---

              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, April 24, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 83

                            Headlines

AIRGAS INC: Powers Sues Over Branch Managers' Unpaid Overtime
AMERICAN SUGAR: Conspires to Fix Granulated Sugar Prices, Suit Says
APPLE INC: Faces Watson Suit Over Smartphone Market Monopoly
BLENDEDTRADITIONS INC: Underpays Direct Care Workers, Ferguson Says
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Seeks to Seal Merits Discovery Materials

CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Through the Forest Sues Over Unprotected Info
DAVIDS NATURAL: Schoeps Sues Over Toxic Chemicals in Toothpaste
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Gross Sues Over Clients' Damaged Credit Scores
FAST BUSINESS: Court Tosses Starling Bid for Class Certification
GEORGE WEISS: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Nov. 13

GRIDSUM HOLDING: Xu Awarded Attorneys' Fees & Expenses
HEALTH CAREER: Roberson Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
HUGO BOSS: Wright Sues Over Unsolicited Text Message Marketing
JDC HEALTHCARE: Response to Lee Class Cert Bid Extended to April 26
JESSIE'S NURSERY: Court Sets Rule 16 Scheduling Conference in DARL

JUICY'S VAPOR: Class Cert Bids Filing Due May 24
KIRIN TRANSPORTATION: Class Cert Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge
KRISTINA LAWSON: Civil Trial Order Entered in Khatibi Class Suit
KROGER CO: Seeks to Seal Plaintiffs' Supporting Memo
LEVEL 3: Court Reinstates Johnson Class Cert Bid

LIBERTY MUTUAL: Turner Seeks to Certify Class Action
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA: Court Certifies 3 Classes in Berg Lawsuit
MARK GEARHART: Civil Trial Order Entered in Race Winning Suit
MHF RALPH LLC: Joseph Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
MICHAEL PRIES: Court Narrows Claims in McCollum Amended Complaint

MICROSOFT CORP: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due May 9, 2025
NEW YORK, NY: Bid to Certify Class Referred to Magistrate Judge
NIKE INC: Seeks Summary Adjudication on Cahill's Claims
NIKE RETAIL: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due August 1
NORTH CAROLINA: Plaintiffs Seek Extension to File Class Cert Bid

NURTURE INC: Court Stays Sanchez Suit Pending Ruling on Class Cert
OLD NAVY LLC: Dalton Files ADA Suit in D. Minnesota
OLDS PRODUCTS: Court Decertifies Quiroga Collective Action
OSF HEALTHCARE: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Hanson Suit
PARAMOUNT COIN: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due August 12

PAXTON MEDIA: Class Settlement in Bowen Gets Initial Nod
PLURALSIGHT INC: Plaintiffs' Bid for Class Certification OK'd
POST ACUTE MEDICAL: Suit Removed to M.D. Pennsylvania
POSTECH FASHION: Love Files TCPA Suit in D. Minnesota
PRATT LLC: Villa Suit Removed to E.D. California

PROJECT E BEAUTY: Fontan Sues Over False Skin Rejuvenation Claims
PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Class Cert Bid Filing Due July 22
PUP CULTURE: Villela Seeks Denial of Bid to Disqualify Counsel
RADIOLOGY PARTNERS: Petty Suit Removed to C.D. California
RED & BLUE DICE: Clark Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages

RETINA CONSULTANTS: Bartek Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
REUTERS NEWS: Collects Users' IP Addresses Without Consent, Xu Says
ROADMASTER DRIVERS: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due May 22
ROCK SPRING: Class Settlement  in Rosales Suit Approved
RTB CONSUMER: Class Certification Bid Denied w/o Prejudice

RUSSELL INVESTMENT: Johnson Bid to Seal Docs Nixed
RYDER INTEGRATED: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Dec. 30
S.Y.M. INC: Stroude Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
SALVATION ARMY: Sanchez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SANDUSKY, OH: McGory Seeks Class Certification

SANSUM CLINIC: Court Stays Rose Suit Pending Mediation
SAZERAC COMPANY: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to May 21
SEROQUEL XR: Direct Purchaser Class Certified in Antitrust Suit
SHAKLEE CORP: Faces Liz Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
SHOGY MARKETPLACE: Faces Velasquez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.

SIGNIFY HEALTH: Court Junks ARPI Bid to File Amended Complaint
SKYC MANAGEMENT: Andujar Seeks Conditional Status of Action
SOHO HOTEL OWNER: Anderson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
SOUTHSTATE BANK: Clark Files Suit in M.D. Florida
SOUTHSTATE BANK: Dailey Files Suit in M.D. Florida

SOUTHSTATE BANK: Flott Files Suit in M.D. Florida
SOUTHSTATE BANK: Fullwood-Demps Files Suit in M.D. Florida
STATE STREET CORP: Settlement Class in Gomes Initially Certified
SUNPATH LTD: Class Cert Bid Filing in Morales Reset to Sept. 27
T.L. CANNON: Seeks Summary Judgment in Dees Class Action

TAKARA SAKE: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Tunick Extended to Oct. 17
TAKATA CORP: Oral Argument on Class Certification Set for May 29
TAKEYA USA: Boduch Sues Over Severe Burn from Defective Product
TARGET CORPORATION: Panelli Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
TDS TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Mott Seeks to Certify FLSA Class Action

TESLA INC: Brown Sues Over Systematic Mistreatment of Employees
TETRA TECH: Amended Class Settlement Partially Gets Initial OK
TRANSPRO LOGISTICS: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Leonard
TRANSUNION LLC: Faces Gross Suit Over Inaccurate Credit Reporting
UNITED PARCEL: Case Management Order Entered in Wynn Class Suit

UNITED STATES: Clinkenbeard Loses Bid to Certify Class
UNITED STATES: Rubenstein Bid for Class Certification Tossed
UNITED SUGAR: Golden Sues Over Conspiring and Fixing Prices
UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL OKLAHOMA: Court OK's Class Certification Bid
USHEALTH ADVISORS: Scheduling & Discovery Order Entered in Kraemer

VERIZON CONNECT: Ducos Seeks to Conditionally Certify FLSA Class
WELLS FARGO: Parties Seek More Time to File Opposition & Reply
WESTERN CONFERENCE: Order Modifying Case Schedule Entered in Paieri
WILLARD JACKSON: Court Stays Discovery in Carter Suit
WILLARD JACKSON: Petrescu Seeks to Stay Discovery

XOOM ENERGY: Seeks to Decertify Class in Mirkin Lawsuit
YODLEE INC: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Clark Continued to May 22

                            *********

AIRGAS INC: Powers Sues Over Branch Managers' Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL POWERS and LUIS CALLES, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AIRGAS, INC., and
AIRGAS USA, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-01353 (E.D. Pa.,
April 1, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants seeking to
recover Plaintiffs' unpaid overtime wages for hours worked above 40
in a workweek and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Plaintiffs Powers and Calles were employed by Airgas as branch
managers from October 2018 to March 2022 in Colorado Springs,
Colorado store and from January 2021 to May 2021 in Merced,
California store, respectively. They worked in excess of 40 hours
per workweek, without receiving wages from Defendants, for all
hours worked, as well as overtime compensation as required by
federal law.

Airgas, Inc. is a U.S. supplier of industrial, medical and
specialty gases, as well as hardgoods and related products.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jason Conway, Esq.
          CONWAY LEGAL, LLC
          1700 Market Street, Suite 1005
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 278-4782
          Facsimile: (215) 278-4807

               - and -

          Marc S. Hepworth, Esq.
          Charles Gershbaum, Esq.
          David A. Roth, Esq.
          Rebecca S. Predovan, Esq.
          HEPWORTH, GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC
          192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-1199
          Facsimile: (212) 532-3801
          E-mail: mhepworth@hgrlawyers.com
                  cgershbaum@hgrlawyers.com
                  droth@hgrlawyers.com
                  rpredovan@hgrlawyers.com

AMERICAN SUGAR: Conspires to Fix Granulated Sugar Prices, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
THE UNION PUBLIC HOUSE, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING, INC., ASR
GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC., DOMINO FOODS, INC., MICHIGAN SUGAR
COMPANY, UNITED SUGAR PRODUCERS & REFINERS COOPERATIVE F/K/A UNITED
SUGARS CORPORATION, COMMODITY INFORMATION, INC., and RICHARD
WISTISEN, Defendants, Case No. 0:24-cv-01292-JMB-ECW (D. Minn.,
April 11, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of Sections 1 of the Sherman Act, Section 16 of the
Clayton Act, and the antitrust, unfair competition, and consumer
protection laws of various states in the U.S.

The case arises from the Defendants' unlawful agreement to
artificially raise, fix, maintain, or stabilize prices of
granulated sugar throughout the Class Period. The Defendants have
implemented their agreement by sharing accurate, competitively
sensitive, non-public information with one another, including
through Commodity. Commodity provided this reciprocal information
to the Defendants rapidly, often within hours of having received
it. The Defendants then used the information they received from
Commodity when deciding how much to charge for their products, says
the suit.

The Union Public House, LLC is a restaurant owner in Pensacola,
Florida.

American Sugar Refining, Inc. is a sugar producer based in West
Palm Beach, Florida.

ASR Group International, Inc. is a global producer and seller of
granulated sugar based in West Palm Beach, Florida.

Domino Foods, Inc. is a marketing and sales subsidiary of ASR Group
in Florida.

Michigan Sugar Company is a cooperative of sugar beet owners,
headquartered in Bay City, Michigan.

United Sugar Producers & Refiners Cooperative, formerly known as
United Sugars Corporation, is a marketing cooperative based in
Edina, Minnesota.

Commodity Information, Inc. is corporation based in Orem, Utah.
[BN]

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

                 - and -

         W. Cameron Stephenson, Esq.
         Matthew D. Schultz, Esq.
         LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, RAFFERTY, PROCTOR, BUCHANAN, O'BRIEN,
BARR & MOUGEY, P.A.
         316 S. Baylen Street, Suite 600
         Pensacola, FL 32502
         Telephone: (850) 435-7176
         Facsimile: (850) 436-6176
         Email: cstephenson@levinlaw.com
                mschultz@levinlaw.com

APPLE INC: Faces Watson Suit Over Smartphone Market Monopoly
------------------------------------------------------------
JACQUELINE WATSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APPLE INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-04445 (D.N.J., April 1, 2024) arises from Defendant's
violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, citing internal
documents that detail Apple's anticompetitive conduct.

According to the complaint, Apple Inc. has employed anticompetitive
practices to illegally maintain monopoly power over the smartphone
market. Instead of competing on the merits through innovation and
price, Apple sought to trap consumers on its platform, locking them
into iPhone usage and forestalling competing products. Apple
maintained a smartphone monopoly by suppressing five key
technologies that otherwise would have stimulated competition:
Super Apps, Cloud Streaming Game Apps, Messaging Apps,
Smartwatches, and Digital Wallets.

Apple protects its monopoly with a series of restraints that it
could not impose in a competitive market. When customers buy coffee
or pay for groceries, Apple charges a fee for every "tap-to-pay"
transaction, imposing its own costly interchange fee on financial
institutions. When an iPhone user runs an Internet search, Google
shares some of the advertising revenue generated by the search with
Apple. Consumers like Plaintiff, who purchased iPhones at
supracompetitive prices and have been deprived of innovation in a
competitive smartphone market, suffered harm from Apple's
anticompetitive practices, says the suit.

Apple Inc. is an American multinational corporation and technology
company headquartered in Cupertino, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey B. Gittleman, Esq.
          Meghan J. Talbot, Esq.
          Zachary A. Pogust, Esq.
          POGUST GOODHEAD LLC
          161 Washington Street, Suite 250
          Conshohocken, PA 19428  
          Telephone: (610) 941-4204
          E-mail: jgittleman@pogustgoodhead.com
                  mtalbot@pogustgoodhead.com
                  zpogust@pogustgoodhead.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Michael J. Boni, Esq.
          Joshua D. Snyder, Esq.
          BONI, ZACK & SNYDER LLC
          15 St. Asaphs Road
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (610) 822-0200
          E-mail: mboni@bonizack.com
                  jsnyder@bonizack.com

BLENDEDTRADITIONS INC: Underpays Direct Care Workers, Ferguson Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM FERGUSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLENDEDTRADITIONS INC. and TASHA
N. HARRIS, Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-00647-JRA (N.D. Ohio, April
11, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Mr. Ferguson was employed by the Defendants as a direct care worker
in Ohio from approximately April 2022 to February 2023.

Blendedtraditions Inc. is for-profit health care provider in
Canton, Ohio. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
         Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
         SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
         50 Public Square, Suite 1900
         Cleveland, OH 44113
         Telephone: (216) 912-2221
         Facsimile: (440) 846-1625
         Email: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
                rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com

                 - and -

         Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
         SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
         11925 Pearl Rd., Suite 310
         Strongsville, OH 44136
         Telephone: (216) 912-2221
         Facsimile: (440) 846-1625
         Email: kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Seeks to Seal Merits Discovery Materials
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as UMB Bank, N.A. v.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Case No. 1:21-cv-04897-JMF
(S.D.N.Y.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order
maintaining under seal the Merits Discovery Materials, and the
portions of UMB's opposition brief discussing those materials,
until 14 days after the deadline for filing summary judgment briefs
in this action, when the issue can be considered again based on the
procedural circumstances that then exist.

In their submissions, both parties have cited or discussed
discovery materials designated confidential under the Stipulation
and Order Governing Confidentiality of Discovery Materials and
Preservation of Privilege that was entered on Aug. 9, 2022.

The Merits Discovery Materials are a fraction of the confidential
discovery materials cited by UMB in its opposition.

Courts also have recognized that selective disclosure out of
context of confidential FDA materials, as in the UMB opposition,
would be more likely to "mislead the public" about liso-cel than to
"serve a general interest in public health or access."

Bristol-Myers is an American multinational pharmaceutical company.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Apr. 5, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=utfdhg at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          John J. Clarke, Jr., Esq.
          DLA Piper LLP (US)
          1251 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10020-1104
          Telephone: (212) 335-4500
          Facsimile: (212) 335-4501
          E-mail: john.clarke@us.dlapiper.com

CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Through the Forest Sues Over Unprotected Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
THROUGH THE FOREST COUNSELING INC., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHANGE HEALTHCARE INC.
and UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED, Defendants, Case No.
3:24-cv-00370 (M.D. Tenn., April 1, 2024) is an action arising out
of Defendants' failure to maintain secure data security systems
leading to alleged devastating consequences nationwide for medical
businesses like Plaintiff's.

On February 22, 2024, UnitedHealth announced that it had
experienced a cybersecurity incident (the "Data Breach"). The
incident has had debilitating effects on the United States
healthcare system, including providers like Plaintiff, which have
been unable to timely collect billions of dollars in payments. The
Data Breach forced Defendants to shut down parts of Change
Healthcare's systems, depriving a large number of providers of the
ability to obtain insurance approval for their services -- meaning
they could not get paid. More than a month after the breach,
certain health care providers have still been unable to collect
payment for services rendered, says the suit.

Change Healthcare is a a healthcare technology company which
processes 15 billion health care transactions annually, including
for service that directly affect patient care and pharmacy
operations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jerry E. Martin, Esq.
          Seth M. Hyatt, Esq.
          Matthew E. McGraw, Esq.
          BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, PLLC
          200 31st Ave. N
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 244-2202
          E-mail: jmartin@barrettjohnston.com
                  shyatt@barrettjohnston.com
                  mmcgraw@barrettjohnston.com

               - and -

          Adam E. Polk, Esq.
          Jordan Elias, Esq.
          GIRARD SHARP LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981-4846  
          E-mail: apolk@girardsharp.com
                  jelias@girardsharp.com

DAVIDS NATURAL: Schoeps Sues Over Toxic Chemicals in Toothpaste
---------------------------------------------------------------
ALEXANDRA SCHOEPS and MARLEY STUBBLEFIELD, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DAVIDS
NATURAL TOOTHPASTE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:24-cv-01978 (N.D.
Cal., April 1, 2024) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs,
on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated consumers who
purchased Davids Antiplaque & Whitening Fluoride-Free Premium
Natural Toothpaste, for Defendant's (1) violation of California's
Unfair Competition Law; (2) violation of the Consumers Legal
Remedies Act; (3) violation of California's False Advertising Law;
(4) fraudulent omission or concealment; (5) fraudulent
misrepresentation; (6) negligent misrepresentation; (7) unjust
enrichment; and (8) breach of express warranty.

According to the complaint, the Defendant made misrepresentations
to Plaintiffs and members of the Classes while suppressing the true
nature of the product. Specifically, by displaying the product and
describing the product as healthy and made with natural and
naturally derived ingredients, including on the product packaging,
on its website, and in its marketing, without disclosing that the
product contain toxic perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl
substances, commonly known as PFAS chemicals. As such, Defendant
affirmatively misrepresented the product despite its knowledge that
the Product was not as advertised, says the suit.

Natural Toothpaste, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Menifee, California. The Company
markets and sells its toothpastes, including the product,
throughout California and the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Joshua R. Wilner, Esq.
          Joshua B. Glatt, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
                  jwilner@bursor.com
                  jglatt@bursor.com

EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Gross Sues Over Clients' Damaged Credit Scores
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN GROSS, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
0:24-cv-01289-SRN-DTS (D. Minn., April 11, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the FCRA by
refusing to meaningfully reinvestigate the disputes and continued
reporting the new Fingerhut Fetti accounts despite receiving
numerous disputes from consumers that these new accounts were
opened without permission. The Defendant was aware that Fingerhut
was reporting the opening of thousands of new Fingerhut Fetti
accounts while simultaneously reporting the closing of thousands of
Fingerhut Advantage accounts. Yet, despite this suspicious
activity, the Defendant did not do anything to ensure that the new
Fingerhut Fetti accounts were opened with authorization. Instead,
the Defendant followed a policy of leaving the accuracy of its
credit reporting entirely to its paying customers even when it has
actual knowledge that the reporting is suspicious or unreliable.

As a result of the Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff and Class
members suffered actual damages including but not limited to
impairment to credit, damage to reputation, emotional distress, and
wasted time, says the suit.

Equifax Information Services, LLC is a consumer reporting agency
doing business throughout the United States, including in
Minnesota. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
         John G. Albanese, Esq.
         Ariana B. Kiener, Esq.
         BERGER MONTAGUE PC
         1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205
         Minneapolis, MN 55413
         Telephone: (612) 594-599
         Facsimile: (612) 584-4470
         Email: emdrake@bm.net
                jalbanese@bm.net
                akiener@bm.net

FAST BUSINESS: Court Tosses Starling Bid for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as R'KES STARLING, v. FAST
BUSINESS FINANCIAL, LLC, ET AL., Case No. 4:23-cv-00655-P (N.D.
Tex.), the Hon. Judge Mark Pittman entered an order denying class
certification.

The Court finds class certification would further delay a case that
has already languished for months too long.

On March 6, 2024, the Court extended the Plaintiff's class
certification deadline to April 1, 2024. That was the second such
extension the Court has granted for this case.

The Plaintiff filed this lawsuit in June 2023 but has still not
moved for class certification.

Fast Business provides funding to small businesses in minutes.

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

GEORGE WEISS: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Nov. 13
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Andrew-Berry v. Weiss, et
al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00978 (D. Conn., Filed July 24, 2023), the
Hon. Judge Omar A. Williams entered an order that Plaintiff's
motion for class certification will be filed on or before Nov. 13,
2024.

The briefing schedule for this motion will follow the usual
timeline as delineated in the Local Rules and the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, but the parties may move to modify the schedule
when the motion is filed.

Additionally, the parties are instructed to submit a joint status
report on or before June 30, 2024, indicating the status of their
mediation.

The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA).[CC]

GRIDSUM HOLDING: Xu Awarded Attorneys' Fees & Expenses
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PEIFA XU, Individually and
On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. GRIDSUM HOLDING
INC., GUOSHENG QI, RAVI SARATHY, MICHAEL PENG ZHANG, and THOMAS
ADAM MELCHER, Case No. 1:18-cv-03655-GHW (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Gregory Woods entered an order awarding attorneys' fees,
reimbursement of expenses, and awards to plaintiffs:

   1. This Order incorporates and makes a part of the Stipulation
and
      Agreement of Settlement dated December 1, 2023, and all
      capitalized terms not defined in this Order shall have the
      meaning set forth in the Stipulation.

   2. The Plaintiffs' counsel are hereby awarded attorneys' fees in

      the amount of 33.3% of the Settlement Fund, or $1,500,000,
      together with a proportionate share of the interest earned by

      the Settlement Fund, at the same rate as earned by the
balance
      of the Settlement Fund, and $309,186.50 in payment for
      litigation expenses, plus interest, (which fees and expenses

      shall be paid from the Settlement Fund), which sums the Court

      finds to be fair and reasonable.

   3. In making this award of attorneys’ fees and reimbursement
of
      litigation expenses to be paid from the Settlement Fund, the

      Court has considered and found that:

      a) the Settlement has created a common fund of $4,500,000 in

         cash that has been paid into escrow, from which numerous
         Settlement Class Members who submit valid Claim Forms will

         benefit as a result of the efforts of Plaintiffs' Counsel;


      b) the requested attorneys' fees and payment of litigation
         expenses have been reviewed and approved as fair and
         reasonable by the Plaintiffs who have been directly
involved
         in the prosecution and resolution of the Action and who
have
         substantial interests in ensuring that any fees and
expenses
         paid to counsel are duly earned and not excessive;

      c) 6,399 copies of the Postcard Notice were disseminated to
         putative Settlement Class Members stating that counsel
would
         be submitting an application for attorneys' fees in an
amount
         not to exceed 33.3% of the Settlement Fund, and payment of

         expenses incurred in connection with the prosecution of
this
         Action in an amount not to exceed $600,000, plus accrued
         interest, and that such application also might include a
         request that Plaintiffs be awarded for their time and
effort
         incurred in representing the Settlement Class. To date,
no
         Settlement Class Members have filed an objection to that
         application for fees and expenses;

   4. Lead Plaintiff William Barth is hereby awarded $25,000 from
the
      Settlement Fund as reimbursement for his reasonable costs and

      time dedicated to the prosecution of the Action on behalf of
the
      Settlement Class.

   5. Plaintiff Xuechen Li is hereby awarded $5,000 from the
      Settlement Fund as reimbursement for her reasonable costs and

      time dedicated to the prosecution of the Action on behalf of
the
      Settlement Class.

Gridsum is a provider of cloud-based big-data analytics and AI
solutions.

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

HEALTH CAREER: Roberson Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRITTANY ROBERSON, REBECCA
FREEMAN, BIANCA VIÑAS, TIFFANY KING, and TRESHA THOMPSON,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. HEALTH
CAREER INSTITUTE LLC (dba HCI COLLEGE LLC and HCI ACQUISITION LLC),
FLORIAN EDUCATION INVESTORS LLC, and STEVEN W. HART, Case No.
9:22-cv-81883-RAR (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
and

     (i) certifying the Primary Classes and four Subclasses under
Rule
         23(b)(3);

    (ii) appointing the Named Plaintiffs as class representatives;
and

   (iii) appointing the undersigned as class counsel.

The proposed Primary Class is "all students who enrolled in the RN
Program at HCI after Sept. 1, 2019, and did not graduate."

The proposed subclasses are:

         "All class members who enrolled in the registered nurses
         ("RN") Program operating under NCLEX code 704146 (the "WPB

         Subclass"), all of whom were injured by the violations
         alleged in Count 6";

         "All class members who were denied advancement in the RN
         Program and/or had their transcripts or other HCI records

         withheld or delayed for any period of time as a result of

         their RIC balance (the "Withholding Subclass"), all of
whom
         were injured by the violations alleged in Count 7";

         "All class members who enrolled in the Capstone nursing
         course and paid for VATI after Sept. 1, 2019 (the "VATI
         Subclass"), all of whom were injured by the violations
         alleged in Count 8"; and

         "All Black class members who took out federal, private,
         and/or institutional student loans to pay for their
education
         (the "Targeting Subclass"), all of whom were injured by
the
         violations alleged in Counts 9 and 10.

The five Named Plaintiffs and over one thousand putative class
members enrolled in HCI's Associate of Science in Nursing degree
(the "RN Program"), which the Defendants marketed as a flexible
program that would qualify students, upon graduation, to take the
RN licensing examination in two years. But for the putative class,
HCI's RN Program was not a true pathway to the nursing profession.


Between Jan. 6, 2020, and May 8, 2023, 1,439 students enrolled in
the RN Program for the first time, and HCI deemed only 190 of them
-- 13% -- eligible to graduate and sit for the licensure exam. The
rest including the Named Plaintiffs and the putative class—were
caught in a hellish trap, as HCI intentionally and arbitrarily
obstructed their progress through the RN Program, meanwhile
collecting ever-growing amounts of money from them and putting them
in debt.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Apr. 5, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GCuRfQ at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Thelusma, Esq.
          Rebecca Eisenbrey, Esq.
          Victoria Roytenberg, Esq.
          PROJECT ON PREDATORY STUDENT LENDING
          769 Centre Street, Suite 160
          Jamaica Plain, MA 02130
          Telephone: (617) 390-2669
          E-mail: jthelusma@ppsl.org
                  reisenbrey@ppsl.org
                  vroytenberg@ppsl.org

                - and -

          Nicole Mayer, Esq.
          MAYER LAW FIRM LLC
          171 Dommerich Drive
          Maitland, FL 32751
          Telephone: (352) 494-3657
          E-mail: Nicole@MayerLawFlorida.com

HUGO BOSS: Wright Sues Over Unsolicited Text Message Marketing
--------------------------------------------------------------
LAWRENCE WRIGHT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HUGO BOSS FASHIONS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 3:24-cv-00544-KM (M.D. Pa., April 1, 2024) arises out of
Defendant's practice of advertising via unsolicited text message
marketing to individuals on the National Do-Not-Call Registry
without prior express written consent in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

Plaintiff Wright and the classes were damaged because they suffered
an invasion of privacy, aggravation, annoyance, frustration,
distraction, intrusion upon seclusion, and violations of their
substantive statutory rights under the TCPA to remain free of
unsolicited calls and text messages, in addition to using their
cellular data, storage, and battery life, says the suit.

HUGO BOSS Fashions, Inc. provides online clothing. Hugo Boss
Fashions serves customers in the State of New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Max S. Morgan, Esq.
          Eric H. Weitz, Esq.
          THE WEITZ FIRM, LLC
          1515 Market Street, #1100  
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (267) 587-6240
          Facsimile: (215) 689-0875
          E-mail: max.morgan@theweitzfirm.com
                  eric.weitz@theweitzfirm.com

JDC HEALTHCARE: Response to Lee Class Cert Bid Extended to April 26
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lee v. JDC Healthcare
PLLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-01134 (N.D. Tex., Filed May 17, 2023), the
Hon. Judge Ada Brown entered an order granting motion to extend
time as follows:

-- Extend the date for Defendant's response to       April 26,
2024
    Plaintiff's motion for class certification
    to:

-- Designation of Expert(s) by Defendant:            April 25,
2024

-- Rebuttal Expert(s):                               May 16, 2024

-- Challenges to Experts:                            No change to
the
                                                      July 1, 2024
                                                      deadline

The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

JDC provides health care services.[CC]

JESSIE'S NURSERY: Court Sets Rule 16 Scheduling Conference in DARL
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as David Austin Roses
Limited, v. Jessie's Nursery LLC, et al., Case No.
2:24-cv-00372-JJT (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge John Tuchi entered an
order setting Rule 16 scheduling conference:

All parties are directed to meet at least 21 days before the
Pretrial Scheduling Conference, in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(f), to discuss each of the following matters:

   1. The possibility of consent to trial before a United States
      Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636(c), or the

      use of any alternative dispute resolution mechanism, or the
      referral of this matter to a special master.

   2. Any matters relating to jurisdiction, venue, or joinder of
      additional parties’

   3. The nature and bases of their claims and defenses and the
      possibilities for prompt settlement or resolution of the
case.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 4, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VmwaqC at no extra
charge.[CC]

JUICY'S VAPOR: Class Cert Bids Filing Due May 24
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRADY SCHMITENDORF, v.
JUICY'S VAPOR LOUNGE, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-02293-TC-GEB (D.
Kan.), the Hon. Judge entered a scheduling order as follows:

           Event                           Deadline/Setting

  All discovery completed:                   Apr. 3, 2024

  Motions for class certification:           May 24, 2024

  Response to motion for class               June 21, 2024
  certification

  Reply to motion for class certification    July 21, 2024

A copy of the Court's order dated April 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=q0rXxw at no extra
charge.[CC]

KIRIN TRANSPORTATION: Class Cert Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wang, et al., v. Kirin
Transportation, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-05410 (E.D.N.Y.,
Filed Nov 6, 2020), the Hon. Judge Orelia E. Merchant entered an
order referring the Plaintiff's motion to certify class to
Magistrate Judge Merkl for decision.

The suit alleges violation of the  Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).[CC]

KRISTINA LAWSON: Civil Trial Order Entered in Khatibi Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AZADEH KHATIBI et. al., v.
KRISTINA LAWSON et. al., Case No. 2:23-cv-06195-MRA-E (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Monica Ramirez Almadani entered civil trial order as
follows:

-- Fact and Expert Discovery Cut-Offs:

    The cut-off date for discovery is not the date by which
discovery
    requests must be served; it is the date by which all discovery,

    including all hearings on any related motions, must be
completed

-- Discovery Motions

    Discovery motions are handled by the magistrate judge assigned
to
    the case. Any motion challenging the adequacy of discovery
    responses must be filed, served, and calendared before the
    assigned magistrate judge sufficiently in advance of the
discovery
    cut-off date to permit the responses to be obtained before that

    date if the motion is granted.

-- Expert Disclosures

    All expert disclosures must be made in writing. The parties
should
    begin expert discovery shortly after the initial designation of

    experts.

-- Mandatory Chamber's Copies

    The parties must deliver to Judge Ramírez Almadani's chambers
copy
    box located outside of the Clerk's Office on the fourth floor
of
    the courthouse one (1) mandatory Chambers copy (a paper copy
that
    is sent to Chambers upon electronic filing of the motion) of
all
    filings in connection with Motions for Summary Judgment,
Motions
    for Preliminary Injunction, and Motions for Class
Certification.

A copy of the Court's order dated Apr. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xlFTEq at no extra
charge.[CC]

KROGER CO: Seeks to Seal Plaintiffs' Supporting Memo
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUDY KIRKBRIDE and BEETA
LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. THE KROGER CO., Case No. 2:21-cv-00022-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to seal
Plaintiffs' supporting memorandum exhibit 81.

The Plaintiffs do not oppose the motion, the Defendant says.

During re-filing of their Memorandum Exhibits pursuant to the
Court's March 29, 2024 Order, the Plaintiffs inadvertently did not
apply all redactions in Memorandum Exhibit 81 to the confidential
information of two third parties as reflected in Kroger's proposed
redactions the Court approved, the Defendant adds.

Kroger is an American retail company that operates supermarkets and
multi-department stores.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated April 3, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jgmE8e at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Robert Webner, Esq.
          Nathaniel Lampley, Jr., Esq.
          VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP
          52 East Gay Street
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 464-6400
          Facsimile: (614) 464-6350
          E-mail: rnwebner@vorys.com
                  NLampley@vorys.com

                - and -

          Selina Coleman, Esq.
          Frederick Robinson, Esq.
          Andrew Y. Lu, Esq.
          Michael S. Leib, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          1301 K Street, N.W., Suite 1000 – East Tower
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 414-9200
          Facsimile: (202) 414-9299
          E-mail: scoleman@reedsmith.com
                  frobinson@reedsmith.com
                  andrew.lu@reedsmith.com
                  mleib@reedsmith.com

LEVEL 3: Court Reinstates Johnson Class Cert Bid
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Johnson v. Level 3
Communications, LLC, Case No. 9:22-cv-81066 (S.D. Fla., Filed July
21, 2022), the Hon. Judge Bruce E. Reinhart entered an order
granting Plaintiff's motion to reinstate the motion for conditional
class certification.

The nature of suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA).

Level 3 Communications was an American multinational
telecommunications and Internet service provider company.[CC]

LIBERTY MUTUAL: Turner Seeks to Certify Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS TURNER, an
individual, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated, v.
LIBERTY MUTUAL RETIREMENT BENEFIT PLAN; LIBERTY MUTUAL MEDICAL
PLAN; LIBERTY MUTUAL RETIREMENT BENEFIT PLAN RETIREMENT BOARD;
LIBERTY MUTUAL GROUP INC., a Massachusetts company; LIBERTY MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, a Massachusetts company; and, DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 1:20-cv-11530-FDS (D. Mass.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23 to:

   1. Certify this case as a class action with the class defined
as:
      "Former grandfathered employees of Safeco corporation and
      subsidiaries transitioning to Liberty Mutual on Jan. 1, 2009
who
      were not or will not be given both: (A) credit for purposes
of
      eligibility and cost sharing for their grandfathered age and

      service points as of Dec. 31, 2004 (their "Safeco
Grandfathered
      Credit"), and (B) credited service for employment with
Liberty
      Mutual (their "Liberty Mutual Credit").

   2. Appoint the Plaintiff Thomas as the Class Representative;
and

   3. Appoint the law firms of Nicholas & Tomasevic, LLP and
Winters
      & Associates as class counsel.

Liberty Mutual is a single-employer-defined benefit corporate
pension plan based in Boston, Massachusetts.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Apr. 5, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xDHyMh at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig M. Nicholas, Esq.
          Alex Tomasevic, Esq.
          NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC, LLP
          225 Broadway, 19th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 325-0492
          Facsimile: (619) 325-0496
          E-mail: cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org
                  atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org

                - and -

          Jack B. Winters, Jr., Esq.
          Sarah Ball, Esq.
          WINTERS & ASSOCIATES
          8489 La Mesa Blvd.
          La Mesa, CA 91942
          Telephone: (619) 234-9000
          Facsimile: (619) 750-0413
          E-mail: jackbwinters@earthlink.net
                  sball@einsurelaw.com

                - and -

          Gordon E. Meyer, Esq.
          GORDON E. MEYER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          8 Winchester Street
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 482-2377
          E-mail: gordon@gmeyerlaw.com

                - and -

          Michelle M. Meyers, Esq.
          SINGLETON SCHREIBER, LLP
          1414 K Street, Suite 470
          Sacramento, CA 95814
          Telephone: (916) 248-8478
          Facsimile: (619) 255-1515
          E-mail: mmeyers@singletonschreiber.com

LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CA: Court Certifies 3 Classes in Berg Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRIZIA BERG, ET AL., v.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, and SHERIFF ALEX VILLANUEVA, in his
individual and official capacities, Case No. 2:20-cv-07870-DMG-PD
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dolly Gee entered an order granting the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as follows:

   1. The Court certifies the following classes:

      Injunctive Relief Class

      "All persons who have in the past participated, presently are

      participating, or may in the future participate in, or be
      present at, demonstrations within the jurisdiction of the
      County of Los Angeles Sheriff's Department ("LASD") in the
      exercise of their rights of free speech, assembly and
petition
      in general, and particularly as it relates to protesting
police
      violence and/or discrimination."

      Arrest Class

      "All persons present at or during the aftermath of protests
      against police misconduct on June 3, 2020 and June 21, 2020,
who
      were arrested by the LASD on misdemeanor charges of failure
to
      obey a curfew or failure to disperse and who were subjected
to
      prolonged hand-cuffing, detained in crowded LASD vehicles,
and
      denied access to bathrooms and water."

      Direct Force Class

      "All persons present at or during the aftermath of protests
      regarding the killing of George Floyd in the County of Los
      Angeles, and similar protests against police misconduct on
      May 30, June 21, Aug. 25, Sept. 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 19 and 25,
2020
      and June 12, 2021 who were engaged in peaceful protest and/or

      observing the proceedings and were subjected to force with
so-
      called "less-lethal weapons," such as rubber bullets or
      projectiles, tear gas, or similar chemical agents, flashbangs

      and/or other similar munitions, by LASD deputies."

   2. The Court certifies the following class representatives:

      Injunctive Relief Class:

      Diana Barbadillo, Krizia Berg, Keyanna Bean, Grace Bryant,
      Noelani del Rosario-Sabet, Taegen Meyer, Serena Militante,
      Christian Monroe, Joe Mischo, Jillian O'Neil, Shakeer Rahman,

      David Ramirz, Jessica Rogers, Vishal Singh, Austin Tharpe,
and
      Devon Young

      Arrest Class:

      Krizia Berg, Serena Militante, Grace Bryant, Noelani del
      Rosario-Sabet, Travis Wells, Christian Monroe, and Austin
      Tharpe.

      Direct Force Class:

      Shakeer Rahman, Vishal Singh, Diana Barbadillo, Jillian
O'Neil,
      Jessica Rogers, Devon Young, Linda Jiang, Taegen Meyer,
Keyanna
      Bean, Austin Tharpe, David Ramirez, and Joe Mischo

   3. The court appoints the following individuals as class
counsel:

      Michael D. Seplow, Paul Hoffman, and John Washington of
      Schonbrun, Seplow, Harris, Hoffman, and Zeldes, LLP; Arnoldo

      Casillas of Casillas and Associates; Colleen M. Mullen of
      McElroy Parris Trial Lawyers, APLC; and Morgan Ricketts and
      Rebecca Brown of Hadsell, Stormer, Renick & Dai, LLP.

   4. By April 19, 2024, the parties shall file a Joint Status
Report
      regarding their plans for the provision of class notice.

On Sept. 22, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed an ex parte application for
Temporary Restraining Order ("TRO") against the Defendants. The
Plaintiffs sought to enjoin LASD from the "indiscriminate" use of
(1) "less-lethal" projectiles on crowds of protesters if there is
no immediate threat and no order to disperse with time to comply
and (2) chemical agents or irritants to disperse or control crowds
of protesters without adequate warnings and time to comply. The
Court denied the TRO and set an expedited briefing schedule for a
motion for preliminary injunction.

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

MARK GEARHART: Civil Trial Order Entered in Race Winning Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RACE WINNING BRANDS, INC.,
v. MARK GEARHART, Case No. 8:22-cv-01446-MRA-DFM (C.D. Cal.), .),
the Hon. Judge Monica Ramirez Almadani entered civil trial order as
follows:

-- Fact and Expert Discovery Cut-Offs:

    The cut-off date for discovery is not the date by which
discovery
    requests must be served; it is the date by which all discovery,

    including all hearings on any related motions, must be
completed

-- Discovery Motions

    Discovery motions are handled by the magistrate judge assigned
to
    the case. Any motion challenging the adequacy of discovery
    responses must be filed, served, and calendared before the
    assigned magistrate judge sufficiently in advance of the
discovery
    cut-off date to permit the responses to be obtained before that

    date if the motion is granted.

-- Expert Disclosures

    All expert disclosures must be made in writing. The parties
should
    begin expert discovery shortly after the initial designation of

    experts.

-- Mandatory Chamber's Copies

    The parties must deliver to Judge Ramírez Almadani's chambers
copy
    box located outside of the Clerk's Office on the fourth floor
of
    the courthouse one (1) mandatory Chambers copy (a paper copy
that
    is sent to Chambers upon electronic filing of the motion) of
all
    filings in connection with Motions for Summary Judgment,
Motions
    for Preliminary Injunction, and Motions for Class
Certification.

A copy of the Court's order dated Apr. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5okWNF at no extra
charge.[CC]

MHF RALPH LLC: Joseph Sues Over Failure to Pay Proper Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Christina Joseph, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. MHF RALPH LLC, MHF MGMT, LLC, MHF MGMT II LLC, MHF MGMT
3 LLC, MHF REMSEN LLC, MHF NEW WINDSOR LLC, MHF MILLER PLACE LLC,
MHF MANORVILLE LLC, MHF HIGHLAND LLC, MHF ELLENVILLE LLC, MHF
CHESTER, LLC, MHF CATSKILL LLC, MHF 86 LLC, MHF 79 LLC, MHF 5TH
AVE, LLC, MHF MONTICELLO, LLC, and ASHISH PARIKH, individually,
Case No. 153078/2024 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New Yotk Cty., April 3, 2024),
is brought for violations of the New York State Labor Law ("NYLL"),
the New York Code of Rules and Regulations ("NYCRR"), The New York
Wage Theft Prevention Act, The New York City Administrative Code
("Fair Workweek Law"), as a result of the Defendants failure to pay
the Plaintiff proper wages.

During the course of her employment, Defendants required Plaintiff
to work shifts spanning two calendar days and with less than 11
hours between the shifts ("clopening"). The Plaintiff did not
consent in writing to working clopening shifts. The Defendants did
not pay Plaintiff an additional $100 premium for each clopening
shift.

The Plaintiff was required by Defendants to work shifts that began
and ended more than 10 hours apart in one day without being paid
one extra hour's pay at minimum wage for every day in which the
interval between their start and end times exceeded ten hours
("spread of hours").

When Plaintiff worked a spread of hours shift, she was entitled to
be paid an additional hour at the minimum wage. Defendants failed
to pay Plaintiff this additional hour for spread of hours shifts.
When Defendants first hired Plaintiff, they did not provide her
with a good faith estimate of the hours, dates, times, and
locations of their expected regular schedule in violation of N.Y.C.
Admin. Code, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a Fast Food Employee as
defined in the Hospitality Industry Wage Order.

MHF RALPH LLC is a domestic corporation organized pursuant to the
laws of the State of New York with a location or multiple locations
throughout New York State and/or New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Gaylord, Esq.
          BOUKLAS GAYLORD LLP
          357 Veterans Memorial Highway
          Commack, NY 11725
          Phone: (516) 742-4949
          Email: mark@bglawny.com


MICHAEL PRIES: Court Narrows Claims in McCollum Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHNNIE MCCOLLUM, v.
MICHAEL H.W. PRIES, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01710-SHR-SM (M.D.
Pa.), the Hon. Judge Sylvia H. Rambo entered an order granting in
part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss
Plaintiff's amended complaint.

On Oct. 28, 2022, while the Plaintiff was incarcerated as a
pretrial detainee at Dauphin County Prison in Harrisburg, he filed
a complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983 against thirteen
Defendants.

In his complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that the events giving rise
to his claims occurred while he was incarcerated as a pretrial
detainee at the Prison and generally concerned the following two
(2) categories: lockdowns and access to religious material.

The Plaintiff, a convicted and sentenced state prisoner is
currently in the custody of the Pennsylvania Department of
Corrections.

A copy of the Court's memorandum dated April 2, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=be61QH at no extra
charge.[CC]

MICROSOFT CORP: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due May 9, 2025
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANE DOE, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-00718-JCC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge
John Coughenour entered an order establishing the following case
schedule:

                     Event                          Date

  Joinder of additional parties:                 March 26, 2025

  Deadline to amend pleadings and/or             March 26, 2025
  add parties:

  Deadline for Plaintiff to serve expert         Feb. 28, 2025
  report(s) relevant for class certification:

  Deadline for Defendants to serve expert        Feb. 28, 2025
  report(s) relevant for class certification:

  Deadline for any rebuttal expert report(s)     Mar. 20, 2025
  relevant for class certification:

  Plaintiff's motion for class certification:    May 9, 2025

  Defendants' response to motion for             June 27, 2025
  class certification

  Plaintiff's reply in support of class          July 19, 2025
  certification

The Court will set the remaining dates, including a discovery
cutoff, after its ruling on Plaintiff's motion for class
certification

Microsoft is an American multinational corporation and technology
company.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aK7aEg at no extra
charge.[CC]

NEW YORK, NY: Bid to Certify Class Referred to Magistrate Judge
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Teagle, et al., v. The
City of New York, et al., Case No. 1:19-cv-07211 (E.D.N.Y., Filed
Dec. 23, 2019), the Hon. Judge Dora Lizette Irizarry entered an
order referring motion to certify class to Magistrate Judge Taryn
A. Merkl for report and recommendations.

The nature of suit states employment discrimination.

New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River
meets the Atlantic Ocean.[CC]

NIKE INC: Seeks Summary Adjudication on Cahill's Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY CAHILL et al., v.
NIKE, INC., an Oregon Corporation, Case No. 3:18-cv-01477-JR (D.
Or.), the Defendant moves the Court for summary adjudication on
named Plaintiff Kelly Cahill's second and third Claims for Relief
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

In compliance with Local Rule 7-1, Nike made a good faith effort to
confer with Cahill's counsel in order to resolve the dispute and
have been unable to do so.

As set forth fully in the accompanying legal memorandum, all of
Cahill's Title VII claims are barred for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies and, therefore, fail as a matter of law.

Accordingly, no triable issues exist with respect to Cahill's Title
VII claims and summary adjudication in favor of Nike is warranted.
In support of this motion, Nike relies on its Legal Memorandum and
the Declaration of Felicia A. Davis in support of its Motion for
Summary
Adjudication that contains the portions of the record relied upon
and cited in the Legal Memorandum.

Cahill's second and third Claims for Relief under Title VII (each
alleging gender discrimination) require her to timely file a charge
with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). The
charge must be filed within 300 days of the allegedly unlawful
discrimination. Cahill did not do so. In fact, Cahill failed to
file a charge with the EEOC at all.

As a result, under black letter law, the Court lacks jurisdiction
over these claims because she failed to exhaust her administrative
remedies.

Nike is an American athletic footwear and apparel corporation

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Apr. 5, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wemT6E at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Felicia A. Davis, Esq.
          Daniel Prince, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          515 South Flower Street, Twenty-Fifth Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-2228
          Telephone: (213) 683-6000
          Facsimile: (213) 627-0705
          E-mail: feliciadavis@paulhastings.com
                  danielprince@paulhastings.com

                - and -

          Laura E. Rosenbaum, Esq.
          STOEL RIVES LLP
          760 SW Ninth Avenue, Suite 300
          Portland, OR 97205
          Telephone: (503) 224-3380
          Facsimile: (503) 220-2480
          E-mail: laura.rosenbaum@stoel.com

NIKE RETAIL: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due August 1
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jones, et al., v. Nike
Retail Services, Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-03343 (E.D.N.Y., Filed June
6, 2022), the Hon. Judge Nina R. Morrison entered an order that:

-- Any motion for class certification must be served by Aug. 1,
2024.

-- The briefing schedule for the motion for class certification
    agreed to by the parties is so ordered.

-- The parties are to electronically file a joint proposed
pretrial
    order in compliance with the district judge's individual rules,

    signed by counsel for each party, on or before Sept. 9, 2024.

-- The April 16, 2024, final conference is adjourned to Sept. 12,

    2024 at 12:30 p.m.

The nature of suit states Other Labor Litigation.

Nike is engaged in the retail sale of men's, women's and children's
footwear.[CC]

NORTH CAROLINA: Plaintiffs Seek Extension to File Class Cert Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOE 1, a minor, by
and through his parent and natural guardian JANE DOE 1; JOHN DOE 2,
a minor, by and through his parent and natural guardian JANE DOE 2;
JOHN DOE 3, a minor, by and through his parent and natural guardian
JANE DOE 3; on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY; EDDIE M.
BUFFALOE, JR., Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Public
Safety, in his official capacity; WILLIAM L. LASSITER, Deputy
Secretary of the Division of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, in his official capacity; PETER BROWN, Facility
Director of the Cabarrus
Regional Juvenile Detention Center, in his official capacity, Case
No. 1:24-cv-00017-LCB-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
to enter an order granting them an extension of time in which to
file a motion for class action determination.

On Feb. 20, 2024, this Court granted a consent motion to extend the
Defendants' responsive pleading deadline to March 21, 2024.

On March 20, 2024, this Court granted a second consent motion to
extend the Defendants' responsive pleading deadline to April 4,
2024.

North Carolina Department of Public Safety is an umbrella agency
that carries out many of the state's law enforcement, emergency
response and homeland security functions.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Apr. 5, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=snFh2C at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Robert L. Lindholm, Esq.
          Donna O. Tillis, Esq.
          Yasmeen Ebbini, Esq.
          Michelle Campbell, Esq.
          Matthew G. Lindenbaum
          NELSON MULLINS RILEY &
          SCARBOROUGH, LLP
          One Wells Fargo Center, 23rd Floor
          301 South College Street
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          Telephone: (704) 417-3000
          E-mail: robert.lindholm@nelsonmullins.com
                  donna.tillis@nelsonmullins.com
                  yasmeen.ebbini@nelsonmullins.com
                  michelle.campbell@nelsonmullins.com
                  matthew.lindenbaum@nelsonmullins.com

                - and -

          Michelle Duprey, Esq.
          COUNCIL FOR CHILDREN'S RIGHTS
          601 E. Fifth Street, Suite 510
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          Telephone: (704) 943-9642
          E-mail: MDuprey@cfcrights.org

The Defendants are represented by:

          Orlando L. Rodriguez, Esq.
          Matthew Tulchin, Esq.
          NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
          Telephone: (919) 716-6900
          Facsimile: (919) 716-6763
          E-mail: mtulchin@ncdoj.gov
                  orodriguez@ncdoj.gov

NURTURE INC: Court Stays Sanchez Suit Pending Ruling on Class Cert
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA SANCHEZ and
BEVERLY CASSEL, on behalf of themselves, the general public and
those similarly situated, v. NURTURE, INC., a Delaware Corporation,
Case No. 5:21-cv-08566-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward J.
Davila entered an order granting Defendant's ex parte application
to stay case:

   1. The case is stayed until the Ninth Circuit issues a final
      decision on the Rule 23(f) petition regarding the denial of
the
      Plaintiffs' motion for class certification without leave to
      amend in Howard v. The Hain Celestial Grp., Inc., No.
3:22-cv-
      527-VC.

   2. The parties shall file a joint status report regarding the
      Pendency of the Ninth Circuit petition every 120 days. Within
14
      days of the Ninth Circuit's issuance of a final decision in
      Howard, the parties shall file a joint status report so
      informing the Court. The joint status report shall include a

      proposed case schedule.

Nurture is engaged in providing learning and development oriented
programs.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 3, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bTpk0n at no extra
charge.[CC]

OLD NAVY LLC: Dalton Files ADA Suit in D. Minnesota
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Old Navy, LLC. The
case is styled as Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Old Navy, LLC, Case No.
0:24-cv-01158-DSD-DTS (D. Minn., April 4, 2024).

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

Old Navy -- https://oldnavy.gap.com/ -- provides the latest
fashions at great prices for the whole family.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason D. Gustafson, Esq.
          Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
          THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
          One Central Avenue West, Suite 203
          St. Michael, MN 55376
          Phone: (763) 515-6110
          Email: jason@throndsetlaw.com
                 pat@throndsetlaw.com



OLDS PRODUCTS: Court Decertifies Quiroga Collective Action
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Quiroga v. Olds Products
Co of Illinois, Case No. 2:22-cv-00390 (E.D. Wisc., Filed March 29,
2022), the Hon. Judge Stephen C. Dries entered an order granting
the defendant's motion for decertification.

The Court said that because no individuals opted in by the
deadline, the court decertifies the conditionally certified
collective action. The plaintiff's class certification motion
remains due on May 3, 2024.

The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Olds Products produces and sells mustards.[CC]


OSF HEALTHCARE: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Hanson Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hanson v. OSF Healthcare
System, Case No. 1:23-cv-01122-MMM-JEH (C.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge
Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as follows:

   -- Rule 16 scheduling conference

      The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
      30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
      The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.

   -- Discovery plan

      The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
      calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.

   -- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference

      If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
      plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
      conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
      discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
      within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16

      scheduling conference be cancelled.

   -- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing

      For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
      by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a

      telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to

      appear for an in-person hearing.

   -- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the

      discovery deadline has already passed

      The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court

      after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
      disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the

      relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
      raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
      discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
      the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
      discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
      discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
      they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move

      that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any

      subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.

   -- Settlement conferences and mediation

      The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or

      mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
      settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
      Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.

OSF is a not-for-profit Catholic health care organization that
operates a medical group, hospital system, and other health care
facilities in Illinois and Michigan.

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

PARAMOUNT COIN: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due August 12
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK MAHONEY, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. PARAMOUNT COIN AND
COLLECTIBLES LLC, Case No. 9:24-cv-80032-MD (S.D. Fla.), the Hon.
Judge Melissa Damian entered an order setting trial and pre-trial
schedule, requiring mediation, and referring certain matters to
Magistrate Judge:

The parties shall adhere to the following schedule:

-- The parties shall select a mediator in             April 25,
2024
    accordance  with Local Rule 16.2:

-- The parties shall file all motions to amend        May 16, 2024

    pleadings or to join parties:
-- Deadline for completing class certification        July 15,
2024
    Discovery:

-- Plaintiffs file motion for class                   Aug. 12,
2024
    Certification:

-- Parties exchange expert witness                    Nov. 12,
2024
    summaries or reports:

-- Parties exchange rebuttal witness                  Nov. 25,
2024
    summaries or reports.

Paramount Coin offers a wide selection of bullion, shipwreck, and
rare coins.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 4, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CqUqQK at no extra
charge.[CC]

PAXTON MEDIA: Class Settlement in Bowen Gets Initial Nod
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM BOWEN et al., v.
PAXTON MEDIA GROUP, LLC, Case No. 5:21-cv-00143-GNS-LLK (W.D. Ky.),
the Hon. Judge Greg Stivers entered an order granting the
Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class
action settlement.

-- The Settlement Class is conditionally certified, solely for
    purposes of settlement of the Class Action, pursuant to Fed. R.

    Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3), and shall consist of:

    "All natural persons residing in the United States whose
personal
    identifiable information was compromised in the Data Security
    Incident that occurred in February and March 2021 and who
received
    notice from Paxton Media Group, LLC of that Data Security
    Incident.

This is a class action arising from a third-party criminal data
breach of employees' personally identifiable information ("PII") at
the Defendant.

Paxton publishes printed and online news.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 3, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9LWxNO at no extra
charge.[CC]

PLURALSIGHT INC: Plaintiffs' Bid for Class Certification OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as INDIANA PUBLIC RETIREMENT
SYSTEM and PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS' PENSION AND RETIREMENT FUND OF
CHICAGO, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. PLURALSIGHT, INC., AARON SKONNARD, and JAMES BUDGE,
Case No. 1:19-cv-00128-DBB-DAO (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge David
Barlow entered an order denying without prejudice the Defendants'
motion to clarify memorandum decision and granting Lead Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification and appointment of Class
Representatives and Class Counsel.

The Defendants are granted leave to refile the motion should the
parties not be able to reach a settlement.

On Jan. 24, 2024, the Defendants filed their motion to clarify
memorandum decision and order granting Lead Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification and appointment of class representatives and
class counsel.

On March 13, 2024, the parties filed a notice of settlement,
indicating that the parties have reached an agreement in
principle.

Pluralsight offers a variety of video training courses for software
developers, IT administrators, and creative professionals.

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

POST ACUTE MEDICAL: Suit Removed to M.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as John Doe, individually, as personal
representative of the estate of Jane Doe, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Post Acute Medical, LLC doing business
as: PAM Health, Case No. 24-02374 was removed from the Court of
Common Pleas of Cumberland County, to the U.S. District Court for
the Middle District of Pennsylvania on April 1, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-00547-CCC to the
proceeding.

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

Post Acute Medical, LLC -- https://www.pamhealth.com/ -- provides
long term acute care and rehabilitation services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
          223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue
          Freedom Building, Ste. 200
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Phone: (615) 254-8801
          Fax: (615) 250-3937
          Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com

               - and -

          Lynn Toops, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD, LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Phone: (317) 636-6481

               - and -

          Patrick Howard, Esq.
          SALTZ, MONGELUZZI, BARRETT & BENDESKY, P.C.
          One Liberty Place, 52nd Floor
          1650 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (215) 575-3986
          Fax: (215) 496-0999
          Email: phoward@smbb.com

               - and -

          Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
          TURKE & STRAUSS, LLP
          613 Williamson Street, Suite 201
          Madison, WI 53703
          Phone: (608) 237-1775

The Defendant is represented by:

          Edward J. McAndrew, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          1735 Market Street, Suite 3300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (202) 664-2939
          Email: emcandrew@bakerlaw.com

               - and -

          Nathalie Anne Freeman, Esq.
          BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
          1735 Market Street, Suite 3300
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Phone: (402) 802-8101
          Email: nfreeman@bakerlaw.com


POSTECH FASHION: Love Files TCPA Suit in D. Minnesota
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Postech Fashion, Inc.
The case is styled as Michelle Love, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Postech Fashion, Inc. doing
business as: Chicme, Case No. 0:24-cv-01121-JWB-JFD (D. Minn.,
April 2, 2024).

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

Postech Fashion, Inc. doing business as Chic Me --
https://www.chicme.com/en/ -- is a global fashion retailer offering
trendy, body-hugging styles clothing at ultra affordable
prices.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shawn J. Wanta, Esq.
          Scott Moriarity, Esq.
          WANTA THOME PLC
          100 South Fifth Street, Ste. 1200
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Phone: (612) 252-3570
          Fax: (612) 252-3571
          Email: sjwanta@wantathome.com
                 samoriarity@wantathome.com


PRATT LLC: Villa Suit Removed to E.D. California
------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Rigoberto Villa, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. PRATT (LATHROP CORRUGATING),
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-2550 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Joaquin, to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California on April 3, 2024, and assigned Case No.
2:24-at-00413.

The Complaint brings putative class claims for alleged: Failure to
Pay Minimum and Straight Time Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages;
Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit
Rest Periods; Failure to Timely Pay Final Wages at Termination;
Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements; Failure to
Indemnify Employees for Expenditures; Failure to Produce Requested
Employment Records; and Unfair Business Practices.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jared L Palmer, Esq.
          Carolyn B Hall, Esq.
          Jenny J Liao, Esq.
          OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          One Embarcadero Center, Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: 415-442-4810
          Facsimile: 415-442-4870
          Email: jared.palmer@ogletree.com
                 carolyn.hall@ogletree.com
                 jenny.liao@ogletree.com


PROJECT E BEAUTY: Fontan Sues Over False Skin Rejuvenation Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DAVID FONTAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PROJECT E BEAUTY, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
4:24-cv-02167 (N.D. Cal., April 11, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of the California's Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, California's Consumers Unfair Competition Law, and
California's False Advertising Law, and for breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty, and unjust enrichment.

The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of the Project E
Skin Rejuvenation Photon Mask. According to the complaint, the
Defendant markets and sells the Mask, a light-emitting diode (LED)
light therapy device that purportedly treats various skin
conditions. However, contrary to the Defendant's representations
and warranties, the Mask is not capable of providing the skin
rejuvenating benefits that it purports to provide, as its power
density output is too low to be effective. The Plaintiff and the
Class members would not have purchased the product or would not
have paid as much to purchase it had they known that it was, in
fact, not capable of producing the power density output necessary
to elicit the promised skin rejuvenating effects. The Plaintiff and
the Class members thus suffered monetary damages as a result of the
Defendant's false and deceptive representations and omissions, says
the suit.

Project E Beauty, LLC is a beauty tech company with its principal
place of business in Delaware. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
         Jenna L. Gavenman, Esq.
         Joshua R. Wilner, Esq.
         Joshua B. Glatt, Esq.
         BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
         1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
         Walnut Creek, CA 94596
         Telephone: (925) 300-4455
         Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
         Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
                jgavenman@bursor.com
                jwilner@bursor.com
                jglatt@bursor.com

                 - and -

         Greg Sinderbrand, Esq.
         SINDERBRAND LAW GROUP, P.C.
         5805 Sepulveda Blvd. #801
         Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
         Telephone: (818) 370-3912
         Email: greg@sinderbrandlaw.com

PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE: Class Cert Bid Filing Due July 22
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Parmenter v. The
Prudential Insurance Company of America, et al., Case No.
1:22-cv-10079 (D. Mass., Filed Jan. 20, 2022), the Hon. Judge
Richard G. Stearns entered a pretrial schedule order:

-- Initial disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ.       April 26,
2024
    P. 26(a)(1) will be completed by:

-- If there is disagreement as to the                 July 5,
2024
    delineation of the plaintiff class,
    class discovery will be completed by:

-- Class certification motions will be                July 22,
2024

                with any opposition by:                Aug. 8. 2024


-- All fact discovery will be completed by:           Sept. 6,
2024

-- If class discovery and certification               Dec. 6,
2024
    is necessary, all fact discovery will
    be completed by:

The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA).

Prudential operates as an insurance company.[CC]

PUP CULTURE: Villela Seeks Denial of Bid to Disqualify Counsel
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASHLEY VILELLA et al., v
PUP CULTURE LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-02291-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Lewis Liman entered an order denying the Defendants'
motion to disqualify counsel.

The Defendants move to disqualify the Lee Litigation Group and
attorney C.K. Lee from representing the Plaintiff, any opt-ins in
this case, and any members of the collective or potential class.

The Court cannot say that LLG and C.K. Lee acted with a lack of
candor to the Court and the evidence falls far short of
establishing that counsel acted unfairly to their adversary.

The Plaintiff filed this case on March 17, 2023, as a putative
collective and class action, complaining of violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law
("NYLL") against Pup Culture LLC and its owner.

On Sept. 28, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint.
On
Nov. 17, 2023, the Court granted the Plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification of the case as a FLSA collective action.

Pup Culture is a dog walking and Pet Sitting company.

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

RADIOLOGY PARTNERS: Petty Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Kyle E. Petty, an individual, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. RADIOLOGY PARTNERS
MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV05436 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,
to the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on April 5, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-02806.

The Plaintiff premises his claims on Defendant's alleged violation
of the California Labor Code. Specifically, Plaintiff claims that
Defendant violated the Labor Code by: failing to pay Plaintiff and
the putative class members minimum wages for all hours worked;
failing to pay Plaintiff and the putative class members all wages,
including overtime; failing to provide Plaintiff and the putative
class members with meal periods in accordance with California law;
failing to provide Plaintiff and the putative class members with
rest periods in accordance with California law; failing to provide
Plaintiff and the putative class members with accurate itemized
wage statements; failing to timely pay Plaintiff and the putative
class members wages during employment; failing to pay Plaintiff and
the putative class members wages owed at separation; failing to
maintain accurate employment records; failing to produce employment
records; (10) failing to reimburse Plaintiff and the putative class
members for all necessary business expenses; and unfair
competition.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq.
          Jennifer A. Riley, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          190 South LaSalle Street, Suite 3700
          Chicago, IL 60603-3433
          Phone: +1 312 499 6700
          Email: gmaatman@duanemorris.com
                 jariley@duanemorris.com

               - and -

          Nick Baltaxe, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          865 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3100
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5450
          Phone: +1 213 689 7400
          Email: nbaltaxe@duanemorris.com


RED & BLUE DICE: Clark Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Clark, individually and on behalf of similarly situated
persons v. RED & BLUE DICE CORPORATION, RED & BLUE DICE 2
CORPORATION, and AZHARUL ISLAM, Case No. 2:24-cv-01386 (E.D. Pa.,
April 3, 2024), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime hours owed
to herself and similarly situated delivery drivers employed by
Defendants at its Domino's stores.

The Defendants employ delivery drivers who use their own
automobiles to deliver pizza and other food items to their
customers. However, instead of reimbursing delivery drivers for the
reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their vehicles,
Defendants use a flawed method to determine reimbursement rates
that provides such an unreasonably low rate beneath any reasonable
approximation of the expenses they incur that the drivers'
unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall below the federal
minimum wage during some or all workweeks (nominal wages –
unreimbursed vehicle costs = subminimum net wages), says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from October 2022 to
February 2023 as a delivery driver at Defendants' Domino's store.

The Defendants operate numerous Domino's Pizza franchise
stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick Howard, Esq.
          SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY, P.C.
          120 Gibraltar Road, Suite 218
          Horsham, PA 19044
          Phone: (215) 496-8282
          Fax: (215) 754-4443
          Email: phoward@smbb.com


RETINA CONSULTANTS: Bartek Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Stuart Bartek, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RETINA CONSULTANTS OF HOUSTON, PLLC d/b/a RETINA
CONSULTANTS OF TEXAS, Case No. 4:24-cv-01272 (S.D. Tex., April 5,
2024), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other
damages owed in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)

The Plaintiff and other Network Systems Technician for the
Defendant regularly worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. But the
Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff and the other Network Systems
Technicians overtime when they worked in excess of 40 hours in a
week, as required by the FLSA. Instead, the Defendant improperly
classified the Plaintiff and the other underwriters as exempt
employees and paid them a salary with no overtime compensation.
This action seeks to recover the unpaid overtime wages and other
damages owed by the Defendant to these workers, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a Network Systems
Technician.

The Defendant provides medical and surgical retinal care throughout
Texas.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
          PARMET PC
          3 Riverway, Ste. 1910
          Houston, TX 77056
          Phone: 713 999 5228
          Email: matt@parmet.law


REUTERS NEWS: Collects Users' IP Addresses Without Consent, Xu Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ZHIZHI XU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. REUTERS NEWS & MEDIA, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-02466 (S.D.N.Y., April 1, 2024) arises from the
Defendant's conduct of installing and using Trackers on Plaintiff's
and Class Members' browsers to collect Plaintiff's and Class
Members' IP addresses in violation of the California Invasion of
Privacy Act.

When users visit the website, reuters.com, the Defendant causes
three Trackers -- the Sharethrough Tracker, Omnitag Tracker, and
TripleLift Tracker -- to be installed on website visitors' internet
browsers. By installing and using these Trackers without
Plaintiff's prior consent and without a court order.

The Plaintiff brings this action to prevent Defendant from further
violating the privacy rights of California residents, and to
recover statutory damages for Defendant's violation of CIPA.

Reuters News & Media, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in New York, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
          Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
          Max S. Roberts, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-7150
          Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
          E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com
                  aleslie@bursor.com
                  mroberts@bursor.com

ROADMASTER DRIVERS: Filing of Class Cert Bid Due May 22
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRADLEY MEEHAN and CESAR
E. CIRVERA SANTAMARIA, on behalf of themselves and those similar
situated, v. ROADMASTER DRIVERS SCHOOL, INC., Case No.
5:22-cv-04299-JMG (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge John M. Gallagher
entered sixth amended scheduling order as follows:

   1. The Parties' deadline to file a motion for preliminary
approval
      of a class action settlement shall be April 26, 2024.

   2. The Plaintiffs' deadline to file a motion for class
      certification shall be May 22, 2024, Defendants' deadline to

      respond shall be June 5, 2024, and Plaintiffs' deadline to
file
      a reply brief in further support of the motion shall be June
12,
      2024.

   3. Motions for summary judgment and Daubert motions, if any,
shall
      be filed by July 23, 2024. Responses shall be filed no later

      than August 7, 2024. Motions and responses shall be filed
      in the form prescribed in Judge Gallagher's Policies and
      Procedures

   4. All other dates and deadlines set forth in the Scheduling
Order
      remain in full effect.

Roadmaster is a drivers education and testing company.

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

ROCK SPRING: Class Settlement  in Rosales Suit Approved
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GUILLERMO PEREZ ROSALES,
v. ROCK SPRING CONTRACTING LLC, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00407-RCY
(E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Roderick C. Young entered an order
granting the parties' joint motion to approve settlement.

The Court finds that the agreed-upon attorneys' fees award --
a$100,000.00, or 27% of the Gross Settlement Amount—is fair and
reasonable.

The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated both the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and Virginia state law by failing to pay
overtime wages to their laborers.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs claim "that from the three years
preceding the filing of the Complaint, laborers were not properly
paid their overtime for all hours worked over forty in a week."

The Plaintiffs are drywall mechanics, drywall finishers, and
associated laborers.

Rock provides demolition, drywall, demountable walls, raised access
floors and dumpster and hauling services to general contractors.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fsbJDV at no extra
charge.[CC]

RTB CONSUMER: Class Certification Bid Denied w/o Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Google RTB Consumer Privacy
Litigation, Case No. 4:21-cv-02155-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order:

-- granting in part and denying in part Google's Daubert motion
    against Professor Richards;

-- denying as moot the Plaintiffs' Daubert motion against Google's

    expert Bruce Deal;

-- denying with prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for class
    certification under Rule 23(b)(3); and

-- denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion for class
    certification under Rule 23(b)(2).

The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class consisting of all individual
Google account holders subject to a Google United States Terms of
Service whose personal information was sold or shared by
Google in its RTB auctions after June 28, 2016.

The Plaintiffs assert: Although Google repeatedly promises its
account holders that it has not, does not, and will not sell their
personal
information, they have garnered common evidence that Google sells
this this type of data billions of times each day to hundreds of
participating advertisers.

This common evidence, the Plaintiffs conclude, justifies class
certification. Google objects. It urges that individualized issues
will predominate on the critical issue of whether individual
account holders have consented to its RTB data collection.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 4, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QDqhyu at no extra
charge.[CC]

RUSSELL INVESTMENT: Johnson Bid to Seal Docs Nixed
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Johnson v. Russell
Investment Management LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-21735 (S.D. Fla., Filed
June 7, 2022), the Hon. Judge Robert N. Scola, Jr. entered an order
denying the Plaintiff's unopposed motion to seal and requiring the
parties to jointly show cause why the Court should not order the
Plaintiff to immediately refile an unredacted version of her motion
for class certification.

The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act Involving breaches of fiduciary duties.

Russell operates as an investment management firm.[CC]



RYDER INTEGRATED: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Dec. 30
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIFFENY NANCE, on behalf
of herself and the Class Members, v. RYDER INTEGRATED LOGISTICS,
INC., a Delaware Corporation; and RYDER SYSTEM, INC., a Florida
Corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-00477-TLN-JDP (E.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Troy Nunley entered an order that:

   1. All current and pending discovery in this case is stayed for

      60 days.

   2. The Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion for class
      certification is extended by 60 days to December 30, 2024.

On March 13, 2023, the Plaintiff filed her class-action complaint
for
damages against Ryder.

On Oct. 24, 2023, Ryder and the parties in the Perkins and Johnson
actions participated in a successful mediation and agreed to a
settlement in principle that, by definition, Ryder states
encompasses the putative class and claims alleged in the
Plaintiff's Class Action.

On Jan. 3, 2024, the Parties stipulated to stay discovery in this
case by 30 days in exchange for Ryder providing the executed
Settlement Agreement to counsel in this case when it is fully
executed, to give the Parties time to meet and confer regarding the
impact of the Perkins/Johnson settlement on this case.

On Feb. 1, 2024, the Parties stipulated to stay discovery for
another 30 days and to extend Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion
for class certification by sixty days, as the Perkins/Johnson
settlement had not been fully drafted.

Ryder provides transportation services.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 3, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=o7dvNa at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq.
          Ori Edelstein, Esq.
          Eugene Zinovyev, Esq.
          SCHNEIDER WALLACE
          COTTRELL KONECKY LLP
          2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
          Emeryville, CA 94608
          Telephone: (415) 421-7100
          E-mail: ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com
                  oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com
                  ezinovyev@schneiderwallace.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Mara D. Curtis, Esq.
          Rafael N. Tumanyan, Esq.
          Tanner J. Hendershot, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2900
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-1514
          Telephone: (213) 457-8000
          Facsimile: (213) 457-8080
          E-mail: mcurtis@reedsmith.com
                  mcurtis@reedsmith.com
                  thendershot@reedsmith.com

S.Y.M. INC: Stroude Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against S.Y.M, Inc. The case
is styled as Colette Stroude, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. S.Y.M, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-02413
(E.D.N.Y., April 1, 2024).

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

Sym Inc. was founded in 2006. The company's line of business
includes providing employment services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SALVATION ARMY: Sanchez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Salvation Army
Golden State Division, et al. The case is styled as Jesse Sanchez,
individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees
v. The Salvation Army Golden State Division, Case No. 24CV070370
(Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., April 4, 2024).

The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."

The Salvation Army is an international movement, is an evangelical
part of the universal Christian Church.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan M. Genish, Esq.
          BLACKSTONE LAW
          8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442
          Phone: 855-786-6355
          Fax: 855-786-6356
          Email: jgenish@blackstonepc.com


SANDUSKY, OH: McGory Seeks Class Certification
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Blake McGory, et al., v.
City of Sandusky, Ohio, Case No. 3:24-cv-00567-JJH (N.D. Ohio), the
Plaintiff ask the Court granting motion for class certification:

   "All present and future owners of rental estate located within
the
   limits of the City of Sandusky, Ohio, whose properties are in a

   residentially zoned district and abut a state highway."

Sandusky is an Ohio city on the shores of Lake Erie. It's known for
its family attractions, including water, wildlife and amusement
parks.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 4, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ld1eUd at no extra
charge.[CC]

SANSUM CLINIC: Court Stays Rose Suit Pending Mediation
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW ROSE, JEREMY
LEBMAN, PATRICIA HERVEY, DON DEFRANCIA, and STEPHANIE RAY on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SANSUM CLINIC
and META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-08180-JFW-MAA (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge John Walter entered an order granting
stipulation to stay action pending mediation:

   1. The action is stayed pending completion of the June 6, 2024
      mediation with Hon. Suzanne H. Segal;

   2. The Parties will file a joint statement no later than seven
(7)
      days after the June 6, 2024 mediation to notify the Court of
the
      outcome of mediation and their intended next steps; and

   3. In the event that mediation is unsuccessful, the Parties will

      include in their joint statement a proposed schedule for the
      Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

Sansum is a non-profit organization that has been providing
innovative healthcare services in Santa Barbara County.

A copy of the Court's order dated Apr. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BqcUzM at no extra
charge.[CC]

SAZERAC COMPANY: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to May 21
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER MCKAY, TERRY
MYERS, and DAWN OUTLAW, as individuals, on behalf of themselves,
the general public, and those similarly situated, v. SAZERAC
COMPANY, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00522-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Edward M. Chen entered an order extending class certification
briefing schedule as follows:

               Event                   Current            
Proposed
                                       Deadline           
Deadline

  Deadline for Plaintiff to          April 30, 2024      May 21,
2024
  file the motion for class
  certification and any expert
  report(s) in support thereof:

  Deadline for Defendant to          July 15, 2024       Aug. 5,
2024
  oppose the motion for class
  certification and produce any
  expert report(s) in support of
  its opposition

  Deadline for Plaintiff to          Sept. 6, 2024       Sept.
27,2024
  file the reply in support of
  motion for class Certification
  Plaintiff's Rebuttal Experts
  on Certification

Sazerac is a privately held American alcoholic beverage company.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 4, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=k8emtI at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Seth A. Safier, Esq.
          Marie A. McCrary, Esq.
          Rajiv V. Thairani, Esq.
          GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 639-9090
          Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
          E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com
                  marie@gutridesafier.com
                  rajiv@gutridesafier.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kent J. Schmidt, Esq.
          Creighton R. Magid, Esq.
          DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
          600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 2000
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 800-1400
          Facsimile: (714) 800-1499
          E-mail: schmidt.kent@dorsey.com
                  magid.chip@dorsey.com

SEROQUEL XR: Direct Purchaser Class Certified in Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: Seroquel XR (Extended Release
Quetiapine Fumarate) Antitrust Litigation, Case No.
1:20-cv-01076-CFC (D. Del.), the Hon. Judge Colm Connolly entered
an order that:

   1. Appointing RG/2 to serve as the Notice Administrator for the
      Direct Purchaser Class and to assist Lead Counsel in
      disseminating the Notice. All expenses incurred by the Notice

      Administrator must be reasonable and are subject to Court
      Approval;

   2. The proposed notice program and proposed form of Notice
      Constitute the best notice to members of the Direct Purchaser

      Class that is practicable under the circumstances, comply in
all
      Respects with the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(2),
and
      are in the interest of judicial economy and justice.

   3. Lead Counsel for the Class, Garwin Gerstein & Fisher, LLP,
shall
      cause the Notice substantially in the form submitted to be
      disseminated by the Notice Administrator within 14 days
      following the date of this order via U.S. First Class mail to

      the last known address of each member of the Direct Purchaser

      Class.

   4. Members of the Direct Purchaser Class may request exclusion
form
      the Direct Purchaser Class in writing postmarked no later
than
      45 days after the date the Notice is mailed to each member of

      the Class, which deadline shall be set forth in the Notice.
Lead
      counsel or their designee shall monitor and record any and
all
      opt-out requests that are received.

The "Direct Purchaser Class" has been certified under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(b)(3):

      "All persons or entities in the United States, including its

      territories, possessions, and the Commonwealth of Puerto
Rico,
      who purchased 50 mg, 150 mg, 200 mg, and/or 300 mg strength
of
      brand or generic Seroquel XR directly form any of the
Defendants
      at any time from Aug. 2, 2015 until Apr. 30, 2017.

      Excluded from the Class are the Defendants and their
officers,
      directors, management and employees, predecessors,
subsidiaries
      and affiliates, and all federal government entities.

A copy of the Court's order dated Apr. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ErKJKN at no extra
charge.[CC]

SHAKLEE CORP: Faces Liz Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
PEDRO LIZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. Shaklee Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-02448 (S.D.N.Y., April 1, 2024) is a civil rights action
against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, Shaklee.com, to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.

The Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of a
wellness set on Shaklee.com. He was looking online for a complex
wellness package that could assist him in achieving his health
objectives. Being health-conscious and dedicated to maintaining a
balanced lifestyle, he tried to find a wellness product that would
contain all the necessary vitamins and minerals for his overall
well-being. He discovered the Defendant's website and attempted to
select a suitable pack, but he faced difficulties while navigating
the website due to its accessibility issues, which prevented him
from completing the purchase, says the suit.

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

Shaklee Corporation is an American manufacturer and multi-level
marketing distributor of natural nutrition supplements,
weight-management products, beauty products, and household
products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
          GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
          1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
          Manhasset, NY 11030
          Telephone: (347) 941-4715   
          E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com

SHOGY MARKETPLACE: Faces Velasquez Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LUIS VELASQUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SHOGY MARKETPLACE CORPORATION d/b/a
MANHATTAN MARKETPLACE & ORGANICS, and HAFTHADYN SALEH, Defendants,
Case No. 1:24-cv-02745 (S.D.N.Y., April 11, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum and overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.

The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt stock
person, cashier, food preparer/kitchen worker, porter, and food
delivery worker at Manhattan Marketplace & Organics Restaurant from
August 2022 through on or about March 18, 2024.

Shogy Marketplace Corporation is a company that owns and operates a
market and restaurant doing business as Manhattan Marketplace &
Organics," located at 196 First Avenue, New York, New York. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         Justin Cilenti, Esq.
         Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
         CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
         60 East 42nd Street - 40th Floor
         New York, NY 10165
         Telephone: (212) 209-3933
         Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
         Email: info@jcpclaw.com

SIGNIFY HEALTH: Court Junks ARPI Bid to File Amended Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ABANTE ROOTER AND
PLUMBING, INC., v. SIGNIFY HEALTH, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-06234-RS
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order
denying motion for leave to file amended complaint and to show
cause why the action should not be dismissed.

In light of Abante's apparent concession that it has no claim
against defendant in this action, Abante is ordered to show cause
within two weeks of the date of this order why the action should
not be dismissed. In the event no response to this order is timely
filed, the case will be dismissed without further notice.

The Plaintiff Rooter and Plumbing filed a motion for leave to file
an amended complaint under which it would no longer be a party, and
a new plaintiff would instead take over.

Abante's motion for leave to amend effectively concedes it has no
claim arising from the phone calls alleged in the complaint, and
that it would not even be a member of the putative class (unless it
separately received calls from defendants, which it does not
allege).

Signify Health designs and develops software solutions.

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


SKYC MANAGEMENT: Andujar Seeks Conditional Status of Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICTOR ANDUJAR,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly-situated, v.
SKYC MANAGEMENT LLC, 674 HOLDING LTD., SHIMON GREISMAN and GARY
GARTENBERG, Case No. 1:23-cv-08764-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section
216(b):

   (1) Conditionally certifying this case as a collective action
with
       respect to current and former superintendents of all
       residential apartment buildings owned and operated by the
       Defendants – who, while performing work for Defendants at
any
       time between Oct. 5, 2020 and the present, did not receive
pay
       at least at the minimum wage rate for all hours worked
and/or
       overtime compensation for all hours over 40 that they worked
in
       a workweek;

   (2) Requiring Defendants, within 14 days of the Court’s Order,
to
       produce a computer-readable data file containing the names,

       last known mailing addresses, all known home and mobile
       telephone numbers, all known email addresses, work
locations,
       dates of employment, and primary languages spoken of all
       potential collective action members who worked for
Defendants
       at any point from Oct. 5, 2020 to the present;

   (3) Permitting Plaintiff to disseminate notice of this action in

       the form attached to the Declaration of Marc A. Rapaport,
Esq.
       as Exhibit H (“Notice”) and Exhibit I (“Reminder
Notice”) in
       English, Spanish, and any other language identified by the
       Defendants, via regular mail, e-mail (Exhibit J) and text
       message (Exhibit K) and permitting a sixty-day opt-in
period;

   (4) Tolling the FLSA statute of limitations from the date of
filing
       of this motion until such time as the Court resolves this
       motion; and

   (5) Granting any other further relief that the Court deems just
and
       proper.

Sky operates as a privately funded and managed real estate
company.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Apr. 5, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SoBRpd at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc A. Rapaport, Esq.
          RAPAPORT LAW FIRM, PLLC
          80 Eighth Avenue, Suite 206
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (212) 382-1600

SOHO HOTEL OWNER: Anderson Files ADA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Soho Hotel Owner,
LLC. The case is styled as Derrick Anderson, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, v. Soho Hotel Owner, LLC, Inc.,
Case No. 1:24-cv-02575-KAM-RML (E.D.N.Y., April 5, 2024).

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

Soho Hotel Owner, LLC doing business as 11 Howard --
https://www.11howard.com/ -- is an innovative hotel located in
SoHo, at the crossroads of the Bowery, Chinatown and Little
Italy.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SOUTHSTATE BANK: Clark Files Suit in M.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SouthState Bank N.A.
The case is styled as Suzann Clark, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. South State Bank N.A., Case No.
8:24-cv-00829-CEH-SPF (M.D. Fla., April 4, 2024).

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

SouthState Bank -- https://www.southstatebank.com/personal -- based
in Winter Haven, Florida, is an American bank based in Florida and
a subsidiary of SouthState Corporation, a bank holding
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven Sukert, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Ostrow, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA
          1 W Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33131
          Phone: (954) 284-1520
          Fax: (954) 525-4300
          Email: sukert@kolawyers.com
                 ostrow@kolawyers.com


SOUTHSTATE BANK: Dailey Files Suit in M.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SouthState Bank N.A.
The case is styled as Rodney Dailey, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. South State Bank N.A., Case No.
8:24-cv-00846-MSS-AEP (M.D. Fla., April 5, 2024).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.

SouthState Bank -- https://www.southstatebank.com/personal -- based
in Winter Haven, Florida, is an American bank based in Florida and
a subsidiary of SouthState Corporation, a bank holding
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Peerce Howard, Esq.
          THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM
          Truist Place
          401 E Jackson Street, Suite 2340
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Phone: (813) 500-1500
          Fax: (813) 435-2369
          Email: Billy@theconsumerprotectionfirm.com

               - and -

          Amanda J. Allen, Esq.
          THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM, PLLC
          SunTrust Financial Center
          401 E Jackson St Ste 2340
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Phone: (813) 500-1500
          Fax: (813) 435-2369
          Email: Amanda@Theconsumerprotectionfirm.com


SOUTHSTATE BANK: Flott Files Suit in M.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SouthState Bank, N.A.
The case is styled as Ashley Flott, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. SouthState Bank, N.A., Case No.
8:24-cv-00826-KKM-TGW (M.D. Fla., April 3, 2024).

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

SouthState -- https://www.southstatebank.com/personal -- is one of
the leading regional banks in the Southeast.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Srourian, Esq.
          SROURIAN LAW FIRM
          3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1710
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Phone: (213) 474-3800

               - and -

          Mason A. Barney, Esq.
          Tyler James Bean
          SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
          745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
          New York, NY 10151
          Phone: (212) 532-1097
          Email: tbean@sirillp.com

               - and -

          Jessica Wallace, Esq.
          SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
          20200 West Dixie Highway
          Seventeenth Floor, Suite 902
          Aventura, NY 33180
          Phone: (786) 244-5660
          Fax: (646) 417-5967
          Email: jwallace@sirillp.com


SOUTHSTATE BANK: Fullwood-Demps Files Suit in M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SouthState Bank, N.A.
The case is styled as Damica Fullwood-Demps, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. SouthState Bank, N.A.,
Case No. 6:24-cv-00662-PGB-EJK (M.D. Fla., April 5, 2024).

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

SouthState Bank -- https://www.southstatebank.com/personal -- based
in Winter Haven, Florida, is an American bank based in Florida and
a subsidiary of SouthState Corporation, a bank holding
company.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Jibrael S. Hindi, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
          110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 1744
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Phone: (954) 907-1136
          Fax: (855) 529-9540
          Email: jibrael@jibraellaw.com


STATE STREET CORP: Settlement Class in Gomes Initially Certified
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Elizabeth Gomes, Eva M.
Connors, Jennifer Bowen, Katisha Shoulders, Kenneth N. Marenga,
Pamela Prisco Carpenter, Steven Peters and Zhanna Karp,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
State Street Corporation, State Street Bank & Trust Company, North
America Regional Benefits Committee of State Street Corporation,
Investment Committee of State Street Corporation, and Jane and John
Does 1-20, Case No. 1:21-cv-10863-MLW (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge
Mark Wolf entered an order
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order preliminary
certifying Settlement Class defined as:

   "All Participants and beneficiaries in the State Street Salary
   Savings Plan Program from May 25, 2015, tnrough the date of
entry  
   of the Preliminary Approval Order, inclusive."

State Street is a global financial services and bank holding
company.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 3, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8nfpwe at no extra
charge.[CC]

SUNPATH LTD: Class Cert Bid Filing in Morales Reset to Sept. 27
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Morales, et al., v.
Sunpath Ltd., et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-01376 (D. Del., Filed Oct.
9, 2020), the Hon. Judge Jennifer L. Hall entered an order
resetting scheduling order deadlines as follows:

-- Motion for class certification:              Sept. 27, 2024

-- Opposition to motion for class               Nov. 8, 2024
    certification due:

-- Reply to motion for class                    Dec. 20, 2024
    certification due:

-- Discovery due by:                            Dec. 20, 2024

-- Dispositive motions due by:                  April 29, 2025

-- A Pretrial Conference is set for:            Sept. 3, 2025

-- A 5-day Jury Trial is set for:               Sept. 15, 2025

The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

SunPath specializes in the Automotive area.[CC]

T.L. CANNON: Seeks Summary Judgment in Dees Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMMY DEES and DAKOTA
BOLAND, v. T.L. CANNON CORP., d/b/a APPLEBEES, T.L. CANNON
MANAGEMENT CORP.; TLC WEST, LLC; TLC CENTRAL, LLC; TLC UTICA, LLC;
TLC EAST, LLC; AND TLC NORTH, LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-01537-BKS-MJK
(N.D.N.Y.), the Defendants will cross move the Court for an Order,
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56:

-- granting summary judgment in favor to them,

-- dismissing Plaintiffs' First, Third, and Fourth Claims for
relief
    of their complaint, with prejudice, and

-- granting such other and further relief as this Court deems
just
    and proper.

Pursuant to the briefing schedule as set by the Court on April 1,
2024, any papers in opposition to this motion are to be served on
or before May 8, 2024.

The Defendants intend to seek leave of the Court to file and serve
reply papers in support of the Defendants' cross-motion for summary
judgment pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(c).

TL Cannon is a restaurant specializing in casual dining and
hospitality services.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 3, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0Xqzqa at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jessica F. Pizzutelli, Esq.
          Craig R. Benson, Esq.
          Erin M. Train, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          375 Woodcliff Drive, Suite 2D
          Fairport, NY 14450
          Telephone: (585) 203-3400
          Facsimile: (585) 203-3414
          E-mail: jpizzutelli@littler.com
                  cbenson@littler.com
                  etrain@littler.com

TAKARA SAKE: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Tunick Extended to Oct. 17
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as COLBY TUNICK, v. TAKARA
SAKE USA INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00572-TSH (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Thomas Hixson entered an order continuing case management
deadlines as follows:

  Deadline to Move for Class Certification:          Oct. 17, 2024

  Deadline to File Opposition to Class               Dec. 12, 2024
  Certification Motion:

  Deadline to File Reply in Support of               Jan. 9, 2025
  Class Certification Motion:

  Hearing on Class Certification Motion:             Mar. 6, 2025

  Close of Fact Discovery:                           Aug. 7, 2025

  Close of Expert Discovery:                         Nov. 13, 2025

  Deadline to File Dispositive Motions:              Dec. 18, 2025

  Deadline to File Pretrial Documents:               Apr. 9, 2026

  Deadline to File Oppositions to Motions            Apr. 16, 2026
  in Limine:

  Pretrial Conference:                               Apr. 30, 2026

  Final Pretrial Conference:                         May 28, 2026

  Jury Trial (Duration to be determined):            Jun. 8, 2026

Takara offers a wide variety of sake.

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

TAKATA CORP: Oral Argument on Class Certification Set for May 29
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Takata Airbag Products Liability
Litigation, Case No. 1:15-md-02599-FAM (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge
Federico Moreno entered an order that oral argument on class
certification will take place on May 29, 2024.

A copy of the Court's order dated Apr. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SQjgyd at no extra
charge.[CC]

TAKEYA USA: Boduch Sues Over Severe Burn from Defective Product
---------------------------------------------------------------
Grzegorz Boduch, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. TAKEYA USA CORPORATION and COSTCO WHOLESALE
CORPORATION, Case No. 1:24-cv-02701 (N.D. Ill., April 3, 2024), is
brought on behalf of persons who suffered severe burn injuries as a
result of the conduct of Defendants Takeya and Costco of selling
defective product.

Specifically, Takeya designed and manufactured a defective product,
Costco sold a defective product, and both Defendants failed to
adequately warn Plaintiff and consumers in general of the dangers
of the product.

On December 10, 2023, the lid of a ThermoFlask bottle filled with
hot water burst open and severely scalded Plaintiff's hand. The
Plaintiff's doctors have indicated that Plaintiff will suffer the
consequences of the severe burns for life, including permanent
nerve damage, pain, scarring and sensitivity to cold.

The Plaintiff is not alone. Tens of thousands of consumers have
purchased defectively designed ThermoFlask water bottles without
adequate warnings. On information and belief, many consumers, like
Plaintiff, have already sustained injuries. All of them are in
danger of sustaining injuries in the future. Accordingly, Plaintiff
brings this complaint on behalf of himself and on behalf of all
consumers who have purchased ThermoFlask water bottles within the
applicable limitations period, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased a 40 ounce-size ThermoFlask water bottle
designed and manufactured by Defendant Takeya.

Takeya designs and manufactures ThermoFlask water bottles.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel I. Schlessinger, Esq.
          Martin W. Jaszczuk, Esq.
          Margaret M. Schuchardt, Esq.
          JASZCZUK P.C.
          311 South Wacker Drive, Suite 2150
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 442-0509
          Email: dschlessinger@jaszczuk.com
                 mjaszczuk@jaszczuk.com
                 mschuchardt@jaszczuk.com


TARGET CORPORATION: Panelli Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Target Corporation,
et al. The case is styled as Alexander Panelli, individually, and
all others similarly situated v. Target Corporation, Does 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. CGC24613684 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Francisco Cty., April 4, 2024).

The case type is stated "Business Tort."

Target Corporation -- https://www.target.com/ -- is an American
retail corporation that operates a chain of discount department
stores and hypermarkets, headquartered in Minneapolis,
Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Redmond, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF MARK A. REDMOND, PC
          656 5th Ave., Ste. R
          San Diego, CA 92101-6867
          Phone: 916-444-8240
          Fax: 866-476-9393
          Email: mr@markredmondlaw.com

               - and -

          Lawrence J. Asalisbury, Esq.
          SALISBURY LEGAL CORP.
          656 5th Ave. Ste. R.
          San Diego, CA 92101-6867
          Phone: 619-241-2760
          Fax: 866-476-9393
          Email: lsalisbury@salisburylegal.com


TDS TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Mott Seeks to Certify FLSA Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH MOTT, Individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TDS
Telecommunications, LLC, and TSD Telecom Service LLC, Case No.
1:24-CV-185 (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an
order:

   (1) conditionally certifying this case as a nationwide Fair
       Labor Standards Act collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C.

       section 216(b);

   (2) approving the Plaintiff's proposed notices and authorizing
       counsel to send initial notice by mail, email and text
message,
       with a reminder email 30 days before the close of the 60-day

       notice period; and

   (3) ordering the Defendants to produce an electronic file with
       contact information for all Network Specialists employed
since
       January 22, 2021.
In support of his motion, the Plaintiff submits declarations from
nine Network Specialists, reflecting a range of seniority levels,
geographic areas, and internal teams. This evidence demonstrates
that Network Specialists are similar in ways that matter, rendering
collective treatment appropriate for the proposed FLSA Collective
of:

       "All persons who worked for Defendants as a Network
Specialist
       (also referred to as Network Specialist – OSP Engineering
&
       Construction, Outside Plant Engineering Specialist, and/or
       Outside Plant Construction Specialist) (including Network
       Specialists, Network Specialists I, Network Specialists II,
or
       Senior Network Specialists), or in other job titles
performing
       similar duties anywhere in the United States any time since

       three years prior to the filing of this Complaint through
the
       present.

On March 14, 2024, Counsel for Plaintiff conferred with Counsel for
the Defendants, and discussed whether the Parties could reach
agreement to avoid the need for this motion. Additionally, Counsel
exchanged emails regarding the motion on April 2, 2024, and April
3, 2024. The Parties were not able to reach agreement.

TDS provides broadband, video, and voice communications services to
residential, commercial, and wholesale customers.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Apr. 5, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=r2Zgsk at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel S. Brome, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, LLP
          235 Montgomery St., Suite 810
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (877) 448-0492
          Facsimile: (415) 277-7238
          E-mail: dbrome@nka.com

TESLA INC: Brown Sues Over Systematic Mistreatment of Employees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shannon Brown, Tami Okada, individuals, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. TESLA, INC. d/b/a TESLA MOTORS,
INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, Inclusive, Case No. 2:24-at-00418
(E.D. Cal., April 4, 2024), is brought on behalf of Plaintiffs and
the Class because of Defendants' systematic mistreatment of their
employees, in violation of California's wage and hour laws.

The Defendants compensated Plaintiffs at an hourly rate of pay.
Defendants also compensated Plaintiffs on a regular basis with
bonuses. The Plaintiffs worked five days a week during most weeks.
Plaintiffs regularly worked more than eight hours a day and more
than 40 hours a week. The Defendants denied Plaintiffs and other
non-exempt employees in California specific rights afforded to them
under the California Labor Code, and the applicable Industrial
Welfare Commission Wage Order ("IWC Wage Order"). Furthermore,
despite Plaintiffs and other Class members regularly earning
bonuses, Defendants did not properly include all those bonuses in
the calculation of their regular rates of pay. Therefore,
Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs and other Class members overtime
pay, sick and vacation pay and meal and rest break premiums at the
correct hourly rates, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs worked as non-exempt employees.

Tesla is a large car manufacturer which operates distribution
center warehouses and assembly facilities throughout the state of
California and employs numerous employees at those warehouses and
assembly facilities.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Justin Hewgill, Esq.
          HEWGILL COBB & LOCKARD, APC
          1620 5th Avenue, Suite 325
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 432-2520;
          Fax: (619) 488-6944
          Email: contact@hcl-lawfirm.com

               - and –

          Ben Travis, Esq.
          BEN TRAVIS LAW, APC
          4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 100
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Phone: (619) 353-7966
          Email: ben@bentravislaw.com


TETRA TECH: Amended Class Settlement Partially Gets Initial OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAGARION BROWN, et al., v.
TETRA TECH, INC., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01133-DJC-DMC (E.D.
Cal.),  the Hon. Judge Daniel Calabretta entered an order that:

   1. Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of Amended Class

      Settlement is granted in part.

      Specifically:

      a. The proposed Rule 23 Class and FLSA Collective are
certified
         for settlement purposes.
      b. The named Plaintiffs, Lagarion Brown, Roy Jackson, Yaphett

         Saunders, Isaac Saunders, Hakeem Allambie, and Nichlon
         Garrett, are appointed as Class Representatives for
         settlement purposes.
      c. Plaintiffs' counsel Mallison & Martinez are appointed as
         Class Counsel for settlement purposes.
      d. Phoenix Class Action Administration Solutions is appointed
to
         act as the Settlement Administrator.

   2. Plaintiffs' Motion is denied as to preliminary approval of
the
      settlement and approval of the class notice.

   3. The Parties are ordered to submit an amended settlement and
      notice which address the Court’s concerns regarding the
Private
      Attorney General Act ("PAGA") claims within 45 days. The
amended
      notice should also clarify the requirements for Class members
to
      dispute the number of workweeks used to calculate their
      recovery.

The proposed settlement class comprises all non-exempt employees of
Jesco who worked on projects subcontracted by Tetra between June 3,
2016, and May 1, 202. Members of the Class include employees who
belong to one or more of the following three subsets:

   1. The Rule 23 Class:

      "All persons who were employed by Jesco as non-exempt
employees
      in California and who worked on projects subcontracted by
Tetra
      at any time between June 3, 2016, and May 1, 2022."

   2. The PAGA Class:

      "All persons who were employed by Jesco as non-exempt
employees
      in California and who worked on projects subcontracted by
Tetra
      at any time between May 11, 2019, and May 1, 2022.

   3. The FLSA Collective:

      "All persons who were employed by Jesco as non-exempt
employees
      in the United States who worked on projects subcontracted by

      Tetra at any time between June 3, 2017, and May 1, 2022."

The Plaintiffs seek approval of their amended $600,000 Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23 ("Rule 23") class, Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") collective, and PAGA settlement on behalf of themselves
and approximately 230 similarly situated environmental technicians
who
were employed by Defendant Jesco Environmental and Geotechnical
Services, Inc. to perform post-disaster assessments and cleanup in
Butte County, California for Defendant Tetra Tech, Inc. between
2016 and 2022.

The Plaintiffs brought this action on June 3, 2020, alleging unpaid
wage, meal and rest break, and expense reimbursement violations
under the California Labor Code and federal law.

Tetra Tech is an American consulting and engineering services.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 4, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EjDnJK at no extra
charge.[CC]

TRANSPRO LOGISTICS: Court Directs Discovery Plan Filing in Leonard
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Leonard v. Transpro
Logistics, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01061-JBM-JEH (C.D. Ill.),
the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered a standing order as
follows:

   -- Rule 16 scheduling conference

      The Court will set a Rule 16 scheduling conference
approximately
      30 days after the answer or other responsive pleading is
filed.
      The conference will generally be conducted by telephone.

   -- Discovery plan

      The discovery plan shall be filed with the Court at least
three
      calendar days before the Rule 16 scheduling conference.

   -- Waiver of the Rule 16 scheduling conference

      If the parties agree on all matters contained in the
discovery
      plan, then the parties may waive the Rule 16 scheduling
      conference. To do so, the parties shall indicate in the
      discovery that the parties agree upon all maters contained
      within the discovery plan, and they request that the Rule 16

      scheduling conference be cancelled.

   -- Failure of counsel to attend a scheduled telephone hearing

      For the convenience of counsel, the Court conducts most
hearings
      by telephone when possible. Counsel's failure to appear for a

      telephone hearing will be treated as a failure of counsel to

      appear for an in-person hearing.

   -- Discovery disputes brought to the Court's attention after the

      discovery deadline has already passed

      The parties may not raise a discovery dispute with the Court

      after the relevant discovery deadline has passed; all
discovery
      disputes must be brought to the Court's attention before the

      relevant discovery deadline passes. Any discovery disputes
      raised with the Court after the expiration of the relevant
      discovery deadline shall be deemed waived by the Court, even
if
      the parties agreed to conduct discovery after the relevant
      discovery deadline has passed. If the parties agree to
conduct
      discovery after the expiration of a deadline set by the
Court,
      they must still file a motion requesting that the Court move

      that deadline as agreed by the parties in order to avoid any

      subsequent discovery disputes being deemed waived.

   -- Settlement conferences and mediation

      The parties are encouraged to seek a settlement conference or

      mediation with a magistrate judge. Where parties request a
      settlement conference or mediation in a case referred to
Judge
      Hawley, Judge Hawley will conduct said conference or
mediation.

Transpro is a first-rate provider of third-party logistics services
throughout North America.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 3, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2pJwIr at no extra
charge.[CC]

TRANSUNION LLC: Faces Gross Suit Over Inaccurate Credit Reporting
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN GROSS, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. TRANSUNION LLC, Defendant, Case No.
0:24-cv-01290-DWF-DLM (D. Minn., April 11, 2024) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the FCRA by
refusing to meaningfully reinvestigate the disputes and continued
reporting the new Fingerhut Fetti accounts despite receiving
numerous disputes from consumers that these new accounts were
opened without permission. The Defendant was aware that Fingerhut
was reporting the opening of thousands of new Fingerhut Fetti
accounts while simultaneously reporting the closing of thousands of
Fingerhut Advantage accounts. Yet, despite this suspicious
activity, the Defendant did not do anything to ensure that the new
Fingerhut Fetti accounts were opened with authorization. Instead,
the Defendant followed a policy of leaving the accuracy of its
credit reporting entirely to its paying customers even when it has
actual knowledge that the reporting is suspicious or unreliable.

As a result of the Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff and Class
members suffered actual damages including but not limited to
impairment to credit, damage to reputation, emotional distress, and
wasted time, the suit says.

TransUnion, LLC is a consumer reporting agency doing business
throughout the United States, including in Minnesota. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:                
      
         E. Michelle Drake, Esq.
         John G. Albanese, Esq.
         Ariana B. Kiener, Esq.
         BERGER MONTAGUE PC
         1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205
         Minneapolis, MN 55413
         Telephone: (612) 594-599
         Facsimile: (612) 584-4470
         Email: emdrake@bm.net
                jalbanese@bm.net
                akiener@bm.net

UNITED PARCEL: Case Management Order Entered in Wynn Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRITTANY WYNN, v. UNITED
PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-06044-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered a case management order as
follows:

   (1) The presumptive limits on discovery set forth in the Federal

       Rules of Civil Procedure shall apply to this case unless
       otherwise ordered by the Court.

   (2) The deadline for joinder of any additional parties, or other

       amendments to the pleadings, is 60 days after entry of this

       order unless stated otherwise below.

   (3) The deadline for the parties to meet, confer, and submit a
       stipulation and order setting all deadlines not set by the
       Court, including discovery cut-offs and expert disclosure
       deadlines, is April 19, 2024.

   (4) The Case is Referred to Mediation, to be completed no later

       than Sept. 1, 2024.

The following schedule and deadlines shall apply to this case:

                  Event                          Date or Deadline

  Last Day to Request Leave to Amend            60 Days from Date
  the Pleadings per F.R.Civ.P 15                of this Order

  Last Day File Motion Class Certification      Mar. 28, 2025

  Last Day to Hear Dispositive Motions          Dec. 11, 2025 at
9:00
                                                AM

  Final Pretrial Conference                     Mar. 5, 2026 at
1:30
                                                PM

  Trial                                         Apr. 6. 2026 at
9:00
                                                AM

United Parcel is an American multinational shipping & receiving and
supply chain management company.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 4, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qj29x8 at no extra
charge.[CC]

UNITED STATES: Clinkenbeard Loses Bid to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT CLINKENBEARD, v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00491-APM
(D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Amit Mehta entered an order:

-- denying Plaintiff's motions to certify class, appointment of
    counsel, and preliminary injunction; and

-- granting Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915(d) and FED. R. CIV. P. 4(c)(3),
the Clerk of Court shall issue summonses and shall cause service of
process to be effected by the United States Marshals Service on the
Defendant, the United States Attorney General, and the United
States Attorney for the District of Columbia.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Warden of FCI Sandstone "has placed
inmates ([plaintiff] included) under a disciplinary policy,
referred to as 'Warden's Restriction' without hearing or notice, of
either the status under this policy or notification of the
sanctions imposed," and sanctions include restricted access to
e-mail and communication by means other than the United States
Postal Service.

According to the Plaintiff, the Warden's Restriction has "an
adverse effect on at least 150 inmates" at FCI Sandstone, and he
asks the Court "to consider certification of [this] suit as a class

action."

The Plaintiff is a federal prisoner currently designated to the
Federal Correctional Institution in Sandstone, Minnesota.

United States is a country primarily located in North America.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 2, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tel5RI at no extra
charge.[CC]


UNITED STATES: Rubenstein Bid for Class Certification Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACOB RUBENSTEIN, v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case No. 2:23-cv-12685-MAG-EAS (E.D.
Mich.), the Hon. Judge Mark Goldsmith entered an order denying
Petitioner's motion for class certification and for appointment of
counsel.

The Court will bear in mind Petitioner's request if, upon further
review of the pleadings, it determines that appointment of counsel
is necessary for the proper adjudication of this case. Petitioner
need not file another motion concerning this issue.

The Petitioner has submitted his habeas petition and supporting
materials, but Respondent has not yet filed an answer to the
petition or any relevant court documents or administrative records.
Petitioner's request for counsel is therefore premature, and he
fails to show that the appointment of counsel is warranted at this
time.

Federal prisoner Jacob Rubenstein, confined at the Federal
Correctional Institution in Milan, Michigan, challenges the
execution of his federal sentence, namely his eligibility to
receive sentencing credits under the First Step Act, 18 U.S.C. '
3632.

The Plaintiff alleges that the statutory exclusion for child
pornography offenders, 18 U.S.C. ' 3632(d)(4)(D)(xli), (xlii),
violates his due process and equal protection rights. He asks the
Court to strike down those provisions of the First Step Act and to
order the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) to retroactively award and apply
First Step Act sentencing credits to his federal sentence.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 4, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=S8sk8z at no extra
charge.[CC]

UNITED SUGAR: Golden Sues Over Conspiring and Fixing Prices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Raleigh Golden, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. UNITED SUGAR PRODUCERS & REFINERS COOPERATIVE F/K/A
UNITED SUGARS CORPORATION, AMERICAN SUGAR REFINING, INC., ASR GROUP
INTERNATIONAL, INC., DOMINO FOODS, INC., CARGILL, INC., MICHIGAN
SUGAR COMPANY, COMMODITY INFORMATION, INC., AND RICHARD WISTISEN,
Case No. 0:24-cv-01129 (D. Minn., April 2, 2024), is brought to
recover damages and obtain injunctive relief against Defendants for
violations of the antitrust laws of the United States, and the
antitrust and consumer protection laws of the states as a result of
the Defendants and their co-conspirators conspiring and combining
to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize prices for Granulated Sugar
sold throughout the United States since at least January 1, 2019.

In furtherance of this conspiracy, the Producing Defendants engaged
in anticompetitive behavior including by price signaling and by
exchanging competitively sensitive information related to pricing,
production capacity, sales volume and demand, including through
Defendant Commodity. The Producing Defendants took these actions
with the intent and effect of increasing Granulated Sugar prices
throughout the United States.

For years, Defendant Commodity Information, Inc. ("Commodity") has
enabled and encouraged the Producing Defendants, the nation's
largest producers of Granulated Sugar, to exchange with each other
detailed, non-public, competitively sensitive information
regarding, among other things, prices (including prospective
prices), capacity, sales volume, and demand.

In doing so, Commodity promotes industry profits at the expense of
competition. It does this by providing Producing Defendants with
non-public insights into their competitors' production, costs, and
pricing. Commodity enables and encourages Producing Defendants to
use this information to increase prices for purchasers, and thereby
increase their own profits.

As a direct result of Defendant's conspiracy, Granulated Sugar
prices in the United States have been artificially inflated
throughout the Class Period, causing Plaintiff and Class Members to
pay more for Granulated Sugar than they would have but for the
conspiracy. On behalf of a proposed class of tens of millions of
consumers nationwide, Plaintiff brings this class action to put an
end to Defendants' illegal scheme, to recover damages, and to
restore competition in the Granulated Sugar marketplace, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff purchased Granulated Sugar indirectly from one or
more of the Producing Defendants.

United is a Minnesota corporation with its principal place of
business in Edina, Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Melissa Weiner, Esq.
          Brian S. Pafundi, Esq.
          PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP
          328 Barry Ave. South, Suite 200
          Wayzata, MN 55391
          Phone: (612) 389-0600
          Fax: (612) 389-0610
          Email: mweiner@pwfirm.com
                 bpafundi@pwfirm.com

               - and -

          Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq.
          Bobby Pouya, Esq.
          PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP
          15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Phone: (818) 788-8300
          Fax: (818) 788-8104
          Email: dwarshaw@pwfirm.com
                 bpouya@pwfirm.com

               - and -

          Jill Manning, Esq.
          PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP
          555 Montgomery St., Suite 1205
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Phone: (415) 433-9000
          Fax: (415) 433-9008
          Email: jmanning@pwfirm.com


UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL OKLAHOMA: Court OK's Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TATUM ROBERTSON, EVE
BRENNAN, MARIN RHODES, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, v. UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL OKLAHOMA and BOARD OF
REGENTS FOR THE REGIONAL UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA, Case No.
5:22-cv-00836-HE (W.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Joe Heaton entered an
order granting joint motion for:  

   (1) class certification;

   (2 preliminary approval of class action settlement;

   (3) approval of proposed class notice; and

   (4) scheduling of fairness hearing

The requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and
23(b)(2) are satisfied and all claims are certified as a class
action for settlement purposes on behalf of a class defined as
follows:

      "All female students at the University of Central Oklahoma
from
      Sept. 20, 2022, through June 30, 2028, who participate in
      intercollegiate athletics at the University of Central
Oklahoma,
      seek to participate in intercollegiate athletics at the
      University of Central Oklahoma, and/or are deterred from
      participating in intercollegiate athletics at the University
of
      Central Oklahoma because they might or may not receive
athletic
      benefits, opportunities, or treatment equal to male student-
      athletes."

Tatum Robertson and Eve Brennan are appointed as class
representatives for the above defined class.

The Plaintiffs' counsel shall be appointed Class Counsel.

The proposed Settlement Agreement bears sufficient indicia of
fairness, reasonableness, and adequacy to merit preliminary
approval.

Class Counsel shall file an application for attorney's fees and
costs by May 8, 2024.

The Defendants shall file any objection to Class Counsel's
application for attorney's fees and costs by May 29, 2024.

University of Central Oklahoma is the third largest university in
Oklahoma.

A copy of the Court's order dated Apr. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MfTtRV at no extra
charge.[CC]

USHEALTH ADVISORS: Scheduling & Discovery Order Entered in Kraemer
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID KRAEMER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
USHEALTH ADVISORS, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00275-DWD (S.D. Ill.), the
Hon. Judge David Dugan entered an order adopting joint report and
proposed scheduling and discovery order.

Depositions upon oral examination, interrogatories, requests for
documents, and answers and responses thereto shall not be filed
unless on order of the Court.

Disclosures or discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(a) are to be filed with the Court only to the extent required by
the final pretrial order, other Court order, or if a dispute arises
over the disclosure or discovery and the matter has been set for
briefing.

The parties should note that they may, pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 29, modify discovery dates set in the Joint Report
by written stipulation, except that they may not modify a date if
such modification would impact (1) the date of any court
appearance, (2) the deadline for completing the mandatory mediation
session or the
mandatory mediation process (if applicable), (3) the deadline for
completing all discovery, or (4) the deadline for filing
dispositive motions.

USHealth specializes in marketing innovative and affordable health
coverage plans.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 3, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UJAYB4 at no extra
charge.[CC]

VERIZON CONNECT: Ducos Seeks to Conditionally Certify FLSA Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JORGE DUCOS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. VERIZON CONNECT
FLEET USA LLC and VERIZON CORPORATE RESOURCES GROUP LLC, Case No.
8:24-cv-00216-MSS-AEP (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order:

   (a) conditionally certifying this FLSA collective action for all

       CSM working from or reporting to the Rolling Meadows or
Tampa
       offices;

   (b) requiring Defendants to produce in Excel format the full
name,
       address(es), work and cellular phone number(s), employee
IDs,
       and email address(es) (including personal email addresses to

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

   (c) authorizing notice be sent to the members of the FLSA
       Collective, disseminated by U.S. Mail, email and via website

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

   (d) authorizing reminder notices halfway through the 60-day
notice
       period; and (e) granting any further relief this Court deems

       just and proper.

The Plaintiff Ducos and the 10 Opt-In Plaintiffs seek an Order
conditionally certifying this case to proceed collectively and
permitting Plaintiffs to issue Court-supervised notice to all
similarly situated, non-exempt, hourly-paid Customer Success
Managers ("CSMs") who worked for Defendants at the Tampa, Florida
and Rolling Meadows, Illinois ofice locations from January 23, 2021
through the present.

The Plaintiffs have met the lenient showing necessary under the
Notice Stage of the Eleventh Circuit’s two stage analysis to
proceed collectively under the FLSA. The Plaintiff seeks to deliver
the proposed notice and consent to join form to the following group
of similarly situated persons:

All persons who were employed by or performed work for Verizon
Connect Fleet USA LLC or Verizon Corporate Resources LLC or any
other related, affiliated, subsidiary or parent company doing
business as Verizon Connect under the title of Customer Success
Manager (CSM) or any other title or variation of this title used to
describe the same position at any time within the three years
preceding the filing of this lawsuit to the present day working at
or remotely reporting to the Rolling Meadows, Illinois or Tampa,
Florida offices.

The Plaintiff Ducos commenced this FLSA collective action against
the Defendants for willful violations of the FLSA by failing to pay
overtime wages for all hours worked. The Plaintiffs were all
non-exempt, hourly-paid employees of Verizon.
Verizon provides telematic fleet management solutions.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Apr. 5, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9NjjfT at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
          FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
          12610 Race Track Road, Suite 225
          Tampa, FL 33625
          Telephone: (813) 639-9366
          Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
          E-mail: Mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com

WELLS FARGO: Parties Seek More Time to File Opposition & Reply
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Wells Fargo Mortgage Discrimination
Litigation, Case No. 3:22-cv-00990-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask
the Court to enter an order granting stipulation to enlarge the
time to file their Opposition and Reply, respectively, by 14 days.

The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is to be filed no
later than April 25, 2024.

Pursuant to the local rules, Wells Fargo's Opposition must be filed
not more than 14 days after the Motion for Class Certification is
filed, and Plaintiffs' Reply must be filed not more than 7 days
after Wells Fargo's Opposition was due.

Wells Fargo is an American multinational financial services
company.

A copy of the Parties' dated April 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nd7ybN at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dennis S. Ellis, Esq.
          ELLIS GEORGE LLP
          2121 Avenue of the Stars, 30th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 274-7100
          Facsimile: (310) 275-5697
          E-mail: dellis@ellisgeorge.com


WESTERN CONFERENCE: Order Modifying Case Schedule Entered in Paieri
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL PAIERI, v. WESTERN
CONFERENCE OF TEAMSTERS PENSION TRUST et al., Case No.
2:23-cv-00922-LK (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Lauren King entered
an order continuing the case schedule deadlines as follows:

                      Event                         Date

  Disclosure of expert testimony relating        July 15, 2024
  to class certification under FRCP 26(a)(2)
  due:

  Disclosure of rebuttal expert testimony        Aug. 15, 2024
  relating to class certification under
  FRCP 26(a)(2) due:

  All motions related to class certification     Sept. 12, 2024
  discovery must be filed by:

  Discovery on class certification issues        Oct. 15, 2024
  completed by:

  Deadline for Plaintiffs to file motion         Nov. 14, 2024
  for class certification (noted on the
  fourth Friday after filing and service
  of the motion pursuant to LCR 7(d)(3)
  unless the parties agree to different
  times for filing the response and reply
  memoranda):

Western Conference provides plan coverage, participation and
vesting, losing and protecting benefits, normal retirement, early
retirement, disability retirement, and other services.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 4, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=85p9zl at no extra
charge.[CC]

WILLARD JACKSON: Court Stays Discovery in Carter Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY CARTER, v. WILLARD
L. JACKSON, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01775-KES-SAB (E.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Stanley Boone entered an order that:

   1. The Defendant's motion to stay discovery, which the Court
      construes as a motion for protective order to preclude the
      Plaintiff from making untimely discovery requests prior to
      discovery commencing pursuant to Rule 26, is granted;

   2. The Defendant's motion to permit discovery regarding the
      Plaintiff's counsel's qualifications to be appointed class
      counsel is denied without prejudice; and

   3. The Defendant's opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for
      extension of time to serve the Defendants and leave to serve
by
      way of substitute service and publication is denied as moot.

The Court ordered that Plaintiff file a proper motion under the
Federal Rules of Procedure and Local Rules requesting relief no
later than April 9, 2024. Accordingly, without addressing the
Defendant's
substantive arguments, the Court denies the Defendant's
opposition—filed after the Court denied the Plaintiff's
motion—as moot.

On April 3, 2024, the Defendant Vicent Petrescu, proceeding pro se,
filed an "emergency motion" to stay discovery pending class
certification; a motion "to permit discovery about Plaintiff's
counsel's qualifications to be appointed class counsel; and an
opposition to Plaintiff's unopposed motion enlarging time to serve
six other Defendants in this action. The Court finds oppositions by
Plaintiff would not aid the Court in deciding the issues and shall
address each filing in turn herein.

A copy of the Court's order dated Apr. 5, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BzgFJF at no extra
charge.[CC]

WILLARD JACKSON: Petrescu Seeks to Stay Discovery
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jeffrey Carter v. Willard
L. Jackson, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01775-KES-SAB (E.D. Cal.),
Vincent Petrescu asks Court to stay discovery pending resolution of
the issue of class certification.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated April 3, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EAa8Zw at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant Petrescu appears pro se.

          Vincent Petrescu
          505 Harper Dr
          Algonquin, IL 60102
          Telephone: (847) 873 5335
          Vincent.petrescu@gmail.com

XOOM ENERGY: Seeks to Decertify Class in Mirkin Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSANNA MIRKIN and BORIS
MIRKIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, v. XOOM ENERGY, LLC and XOOM ENERGY NEW YORK, LLC, Case
No. 1:18-cv-02949-ARR-JAM (E.D.N.Y.), the Defendant asks the Court
to enter an order decertifying class.

Xoom is a retail electricity, renewable and natural gas provider.

A copy of the the Defendant's motion dated Apr. 5, 2024 is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5jlDw9
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael D. Matthews, Jr., Esq.
          Diane S. Wizig, Esq.
          James M. Chambers, Esq.
          David L. Villarreal, Esq.
          MCDOWELL HETHERINGTON LLP
          1001 Fannin Street, Suite 2400
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 337-5580
          Facsimile: (713) 337-8850
          E-mail: matt.matthews@mhllp.com
                  diane.wizig@mhllp.com
                  james.chambers@mhllp.com
                  david.villarreal@mhllp.com

YODLEE INC: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Clark Continued to May 22
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARIUS CLARK, et al., v.
YODLEE, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-05991-SK (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Sallie Kim entered an order continuing the deadlines as follows:

   1. Opening Expert Disclosures:              April 12, 2024;

   2. Expert Rebuttal Reports:                 May 9, 2024;

   3. Close of Expert Discovery:               May 17, 2024

   4. Class Certification Motion:              May 22, 2024;

   5. Class Certification Opposition:          June 12, 2024;

   6. Class Certification Reply:               June 26, 2024; and

   7. Hearing on Class Certification Motion:   July 22, 2024

The rest of the schedule remains unchanged.

Yodlee is a provider of financial applications that aims to make
online banking more profitable.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 4, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=E2lYqZ at no extra
charge.[CC]


                            *********

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 ***