/irobot-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=73566&wire=1
to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or
obligation to participate.

WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP
has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities
litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars
for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning
high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing
investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70
employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi &
Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top
50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the
United States. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.

CONTACT:

   Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
   Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
   Ed Korsinsky, Esq.
   33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
   New York, NY 10004
   Email: jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
   Tel: (212) 363-7500
   Fax: (212) 363-7171
   https://zlk.com/ [GN]

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Vishnoi Sues Over Acne Products' False Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------
SAMVARDHAN VISHNOI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-02193 (N.D. Ill., March 15, 2024) is a
consumer class action lawsuit regarding Defendant's manufacturing,
distribution, advertising, marketing and sale of Neutrogena brand
acne cream and gel products that contain the active ingredient
benzoyl peroxide.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the other Illinois
Subclass Members reasonably relied upon Defendant's representation
that the Products were safe for personal use and, due to
Defendant's omission of the presence of benzene in the Products,
the Plaintiff read and relied on Defendant's labeling to conclude
that the Products were not contaminated with any dangerous
substance, including benzene.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's violations of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, as set
forth in this case, Plaintiff and the Illinois Subclass Members
have suffered ascertainable losses of money caused by Defendant's
unfair conduct of selling adulterated, misbranded, and illegally
sold Products, and its misrepresentations and material omissions
regarding the presence of benzene in the Products, says the suit.

Johnson & Johnson Consumer, Inc. manufactures, advertises, markets,
and sells acne brand creams and gel products throughout the State
of Illinois and the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and =

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

               - and -

          J. Hunter Bryson, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          405 E 50th Street
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (630) 796-0903
          E-mail: hbryson@milberg.com

               - and -

          Luis Cardona, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          1311 Ponce de Leon Avenue
          San Juan, PR 00907
          Telephone: (516) 862-0194 Ext 5861
          E-mail: lcardona@milberg.com

               - and -

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

KE HOLDINGS: Court Narrows Claims in Putative Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP reports that on February 26, 2024, Judge
Gregory H. Woods of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York narrowed claims in a putative class
action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Securities Act of 1933 against a China-based real estate
brokerage company, certain of its executives, and the underwriters
in connection with a secondary offering by the company.
Saskatchewan Healthcare Emps.' Pension Plan v. KE Holdings Inc.,
2024 WL 775195 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 2024). Plaintiff alleged, based
largely on a short-seller report, that the company made
misrepresentations that significantly overstated the gross
transaction value ("GTV") of real estate transactions facilitated
by the company, the number of agents and stores using its online
platform, and the commissions the company received. Id. at *3-7.
The Court held that plaintiff adequately alleged misrepresentations
with respect to certain statements but failed to adequately allege
scienter, and therefore largely declined to dismiss the Securities
Act claim but dismissed the Exchange Act claim with leave to
replead.

The Court first rejected plaintiff's allegation that the company
failed to disclose the number of stores or agents that were not
"active" on its platform, determining that a reasonable investor
would not expect that all agents and stores using the company's
platform were equally active. Id. at *20-21. The Court observed
that the company's disclosures indicated that not all of its stores
or brokers had high activity, which undermined the allegation that
the company was "required to break out that information." Id. at
*21. And the Court further explained that, because the company did
not restate any of its prior disclosures when it later disclosed
the number of agents and stores that were active, this indicated
that the "incremental disclosure did not affect the [c]ompany's
revenues or GTV." Id. at *22.

Next, the Court held that the short-seller report was alleged to be
sufficiently reliable to support plaintiff's allegations that the
company's statements about its revenue and GTV were false. Id. at
*23. The Court emphasized that the report explained the methodology
it used to calculate the number of active stores and agents and had
even developed a computer program to analyze the data published on
the company's platform. Id. The report also noted that its authors
had conducted in-person site visits, spoken with store agents and
managers, cross-checked their results with other publicly available
databases, and had included in the report photographs, transcripts,
and screenshots, all of which made the report distinguishable from
those at issue in certain other cases in which claims did not
survive the motion-to-dismiss stage because they were based on
short-seller reports that were less robust. Id. at *23-24. While
defendants argued that plaintiff did not independently corroborate
the information in the report, the Court held that there was "no
such categorical rule" requiring them to do so. Id. at *24. And
although defendants contested the report's reliability and
methodology, the Court held those challenges all raised factual
issues that could not be resolved on a motion to dismiss. Id.

The Court, however, held that certain other challenged statements
were non-actionable statements of opinion. These included
statements that "[w]e believe a large and active network of agents,
brokerage stores and brokerage brands across China provides a solid
foundation for serving a large number of housing customers" and
"[w]e believe our reputation for high-quality service among the
large housing customer base and our growing network of real estate
brokerage stores and agents that transact actively on our platform
well position us to increase cooperation with existing and new real
estate developers," which the Court explained were "clearly
signaled" as opinions that plaintiffs had not alleged were false or
believed by defendants to be false. Id. at 25 & n.8. The Court also
noted that these statements were not representations about the
actual number of the company's stores or agents but were simply
descriptions of why a large market share was important to its
business, and while the statements used descriptive terms like
"large" and "growing," those were not actionable because they were
not quantifiable and were subject to interpretation. Id. at *26.
The Court also held that the company's disclosure as a risk factor
-- that it relied on various metrics like GTV to evaluate its
business and that inaccuracies in those measurements could
negatively impact the company -- was not actionable because it was
a forward-looking statement and plaintiffs had not established that
the risk had materialized at the time the statement was made. Id.
at *26-27.

The Court next assessed plaintiff's allegations of scienter and
found them all lacking both in their totality and when considered
individually. Id. at *28. The Court held that the individual
defendants' roles in the company did not establish scienter merely
because they held significant roles within the company and were
involved in its daily operations. Id. Moreover, the Court noted
that, while plaintiff alleged that the executives had received or
had control over information about the company's operations, there
were no specific allegations as to what contradictory information
they had access to. Id. at *29. While plaintiff pointed to the
company's response to the short-seller report as suggestive of
scienter, the Court rejected this argument, noting that the company
performed an internal investigation after the report was released.
Id. And while the company removed certain data from its platform
that had been referenced in the short-seller's report, the Court
concluded that it did so after the company made the alleged
misstatements and that the removal therefore did not suggest the
company acted with scienter at the time the statements were made.
Id. Finally, the Court explained that defendants' desire to
maintain the company's stock price and keep the company profitable
were not suggestive of scienter since this was a motive common to
all corporate officers. Id. at *30. Because plaintiff failed to
adequately allege scienter, the Court dismissed all of plaintiff's
Exchange Act claims. Id.

While the failure to adequately allege scienter was enough to
dismiss the Exchange Act claims, the Court also analyzed
plaintiff's allegations regarding loss causation and concluded that
plaintiff adequately alleged loss causation because the market
price of the company's stock allegedly reacted negatively to the
short-seller report, including based on intraday price
fluctuations. Id. at *33.

With respect to the Securities Act claims, the Court also held that
other requirements were adequately alleged. The Court held
plaintiff had sufficiently pleaded standing to pursue a Securities
Act claim because it allegedly purchased shares pursuant to or
traceable to the company's secondary offering. Id. at *31. The
Court next held that plaintiff's Securities Act claims did not
sound in fraud and that plaintiff did not need to allege scienter
or plead their claims with specificity. The Court observed that the
complaint specifically disclaimed any allegation or inference of
fraud with respect to the Securities Act claims, and that the
complaint was structured to draw a distinction between conduct that
was alleged to be merely negligent as opposed to that which was
alleged to be fraudulent. Id. at *31-32. In particular, the Court
noted that the Securities Act allegations were predicated on the
factual information revealed in the short-seller report, rather
than on the short-seller report's broader assertion that the
company committed fraud. Id. at *32.[GN]

KELLER WILLIAMS: Faces Class Action Over Profit-Sharing Program
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Marx, writing for HousingWire, reports that a new
class-action lawsuit was filed by a former agent against real
estate brokerage Keller Williams (KW), contesting alterations made
to the company's profit-sharing program.

There are now a total of five class-action lawsuits against KW
challenging the company's profit-sharing program adjustments.
Earlier in March, four agents formerly affiliated with Keller
Williams -- Jerri L. Moulder, David L. Bueker, Robert E. Hill and
Kevin Ortiz -- took legal action against the real estate brokerage
by filing four separate class-action lawsuits.

On March 29, Edward Fordyce, who worked on and off with Keller
Williams from 2019 to 2022, filed a complaint aiming for
class-action status in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. Allegations against KW
include breach of contract, declaratory judgment and unjust
enrichment. Fordyce's complaint challenges adjustments made to
Keller Williams' profit-sharing program.

In February 2020, KW introduced a more restrictive policy to its
profit-sharing program. It stated that associates who joined the
brokerage on or after April 1, 2020, and subsequently jumped to a
competitor would lose their revenues from the company's lifelong
revenue program. But that policy did not impact agents who joined
before April 1, 2020.

The change introduced in 2020 also extended the wait period to
become a vested member. But in August 2023, during KW's Mega Agent
Camp event in Austin, the company's International Associate
Leadership Council (IALC) voted to revise the profit-sharing
distribution policy. Under the updated policy, vested agents who
joined before April 1, 2020, and actively compete with KW
brokerages would see their profit share reduced from 100% to 5%.

An incentive to go back to Keller Williams remained. Former agents
who return to the company within six months of the effective
reduction date will have their profit share restored to 100%, KW
President Marc King wrote in an email in August 2023. Also, former
KW agents who have retired or left the industry altogether will
retain their full profit-share distribution. The new policy is
supposed to be implemented on or before July 1, 2024.

The plaintiffs argue that according to the Keller Williams policies
and guidelines manual, the brokerage did not have the right to
terminate the profit-share program. They also claim it  didn't have
the right to amend any aspect of the program's method of
calculating a market center's profit-sharing contribution or a
recruiting sponsor's profit-sharing distribution, except as
specifically directed by the IALC. Lastly, any amendment made to
the profit-sharing program was only allowed to be be prospective
and not retroactive. [GN]

KINDRED HOSPITALITY: Faces Verhaak Suit Over Tip Misappropriation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Terts Verhaak, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. Kindred Hospitality Group LLC, Austin Heidt, and
Giovanni Ranieri, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00138-MWM (S.D.
Ohio, March 15, 2024) seeks appropriate monetary, declaratory, and
equitable relief based on Defendants' willful failure to compensate
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees as required by the Fair
Labor Standards Act, the Ohio Constitution, and the Ohio Revised
Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that Kindred Hospitality misappropriates tips
paid to its servers, bartenders, and back waiters. Specifically,
Plaintiff asserts that non-tipped employees, including cooks and
managers, are included in Defendant's tip pool. The Plaintiff
further contends that the servers at Al Posto are required to do
substantial side work -- comprising more than 20% of their shift --
while being paid a tipped wage rate.

The Plaintiff worked as a back waiter for Defendants from the end
of September 2023 through early November 2023.

Kindred Hospitality Group LLC owns and operates Al Posto Restaurant
located in Cincinnati, Ohio.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew R. Biller, Esq.
          Andrew P. Kimble, Esq.
          BILLER & KIMBLE, LLC
          8044 Montgomery Road Suite 515
          Cincinnati, OH 45236
          Telephone: (513) 202-0710
          Facsimile: (614) 340-4620
          E-mail: abiller@billerkimble.com
                  akimble@billerkimble.com

LARRY'S FURNITURE: Wint Suit Alleges Labor Law Breaches
-------------------------------------------------------
ALISTER WINT, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LARRY'S FURNITURE INC (D/B/A LARRY'S
FURNITURE), KRISHNA BHAGWANDEEN (A/K/A LARRY) and MAHADAI
BHAGWANDEEN (A/K/A ANNIE), Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-02200
(S.D.N.Y., March 26, 2024) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New
York Labor Law.

Plaintiff Wint was employed by Defendants as a furniture assembler
at Larry's Furniture from approximately November 2021 until on or
about November 25, 2023. Allegedly, the Defendants failed to
maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked, and failed to
pay Plaintiff Wint appropriately for any hours worked, either at
the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium.
Among other things, Defendants failed to provide him and other
employees with accurate wage statements at the time of their
payment of wages, says the Plaintiff.

Larry's Furniture is a furniture store located in Brooklyn, NY.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

LENNY & LARRY'S: Garica & Kotcher Sue Over False Product Labeling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SAMUEL GARICA and SAMANTHA KOTCHER on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LENNY & LARRY'S, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00569-DMS-VET (S.D. Cal., March 25,
2024) seeks redress for Defendant's deceptive practices associated
with the advertising, labeling and sale of its "Lenny & Larry's The
Boss Immunity Bars."

The Plaintiffs allege Defendant's conduct is in breach of warranty,
violates California's Business and Professions Code, California
Civil Code, New York General Business Law, and is otherwise grounds
for restitution on the basis of quasi-contract/unjust enrichment.

The Defendant has falsely portrayed its product as an Immunity bar.
Its failure to include certain minimum amounts of BC30 in the
formulation of its product renders claims that the product supports
immune health and protein absorption false, misleading and
deceptive. As a result of this false and misleading labeling,
Defendant was able to sell these products to hundreds of thousands
of unsuspecting consumers throughout California, New York and the
United States, says the suit.

Headquartered in Los Angeles, CA, Lenny & Larry, LLC.,
manufactures, markets and sells "healthful" snack alternatives in
the form of cookies and bars made with plant proteins, that claim
to be non-GMO, free of soy and artificial sweeteners. Among their
offerings, Defendant manufactures and sells "Boss Immunity Bars."
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

           Michael D. Braun, Esq.
           KUZYK LAW, LLP
           2121 Avenue of the Stars, Ste. 800
           Los Angeles, CA 90067
           Telephone: (213) 401-4100
           Facsimile: (213) 401-0311
           E-mail: mdb@kuzykclassactions.com

LIMNI LLC: Faces Makaj Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
ELIZABETH MAKAJ, BIANCA MAKAJ, GARRETT PATRICK BOELENS and DOUGLAS
MARTINEZ, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. LIMNI LLC, dba LIMNI MEDITERRANEAN KITCHEN, MEZZALUNA
DUE INC. dba MEZZLUNA PIZZERIA & RESTAURANT, ROBERT PREZZZANO and
NISIM SACHAKOV, Defendants, Case No. 7:24-cv-01980 (S.D.N.Y., March
15, 2024) arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful labor
practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New
York Labor Law, and the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act.

The Plaintiffs seek to recover from the Defendants: (1) unpaid
wages and minimum wages; (2) unpaid overtime compensation; (3)
unpaid "spread of hours" premiums for each day they worked a shift
in excess of ten hours; (4) unpaid uniform cost and maintenance
compensation; (5) liquidated damages and civil penalties; (6)
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and (7) attorneys' fees
and costs.

The Plaintiffs were continuously employed by the Defendants in
various "front of house," roles, such as bartending, hosting and
serving, among other duties and at all times relevant.

LIMNI LLC, dba LIMNI MEDITERRANEAN KITCHEN, operates a restaurant
and bar which served food and drink to the general public.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph Jeziorkowski, Esq.
          Daniel Folchetti, Esq.
          VALIANT LAW
          2 Westchester Park Drive, Suite 205
          White Plains, NY 10604
          Telephone: (914) 730-2422
          Facsimile: (909) 677-2290

LINCOLN NATIONAL: Glover Insurance Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------
Lincoln National Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 21, 2024, that the case captioned
"Glover v. Connecticut General Life Insurance Company and The
Lincoln National Life Insurance Company," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Connecticut, Case No.
3:16-cv-00827 has been dismissed. Plaintiff filed a motion for
leave to amend the complaint, which, on September 25, 2023, the
court granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff filed an
amended complaint on October 10, 2023.

Said putative class action that was served on The Lincoln National
Life Insurance Company (LNL) on June 8, 2016. Plaintiff is the
owner of a universal life insurance policy who alleges that LNL
charged more for non-guaranteed cost of insurance than permitted by
the policy. Plaintiff seeks to represent all universal life and
variable universal life policyholders who owned policies containing
non-guaranteed cost of insurance provisions that are similar to
those of Plaintiff's policy and seeks damages on behalf of all such
policyholders.

On January 11, 2019, the court dismissed Plaintiff's complaint in
its entirety.

Lincoln National Corporation and its subsidiaries operate multiple
insurance businesses through four business segments namely Life
Insurance, Annuities, Group Protection and Retirement Plan
Services.


LORDSTOWN MOTORS: $10MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 11
---------------------------------------------------------------
Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP on April 5 disclosed that the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware has approved
the following announcement of a proposed settlement that would
benefit purchasers of Lordstown Motors (OTC:NRDE) Corp. (NASDAQ:
RIDE) (NASDAQ: RIDEW):

SUMMARY NOTICE OF CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT

If you purchased the publicly traded securities of Lordstown Motors
Corp. ("LMC") during the period from August 3, 2020 through July 2,
2021, and/or held LMC's publicly traded Class A Common Stock on
September 21, 2020, and were damaged thereby, you may be entitled
to a payment from a settlement.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, by Order of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
District of Delaware ("Bankruptcy Court"), that the
Court-designated Class Representative, on behalf of himself and all
members of the Ohio Settlement Class, and LMC and its subsidiaries
(together, the "Debtors"), have reached a proposed settlement of
all claims against certain of the Debtors and David Hamamoto
("Settling Defendants") asserted in the action, In re Lordstown
Motors Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 4:21-cv-00616 (N.D. Ohio) ("Ohio
Securities Litigation"), which were also asserted against certain
of the Debtors in the above-captioned Chapter 11 Cases, as well as
releases to other directors and officers of the Debtors who were
serving in such roles as of December 12, 2023 but who are not
defendants in the Ohio Securities Litigation (such directors and
officers, together with the Settling Defendants, the "Released
Parties"). On March 6, 2024, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order
confirming the Debtors'  Third Modified First Amended Joint Chapter
11 Plan of Lordstown Motors Corp. and Its Affiliated Debtors
(together with all schedules and exhibits thereto, and as the same
may be modified in accordance with its terms, the "Plan") and
preliminarily approved the proposed Settlement and certified the
Ohio Settlement Class pursuant to Federal Rule 23, made applicable
by Bankruptcy Rule 7023.

If the Settlement is approved on a final basis, the Settlement will
provide releases and resolve claims in the Ohio Securities
Litigation alleging that the Settling Defendants violated Sections
10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The
Settlement will be implemented in accordance with the provisions of
the Plan, which provide for the creation of a Settlement Fund in
the amount of at least $3 million, and subsequent additional
funding of up to $7 million, for the benefit of the Ohio Settlement
Class. The Ohio Securities Litigation will continue to proceed with
respect to all other defendants.

The Bankruptcy Court has scheduled a final hearing before the
Honorable Mary F. Walrath, remotely via Zoom (NASDAQ:ZM), on June
11, 2024, at 10:30 a.m. (prevailing Eastern Time), Courtroom 4, 824
N. Market Street, 5th Floor, Wilmington, DE 19801 (the "Settlement
Hearing") to determine whether the Bankruptcy Court should: (i)
approve the proposed Settlement, as fair, reasonable, and adequate;
(ii) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of
the Net Settlement Fund; and (iii) approve Ohio Class Counsel's
motion for payment of attorneys' fees and expenses from the
Settlement Fund. The Bankruptcy Court may change the date of the
hearing without providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend
the Settlement Hearing to receive a payment.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE OHIO SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL
BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A
PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a Postcard Notice, you may
obtain copies of the Postcard Notice, the long-form Notice, and the
Ohio Claim Form by visiting the Ohio Settlement Claims
Administrator's website, www.strategicclaims.net/lordstown/, or by
contacting the administrator at: Lordstown Bankruptcy Settlement,
c/o Strategic Claims Services, 600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205,
Media, PA 19063, info@strategicclaims.net, (866) 274-4004.
Inquiries, other than requests for information about the status of
a claim, may also be made to Ohio Class Counsel: Jake
Bissell-Linsk, Esq., Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP,  140 Broadway,
New York, NY 10005, www.labaton.com,
settlementquestions@labaton.com, (888) 219-6877.

If you are a member of the Ohio Settlement Class, to be eligible to
share in the distribution of the proceeds from the Settlement, you
must submit an Ohio Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no
later than July 20, 2024 to the Ohio Settlement Claims
Administrator.  If you are a member of the Ohio Settlement Class
and do not timely submit a valid Ohio Claim Form, you will not be
eligible to share in the distribution of the proceeds from the
Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound by the terms of the
Settlement, the Confirmation Order, and the Plan, including the
releases set forth therein.  

If you are a member of the Ohio Settlement Class and wish to
exclude yourself from the class, you must submit a written request
for exclusion in accordance with the instructions in the Notice so
that it is received no later than May 21, 2024 by the Ohio
Settlement Claims Administrator. If you exclude yourself from the
Ohio Settlement Class, you will not be eligible to share in the
distribution of the proceeds of the Settlement. Exclusion is the
only option that potentially may allow you to pursue individual
claims against the Released Parties. With respect to the Debtors,
your ability to bring claims against them may be limited by the
Plan and whether you timely filed an individual claim in the
Chapter 11 Cases.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the Plan of Allocation,
and/or Ohio Class Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and expenses
must be filed with the Bankruptcy Court, either by mail or in
person, and be mailed to counsel in accordance with the
instructions in the Notice, such that they are received no later
than May 21, 2024 by the Bankruptcy Court, Ohio Class Counsel, and
Debtor's Counsel Representative.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEBTORS, OR
DEBTORS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

DATED: APRIL 5, 2024

BY ORDER OF THE U.S. BANKRUPTCY
COURT - DISTRICT OF DELAWARE


LUNA INNOVATIONS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Securities Fraud
------------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Luna Innovations Incorporated (NASDAQ: LUNA)
investors who suffered substantial losses to submit claims:

Class Period: Aug. 11, 2023 -- Mar. 25, 2024
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: May 31, 2024
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/LUNA
Contact An Attorney Now: LUNA@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895

Luna Innovations Incorporated (LUNA) Securities Fraud Class
Action:

The litigation focuses on the propriety of Luna's past financial
statements and adherence to U.S. generally accepted accounting
principles ("GAAP").

More specifically, the complaint alleges that Luna made misleading
statements and failed to disclose that:

     (1) its financial statements from Aug. 10, 2023 to the present
included false figures as a result of improper revenue recognition;


     (2) as a result, Luna would be required to restate financial
statements filed during Aug. 10, 2023 through Nov. 14, 2023; and

      (3) it lacked adequate internal controls.

Investors began to learn the truth on Mar. 12, 2024, when Luna
revealed that it would not timely file its annual financial
statements for the year ended Dec. 31, 2023 as a result of having
reported revenues during Q2 and Q3 2023 "that did not qualify for
revenue recognition under [GAAP]." The company also warned that
investors should no longer rely on its financial statements for the
quarters ended June 30 and September 30, 2023 and that its internal
controls over financial reporting was not sufficient. This news
drove the price of Luna shares crashing over 35% lower on Mar. 13,
2024.

Then, on Mar. 25, 2024, Luna announced that its CEO Scott Graeff
has retired from his role as President and Chief Executive Officer
of the Company and has stepped down from the Board of Directors,
sending the price of Luna shares sharply lower on Mar. 26, 2024.

"We're investigating whether Luna management may have intentionally
violated GAAP and its stated revenue recognition policies to appear
more profitable," said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman partner
leading the investigation.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding Luna
Innovations should consider their options to help in the
investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program.
Under the new program, whistleblowers who provide original
information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any
successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call
Reed Kathrein at 844-916-0895 or email LUNA@hbsslaw.com.

About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs' rights complex litigation law
firm focusing on corporate accountability through class-action law.
The firm is home to a robust securities litigation practice and
represents investors as well as whistleblowers, workers, consumers
and others in cases achieving real results for those harmed by
corporate negligence and fraud. More about the firm and its
successes can be found at hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm for updates
and news at @ClassActionLaw.

Attorney advertising.
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.

Contact:
Reed Kathrein, 844-916-0895 [GN]

M.G. TILE: Matamoros and Alonzo Sue Over Labor Law Breaches
-----------------------------------------------------------
WALTER RAMIREZ MATAMOROS and HUGO ALIRIO SACRAPAL ALONZO,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. M.G. TILE & MARBLE INC. and MIGUEL GARCIA and MIGUEL
ANGEL ARMAS SR., as individuals, Defendants, Case No. 7:24-cv-02298
(S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2024) seeks to recover damages for egregious
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor
Law.

The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants willfully failed to post
notices of the minimum wage and overtime wage requirements in a
conspicuous place at the location of their employment as required
by the FLSA and NYLL. In addition, the Plaintiffs also claim that
Defendants willfully failed to post notices of the minimum wage and
overtime wage requirements in a conspicuous place at the location
of their employment.

Plaintiff Matamoros was employed by Defendants from in or around
January 2021 until in or around November 2023 and Plaintiff Alonzo
was employed by Defendants from in or around January 2021 until in
or around November 2023.

Headquartered in Carmel, NY, M.G. Tile & Marble Inc. offers tile
and marble installation services to residential and commercial
customers. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

MANPOWER US: Faces Williams Suit Over FLSA Breach
-------------------------------------------------
JERRELLE WILLIAMS, individually, and on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiff
v.  MANPOWER US INC., d/b/a EXPERIS US, INC., and FIRST CITIZENS
BANCSHARES, INC., d/b/a FIRST CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK, Defendants,
Case No. 2:24-cv-02190 (W.D. Tenn., March 26, 2024) arises from the
Defendants' violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff and others similarly situated signed employment
contract assignments with the Defendant to perform IT services for
First Citizens National Bank. Allegedly, the Defendants violated
the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiff and those similarly situated
for all hours worked over 40 per week within weekly pay periods at
one and one-half times their regular hourly rate of pay.

Manpower US Inc., d/b/a Experis US, Inc., is a staffing company
that provides IT and other services to clients, nationwide. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
         J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
         J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq.
         Joshua Autry, Esq.
         JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT
         262 German Oak Drive
         Memphis, TN 38018
         Telephone: (901) 754-8001
         Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
         E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com
                 rbryant@jsyc.com
                 jleatherwood@jsyc.com
                 jautry@jsyc.com

MAP FOODS: Ruiz Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------
NANCY LIBETH MORALES RUIZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAP FOODS INC. d/b/a MICHAEL
ANTHONY'S PIZZERIA & RESTAURANT and MICHAEL CALLARI, as an
individual, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-02257 (E.D.N.Y., March 27,
2024) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.

Plaintiff Nancy Libeth Morales Ruiz was employed by Defendants from
in or around April 2022 until in or around February 2024. Although
she worked approximately 60 hours or more hours per week from in or
around the last week of April 2022 until in or around June 2022 and
approximately 59 hours or more hours per week from in or around
July 2022 until in or around February 2024, Defendants did not pay
her time and a half for hours worked over 40, a blatant violation
of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA and NYLL, says the
Plaintiff.

MAP Foods, Inc. operates a pizza restaurant located at 2425 Middle
Country Road, Centereach, NY. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

MEADOW LARK: Quinn May Leave to File Amended Complaint
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MATTHEW QUINN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
MEADOW LARK TRANSPORT, INC., MEADOW LARK COMPANIES, INC., MEADOW
LARK AGENCY, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-00055-SPW-TJC (D. Mont.), the
Hon. Judge Timothy Cavan entered an order:

   1. Granting the Plaintiff's motion for leave to file first
amended
      Complaint; the Plaintiff shall promptly file the Amended
      Complaint in accordance with Local Rule 15.1; and

   2. Denying as moot the Plaintiff's motion for classification and

      motion for default judgment, without prejudice to refile.

In its Oct. 11, 2022 Scheduling Order, the Court set a deadline for

motions to amend pleadings on Jan. 9, 2023. Since that deadline has
long since passed, the Plaintiff requests that the Court modify the

Scheduling Order to permit the amendment.

Meadowlark provides transportation services.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EUTS9R at no extra
charge.[CC]

MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Court Partly Favors Consumers in Diesel Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
financialexpress.com reports that a German court ruled on March 28,
2024 partly in favour of consumers in a class action suit against
Mercedes-Benz over diesel emissions defeat devices.

Some of the German luxury carmaker's diesel models with the Euro 6
grade engines built between 2012-2016 had cheat devices, the
Stuttgart court said. It found no violations in the older Euro 5
models, however.

Owners can return the cars and count on a refund minus wear and
tear, provided the intended violation is confirmed, the court said
in its verdict.

"An important course for damages claims has now been set," said the
Federal Association of Consumer Organizations (VZBV), representing
around 2,800 consumers in the case.

Mercedes said it would file an appeal. "We continue to believe that
the claims asserted against our company are unfounded and will
defend ourselves against them," said a spokesperson. [GN]


META PLATFORMS: Albemarle County Joins Social Media Platform Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
https://3wv.com/ reports that Albemarle County Public Schools is
entering into a class action lawsuit against such social media
platforms as Instagram, Facebook, TikTok, Snapchat and others. That
over concerns about the ill effects the platforms have on students,
including addiction, suicidal ideation, anxiety, depression, and
eating disorders.

The motion to join the lawsuit was unanimously approved during the
March 28, 2024, meeting of the Albemarle County School Board. The
board's full statement is found below.

"I know that I speak for all members of the School Board of
Albemarle County when I say that we are concerned about our
students' use of social media platforms such as Instagram,
Facebook, TikTok, Snapchat and others," Dr. Rebecca Berlin, White
Hall District representative, said at March 28, 2024 night's
meeting.

Berlin continued, presenting concerns about the platforms'
deceptive practices to attract and addict students to gather
personal data that is often sold to third parties and the
detrimental effects to student mental health from the habitual use
of these platforms.

"We are incurring substantial costs -- not only in dollars, but in
our most important assets: our children -- to assist and support
our students who are suffering from social media-inflicted injuries
to their mental health," Berlin said.

The motion presented and unanimously approved at the March 28
meeting directs School Division Counsel Josiah Black to engage
outside litigation counsel and join the lawsuit on behalf of
Albemarle County Public Schools (ACPS). The suit, filed in early
October, alleges that social media platforms fail to adequately
warn users about the mental health risks associated with their use,
including addition, suicidal ideation, anxiety, depression, and
eating disorders.

"As a parent of two children, each navigating the complexities of
social media, I carry a personal responsibility to champion the
rights of these young children and their families," Tom Cartmell,
partner at Wagstaff & Cartmell LLP and leader of several committees
established as part of this suit, told PR Newswire in December.
"These corporate giants were well aware of the harm they were
inflicting, yet persisted in their pursuits, at times exacerbating
issues that resulted in personal injuries for these vulnerable
children."

Entering this litigation would give ACPS the opportunity for
financial recovery of funds that have been funneled into the mental
health care of our students if the defending parties are found
liable. It would also give ACPS the opportunity to obtain future
damages to fund initiatives to help support student mental health
issues caused by social media.

"We may recover some damages on behalf of ACPS, but that is not
really the primary goal. The most important goals are forcing these
companies to change their deceptive practices and showing our
students and their families that we are concerned about their
well-being and will do what is necessary to support them in any way
we can," Black said. "As a school division, we have a
responsibility to stand up for our students and their families, and
joining this lawsuit is one way we can do just that," he added.

Black will oversee the involvement of ACPS in this suit and be the
point person for the division's participation in this effort. [GN]

MICHIGAN: Inmates' Family Members, Parents Sued Over Illegal Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Brandi Buchman, writing for Law&Crime, reports that children and
families in Michigan say they are being stripped of their right to
see their incarcerated loved ones in person for years just so
county officials and prison telecom companies and their partners
can reap lucrative profits in an illegal kickback scheme while the
families suffer long term consequences.

The allegations are found in a pair of class action lawsuits filed
last month in Michigan. The class actions are separate, and the
group of plaintiffs in both are diverse and are made up of parents
and family members of inmates incarcerated in St. Clair and Genesee
County, Michigan.

Represented by their parents or guardians, some plaintiffs are as
young as just 2 years old. Many are preteens on the verge of life's
big changes from childhood to adolescence and have told the court
they are looking for connection and guidance from their parents
despite the circumstances.

At least one plaintiff is the mother of an incarcerated woman who
alleges that an underlying scheme to cut off in-person visitation
in favor of video-call visits only has relegated her relationship
with her daughter to a series of dropped calls, slowly eating away
at their relationship and contributing to the destruction of their
mutual well-being.

One of the class action lawsuits is filed against Sheriff Mat King
of St. Clair County, Michigan, and names the prison telecom company
Securus Technologies and its parent owner Platinum Equity. It is
specific to inmates housed in St. Clair County Jail and alleges
that the kickback scheme that forced families into an "impossible
position" originated in 2017.

The other class action stems from an even older ban on in-person
visitation in Genesee County, Michigan. This started in 2014,
according to the lawsuit filed in the Seventh Circuit Court for the
County of Genesee. This complaint names Sheriff Christopher Swanson
in Genesee County as well as Global Tel*Link Corporation which does
business as ViaPath Technologies.

The allegations in each claim largely mirror one another.

In St. Clair, for example, when the in-person family visitation ban
went into effect in 2017, it forced "families desperate to maintain
some form of contact with their loved one, however inferior" to
choose between paying $12.99 for 20 minutes of "painfully
inadequate video" or paying for basic necessities like food, rent,
gas or hygiene products.

"Even these low-quality video calls are completely inaccessible to
many because of their price tag, because of the required
technology, or because the video call format is meaningless for
infants, neuro-divergent children, and people with various
disabilities. Many people will not see their loved one's face --
even as a frozen or pixilated image on a screen -- for months or
years until they are released or transferred," the 96-page St.
Clair complaint states.

Securus is alleged to pay St. Clair County 50% of that $12.99 and
78% of the 21 cents per minute cost of each and every phone call
among inmates, the class action states. Text messages cost a 50
cent "Stamp" plus a $3.75 transaction fee to purchase them.

Securus is charging families "exorbitant rates" to talk to inmates
while it garners a guaranteed contract that St. Clair County would
pay the company at least $190,000 annually, the plaintiffs say.

At bottom, the contracts incentivize jails to go to an all-digital
visitation format and it was this bargain that allowed Securus, for
example, to install its own digital kiosks where in-person visits
once took place.

The Michigan Constitution enshrines the "fundamental" rights of
intimate association and family integrity, lawyers for the St.
Clair plaintiffs write. That means that the integrity of
parent-child relationships, even for incarcerated parents since
their children and family members are entitled to keep their
relationships alive through physical contact, too.

Under the visitation ban in St. Clair, "children and parents are
unable to look directly into each other's eyes, hold each other's
hands, give each other a hug or otherwise maintain the in-person
connection that are essential to intimate family relationships."

At best, they say videos are "grainy and jerky" and malfunction or
show only a "green screen where the caller should be." The audio is
frequently no better: it is muffled and garbled and family members
must strain to hear over the din over background noise from the
inmate's housing pod, the plaintiffs say. Sometimes, the plaintiffs
say, there is no audio at all. And when the video call option
completely vanishes -- whether it is because the inmate wasn't
released from their cell on time or because the call didn't connect
or because the call kiosk malfunctioned, or the quality was too
poor -- the plaintiffs say their money isn't refunded.

The St. Clair lawsuit was accompanied by affidavits from some of
the children of the incarcerated. They, their parents and expert
testimony from doctors and psychologists consulted for the case
urge that "completely separating children from their parents --
keeping them from seeing and touching one another" is similar to
"torture."

"Such separation causes children and parents serious adverse health
effects that follow them into adolescence and adulthood. As a
result of Defendants' Family Visitation Ban, the children and
parents bringing this case have experienced grievous harm that will
change them for the rest of their lives," they allege.

In one affidavit from plaintiff M.M., a 12-year-old whose father is
incarcerated in St. Clair, they expressed how difficult it is to
say how "low" you are feeling on an email:

It's better to see him in person and talk to him about my emotions
more. Online, you can't really tell how you feel, can't really tell
what someone sounds like or what they actually feel. You could be
like, ‘I'm happy' but you're actually sad.

I need to see my dad in person. If I could visit my dad, I would
give him a big hug.

I know this is happening to a lot of other kids and parents. I've
talked to lawyers about what it means to be involved in a class
action. I want to be a part of this case so I can help other kids
like me be able to see their parents and help parents like my dad
be able to see their kids.

In the Genesee complaint, more than a half dozen children as well
as adult family members say the county had a similar setup with
Securus until July 2018 when it switched over to Global Tel-Link.
That deal proposed a fixed commission on the phone call system of
$15,000 a month, or $180,000 annually -- regardless of monthly call
usage.

The plaintiffs say this was a 25% increase over the kickback
revenue it was getting from Securus before Genesee County switched
to Global Tel-Link, or GTL.

"In addition, GTL offered a $60,000 yearly cash bonus it called a
'technology grant' and 20-percent of video call revenue, estimated
at $16,644 annually, and subject to considerable increases if the
county defendants could accomplish a large video-call volume," the
complaint states.

All told, the county stood to make a minimum of $240,000 for each
year of the contract it secured.

In 2018, GTL and Genesee County set the price for remote video
calls at $10 for 25 minutes and "stipulated that Genesee County
would receive a 20% commission paid out monthly."

These "monopoly contracts" are creating huge burdens on people who
are already low-income and have no choice but to pay the fees the
companies and county set, the lawsuit says. A June 2021 report in
Business Insider, the plaintiffs in the Genesee lawsuit note, found
that the exceedingly high cost of prison phone calls raked in $1.4
billion while women and people of color were driven into debt.

Both lawsuits seek an immediate end to the bans on in-person
visits.

An spokesperson for Securus' parent company, Aventiv Technologies,
told Law&Crime in an email that the case against them in "misguided
and without merit."

"We look forward to defending ourselves, and we will not let this
suit detract from our successful efforts to create meaningful and
positive outcomes for the consumers we serve," the spokesperson
said.

Swanson and King did not respond to request for comment.

An attorney representing the plaintiffs in St. Clair County, Cody
Cutting of Civil Rights Corps, said in an email that the next steps
will be for the sheriff and county in each case to respond to their
request for the preliminary injunction and then a hearing will be
held to air out the evidence in each case. The hearing in Genesee
is slated for April 15; plaintiffs in St. Clair meet on April 29.
[GN]

MOMENTUS INC: July 4 Claim Form Submission Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Before the
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING
File No. 3-20393

In the Matter of

Momentus, Inc., Stable Road
Acquisition Corp., SRC-NI
Holdings, LLC, and Brian Kabot,

Respondents.

PLAN NOTICE OF MOMENTUS STABLE ROAD FAIR FUND

TO: Individuals and entities, or their lawful successors, who
purchased SRAC common stock, SRAC warrants, or SRAC units, traded
on the NASDAQ under the trading symbols SRAC, SRACW, and SRACU
("Securities") during the period October 7, 2020 through July 13,
2021, inclusive ("Recovery Period").

If you fall within the group above, you must submit a completed
Claim Form with the necessary documentation so that it is
postmarked (or if not sent by U.S. Mail, received) by July 4, 2024
(the "Claims Bar Date"), to be considered for eligibility to
receive a Distribution Payment from the Momentus Stable Road Fair
Fund.

Purpose of this Plan Notice

The purpose of this Plan Notice is to inform you that you may be
eligible to share in the proceeds of the Momentus Stable Road Fair
Fund described herein. To be potentially eligible to share in the
Momentus Stable Road Fair Fund, you must file a Claim Form in
accordance with the steps set forth in this Plan Notice and in the
Plan of Distribution (the "Plan") approved by the Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC" or "Commission"). Claim Forms, together
with this Plan Notice, are being mailed to all known Preliminary
Claimants1 identified by the Commission-appointed Fund
Administrator ("Fund Administrator"), Epiq Class Action & Claims
Solutions, Inc. ("Epiq").2 Copies of the Plan, this Plan Notice,
and the Claim Form are available on the Momentus Stable Road Fair
Fund website at www.MomentusStableRoadFairFund.com.

PLEASE READ THIS PLAN NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY.

Background

On July 13, 2021, the Commission issued the Order instituting and
simultaneously settling cease-and-desist proceedings against the
Respondents. In the Order, the Commission found that Momentus, a
privately held space company that aspires to provide space
infrastructure services, and its former Chief Executive Officer
Mikhail Kokorich ("Kokorich"), made materially false statements,
omitted to state material facts, and engaged in other deceptive
conduct as Momentus sought to go public through a business
combination with SRAC, a publicly traded special-purpose
acquisition company ("SPAC"). Specifically, the Commission found
that Momentus' business plans and multi-billion dollar revenue
projections, as provided to investors and described in SRAC's Form
S-4 registration statement/proxy statement filed in connection with
the anticipated merger, were materially false and misleading.

According to the Order, on October 7, 2020, Momentus and SRAC
announced their merger agreement and made presentations to private
and institutional investors as well as analysts that contained
materially false statements concerning the success of Momentus'
technology. On the same day, SRAC entered into subscription
agreements with private investment in public equity ("PIPE")
investors who agreed to invest $175 million of capital by
purchasing 17.5 million shares of common stock of the company, if
and after the merger was approved. The Commission also found that
SRAC included Momentus' material misstatements and false financial
projections in its registration statement filed with the Commission
in November 2020 and in amendments filed on December 14, 2020 and
March 8, 2021 which Kabot signed. Further, the Commission found
that Momentus and SRAC did not disclose that, among other things,
there was no assurance that its Momentus' technology was
"sufficiently reliable and efficient to permit
commercialization…" until June 29, 2021 when it filed the third
amendment to its registration statement.

According to the Order, Momentus, Kokorich, and SRAC also concealed
and made false statements about U.S. government concerns with
national security and foreign ownership risks posed by Kokorich,
including concerns regarding his affiliation with Momentus which
jeopardized, among other things, the Momentus' launch schedule and
revenue projections that were based in part on assumptions about
the timing of its first commercial launch. The Commission found
that in January 2021 Momentus and SRAC became aware of
correspondence from the U.S. Defense Department stating that
Momentus posed a risk to national security as a result of its
association with Kokorich. Kokorich, a foreign national could not
access parts of Momentus' technology without an export license,
which was denied because of national security reasons with respect
to Kokorich. To address this issue, Kokorich formally stepped down
as CEO of Momentus on January 25, 2021 and on March 31, 2021,
placed his shares of Momentus stock in a voting trust. According to
the Order, in its June 29, 2021 amendment to its registration
statement, SRAC disclosed that Momentus was forced to reduce its
financial projections due to adverse licensing decisions stemming
from Kokorich's national security risks, and contributed to a 50%
decline in Momentus' enterprise valuation, from $1.1 billion to
less than $600 million.

In addition, the Commission found that Brian Kabot, SRAC's CEO who
signed public filings that included misrepresentations about
Momentus' technology and national security risks, caused SRAC's
disclosure violations. According to the Order, SRAC's public
filings, including registration statements signed by Kabot,
incorporated Momentus' and Kokorich's false and misleading claims
caused investors to be misled about material aspects of Momentus'
business. The Commission further found that Kabot was a managing
member of SRAC's sponsor, SRC-NI, and as such his conduct as
described in the Order was attributable to SRC-NI.

The Commission ordered the Respondents to pay $8,040,000.00 in
civil money penalties to the Commission. The Commission also
created a Fair Fund, pursuant to Section 308(a) of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, so the penalties paid can be
distributed to harmed investors (the "Fair Fund").

The Respondents have paid in full. The Fair Fund has been deposited
in a Commission-designated account at the United States Department
of the Treasury, and any accrued interest will be added to the Fair
Fund.

Eligibility Criteria and the Distribution Methodology

To qualify for a payment from the Momentus Stable Road Fair Fund,
you must satisfy certain eligibility criteria that are described in
detail in the Plan. The Plan is available on the Fair Fund website
at www.MomentusStableRoadFairFund.com and on the Commission's
public website at
https://www.sec.gov/files/litigation/admin/2024/34-99688-dp.pdf.
You can also request a copy of the Plan by calling the Fund
Administrator at 1-888-817-6536 or by emailing
info@MomentusStableRoadFairFund.com. The eligibility criteria
include the following:

You must have purchased SRAC common stock, SRAC warrants, or SRAC
units, traded on the NASDAQ under the trading symbols SRAC, SRACW,
and SRACU, during the Recovery Period.
Your approved transactions must calculate to a Recognized Loss as
calculated under the Plan and your Distribution Payment must equal
or exceed $10.00.
Claim Forms

A CLAIM FORM IS BEING SENT TO ALL PRELIMINARY CLAIMANTS KNOWN TO
THE FUND ADMINISTRATOR. IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE A CLAIM FORM OR
REQUIRE ADDITIONAL CLAIM FORMS, PLEASE FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS
BELOW UNDER "ADDITIONAL INFORMATION."

IN ORDER TO BE ELIGIBLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE FAIR FUND, PLEASE
SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM AND ALL SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION ELECTRONICALLY
ON THE FAIR FUND WEBSITE AT WWW.MOMENTUSSTABLEROADFAIRFUND.COM. YOU
MAY ALSO SUBMIT YOUR CLAIM FORM AND DOCUMENTS TO THE ADDRESS LISTED
BELOW.

THE DEADLINE TO SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM ONLINE OR BY MAIL AT THE
ADDRESS BELOW IS JULY 4, 2024 — ALSO REFERENCED HEREIN AS THE
"CLAIMS BAR DATE." PLEASE NOTE: THIS IS A "POSTMARKED" DEADLINE. IF
YOU FAIL TO SUBMIT A COMPLETED CLAIM FORM POSTMARKED ON OR BEFORE
JULY 4, 2024, OR YOU FAIL TO SUBMIT A CLAIM FORM ELECTRONICALLY ON
THE FAIR FUND WEBSITE ON OR BEFORE THIS DATE, YOU MAY BE BARRED
FROM RECEIVING A PAYMENT FROM THE MOMENTUS STABLE ROAD FAIR FUND.
THE CLAIM FORM MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY APPROPRIATE SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTS FOR EACH TRANSACTION LISTED IN PARTS II–III OF THE
CLAIM FORM.

Momentus Stable Road Fair Fund
Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc.
Fund Administrator
P.O. Box 2567 Portland, OR 97208‑2567

Claim Determinations

Within 90 days of the Claims Bar Date, the Fund Administrator will
send a Claim Status Notice to all Preliminary Claimants that
submitted a Claim Form. The Claim Status Notice will set forth the
Fund Administrator's determination of the eligibility of the claim.
If a claim is denied in whole or in part, the Fund Administrator
will state the reason for such denial. The reasons for denial may
include the failure to submit documentation supporting the
transactions claimed or the adequacy of such documentation.
Preliminary Claimants with deficient or denied claims will be given
an opportunity to cure the deficiency or seek reconsideration of
the denial.

The Fund Administrator will send, as appropriate, a Final
Determination Notice to any Preliminary Claimants who responded to
the Claim Status Notice in an effort to cure a deficiency or to
seek reconsideration of a denied claim, or otherwise dispute the
Fund Administrator's determination, notifying the Preliminary
Claimant of its determination.

Additional Information

Additional information regarding the Momentus Stable Road Fair Fund
may be found at www.MomentusStableRoadFairFund.com. Additional
Claim Forms and Plan Notices may also be downloaded at the Momentus
Stable Road Fair Fund's website. You may obtain additional
information or request copies of Claim Forms and Plan Notices by
calling the Momentus Stable Road Fair Fund's toll‑free number at
(888) 817‑6536, or by emailing
info@MomentusStableRoadFairFund.com.

PLEASE CHECK THE WEBSITE WWW.MOMENTUSSTABLEROADFAIRFUND.COM
FREQUENTLY FOR UPDATES

1 Capitalized terms not defined here are defined in the Plan.
2 On March 7, 2024, the Commission appointed Epiq Class Action &
Claims Solutions, Inc. ("Epiq") as the Fund Administrator.

URL: www.MomentusStableRoadFairFund.com


NEW YORK, NY: Court Narrows Claims in Greene Suit
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN GREENE, et al., v.
CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-05762-LAP (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Loretta Preska entered an order:

-- Granting the motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims under the

    ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, NYCHRL, and Monell liability, save

    for Greene, Sanchez-Esquivel, and Ayu's claims for reasonable
    accommodation under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act; and

-- Granting dismissal of Ayu's claims for false arrest arising
from
    his April and May 2022 arrests, and Collins, Ayu, and Amitabh's

    warrantless entry claims, as well as their corresponding state
law
    claims.

The Plaintiffs include GIOVANNA SANCHEZ-ESQUIVEL; SARAH ARVIO; LISA
COLLINS; ORITSEWEYIMI OMOANUKHE AYU; and NEIL AMITABH, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and COMMUNITY
ACCESS, INC.; NATIONAL ALLIANCE ON MENTAL ILLNESS OF NEW YORK CITY,
INC.; CORRECT CRISIS INTERVENTION TODAY – NYC; and VOICES OF
COMMUNITY ACTIVISTS AND LEADERS NEW YORK.

The Defendants include ERIC ADAMS; BILL DE BLASIO; KEECHANT L.
SEWELL; DERMOT F. SHEA; NYPD POLICE OFFICER MARTIN HABER; NYPD
POLICE SERGEANT GBAIN, NYPD POLICE OFFICER VIKRAM PRASAD; NYPD
POLICE OFFICER ANDRE DAWKINS; NYPD POLICE OFFICER TYRONE FISHER;
NYPD POLICE OFFICER DEVIENDRA RAMAYYA; NYPD POLICE OFFICER JULIAN
TORRES; NYPD OFFICER SANCHEZ; NYPD OFFICER MARRONE; and NYPD
OFFICERS JOHN and JANE DOES No. 1-40.

In sum, the Plaintiffs have failed adequately to plead "the
existence of a municipal policy or custom" under either a formal,
de facto, or deliberate indifference theory. As such, the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' Monell claim is
granted.

The Plaintiffs bring this putative class action against Defendants
New York City and numerous City employees to challenge the City's
practice of using "police officers as first responders to mental
health crises."

Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that the City's policies
unlawfully require the police forcibly to seize individuals with
perceived mental disabilities even when they pose no threat to
themselves or others, stripping the mentally disabled of their
constitutional rights to be free from unwarranted seizures,
detentions, and excessive force.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 26, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=syUgLj at no extra
charge.[CC]

NEXT BRIDGE: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 14
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, reminds
acquirers of Next Bridge Hydrocarbons, Inc. ("NBH") shares in
connection with NBH's spin-off from Meta Materials, Inc. ("Meta
Materials") on or around December 14, 2022, of the important May
14, 2024 lead plaintiff deadline.

The case is against Next Bridge Hydrocarbons, Inc., Ken Rice,
George Palikaras, Robert L. Cook, Clifton DuBose Jr., Joseph
DeWoody, Lucas T. Hawkins, Delvina Oelkers, Mia Pitts, Kristin
Whitley, and Gregory McCabe (together, "Defendants").

SO WHAT: If you acquired NBH shares you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the NBH class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=23445 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has
already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you
must move the Court no later than May 14, 2024. A lead plaintiff is
a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually
litigate securities class actions, but are merely middlemen that
refer clients or partner with law firms that actually litigate the
cases. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents
investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in
securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation.
Rosen Law Firm has achieved the largest ever securities class
action settlement against a Chinese Company. Rosen Law Firm was
Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of
securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been
ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds
of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm
secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner
Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar.
Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and
Super Lawyers.

DETAILS OF THE CASE: According to the lawsuit, NBH filed a
registration statement in connection with its spin-off from Meta
Materials which contained false and/or materially misleading
statements. The statements at issue concern the value of NBH's oil
and gas assets and NBH's transactions with related parties. The
complaint alleges that these false and/or materially misleading
statements violated the Securities Act of 1933 and, consequently,
damaged shareholders who received NBH shares in conjunction with
the spin-off.

To join the NBH class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=23445 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.

No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.

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

Contact Information:

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

NOHO HOSPITALITY: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Erkan Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NIHAL ERKAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NoHo Hospitality, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-02142-NGG-RML (E.D.N.Y., March 25, 2024), arises from the
Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate
their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation
of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act,
the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human
Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to take any
prompt and equitable steps to remedy its discriminatory conduct.
Accordingly, Plaintiff invokes her right to injunctive relief to
remedy the discrimination. She also seeks for compensatory damages,
including reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses, and costs of suit
as provided by state and federal law.

Headquartered in New York, NoHo Hospitality is engaged in hotel,
restaurants and catering business. It operates the website,
https://www.nhgnyc.com. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Mars Khaimov, Esq.
         MARS KHAIMOV LAW, PLLC
         100 Duffy Avenue, Suite 510
         Hicksville, NY 11801
         Telephone: (929) 324-0717
         Facsimile: (929) 333-7774
         E-mail: mars@khaimovlaw.com

OPEN DOOR: Court Stays Discovery in Sharma Suit
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MALA SHARMA, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. OPEN DOOR NY HOME
CARE SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00497-DG-JAM (E.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Joseph A. Marutollo entered an order granting the
Defendant's motion for a stay of discovery pending the resolution
of the Defendant's motion to dismiss.

The Court finds that Plaintiff will suffer little prejudice as a
result of a stay. As an initial matter, the Plaintiff is not moving
to toll the statute of limitations under the FLSA. The Defendant's
motion will be fully briefed in less than two months.

Moreover, while there has already been significant motion practice
in this case -- all of which has been advanced by Plaintiff -- this
case is still in its early stages. Therefore, the Plaintiff's
argument that potential opt-ins may be "seriously prejudiced" is
unavailing.

On Jan. 23, 2024, the Plaintiff on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated filed the complaint in this action, alleging
that Defendant violated both the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") by depriving Plaintiff and
others similarly situated of their lawful, promptly paid, minimum
and overtime wages.

Open Door is a senior care agency.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 26, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zrQwGH at no extra
charge.[CC]

ORACLE AMERICA: Realscape Group Sues Over Breach of Contract
------------------------------------------------------------
REALSCAPE GROUP LLC d/b/a REALOGIC SOLUTIONS, Plaintiff v. ORACLE
AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00558-CEF (N.D. Ohio,
March 26, 2024) is a class action arising from Defendant's failure
to provide Plaintiff with properly functioning NetSuite products
and asserting claims for, among other things, unjust enrichment,
breach of contract, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and
breach of warranty.

The Defendant has purported that its software is being usable "off
the shelf." However, it requires licensees to purchase
"implementation" services from Oracle for the purported purpose of
easing the transition from the former platform to NetSuite modules.
In addition, the NetSuite products are not usable "off the shelf,"
are not actually capable of performing the functions promised
without extensive customization, and, as a result of Defendant
selling the financing, license fees are due immediately regardless
of whether the software performs as promised or is delivered on the
timetable needed by the business, says the suit.

Oracle is a software company that offers products and services to
small and medium-sized businesses. Among the products offered by
Oracle is its NetSuite brand of cloud-based software which is
purportedly designed to address a company's need to perform a broad
range of administrative tasks a business requires including, among
other functions, general ledger accounting, management of human
resources, and payroll. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc E. Dann, Esq.
          Brian D. Flick, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. Crossman, Esq.
          Marita I. Ramirez, Esq.
          DANNLAW
          15000 Madison Avenue
          Lakewood, OH 44107
          Telephone: (216) 373-0539
          Facsimile: (216) 373-0536
          E-mail: notices@dannlaw.com

OXY USA: CRFT Class Cert Bid Overruled w/o Prejudice to Refiiling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cherry Rider Family Trust
et al., v. OXY USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 6:23-cv-01274 (D. Kan.,
Filed Dec. 29, 2023), the Hon. Judge Kathryn H. Vratil entered an
order that the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification filed
March 12, 2024 is overruled without prejudice to refiling at such
time, and after such discovery, as Judge James deems appropriate.

The Defendants' joint motion for an extension of time to respond is
overruled as moot.

The nature of suit states diversity-breach of contract.[CC]

PACIFIC RED: Faces Class Action Over Wage and Hour Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
On February 15, 2023, Brown White & Osborn LLP filed a class action
lawsuit against Pacific Red, LLC, Pacific Design Center 1, LLC, and
Cohen PDC LLC, alleging wage claims for:

     -- Failure to Pay Minimum Wages;

     -- Failure to Pay Overtime and Double Time Compensation;

     -- Failure to Provide Meal Periods;

     -- Failure to Provide Rest Periods; and

     -- Failure to Indemnify or Reimburse Business Expenses.

We filed the lawsuit in Los Angeles Superior Court. It is captioned
Jeremy McArthur v. Pacific Design Center 1, LLC, et al., Case No:
24STCV03908.

The class action seeks to certify a class defined as "all current
and former non-exempt employees who work or worked for Pacific Red,
LLC, Pacific Design Center 1, LLC, and/or Cohen PDC LLC during the
time-period of February 15, 2020, to the Present."

The lawsuit alleges that Pacific Design Center, located in West
Hollywood, California, employs non-exempt employees under various
job classifications, such as "engineers," "security," "janitors,"
and under various departments such as its in-house restaurants,
cafes, and fitness centers. Irrespective of these classifications
or departments, the lawsuit alleges that Pacific Design Center
implements common policies, procedures, and practices that
unlawfully fail to compensate non-exempt employees for all hours
worked, including overtime and/or double compensation for work
exceeding eight (8) hours per day or forty (40) hours per week, as
well as systemic meal and rest break violations. The lawsuit also
alleges that employees are not reimbursed for all reasonable
expenses incurred for the benefit of Pacific Design Center.

Based on these allegations, the class action seeks to recover
unpaid wages, premium wages for missed meal and rest breaks,
unreimbursed expenses, and other statutory penalties, on behalf of
all non-exempt employees from February 15, 2020, through the
present. In addition to this class action lawsuit, a claim under
the California Private Attorney General Act has been submitted to
the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency seeking civil
penalties for these Labor Code violations. [GN]

PANAMERICAN CONSULTING: Faces Class Action Over Consumer Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Paul Thompson, writing for Cook County Record, reports that
PanAmerican Consulting, a debt settlement provider, is facing a
class action lawsuit for allegedly misleading consumers and
worsening their financial conditions.

The suit was filed by Victoria Wolworth, identified as a resident
of Illinois, on behalf of herself and others in similar situations.
The case accuses the company of violating the Illinois Consumer
Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (ICFA) and the Illinois
Debt Settlement Consumer Protection Act (DSCPA).

The complaint alleges that PanAmerican Consulting, which operates
nationally including in Illinois, targets consumers in significant
debt with promises to improve their financial situation. However,
these promises often result in consumers being left deeper in debt
than when they started.

The DSCPA requires debt settlement companies operating in Illinois
to be licensed and abide by certain provisions, such as a 15% cap
on payment for settled debt. It also prohibits false and deceptive
communications by these companies. Violations of the DSCPA are
considered violations of the ICFA.

The lawsuit claims that PanAmerican Consulting has violated
numerous provisions of both acts, causing significant harm to
Wolworth and other members of the class action.

The plaintiffs seek to expand the action to include all PanAmerican
clients in Illinois in the past three years.

The case was filed on March 20 in Cook County Circuit Court.

Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages, including compensatory,
statutory, actual, nominal and punitive damages.

Plaintiffs are represented by attorneys Seth McCormick, of Great
Lakes Consumer Law Firm, of Chicago; and Bryan Paul Thompson and
Robert W. Harrer, of the Chicago Consumer Law Center, of Lisle.[GN]

PAPAYA GAMING: Kelly-Starkebaum Alleges Deceptive Gaming Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
BRENNA KELLY-STARKEBAUM, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PAPAYA GAMING LTD. and PAPAYA
GAMING, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-02310-UA (S.D.N.Y.,
March 27, 2024) arises out of Defendants' violations of the New
York Deceptive Practices Act and the New York False Advertising
Act.

According to the complaint, Defendant Papaya represents that its
games are filled with live, actual opponents, which guarantees a
fair gaming environment. However, Papaya's representations are
false. Instead of competing with live, actual players, Papaya's
game applications are regularly filled with -- or controlled by --
nonhuman, computer robots. Moreover, Papaya failed to reveal facts
sufficient to put Plaintiff and the other Class members on inquiry
notice. Papaya does not inform players that they are matched with
computer robots or otherwise impact the outcome of games. Rather,
it gives players the false and misleading impression that they are
playing against other users by claiming that it matches players
against others with a similar skill level to ensure a fun and fair
experience for everyone, says the suit.

Based in Tel Aviv-Yafo, Israel, Papaya Gaming Ltd. is a foreign
limited liability company with a U.S.-based subsidiary of Papaya
Gaming, Inc. It was founded in 2016 and develops mobile games for
real money tournaments. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew S. Tripolitsiotis, Esq.
          BURNS CHAREST LLP
          757 Third Ave, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (469) 895-5269
          E-mail: mtripolitsiotis@burnscharest.com

                  - and -

          Amanda K. Klevorn, Esq.
          BURNS CHAREST LLP
          365 Canal Street, Suite 1170
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone:  (504) 799-2847
          E-mail: aklevorn@burnscharest.com

                  - and -

          Spencer Cox, Esq.
          BURNS CHAREST LLP
          4725 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20016
          Telephone: (202) 577-3977
          E-mail: scox@burnscharest.com

PLUG POWER: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set on May 21
----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of
securities of Plug Power Inc. (NASDAQ: PLUG) between May 9, 2023
and January 16, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). A
class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than May 21,
2024.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the Plug Power class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=1011 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action. A class action lawsuit has
already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you
must move the Court no later than May 21, 2024. A lead plaintiff is
a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources or any
meaningful peer recognition. Be wise in selecting counsel. The
Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

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

     (1) Plug Power overstated its ability and/or efforts to
mitigate the negative impacts that, inter alia, supply chain
constraints and material shortages could have or were having on
Plug Power's hydrogen business, as well as the sufficiency of its
cash and capital to fund its operations;

     (2) Plug Power continued to experience delays related to its
green hydrogen production facility build-out plans, as well as in
securing external funding sources to finance its growth plans;

     (3) Plug Power downplayed the true scope and severity of all
the foregoing when these issues were eventually revealed;

     (4) as a result of all the foregoing, Plug Power also
overstated the near-term prospects of its hydrogen production
operations, as well as the viability of expanding those operations;
and

     (5) as a result, Plug Power's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times. When the
true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

To join the Plug Power class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=1011 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.

No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice. You may also remain an absent class member
and do nothing at this point. An investor's ability to share in any
potential future recovery is not dependent upon serving as lead
plaintiff.

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

Contact Information:

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

PLUNKETT’S PEST: Followell Seeks Route Technician's Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDON FOLLOWELL, individually and for others similarly situated
v. PLUNKETT'S PEST CONTROL, INC., ind., and d/b/a VARMENT GUARD
WILDLIFE SERVICES (N.D. Ill., March 25, 2024), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and other damages from Defendant under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Plaintiff Followell began working for Plunkett's Pest Control (PPC)
as a Route Technician in approximately April 2023 and continues to
work for PPC to the present throughout Illinois. Allegedly, PPC
does not pay Followell and its other Route Technicians overtime
premium compensation for each hour worked over 40 in a workweek.
Instead, PPC uniformly misclassifies Followell and its other route
technicians as exempt from overtime and pays them a salary
guarantee plus non-discretionary bonuses based on the completion of
specific tasks or goals set by PPC, but no overtime premium
compensation, says the suit.

Headquartered in Fridley, MN, PPC provides pest control and
extermination services. [BN]  

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                  - and -

          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

PORSCHE CARS: Parties in Abel Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Abel v. Porsche Cars North
America, INC. et al., Case No. 6:24-cv-00593 (M.D. Fla., Filed
March 27, 2024), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order
directing the parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a
motion for class certification and advise the Court of agreeable
deadlines in their case management report.

-- The Court said that the deadlines should include a deadline
for:

    (1) disclosure of expert reports - class action, plaintiff and

        defendant;

    (2) discovery - class action;

    (3) motion for class certification;

    (4) response to motion for class certification; and

    (5) reply to motion for class certification.

The nature of suit states Other Statutes -- Other Statutory
Actions.[CC]

PRACTICE RESOURCES: Loses Bid to Dismiss Data Breach Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Practice Resources, LLC, Data
Security Breach Litigation, Case No. 6:22-cv-00890 (N.D.N.Y., Filed
Aug. 25, 2022), the Hon. Judge Lawrence E. Kahn entered an order
denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss without prejudice, in
light of the parties' ongoing settlement negotiations and pending
motion to certify class.

If the parties do not come to a final settlement agreement, the
Defendant is granted leave to refile, said the Court.

The nature of suit states Diversity-Other Contract.

Practice Resources is a multispecialty practice management
company.[CC]

PRACTICE RESOURCES: Suit Seeks Initial OK of Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Practice Resources, LLC, Data
Security Breach Litigation, Case No. 6:22-cv-00890-LEK-DJS
(N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs James Stewart, Susan Stewart, John
Bachura, Brenda Sparks, and Steven N. Esce, and the Defendant ask
the Court to enter an order:

   (i) granting preliminary approval of the proposed Settlement
       Agreement;

  (ii) certifying a Settlement Class pursuant to the provisions of

       Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3);

(iii) scheduling a Final Fairness Hearing to consider final
approval,
       pursuant to the schedule set forth above;

  (iv) directing that notice of the proposed Settlement and hearing
be
       provided to absent Class Members in a manner consistent with

       the Settlement Agreement and the Notice Program; and

   (v) entering the proposed order regarding Preliminary Approval
       Order.

Practice Resources is premier medical billing and practice
management company.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 27, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nVzaeR at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
          Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
          MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
          412 H St. NE, Suite 302,
          Washington, D.C. 20002
          Telephone: (202) 470-3520
          E-mail: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com

PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Harker Sues Over Private Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
SHANNON LECHELE HARKER, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION AND
DELTA DENTAL OF CALIFORNIA, Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-01830
(N.D. Cal., March 25, 2024) arises from Defendants' inadequate data
security, which caused the personal information of Plaintiff and
those similarly situated to be exfiltrated by unauthorized access
by Clop crime group on or about June 1, 2023, asserting claims for
negligence, negligence per se, and unjust enrichment.

Delta Dental and Progressive Software Corporation (PSC) failed to
timely and accurately disclose that Plaintiff's and Class members'
personal identifiable information had been improperly acquired or
accessed. Although PSC claims to have notified its customers
immediately upon learning of the vulnerability, Delta Dental did
not notify its own customers of the data breach until January 12,
2024. Moreover, Defendants deprived Plaintiff and Class members of
the chance to take speedy measures to protect themselves and
mitigate harm by failing to provide timely notice, says the suit.

Headquartered in San Francisco, CA, Delta Dental of California is a
leading dental insurance provider. Together with its affiliates,
the company provides dental benefits to more than 45 million people
across 15 states. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael F. Ram, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
          711 Van Ness Ave, Ste 500,
          San Francisco, CA, 94102-3275
          Telephone: (415) 846-3862
          E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com

                  - and -

         John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
         Ronald Podolny, Esq.
         MORGAN & MORGAN  COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
         201 North Franklin Street 7th Floor
         Tampa, FL 33602
         Telephone: (813) 223-5505
         Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
         E-mail: JYanchunis@forthepeople.com
                 ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com

PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Weaver Privacy Suit Transferred to D. Mass
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled JEFFREY WEAVER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE
CORPORATION; WELLTOK, INC.; and BEAUMONT HEALTH nka COREWELL
HEALTH, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-10157, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on March 15,
2024.

The Clerk of Court for the District of Massachusetts assigned Case
No. 1:24-cv-10645-ADB to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brings this class action against Defendants for their
failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable
information and private health information including, but not
limited to, Plaintiff and Class Members' names, dates of birth,
email addresses, phone numbers, diagnosis, health insurance
information, and Social Security numbers.

Progress Software Corporation is a Massachusetts based software
company that offers a range of software products and services to
corporate and governmental entities throughout the United States
and the world, including cloud hosting and secure file transfer
services such as MOVEit.[BN]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Timothy J. Lowe, Esq.
          Michael G. Latiff, Esq.
          Mitchell Capp, Esq.
          MCDONALD HOPKINS PLC
          39533 Woodward Avenue, Suite 318
          Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304  
          Telephone: (248) 220-1359
          E-mail: tlowe@mcdonaldhopkins.com
                  mlatiff@mcdonaldhopkins.com
                  mcapp@mcdonaldhopkins.com

PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL: Class Settlement to be Heard on June 13
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP issued a statement regarding the
Prudential Securities Litigation:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

In re PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL, INC.
Civil Action No. SECURITIES LITIGATION 2:19-cv-20839-SRC-CLW

CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION


This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS.

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED THE COMMON STOCK OF
PRUDENTIAL FINANCIAL, INC. BETWEEN JUNE 5, 2019 AND AUGUST 2, 2019,
INCLUSIVE ("CLASS" OR "CLASS MEMBERS")

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

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on June 13,
2024, at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Stanley R. Chesler at the
United States District Court, District of New Jersey, Senator Frank
R. Lautenberg Building, 2 Federal Square, Newark, NJ, 07101-0999,
to determine whether: (1) the proposed settlement (the
"Settlement") of the above-captioned Litigation as set forth in the
Stipulation of Settlement ("Stipulation")(1) for $35 million in
cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (2) the Judgment as provided under the Stipulation should
be entered dismissing the Litigation with prejudice; (3) to award
Lead Plaintiff's 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 amounts; and (4) the Plan of Allocation should
be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate.

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

IF YOU PURCHASED PRUDENTIAL COMMON STOCK BETWEEN JUNE 5, 2019 AND
AUGUST 2, 2019, INCLUSIVE, YOUR RIGHTS ARE AFFECTED BY THE
SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION.

To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must
establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release
form ("Proof of Claim") by mail (postmarked no later than July 30,
2024) or electronically (no later than July 30, 2024). Your failure
to submit your Proof of Claim by July 30, 2024, will subject your
claim to rejection and preclude your receiving any of the recovery
in connection with the Settlement of this Litigation. If you
purchased Prudential common stock between June 5, 2019 and August
2, 2019, inclusive, and do not request exclusion from the Class,
you will be bound by the Settlement and any judgment and release
entered in the Litigation, including, but not limited to, the
Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim.

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

Prudential Securities Settlement
Claims Administrator
c/o Gilardi & Co. LLC
P.O. Box 301135
Los Angeles, CA 90030-1135
Telephone: 1-888-298-3183

Inquiries should NOT be directed to Prudential, 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 Lead Counsel:

ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
Ellen Gusikoff Stewart
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 1-800-449-4900
Email: 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 MAY 23, 2024,
IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. ALL CLASS MEMBERS
WILL BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT EVEN IF THEY DO NOT SUBMIT A TIMELY
PROOF OF CLAIM.

IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE
SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, THE REQUEST BY LEAD PLAINTIFF'S
COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES NOT TO EXCEED 25% OF THE
$35 MILLION SETTLEMENT AMOUNT AND EXPENSES NOT TO EXCEED $200,000,
PLUS INTEREST ON BOTH AMOUNTS. ANY OBJECTIONS MUST BE FILED WITH
THE COURT AND SENT TO LEAD COUNSEL AND DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL BY MAY
23, 2024, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE.

DATED: March 8, 2024 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

(1) The Stipulation can be viewed and/or obtained at
www.PrudentialSecuritiesSettlement.com.

CONTACT: Media:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
Shareholder Relations Department
Greg Wood
(619) 231-1058


QIHOO 360: $29.75MM Class Settlement to be Heard on Aug. 1
----------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ALTIMEO ASSET MANAGEMENT, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated,

        Plaintiff,


            v.

QIHOO 360 TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD., HONGYI ZHOU, XIANGDONG QI, and ERIC
X. CHEN, Defendants.

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES

To: All owners and former owners of Qihoo ADS and Class A ordinary
shares ("Qihoo Securities") (i) who sold their Qihoo Securities
during the period from December 18, 2015 through July 15, 2016,
inclusive, (the "Class Period") and/or (ii) whose Qihoo Securities
were tendered, cancelled, or exchanged in Qihoo's July 15, 2016
take-private Merger (the "Settlement Class").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23(e) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, that Court-appointed
Lead Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all members of the
proposed Settlement Class, and Qihoo 360 Technology Co. Ltd.
("Qihoo"), Hongyi Zhou and Eric X. Chen (collectively, the
"Settling Defendants"), have reached a proposed settlement of the
claims in the above-captioned class action (the "Action") in the
amount of $29,750,000 (the "Settlement").

A hearing will be held before the Honorable Paul A. Engelmayer
either in person or remotely, at the Court's discretion, on August
1, 2024, at 2:30 p.m. EDT in Courtroom 1305 of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, Thurgood
Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, NY
10007 (the "Settlement Hearing") to determine whether the Court
should: (i) approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable,
and adequate; (ii) dismiss the Action with prejudice as provided in
the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated February 12,
2024; (iii) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for
distribution of the proceeds of the Settlement (the "Net Settlement
Fund") to Settlement Class Members; and (iv) approve Lead Counsel's
Fee and Expense Application.  The Court may change the date of the
Settlement Hearing, or hold it remotely, without providing another
written notice.  Information about the hearing will be posted at
www.QihooSecuritiesSettlement.com. You do NOT need to attend the
Settlement Hearing to receive a distribution from the Net
Settlement Fund.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A
MONETARY PAYMENT.  If you have not yet received a full Notice and
Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by visiting
www.QihooSecuritiesSettlement.com or by contacting the Claims
Administrator at:

Qihoo Securities Settlement
c/o Claims Administrator
1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210
Philadelphia, PA 19103
(844) 699-3961

Inquiries, other than requests for information about the status of
a claim, may also be made to Lead Counsel:

POMERANTZ LLP
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
Michael Grunfeld, Esq.
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
www.pomlaw.com
(212) 661-1100

If you are a Settlement Class Member, to be eligible to share in
the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a
Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later than August 8,
2024.  If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely
submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless
be bound by all judgments or orders entered by the Court relating
to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable.

If you are a Settlement Class Member and wish to exclude yourself
from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for
exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the
Notice so that it is received no later than July 5, 2024.  If you
properly exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not
be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court relating
to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will
not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement
Fund.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Lead Counsel's Fee and
Expense Application, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation must be
filed with the Court, either by mail or in person, and be mailed to
counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions in the
Notice, such that they are received no later than July 5, 2024.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS'
COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE.

DATED: April 9, 2024       

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


QUEBEC: Court Hears Class Action Lawsuit by Taxi Drivers
--------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Serebrin of The Canadian Press reports that driving a taxi
was not how Jean-Pierre Derival planned to spend his golden years.
But this week, as the 80-year-old prepared to testify at a trial
against the Quebec government's management of the taxi industry, he
was behind the wheel of his cab.

His goal, he said, was to use his taxi owner's permit as a source
of income in retirement. Then, in 2013, ride-hailing company Uber
entered the Quebec market, and his permit, along with cab permits
across the province, slowly began losing their value. And in 2019,
the province passed a law to abolish the permit system altogether,
crushing Derival's retirement dreams.

He's now part of a class-action lawsuit against the government on
the grounds that the province's handling of Uber's entry into the
market and Quebec's taxi reform law allowed Quebec to expropriate
his property -- his permit -- without adequately compensating him.

"It's unfair, your honour, to deprive the members (of the class
action) of their life's work, it's an injustice that I find
shocking, and ultimately, it's illegal," Bruce Johnston, a lawyer
representing the cab drivers, said in his opening arguments as the
month-long trial began at the Montreal courthouse on April 2,
2024.

Before the 2019 taxi reform, each cab in the province required a
permit. The provincial government limited the number of permits in
each region, but allowed them to be resold, creating a secondary
market and leading their value to rise to more than $200,000 in the
Montreal area. Permit holders often rented them out, allowing
others to drive their cabs for a fee.

Buying a permit gave people access to a supply-controlled market
created by the government, Johnston told the court, but also opened
other doors, because permits could be used as collateral for loans,
such as mortgages.

"It was their business, it was their pension fund," he said. "For
many of them, the decision to buy a taxi permit was the biggest
financial decision of their lives, for which they worked and made
sacrifices for decades. It was the cornerstone of their financial
planning."

When Quebec abolished the permit system, it gave holders a total of
$800 million in compensation, but Johnston said that figure fell
far below the market value of the permits before Uber's 2013
arrival, which he estimated at around $1.2 billion.

Derival bought his permit in 1976 for $10,500; he took out loans
from a bank and a friend to buy it. That permit, he said, offered
him employment but also something he could pass on to his children.


"At least if I died, my children could use it," he told the court,
after describing the series of labour-intensive, low-paying jobs he
had held after immigrating from Haiti in 1971.

The compensation he received from the government -- a total of
$75,000 -- was less than the total income stream he had expected in
retirement by renting his permit.

Max Pierre, another former permit holder who also immigrated from
Haiti, told the court buying a taxi permit was the only way to find
work that paid more than minimum wage. In 1991, he bought a permit
for $37,955 -- it came with a car, a taxi dome light and meter. He
would later buy another permit near the peak of the market for
$210,000.

To buy the first permit, he said, "I gave up a lot," adding that he
got help from his sister.

In 2017, he said, he was able to rent his permit and his taxi to
another driver for $500 a week, but with the end of the permit
system, which went into effect in 2020, and the COVID-19 pandemic,
no one was interested in driving for him, and as a result he sold
his car.

"What the government did was an abuse of power," he told the
court.

Eric Cantin, a lawyer for the Quebec government, argued that the
province had the right to make the choices it did.

People can think Uber's arrival in Quebec was a bad thing, that
Uber is a bad corporate citizen, and that the old taxi monopoly
should have been maintained, Cantin told the court, but the
government, he added, made political choices about how it wanted to
regulate the industry.

For years after Uber entered the market, it operated without a
licence. But in 2016, Quebec launched a pilot project allowing the
San Fransisco-based ride-hailing company to operate legally. That
project was challenged in court, but its legality was upheld,
Cantin said, adding that the 2019 taxi industry reform -- which
provided compensation for permit holders -- was never challenged in
court.

"A law can't be indirectly challenged because you're not satisfied
with the money you've received," he said.

While Cantin said taxi driving is difficult and Uber made it
harder, the decision to abolish the permit system cannot be
described as an expropriation because the government never created
its own taxi service and taxi drivers can continue to drive taxis.

The class action, which was authorized in 2018, seeks at least$400
million for members -- the difference between the estimated 2014
market value of the approximately 7,500 permits and the
compensation package Quebec gave to permit holders. The lawsuit is
also seeking $1,000 in punitive damages for each member of the
group.

A separate class-action lawsuit on behalf of Quebec taxi drivers
who say they lost revenue as a result of Uber's arrival in Quebec
has also been authorized, but a trial date has not yet been set.
[GN]

RAY'S SMOOTHIES: Garcia Sues Over Labor Law Breaches
----------------------------------------------------
MARIA GARCIA, v. RAY'S SMOOTHIES INC., ANTONIO HERREROS and ANA
VERGEL, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-02234 (S.D.N.Y.,
March 25, 2024) is a class action accusing the Defendants of
breaching the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and
related provisions from Title 12 of New York Codes, Rules, and
Regulations.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a cook from
approximately October 2021 until March 16, 2024. Despite the
mandatory pay obligations under FLSA and NYLL, the Defendants only
compensated Plaintiff at a rate of $10 per hour and failed to pay
Plaintiff her lawful overtime pay for that period from October 2021
until March 16, 2024, where she regularly worked in excess of 40
hours per workweek. In addition, Defendants have failed to provide
her with complete and accurate wage statements throughout her
employment listing, among other things, all her regular and any
overtime hours of work, her rate of pay, and the basis of pay, says
the Plaintiff.

Ray's Smoothies Inc. sells juices and smoothies in Bronx, NY. [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
         Website: www.StillmanLegalPC.com

REPROSOURCE FERTILITY: Settle Data Breach Class Suit for $1.25-Mil
------------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that ReproSource Fertility Diagnostics
agreed to pay $1.25 million to resolve claims it failed to protect
patient information from a 2021 data breach.

The settlement benefits individuals whose personal information was
compromised in the ReproSource data breach in August 2021 and who
received a written notice of the breach in October 2021.

According to the class action lawsuit, ReproSource failed to
prevent an August 2021 data breach that compromised sensitive
patient information such as Social Security numbers and health
insurance data. Plaintiffs in the case claim that ReproSource could
have prevented the data breach by implementing reasonable
cybersecurity measures.

ReproSource hasn't admitted wrongdoing but agreed to a $1.25
million settlement to resolve the data breach class action
lawsuit.

Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive up to
$3,000 in reimbursement for data breach losses such as unreimbursed
fraudulent charges or identity theft damages, credit expenses,
credit monitoring, miscellaneous expenses and up to eight hours of
lost time at a rate of $20 per hour for time spent addressing
breach-related issues.

Alternatively, class members can receive a flat-rate payment
estimated to be $50.

Class members from California who submit a claim may be entitled to
an additional $50 payment.

In addition to reimbursement or instead of the flat-rate payment,
class members can receive three years of credit monitoring and
insurance services. Class members who previously took advantage of
credit services offered by ReproSource can receive one additional
year of benefits.

All payment amounts may be adjusted up or down depending on the
amount of actual claims.

The deadline for exclusion and objection is May 20, 2024.

The final approval hearing for the ReproSource data breach
settlement is scheduled for July 17, 2024.

Class members must submit a valid claim form by June 20, 2024, to
receive settlement benefits.

Who's Eligible

Individuals whose personal information was compromised in the
ReproSource data breach in August 2021 and who received a written
notice of the data breach in October 2021

Potential Award

$3,000

Proof of Purchase

Account statements, receipts, invoices, credit reports and other
documentation of data breach losses

Claim Form Deadline

06/20/2024

Case Name

Bickham, et al. v. ReproSource Fertility Diagnostics Inc., Case No.
1:21-cv-11879-GAO, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts

Final Hearing

07/17/2024

Settlement Website

ReproSourceSettlement.com

Claims Administrator

   Settlement Administrator -- 181443
   c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC
   PO Box 5324
   New York, NY 10150-5324
   Tel: (833) 383-4970

Class Counsel

   Nicholas A Migliaccio
   Jason S Rathod
   MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
   412 H St NE #302
   Washington, DC 20002
   Phone: (202) 470-3520

   George Haines
   Geraldo Avalos
   FREEDOM LAW FIRM
   8985 S Eastern Ave #100
   Las Vegas, NV 89123
   Phone: (702) 880-5554

   David Pastor
   PASTOR LAW OFFICE PC
   63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor
   Boston, MA 02110
   Email: info@pastorlawoffice.com
   Phone: (617) 742-9700
   Fax: (617) 742-9701 [GN]


RESPIRONICS COLORADO: Faces Dillon Suit Over Private Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
JERELS DILLON JR., on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RESPIRONICS COLORADO, INC. d/b/a Philips
Respironics International Colorado, Inc.; and PHILIPS RS NORTH
AMERICA, LLC d/b/a Philips Respironics, Defendants, Case No.
24CI01295 (Ct. Com. Pl., Westmoreland Cty., March 27, 2024) arises
from Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard
Plaintiff's and other similarly situated customers' sensitive
personally identifying information, which was compromised during
the data breach on or about June 5, 2023.

According to a notice letter sent to Plaintiff and Class members on
or about February 26, 2024, on behalf of Defendants, the
compromised PII included individuals' full names, dates of birth,
addresses, policy/account numbers, patient identification numbers,
and device/modem serial numbers. Despite that Defendants became
aware of the data breach by November 2, 2023, they waited nearly
four months before alerting Plaintiff and Class members that their
sensitive PII was exposed. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings claims for
negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty,
violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law.

Respironics Colorado is a supplier of durable medical equipment,
prosthetics, orthotics, and supplies. The company's subsidiary,
Philips RS, brands itself as a global leader in the sleep and
respiratory markets. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq.
          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
          65 Overhill Road
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (954) 525-4100
          E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com
                  ostrow@kolawyers.com

                  - and -

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

                 - and -

         Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
         SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
         14 NE 1st Ave, Suite 705
         Miami, FL 33132
         Telephone: (305) 479.2299
         E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

ROBINHOOD MARKETS: Sodha Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
VINOD SODHA, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing the lawsuit entitled Philip Golubowski, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Robinhood
Markets, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:21-cv-09767-EMC, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiffs
Aimee Sodha and Vinod Sodha filed suit against Defendants
Robinhood, certain senior executives and directors of Robinhood
(Vladimir Tenev, Jason Warnick, Baiju Bhatt, Jan Hammer, Paula
Loop, Jonathan Rubinstein, Scott Sandell, and Robert Zoellick), and
the underwriters (Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities
LLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Wells
Fargo Securities, LLC, Mizuho Securities USA LLC, JMP Securities
LLC, KeyBanc Capital Markets Inc., Piper Sandler & Co., Rosenblatt
Securities Inc., BMO Capital Markets Corp., BTIG, LLC, Santander
Investment Securities Inc., Academy Securities, Inc., Loop Capital
Markets LLC, Samuel A. Ramirez & Company, Inc. and Siebert Williams
Shank & Co., LLC).

The Plaintiffs assert claims under Sections 11, 12, and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 ("the Securities Act") alleging that the
registration statement and prospectus for Robinhood's July 30, 2021
initial public offering ("IPO") contained false and misleading
statements and omissions.

After the lead Plaintiffs were appointed, the Plaintiffs filed a
First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). They alleged that the Offering
Documents filed in connection with Robinhood's IPO contained
materially false and misleading statements and material omissions.

On Aug. 18, 2022, Robinhood filed a motion to dismiss the FAC,
which the Court granted through an Order entered by Judge Edward M.
Chen on Feb. 10, 2023.

On Mar. 13, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint
("SAC"), which the Defendants moved to dismiss on May 12, 2023.

On Jan. 24, 2024, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the SAC. The Court ruled that amendment would be futile
because it cannot identify allegations that the Plaintiffs could
add to their complaint at this juncture to render their claims
viable. Therefore, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' Section 11, 12(a) and 15 claims without
leave to amend.

The appellate case is captioned Sodha, et al. v. Golubowski, et
al., Case No. 24-1036, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on February 27, 2024.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellants' Mediation Questionnaire was due on March 4,
2024;

   -- Appellants' Appeal Transcript Order was due on March 6,
2024;

   -- Appellants' Appeal Transcript is due on April 5, 2024;

   -- Appellants' Appeal Opening Brief is due on May 15, 2024; and

   -- Appellees' Appeal Answering Brief is due on June 17, 2024.
[BN]

SAN FRANCISCO, CA: Appeals Stay Bid Denial in Simon Suit to 9th Cir
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al. are taking an appeal from
a court order denying their motion to stay in the lawsuit entitled
Joshua Simon, et al., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. City and County of San
Francisco, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:22-cv-05541-JST, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

As previously stated in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was removed from the San Francisco Superior Court to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, is brought
against the Defendants for alleged violations of civil rights. The
Plaintiffs allege that the San Francisco Sheriff Office exceeds its
authority by imposing electronic monitoring (EM) conditions that
violate the United States and California State Constitutions.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs challenge the four-way search clause
and location data sharing conditions contained in the Program
Rules.

On Feb. 13, 2024, the Court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss, granting
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and granting the
Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction. Because the Sheriff
Office revised the Program Rules during the pendency of the
motions, the Court divided the class into two subclasses, which it
certified: the original rules subclass and the revised rules
subclass. The Court gave the Defendants fourteen days to cease
enforcement of the challenged Program Rules. Accordingly, the
deadline for the Defendants to comply with the Court's order is
Feb. 27, 2024.

On Feb. 16, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to modify or stay
in part the preliminary injunction, which the Court denied through
an Order entered by Judge Jon S. Tigar on Feb. 23, 2024. The Court
finds that the risk of harm to the Plaintiffs weighs strongly
against a stay pending appeal. For the reasons discussed in its
prior order, the Court found that the Plaintiffs have established
that the Sheriff Office's location sharing rule likely violates
class members' constitutional rights. The public interest militates
against a stay for this reason. The Court concludes that a stay
pending appeal is not warranted in this case. Neither will the
Court extend the implementation deadline or otherwise modify the
injunction. The Defendants' motion for a partial stay or
modification of the injunction is denied.

The appellate case is captioned Simon, et al. v. City and County of
San Francisco, et al., Case No. 24-1025, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on February 27, 2024. [BN]

Defendants-Appellants CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al. are
represented by:

            Scott W. Davenport, Esq.
            JONES & MAYER
            3777 N. Harbor Boulevard
            Fullerton, CA 92835
            Telephone: (714) 446-1400

SAS RETAIL: Faces Marbley Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------
DESMOND MARBLEY, an individual, on behalf of himself, all other
aggrieved employees, and the general public, Plaintiff v. SAS
RETAIL SERVICES, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; and
DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV06509
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., March 15, 2024) is a representative
lawsuit challenging Defendants' alleged unlawful employment
practices under the California Labor Code.

The suit arises from Defendants' policy and practice of failing,
among other things, to provide legally compliant meal and rest
breaks, denying earned wages, including overtime pay, and failing
to provide accurate wage statements from January 9, 2023 to the
present. In particular, Defendants fail to provide timely and
adequate meal and rest breaks, fail to timely compensate employees
for all wages earned, and fail to properly and accurately calculate
overtime and report wages earned, hours worked, and wage rates, and
failed to reimburse for necessary business expenses.

The Defendants' compensation scheme did not fully compensate
Plaintiff with at least minimum wages and/or designated rates for
all hours worked, says the suit.

The Plaintiff commenced his employment with Defendants in or around
July 2023 and was terminated on or around January 3, 2024.
Throughout his employment with SAS, Plaintiff was categorized and
classified as a non-exempt, hourly employee and maintained the
position of Merchandiser throughout his employment with SAS.

SAS Retail Services, LLC is in the business of providing
merchandising solutions for client retailers throughout the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael H. Boyamian, Esq.
          Tamar Chobanian, Esq.
          BOYAMIAN LAW, INC.
          550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500
          Glendale, CA 91203-1922
          Telephone: (818) 547-5300
          Facsimile: (818) 547-5678
          E-mail: michael@boyamianlaw.com
                  tamar@boyamianlaw.com

SONDER HOLDINGS: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an
investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Sonder Holdings Inc. (NASDAQ: SOND) resulting from
allegations that Sonder may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.

SO WHAT: If you purchased Sonder securities you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=23643 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On March 15, 2024, after market hours, Sonder
filed a Current Report on Form 8-K with the SEC announcing its
"audited consolidated financial statements for the year ended
December 31, 2022 (the "2022 Annual Financial Statements"), and the
unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements included in
each of the Company's quarterly reports on Form 10-Q filed with the
[SEC] in 2023 (collectively with the 2022 Annual Financial
Statements, the "Affected Financial Statements"), should no longer
be relied upon due to accounting errors related to the valuation
and impairment of operating lease right of use ("ROU") assets and
related items." In addition, Sonder stated "it will not timely file
its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2023 (the "FY 2023 10-K") and will file a notification of late
filing on Form 12b-25 with the SEC."

On this news, Sonder's stock price fell $2.10 per share, or 38.2%,
to close at $3.40 per share on March 18, 2024.

WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm has achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class
Action Services for number of securities class action settlements
in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013
and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In
2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In
2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a
Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been
recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

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

Contact Information:

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

SPRUCE SERVICES: Saleh Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
----------------------------------------------------------
CRYSTAL SALEH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SPRUCE SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:24-cv-00303 (W.D. Tex., March 26, 2024) arises out of Defendant's
alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff claims that the Defendant engages in unsolicited text
messaging and continues to text message her even after she has
opted out of Defendant's solicitations. Through this action,
Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal
conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment,
aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of
individuals. The Plaintiff further seeks statutory damages on
behalf of Plaintiff and members of the Class, and any other
available legal or equitable remedies.

Based in Austin, TX, Spruce Services, Inc. provides lifestyle
services including apartment housekeeping services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
          HIRALDO P.A.
          401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
          Telephone: (954) 400-4713

STAR PETROLEUM: Fishing Community Files Class Suit Over Oil Spill
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Pattaya Mail reports that a group of fourteen people from Rayong's
fishing communities and small businesses has initiated a class
action lawsuit against Star Petroleum Refining Company (SPRC),
seeking redress for a significant oil spill in 2022 that they argue
has devastated their way of life.

The incident, which led to the leakage of at least 50,000 liters of
crude oil into the Gulf of Thailand and onto the shores of Rayong
on January 25, 2022, has reportedly affected over 2,600 local
fishermen. The Rayong Provincial Fisheries Office has reported a
severe depletion of fish stocks in the area, rendering much of the
local catch unsellable and drastically impacting the fishermen's
income.

Accompanied by Somchai Armeen, chairman of an environmental cases
sub-panel at the Lawyers Council of Thailand, the plaintiffs filed
their lawsuit at the Civil Court, demanding 4.2 million baht in
compensation from SPRC. They claim that the spill has forced many
in their community to abandon fishing or to seek fish in more
distant waters, significantly altering their traditional
livelihoods. The lawsuit also implicates five other entities for
violations of environmental protection laws.

The representatives belong to a community known as Pak Nam Ban Rao,
which includes over 800 members. A favorable court ruling,
scheduled for examination on May 17, could set a legal precedent,
potentially opening the door for further compensation claims
amounting to around 240 million baht against the company. In
addition to legal action, the affected groups have appealed to the
government for assistance in rehabilitating the local marine
ecosystem, highlighting the broader environmental and economic
repercussions of the spill. [GN]

STATE FARM: 11th Cir. Reverses Dismissal of Vehicle Valuation Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Allen Garrett Jr., writing for lexology.com, reports that
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP has written about class actions
filed against State Farm and other carriers alleging systematic
undervaluation of damaged vehicles. One of our articles focused on
a decision by the Middle District of Georgia dismissing putative
class claims against State Farm based on the class representative's
failure to comply with an "appraisal" process -- a process required
by the policy in the event the insured disputed State Farm's
initial calculation of the "actual cash value" of the covered
vehicle. See Middle District of Georgia dismisses putative class
action against State Farm for failure to (ktslaw.com). But the
Eleventh Circuit recently reversed that decision, finding that the
policy did not require the policyholder to provide notice of its
disagreement with State Farm regarding the vehicle's valuation
before filing suit. Cudd v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., No.
22-13916, 2024 WL 65998 (11th Cir. Jan. 5, 2024).

The district court's decision focused on language in the policy
stating "‘[i]f there is disagreement [between State Farm and the
insured] as to the actual cash value of the covered vehicle, then
the disagreement will be resolved by appraisal upon written
request' of either party." Cudd v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,
637 F. Supp. 3d 1336, 1340 (M.D. Ga. 2022) (emphasis in original,
citation omitted). In the district court's view, the insured
"simply chose to ignore the appraisal provision in the policy as if
it was superfluous." Id. Because the policy mandated that
"‘[l]egal action may not be brought against [State Farm] until
there has been full compliance with all the provisions of this
policy,'" the insured's "failure to notify State Farm of the
disagreement and to comply with the appraisal provision makes this
action premature." Id. (citation omitted).

On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit agreed "that the Policy's appraisal
provision is valid and enforceable." 2024 WL 65998, at *3. The
Court of Appeals further rejected the insured's argument that the
appraisal is "unenforceable" under Georgia law." Id. (citing
McGowan v. Progressive Preferred Ins. Co., 637 S.E.2d 27, 29 (Ga.
2006)).

But the Eleventh Circuit disagreed with the district court's
conclusion the appraisal process constituted a "condition
precedent" to suit. Id. at *4. In the appellate court's view,
"[n]othing in the Policy's appraisal provision language requires
the policyholder to notify State Farm if he or she disagrees with
its initial valuation of a totaled vehicle's actual cash value
before filing suit." Id. Because the policy was "silent on when and
how a policyholder is to notify State Farm of an actual-cash-value
dispute," the insured "did not violate the Policy simply because he
did not notify State Farm of an actual-cash-value dispute before
commencing suit." Id.

According to the Eleventh Circuit, compliance with the appraisal
process to resolve an actual value dispute only becomes "mandatory"
after being "requested in writing by either party." Id. Because
State Farm had "requested appraisal in writing" after filing of the
suit, "the parties must still participate in the Policy's appraisal
process now that State Farm has invoked that provision." Id. But
that did not mean the suit should have been dismissed, because
"appraisal is not a condition precedent to suit." Id. Presumably,
the results of the appraisal would constitute relevant evidence in
the litigation that the Court of Appeals had ordered to proceed.

The Eleventh Circuit did, however, affirm dismissal of the
insured's unjust enrichment claim, because a written contract
covered the subject matter of the parties' dispute. Id. [GN]

STOKE THERAPEUTICS: Carroll Seeks Advance Notice Bylaw Invalidation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN CARROLL, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
stockholders of STOKE THERAPEUTICS, INC., Plaintiff v. JENNIFER C.
BURSTEIN, SETH L. HARRISON, EDWARD M. KAYE, ADRIAN KRAINER, ARTHUR
A. LEVIN, GARRY E. MENZEL, JULIE ANNE SMITH, IAN F. SMITH, ARTHUR
TZIANABOS, and STOKE THERAPEUTICS, INC., Defendants, Case No.
2024-0317 (Del. Ch., March 27, 2024) seeks declaratory relief
invalidating the Stoke Therapeutics' Advance Notice Bylaw and
asserts a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the Director
Defendants.

Plaintiff Carroll alleges that the Advance Notice Bylaw contains
provisions that serve as an unlawful deterrent to those seeking to
meaningfully participate in the nomination process. He claims that
the Advance Notice Bylaw effectively limits the scope of
stockholders' voting rights to voting for or against candidates
nominated by the Board, and is fundamentally inconsistent with the
notion that stockholders' right to vote includes the right to
nominate.

Headquartered in Massachusetts, Stoke is a biotechnology company
dedicated to addressing the underlying cause of severe diseases by
up-regulating protein expression with RNA-based medicines. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kimberly A. Evans, Esq.
          Irene R. Lax, Esq.
          Daniel M. Baker, 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
                  irene@blockleviton.com
                  daniel@blockleviton.com
                  robby@blockleviton.com

                  - and -

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

           Abbott Cooper
           ABBOTT COOPER PLLC
           1266 East Main Street Suite 700R
           Stamford, CT 06902

T-MOBILE USA: May Appeal Pending Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Celentano of Inside Towers reports that Illinois U.S. District
Judge Thomas Durkin ruled last week that T-Mobile (NASDAQ: TMUS)
can proceed with an appeal of a class action lawsuit. If it were to
be successful, that lawsuit could cost T-Mobile billions of dollars
in compensation, Total Telecom reported.

The class action lawsuit, brought by seven subscribers of AT&T or
Verizon, argues that the merger of Sprint and T-Mobile reduced
competition in the wireless market to such an extent that it
"forced" AT&T and Verizon to increase their prices. As a
consequence, they claim tens to hundreds of millions of consumers
are paying more for their wireless services than they would have
otherwise.

Analysis by Inside Towers Intelligence of U.S. Tier 1 mobile
network operator service revenues in the 2016-2023 period, shows
that prior to the T-Mobile-Sprint merger, wireless service revenues
at both companies were lagging significantly behind those of both
AT&T Mobility and Verizon Wireless. While there were four national
MNOs in play prior to the April 1, 2020, merger, neither T-Mobile
or Sprint prior to that point had the market presence or market
share to compete effectively with either of the top two companies.
By integrating its network with Sprint's, the new T-Mobile then
became a viable, competitive alternative to both AT&T and Verizon.

The plaintiffs are seeking monetary compensation as well as other
remedies, which could even include the reversal of the
Sprint--T-Mobile merger entirely.

In November, courts declined to dismiss the lawsuit at T-Mobile's
request, saying that AT&T and Verizon's price increases could
"plausibly" be linked to the merger.

T-Mobile immediately signaled its intention to appeal the decision,
saying that the case's "expansive conception of antitrust standing
is unprecedented."

The plaintiffs' lawyers, on the other hand, argued that a lengthy
appeal process would delay potential compensation and could make
dissolving the merger more difficult. They subsequently argued that
the case should be put before a jury before an appeal was
presented.

With Judge Durkin confirming that T-Mobile will be allowed to
proceed with its appeal, the company's position is that the
plaintiffs have not sufficiently alleged antitrust standing.

Total Telecom wrote that antitrust lawyers will be watching the
proceedings of the case closely. Federal antitrust law allows
consumers to bring private challenges against mergers and
acquisitions, but cases arguing that a company's M&A activity had
negatively affected a rival's customers are very rare. If allowed
to proceed, the case could significantly expand the scope of future
antitrust proceedings. [GN]

TAQUERIA EMILIO: Gonzales Seeks Proper Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
YAHIR GONZALEZ v. TAQUERIA EMILIO 3 CORP (DBA TAQUERIA EMILIO, and
ELVIN LOPEZ, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-02237
(S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2024) is a class action accusing the
Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York
Labor Law, and related provisions from Title 12 of New York Codes,
Rules, and Regulations.

Plaintiff Gonzalez was employed by Defendants from approximately
July 2023 up to the present time, where his primary work duty was
as a delivery driver, but he also performed other tasks such as
kitchen cleaning and dishwashing. Allegedly, Defendants only
compensate Plaintiff at a rate of $11.11 per hour and $695 per week
and fail to compensate Plaintiff his lawful overtime pay for that
period from July 2023 up to the present time, where he works well
in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings
this action on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
employees of Defendants to recover, among other things, unpaid
minimum and overtime wage compensation.

Based in New York, NY, Taqueria Emilio 3 Corp operates a Mexican
restaurant. [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
         Website: www.StillmanLegalPC.com

TATA CONSULTANCY: Faces Williams Suit Over Labor Code Breaches
--------------------------------------------------------------
JESSAMYN WILLIAMS, an individual, in her representative capacity
and on behalf of the State of California and fellow Aggrieved
Employees, Plaintiffs v. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES, LTD.,
Defendant, Case No. 24SM CV01432 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
March 26, 2024) seeks to remedy repeated violations by the
Defendant of the California Labor Code.

Plaintiff Williams was employed by Tata Consultancy Services from
approximately February 2019 until September 2023, and worked from
her home in Los Angeles, CA. She alleges that TCS implements
employment policies and practices that discriminate against women
in every TCS office in the United States, including those who have
worked in California. Such practices resulted in women receiving
less compensation than their male counterparts performing the same
or substantially similar work, the Plaintiff asserts.

TCS is an IT consulting company that is headquartered in Mumbai
with its U.S. headquarters
in Edison, NJ. It maintains over thirty offices and delivery
centers in the United States, including offices in Santa Clara, CA
and Los Angeles, CA. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Daniel Low, Esq.
         KOTCHEN & LOW LLP
         1918 New Hampshire Avenue NW
         Washington, DC 20009
         Telephone: (202) 471-1995
         Facsimile: (202) 280-1128
         E-mail: dlow@kotchen.com

TELEFLORA LLC: Cummings Sues Over Private Data Breach
-----------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN CUMMINGS, on behalf of himself and all others similary
situated, Plaintiff v. TELEFLORA LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-02511 (C.D. Cal., March 27,2024) arises out of the recent
data breach involving Defendant and asserts claims for negligence,
breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment,
and for violations of the California Unfair Competition Law.

In breaching its duties to properly safeguard customers' personally
identifiable information and give customers timely, adequate notice
of the data breach's occurrence, the Defendant's conduct amounts to
negligence and/or recklessness and violates federal and state
statutes. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf
of all persons whose PII was compromised as a result of Defendant's
failure to: (i) adequately protect the PII of Plaintiff and Class
members; (ii) warn Plaintiff and Class members of Defendant's
inadequate information security practices; and (iii) effectively
secure hardware containing protected PII using reasonable and
effective security procedures free of vulnerabilities and
incidents.

Headquartered in Los Angeles, CA,  Teleflora LLC operates over
10,000 member florists throughout the U.S. and Canada. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John J. Nelson, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          280 S. Beverly Drive
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (858) 209-6941
          E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com

TIMOTHY PADGETT: Gensey Suit Seeks to Certify Consumer Classes
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LESTER GENSEY and
CHRISTINE TIRPAK GENSEY, husband and wife, v. TIMOTHY D. PADGETT,
P.A. D/B/A PADGETT LAW GROUP And GREGORY FUNDING, LLC, Case No.
5:23-cv-01007-JMG (E.D. Pa.), the Plaintiff Gensey moves the Court
for an order certifying the class defined as follows:

   1. All Pennsylvania consumers whom PADGETT sued in foreclosure
and
      served with state foreclosure complaints containing the
notice:

      This firm is a debt collector attempting to collect a debt.
this
      notice is sent to you in an attempt to collect the
indebtedness
      referred to herein and any information obtained from you will
be
      used for that purpose.

   2. All Pennsylvania consumers with mortgage loans serviced by
      GREGORY FUNDING, LLC, whom PADGETT sued in foreclosure and
      served with state foreclosure complaints containing the
stated
      notice.

The Plaintiff filed a Complaint averring that the Defendant debt
collectors, TIMOTHY D. PADGETT, P.A. D/B/A PADGETT LAW GROUP and
GREGORY FUNDING, LLC violated the provisions of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) banning false, deceptive, or
misleading collection conduct.

Timothy Padgett provides full service legal advice.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 27, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IzWcDX at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert P. Cocco, Esq.
          ROBERT P. COCCO, P.C.
          1500 Walnut Street, Suite 900
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 351-0200

                - and -

          Sean P. Mays, Esq.
          THE MAYS LAW FIRM, P.C.
          65 W. Street Road, Suite B102
          Warminster, PA 18974
          Telephone: (215) 792-4321
          Facsimile: (215) 792-4321

TRADER JOE'S: Court Narrows Claims in Chocolate-Related Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as In Re Trader Joe's Company
Dark Chocolate Litigation, Case No. 3:23-cv-00061-RBM-KSC (S.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro entered an order
granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' consolidated complaint.

Accordingly, the Court declines to require dismissal of the Swiss
Bar, although the issue may be revisited if the case proceeds to
class certification.

The Plaintiffs allege "contrary to the Defendant's assurances that
its Products are manufactured under strict quality standards, the
Products have been shown to contain detectable levels of Heavy
Metals which are known to pose human health risks."

The Plaintiffs allege Defendant has known about Heavy Metals in it
dark chocolate products since 2014 when testing done by a
non-profit consumer group "informed Defendant that its dark
chocolate products contained levels of cadmium and lead."

Trader Joe's is a chain of neighborhood grocery stores.

A copy of the Court's order dated March 27, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nLTXp6 at no extra
charge.[CC]

TRANSFORM SEARS: Hoffman Sues Over Wage and Hour Law Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW HOFFMAN, and those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
TRANSFORM SEARS HOME SERVICES, LLC,  Defendant, Case No.
2:24-at-00380 (E.D. Cal., March 27, 2024) arises from the
Defendant's violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
California Labor Code.

Plaintiff Hoffman was employed by Defendant, including in the time
period of about 2018 to July 14, 2023. His work duties included
service calls to Defendant's customers, which included driving a
company vehicle to and from customer's locations. However,
Defendant had and has a policy and practice of eliminating 70
minutes of working time from Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees' recorded working time each and every work day in order
to account for coming and going time from employees' home to the
first work location, and their return home. The Defendant does so
even though Plaintiff and these employees spend less time commuting
to and from their first work locations. As a result, Defendant
underpays Plaintiff every workday, says the suit.

The Defendant also violated overtime laws on those occasions when
wrongly deducted hours are work hours over 40 hours per week or 8
hours per day, the suit asserts.

Transform Sears Home Services offers home appliance repairs and
home improvement solutions. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Joshua H. Watson, Esq.
         ARNOLD LAW FIRM
         865 Howe Avenue
         Sacramento, CA 95825
         Telephone: (916) 777-7777
         Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
         E-mail: jwatson@justice4you.com

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Suits Prompt Accessibility for Wheelchair Users
------------------------------------------------------------------
www.bowenislandundercurrent.com reports that for wheelchair users,
travelling by using ride-hailing apps, like Uber and Lyft, can be
complicated. On March 20, a class action was announced against Uber
and Lyft in British Columbia for allegedly not providing service to
a wheelchair user. One of the goals of the class action is to bring
about systemic change to the companies' practices.

In the United States -- where my research into ride hailing apps
took place -- lawsuits by wheelchair users or disability
organizations against the companies are all too familiar.
Sometimes, the outcomes of the suits resulted in payments to riders
who were not provided service due to their use of wheelchair.

Other times, the rulings attempted to bring systemic changes. In a
case that involved wheelchair users in Jackson, Miss. and New
Orleans, La., the ruling was in favour of the companies.

The class action in B.C. draws attention to issues of accessibility
in the transportation service hailed via Uber and Lyft for people
with disabilities, in particular wheelchair users.

Usable transportation

Accessibility issues related to wheelchair use are not about
whether the apps are usable. They are also not about whether the
apps provide information on accessible routes. Rather, they are
about whether the actual transportation service hailed through them
is usable.

Between 2020 and 2021, I conducted a U.S.-wide survey, where I
found that some wheelchair users were satisfied with the service,
while others were not. Those who were satisfied cited the ability
to see the cost of the ride up front, the door-to-door service and
convenience. Others reported experiencing various challenges,
including the lack of wheelchair-accessible vehicles (WAVs), being
declined service by drivers and long wait times.

My study revealed that several factors were associated with the
ability to use Uber and Lyft successfully.

Wheelchairs and vehicles

The type of wheelchair a rider uses affects access. Riders with
foldable wheelchairs have better odds of using these services
successfully because the wheelchair can be folded and stowed in
most vehicles.

The majority of the survey respondents who reported they were not
Uber and Lyft customers used fixed-frame wheelchairs.

Riders who need to remain seated in a wheelchair during travel or
use fixed-frame wheelchairs have lower odds of success using the
services. They can only travel in WAVs, which are not as commonly
available on the apps as four-door sedans used for basic level
service. For riders who need WAVs, this can mean long wait times
– on average twice more than the wait time for basic service, as
I found in my study. It can also mean no service at all.

While travellers who use foldable wheelchairs have better odds of
obtaining a vehicle that can fit their wheelchair through basic
service options, they experience a different kind of challenge.
Some of the respondents who used a manual wheelchair reported
experiencing withdrawn services -- when the driver declines to take
the ride. Other studies report similar experiences.

The class action in B.C. is based on the complainant's experience
related to shortage or unavailability of WAVs for those with
fixed-frame wheelchairs or who need to remain seated during
travel.

Unavailabilities and shortages

Previously, the companies' responses to allegations of
discrimination against wheelchair users in the U.S. have been that
they are technology companies -- rather than transportation
companies -- that connect riders and drivers.

Uber used the same argument in a recent case that was brought to
the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal.

This configuration means that they do not own a fleet of vehicles
but rely on cars that drivers bring. As such, they are not
obligated to provide WAVs. In Washington, D.C., for instance, taxi
companies that own at least 20 vehicles are required that a
percentage of their fleet consist of WAVs. There is no equivalent
requirement for Uber and Lyft.

The companies have provided WAV ride options on their apps in
select cities primarily by forming partnerships with third-party
transportation companies. UberWAV began in 2018 and Lyft Access in
2019 in Toronto, Washington, D.C., the San Francisco Bay Area and
other larger markets.

These services are not available in many other cities, and
wheelchair users seeking WAV rides are directed to either local
taxis or paratransit services offered by transit agencies or
municipal governments.

However, directing wheelchair users to other services by providing
a list of accessible options is not considered equivalent to the
service the companies offer to non-disabled travellers.

Supply and regulations

The companies say that in the cities where they do not operate WAV
services, there is not enough supply of WAVs. Disability advocates
disagree, saying that the lack of WAV services has to do with the
lack of disability regulations in those areas.

In markets where Uber and Lyft have WAV service options on their
apps, there is a shortage of WAVs. For drivers, there is little
financial incentive in purchasing these vehicles to work on the
Uber and Lyft apps. The vehicles are more expensive to purchase,
insure, run and maintain than cars used for basic service level.

Individuals who have access to WAVs for personal or family use may
not sign up to drive on the apps. Accessibility modifications to
WAVs are unique to the user and may not be suitable for all.

People with disabilities travel in personal cars as passengers. As
I found in my study, many wheelchair users do not drive or own a
driver's licence due to their disability. Someone who is
responsible for transporting a family member with disability may
not have the availability to drive for a ride hailing service.

Wheelchair users who drive WAVs may not be able to assist a
passenger in a wheelchair during vehicle entry and exit and
securing wheelchair restraint inside the vehicle.

At the root of the WAV service wars is the companies' platform
business model as technology companies connecting service seekers
and providers. This three-party configuration -- composed of users,
providers and platforms -- has been an obstacle to regulate these
companies in general. Any systemic improvement will need to address
that.

Providing accessible services

While an overhaul of the existing configuration may not be possible
in the short term, changes to the companies' business model or
current disability accommodation practices or lack thereof maybe
inevitable.

The lawsuits in the U.S. and Canada demonstrate that people with
disabilities will continue to ask for services that meet their
needs. My research shows that even wheelchair users who are
currently unable to use Uber and Lyft see promise in a convenient,
on-demand transportation service hailed through the apps.

The companies can meet them halfway. Or the courts might bring them
there -- eventually. [GN]

WALMART INC: Faces Class Action Over Ezricare Artificial Tears
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Bucher of Top Class Actions reports that Walmart class action
claims Ezricare artificial tears contaminated with bacteria.

Who: Plaintiff Joseph Lopez filed a class action lawsuit against
Ezricare LLC and Walmart Inc.

Why: The Walmart class action alleges that Ezricare artificial
tears eye drops are contaminated with a drug-resistant bacteria,
potentially posing a significant health risk to consumers.

Where: The Ezricare bacteria class action lawsuit was filed in New
York federal court.

Ezricare artificial tears products may be contaminated with a rare,
drug-resistant bacteria potentially posing a significant health
risk to consumers, according to a recent Walmart class action
lawsuit.

Plaintiff Joseph Lopez claims that Ezricare artificial tears, sold
by Walmart, are contaminated with "a rare, extensively
drug-resistant strain of Pseudomonas aeruginosa bacteria."
Pseudomonas aeruginosa can reportedly cause severe eye, lung, skin
and other infections in humans.

The Ezricare bacteria outbreak allegedly began in May 2022 and has
been linked to cases in at least a dozen states: California,
Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York,
Nevada, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin.

Fifty-five individuals have reportedly been infected by Ezricare
bacteria. Three have reportedly experienced permanent vision loss,
and others have required extensive treatment of their infections.
One person died due to a systemic infection, according to the
Walmart Ezricare class action lawsuit.

Walmart class action: CDC investigation leads to Ezricare
artificial tears recall

On Jan. 24, 2023, Ezricare issued a statement notifying consumers
that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was
investigating adverse events potentially related to Ezricare
artificial tears eye drops. The eye drops were recalled shortly
after this announcement, Lopez says.

The Walmart class action claims the Ezricare bacteria contamination
is due to the failure of Ezricare and Walmart to conduct
appropriate microbial testing and lack of proper controls related
to tamper-evident packaging.

Lopez says he purchased Ezricare artificial tears from a Walmart
Supercenter in July 2022 under the assumption that the product was
unadulterated, safe and effective. He claims he would not have
purchased the product, or he would not have paid as much for it,
had he known about the potential Ezricare bacteria contamination.

He filed the Walmart class action lawsuit on behalf of a proposed
nationwide class and New York subclass of consumers who purchased
allegedly contaminated Ezricare artificial tears products.

An Amazon class action lawsuit filed last summer alleges a woman
had to have an eye removed after using contaminated Ezricare
artificial tears she purchased from Amazon.com.

Lopez is represented by Charles D. Moore and Michael R. Reese of
Reese LLP and Kevin Laukaitis of Laukaitis Law LLC.

The Ezricare class action lawsuit is Joseph Lopez v. Ezricare LLC,
et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-02016, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York. [GN]

WALMART INC: Williams Sues Over Mislabeled Acne Cream Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
SKYLAR WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WALMART, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-02173 (N.D. Ill., March 15, 2024) is a class action lawsuit
regarding Defendant's manufacturing, distribution, advertising,
marketing and sale of Equate brand acne cream and gel products that
contain the active ingredient benzoyl peroxide.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and the other Illinois
Subclass Members reasonably relied upon Defendant's representation
that the Products were safe for personal use and, due to
Defendant's omission of the presence of benzene in the Products,
the Plaintiff read and relied on Defendant's labeling to conclude
that the Products were not contaminated with any dangerous
substance, including benzene.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's violations of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, as set
forth in this case, Plaintiff and the Illinois Subclass Members
have suffered ascertainable losses of money caused by Defendant's
unfair conduct of selling adulterated, misbranded, and illegally
sold Products, and its misrepresentations and material omissions
regarding the presence of benzene in the Products, says the suit.

Walmart, Inc. markets, distributes, and sells Equate Acne Treatment
Gel and Equate Acne Cleanser Cream. Defendant Walmart markets,
distributes and sells the aforementioned Products to consumers
throughout the United States through their brick-and-mortar
locations and online through Defendant's website.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and =

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

               - and -

          J. Hunter Bryson, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          405 E 50th Street
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (630) 796-0903
          E-mail: hbryson@milberg.com

               - and -

          Luis Cardona, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
          1311 Ponce de Leon Avenue
          San Juan, PR 00907
          Telephone: (516) 862-0194 Ext 5861
          E-mail: lcardona@milberg.com

               - and -

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

WALT DISNEY: Carano Files Class Action Over Wrongful Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
www.bamlawca.com reports that in recent news, Gina Carano filed a
wrongful termination lawsuit after being fired from Disney's The
Mandalorian. In an interesting twist, problematic social media
posts instigated her termination, but another social media post led
to her ability to seek resolution through the legal system.

The Case: Gina Carano v. The Walt Disney Company, Lucasfilm Ltd.
LLC and Huckleberry Industries (US) Inc.

The Court: US District Court for the Central District of
California

The Case No.: S2:2024cv01009

THE PLAINTIFF: CARANO V. THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY

The plaintiff in the case, Gina Carano, is a former Disney+ "The
Mandalorian" actor. Carano played the former Rebellion soldier Cara
Dune during two seasons. After Carano shared problematic social
media posts in 2021, Lucasfilm announced they no longer employed
Carano. In response to the abrupt dismissal, Carano filed a
wrongful termination and discrimination lawsuit in California
federal court seeking more than $75,000 in compensatory damages and
reinstatement as Dune in "The Mandalorian" series. Carano seeks a
jury trial. Elon Musk funds Carano's wrongful termination lawsuit
through X (formerly known as Twitter).

THE DEFENDANTS: CARANO V. THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY

The defendants in the case, the Walt Disney Company, Lucasfilm Ltd.
LLC, and Huckleberry Industries (US) Inc., took action against
Carano after a February 2021 Instagram post (since deleted) making
an implied comparison between being a conservative in the modern
setting to being Jewish during the Holocaust. Before this, she was
called out for other right-wing social media posts stating opinions
about the 2020 presidential election, mask requirements during the
Covid-19 pandemic, and opinions regarding other people's declared
pronouns that incited critics to declare her racist or transphobic
and demanding that Disney/Lucasfilm fire her from "The
Mandalorian."

THE CASE: CARANO V. THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY

While problematic social media posts instigated the original
incident, a different type of social media post led to the filing
of Carano v. The Walt Disney Company. Legal counsel for X reached
out to Carano after she responded to one of Elon Musk's posts
offering to help individuals who lost their jobs based on activity
on the social media platform. X hired legal counsel to look into
Carano's story and assist her in seeking an appropriate resolution.
X states they support Carano's suit as a sign of their commitment
to free speech.

If you have questions about how to file a California wrongful
termination lawsuit, please get in touch with Blumenthal Nordrehaug
Bhowmik DeBlouw L.L.P. Experienced employment law attorneys are
ready to assist you in various law firm offices in San Diego, San
Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside, and Chicago. [GN]

WELLNOW URGENT: Maguire-Whipple Balks at Unprotected Personal Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN MAGUIRE-WHIPPLE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WELLNOW URGENT CARE, P.C. and ADMI
CORP. d/b/a TAG - THE ASPEN GROUP, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-02183 (N.D. Ill., March 15, 2024) is a class action arising
out of Defendants' failures to implement reasonable and industry
standard data security practices to properly secure, safeguard, and
adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive
personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored
for its business purposes.

The Defendants' data security failures allowed a targeted
cyberattack to compromise Defendants' network that, upon
information and belief, contained personally identifiable
information and protected health information of Plaintiff and other
individuals. The data breach occurred on or about April 25, 2023,
and Defendant WellNow began sending notice letters to Class members
on or about February 22, 2024.

The complaint asserts that Defendants disregarded the rights of
Plaintiff and Class Members by, inter alia, intentionally,
willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently failing to take adequate
and reasonable measures to ensure its data systems were protected
against unauthorized intrusions; failing to disclose that it did
not have adequately robust computer systems and security practices
to safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information;
failing to take standard and reasonably available steps to prevent
the Data Breach; and failing to provide Plaintiff(s) and Class
Members with prompt and full notice of the data breach.

Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this action against Defendants
seeking redress for its unlawful conduct and asserting claims for:
(i) negligence and negligence per se, (ii) breach of implied
contract, (iii) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, (iv) unjust enrichment and (v) breach of third-party
beneficiary contract.

The Plaintiff has received medical service in the past at a WellNow
healthcare facility.

WELLNOW URGENT CARE P.C. is a conglomerate of walk-in urgent care
clinics that serve as alternatives to emergency rooms across
Upstate New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

WELLS FARGO: Faces New Class Action Overcharging Servicemen
-----------------------------------------------------------
James Kinoti, writing for msn.com, reports  that a new class action
lawsuit has been filed against banking giant Wells Fargo, accusing
the institution of overcharging thousands of customers on credit
card interest rates and fees for over a decade. The lawsuit,
brought forth by plaintiffs Carmin Nowlin, Tamika Haley, and Jesus
Rodriguez, alleges that Wells Fargo charged active US military
service members interest rates and fees that exceeded the limits
set by the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA).

Allegations of SCRA violations

The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) mandates that any debts
incurred by service members before being called to active duty must
have their interest rates reduced to 6%. Furthermore, banks are
required to permanently forgive interest exceeding this rate.
However, according to the plaintiffs, Wells Fargo engaged in a
pattern of overcharging military service members despite marketing
itself to this demographic, particularly those deployed overseas.

The plaintiffs assert that Wells Fargo breached its statutory and
contractual duties to service members and engaged in deceptive
practices by concealing overcharges and SCRA violations. The bank
allegedly allowed unlawful charges to inflate servicemembers'
principal balances and even applied compound interest to these
inflated amounts. Moreover, the plaintiffs claim that Wells Fargo
continued these practices nationwide for over a decade while
concealing the violations from affected military families.

Wells Fargo's response and previous legal troubles

Currently, Wells Fargo has not stated the allegations in the
lawsuit. This legal action adds to the recent lawsuits and
complaints the banking giant has faced. Among these is a case
involving a customer who reported that Wells Fargo failed to
address the theft of thousands of dollars from her account, leaving
her in limbo for seven months.

The class action lawsuit against Wells Fargo underscores the
serious allegations of overcharging and deceptive practices
targeting military service members. While the bank has yet to
respond publicly to these accusations, its history of legal
troubles raises concerns about its practices and treatment of
customers. As the case unfolds, affected service members and
consumers eagerly await clarity and accountability from one of the
nation's largest financial institutions. [GN]

WELLS FARGO: Goldovsky Sues Over Sale of Unregistered Securities
----------------------------------------------------------------
ALEX GOLDOVSKY, GLYNN FRECHETTE, JOHN KRUPEY, and KRISTIN SCHARF,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. MAURICIO J. RAULD, PREMIER LAW GROUP, TIMOTHY B.
GERTZ, PV ADVISORS, PLC d/b/a PROVISION and d/b/a PROVISION WEALTH
STRATEGIST, CITIZENS & NORTHERN BANK, and WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,
Defendants, Case No. 6:24-cv-00159 (W.D. Tex., March 27, 2024)
seeks to recover damages suffered by the Plaintiffs and all persons
similarly situated who invested in a fraudulent Ponzi scheme.

The Plaintiffs assert claims for statutory fraud, common law fraud,
negligent misrepresentation, and knowing participation in breach of
fiduciary duty, and for violations of the Texas Securities Act.
They allege that Defendants defrauded them and other investors in
the Ponzi scheme by selling unregistered securities from, by and
through Texas, in transactions that emanated from Texas. Allegedly,
Defendants sold these unregistered securities by making untrue
statements to the investors about the unregistered securities, and
by omissions that made their statements misleading, the Plaintiffs
say.

Headquartered in San Francisco, CA, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a
national banking association that offers online and mobile banking,
home mortgage, loans and credit, investment and retirement, wealth
management, and insurance services. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Patrick Zummo, Esq.
         Lisa Gerling Zummo, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF PATRICK ZUMMO
         950 Echo Lane, Suite 333
         Houston, TX 77024
         Telephone: (713) 651-0590
         E-mail: pzummo@zoomlaw.com
                 lzummo@zoomlaw.com

WHALECO INC: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Eakins Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Whaleco, Inc. filed an appeal from the District Court's Order dated
March 5, 2024 entered in the lawsuit styled Valerie Eakins,
individual and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. WHALECO
INC. d/b/a TEMU, Case No. 5:23-CV-00560-J, in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma-Oklahoma City.

The case was removed from the District Court of Washita County,
State of Oklahoma, to the District Court for the Western District
of Oklahoma on June 26, 2023.

The Plaintiff's single-count Petition seeks relief from Defendant,
on behalf of herself and a putative class of similarly-situated
persons, for allegedly "sending automated commercial telephonic
sales calls, in the form of text messages, to her cellular
telephone and the cellular telephones of numerous other individuals
across Oklahoma" in violation of Oklahoma's Telephone Solicitation
Act.

On November 15, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to compel
arbitration which the Court denied on March 5, 2024 through an
Order signed by Judge Bernard M. Jones.

The appellate case is captioned as Whaleco, Inc. v. Valerie Eakins,
Case No. 24-6048, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Tenth Circuit, filed on March 18, 2024.[BN]

Defendant-Appellant WHALECO, INC., DBA TEMU, is represented by:

          John Alfred Burkhardt, Jr., Esq.
          SCHAFFER HERRING LAW FIRM
          7134 South Yale Avenue, Suite 300
          Tulsa, OK 74136
          Telephone: (918) 550-8105
           
               - and -

          Robert A. Stines, Esq.
          SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL LLP
          201 N Franklin Street, Suite 3550
          Tampa, FL 33602

Plaintiff-Appellee VALERIE EAKINS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by"

          Mary Quinn Cooper, Esq.
          Kathy R. Neal, Esq.
          MCAFEE & TAFT
          Two West Second Street, Suite 1100
          Tulsa, OK 74103
          Telephone: (918) 587-0000

               - and -

          Edwin Powell Miller, Esq.
          950 West University Drive #300
          Rochester, MI 48307-0000
          Telephone: (248) 652-2852

WILLIAMS-SONOMA STORES: Job Postings Lack Wage Info, Yount Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
NICOLE YOUNT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WILLIAMS-SONOMA STORES, INC., a foreign
profit corporation doing business as WILLIAMS SONOMA, POTTERY BARN,
POTTERY BARN KIDS, and WEST ELM; and DOES 1-20, Defendants, Case
No. 24-2-06599-7 SEA (Wash. Super., King Cty., March 26, 2024)
accuses the Defendants of violating the Washington Equal Pay and
Opportunities Act.

Plaintiff Yount brings this class action on behalf of individuals
who applied to job openings with Defendant where the job postings
to which they responded did not include the wage scale or salary
range being offered in direct violation of EPOA.

Williams-Sonoma Stores, Inc. is a foreign profit corporation that
owns and operates stores selling premium kitchenware and
housewares. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy W. Emery, Esq.
          Patrick B. Reddy, Esq.
          Paul Cipriani, Esq.
          EMERY | REDDY, PLLC
          600 Stewart Street, Suite 1100
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 442-9106
          Facsimile: (206) 441-9711
          E-mail: emeryt@emeryreddy.com
                  reddyp@emeryreddy.com
                  paul@emeryreddy.com

[*] Levine Law Sponsors 8th Annual Class Action Conference
----------------------------------------------------------
Levine Law, LLC is a sponsor of the Class Action Money & Ethics
Conference this May.

Levine Law -- https://lawlevine.com/ -- is a third-generation law
firm providing legal representation in California, Michigan, New
York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio.  It specializes in Personal Injury,
Probate Estate, Medicaid Planning, Business Planning, Real Estate
Closing, Estate Planning and Criminal Defense. Call (724) 658-5596
for the "People of PA's Lawyer."

Join Levine Law and others at the 8th Annual Class Action Money &
Ethics Conference on May 6, 2024.  Registration is now open.  View
conference agenda at
https://www.classactionconference.com/agenda.html

This one-day event is also being sponsored by:

     * Atticus Administration, LLC;
     * Broadridge, a global Fintech company;
     * Darrow.ai;
     * Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, an Am Law 100 firm;
     * Duane Morris LLP, an Am Law 100 firm;
     * Giftogram;
     * Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP;
     * Hook Point;
     * Miller Kaplan Arase LLP;
     * Parabellum Capital LLC
     * Simpluris; and
     * Tremendous, a payouts platform

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

For sponsorship or speaking opportunities, please contact:

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


[*] Miller Kaplan Sponsors 8th Annual Class Action Conference
-------------------------------------------------------------
Miller Kaplan Arase LLP is a sponsor of the Class Action Money &
Ethics Conference this May.

Miller Kaplan -- https://www.millerkaplan.com/ -- is one of the top
certified public accounting firms in the United States, providing
accounting, audit, business management, tax, and consulting
services, with locations in Los Angeles and San Francisco, Calif.;
Seattle, Wash.; Denver, Co.; and Hailey, Idaho.

Join Miller Kaplan and others at the 8th Annual Class Action Money
& Ethics Conference on May 6, 2024.  Registration is now open.
View conference agenda at
https://www.classactionconference.com/agenda.html

This one-day event is also being sponsored by:

     * Atticus Administration, LLC;
     * Broadridge, a global Fintech company;
     * Darrow.ai;
     * Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, an Am Law 100 firm;
     * Duane Morris LLP, an Am Law 100 firm;
     * Giftogram;
     * Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP;
     * Hook Point;
     * Levine Law, LLC;
     * Parabellum Capital LLC
     * Simpluris; and
     * Tremendous, a payouts platform

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

For sponsorship or speaking opportunities, please contact:

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


[*] Parabellum Sponsors 8th Annual Class Action Conference
----------------------------------------------------------
Parabellum Capital LLC is a sponsor of the Class Action Money &
Ethics Conference this May.

A pioneer in litigation finance, New York-based Parabellum --
https://www.parabellumcap.com/ -- partners with claimants by
providing risk-free capital solutions for the prosecution of
commercial claims.

Join Parabellum and others at the 8th Annual Class Action Money &
Ethics Conference on May 6, 2024.  Registration is now open.  View
conference agenda at
https://www.classactionconference.com/agenda.html

This one-day event is also being sponsored by:

     * Atticus Administration, LLC;
     * Broadridge, a global Fintech company;
     * Darrow.ai;
     * Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, an Am Law 100 firm;
     * Duane Morris LLP, an Am Law 100 firm;
     * Giftogram;
     * Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP;
     * Hook Point;
     * Levine Law, LLC;
     * Miller Kaplan Arase LLP;
     * Simpluris; and
     * Tremendous, a payouts platform

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

For sponsorship or speaking opportunities, please contact:

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


[^] 2024 Class Action Conference Agenda
---------------------------------------
Registration is now open for the 8th Annual Class Action Money &
Ethics Conference to be held next month in Manhattan.  This year's
event is led by Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Partner, Duane Morris LLP;
and Jennifer A. Riley, Partner, Duane Morris LLP, as conference
chairs.

The agenda for CAME 2024 are:

     (A) State of the Industry: Class Action Review

         Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. and Jennifer A. Riley of Duane
         Morris will present key findings from their inaugural
         Duane Morris-Class Action Review 2024. Their one-of-a-
         kind publication provides an analysis of class action
         trends impacting Corporate America, including, Class
         Action Fairness Act, mass appeals, consumer fraud, data
         breaches and more.

     (B) The Ethics of Wiretapping and Data Privacy Class Actions

         David Bertoni (Moderator), Partner, Brann & Isaacson;
         Kelly Iverson, Partner, Lynch Carpenter; Terence "Terry"
         Coates, Managing Partner, Markovits, Stock & DeMarco;
         David Lietz, Senior Partner, Milberg; and Max Bernstein,
         Associate, Cooley, will delve into the moral intricacies
         of wiretapping and data privacy class actions; explore
         legal, ethical, and technological dimensions, weighing
         individual rights against security needs; and navigate
         through case studies, ethical dilemmas, and corporate
         responsibilities, while scrutinizing the global
         landscape of privacy regulations.

     (C) Maximizing Financial Strategy: Exploring Qualified
         Settlement Funds

         Nicholas Sanchez (Moderator), Partner, Miller Kaplan;
         Eric Gladbach, Partner, King & Spalding; Justin Parks,
         Vice President, AB Data; Amy Gernon, Founder, Gernon
         Law; and Michael O'Connor, Senior Vice President,
         Western Alliance Bank, will discuss the complexities of
         Qualified Settlement Funds (QSFs) and tax implications
         in class actions; analyze strategies for maximizing
         benefits, minimizing tax liabilities, and ensuring
         compliance; and navigate through legal nuances,
         financial considerations, and practical insights for
         attorneys, plaintiffs, and stakeholders.

     (D) The Double-Edged Sword: TCPA and Email Restrictions in
         Case Notifications

         Christopher Longley (Moderator), Co-Founder & CEO,
         Atticus Administration; Christopher Roberts, Partner,
         Butsch Roberts & Associates; Jessica Ranucci, Attorney,
         New York Legal Assistance Group; and Bryn Bridley,
         Director of Project Management at Atticus, will examine
         the intricate balance between TCPA regulations and email
         restrictions in case notifications; navigate through
         legal pitfalls, compliance challenges, and best
         practices for effective communication; and explore
         strategies for optimizing outreach while mitigating
         risks and respecting recipients' privacy rights.

     (E) Luncheon Roundtable Discussion: Resolution of Mass Tort
         Claims in Bankruptcy

         Join esteemed judges -- Hon. Michael Kaplan, Chief United
         States Bankruptcy Judge, District of New Jersey; the Hon.
         Shelley Chapman (Ret.), Senior Counsel, Willkie Farr &
         Gallagher LLP; and the Hon. Melanie L. Cyganowski (Ret.),
         Partner, Otterbourg P.C. -- for an intimate roundtable
         on resolving mass tort claims in bankruptcy as they
         delve into legal intricacies, precedents, and ethical
         considerations shaping outcomes; and explore strategies
         for balancing creditor rights, public interests, and
         equitable distribution, fostering dialogue and insights
         over a luncheon setting.  Chad Husnick, Partner, Kirkland
         & Ellis, moderates.

     (F) Comparative Class Action Funding: a Multi-Jurisdictional
         Examination

         Dai Wai Chin Freman (Moderator), Managing Director,
         Parabellum Capital; Kyle Taylor, Partner, Orr Taylor;
         Luke Streatfeild, Partner, Hausfeld; Michael Dell'Angelo,
         Executive Shareholder, Berger Montague; and Manuel "John"
         Dominguez, Partner, Cohen Milstein, discuss different
         class actions funding models, exploring the benefits and
         drawbacks of various models, as well as explore whether
         the US model is ripe for disruption.

     (G) Fraud in Class Actions

         Ross Weiner (Moderator), Legal Director, Certum Group;
         Rebecca Gilliland, Principal, Beasley Allen; Kyle Mason,
         Director, EisnerAmper; Franco Corrado, Partner, Morgan
         Lewis; Jeff Wilkerson, Partner, Winston & Strawn; and
         Etia Rottman Frand, Head of Sales, Darrow, tackle the
         complexities of detecting and addressing fraud in class
         actions; explore case studies, legal precedents, and
         emerging trends; discuss strategies for safeguarding
         integrity, ensuring fair outcomes, and upholding justice
         within class action litigation; and delve into ethical
         considerations and practical measures for combating
         fraudulent practices.

     (H) ESG Litigation From A Securities Perspective

         Eric Zagar (Moderator), Partner, Kessler Topaz; Lauren
         Wagner, Counsel, O'Melveny; and Minor Myers, Professor
         of Law, UConn Law School, dive into the intersection of
         Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) factors with
         securities litigation; explore evolving regulations,
         shareholder activism, and fiduciary duties; and dissect
         recent cases, analyze market trends, and propose
         strategies for navigating ESG-related risks and
         opportunities within the securities landscape.

     (I) The Revolution of Lead Generation in Mass Tort With
         Cutting Edge AI and Marketing Tools

         Erin Mulvaney (Moderator), Reporter, The Wall Street
         Journal; Brendan Kane, Founder, Hook Point; Rustin
         Silverstein, President and Founder, X Ante; and
         Christopher Ege, Partner, Gordon, Rees, Scully,
         Mansukhani, explore the transformative impact of AI
         and marketing tools on mass tort lead generation;
         discuss data-driven strategies, predictive analytics
         and ethical considerations; and how innovative
         technologies are reshaping legal marketing, enhancing
         client acquisition, and revolutionizing mass tort
         litigation.

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

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

Conference agenda is subject to change. Additional panels and
speakers will be added leading up to the conference. Check back
frequently for updates!

For sponsorship or speaking opportunities, please contact:

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


                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Advance Auto Parts Defends PI Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------
Advance Auto Parts, Inc.'s Western Auto subsidiary, together with
other defendants (including Advance and other of its subsidiaries),
has been named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging injury as a
result of exposure to asbestos-containing products, according to
the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "The plaintiffs have alleged that certain
products contained asbestos and were manufactured, distributed
and/or sold by the various defendants. Many of the cases pending
against us are in the early stages of litigation. While the damages
claimed against the defendants in some of these proceedings are
substantial, we believe many of these claims are at least partially
covered by insurance and historically asbestos claims against us
have been inconsistent in fact patterns alleged and immaterial. We
do not believe the cases currently pending will have a material
adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or
cash flows.

"On January 17, 2024, a derivative shareholder complaint was
commenced against our directors and certain former officers
alleging derivative liability for the allegations made in the
securities class action complaints noted above. This case is still
in preliminary stages. We strongly dispute the allegations of the
complaint and intend to defend the case vigorously."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7qYQ5c


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Avon Products Has 372 Pending Cases as of Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------------
Natura &Co Holding S.A.'s subsidiary, Avon Products, Inc., has been
named a defendant in numerous personal injury lawsuits filed in
U.S. courts, alleging that certain talc products the company sold
in the past were contaminated with asbestos, according to the
Company's Form 6-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The Company states, "As of December 31, 2023, there were 372
individual cases pending against the subsidiary Avon (during the
year ended December 31, 2023, 234 new cases were started and 90
were dismissed, settled, or otherwise resolved)."

A full-text copy of the Form 6-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DYDvRD



ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Reinsurance Still Receives Exposure Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Everest Reinsurance Holdings, Inc., continues to receive claims
under expired insurance and reinsurance contracts asserting
injuries and/or damages relating to or resulting from environmental
pollution and hazardous substances, including asbestos, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.

The Company states, "Environmental claims typically assert
liability for (a) the mitigation or remediation of environmental
contamination or (b) bodily injury or property damage caused by the
release of hazardous substances into the land, air or water.
Asbestos claims typically assert liability for bodily injury from
exposure to asbestos or for property damage resulting from asbestos
or products containing asbestos.

"The Company's reserves include an estimate of the Company's
ultimate liability for A&E claims. The Company's A&E liabilities
emanate from direct insurance business and Everest Re's assumed
reinsurance business. All of the contracts of insurance and
reinsurance, under which the Company has received claims during the
past three years, expired more than 20 years ago. There are
significant uncertainties surrounding the Company's reserves for
its A&E losses."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EtZDIU

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Global Indemnity Has $10.7MM Net Loss Reserves
---------------------------------------------------------------
Global Indemnity Group, LLC, as of December 31, 2023, has recorded
$10.7 million of net loss reserves for asbestos-related claims and
$10.4 million for environmental claims, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.


The Company's environmental exposure arises from the sale of
general liability and commercial multi-peril insurance.  Currently,
the Company's policies continue to exclude classic environmental
contamination claims.  However, in some states, the Company is
required, depending on the circumstances, to provide coverage for
certain bodily injury claims, such as an individual's exposure to a
release of chemicals.  The Company has also issued policies that
were intended to provide limited pollution and environmental
coverage.  These policies were specific to certain types of
products underwritten by the Company.  The Company has also
received a number of asbestos-related claims, the majority of which
are declined based on well-established exclusions.  In establishing
the liability for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses
related to A&E exposures, management considers facts currently
known and the current state of the law and coverage litigations.
Estimates of these liabilities are reviewed and updated
continually.

Uncertainty remains as to the Company's ultimate liability for
asbestos-related claims due to such factors as the long latency
period between asbestos exposure and disease manifestation and the
resulting potential for involvement of multiple policy periods for
individual claims.  Other emerging mass torts with long latency
periods also contribute to the uncertainty in the estimated
ultimate environmental liability.

The liability for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses,
inclusive of A&E reserves, reflects Management's best estimates for
future amounts needed to pay losses and related loss adjustment
expenses as of each of the balance sheet dates reflected in the
financial statements herein in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles ("GAAP").

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tWOOp0

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Graybar Electric Has 3,510 Exposure Cases Pending
------------------------------------------------------------------
Graybar Electric Company, Inc., with respect to asbestos
litigation, as of December 31, 2023, has reported 3,510 individual
cases and 61 multiple-plaintiff cases pending alleging actual or
potential asbestos-related injuries resulting from the use of or
exposure to products allegedly sold by them, according to the
Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
  
The Company states, "Additional claims will likely be filed against
us in the future.  Our insurance carriers have historically borne
virtually all costs and liability with respect to this litigation
and are continuing to do so.  Accordingly, our future liability
with respect to pending and unasserted claims is dependent on the
continued solvency of our insurance carriers.  Other factors that
could impact this liability are: the number of future claims filed
against us; the defense and settlement costs associated with these
claims; changes in the litigation environment, including changes in
federal or state law governing the compensation of asbestos
claimants; adverse jury verdicts in excess of historic settlement
amounts; and bankruptcies of other asbestos defendants.  Moreover,
any predictions with respect to these variables are subject to even
greater uncertainty as the projection period lengthens.  In light
of these uncertainties, we believe that our asbestos reserves
represent the best estimate within a range of possible outcomes,
over an extended period of time, less than or equal to recorded
corresponding anticipated recoverable insurance proceeds.  As part
of the process to develop these off-setting estimates of future
asbestos costs and insurance proceeds, a range of long-term cost
and recovery models of future asbestos costs was developed.  These
models are based on national studies that predict the number of
people likely to develop asbestos related diseases and are
influenced by assumptions regarding long-term inflation rates for
indemnity payments and defense costs, as well as other variables
previously mentioned.  Because any of these factors may change, our
future exposure is unpredictable, and it is possible that we may
incur costs that would have a material adverse impact on our
liquidity, financial position, or results of operations in future
periods."

A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jFFmXK



                            *********

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 ***