/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240426.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, April 26, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 85

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Feb. 19, 2025
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Judge Dismisses Baby Formula Shortage Suit
ACCORDIA LIFE: Filing for Class Cert. Bids in Schmidt Due Dec. 2
ALM RESTAURANTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Baker Alleges
ALPHA METALLURGICAL: Faces Class Suit for Unfair Labor Practices

ALTRIA GROUP: Faces Class Action Suits Over Fraudulent AI Claims
AMAZON.COM INC: Stephenson Sues Over Illegal Employment Practices
ANNE ALLEN: Court Enters Amended Scheduling Order in Medina Suit
ARISE VIRTUAL: De Niro Seeks Conditional Class Certification
AST SPACEMOBILE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Misleading Investors

AT&T MOBILITY: Unruh Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info
AVIVA GENERAL: Supreme Court Denies Class Action Suit Certification
BEMUS LANDSCAPE: Ramirez Seeks Penalties for Labor Code Violations
BIOGEN INC: Class Cert. Bid Filing in OFPRS Suit Due May 10
BNY MELLON: Partially Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Walden

BRIGHT HEART: Discloses Personal Data Without Consent, Suit Says
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Bid to Seal Docs Temporarily OK'd
BRITISH COLUMBIA: Faces Suit Over Sexual Abuse by Jail Guard
C. PFEIFFER: Court Junks Estrada's Bid for Class Certification
CARECENTRIX INC: Jones Seeks Conditional Status of FLSA Collective

CASTING NETWORKS: Faces Class Action Over Pay-For-Play Model
CENTRAL GARDEN: Flodin Bid to File Material Under Seal Nixed
CEREBRAL INC: Court Enters Order on Bids for Class Certification
CG-HHC INC: Court OK's Settlement in Williams Suit
CI&T INC: Rosen Law Firm Investigates Securities Claims

CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Waldrop Sues Over Deceptive Drink Sizes
CITY OF HOPE: De Lapaz Seeks Damages for Data Security Failure
CITY OF HOPE: Faces Krause Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
CITY OF HOPE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ridley Suit Alleges
CITY OF HOPE: Julian Sues Over Unsecured Patients' Information

CITY OF HOPE: Lopez Sues Over Alleged Privacy Data Breach
CITY OF HOPE: Saurenmann Sues Over Alleged Data Breach
CLAIRE'S STORES: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Asbestos Hazard
CLIPPER REALTY: Must Produce Discovery in Sanchez Suit
COLUMBUS REGIONAL: Reaches $2M Settlement in ERISA Class Action

CONNECTWISE LLC: Faces Class Action Over Negligence/Data Breach
CONTINENTAL AG: Anderson Sues Over Tire Price Monopoly
CORELOGIC CREDCO: Settles FCRA Class Action Suit for $5.695M
COSMETIC INSTITUTE: Agrees to Settle Malpractice Suit for $25-Mil.
COVANTA DADE: Brashevitzky Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes

CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE: Bid to File Second Amended Complaint Tossed
CSI ELECTRICAL: Court Addresses Compensable Time at Checkpoints
CSX TRANSPORTATION: Class Settlement in Shongho Gets Initial Nod
DAIFUKU SERVICES: Court Recommends Denial of Shaw's Class Cert Bid
DEL MONTE: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Diced Peaches' False Ads

DEVON ENERGY: Class Action Settlement in Wright Gets Initial Nod
DIPSON THEATRES: Murphy Balks at Movie Tickets' Hidden Service Fees
DIVIDEND FINANCE: May Face Class Action Lawsuit Over Fraud
DIXON ADVISORY: Court Approves $16MM Class Action Settlement
DOXIMITY INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Securities Claims

E&E CO: Filing for Class Certification Due Feb. 28, 2025
EQUITABLE ADVISORS: Newbury Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
FANTASIA TRADING: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Hussein Says
FCA US: Faces Class Action Over Safety Defect With eTorque System
FCTI INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Durkee Due June 10, 2024

FLORIDA: Wallace Complaint Dismissed for Failure to State Claim
FROEDTERT HEALTH: Lutz Seeks Conditional Class Certification
GENERAL MOTORS: Seeks Leave to File Summary Judgment Bid
GENIUS BRANDS: 9th Circuit Court Reverses Class Suit Dismissal
GLOBE LIFE: Misleads Business Information, Class Suit Says

GROUP HEALTH: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Oct. 17, 2024
HEAVENLY HAVEN: Scott Sues Over Below Minimum and Unpaid OT Wages
HOME POINT: Lead Plaintiff Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement
HYATT CORPORATION: Court Certifies Class in Granados Suit
ICHIMI USA: Takahashi Seeks Unpaid Wages, PAGA Penalties

ILLINOIS: Illegally Seizes Property Value From Taxpayers, Suit Says
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,  FL: To Reform Opioid Class Settlement Funds
INGERSOLL-RAND INDUSTRIAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bowman Says
JACK HULLAND: Court Orders Release of Student Info in Class Action
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Plaintiffs Take Aim on Welfare Plan Fiduciaries

KAYAK SOFTWARE: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Hussein Says
KENVUE INC: Band Aid Products Contains PFAS Substances
KIA AMERICA: Vaughn Sues Over Unlawful Sharing of Drivers' Data
LEADSMARKET.COM: Faces New TCPA Class Action Lawsuit
LEMONADE INC: Faces Privacy Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Sharing

LEPRINO FOODS: Faces Simmons Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D.N.Y.
LONGBRIDGE FINANCIAL: Sued Over Improper Foreclosure of Property
LOUISIANA: Faces Class Action Over Mismanaged Foster Care System
MARK CUBAN: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal
MASSACHUSETTS: OKs $1-B Deal for Community-Based Nursing Homes

MEDDATA LLC: Settles Class Action for $7MM Over GitHub Data Breach
METROPOLITAN TRANSIT: Court Certifies Class in Paulino-Santos Suit
MONTANA: Faces Class Action Over Refusal to Update Sex Designation
MOUNTAIRE FARMS: Ovando Suit Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification
NBC UNIVERSAL: Faces D.P & F.C. Disability Discrimination Suit

NEW YORK, NY: Seeks to Stay Class Certification Briefing
NIO INC: Discovery Ongoing on Consolidated Securities Suit
NORLITE LLC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Jan. 1, 2025
NORTH BROTHERS: Fraud Suit Dismissed, Arbitration Agreement Upheld
NORTH CAROLINA: Court Extends Deadline to File Class Cert Bid

NOVA HOME: Savinova Seeks to File Renewed Class Cert Bid
OKLAHOMA: Court Strike Gunter's Bid to Certify Class
OPTILINE ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Astu Alleges
ORRICK & HERRINGTON: Plaintiffs Seek Initial Nod of Settlement
OWEN FARICY: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Taylor Suit Alleges

PACIFIC STEEL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Berber Continued to June 3
PACIFIC STEEL: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Gay Continued to June 3
PANERA LLC: Faces Class Suit Over Mislabeled Grain Bagel Flats
PAPA JOHN'S: Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to Jan. 17, 2025
PATINA ORLANDO: Plaintiffs Must Move for Class Cert Bid by June 14

PATINA ORLANDO: Seeks to Stay Discovery & Class Cert. Briefing
PERION NETWORK: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 17
PERION NETWORK: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Investors
PERMIAN RESOURCES: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over Price Fixing
POLISH ON PEARL: Seek to Stay Class Cert Bid Briefing, Ruling

PROCTER & GAMBLE: Court Narrows Claims in Tobin Suit
R&G BRENNER: Cinar Class Cert Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge
RESONETICS LLC: Parties Seek to Extend Class Cert Deadlines
RESURGENT CAPITAL: Haston Seeks Final Approval of Settlement Deal
REVLON CONSUMER: Faces Jurdi Data Privacy Suit

RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Misleads Investors, Class Action Suit Says
ROCKET MORTGAGE: Tolbert Bid for Class Cert. Terminated
RTX CORP: Plaintiffs Seeks to Seal Class Certification Reply
RUSSELL INVESTMENTS: Johnson Suit Seeks Class Status
SAINT LUKE'S: Faces Class Suit Over Sterilization Procedures

SCOTT SEMPLE: Request to Submit Further Docs in Vega Tossed
SHANE SEATON: All Discovery Stayed in Barrera Suit
SHANE SEATON: All Discovery Stayed in Davis Suit
SHANE SEATON: All Discovery Stayed in Hendricks Suit
SHANE SEATON: All Discovery Stayed in Rueda Suit

SHARECARE INC: Faces Class Action Over Securities Law Violations
SHOPPERS DRUG: Faces Class Suit Over Unethical Corporate Practices
SLEDGE INC: Larsen Seeks to Extend Class Cert Bid Deadline
SOUTHSTATE BANK: Parties Must Confer Class Certification Deadlines
SPORTSMAN’S WAREHOUSE: Faces Kogut Class Suit in Delaware

SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS: Settlement in McFadden Suit Gets Initial Nod
TAMKO BUILDING: Scheduling Conference in Snyder Reset for May 6
TARGET CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Data Privacy Breach
TARGET CORP: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Halley Due May 29
TOWANDA COMMUNITY: Filing for Discovery Plan Due May 14

TWITTER INC: Fact Discovery Deadline in Adler Reset to June 10
UNILEVER PLC: Agrees to Settle Suave Benzene Class Suit for $2MM
UNITED PARCEL: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due July 19
UNITED STATES: Faces Suit Over Discrimination Against Black-Farmers
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Ninth Circuit Revives Putative Class Action

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Faces Ozorio Wage & Hour Suit
VANTAGE SUPPORTED: Employees Seeks Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
VIEW INC: Court Dismisses Suit Over Misstated Financial Results
VIEW INC: Court Tosses Mehedi Suit
WALGREEN CO: Seeks to Seal Certain Portions of Materials

WALMART INC: Acne Treatment Drugs Contain Benzene, Sanderlin Says
WESTELL TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Settlement Hearing Set June 14
WILLIAMS & CO: Court Certifies Property Schemes Advice Class Suit
WOLTER INC: Mayberry Seeks Unpaid Wages & Damages
WOODSTREAM CORP: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Maroney Due June 25

XCEL ENERGY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Smokehouse Creek Fire
XTO ENERGY: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 13, 2025
ZALKIN LAW: Deats Loses Bid for Initial OK of Settlement
[*] Quebec Court Approves Class Action Against 16 Opioid Makers

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Railway Ordered to Pay $4MM in Damages
ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J and Kenvue To Pay $45MM in Talc Lawsuit


                            *********

3M COMPANY: Class Cert Bid Filing Due Feb. 19, 2025
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THE UTILITIES BOARD OF
TUSKEGEE, v. 3M COMPANY, INC., et al., Case No.
2:22-cv-00420-RAH-SMD (M.D. Ala.), the Hon. Judge R. AUSTIN
HUFFAKER, JR. entered an amended scheduling order as follows:

-- A pretrial conference is scheduled for:          April 30,
2026

-- Jury selection and trial during the term         June 22, 2026
    of court commencing on:

-- The deadline to amend pleadings expired          April 15,
2024
    prior to the entry of this order and are
    not extended, however, a motion to add
    parties, if any, shall be filed by the
    parties on or before:

-- The Plaintiff's motion for class                 Feb. 19, 2025
    certification and class certification expert
    declaration shall be filed on or before:

-- Deposition of Plaintiff's class certification    May 20, 2025
    experts shall be completed on or before:

-- Defendants opposition to Plaintiff's class       June 3, 2025
    certification motion and Defendants' class
    certification expert declarations shall be
    filed on or before:

-- Plaintiffs' reply in support of class shall      July 6, 2025
    be filed on or before:

-- All discovery issues as to class certification   Jan. 20, 2025
    shall be completed on or before:

-- All other fact discovery shall be conducted      Dec. 1, 2025
    on or before:

3M is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the
fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 11, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0dIuhg at no extra
charge.[CC]

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Judge Dismisses Baby Formula Shortage Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge last week dismissed a class action suit accusing
Abbott Labs of unjust enrichment resulting from its baby formula
recall and production shutdown.

Filed on behalf of people who bought Similac, Alimentum or EleCare
infant formula during the past three years, the complaint alleged
the North Chicago-based corporation illegally profited off the
temporary shuttering of its Sturgis, Michigan, facility in February
2022.

The plant was closed for months after the Food and Drug
Administration issued a recall for several brands of powdered
formula during an investigation into contamination by the harmful
Cronobacter sakazakii bacteria.

U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly ruled on April 10 that the
attorneys for the California, Ohio and Utah residents named as a
plaintiffs in the case had failed to state a claim.

"The plaintiffs argue that Abbott's retention is unjust because its
own misconduct led to the shutdown of the Sturgis facility, the
formula shortage, and related price increases," Kennelly said.

With the Michigan formula plant responsible for 20 percent of the
nation's production, during the shutdown Abbott was operating with
its capacity reduced by 40 percent.

"Even accepting the facts as alleged and drawing inferences in the
plaintiffs' favor, this contention cannot survive a motion to
dismiss," he said. "Specifically, even if one assumes that the
plaintiffs conferred a benefit on Abbott by paying increased prices
for its products during the shortage, they have not plausibly
alleged that Abbott's retention of that benefit is unjust under the
circumstances."

None of the people suing Abbott alleged that they were harmed by
the products they purchased.

Rather, the plaintiffs claimed that Abbott had some kind of
obligation to maintain certain levels of infant formula production
or make sure its price remained stable.

"The plaintiffs' generalized allegations on this point are
insufficient to satisfy the 'enrichment' component of unjust
enrichment, even if the plaintiffs could satisfy the 'unjust'
component," the judge said, in a 10-page order.

But they cannot, Kennelly ruled, "as they have not plausibly
alleged that Abbott was under any obligation to them to continue
producing formula, maintain a particular supply level, or keep
prices down."

Kennelly set a May 3 deadline to amend the complaint with "at least
one viable claim" before closing the door on the allegations for
good. [GN]

ACCORDIA LIFE: Filing for Class Cert. Bids in Schmidt Due Dec. 2
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID SCHMIDT,
Individually and on behalf of the Class, v. ACCORDIA LIFE AND
ANNUITY COMPANY, Case No. 3:23-cv-01923-BEN-BGS (S.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Bernard Skomal entered a scheduling order regulating
discovery and class certification motion filing deadline as
follows:

   1. Any motion to join other parties, to amend the pleadings, or
to
      file additional pleadings must be filed on or before May 17,

      2024.

   2. All pre-class certification fact discovery shall be completed
by
      all parties by Nov. 1, 2024.

   3. The parties shall designate their respective experts in
writing
      by December 2, 2024.

   4. By Jan. 16, 2025, each party shall comply with the disclosure

      provisions in Rule 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) of the Federal Rules
of
      Civil Procedure.

   5. Any party shall supplement its disclosure regarding
      contradictory or rebuttal evidence under Federal Rules of
Civil
      Procedure 26(a)(2)(D) and 26(e) by Jan. 30, 2025.

   6. All expert discovery shall be completed by all parties by
Feb.
      28, 2025.

   7. Any motion for class certification must be filed no later
than
      Dec. 2, 2024.

Accordia is a financial services company focused on the annuity and
life insurance.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 11, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dD1Dv0 at no extra
charge.[CC]

ALM RESTAURANTS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Baker Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL BAKER; and ASHLEY BAKER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ALM RESTAURANTS DETROIT,
LLC; ALM RESTAURANTS, LLC; ALM RESTAURANTS QOF, LLC; ALM
RESTAURANTS QOZB, LLC; ALM RESTAURANTS MANAGEMENT COMPANY; and
YUSEF ALCODRAY, Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-10909-JEL-DRG (E.D.
Mich., April 9, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid
wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as crew members.

ALM RESTAURANTS DETROIT operates McDonald's restaurants in
southeast Detroit. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Ertis Tereziu, Esq.
          Elana H. Gloetzner, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          2000 Town Center, Suite 1900
          Southfield, MI 48075
          Telephone: (248) 739-1953
          Facsimile: (248) 739-1978
          Email: etereziu@forthepeople.com
                 elana.gloetzner@forthepeople.com

ALPHA METALLURGICAL: Faces Class Suit for Unfair Labor Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyla Asbury, writing for West Virginia Record, reports that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against several mining companies
alleging Fair Labor Standards Act violations.

Andrew Tolliver named Alpha Metallurgical Resources, Marfork Coal
Company, Spartan Coal Company, Aracoma Coal Company and Paramont
Contura as defendants in the suit.

Tolliver claims that he and other coal miners were not fairly
compensated for all the time they worked, particularly at the
beginning and end of their shifts, according to a complaint filed
in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.

Tolliver claims this includes time spent donning (putting on) and
doffing (taking off) required safety clothing and equipment
necessary for their coal mining duties.

Tolliver alleges that the defendants are a single integrated
enterprise and/or joint employers of him and other similar
employees as defined by the FLSA.

Tolliver points out several factors to support this, such as AMR
being registered as the "Controller" of mines operated by its
affiliates, having interrelated operations, centralized control of
labor relations, common management and financial control, according
to the suit.

The plaintiff contends that the defendants had control over the
terms and conditions of employment, including hiring and firing,
work schedules, pay rates and maintaining employee records.

Tolliver claims that because the work performed by him and others
directly benefited the defendants' business and furthered their
joint interests, the Defendants should be considered joint
employers under the FLSA.

The lawsuit highlights the policies around donning and doffing
safety clothing and equipment, as well as gathering tools and
equipment before and after shifts, according to the suit.

The plaintiff and similarly situated employees were required to
wear safety clothing, helmets, boots and gather tools like gas
detectors and radios, the complaint states.

Tolliver claims these tasks were considered integral and
indispensable to their work as underground coal miners.

The plaintiff alleges that within the last three years, they were
not paid for the time spent donning and doffing safety clothing and
equipment, as well as obtaining and returning tools and equipment
before and after shifts.

Despite the ease of recording this time with the defendants' time
clock, they chose not to do so, according to the suit.

Tolliver claims this resulted in the plaintiff and others regularly
working more than 40 hours per workweek without proper
compensation, including overtime pay.

Tolliver claims the defendants knowingly and willfully violated the
FLSA by not compensating employees for essential work-related
tasks, leading to unpaid wages and overtime.

"Defendants' practice and policy of not paying Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees for time they spent donning and
doffing safety clothing and other protective equipment, obtaining
and putting away their tools and equipment, and for the associated
travel, resulted in Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff and other
similarly situated employees overtime compensation at a rate of one
and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked
in excess of forty (40) hours per workweek, in violation of the
FLSA . . . " the complaint states.

The lawsuit seeks to recover unpaid wages and overtime compensation
for the plaintiff and other similarly situated employees. Tolliver
is represented by R. Booth Goodwin II, Benjamin B. Ware, W. Jeffrey
Vollmer and Stephanie H. Daly of Goodwin & Goodwin in Charleston.

Attorneys for the plaintiff declined to comment on the litigation.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia case
number: 2:24-cv-00128 [GN]

ALTRIA GROUP: Faces Class Action Suits Over Fraudulent AI Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Teresa Moss, writing for Repairer Drive News, reports that
fraudulent AI claims are inundating class action lawsuits and
raising the costs for all parties involved, according to multiple
legal trade publications.

A recent class-action settlement involving Altria over Juul
products has become a recent example of how fraudulent AI claims
are creating chaos in the courtroom.

Last month during a settlement hearing, plaintiff attorneys told a
judge they had received 14.4 million claims in the case, about five
times what was expected, according to a Law.com article.

"The innovation appears to be endless," Law.com says Dena Sharp,
co-lead plaintiffs counsel said at the hearing. "It’s likely a
combination of a relatively small number of bad actors using the
force multipliers of AI and everything the internet has to offer."

Sharp estimated 20% or 2 million of the claims to be valid,
according to the Law.com article.

The lawsuit alleges Juul used deceptive marketing behavior
regarding the amount of nicotine inside pre-filled pods.

The judge agreed on the $45.5 million settlement along with giving
attorneys more time to investigate the fraudulent claims before
sending payments to claimants, the article says.

According to the article, lawyers from both sides of the litigation
spent between $8.55 million and $9.66 million addressing fraudulent
claims for the recent settlement and an unrelated settlement with
Juul Labs late last year.

The trade publication also reported on issues with fraudulent
claims filed in a Chicco KidFit booster lawsuit last year. The suit
claimed Artsana USA falsely marketed the booster seats as safe for
kids less than 30 pounds.

The company sold about 875,000 of the booster seat but more than
double the amount of claims were filed in the case, Law.com says.
It was estimated 99% of the claims were fraudulent.

PropertyCasualty360 published a commentary on the issue earlier
this week written by Bryan Heller, co-founder and chief product
officer of ClaimScore. The startup also announced Wednesday $3
million in seed funding for an AI real-time claim validation
software.

Heller says in his commentary that the consequences of AI
fraudulent claims is far-reaching.

"It strains the resources allocated for the settlement, delaying
payouts to legitimate claimants," the commentary says.
"Additionally, it dilutes the overall settlement fund, potentially
reducing the compensation that each legitimate claimant receives."

The commentary also explores the cost to both legal parties faced
with fraudulent claims.

"Validating millions of claims against a backdrop of fraudulent
submissions is a mammoth task," the article says. "This process
requires significant legal resources, driving up costs for both
plaintiffs and defendants. Plaintiffs face longer wait times for
their rightful compensation, while defendants are burdened with
mounting legal fees and the uncertainty of a protracted
settlement."

Heller said the legal system needs a multi-pronged approach to
combatting fraudulent claims that includes:

Early AI-powered intervention that catches claims at the start of a
claims period.

Continual monitoring of claim detection systems to ensure the
methodology is staying ahead of adapting tactics used by
fraudsters.

Collaboration between claims administrators, law firms and
technology partners

Transparency throughout the claims process including details of why
a claim has been determined legitimate or fraudulent. [GN]

AMAZON.COM INC: Stephenson Sues Over Illegal Employment Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW STEPHENSON, as an individual and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM INC., a Delaware
corporation; AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, a Delaware limited liability
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 24CV434301 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., April 2, 2024) is a
class action complaint challenging Defendants' systemic illegal
employment practices resulting in violations of California Labor
Code, the California Business and Professions Code, and the
applicable Wage Orders of the California Industrial Welfare
Commission.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants, jointly and severally have
acted intentionally and with deliberate indifference and conscious
disregard to the rights of all employees by: (a) failing to pay
earned, but unused Paid Personal Time upon separation of
employment; (b) failing to pay all vested Vacation Wages (defined
as including but not limited to vacation time, personal days,
flexible days, paid time off, PTO, paid personal time, and other
paid time off) to separating employees at the final rate of pay,
and/or applicable regular rate of pay; and (c) engaging in unfair
business practices.

Plaintiff Stephenson was employed by Defendants as an hourly,
non-exempt employee at an Amazon fulfillment center from
approximately January 25, 2022, to July 12, 2022.

Amazon.com Inc. doing business as Amazon, is an American
multinational technology company, engaged in e-commerce, cloud
computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial
intelligence.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          Kristen M. Agnew, Esq.
          Max W. Gavron, Esq.
          Kwanporn "Mai" Tulyathan, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.  
          515 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 1250
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 488-6555
          Facsimile: (213) 488-6554
          E-mail: lwlee@diversitylaw.com
                  kagnew@diversitylaw.com
                  mgavron@diversitylaw.com
                  ktulyathan@diversitylaw.com

               - and -

          Cody R. Kennedy, Esq.
          Tatiana Avakian, Esq.
          MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
          29800 Agoura Road, Suite 210
          Agoura Hills, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 991-8080
          Facsimile: (818) 991-8081   
          E-mail: ckennedy@marlinsaltzman.com
                  tavakian@marlinsaltzman.com

               - and -

          Peter M. Hart, Esq.
          Ashlie E. Fox, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PETER M. HART
          12121 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 525
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 439-9298
          Facsimile: (509) 561-6441
          E-mail: hartpeter@msn.com
                  ashlie.fox.loph@gmail.com

ANNE ALLEN: Court Enters Amended Scheduling Order in Medina Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAWN HEPIKITA MEDINA, et
al., v. THE HON. ANNE MARIE MCIFF ALLEN, et al., in their official
capacities, Case No. 4:21-cv-00102-DN-PK (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge
Paul Kohler entered an amended scheduling order as follows:

   1. Motion for Class Certification:

      a. The Defendants shall file a response to Plaintiffs'
amended
         motion for Class Certification no later than May 10,
2024.

      b. The Plaintiffs' reply memorandum in support of their
amended
         motion for Class Certification shall be due May 31, 2024.

   2. Response to Complaint:

      a. The Defendants shall file a response to the Second Amended

         Complaint no later than 30 days after the Court rules upon

         the Plaintiffs' amended motion for class certification.

   3. Trial and Trial Preparation

      The parties are ordered to meet and confer pursuant to Rule
      26(f) within 14 days of the Court's ruling upon Defendants'
      amended motion for Class Certification to discuss what
      discovery is needed and to propose a second amended
scheduling
      order to the Court.

On March 8, 2024, the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit issued
its Order and Judgment in this case in which it "vacate[d] the
district court's merits rulings, and remand[ed] for the district
court to consider class certification and for further proceedings
as required."

The Court determined that in "the absence of certification, the
district court was not presented a live case or controversy as to
the merits of the claims; instead, it retained jurisdiction only
over the certification motion."

The Plaintiffs initially filed a Motion to Certify Class on Oct. 4,
2021. Amended Motion was filed on Oct. 5, 2021. That motion was put
on hold pending Defendants' motion to dismiss,

A copy of the Court's order dated April 10, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=G7cKuK at no extra
charge.[CC]

ARISE VIRTUAL: De Niro Seeks Conditional Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIAVION DE NIRO,
individually, and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, v.
ARISE VIRTUAL SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00695-APG-EJY (D.
Nev.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

   (1) Conditionally certifying collective action under 29 U.S.C.
       section 216(b);

   (2) Directing that Notice be issued to all Customer Support
       Professionals (CSPs) who have worked at Arise during the
last
       three years and were classified as independent contractors
by
       first class mail, e-mail, and text; and

   (3) Directing that Arise produce a list of the names, last-known

       mailing and e-mail addresses, and telephone numbers for all

       individuals who currently work and/or previously worked at
       Arise as customer support professionals at any time in the
last
       three years and were classified as independent contractors.

The Plaintiff has brought this collective action on behalf of
herself and all other similarly situated individuals who have
worked as CSPs at Arise, seeking to recover unpaid wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Plaintiff asserts that she and other CSPs working for Arise
were all subject to the same rules and policies and were
misclassified as
independent contractors when they are, in fact, employees of Arise
as a matter of economic reality, and thus subject to the
protections of the FLSA.

The Defendant is a customer service call center company that
contracts with thousands of customer service agents working out of
their homes.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 10, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aonfeq at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          Adelaide Pagano, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, PC
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
          E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
                  apagano@llrlaw.com

                - and -

          Kristina L. Hillman, Esq.
          Sean W. Mcdonald, Esq.
          WEINBERG, ROGER & ROSENFELD
          A Professional Corporation
          3199 E. Warm Springs Rd, Ste 400
          Las Vegas, NV 89120
          Telephone: (702) 508-9282
          Facsimile: (510) 337-1023
          E-mail: nevadacourtnotices@unioncounsel.net
                  khillman@unioncounsel.net
                  smcdonald@unioncounsel.net

AST SPACEMOBILE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Misleading Investors
------------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against AST
SpaceMobile, Inc. ("SpaceMobile" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ASTS).
The lawsuit alleges that Defendants made materially false and
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse
information regarding the Company's business, operations, and
prospects, including allegations that: (1) production of the
Company's five Block 1 BlueBird satellites had been negatively
impacted by two suppliers of key subsystems; (2) as a result, the
Company had not substantially completed the production of the Block
1 BlueBird satellites; and (3) as a result, the Company's five
Block 1 BlueBird satellites were not on track to launch in the
first quarter of 2024.

If you bought SpaceMobile shares November 14, 2023 and April 1,
2024, and suffered a significant loss on that investment, you are
encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey Holzer,
Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at
(888)-508-6832 or, you may visit the firm's website at
www.holzerlaw.com/case/spacemobile/ to learn more.

The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the
case is June 17, 2024.

Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law
firm for 2021 and 2022, dedicates its practice to vigorous
representation of shareholders and investors in litigation
nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative
litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys
have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of
dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate
misconduct. More information about the firm is available through
its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm.
Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this
promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney
responsible for its content.

CONTACT:

   Corey Holzer, Esq.
   (888) 508-6832 (toll-free)
   cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN]

AT&T MOBILITY: Unruh Sues Over Failure to Protect Personal Info
---------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN UNRUH and CHRISTOPHER ISBELL, individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AT&T MOBILITY LLC and AT&T,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01414-VMC (N.D. Ga., April 2,
2024) arises from the Defendants' failure to safeguard and protect
Plaintiffs' and Class members' personal Identifiable Information,
which was compromised as a result of a data breach.

Nearly three years ago, AT&T learned that a well-known threat actor
claimed to be selling a database containing the personal
information of over 70 million AT&T customers. But instead of
investigating the source and cause of the massive breach, AT&T
denied the allegations, ignored the issue, and continued with
operations.

Almost three years later, the same customer data from 2021 is no
longer just for sale; it has been fully exposed on the Dark Web.
And after years of denial, AT&T has changed its tune. AT&T finally
admitted that approximately 73 million former and current AT&T
customers' personal and sensitive information was released onto the
Dark Web. According to AT&T, customers' impacted information
included a combination of their "full name, email address, mailing
address, phone number, social security number, date of birth, and
AT&T account number and passcode," which AT&T collected as a
condition for use of its services.

As a result of AT&T's failure to protect the PII it was entrusted
to safeguard, Plaintiffs and class members now face a significant
risk of identity theft and fraud, financial fraud, and other
identity-related fraud now and into the indefinite future, the suit
asserts.

AT&T MOBILITY LLC, also known as AT&T Wireless, and marketed as
simply AT&T, is an American telecommunications company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Roy E. Barnes, Esq.
          J. Cameron Tribble, Esq.
          BARNES LAW GROUP, LLC
          31 Atlanta Street
          Marietta, GA 30060
          Telephone: (770) 227-6375
          E-mail: roy@barneslawgroup.com
                  ctribble@barneslawgroup.com

               - and -

          Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
          J. Austin Moore, Esq.
          Stefon J. David, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714-7100
          E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com
                  moore@stuevesiegel.com
                  david@stuevesiegel.com

               - and -

          Amy E. Keller, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT LLP
          Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 214-7900
          E-mail: akeller@dicellolevitt.com

               - and -

          Douglas J. McNamara, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Ave. NW, Fifth Floor
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408-4651
          E-mail: dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com

AVIVA GENERAL: Supreme Court Denies Class Action Suit Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Angelica Dino, writing for Canadian Lawyer, reports that in a
recent decision, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador
ruled against certifying a class action involving individuals
affected by Aviva General Insurance Company's policy change.

The plaintiffs claimed damages for breach of contract, among other
allegations, arguing that the insurer improperly handled travel
expense reimbursements for insured individuals following motor
vehicle accidents.

The dispute centred on Aviva's 2018 policy modification, which
introduced a 25-kilometre deductible for reimbursement of travel
expenses to medical appointments under Section B Accident Benefits.
This policy affected claims where the round-trip travel did not
exceed 25 kilometers, thereby denying reimbursement for such
travel.

Adam Crotty and Shawn Coleman, who sought to be appointed as
representative plaintiffs, experienced personal injuries from
separate accidents and were recipients of Section B Accident
Benefits. However, their claims for travel expense reimbursements
were denied under the new deductible policy, prompting the class
action application under the Class Actions Act, with the aim to
include various affected parties across multiple Canadian
provinces.

The Supreme Court reviewed the application based on criteria
outlined in the Class Actions Act, which requires clear definitions
of a class, the presence of common issues among class members, and
that a class action must represent a preferable procedure for
resolving the issues at hand.

The court acknowledged that while the insurance company altered its
reimbursement policy, there was insufficient evidence to suggest
that this change contravened existing insurance agreements or
required regulatory approvals. The court emphasized that the term
"reasonable expenses" within the policies did not specifically
guarantee coverage for all travel expenses, which inherently allows
the insurer some discretion in determining which expenses to
cover.

The court also highlighted that the pleadings failed to demonstrate
a cause of action or outline substantial common issues affecting
potential class members, which are critical in certifying a class
action. Furthermore, the application did not sufficiently argue
that a class action would be the preferable procedure to address
the claims compared to individual claims or regulatory
intervention.

As a result of these findings, the court declined to certify the
class action, stating that the plaintiffs did not meet the
necessary legal thresholds for such a certification. [GN]

BEMUS LANDSCAPE: Ramirez Seeks Penalties for Labor Code Violations
------------------------------------------------------------------
ADOLFO LOZOYA RAMIREZ, as an "aggrieved employee" on behalf of
himself and other similarly situated "aggrieved employees" under
the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 v. BEMUS
LANDSCAPE, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 to 25,
inclusive, Case No. 24STCV08944 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty.,
April 9, 2024) seeks damages as well as civil penalties under the
Private Attorneys General Act over Defendants' alleged violations
of the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant Bemus Landscape, Inc. as an
hourly, non-exempt employee from in or around September 2023 to on
or around January 19, 2024. The Plaintiff alleges that throughout
his employment, Defendant committed multiple violations of the
California Labor Code, including, among others, failure to properly
pay all wages, including minimum, regular, overtime, and
double-time wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods,
failure to timely pay wages during employment and upon separation,
and failure to provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff now
seeks to recover civil penalties under PAGA and related relief
through this representative action.

Based in San Clemente, CA, Bemus Landscape, Inc. provides full
service landscape management and tree care services throughout
Southern California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Maralle Messrelian, Esq.
         MM LAW, APC     
         500 N. Brand Blvd., Ste 2000
         Glendale, CA 91203
         Telephone: (818) 810-7747
         Facsimile: (818) 230-9018
         E-mail: maralle@mmlawapc.com

BIOGEN INC: Class Cert. Bid Filing in OFPRS Suit Due May 10
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS
PENSION AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM, v. BIOGEN INC., MICHEL VOUNATSOS,
ALFRED SANDROCK, AND ALISHA ALAIMO, Case No. 1:22-cv-10200-WGY (D.
Mass.), the Hon. Judge William Young entered class certification
management order as follows:

                 Event                         Date

  Class Certification

    Plaintiffs Motion:                        May 10,2024

    Defendants' Opposition:                   June 21,2024

    Plaintiffs Reply:                         July 19,2024

  Completion of Merits Discovery:             Oct. 11,2024

  Expert reports and discovery

    Opening Expert Reports Exchanged:         Oct. 25,2024

    Rebuttal Expert Reports Exchanged:        Nov. 15,2024

    Complete Expert Discovery:                Dec. 20,2024

  Dispositive Motions

    Motions:                                  Jan. 2,2025

    Oppositions:                              Jan. 30,2025

    Replies:                                  Feb. 13,2025

  Ready for Trial:                            April 1, 2025

Biogen is an American multinational biotechnology company,
specializing in the discovery, development, and delivery of
therapies for the treatment of neurological diseases.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0lfB3m at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
          Jacob A. Walker, Esq.
          Michael D. Gaines, Esq.
          Brendan Jarboe, Esq.
          Nathan J. Abelman, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          260 Franklin St., Suite 1860
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 398-5600
          Facsimile: (617) 507-6020
          E-mail: jeff@blockleviton.com
                  jake@blockleviton.com
                  michael@blockleviton.com
                  brendan@blockleviton.com
                  nathan@blockleviton.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          James R. Carroll, Esq.
          Michael S. Hines, Esq.
          Yaw A. Anim, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE,
          MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          500 Boylston Street
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 573-4800
          E-mail: james.carroll@skadden.com
                  michael.hines@skadden.com
                  yaw.anim@skadden.com

BNY MELLON: Partially Wins Summary Judgment Bid vs Walden
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEN WALDEN, LESLIE
WALDEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED;
v. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON CORPORATION, BNY MELLON, N.A., Case
No. 2:20-cv-01972-CRE (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Cynthia Reed Eddy
entered an order granting in part, deferring in part, and denying
in part BNY Mellon's motion for summary judgment.

Specifically, BNY Mellon's motion is granted as to the Waldens'
breach of contract claim that BNY Mellon breached the Agreements by
investing in securities of BNY Corp. and granted as to the Waldens'
breach of contract claim that BNY Mellon breached the Agreements by
failing to make individualized assessments of the Waldens'
financial needs.

The Court will defer ruling on BNY Mellon's motion in part on the
issue of whether the Waldens are entitled to disgorgement of fees
for supplemental briefing to be submitted consistent with the
following Order.

BNY Mellon's motion for summary judgment is denied in all other
respects.

This putative class action was initiated in this Court on December
21, 2020 by the Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated, against the Defendants. The Waldens generally
assert breach of contract claims and claims under the Pennsylvania
Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law ("UTPCPL") in
connection with investment management services BNY Mellon provided
to the Waldens under investment management agreements.

Presently before the Court is a pre-class certification motion for
summary judgment by BNY Mellon.

Unless otherwise indicated, the following facts are not in dispute.
The Waldens bring this putative class action against BNY Mellon for
a breach of contract and UTPCPL violations for allegedly failing to
disclose conflicts of interest for BNY Mellon's investment of their
assets into affiliated mutual funds.

Bank of New York Mellon is an American banking and financial
services corporation.

A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated April 10, 2024, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jt1WrW
at no extra charge.[CC]

BRIGHT HEART: Discloses Personal Data Without Consent, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
S. N., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. BRIGHT HEART HEALTH, INC. d/b/a BRIGHT HEART HEALTH,
Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-02112 (N.D. Cal., April 8, 2024) is an
action arising from the Defendant's systematic violation of the
medical privacy rights of its patients via exposing their highly
sensitive personal information without those patients' knowledge or
consent, by Defendant's use of various third-party tracking and
collection tools.

According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, unbeknownst to users
of the Defendant's Website, the Defendant installed and implemented
"pixels" and similar tracking technologies on the Website to
acquire and disclose the highly valuable Private Information of
their users, customers, and patients to third parties such as Meta
Platforms, Inc. d/b/a Facebook ("Meta" or "Facebook") and Google
LLC ("Google").

The Defendant has disregarded the privacy rights of its patients
who used its Web Properties ("Users" or "Class Members") by
intentionally, willfully, recklessly and/or negligently failing to
implement adequate and reasonable measures to ensure that the
Users' personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected
health information ("PHI") (collectively, "Private Information")
was safeguarded. Instead, Defendant allowed unauthorized third
parties such as Facebook and Google to intercept the content of its
Users' communications on Defendant's Web Properties with the
consent of the Plaintiff, says the suit.

BRIGHT HEART HEALTH, INC. d/b/a BRIGHT HEART HEALTH provides online
treatment for eating disorders from licensed therapists,
psychologists, dietitians and psychiatrists. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John R. Parker, Jr., Esq.
          ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC
          3550 Watt Avenue, Suite 140
          Sacramento, CA 95608
          Telephone: (916) 616-2936
          Email: jrparker@almeidalawgroup.com

                - and -

          Nicholas Migliaccio, Esq.
          Jason Rathod, Esq.
          Bryan G. Faubus, Esq.
          MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
          412 H St. NE
          Washington, DC 20002
          Telephone: (202) 470-3520
          Facsimile: (202) 800-2730
          Email: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
                 jrathod@classlawdc.com
                 bfaubus@classlawdc.com

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Bid to Seal Docs Temporarily OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------
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 Hon. Judge Jesse Furman entered an order
temporarily granting the motion to seal.

The Court will assess whether to keep the materials at issue sealed
or redacted when deciding the underlying motion. To the extent that
UMB or any third party believes that the materials should be
unsealed sooner, it shall file a letter motion, not to exceed three
pages, seeking such relief.

The Defendant Bristol-Myers Squibb Company ("BMS") request that the
Court enter an order to maintain under seal, until 14 days after
the deadline for filing motions for summary judgment, the
confidential merits discovery material cited or quoted by plaintiff
UMB Bank, N.A. ("UMB") in its opposition to BMS's motion to dismiss
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

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 Court therefore should maintain a sealing order with respect to
these materials until there is an "adjudication," such as a motion
or motions for summary judgment, for which they are actually
relevant.

Bristol-Myers is an American multinational pharmaceutical company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Apr. 8, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=upTE0G 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

BRITISH COLUMBIA: Faces Suit Over Sexual Abuse by Jail Guard
------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Fumano, writing for Vancouver Sun, reports that a proposed
class action lawsuit accuses the B.C. government of negligence for
allegedly allowing a provincial jail guard to sexually assault more
than 200 young inmates over 21 years.

Hundreds of former inmates have previously accused retired jail
guard Roderic David MacDougall of sexual abuse, in criminal court
and in dozens of civil lawsuits. The new proposed class action
claims allege the violation of the victims' rights under the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Karim Ramji, the North Vancouver-based lawyer behind the new claim,
has previously filed other lawsuits against MacDougall and the
provincial government. Some of those cases are still proceeding
through the courts slowly. One lawsuit, filed by Ramji in 2014 on
behalf of two alleged victims, is set for trial this fall.

"That one case has taken 10 years -- you can imagine all the other
cases," Ramji said.

In 2019, Ramji filed a lawsuit on behalf of 61 men who had
outstanding civil claims at that time. That lawsuit, which
described MacDougall as "one of Canada's most prolific sexual
offenders, with more than 200 former inmates who have already come
forward," was a type of litigation known as a representative
action. That action has effectively been on hold for years, and
Ramji said it will now be discontinued so he can focus on the class
action.

This new class action will provide "a more efficient format" for
the matter to proceed on behalf of any victims whose claims have
not yet been resolved or for any victims who may not have come
forward previously, Ramji said: "This is about access to justice."


MacDougall worked as a corrections officer at four different B.C.
jails between 1976 and 1997, with most of his time at Oakalla
Prison in Burnaby. He was first criminally charged in 1998, the
year after he quit his job.

Dozens of claims have been filed against MacDougall and the
province since 2002 that have not been adjudicated upon by the
courts or settled, the new claim says, and the proposed class
action could include any of those unresolved claims as well as any
other possible victims who never previously came forward.

The new pleading alleges breaches of the victims' constitutionally
protected Charter right to "life, liberty and the security of
person," as well as their right to not be subjected to "cruel and
unusual punishment." The victims' Charter rights were violated not
only by MacDougall's sexual assaults, but also by the province for
its "systemic negligence" allowing the abuse to occur over so many
years, the claim alleges.

In the lawsuit Ramji filed in 2014, lawyers representing the
Province of B.C. argued the plaintiffs should not be able to seek
damages under the Charter, and the court agreed.

The availability of Charter damages for these men is the "key
issue" in this case, Ramji said: "Jails are not Charter-free
zones."

MacDougall is believed to be in his early 70s and living in the
Lower Mainland. Reached by phone, MacDougall said he was not aware
of the newly filed class action and declined to discuss the
allegations.

"You are not going to get me to comment," MacDougall said.

MacDougall did not respond in court to many of the lawsuits filed
against him over the years.

He did, however, maintain his innocence at a criminal trial in
2022, where he was convicted of sexual assault, indecent assault,
and extortion in connection with five teenaged inmates in the
1980s.

The new class action will need to be approved by a Supreme Court
judge before it can proceed. [GN]

C. PFEIFFER: Court Junks Estrada's Bid for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAIME IGNACIO ESTRADA, v.
C. PFEIFFER, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00769-KES-GSA (E.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Gary Austin entered an order that:

   1. The Clerk of Court shall randomly assign a District Judge to

      this action, and

   2. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification is denied.

The Court further recommended that the Plaintiff's motion for a
preliminary injunction be denied as prematurely filed.
Within 14 days after being served with these findings and
recommendations – by April 22, 2024, – the Plaintiff may
file written objections with the Court.

The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's
Findings and Recommendations." Failure to file objections within
the specified time may result in a waiver of the right to appeal
the district court's order.

The Plaintiff's motion must be denied because to date Plaintiff has
yet to file a complaint that contains actionable claims against
viable defendants. As a result, the motion for a preliminary
injunction is premature for lack of personal jurisdiction.
Therefore, Plaintiff is not eligible to request preliminary
injunction for other inmates as he may only request one for
himself. For all these reasons, it will be recommended that the
motion be denied.
The Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under
42 U.S.C. section 1983.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bNSbz3 at no extra
charge.[CC]

CARECENTRIX INC: Jones Seeks Conditional Status of FLSA Collective
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NADEYAH JONES,
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
CARECENTRIX INC., a corporation, Case No. 3:23-cv-01071-VAB (D.
Conn.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court enter an order:

   (1) Conditionally certifying the proposed the Fair Labor
Standards
       Act (FLSA) Collective:

   (2) Requiring Defendant to identify all putative collective
members
       by providing a list of their names; last known addresses,
       dates, and location(s) of employment; phone numbers; and
       email addresses in electronic and importable format within
ten
       (10) days of the entry of the order;

   (3) Authorizing Plaintiff's proposed form of notice and consent

       forms (Exhibits A & B) and implementing a procedure whereby
the
       notice of the Plaintiffs' FLSA claims is sent (via U.S.
Mail,
       email, and text message) to:

       All current and former customer service representatives who

       worked for the Defendant at any time in the past three years

       (the "FLSA Collective").

   (4) Appointing the undersigned counsel as counsel for the FLSA
       Collective; and

   (5) Giving members of the FLSA Collective 60 days to join this
       case, measured from the date the Court-authorized notice is

       sent, with one reminder email and text message sent 30 days

       thereafter to anyone who did not respond.

The facts and legal authorities in support of this Motion are in
the attached Brief in Support, which is incorporated by reference.


The Plaintiff that the Defendant failed to incorporate all
non-discretionary bonuses in its customer service representatives'
"regular rate" of pay when determining their overtime rate; and
that the Defendant knowingly suffered or permitted the Plaintiff
and the Defendant's other customer service representatives (CSR) to
perform unpaid work before and after their scheduled shifts, which
resulted in them not being paid for all overtime hours worked.


The Plaintiff Nadeyah Jones worked remotely for the Defendant in
Mobile, Alabama as a non-exempt CSR, with the specific job title of
Patient Advocate, from November 2022 to June 22, 2023.

CareCentrix is a single platform that "connect[s] the last mile of
care[] for health plans and health systems."

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Apr. 8, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ahwSrq at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

                - and -

          Jeffrey S. Morneau, Esq.
          CONNOR & MORNEAU, LLP
          273 State Street No.2
          Springfield, MA 01103
          Telephone: (413) 455-1730
          E-mail: jmorneau@cmolawyers.com

CASTING NETWORKS: Faces Class Action Over Pay-For-Play Model
------------------------------------------------------------
Winston Cho of The Hollywood Reporter reports that talent listing
service Casting Networks is facing a proposed class action lawsuit
accusing it of exploiting actors by charging them for opportunities
to audition for roles.

The complaint, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, claims the
pay-for-play model violates a California law aimed at protecting
performers from predatory practices in Hollywood by prohibiting the
charging of fees for the submission of headshots, reels or
additional audition materials. It alleges that the company
illegally "commercialized, gatekept and exerted complete control of
the casting process" by tying the ability to pay for auditions with
casting opportunities.

The filing of the complaint marks renewed scrutiny around
pay-to-play auditions. In 2018, the Los Angeles City Attorney's
office successfully pursued criminal charges against more than two
dozen offenders, mostly a mix of acting workshop owners and casting
professionals, accused of staging paid auditions with aspiring
actors. The industry significantly contracted after the crackdown,
which was initiated following the publication of a 2016
investigation by The Hollywood Reporter.

The lawsuit says the industry mostly shifted online serving
thousands of subscribers who pay a monthly fee to potentially
connect with industry professionals. On its website, Casting
Network says it's a software service allowing top casting directors
to manage submissions from talent, as well as schedule and share
auditions. Performers can submit auditions for roles by
subscribing.

Casting Networks violates the Fee-Related Talent Services Law,
which was passed by California legislators in 2009, by charging
actors for employment opportunities, requiring performers to pay a
fee for creating audition materials as a condition for using the
service and accepting payment for referring talent to people or
companies that may charge them additional fees, the lawsuit
alleges.

Under the "premium" subscription, which costs $29.99 per month,
members can enter unlimited role submissions on the website's
casting billboard, connect with agents through its scouting
service, and upload media of their photographs, audition tapes and
other promotional material onto their profiles.

"By holding onto media, Defendant can extract higher subscription
tiers as artists' storage space is exhausted and they are forced to
purchase more," the complaint states.

The proposed class brings claims for violations of California laws
regulating unfair competition, false advertising and fee-related
talent services, among other claims. It seeks to represent
California residents who paid for subscriptions in the past four
years.

"Casting Networks is essentially offering to do for producers what
they could not do themselves under the law -- take money in
exchange for the honor of auditioning," said Christina Le, a lawyer
at the Clarkson Law Firm representing the proposed class, in a
statement. "Actors who go out and audition for roles are already
giving their labor away for free. Adding a pay-to-play requirement
on top runs dangerously close to blatant theft." [GN]

CENTRAL GARDEN: Flodin Bid to File Material Under Seal Nixed
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN FLODIN, et al., v.
CENTRAL GARDEN & PET COMPANY, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-01631-JST
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an order:

-- denying Plaintiffs' motion to file under seal material related
to
    their opposition to the Defendants' motion for leave to file a

    third-party complaint; and

-- granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' motions to
file
    under seal material related to their motion for class
    certification.

The motions are granted only as to Exhibits 2, 3, 8, 13, 14, 15,
24, and 25 to the Declaration of Courtney Vasquez in Support of
Class
Certification, as well as the portions of the Vasquez Declaration,
the Declaration of Colin B. Weir, and Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification identified by Defendants at ECF No. 157 at 5.

By April 12, 2024, Plaintiffs shall file: (1) a public version of
their motion for class certification, and all supporting
declarations and exhibits, that complies with this order; (2)
updated redacted versions of these documents as necessary; and (3)
a public unredacted
version of their opposition to the Defendants' motion for leave to
file third-party complaint and supporting exhibits.

When filing exhibits, counsel shall clearly identify the exhibit,
including by number where appropriate, in the docket text—e.g.,
"Exhibit 1 to Declaration of Courtney Vasquez." Once the Plaintiffs
re-file their motion for class certification, the Clerk will
terminate the version of the motion.

Also by April 12, 2024, the Plaintiffs shall submit another flash
drive containing only Exhibits 5, 6, and 7, which were not subject
to any sealing motion. This flash drive shall be maintained in the
public record. The Plaintiffs previously submitted a flash drive
containing Exhibits 5, 6, 7, 14, 15, 24, and 25. Because the Court
has sealed Exhibits 14, 15, 24, and 25, the Clerk shall maintain
that flash drive under seal.

Although entire product formulas are subject to sealing, the
Defendants have cited no authority for the proposition that
revealing the percentage of a single ingredient, or the results of
testing regarding a single ingredient, "might harm [Defendants']
competitive standing."

Accordingly, the motions to seal are denied as to the specific
amount of avocado in the challenged products, references to that
amount, and the persin test results.
Central Garden is an innovator, marketer and producer of quality
branded products for the lawn & garden and pet supplies markets.

A copy of the Court's order dated Apr. 8, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wQc3MH at no extra
charge.[CC]

CEREBRAL INC: Court Enters Order on Bids for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BARAK FEDERMAN, v.
CEREBRAL, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-01803-FMO-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Fernando M. Olguin entered an order regarding motions
for class Certification:

-- Joint Brief

    The parties shall work cooperatively to create a single, fully

    integrated joint brief covering each party’s position, in
which
    each issue (or sub-issue) raised by a party is immediately
    followed by the opposing party's/parties’ response.

-- Meet and Confer

    In order for a motion for class certification to  be filed in
a
    timely manner, the meet and confer must take place no later
than
    35 days before the deadline for class certification motions set

    forth in the Court’s Case Management and Scheduling Order.

-- Supplemental Memorandum

    After the joint brief is filed, each  party may file a
    supplemental memorandum of points and authorities no  later
than
    14 days prior to the hearing date.

Cerebral provides health care software solutions.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JOuDL8 at no extra
charge.[CC]

CG-HHC INC: Court OK's Settlement in Williams Suit
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID WILLIAMS, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. CG-HHC, INC. d/b/a
CAREGIVER, A STEP UP, Case No. 5:22-cv-01003-SL (N.D. Ohio), the
Hon. Judge Sara Lioi entered an order approving the parties' joint
motion for approval of settlement.

The claims in plaintiffs' complaint are dismissed with prejudice,
and this case is closed. The Court retains jurisdiction over this
action to enforce the terms of the settlement.

The Court finds that the divergent views of the facts and the law
presented a bona fide dispute that, had the parties not reached
settlement, would have necessitated resolution by the Court and/or
a jury. The parties' motion confirms the same. In particular, the
parties disagreed about whether CG-HHC failed to pay its hourly,
non-exempt employees all of the overtime to which they were
entitled. Having reviewed the terms of the settlement, the Court
finds that the settlement represents a fair and reasonable
resolution to the bona fide dispute.

On June 9, 2022, the Plaintiff Williams filed this action, alleging
that the Defendant violated the FLSA and Ohio Minimum Fair Wage
Standards Act by failing to pay him and others similarly situated
for all the overtime compensation to which they were entitled.

On Oct. 14, 2022, the parties filed a joint proposed stipulation to
class certification and notice, which the Court approved on October
17, 2022.

On Feb. 9, 2024, the parties reached a settlement agreement, and on
March 19, 2024, they filed the instant motion for approval of the
settlement agreement.

A copy of the Court's order dated Apr. 8, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nM9cHm at no extra
charge.[CC] 


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

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=23854 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On March 7, 2024, before the market opened,
CI&T issued a press release entitled "Restatement of Previously
Issued Financial Statements." It stated, in pertinent part, that
CI&T had concluded that "(i) the Company's audited consolidated
financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31,
2022, included in its annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended
December 31, 2022 filed with the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC") on March 28, 2023, and (ii) the
Company's unaudited condensed consolidated interim financial
statements as of and for the periods ended March 31, 2023, June 30,
2023 and September 30, 2023, each previously furnished to the SEC
on a current report on Form 6-K, should no longer be relied upon
(collectively, the "Non-Reliance Periods")."

On this news, the price of CI&T stock fell $0.48 per share, or
10.78%, on March 7, 2024.

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

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

Contact Information:

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

CINEMARK HOLDINGS: Waldrop Sues Over Deceptive Drink Sizes
----------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Osborne, writing for WFAA, reports that a North Texas
movie-goer is suing Plano-based Cinemark, claiming the theater
company is shorting customers on drink sizes.

The class action lawsuit was filed in federal court in Sherman on
April 17, 2024, according to court records.

Shane Waldrop, who filed the lawsuit, claims that Cinemark is
selling drinks in containers that are labeled as 24 ounces but that
the containers only hold 22 ounces.

WFAA reached out to Cinemark officials for comment but has not yet
heard back.

Waldrop, who is claiming he has been "financially injured" by the
alleged drink shortage, said in the lawsuit that he was at the
Cinemark Tinseltown theater in Grapevine when he bought a 24-ounce
draft beer for $8.80, which came out to $9.53 after tax. The drink
container was labeled as 24 ounces. But Waldrop, the lawsuit said,
thought the container wasn't large enough to hold 24 ounces. So he
took the empty container from the theater and measured how much
liquid it could hold.

The lawsuit said Waldrop found that the container could only hold
22 ounces.

Waldrop claims Cinemark is misleading customers and inducing them
to buy the 24-ounce drinks "at a premium price," a dollar more than
the 20-ounce size.

Waldrop's lawsuit alleges violations of Texas' Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, negligent misrepresentation, common law fraud, and
unjust enrichment. Waldrop is seeking compensatory damages and for
Cinemark to repackage its 24-ounce drinks "with the proper amount
of advertised liquid," the lawsuit said.

The lawsuit also demands a jury trial over the claims. [GN]

CITY OF HOPE: De Lapaz Seeks Damages for Data Security Failure
--------------------------------------------------------------
LAURA DELAPAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CITY OF HOPE, Case No. 2:24-cv-02885 (C.D. Cal., April
9, 2024) seeks damages and relief for Defendant's alleged failure
to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's personal identifiable
information.

The Plaintiff and Class members are current and former patients of
Defendant's clinics whose PII was compromised in a data breach
which allegedly came about as a result of Defendant's data security
failure. The Defendant confirmed that Plaintiff and Class members'
personal information was illegally accessed by an unauthorized
third party between September 19, 2023 and October 12, 2023. The
Defendant became aware of the data breach on or about October 13,
2023 but only began sending notices to affected individuals on
April 2, 2024, says the suit.

The Plaintiff claims that victims of the data breach have suffered
and will continue to suffer injuries and now face a current and
ongoing risk of identity theft due to Defendant's actions.
Plaintiff accuses Defendant of negligence, breach of implied
contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, and California
law violations.

City of Hope is a national cancer institute headquartered in
Duarte, CA. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
         THE LYON FIRM     
         2754 Erie Avenue
         Cincinnati, OH 45208
         Telephone: (513) 381-2333
         Facsimile: (513) 766-9011
         E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com

CITY OF HOPE: Faces Krause Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------
PAMELA KRAUSE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CITY OF HOPE, Case No. 2:24-cv-02894 (C.D. Cal., April
9, 2024) accuses the Defendant of failing to adequately protect
highly sensitive information entrusted to it by its customers.

The Plaintiff's personally identifying information and protected
health information was illegally accessed by unauthorized third
parties in a cyberattack on Defendant's systems that occurred
between September 19, 2023 and October 13, 2023. The Defendant
learned of the data breach on October 13, 2023 but only notified
Plaintiff on April 6, 2024.

The Plaintiff alleges that the data breach was primarily caused by
Defendant's failure to maintain reasonable and appropriate data
security for consumers' sensitive personal information. As a result
of Defendant's actions, Plaintiff and all other individuals
affected by the data breach are now at an increased risk of fraud
and identity theft.

The Plaintiff brings claims for negligence, negligence per se,
breach of fiduciary duty, breach of confidences, breach of implied
contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment seeking
actual and putative damages and other relief.

Headquartered in Duarte, CA, City of Hope provides cancer research,
treatment and prevention, and other healthcare services to patients
throughout the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
         EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP     
         411 S. State Street, Suite N-300
         Newtown, PA 18940
         Telephone: (215) 867-2399
         Facsimile: (267) 685-0676
         E-mail: elechtzin@edelson-law.com

CITY OF HOPE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ridley Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------
BRIAN RIDLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CITY OF HOPE NATIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-02890 (C.D. Cal., April 9, 2024)
alleges that the Defendant failed to provide adequate data security
measures to the Plaintiff and the Class personally identifiable
information and protected health information which resulted to Data
Breach.

According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Plaintiff and the
Class entrusted their sensitive PII to the Defendant, but was
subsequently exposed in a data breach, which the Defendant first
publicly disclosed on December 13, 2024. The Defendant failed to
properly secure and safeguard the PII that was entrusted to them,
and their accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that
information. At least 820,000 patients' information were affected
by the Data Breach, in which sensitive personal information was
accessed by an unauthorized third party, says the suit.

The Defendant owed the Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take
all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the PII and PHI they
collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. Defendant
solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the PII and
PHI, yet breached their duty by failing to implement or maintain
adequate security practices. As a result of the Defendant's
inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff and Class
Members' PII and PHI was exposed to criminals, the suit asserts.

CITY OF HOPE NATIONAL MEDICAL CENTER operates as a medical
hospital. The Company focuses on cancer research, and patient
treatment of clinical trial, prevention treatment, continuing
medical education for life-threatening illnesses. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
          21031 Ventura Blvd, Suite 340
          Woodland Hills, CA 91364
          Telephone: (818) 646-5690
          Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
          Email: abacon@toddflaw.com

               - and -

          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
          Email: ek@zlk.com

CITY OF HOPE: Julian Sues Over Unsecured Patients' Information
--------------------------------------------------------------
TAMMY L. JULIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CITY OF HOPE NATIONAL MEDICAL CENTER d/b/a CITY OF
HOPE, Case No. 2:24-cv-02898 (C.D. Cal., April 9, 2024) seeks
damages, injunctive relief, and equitable relief over Defendant's
failure to properly secure and safeguard its patients' private
information.

The Plaintiff's personally identifiable information and protected
health information was compromised in a data breach that allegedly
stemmed from Defendant's failure to implement reasonable and
appropriate data security measures. The Defendant became aware of
the data breach on October 13, 2023 but only notified affected
patients, including Plaintiff, about the incident approximately six
months later, on April 4, 2024.

The Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals have suffered
concrete injuries and are now at risk of fraud and identity theft
due to Defendant's conduct. The Plaintiff brings claims for
negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach
of fiduciary duty, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, and
violation of various California laws.

City of Hope is a cancer research and treatment organization based
in Duarte, CA. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         John R. Parker, Jr, Esq.
         ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC      
         3550 Watt Avenue, Suite 140  
         Sacramento, CA 95821
         Telephone: (916) 616-2936
         E-mail: jrparker@almeidalawgroup.com

CITY OF HOPE: Lopez Sues Over Alleged Privacy Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CITY OF HOPE NATIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Case No.
2:24-cv-02879 (C.D. Cal., April 9, 2024) accuses the Defendant of
failing to adequately protect the private information of its
customers, resulting in a data breach.

The Plaintiff's personally identifiable and protected health
information was compromised in a data breach that was allegedly
caused by Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable
cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to safeguard and
protect private information it collects from its customers.
Additionally, Defendant failed to provide the complete details of
the data breach in its notice letters to affected individuals, says
the Plaintiff.

As a result of Defendant's alleged negligent conduct, the Plaintiff
and Class members are now at a current, imminent, and ongoing risk
of fraud and identity theft. The Plaintiff brings claims for
negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, breach
of fiduciary duty, breach of confidence, unjust enrichment, and
injunctive/declaratory relief.  

City of Hope is a cancer treatment and research center based in
Duarte, CA. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
         KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, P.A.     
         One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
         Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 90025
         Telephone: (954) 525-4100
         E-mail: cardoso@kolawyers.com
                 ostrow@kolawyers.com

                 - and -
     
         Billy Peerce Howard, Esq.
         Amanda J. Allen, Esq.
         THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM, PLLC
         401 East Jackson Street, Suite 2340
         Truist Place
         Tampa, FL 33602
         Telephone: (813) 500-1500
         E-mail: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com
                 Amanda@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com

CITY OF HOPE: Saurenmann Sues Over Alleged Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------
LYNSEY SAURENMANN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. CITY OF HOPE, Case No. 2:24-cv-02860 (C.D. Cal., April
9, 2024) accuses the Defendant of failing to properly secure and
safeguard sensitive information of its patients.

The Defendant experienced a data breach between September 19, 2023
and October 12, 2023, during which personal identifiable
information as well as medical information of its patients,
including Plaintiff, were compromised and unlawfully accessed by
cyber criminals. The Defendant discovered the data breach on or
about October 13, 2023 but only began notifying affected patients
on April 2, 2024. The Plaintiff claims that the data breach was a
direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and
reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to
protect patients’ sensitive information from a foreseeable and
preventable cyberattack.

The Plaintiff brings a claim for negligence, breach of implied
contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the California
Unfair Competition Law, California Consumer Privacy Act, California
Customer Records Act, and California Confidentiality of Medical
Information Act.

City of Hope is a cancer research, treatment, and prevention
company based in Duarte, CA. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        John J. Nelson, Esq.
        MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC     
        280 S. Beverly Drive
        Beverly Hills, CA 90212
        Telephone: (858) 209-6941
        E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com

CLAIRE'S STORES: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Asbestos Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Neutral IT reports that Claire's was hit with a proposed class
action on April 10, 2024 in New York federal court, a day after the
retail company recalled three of its makeup products, over asbestos
presence concerns. The plaintiffs alleged that the recall would not
fully compensate for their loss.

Two plaintiffs told that the voluntary recall of the products was
not fulfilling enough to repay the consumers for their damages and
future diagnostic screening. A recent test conducted by the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration and AMA Analytical
Services Inc. indicated the retailer sold cosmetics contaminated
with asbestos. The FDA recently found that three samples collected
from Claire's and one from another retailer Justice tested positive
for asbestos presence. [GN]


CLIPPER REALTY: Must Produce Discovery in Sanchez Suit
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sanchez v. Clipper Realty,
Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-08502-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Katherine Polk Failla entered an order directing the Defendants to
produce discovery as to members of the putative class "who are
subject to collective bargaining agreements that contain
arbitration clauses that would prohibit them from being class
members in this action."

The Court credits Defendants' assertion that the remaining
discovery issues remain amenable to resolution through the standard
meet-and-confer process, and hereby orders the Plaintiff to
continue to meet and confer with Defendants regarding such issues.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending motion at
docket entry 99.

The Court is persuaded that the Plaintiff is entitled to obtain
discovery as to the wage and time records of the putative class
members, which information is relevant to the questions of
"commonality, typicality, numerosity, that the class is
identifiable and ascertainable, and that common questions
predominate over any individual issues as required by Rule 23."
Benavides v. Serenity Spa NY Inc., 166 F. Supp. 3d 474, 492
(S.D.N.Y. 2016).

Clipper acquires, owns, manages, operates and repositions
multifamily residential and commercial properties in the New York
metropolitan area, with a portfolio in Manhattan and Brooklyn.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=74Q6Ae at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Matthew Cohen, Esq.
          Edward H. Grimmett, Esq.
          KAUFMAN DOLOWICH LLP
          135 Crossways Park Drive, Suite 201
          Woodbury, NY 11797
          Telephone: (516) 681-1100
          E-mail: www.kaufmandolowich.com

COLUMBUS REGIONAL: Reaches $2M Settlement in ERISA Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hall Benefits Law, writing for mondaq, reports that Columbus
Regional Healthcare System, Inc., a Georgia company, and a class of
some 6,800 retirement plan participants, recently advised a federal
district court that they have reached a $2 million settlement in
their pending Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) case.
The parties' joint filing detailed the settlement terms, which
would end the plan participants' class action lawsuit in which they
accused plan sponsors of losing them millions in retirement funds
by charging them excessive administration fees and offering them
poor investment choices.

Plan participants filed the original suit in February 2021. The
case is Goodman et al. v. Columbus Regional Healthcare System Inc.,
Case number 4:21-cv-00015, U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Georgia. Piedmont Healthcare Inc., an Atlanta-based
company, acquired Columbus in May 2019, at which point the
retirement plan already had lost about $4.6 million in assets. The
plan participants claimed that the plan was full of overpriced,
poorly performing funds and excessive fees and expenses.

U.S. District Court Judge Clay D. Land denied the healthcare
system's motion to dismiss on January 25, 2022, based on the U.S.
Supreme Court's decision in Hughes et al. v. Northwestern
University. In Hughes, the Supreme Court held that an employer may
breach its fiduciary duty under ERISA to plan participants even
when it provides a range of investment options. In August 2023, the
judge granted class certification to all plan participants and
beneficiaries who invested in the plan between February 2015 and
the plan's termination, overruling the healthcare system's
objections to the proposed class as overly broad.

The case is scheduled for final settlement approval on June 12,
2024. [GN]

CONNECTWISE LLC: Faces Class Action Over Negligence/Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Pastis of Tampa Bay Business Journal reports that one of
Tampa's largest tech firms faces a class-action lawsuit alleging
the firm's negligence incited a data breach.

A Georgia citizen, Mark Marshall, alleges Tampa software service
firm ConnectWise and Arizona-based mortgage broker On Q Financial
were responsible for leaking the personal information -- Social
Security numbers, addresses and names -- of more than 200,000
individuals to the dark web, according to the lawsuit filed on
April 12 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida.

The lawsuit is uncertified and calls for people affected by the
data breach to join as class members. It seeks monetary damages and
for the company to implement new practices, according to the
complaint. The complaint alleges six counts, including negligence;
breach of contract, fiduciary duty and good faith; unjust
enrichment; and seeks declaratory judgment, according to the
complaint.

ConnectWise was a vendor for On Q Financial and provided the broker
with software that led to the breach. On Q Financial's networks
were breached by a cybercriminal exploiting the tool, resulting in
the leaking of individuals' personal information.

The data breach was caused by an incident in February that
cybersecurity experts described as a cybercrime "Armageddon." At
the time, a vulnerability in ConnectWise's popular remote
management software tools named ScreenConnect came to light, and
cyberattacks proliferated.

The lawsuit alleges that cybercriminals now hold the personal
information of approximately 200,000 individuals because of the
ScreenConnect vulnerability. According to the complaint, these
plaintiffs and class members may have experienced "fraudulent
misuse" because of the leaked information.

ConnectWise said in a statement it did not experience a data
breach, intrusion or ransomware event. It did see exploits of the
ScreenConnect vulnerability for some customers but said that
hackings can "occur through numerous avenues."

The people affected by this data breach never received an adequate
explanation of the root cause, although both companies distributed
notes and statements about the incident, according to the
complaint. It also alleges ConnectWise failed to take adequate
preventative measures and did not comply with industry standards.

The plaintiffs' attorney did not respond to a request for comment.

Plaintiff has an uphill climb

Patricia Carreiro, a cyber and privacy attorney in Miami and
cybersecurity and privacy practice chair for Tampa--based law firm
Carlton Fields, said the lawsuit appears standard for the cyber
privacy space. It's commonplace for individuals to turn to a vendor
like ConnectWise with accusations. It wouldn't be surprising to see
a "trickle--down" effect of a number of lawsuits popping up against
the companies who use ConnectWise as a vendor, she said.

Carreiro points to a 2023 data breach within software file transfer
firm MOVEit. After the massive breach, class--action complaints
piled up against the vendor, and eventually lawsuits flowed down to
companies that used that vendor.

"The chain continues, and it can create a domino effect of
litigation," Carreiro said.

The plaintiffs have an uphill battle to prove a class action and
explain the need to bring the lawsuit to court, she said.

"What has essentially happened is that [the plaintiff] learned of a
breach and they're saying, 'Well, if a breach occurred, then you
must have done something wrong,'" Carreiro said. "I have often
faced these lawsuits, and what I see is companies that have worked
very hard, often putting in a ton of protections, but things still
happen. These huge investments that companies often make in
cybersecurity do not make a breach impossible."

Carreiro also points to a broader trend for the cyber regulatory
space as companies and regulators grapple with the punishments
against firms that have suffered data breaches.

Recently, Florida House Bill No. 473 (H.B. 473), also referred to
as the Cybersecurity Incident Liability Act, passed in the state
legislature. The bill would provide a safe harbor from lawsuits
after a data breach for companies implementing industry--recognized
cybersecurity practices. It now is waiting on the governor's
signature. [GN]

CONTINENTAL AG: Anderson Sues Over Tire Price Monopoly
------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTINE ANDERSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONTINENTAL AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT;
CONTINENTAL TIRE THE AMERICAS, LLC; COMPAGNIE GENERALE DES
ETABLISSEMENTS MICHELIN SCA; COMPAGNIE FINANCIÈRE MICHELIN SA;
MICHELIN NORTH AMERICA, INC.; NOKIAN TYRES PLC; NOKIAN TYRES INC.;
NOKIAN TYRES U.S. OPERATIONS LLC; THE GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER
COMPANY; PIRELLI & C. S.P.A.; PIRELLI TIRE LLC; BRIDGESTONE
CORPORATION; BRIDGESTONE AMERICAS, INC.; and DOES 1-100,
Defendants, Case No. 5:24-cv-00637-SL (N.D. Ohio, April 9, 2024)
alleges violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, beginning from January
1, 2020, through the present, the Defendants entered into an
unlawful agreement to artificially increase, maintain, stabilize
and fix the prices of replacement tires sold in the Unites Staes
for passenger cars, vans, trucks and busses.

The Defendants effectuated their price fixing conspiracy by, among
other means, signaling price increases during earnings calls and
other public statements, implementing revenue management software
to facilitate and exchange pricing information, participating in
annual industry meetings and coordinating supply reductions to keep
prices artificially high. As a direct result of Defendants'
conspiracy, the Plaintiff and the Class purchased Tires directly
from the Defendants at artificially inflated prices and were
thereby directly injured in their business or property, says the
suit.

CONTINENTAL AG manufactures tires, automotive parts, and industrial
products. The Company produces passenger cars, trucks, commercial
vehicles, bicycle tires, braking systems, shock absorbers, hoses,
drive belts, conveyor belting, transmission products, and sealing
systems. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric H. Zagrans, Esq.
          ZAGRANS LAW FIRM LLC
          1640 Roundwyck Lane
          Columbus, OH 43065-8416
          Telephone: (440) 452-7100
          Email: eric@zagrans.com

               - and -

          Garrett D. Blanchfield, Esq.
          Roberta A. Yard, Esq.
          REINHARDT WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
          222 South 9th Street, Suite 1600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (651) 287-2100
          Email: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com
                 r.yard@rwblawfirm.com

CORELOGIC CREDCO: Settles FCRA Class Action Suit for $5.695M
------------------------------------------------------------
ACA International reports that a recent case puts data accuracy in
the spotlight, particularly when it comes to erroneous reporting of
whether or not a consumer is still alive.

In Steinberg v. Corelogic, 2024 WL 1546921 Case No.:
3:22-cv-00498-H-SBC (S.D. Cal. April 9, 2024), a credit reporting
agency (CRA) agreed to pay $5.695 million in a class-action lawsuit
to resolve claims that it violated the federal Fair Credit
Reporting Act by listing consumers as deceased on credit reports
when they were actually alive.

It did this even after at least one of the three national CRAs
(Equifax, Experian and TransUnion) provided information that did
not include a notation that the consumer was deceased.

Background

The plaintiff, Marlene Steinberg, alleged that CoreLogic
negligently and willfully violated the FCRA by failing to maintain
reasonable procedures to assure the maximum possible accuracy in
the preparation of the credit reports it resold regarding the
settlement class members.

Specifically, she claimed CoreLogic resold inaccurate information
from one or more of the nationwide CRAs where the consumer report
contained a notation that the consumer was deceased and where
either one or two of the CRAs also provided information that did
not include a notation that the consumer was deceased.

She alleged that CoreLogic made no effort to determine whether the
consumer was in fact deceased prior to publishing its consumer
report.

Steinberg said that she suffered concrete financial and pecuniary
harm arising from monetary losses relating to credit denials, loss
of use of funds, loss of credit and loan opportunities,
out-of-pocket expenses, and other related costs. She also alleged
that she suffered concrete harm in the form of financial and
dignitary harm arising from the injury to her credit rating and
reputation.

In 2022, she filed a class-action complaint in the Superior Court
of California, County of San Diego against CoreLogic. Just last
week, on April 9, the court certified the settlement class.

Settlement

While CoreLogic didn't admit any wrongdoing, it did agree to a
$5.695 million settlement to resolve the lawsuit.

CoreLogic is also required to improve its reporting practices to
more clearly state that the data it is reporting is precisely the
data it received from the CRAs.

ACA's Take:

The Fair Credit Reporting Act requires data furnishers to establish
and implement reasonable written policies and procedures regarding
the accuracy and integrity of consumer information provided to a
consumer reporting agency. [GN]

COSMETIC INSTITUTE: Agrees to Settle Malpractice Suit for $25-Mil.
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Guardian reports that women who allegedly suffered
complications undergoing so-called "one size fits all" breast
augmentation surgery in two states could be compensated under a
proposed class action settlement.

The lawsuit was launched against The Cosmetic Institute in 2017 by
patients in New South Wales and Queensland who alleged they
suffered distressing complications because of the negligence of the
company's surgeons and staff.

Those issues included heart problems, punctured lungs and seizures,
among other conditions.

The long-running case had been scheduled for a lengthy civil
hearing to begin in the NSW supreme court, but the parties instead
reached a last-minute agreement to settle the dispute for $25m.

Damages had been sought for physiological and psychiatric
treatment, as well as added costs of further revision surgery,
medical monitoring and other losses.

The surgeries were carried out at The Cosmetic Institute's Sydney
clinics at Parramatta and Bondi Junction, as well as at other
facilities in the NSW capital and on the Gold Coast.

The class action argued patients were not told of the risk of harm
from the firm's "one size fits all" procedure and staff at the
clinic were negligent and breached their duty of care and consumer
guarantees.

Out of the total settlement, $2.8m will be paid out to the 12 lead
plaintiffs who headed up the case.

A further $10m will be requested by the law firm Turner Freeman to
cover its costs of running the lawsuit and future expenses working
out the amount of compensation payable to women who come forward.

The remaining $12.2m will be split between any other affected
women.

In 2018, The Cosmetic Institute sought to have the class action
struck out by the court on the grounds there was "no reasonable
cause of action", but was unsuccessful.

The Cosmetic Institute and its subsidiaries are now under
liquidation and may not need to pay anything.

Three insurers for The Cosmetic Institute have been included in the
class action.

Under the proposed settlement, there have been no admissions of
liability made by the liquidated medical firm or its former
employees.

The court will hear objections from affected women and arguments
about whether the settlement is fair and reasonable at a two-day
hearing scheduled for 13 May.

A judge will then decide whether to sign off on the deal. [GN]

COVANTA DADE: Brashevitzky Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AVROHOM BRASHEVITZKY, et.
al, v. COVANTA DADE RENEWABLE ENERGY, LLC, et al., Case No.
1:23-cv-20861-DSL (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order certifying both a Property Damage and a Medical
Monitoring Class.

       Property Damage Class:

       "All persons or entities who, as of the date of the Court's

       certification order, owned real property in the Class Area
as
       bounded by NW 106th Street in the north, to Okeechobee
       Road/SR27, to Palmetto Highway 826 in the east, NW 41st
       Street/36th Street to the south, and the Florida Turnpike to

       the west."

       Medical Monitoring Class:

       "All natural persons who resided within the Class Area as
       bounded by NW 106th Street in the north, to Okeechobee
       Road/SR27, to Palmetto Highway 826 in the east, NW 41st
       Street/36th Street to the south, and the Florida Turnpike
       to the west at any point between Feb. 12, 2023 and March 2,

       2023."

On Feb. 12, 2023, a fire started at the Miami-Dade County Resources
Recovery Facility, a waste collection and incineration site in
Doral, Florida operated by the Defendants.  This was not a typical
fire—it was a fire that produced a toxic plume over an area of
several
square miles around the facility.

The residents of this area seek to compel the Defendants to
remediate the contaminated areas and provide medical testing to
detect cancer at the earliest possible time.

The Plaintiff Brashevitzky owns a home near the Facility, where he,
his wife, and children live.  He works as a Rabbi at the Chabad
Jewish Center that is also near the Facility.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Apr. 8, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XhPvdD at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Francisco Guerra, IV., Esq.
          Alicia O'Neill, Esq.
          Jennifer A. Neal, Esq.
          Mikal C. Watts, Esq.
          WATTS GUERRA LLP
          875 E. Ashby Place, Suite 1200
          San Antonio, TX 78212
          Telephone: (210) 447-0500
          E-mail: fguerra@guerrallp.com
                  aoneill@guerrallp.com
                  jneal@guerrallp.com
                  mcwatts@wattsguerra.com

                - and -

          Bruce C. Kaplan, Esq.
          KAPLAN & KAPLAN, Esq.
          INTERNATIONAL LAW FIRM, LLC
          9737 Doral Boulevard, Suite 482
          Miami, FL 33178
          Telephone: (305) 407-2420
          E-mail: bkaplan@kaplan.attorney

CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE: Bid to File Second Amended Complaint Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDA JOHNSTONE and L.D.,
by and through her mother, LINDA JOHNSTONE, individually and on
behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated,
v. CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01111-BMB (N.D.
Ohio), the Hon. Judge Bridget Meehan Brennan entered an order
denying the Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a second amended
complaint.

Because Plaintiffs submitted no evidence or argument to excuse or
explain their dilatory failure to seek leave to add a DNC registry
claim, the Court declines to exercise its discretion to permit the
filing of the proposed second amended complaint.

The Plaintiffs do not offer a reasonable justification for their
failure to seek leave to plead a DNC registry claim prior to the
filing of the instant motion on December 22, 2023.

The Plaintiffs have acknowledged that they knew of having been
called twice by Defendant at least eight months prior to filing the
instant motion.

On June 23, 2022, Linda Johnstone commenced this class action
lawsuit. She alleged that the Defendant contacted her cellular
phone with a robocall prerecorded message.

The Complaint proposed a nationwide class of persons who received
the same or substantially similar robocall message from the
Defendant.

On June 12, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed their first amended
complaint. Two weeks later, the Defendant answered the first
amended complaint.

On April 6, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file
their first amended complaint. That motion was granted on June 9,
2023.

CrossCountry offers mortgage lending services.

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

CSI ELECTRICAL: Court Addresses Compensable Time at Checkpoints
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gerald L. Maatman, Jr. of DuaneMorris.com reports that in Huerta v.
CSI Electrical Contractors, Case No. S275431, 2024 Cal. LEXIS 1446
(Cal. Mar. 25, 2024), the California Supreme Court held that time
spent on an employer's premises to undergo a security check could
constitute compensable hours worked; that time spent traveling on
an employer's premises may be compensable as employer-mandated
travel time; and that employees covered by the Labor Code's
"construction occupation" exception to meal periods may be entitled
to minimum wage for the time spent working during an on-duty meal
period. As a result, companies operating in California should
review and adjust their pay policies on these issues to ensure
complaint pay procedures.

Case Background

Plaintiff George Huerta worked at a solar power facility in Central
California that was managed, in part, by Defendant CSI Electrical
Contractors ("CSI"). At the start and end of each shift, employees
waited at the facility's entrance to partake in a security check,
which included rolling down a window and showing an ID badge, a
visual inspection of the vehicle, and at times, a search of the
vehicle. Huerta alleged that CSI owed him compensation for the time
spent waiting to pass through the security checkpoints. After
passing through the checkpoint, Huerta then drove down the
facility's roads to reach the employee parking lot. Huerta, again,
claimed he should have been compensated for the time spent driving
from the facility's entrance to the parking lot. Huerta was also
covered by a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") that mandated
an off-duty, unpaid 30-minute meal period. CSI's rules required
workers to spend meal periods near their designated worksite for
the shift, which Huerta alleged entitled him to additional
compensation.

Huerta filed a wage-and-hour class action against CSI seeking
unpaid wages. He subsequently appealed his case to the Ninth
Circuit, which, in turn, certified three questions to the
California Supreme Court, including: (1) is time spent waiting to
pass through a security checkpoint on an employer's premises
compensable time; (2) does time spent traveling from a security
checkpoint to the employee parking lot constitute compensable time;
(3) are workers entitled to paid meal periods when they are
prohibited from leaving the jobsite during meal periods?

The California Supreme Court's Decision

Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Order No. 16-2001 ("Wage
Order No. 16") that governs wages, hours, and working conditions in
the construction, drilling, logging, and mining industries covered
Huerta's work at the facility. To answer the three certified
questions, the California Supreme Court interpreted Wage Order No.
16 as follows:

First, the Supreme Court held that under Wage Order No. 16, the
time an employee spends on an employer's premise waiting to undergo
a mandatory security check could constitute compensable "hours
worked" depending on the amount of "control" exercised over the
employee. The Supreme Court noted that CSI required Huerta to
participate in the security check; confined him to the premises
until he finished the entrance and exit procedure; and made him
perform "specific and supervised tasks" of waiting in his vehicle,
rolling down his window, and allowing his personal vehicle to be
searched by a guard. Thus, CSI exercised a sufficient amount of
"control" over Huerta to render the time spent passing through the
security checkpoint compensable time worked under the Wage Order.

Next, the Supreme Court held that under Wage Order No. 16, travel
time may be compensable where (1) "the employer required the
employee's presence at an initial location before mandating travel
to a subsequent location" and (2) "the employee's presence was
required for an employment-related reason other than accessing the
worksite." Here, the Supreme Court offered an example of a worker
who reported to an initial jobsite, retrieved work supplies,
received the work order, and then traveled to a second jobsite.
Based on this example, the time spent travelling between jobsites
represents compensable time. Since Huerta and CSI offered
contradictory evidence on this point, the Supreme Court declined to
express a "view" on whether the facility's security checkpoint was
a "first location" that CSI mandated Huerta's presence.

Finally, the Supreme Court held that "an employee must be paid a
minimum wage for meal periods when an employer's prohibition on
leaving the premises or a particular area forecloses the employee
from engaging in activities he or she could otherwise engage in if
permitted to leave," even if the employee is covered by a CBA-meal
period exception under a Wage Order. The Supreme Court did not
express any opinion on whether CSI's rules for meal periods
prohibited Huerta from the leaving the facility during his
30-minute meal periods, but noted that "if Huerta's 'unpaid meal
period' is compensable under the wage order as 'hours worked,' he
is entitled to seek compensation for that time under Labor Code
section 1194."

Implications For Employers

California continues to redefine what constitutes compensable time
worked at the start and end of shifts. This decision is a must read
for employers with mandatory security checkpoints, and such
employers are advised to review their security protocols as it may
constitute compensable hours worked. [GN]

CSX TRANSPORTATION: Class Settlement in Shongho Gets Initial Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHEYENNE SHONGO, et al, v.
CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-02684-MJM (D. Md.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting preliminary
approval of Class Settlement, appointment of the Plaintiffs as
class representatives and their counsel as class counsel,
certification of the class for settlement only and setting a final
approval hearing and notice in this action.

CSX is a supplier of rail-based freight transportation in North
America.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Apr. 8, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4kntMQ at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonathan Nace, Esq.
          Zachary Kelsay, Esq.
          NIDEL & NACE, P.L.L.C.
          One Church Street, Suite 802
          Rockville, MD 20850
          Telephone:(202) 780-5153
          E-mail: jon@nidellaw.com
                  zach@nidellaw.com

DAIFUKU SERVICES: Court Recommends Denial of Shaw's Class Cert Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL SHAW, on behalf of
himself and others, v. DAIFUKU SERVICES AMERICA CORPORATION., et
al., Case No. 1:21-cv-01084-KES-CDB (E.D. Cal.), Court recommending
that:

   1. Defendant's motion to strike be denied;

   2. Defendant's evidentiary objections be denied; and

   3. Plaintiff's motion for class certification be denied.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United
States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1). Within 14 days after
being served with these findings and recommendations, the Plaintiff
may file written objections with the Court. The document should be
captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and
Recommendations." The Plaintiff is advised that failure to file
objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of
rights on appeal.

Because the Court finds the Plaintiff's principal class claims are
not suitable for certification, the Court likewise will recommend
that the Plaintiff's motion for class certification be denied as to
his derivative claims.

The Plaintiff initiated this action with the filing of a complaint
on July 12, 2021. The Plaintiff raises nine causes of action of
behalf of himself and a putative class: (1) failure to pay for all
hours worked, (2) failure to pay minimum wages, (3) failure to pay
overtime wages, (4) failure to authorize and permit and/or make
available meal and rest periods, (5) failure to reimburse business
expenditures, (6) failure to provide timely and accurate itemized
wage statements, (7) waiting time penalties, (8), failure to
furnish Plaintiff’s records, and (9) unlawful business practices.


On November 22, 2023, the Plaintiff filed the instant motion to
certify class. The Plaintiff seeks to certify the following class
and subclasses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and
23(b)(3):

    "Class: All current and former, hourly, non-exempt employees of

            [Defendant] who worked in California at any time,
during
            the period of July 2017, until the resolution of this
            action.

    Security Check Subclass: All Class members who worked at an
Amazon
            facility during the Class Period.

    Regular Rate Subclass: All Class members who were paid overtime

            and/or meal and rest break premiums as well as a non-
            discretionary premium payment during the same workweek

            during the Class Period."

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants for various projects
as a mechanic in the Spring of 2020, in an Amazon facility in
Bakersfield. He never worked at Defendant's airport operations.

Daifuku is a materials handling company and is a part of one of the
largest airport service providers in the United States.

A copy of the Court's findings and recommendations dated April 9,
2024, is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6AZylN at no extra charge.[CC]

DEL MONTE: Agrees to Settle Suit Over Diced Peaches' False Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
Del Monte advertises its diced peaches as being with "100% juice,"
but the product includes artificial ingredients and preservatives,
according to a new Del Monte class action lawsuit.

The Del Monte diced peaches ingredient list includes ascorbic acid,
a preservative that is not natural. The list also shows water added
to juice concentrate is a primary ingredient in the Del Monte 100%
juice, coming in a larger concentration than it naturally occurs.

When fruit goes from its natural state to concentrate, it loses
much of its water along with losing volume, fiber, natural fruit
flavor, and crucial vitamin C, but keeping its sugar and calories,
according to Caroline West Passerrello, a registered dietitian
nutritionist quoted by the lawsuit.

The diced peaches with 100% juice are thus mislabeled and
misbranded because they don't include just natural juice but
instead added water, ascorbic acid and other ingredients to make
the product appear natural when it is not.

Take advantage of our free claim filing service, as you may qualify
for up to $615 in compensation. No proof of purchase is necessary
to file a claim. Payments may be increased or decreased on a pro
rata basis. [GN]

DEVON ENERGY: Class Action Settlement in Wright Gets Initial Nod
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Madeline A. Wright, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Devon
Energy Production Company, L.P., Case No. 2:22-cv-00213-KHR (D.
Wyo.), the Hon. Judge Kelly Rankin entered an order granting
preliminary approval of class action settlement, certifying the
class for settlement purposes, approving form and manner of notice,
and setting date for final fairness hearing.

The certified Settlement Class is defined as follows:

    "All non-excluded persons or entities owning interests in
Wyoming
    oil and gas wells who:

    (1) received Late Payments from the Defendant during the Claim

        Period for proceeds of Wyoming oil or gas production, or
whose
        Proceeds for Wyoming oil or gas production were Late
Payments
        sent to escrow by the Defendant during the Claim Period, or

        whose proceeds from Wyoming oil or gas production were Late

        Payments held in suspense by the Defendant and not escrowed
or
        paid during the Claim Period; and

    (2) Such Late Payments did not include 18% interest.

        A "Late Payment" for purposes of this class definition
means
        payment, escrow, or held in suspense by the Defendant after

        the statutory periods identified in W.S. section 30-5-301.

        Late Payments do not include prior period adjustments,
        including retroactive adjustments to wells on federal
units.

        Excluded from the Class are: (1) Defendant, its affiliates,

        predecessors, and employees, officers, and directors; (2)
        agencies, departments, or instrumentalities of the United
        States of America or the State of Wyoming; (3) publicly
traded
        oil-and-gas companies and their affiliates or subsidiaries;

        and (4) any Indian tribe as defined at 30 U.S.C. section
        1702(4) or Indian Allottee as defined at 30 U.S.C. section

        1702(2).

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant failed to pay statutory
interest on payments made outside the time periods set forth in the
Wyoming Royalty Payment act, for oil and gas production proceeds
from oil and gas wells in Wyoming.

Devon is an energy company engaged in hydrocarbon exploration in
the United States.

A copy of the Court's order dated Apr. 8, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=z6mpSn at no extra
charge.[CC]

DIPSON THEATRES: Murphy Balks at Movie Tickets' Hidden Service Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------------
VINCENT MURPHY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DIPSON THEATRES, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00319
(W.D.N.Y., April 9, 2024), seeks relief and damages for Defendant's
alleged violation of the New York Arts and Cultural Affairs Law.

The Plaintiff brings this action over Defendant's alleged failure
to adhere to the disclosure standards concerning ticket prices.
Allegedly, Defendant charged service fees to online purchases of
movie tickets at https://www.dipsontheatres.com without properly
disclosing those fees prior to the customer checking out. The
Defendant displays an initial price for the ticket and later adds a
"service fee" when the ticket is selected for purchase. The true
total price of the ticket is only displayed on the checkout page as
customers are about to complete their purchase, says the
Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff and Class members purchased tickets on Defendant's
website and were forced to pay the added fees in order to secure
their tickets. The total cost was not disclosed to Plaintiff and
Class members at the beginning of the purchase process, in
violation of the New York Arts and Cultural Affairs Law, alleges
the suit.

Dipson Theatres, Inc. is a movie theater chain based in
Williamsville, NY. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Mark S. Reich, Esq.
        Colin A. Brown, Esq.
        LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP     
        33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
        New York, NY 10004
        Telephone: (212) 363-7500
        Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
        E-mail: mreich@zlk.com
               cbrown@zlk.com

DIVIDEND FINANCE: May Face Class Action Lawsuit Over Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------
Danielle DaRos, writing for 12 NEWS, reports that four solar
finance companies, including the subject of a recent CBS12 News
I-Team report, are being sued for fraud by the Minnesota Attorney
General. Now, a lawyer in Palm Beach County plans to sue at least
one of them in a class action lawsuit.

This is the latest development in a solar power scheme the I-Team
has been investigating for more than a year, in which a now-defunct
business called Vision Solar solicited expensive solar projects,
installed many without permits and failed to hook some up to the
power grid -- ripping off customers in several different states,
including Florida.

In February, the I-Team reported that the solar lending companies
that worked with them were under scrutiny for their role.

We spoke to Vision Solar customers who had financed their projects
through Dividend Finance, and were still being asked to make
payments on their loans, even if their solar panels weren't
working.

This week, Dividend Finance and three other solar lending companies
are the subject of a lawsuit from the Minnesota AG, who alleges
that they routinely stuck consumers with hidden fees in their loan
contracts, inflated the price of solar panels by up to 30 percent,
and ripped off consumers in that state to the tune of $35 million.

A spokesperson for Dividend's parent company, Fifth Third Bank,
told the I-Team: "We have reviewed the lawsuit filed by the
Minnesota Attorney General against Dividend Solar Finance and other
solar lenders and believe the claims against Dividend and Fifth
Third are wrong. We intend to defend ourselves vigorously. We are
committed to providing lending products to help consumers who wish
to use solar energy."

As that lawsuit plays out, an attorney from Palm Beach County is
looking to use some of the same arguments in a new class action
lawsuit against Dividend. [GN]

DIXON ADVISORY: Court Approves $16MM Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Ford, writing for Money Management, reports that the Federal
Court has approved the $16 million class action settlement
regarding Dixon Advisory and Superannuation Services.

In a statement on the ASX on April 18, 2024, E&P Financial Group
Limited announced that the Federal Court of Australia has approved
the settlement of the class action filed by Shine Lawyers in
December 2021 against Dixon Advisory & Superannuation Services Pty
Ltd (DASS), E&P, Alan Dixon and Christopher Brown.

The settlement, as announced in November 2023, is $16 million. E&P
said a provision of $4 million has "previously been recognised in
relation to the mechanism for settlement as contemplated in the
Deed of Company Arrangement for DASS", and was reflected in E&P's
financial report for the half year ended 31 December 2023.

"The balance of the settlement amount is comprised of remaining
available insurance proceeds," E&P said.

"Consequently, the Shine Proceeding will be dismissed against E&P,
Mr Alan Dixon and Mr Christopher Brown, and permanently stayed
against DASS, without admission of any liability (subject to any
appeal).

"The representative proceeding filed by Piper Alderman in the
Federal Court of Australia in November 2021 will also be dismissed
against E&P and Mr Alan Dixon, and permanently stayed against DASS
(subject to any appeal)."

On 3 April, the Federal Court pushed back a decision on the class
action settlement for two weeks to "allow the applicant to provide
further information to the court".

The group did not provide further detail on exactly what kind of
information the court is seeking.

In November 2023, the class action, which alleged DASS financial
advisers gave unsuitable advice and failed to address conflicts of
interest, was settled for $16 million.

At the time, Shine Lawyers, representing the class action, said a
conditional settlement had been reached between E&P Financial Group
and the estimated 4,000 customers allegedly affected by the
conduct.

The settlement was reached without admission of liability.

The class action alleged E&P advisers, working under DASS -- which
went into liquidation in January 2022 -- gave unsuitable advice
that did not reflect their clients' needs or their financial
circumstances.

It was also alleged the advice was not in the clients' best
interests and, when there was a conflict, it was not adequately
addressed.

The affected clients will retain the ability to make a claim with
the Australian Financial Complaints Authority or Compensation
Scheme of Last Resort (CSLR).

"We are pleased to have been able to reach a conclusion in this
class action for group members subject to the court's approval, and
that group members will retain their rights to bring a claim
against DASS, pursuant to the financial compensation scheme of last
resort," Shine Lawyers' head of class actions, Vicky Antzoulatos,
said at the time.

In September 2022, the Federal Court imposed a $7.2 million penalty
on Dixon Advisory over its investment advice.

The court found that on 53 occasions between October 2015 and May
2019, Dixon Advisory was the responsible licensee of six
representatives who did not act in the best interests of eight
clients when they advised these clients to acquire, roll over or
retain interests in the US Masters Residential Property Fund (URF)
and URF-related products.

Representatives of Dixon Advisory were also found to have failed to
conduct a "reasonable investigation" of the clients' circumstances
before providing advice. [GN]

DOXIMITY INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Securities Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP informs
investors that today the firm has filed a securities fraud class
action lawsuit against Doximity, Inc. (NYSE: DOCS) ("Doximity" or
the "Company") on behalf of investors who purchased or acquired
Doximity common stock between February 9, 2022, and April 1, 2024,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action, captioned Kissler v.
Doximity, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-02281 was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

Important Deadline Reminder: Investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired Doximity common stock during the Class Period may, no
later than June 17, 2024, move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
for the class.

LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE: JUNE 17, 2024

CLASS PERIOD: FEBRUARY 9, 2022, THROUGH APRIL 1, 2024

CONTACT AN ATTORNEY TO DISCUSS YOUR RIGHTS:

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

DEFENDANTS' MISCONDUCT

Doximity operates a digital platform that provides connections
between, medical information to, and patient scheduling tools for
medical professionals. The Class Period begins on February 9, 2022,
following the release of Doximity's quarterly financial results for
the third quarter of fiscal year 2022, which ended December 31,
2021, after the market closed the night prior. During the February
8, 2022 quarterly investor earnings call, Defendant Anna Bryson,
the Company's Chief Financial Officer, emphasized that "marketers
have been able to witness the value of running these digital
programs" and that it was this "value that's the main reason we're
seeing this sustained demand from our customers and not new [COVID]
variants." To this end, Defendant Bryson further assured investors
that the Company was "focused on . . . really building a business
that can provide years of sustainable growth with high margins."

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants continued to tout the
sustainability of the Company's business prospects while also
downplaying the importance of customer upsell rates on the
Company's financial performance. Notwithstanding Defendants'
repeated claims regarding the sustainability of Doximity's growth
and profitability, investors began to learn the truth about the
Company on August 8, 2023, when, after the market closed, Doximity
reported its financial results for the first quarter of fiscal year
2024, which ended June 30, 2023. While the Company exceeded its
quarterly revenue and adjusted EBITDA guidance for the first
quarter, the Company provided disappointing guidance for the second
quarter of fiscal year 2024 and slashed its guidance for the full
fiscal year 2024. In conjunction with the disappointing guidance,
Doximity announced that it would reduce its workforce by
approximately 10%. The Company further noted that the workforce
reduction is expected to cost approximately $8 million to $10
million.

In explaining this about-face, Defendant Bryson admitted that the
Company's "major upsells have materially underperformed, and we
expect this to continue in the near term." Defendant Tangney
further explained that Doximity failed to close sales due, in part,
to "fewer face-to-face meetings with our clients." On this news,
the price of Doximity common stock declined $7.49 per share, or
nearly 23%, from a close of $32.79 per share on August 8, 2023, to
close at $25.30 per share on August 9, 2023.

Investors learned more about the unsustainability of the Company's
revenue growth on April 1, 2024, when Jehoshaphat Research
published a report alleging, among other things, that "Doximity's
underlying sales . . . are declining at a negative -3-6% rate, but
that this decline has been masked through accelerated revenue
recognition." On this news, the price of Doximity common stock
declined $1.11 per share, or more than 4% over two trading-days,
from a close of $26.91 per share on March 28, 2024, to close at
$25.80 per share on April 2, 2024.

WHAT CAN I DO?

Doximity investors may, no later than June 17, 2024, move the Court
to serve as lead plaintiff for the class, through Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing
and remain an absent class member. Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP encourages Doximity investors who have suffered significant
losses to contact the firm directly to acquire more information.

WHO CAN BE A LEAD PLAINTIFF?

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

ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country and around the
world. The firm has developed a global reputation for excellence
and has recovered billions of dollars for victims of fraud and
other corporate misconduct. All of our work is driven by a common
goal: to protect investors, consumers, employees and others from
fraud, abuse, misconduct and negligence by businesses and
fiduciaries.

For more information about Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
please visit www.ktmc.com.

CONTACT:

   Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
   Jonathan Naji, Esq.
   280 King of Prussia Road
   Radnor, PA 19087
   (844) 887-9500 (toll free)
   info@ktmc.com [GN]

E&E CO: Filing for Class Certification Due Feb. 28, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LORIANN STAPLES, et al.,
v. E&E CO., LTD., Case No. 3:24-cv-00077-AGT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Alex Tse entered an order setting the following schedule for
further proceedings:

  Further Case Management Conference:              Jan. 10, 2025

  Deadline to File Motion for Class                Feb. 28, 2025
  Certification:

  Deadline for Opposition to Class                 April 14, 2025
  Certification:

  Deadline for Reply in support of Class           May 14, 2025
  Certification:

  Deadline for Hearing on Motion for Class         June 6, 2025
  Certification:

E&E is engaged in the wholesale distribution of home furnishings
and housewares.

A copy of the Court's order dated Apr. 8, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pVImj8 at no extra
charge.[CC]

EQUITABLE ADVISORS: Newbury Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN NEWBURY, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated v. EQUITABLE ADVISORS, LLC AND EQUITABLE NETWORK, LLC,
Case No. CACE-24-004907 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty.,
April 9, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor
Standards Act by failing to pay overtime wages.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other
current and former financial professionals (FPs) employed by
Equitable within the United States in Equitable's 20th Edition
Program and/or the Preliminary Employment Program. Equitable
classifies its FPs as exempt from the overtime pay requirements of
the FLSA but requires them to perform non-exempt duties. Allegedly,
he and other FPs were not paid proper compensation for all hours
worked, including overtime compensation for all hours worked over
40 in a workweek, says the Plaintiff.

Equitable Advisors, LLC is a financial services company
headquartered in New York, NY. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
         Paolo C. Meireles, Esq.
         SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.     
         951 Yamato Road, Suite 285
         Boca Raton, FL 33431
         Telephone: (561) 447-8888
         Facsimile: (561) 447-8831

FANTASIA TRADING: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Hussein Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
SUMAYA HUSSEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FANTASIA TRADING, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-02787 (N.D. Ill., April 8, 2024) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

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

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

FANTASIA TRADING, LLC sells Anker products which includes wireless
charging, car charging, and our best-selling portable and wall
chargers. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com

FCA US: Faces Class Action Over Safety Defect With eTorque System
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Beasley Allen lawyers Dee Miles, Clay Barnett, Mitch Williams, and
Dylan Martin filed a class action lawsuit against FCA US LLC -- the
maker of Ram trucks -- after a serious safety defect in vehicles
equipped with eTorque came to light.

The lawsuit alleges there is a defect with the eTorque system that
causes the vehicles to stall suddenly, automatically shift to park,
and automatically engage the emergency brake, without any warning
to the driver.

These stalling events have been reported in all driving conditions,
including on busy highways and rush hour traffic, placing the
driver and others on the road at an increased risk of injury.

What is eTorque?

Simply put, eTorque is FCA's hybrid technology. The technology is
used in Jeep and Ram vehicles. It is supposed to enhance
performance, efficiency, and smoothness with the following:

  -- Stop-Start Functionality
  -- eRoll Assist
  -- Upshift Rev Matching
  -- Electronic System Power
  -- Downshift Rev Matching
  -- Regenerative Braking

What Vehicles Are Affected

The following vehicles from 2019-2023 are a part of the class
action lawsuit.

  -- Ram 1500
  -- Jeep Wrangler
  -- Jeep Wagoneer

Lawsuit At-A-Glance

  -- In February 2023, Beasley Allen filed the lawsuit, alleging
the vehicles were defective and unsafe and that FCA knew about the
dangerous defect before consumers purchased their vehicles but did
not disclose it.

  -- In April 2023, FCA issued a recall for the 2021 model year Ram
1500 trucks with eTorque but excluded all other models and model
years.

  -- FCA's recall claimed the cause of the stalling events was a
rich fuel condition, and they would issue a software update to
adjust the air-fuel ratio.

  -- In response to FCA's recall, plaintiffs worked with an
independent automotive consultant to test whether a rich fuel
condition was causing the stalling events. Testing indicated that
it was not the cause.

  -- On July 21, 2023, FCA moved to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint,
arguing in part that the claims were moot in light of FCA's
voluntary recall.

  -- On January 17, 2024, Judge Mathew Leitman denied FCA's motion
to dismiss.

Following Judge Leitman's order, the parties are now beginning the
early stages of discovery. We will keep you updated on the
litigation as it progresses to trial.

The case is Fisher, et al., v. FCA US LLC, 23-cv-10426, filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan. [GN]

FCTI INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Durkee Due June 10, 2024
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Andrea Durkee v. FCTI,
Inc. et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-02537-FMO-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Fernando Olguin entered an order regarding class settlement
as follows:

   1. All pending deadlines and proceedings are hereby vacated.

   2. The Plaintiff shall file a Motion for Class Certification and

      Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement (“Motion”)
no later
      than June 10, 2024. Defendant is encouraged to also file a
brief
      in support of the motion for preliminary approval.

   3. The Plaintiff is advised that the court will not grant the
      Motion unless it includes a discussion of the Rule 23(e) of
the
      Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requirements, including but
not
      Limited to evidentiary support, where appropriate, regarding
the
      following issues:

      (A) All class and Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
certification
          requirements,

      (B) Whether the settlement is within a range of possible
          judicial approval,

      (C) The proposed allocation plan for the settlement fund.

      (D) The arms-length negotiation of the settlement
discussion(s).

   4. With respect to any settlement involving claims pursuant to
the
      California Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), the
parties
      shall address whether the California Labor & Workforce
      Development Agency received notice of the settlement, and any

      response to such notice.

   5. Failure to file the motion for preliminary approval by the
      deadline set by the court shall result in dismissal of the
case
      for failure to prosecute and/or to comply with a court order.

FCTI provides advanced ATM operations service and technologies.

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

FLORIDA: Wallace Complaint Dismissed for Failure to State Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the NT OF CORRECTIONS and COLONEL B. STEPHENSON, Case No.
2:24-cv-14094-RKA (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Roy Altman entered an
order dismissing the Complaint for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted, and denying all pending motions as
moot.

Mr. Wallace alleges that Colonel "B. Stephenson" violated his Fifth
Amendment rights by confiscating Wallace's prison-issued tablet,
depriving Wallace of "the right to be able to communicant [sic]
with his family," and preventing Wallace from accessing "107 songs"
he
had purchased.

Florida Department of Corrections is the government agency
responsible for operating state prisons in the U.S. state of
Florida.

A copy of the Court's order dated Apr. 8, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=w3601w at no extra
charge.[CC]

FROEDTERT HEALTH: Lutz Seeks Conditional Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nichole Lutz, On behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. Froedtert Health
Inc., Case No. 2:23-cv-00974-WED (E.D. Wis.), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b),
granting her motion for conditional authorization, thereby
authorizing her to send the notice attached to this motion as
Exhibit 1 along with the opt-in form attached to this motion as
Exhibit 2 to all hourly non-exempt employees who worked for
Froedtert Health Inc. on or after Apr. 9, 2021.

The Plaintiff seeks conditional certification as to two claims:

   (1) Froedtert was obligated to compute its employees' pay for
their
       hours worked over per week as time and a half the regular
rate;
       and

   (2) When Froedtert employees worked on a holiday, and received
pay
       for working on the holiday equal to less than time and a
half
       the regular rate of pay, the entire amount the employees
       received for working on the holiday including any premium
pay
       must be included in the regular rate.

In addition to conditional certification, the Plaintiff also
requests that the Court order Froedtert to produce to her the names
and last known addresses of all employees who worked for Froedtert
on or after Apr. 9, 2021.

Froedtert provides healthcare services.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yingtao Ho, Esq.
          THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM S.C.
          310 W. Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 100MW
          Milwaukee, WI 53203
          Telephone: (414) 271-4500
          Facsimile: (414( 271-6308
          E-mail: yh@previant.com

GENERAL MOTORS: Seeks Leave to File Summary Judgment Bid
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK RILEY, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC,
Case No. 2:21-cv-00924-ALM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Defendant asks the
Court to enter an order granting GM leave to file a post class
certification motion for summary judgment.

GM contends that a class member cannot as a matter of law establish
liability against GM for breach of contract or express warranty if
that class member did not experience the Shift-to-Park condition
after receiving a repair from a GM dealer.

Because the Court only recently certified the class and GM could
not have reasonably anticipated that the Court would adopt this
class definition at the time summary judgment motions were due,
good cause exists to modify the scheduling order to allow GM to
file a summary judgment motion addressing this legal issue.

Given that such a motion could not have been brought prior to class
certification against non-parties, consideration of a summary
judgment motion now against the vast majority of absent class
members is both appropriate and necessary.

On March 25, 2024, the Court denied, in part, GM's motion for
summary judgment and granted Riley's motion for class
certification. The Certified Class consists of:

    (1) Initial purchasers and lessees of new Class Vehicles  who
        purchased or leased their vehicles in Ohio;

    (2) sought a repair from a GM dealer regarding the Shifter
Issue
        during the warranty period; and who

    (3) were not provided with a silicon-free replacement part.

The alleged defect involves the Shift-to-Park condition, which is
when a message appears on the dashboard indicating that a class
vehicle needs to be shifted into park even though the vehicle is
already in park.

General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company.

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Daniel R. Birnbaum, Esq.
          Joseph J. Orzano, Esq.
          William F. Benson, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 8000
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 460-5000
          Facsimile: (312) 460-7000
          E-mail: dbirnbaum@seyfarth.com
                  jorzano@seyfarth.com
                  wbenson@seyfarth.com

GENIUS BRANDS: 9th Circuit Court Reverses Class Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP of JD Supra reports that on April 5, 2024,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed
in part and reversed in part the dismissal of a putative class
action asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
against a company that licenses children's entertainment content
and certain of its officers. In re Genius Brands Int', Inc. Sec.
Litig., -- F.4th --, 2024 WL 1473942 (9th Cir. 2024). Plaintiffs
alleged that the company made actionable misstatements after it was
told that its shares would be delisted from the NASDAQ exchange.
The Court held that plaintiffs adequately alleged that the
company's conduct rendered certain challenged statements
misleading, that plaintiffs adequately alleged loss causation for
certain claims, and that one claim was appropriately dismissed for
failure to plead loss causation.

First, the Court reversed the district court's conclusion with
respect to one claim where the district court held plaintiffs
failed to plead an actionable misrepresentation. The Court
explained plaintiffs contended the company made a misleading
statement when the company stated that it "ha[d] not … paid or
agreed to pay to any Person any compensation for soliciting another
to purchase any other securities of the Company," because the
company allegedly had, in fact, arranged for favorable articles to
be published about the company. Id. at *5. The Court held this
statement was adequately alleged to be false as either a misleading
statement or actionable omission. Id. As to a misleading statement
theory, the Court held that the purchase of securities is solicited
when someone petitions, entices, lures or urges another to purchase
a security, which the company did by having favorable media
coverage disseminated about it. Id. As to an omission theory, the
Court explained that, while the company did not have an affirmative
duty to disclose it had arranged for favorable news coverage about
itself, in stating that it had not "paid or agreed to pay to any
Person any compensation for soliciting another to purchase any
other securities of the Company," the company was required to
disclose its efforts to secure favorable coverage. Id. at *6.

Next, the Court turned to claims the district court dismissed for
failure to plead loss causation, or which the company otherwise
contended should be dismissed for failure to plead loss causation.

The Court observed that one claim was appropriately dismissed
because plaintiffs failed to identify a corrective disclosure -- "a
moment where the truth about these statements was revealed." Id. at
*7. The Court explained that the challenged statement -- in which
the company indicated a celebrity would invest in it -- was not
revealed to be false by the company's disclosure that the celebrity
would be compensated in connection with some of the company's
entertainment offerings. Id. As the Court noted, investing in the
company and developing content with the company were not "mutually
exclusive" events. Id.

The Court then explained that plaintiffs had plausibly alleged loss
causation in connection with a statement about how often one of the
company's programs was shown on a television channel devoted to
children’s programming. Id. at *8. The Court held the district
court had wrongly suggested plaintiffs needed to plead that the
company’s stock price had initially increased on the basis of the
alleged misstatement; instead, the Court held plaintiffs only
needed to plead that the company's stock had been inflated by the
alleged misstatement, which only requires a plaintiff to plead that
a stock price was higher than it would have been had the false
statements not been made. Id. In other words, "initial price
inflation and initial price increase are not one and the same; a
price increase is one way of demonstrating that the price was
higher than it would have been, but it is not the only way." Id.
(emphasis in original). Moreover, the Court emphasized that
plaintiffs expressly alleged that the company's statements about
how often its programming was aired on a particular channel did
increase the company's stock by over 25%, and that the stock price
then allegedly fell on reports from short sellers that the
company's statements were inaccurate. Id. at *9. And the Court held
that the short seller reports were adequately alleged to be
corrective disclosures because they synthesized public information
into a form that was "readily digestible." Id. at *9-10.

The Court similarly explained that plaintiffs adequately alleged
loss causation in connection with the company's post on social
media -- in a statement filled with dollar signs and attaching a
news article that speculated the company was about to be acquired
-- because plaintiffs sufficiently alleged the company's conduct
had the effect of making the company's stock price higher than it
otherwise would have been had the company not done so. Id. at
*10-11. The Court also held that plaintiffs adequately alleged the
company's subsequent issuance of a press release that merely
announced the company would jointly own content generated by a
comic book author amounted to a corrective disclosure, because the
press release's failure to discuss a potential acquisition
allegedly signaled to the market that the company was not going to
be purchased imminently. Id. at *11.

Finally, with respect to the company's announcement that it would
jointly own the comic book author's content and use that to create
entertainment, the Court concluded that plaintiffs adequately
alleged loss causation because, while the company's stock price was
allegedly falling both before and after the challenged statement
was made, plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the company's stock
price was higher than it would have been had the company not made
this statement. Thus, it was plausible that the company's stock
price would have fallen even more, had the statement not been made.
Id. at *12.

The Court directed that, on remand, the district court should
assess whether plaintiffs otherwise adequately alleged that the
challenged statements constituted actionable misrepresentations.
Id. [GN]

GLOBE LIFE: Misleads Business Information, Class Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues to
investigate potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders
of Globe Life Inc. (NYSE: GL) resulting from allegations that Globe
Life may have issued materially misleading business information to
the investing public.

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

WHAT TO DO NEXT: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=24072 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.

WHAT IS THIS ABOUT: On April 11, 2024, Fuzzy Panda Research
published a report entitled, "Globe Life (GL): Executives
Disregarded Wide-Ranging "Insurance Fraud" While They Received
Millions in Undisclosed Kick-Back Scheme." The report alleged many
issues, including insurance fraud which was reported and
subsequently ignored by management. Additionally, the report made
allegations of policies written for dead and fictitious people,
forced signatures, funds withdrawn from consumers' bank accounts
without approval, and fictitious bank accounts used to fund
numerous fake policies.

On this news, Globe Life's stock fell $55.76 per share, or 53%, to
close at $49.17 per share on April 11, 2024, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

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

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

Contact Information:

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

GROUP HEALTH: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Due Oct. 17, 2024
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: Group Health Plan Litigation, Case
No. 0:23-cv-00267 (D. Minn., Filed Feb. 2, 2023), the Hon. Judge
Jerry W. Blackwell entered an order approving stipulation regarding
extension of discovery with respect to class certification as
follows:

-- The Plaintiffs' class certification          June 5, 2024
    expert disclosures:

-- Deposition of Plaintiffs' class              June 25, 2024
    certification experts:

-- The Defendant's disclosure of class          July 16, 2024
    certification experts and reports:

-- Deposition of Defendant's class              Aug. 6, 2024
    certification experts:

-- Class certification rebuttal expert          Aug. 27, 2024
    disclosures and reports:

-- Deposition of class certification            Sept. 17, 2024
    rebuttal experts:

-- The Plaintiff's class certification          Oct. 17, 2024
    motion:

-- The Defendant's opposition to                Nov. 12, 2024
    class certification:

-- Reply to class certification                 Nov. 26, 2024
    motion:

The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Other
Personal Injury.[CC]


HEAVENLY HAVEN: Scott Sues Over Below Minimum and Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PHIL SCOTT, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HEAVENLY HAVEN CARE SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00259-SDD-SDJ (M.D. La., April 2, 2024)
is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act arising from
Defendant's failure to pay proper minimum and overtime wages.

Plaintiff Phil Scott is currently employed by Heavenly Haven. He
asserts that in early February 2024, Heavenly Haven announced that
it would no longer be paying more than 40 hours a week, although
employees would still be required to work 53 hours a week. Instead,
those 13 additional hours per week would simply be unpaid. As he
works 53 hours per week, his effective hourly rate is only $6.79,
below the FLSA required minimum wage of at least $7.25 per hour,
says the Plaintiff.

Heavenly Haven operates a home care agency. Heavenly Haven
employees travel to the homes of elderly and disabled individuals
and assist these individuals in caring for themselves.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles J. Stiegler, Esq.
          STIEGLER LAW FIRM LLC
          318 Harrison Ave., Suite 104
          New Orleans, LA 70124
          Telephone: (504) 267-0777
          Facsimile: (504) 513-3084
          E-mail: Charles@StieglerLawFirm.com

               - and -

          Robert B. Landry III, Esq.
          ROBERT B. LANDRY III, PLC
          5420 Corporate Blvd., Suite 303
          Baton Rouge, LA 70808
          Telephone: (225) 349-7460
          Facsimile: (225) 349-7466

HOME POINT: Lead Plaintiff Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re: Home Point Capital Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 4:21-cv-11457-SDK-KGA (E.D. Mich.), the Lead
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting final approval
of the Settlement, approval of the Plan of Allocation, and final
certification of the Settlement Class for settlement purposes

A copy of the Lead Plaintiff's motion dated April 9, 2024, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2WtelD
at no extra charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ellen Gusikoff Stewart, Esq.
          Danielle S. Myers, Esq.
          Juan Carlos Sanchez, Esq.
          Chad Kohnson, Esq.
          Jonathan Zweig, Esq.
          Ana Avalos Cuellar, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
          & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: elleng@rgrdlaw.com
                  dmyers@rgrdlaw.com
                  jsanchez@rgrdlaw.com
                  chadj@rgrdlaw.com
                  jzweig@rgrdlaw.com
                  aavalos@rgrdlaw.com

                - and -

          Thomas C. Michaud, Esq.
          Francis E. Judd, Esq.
          VANOVERBEKE, MICHAUD &
          TIMMONY, P.C.
          79 Alfred Street
          Detroit, MI 48201
          Telephone: (313) 578-1200
          Facsimile: (313) 578-1201
          E-mail: tmichaud@vmtlaw.com
                  fjudd@vmtlaw.com

HYATT CORPORATION: Court Certifies Class in Granados Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLOS CALDERON GRANADOS,
individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. HYATT CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation, doing
business as ALILA MAREA BEACH RESORT ENCINITAS, and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, Case No. 3:23-cv-01001-H-VET (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Marilyn Huff entered an order:

-- certifying the class for purposes of settlement,

-- preliminarily approves the proposed settlement,

-- appointing class representative and class counsel,

-- approving the form and manner of the notice of the proposed
    settlement to the settlement class members, and

-- appointing CPT Group, Inc. as the settlement administrator.

Further, the Court schedules the final approval hearing for Monday,
Aug. 26, 2024, at 10:30 a.m. Pacific Standard Time. The Plaintiff
must file a motion for final approval of the settlement, and any
motions for fee awards and incentive awards on or before Monday,
July 29, 2024.

The proposed settlement class is defined as

    "all current and former non-exempt, hourly employees working
for
    Hyatt at the Alila Marea Beach Resort Encinitas at any time
    between Jan. 25, 2021, to Jan. 5, 2024."

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's uniform policies and
practices as to timekeeping, meal periods, rest periods, wage
payments, minimum wages, overtime, wage statements, and pay at
termination applicable to all non-exempt employees violate
California law.

The Plaintiff is a former employee of Hyatt, who worked at the
Alila Marea Beach Resort Encinitas as a massage therapist from
March 2021 until August 2021.

Hyatt operates as a hospitality company.

A copy of the Court's order dated Apr. 8, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FLwc2q at no extra
charge.[CC]

ICHIMI USA: Takahashi Seeks Unpaid Wages, PAGA Penalties
--------------------------------------------------------
ITSUKO TAKAHASHI, an individual; on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated v. ICHIMI U.S.A. INC., a California corporation,
and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV08885 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., April 9, 2024) accuses the Defendants of violating
the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant Ichimi U.S.A. on or around
September 23, 2022 as a server at its restaurant located in
Torrance, CA. The Plaintiff, like all other aggrieved employees,
has been performing multiple tasks in a day and has been working an
average of well over 50 hours per week. However, Defendants
allegedly failed to properly compensate Plaintiff for all hours
worked. She was paid less than the required minimum wage and was
not paid overtime compensation throughout her employment.

Additionally, the Defendant had no practice or policy for keeping
track of hours their employees worked, such as time cards, and the
employees were also not provided with any information on how much
tips were collected and distributed among employees. Defendant
allegedly committed other Labor Code violations, including failure
to provide meal and rest periods and failure to provide accurate
wage statements, says the suit.

The Plaintiff seeks unpaid wages as well as civil penalties under
the Private Attorneys General Act for the above-mentioned Labor
Code violations.

Ichimi U.S.A. Inc. owns and operates Japanese restaurants in the
city of Torrance, Los Angeles, CA. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Atsushi Kajioka, Esq.
         LAW OFFICES OF ATSUSHI KAJIOKA     
         9171 Wislhire Boulevard, Suite 500
         Beverly Hills, CA 90210
         Telephone: (310) 288-0525
         Facsimile: (310) 288-0588
         E-mail: Law@kajioka.net

ILLINOIS: Illegally Seizes Property Value From Taxpayers, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Capitol Fax reports that a new lawsuit aims to abolish the
long-standing practice of Illinois counties selling properties over
their unpaid taxes in the wake of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last
year that declared the practice unconstitutional.

"County governments across Illinois have been illegally seizing
property value from taxpayers across Illinois for decades," said
Daniel Suhr, an attorney with the Chicago-based law firm Hughes &
Suhr, which filed the suit. "The US Supreme Court made that
eminently clear in its decision, and our lawsuit is an effort to
make victims of this unconstitutional policy whole."

At stake is potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in home
equity that property owners lost when Illinois counties sold their
homes or commercial property for back taxes. A study by the Pacific
Legal Foundation estimated that in the years 2014 to 2021, property
owners in 11 Illinois counties sacrificed about $300 million in
equity when their properties were sold for tax debt.

"It's equity theft," Suhr said.

Again, this is about selling houses for owed back taxes when the
equity in those houses exceeded the money owed. The contention is
the homeowners were unconstitutionally robbed of that excess
equity.

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, incorporated against
the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits the
government from taking private property without paying just
compensation to the property's owner.

For decades, the counties of Illinois have violated this
prohibition.

The violation proceeds as follows. First, people or businesses fall
behind on paying their property taxes -- often, only a few thousand
dollars in back taxes. In response, the county treasurer executes a
tax deed taking the property, either into the hands of the county
directly or to a tax-lien buyer who has purchased the back taxes on
the property. Either way, that taking is for the entire value of
the property, not only the value of the taxes owed. That surplus
value -- the difference between the taxes owed and the value of the
property -- is never returned to the former owner.

The U.S. Supreme Court recently held, unanimously, that this
practice of seizing the surplus value in connection with property
taken to satisfy a tax lien violates the Fifth Amendment's Takings
Clause. Tyler v. Hennepin County , 598 U.S. 631 (2023)

The victims of that policy are spread across Illinois's 102
counties, though they are most often poor, elderly, and vulnerable.
Stealing the surplus value from these individuals is not just
unconstitutional, it is unconscionable.

This lawsuit seeks redress for these unconstitutional,
uncompensated takings. More precisely, this suit seeks relief on
behalf of a class of all victims of the counties' property value
theft. And it seeks this relief against a class consisting of every
Illinois County. [GN]

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,  FL: To Reform Opioid Class Settlement Funds
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Regina Marcazzo-Skarka of VeroNews reports that Indian River County
is revamping the way millions in proceeds from two opioid
class-action settlements are distributed and used each year until
the flow of money ends in 2039.

In its role as lead agency, the Substance Awareness Center of
Indian River County is tasked with turning the funds into services
to fight opioid abuse in the community.

The agency is conducting a needs assessment, including focus groups
and interviews with, so far, 110 people, including drug-treatment
professionals and people who have dealt with opioid addiction in
their families.

"This is an opportunity for us to create a system of impactful and
lasting change," said Carrie Maynard-Lester, Substance Awareness
Center executive director.

The Florida Attorney General's Office handled the class action
lawsuit against opioid manufacturers, distributors and retail
pharmacies "claiming they knew or should have known" about the
dangers of opioid addiction.

Indian River County opted into the suit in June 2021, making it
eligible for annual payouts from both the retailer and manufacturer
settlements.

So far, $139,000 from the retailer settlement has gone to the 19th
Judicial Circuit Alternative Court Program (Drug Court) for
assessment, treatment, testing and services for cases diverted from
criminal court to drug court.

More than $1.2 million from the manufacturers' settlement was
allocated by the Indian River County Public Safety Council to five
local agencies which deal with drug abuse locally on a daily basis.
The funds must be used to combat opioid related problems.

The Indian River County Sheriff's Office received $350,000 for
improvements to the treatment wing at the jail. The Substance
Awareness Center got $150,000 for the drug treatment program at the
jail, plus $50,000 for a countywide needs assessment study.

The IRC Mental Health Collaborative received $40,000 for education,
training and public awareness. The 19th Judicial Circuit Drug
Court, received $305,000 for court-ordered inpatient and outpatient
treatment of indigent defendants. The Treasure Coast Homeless
Council was awarded $282,000 to house outpatients and drug-addicted
people when they are released from jail.

Annual payouts will decrease each year, the manufacturer settlement
funds gradually declining to $132,742 in year 18, and the retail
settlement funds decreasing to $57,387 in 2039.

Of the $99,139.70 remaining this budget cycle, the additional
$60,000 will be used by the Substance Awareness Center to create
the expedited fund assessment process and the $39,139.70 was rolled
over to be used next year. [GN]

INGERSOLL-RAND INDUSTRIAL: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Bowman Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DALLAS BOWMAN; THOMAS DAVIES; FRED FURLANO, SR.; and CODY HECKLER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. INGERSOLL-RAND INDUSTRIAL U.S., INC. d/b/a
INGERSOLL-RAND, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00285 (N.D. Ind., April
9, 2024) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and
overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as field service
technicians.

INGERSOLL-RAND INDUSTRIAL U.S., INC. d/b/a INGERSOLL-RAND offers a
full range of industry leading gear pumps, from industrial process,
magnetically coupled and lubrication. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey A. Macey, Esq.
          MACEY SWANSON LLP
          429 North Pennsylvania Street Suite 204
          Indianapolis, IN 46204-1800
          Telephone: (317) 637-2345
          Facsimile: (317) 637-2369
          Email: jmacey@maceylaw.com

JACK HULLAND: Court Orders Release of Student Info in Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
Angelica Dino, writing for Canadian Lawyer Magazine, reports that
the Yukon Supreme Court has ordered the government to disclose the
names and contact details of students from Jack Hulland Elementary
School (JHES) involved in a class action suit concerning alleged
inappropriate restraints and seclusions between 2007 and 2022.

The class action, representing current and former students of JHES,
centred on accusations that students were inappropriately held,
restrained, locked in rooms, or placed in seclusion during the
specified period. The plaintiffs argued that these actions were
contrary to the duty of care and fiduciary obligations owed to the
students, highlighting a lack of appropriate policies and
procedures at JHES.

At the center of the dispute is the disclosure of sensitive student
records, which the Yukon government initially resisted, citing
privacy concerns under s. 20 of the Education Act. This section
limits the availability of student records without written consent
from the student or parents if the student is over 16. However, the
court found that while the student records contain names and
contact information, such data also exists outside these
confidential files, thereby not under the same strict privacy
constraints.

The court rejected the government's argument that the plaintiffs
must exhaust other means of obtaining the information, such as
through the RCMP or external investigators, who accessed the
records for criminal investigations. The court emphasized that such
disclosures by third parties would be outside the intended limited
purposes and could not substitute for direct disclosure obligations
in civil actions.

Additionally, the Supreme Court deemed the request for complete
student records for all potential class members premature,
considering the ongoing class membership confirmation process. The
court noted that obtaining written permissions to access more
detailed records should be more straightforward once class
membership is confirmed after the opt-out deadline.

The court highlighted the challenges in managing student data
privacy while ensuring accountability and transparency in public
institutions, particularly in sensitive cases involving minors. The
Yukon government is expected to comply with the order, facilitating
the progress of this class action suit as it moves towards
addressing the systemic negligence allegations and potentially
discussing settlements. [GN]

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Plaintiffs Take Aim on Welfare Plan Fiduciaries
------------------------------------------------------------------
JDSupra reports that as mentioned in our recent blog post, the
recently filed class action lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson
(Lewandowski v. Johnson & Johnson et. al., D.N.J., No.
1:24-cv-00671 (Feb. 5, 2024)) over alleged excessive prescription
drug costs takes a new approach with respect to familiar claims of
breach of fiduciary duty for failure to monitor plan costs. Instead
of targeting retirement plan fiduciaries, who have been a common
target of excessive fee litigation over the last several years, the
Lewandowski plaintiffs take aim at the actions of welfare plan
fiduciaries.

Division BB of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (CAA) made
numerous changes to ERISA with the aim of reducing healthcare costs
and increasing protections for participants of health and welfare
plans. These new requirements, examples of which include
no-surprise billing provisions and increased price transparency,
arguably place a greater fiduciary burden on plan sponsors by
increasing the amount of readily available data related to plan
costs. While these new requirements have been in place for over two
years, their impact on plan sponsors and other fiduciaries
continues to develop. These new measures can leave employers
vulnerable to litigation for potential breaches of fiduciary duty,
and the plaintiffs' bar appears poised to pursue these novel
avenues of liability.

Echoes of Retirement Plans

While the same fiduciary standards arguably applied to health and
welfare plans prior to the CAA, the new requirements introduced by
the CAA increase the information available to fiduciaries (and the
public), resulting in a heightened burden on fiduciaries and a
greater source of information for plaintiffs' attorneys. These
changes should not be unfamiliar to seasoned plan fiduciaries. The
new provisions are reminiscent of those applicable to retirement
plans, including the naming of plan sponsors -- in both fully
insured and self-funded arrangements -- as fiduciaries, the removal
of gag clauses in contracts pertaining to price and quality
information, and the disclosure of broker compensation as required
by ERISA Sec. 408(b)(2).

The compensation disclosure rules are of particular interest to
plaintiffs' attorneys, as they may lead to increased scrutiny of
the underlying fees and result in litigation related to
unreasonable vendor fees and services. Retirement plan sponsors
have been subjected to a myriad of excessive fee lawsuits in recent
years, and the CAA has opened the door to similar claims on the
health and welfare plan side.

Best Practices and Next Steps

The CAA's new requirements and the increase in active litigation
over these issues demand enhanced vigilance surrounding ERISA
fiduciary standards for health and welfare plans. As such, it is
vital that employers and other health plan fiduciaries follow these
standards and adopt a rigorous system of procedural prudence.

Some clear, actionable steps employers can take to prepare for this
potential new wave of litigation include the following:

     1. Coordinate with plan service providers to ensure compliance
with the new CAA requirements.

     2. Develop requests for proposals or similar mechanisms to
compare fee models from multiple service providers prior to
contracting or renewing plan relationships.

     3. Review the cost and pricing information from third-party
administrators and other service providers that will now be
available due to the prohibition on gag clauses and other CAA
transparency requirements.

     4. Consider engaging a consultant to review price comparison
data to ensure the plan is paying reasonable compensation to its
service providers.

     5.Conduct a plan audit that includes a review of service
provider performance and contract terms.

     6. Consider the adoption of new price monitoring and review
policies by committees charged with administering health and
welfare plans.

     7. If cost and pricing information is not forthcoming from
third-party administrators and other service providers, document
compliance with ERISA Section 408(b)(2)(B)(viii), including
submitting a request for the information in writing and notifying
the Department of Labor of any failure to provide the requested
information.

Once again, policies and procedures related to retirement plans
will serve as a useful guide for health and welfare plan
fiduciaries seeking protection from these novel lawsuits. [GN]

KAYAK SOFTWARE: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind, Hussein Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
SUMAYA HUSSEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KAYAK SOFTWARE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-2786 (N.D. Ill., April 8, 2024) alleges violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.

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

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

KAYAK SOFTWARE CORPORATION provides Internet travel comparison and
management services. The Company develops and operates a website
and mobile application that enables users to research and compare
travel information such as flights, hotels, rental cars, and
vacation packages. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yaakov Saks, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com

KENVUE INC: Band Aid Products Contains PFAS Substances
------------------------------------------------------
JO ARONSTEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KENVUE INC.; JOHNSON & JOHNSON; and JOHNSON
& JOHNSON CONSUMER INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-04665
(D.N.J., April 8, 2024) alleges that the Defendant's Band-Aid
Bandages products ("Band-Aids") for personal care purposes contains
per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) substances.

The Plaintiff alleged in the complaint that Defendants have not
told consumers, that PFAS "forever chemicals," notorious for having
adverse effects on humans and our environment, are present in
unsafe amounts in Band-Aid brand adhesive bandages. Defendants have
used and continue to use PFAS chemicals in their adhesive bandages
for the water-proof qualities.

The Defendants are well-aware that consumers are extremely
concerned about the use of PFAS chemicals in their products, yet
Defendants have continued to market and advertise their Band-Aid
brand bandages using the representations described herein in order
to profit off of unsuspecting consumers.

Had the Defendants disclosed to the Plaintiff and Class Members
that their adhesive bandages contained and contain PFAS chemicals,
Plaintiff and Class Members would not have purchased Defendants'
adhesive bandages, or they would have paid significantly less for
them. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' failures,
Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered and will continue to
suffer serious injury, says the suit.

KENVUE INC. operates as a consumer health company. The Company
offers a consumer health portfolio in self-care, skin health &
beauty, and essential health products. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christopher A. Seeger, Esq.
     Christopher L. Ayers, Esq.
     Justin M. Smigelsky, Esq.
     Nigel Halliday, Esq.
     Seeger Weiss LLP
     55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor
     Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660
     Telephone: (973) 639-9100

KIA AMERICA: Vaughn Sues Over Unlawful Sharing of Drivers' Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
JACQUELYN VAUGHN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. KIA AMERICA, INC., KIA CORPORATION, and
LEXISNEXIS RISK SOLUTIONS INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-01473-JFM (E.D.
Pa., April 9, 2024) accuses the Defendants of illegal tracking and
sharing of driver behavior data.

The Plaintiff brings this action over Defendants' alleged unlawful
collection and sharing of consumers' driver behavior data without
their knowledge or consent. Allegedly, Defendants install features
capable of tracking driver behavior on numerous Kia vehicles to
secretly record various driver-behavior metrics. Such data is then
sold to credit agencies and/or data-aggregation firms. These credit
companies and data aggregators then sell the data to automobile
insurance companies who use the data to increase quotes and
premiums for drivers' automobile insurance. All of these happen
without drivers' full knowledge and consent, says the suit.

The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and other drivers exploited by
Defendant's illicit scheme, brings claims for Defendants' alleged
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and Consumer Protection
Laws, as well as for tortious interference, invasion of privacy,
and unjust enrichment.

Kia America, Inc. is a vehicle design, manufacturing, distribution,
and/or service company based in Irvine, CA. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Ruben Honik, Esq.
         David J. Stanoch, Esq.
         Honik LLC     
         1515 Market Street, Suite 1100
         Philadelphia, PA 19102
         Telephone: (267) 435-1300
         E-mail: ruben@honiklaw.com
                 david@honiklaw.com

LEADSMARKET.COM: Faces New TCPA Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
Eric J. Troutman of the National Law Review, reports that
Leadsmarket is facing a new TCPA class action and it is part of a
pretty clear trend.

For many years lead gen marketplaces were mostly outside of the
TCPA fray, but following the success of the Wolf pursuing
QuoteWizard recently the Plaintiff's bar has become much bolder
about pursuing marketplaces directly -- and not just buyers and
sellers.

In the new Leadsmarket suit the Plaintiff alleges it is responsible
for texts sent by publishers in its network:

Marketing Labs would send SMS text messages to consumers for the
purpose of driving traffic to Nesmetaju websites. LeadsMarket would
then sell the consumer data entered into Nesmetaju websites to
lenders in the subprime/payday lending industry.

MARKETING LABS LLC and NESMETAJU, LLC, are also named in the suit.

The class identified in the complaint is:

Do-Not-Call Registry Class: All persons in the United States where:
(1) the person registered their phone number on the National
Do-Not-Call Registry 31 or more days; (2) the person's number was
registered to an individual rather than a business; (3) the person
received two or more calls from Marketing Labs within twelve
months; and (4) those text messages were for the purpose of driving
web traffic to a website owned by Nesmetaju.

This new suit is yet another reminder of the TCPA risks to ALL
players in the leadgen space. Just because you operate a
marketplace doesn't mean you're immune to TCPA suits.

While the buyers and makers of calls have the most risk, sellers
and marketplaces often find themselves named in suits as well.[GN]

LEMONADE INC: Faces Privacy Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Sharing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Allison Bell of Think Advisor reports that Lemonade has joined a
long list of companies facing lawsuits over how their websites have
shared visitor data with other companies.

Plaintiffs have filed a complaint accusing the New York-based
insurance broker of sending life insurance applicant information to
Meta's Facebook site, Snap's Snapchat site, TikTok and other
parties without the applicants' consent.

"By allowing this third-party access, Lemonade violated users'
right to privacy, as enshrined by statute and common law,"
according to the complaint, which was in a state court in Nassau
County, New York.

Yitzchak Kopel of Bursor & Fisher, the attorney who filed the suit,
is seeking permission to represent a class that would consist of
all people who applied for a quote for term life insurance from
Lemonade's website from March 15, 2021, through Sept. 28, 2023.

The lead plaintiffs are Sean La Febre, a San Francisco resident;
Jeffrey Parker, a Philadelphia resident; and Kendall Greeven, of
Vista, California.

The plaintiffs have accused Lemonade of violating New York state's
general business law, the California Invasion of Privacy Act and
the Pennsylvania Wiretapping Act.

The plaintiffs are asking for a jury trial and damages to be
determined by the court.

Representatives for the plaintiffs and Lemonade did not respond to
requests for comment.

The backdrop: Lawyers have organized thousands of class-action
suits over companies' use of websites in recent years.

Suits against companies of all kinds, including many complaints
filed this week against the parent of Google, focus on concerns
that website managers sent user data to web traffic tracking
services, advertisers or other services in violation of state or
federal privacy laws or other laws.

Bethany Lukitsch, a partner at BakerHostetler, reported at a recent
Food & Drug Law Institute event that plaintiffs have filed at least
100 suits based just on how the California Invasion of Privacy Act
applies to website chat features.

Many suits against life and annuity issuers raise questions about
whether the site owners collected users' health information and
whether they provided adequate notice and safeguards when
connecting their sites with traffic tracking service providers or
insurance underwriting service providers. [GN]

LEPRINO FOODS: Faces Simmons Wage-and-Hour Suit in N.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW SIMMONS and JAMIE ZEIGLER, individually and on behalf of all
other persons similarly situated who were employed by LEPRINO FOODS
COMPANY, LEPRINO FOODS DAIRY PRODUCTS COMPANY and/or any other
entities affiliated with or controlled by LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY,
LEPRINO FOODS DAIRY PRODUCTS COMPANY, Plaintiffs v. LEPRINO FOODS
COMPANY and LEPRINO FOODS DAIRY PRODUCTS COMPANY, Defendant, Case
No. 3:24-cv-00459-GTS-ML (N.D.N.Y., April 2, 2024) is an action
brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York
Labor Law, and the New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations to
recover unpaid wages for work performed on behalf of Defendant by
Named Plaintiffs and other members of the putative class.

The complaint alleges Defendants' failure to pay overtime, failure
to pay all wages, failure to pay wages and overtime wages for time
spent donning and doffing protective gear, and failure to provide
annual wage notices and pay statements.

Plaintiffs Zeigler and Simmons worked for Defendants as Milk
Receivers at Defendants' location in Wavery, New York from
approximately July 12, 2021 through the present and from
approximately January 8, 2019 through the present, respectively.

Leprino Foods is an American company with headquarters in Denver,
Colorado that produces cheese, lactose, whey protein and sweet
whey.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Frank S. Gattuso, Esq.
          GATTUSO & CIOTOLI, PLLC
          The White House 7030 E. Genesee Street
          Fayetteville, NY 13066
          Telephone: (315) 314-8000
          E-mail: fgattuso@gclawoffice.com

               - and -

          James Emmet Murphy, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, 7th Floor  
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943-9080
          Facsimile: (212) 943-9082
          E-mail: jmurphy@vandallp.com

LONGBRIDGE FINANCIAL: Sued Over Improper Foreclosure of Property
----------------------------------------------------------------
TIFFANY RENEE HERN a/k/a TIFFANY RENEE DRAGO, executrix, pro per,
for the estate of ELIZABETH A. DRAGO-BURSON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LONGBRIDGE
FINANCIAL, LLC; CELINK, INC; and QUALITY LOAN SERVICE CORPORATION,
Defendants, Case No. 24-02111 (N.D. Cal., April 8, 2024) is an
action against the Defendants' unlawful foreclosure of its property
which caused and continues to cause the Plaintiff great and
irreparable injury.

According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants do not
have an equitable right to foreclose on the Property located at
14445 W. Park Ave., Boulder Creek, CA 95006, because the Defendants
have failed to perfect any security interest in the real property
as collateral and cannot prove to the court that they have a valid
interest a real party in interest to the underlying Deed of Trust.

The purported power of sale, or power to foreclose non-judicially,
by the Defendants, no longer applies by operation of law. Use of
non-judicial process violated the Plaintiff's rights, says the
suit.

LONGBRIDGE FINANCIAL LLC is a reverse mortgage lender. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented pro se.

LOUISIANA: Faces Class Action Over Mismanaged Foster Care System
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Carroll, writing for Louisiana Record, reports that a
federal class-action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of 4,000
Louisiana foster children, alleging that the state's Department of
Children and Family Services operates under overwhelming caseloads
and fails to protect kids from mental and physical harm.

The New York-based group A Better Childhood and two law firms filed
the lawsuit in the Middle District of Louisiana on April 10 on
behalf of seven plaintiffs. The 95-page complaint outlines
high-profile fatalities of two 2-year-olds who were in the DCFS
foster-care system, the "hemorrhaging" of department employees and
caseloads that are three times higher than the national standard.

"Louisiana has consistently failed to adequately address the myriad
deficiencies of its child welfare system," the lawsuit states.
"DCFS does not have a sufficient number of workers to ensure the
safety and wellbeing of the children in its care. Upon information
and belief, caseloads are so high that caseworkers are prevented
from adequately overseeing children in DCFS custody. . . . "

The department declined to comment on the pending litigation, and
the Louisiana Governor's Office did not respond to a request for
comment. The lawsuit lists the department, DCFS Secretary David
Matlock and Gov. Jeff Landry as defendants.

This year, the state recorded its lowest rate of providing children
with stable or permanent living situations since the 2019-2020
fiscal year, according to the complaint.

"These failures also mean that Louisiana's foster children are not
provided appropriate mental health or medical assessments, nor do
they receive adequate mental or medical health care," the lawsuit
says. "DCFS also fails to provide sufficient educational
services."

The department often places children in group homes or institutions
where they face significant risks of violence carried out by staff
members or older children, according to the complaint. The foster
children often find themselves placed in locations such as hotels,
hospitals and department offices, the lawsuit says.

"We brought the lawsuit because the significant problems in the
Louisiana child welfare system have been well known to state
officials for many years and simply have not been addressed,"
Marcia Robinson Lowry, A Better Childhood's executive director,
said in an email to the Louisiana Record. "Children in the state
continue to suffer. That is why we believe the lawsuit is necessary
to ensure that children in Louisiana receive the protections and
benefits to which the federal Constitution and laws entitle them."

The department has been aware of safety and staffing issues at the
DCFS since former Gov. Bobby Jindal cut the agency's workforce by
33% and its budget by 50% between the years 2008 and 2016,
according to the lawsuit.

"The complaint points to data that show overwhelming caseloads,
high placement instability, lack of access to medical care, and
rates of child death in the state 50% higher than the national
average," a news release published by A Better Childhood states.

The lawsuit urges the court to stop the defendants from subjecting
the plaintiffs to situations that violate their rights under
several federal laws. A written plan for children's treatment,
services and needs must be drawn up within 60 days of their
entering the foster-care system, the complaint states.

"Plaintiffs . . . seek declaratory and injunctive relief against
(the) defendants to remedy the harm and risk of harm to thousands
of foster children in Louisiana," the lawsuit says. "This lawsuit
seeks to have Louisiana's child welfare system brought into
compliance with applicable federal law and constitutional
standards." [GN]

MARK CUBAN: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOMINIK KARNAS, et al., v.
MARK CUBAN, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-22538-RKA (S.D. Fla.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion
for Leave to File Under Seal and permitting them to file under seal
the unredacted versions of the Confidential Filing.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 11, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0zW7AK at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Christopher E. Knight, Esq.
          Esther E. Galicia, Esq.
          Alexandra L. Tifford, Esq.
          FOWLER WHITE BURNETT, P.A.
          Brickell Arch, Fourteenth Floor
          1395 Brickell Avenue
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 789-9200
          Facsimile: (305) 789-9201
          E-mail: cknight@fowler-white.com
                  egalicia@fowler-white.com
                  atifford@fowler-white.com

                - and -

          Paul C. Huck, Jr., Esq.
          LAWSON HUCK GONZALEZ PLLC
          334 Minorca Avenue
          Coral Gables, FL 33134
          Telephone: (305) 441-2299
          Facsimile: (305) 441-8849
          E-mail: paul@lawsonhuckgonzalez.com

                - and -

          Stephen A. Best, Esq.
          Rachel O. Wolkinson, Esq.
          Daniel L. Sachs, Esq.
          Jonathan d. White, Esq.
          BROWN RUDNICK LLP
          601 Thirteenth Street NW Suite 600
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone (202) 536-1755
          E-mail: sbest@brownrudnick.com
                  rwolkinson@brownrudnick.com
                  dsachs@brownrudnick.com
                  jwhite@brownrudnick.com

MASSACHUSETTS: OKs $1-B Deal for Community-Based Nursing Homes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Henreckson of McKnights Long-Term Care reports that
Massachusetts settled a class action lawsuit on April 16, 2024,
promising to invest $1 billion to enable 2,400 nursing home
residents to move to community and residential settings over the
next eight years.

Six disabled nursing home residents initially filed the class
action suit in October 2022 in the US District Court for the
District of Massachusetts. They argued that a lack of state
resources had trapped them in nursing homes despite their wishes to
return to community-based care settings.

Similar lawsuits have been in motion across the country in recent
years, with residents and their advocates consistently citing the
Americans with Disabilities Act as guaranteeing them the right to
receive care in the least restrictive environment.

Under the terms of this week's settlement, the state will further
invest in community-based care, including creating new residential
care settings and providing rent vouchers for disabled residents.

The state also will create "Community Transition Liaison Program"
teams to advise nursing home residents on their living options —
with special accommodations made for residents struggling with
mental illness. Every Massachusetts nursing home that participates
in Medicaid will have one of these CTLP teams assigned to it,
according to court documents.

The state currently invests nearly $6 billion in community-based
care annually.

A potential blueprint

Reactions to the settlement from policymakers, providers and
consumer advocates have been generally positive. Massachusetts
officials were optimistic about the increased investment into
community-based care in an official report released by the
Executive Office of Health and Human Services.

"This settlement is a natural next step forward as our
administration expands community living options available for
individuals residing in nursing facilities," said Gov. Maura Healey
(D). "We continue to look for opportunities to reduce disparities
and inequities for older adults and individuals with disabilities
and mental illness in Massachusetts."  

The agreement should be "a blueprint for other states," according
to Regan Bailey, litigation director for consumer advocate group
Justice in Aging.

Provider leaders on April 17, 2024 affirmed their commitment to
providing safe discharges to community care.

"Massachusetts has and remains the entity solely responsible for
determining clinical admission into a nursing facility for
long-term care," Tara Gregorio, president of the Massachusetts
Senior Care Association told McKnight's. "We continue to support
and collaborate on efforts to ensure residents have access to safe
discharges to the community."

Gregorio also noted that nursing homes remain a vital part of the
care continuum and asked that the state ensure they are given
adequate state investment.

"Nursing facilities provide a vital service to frail elders and
disabled individuals who can no longer be cared for safely at
home," she said. "It is critical that these core services be fully
funded to ensure quality resident care and to allow us to continue
to invest in our dedicated and diverse workforce." [GN]

MEDDATA LLC: Settles Class Action for $7MM Over GitHub Data Breach
------------------------------------------------------------------
ACA International reports that in a landmark case concerning data
security and privacy, revenue cycle management firm MedData has
reached a $7 million settlement in response to a class action
lawsuit stemming from a significant breach, according to a recent
article from Bank Info Security.

The incident, in which an employee inadvertently exposed the health
and personal information of approximately 136,000 individuals on
GitHub, underscores the critical importance of robust cybersecurity
measures in today's digital landscape.

The settlement, recently approved by a Texas federal court, marks
the resolution of the last of five proposed federal class actions
filed against MedData following the breach. The agreement requires
MedData, now part of Elevate Patient Financial Solutions, to
provide affected individuals with compensation and enhanced
cybersecurity practices.

Under the terms of the settlement, class members have the option to
choose from two payment tiers. The first tier covers documented
out-of-pocket expenses related to the breach, while the second tier
offers compensation for minimal affirmative actions taken in
response to the incident. Additionally, all affected individuals
are eligible to receive 36 months of complimentary health
data/fraud monitoring services and $1 million in fraud and medical
identity theft insurance coverage.

In response to the breach, MedData is mandated to implement and
maintain an enhanced cybersecurity program for two years. This
program includes annual cybersecurity testing and training, robust
monitoring and auditing for data security issues, data encryption,
access controls, annual penetration testing, a data deletion
policy, and a monitored internal whistleblowing mechanism.

While the settlement appears to be "hard-fought" by the plaintiffs
and class members' counsel, "it must be kept in mind that these
incidents involve non-ephemeral sensitive information rather than
payment card data, etc.," said cybersecurity attorney Steven
Teppler of the law firm Mandelbaum Barrett PC, who is not involved
in the MedData case. "Victims may be working to fix identity
compromise events for years to come."

Additionally, Teppler notes that the settlement does not explicitly
address the implementation of secure software development policies,
which could be crucial in preventing similar incidents in the
future. Teppler emphasizes the need for comprehensive risk
assessment efforts, policy development, and enforcement governing
internal coding efforts, including the use of third-party or
open-source software.

The breach, discovered in December 2020 by independent security
researcher Jelle Ursem, exposed a vast array of sensitive
information, including patient names, addresses, Social Security
numbers, diagnoses, and health insurance policy numbers. The data
remained accessible on GitHub for at least 13 months before being
removed.

Notably, several health care clients of MedData were affected by
the breach, including Memorial Hermann, Aspirus Health Plan, OSF
HealthCare, and the University of Chicago Medical Center. The
incident has highlighted the broader implications of data breaches
within the health care sector, emphasizing the need for stringent
security measures to safeguard patient information.

While MedData has not commented on the settlement, a spokesperson
for Elevate, the firm's parent company, clarified that the incident
occurred under different ownership and that the responsible
employee had left the company prior to its acquisition. [GN]

METROPOLITAN TRANSIT: Court Certifies Class in Paulino-Santos Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Luz PAULINO-SANTOS,
Michael RING, Betty VEGA, and NEW YORK INTEGRATED NETWORK, v.
METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY, NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT, John LIEBER,
and Richard DAVEY, Case No. 1:23-cv-03471-JGLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke entered an order certifying class of:  

   "All people who cannot consistently use fixed-route transit
   (defined as subways and buses operating solely within New York
   City) because of a disability, and who use Access-A-Ride or
would
   use Access-A-Ride if it had response and travel times more
   comparable to the MTA's fixed-route transit."

The Court also entered an order:

   -- appointing Lucy "Luz" Paulino-Santos, Betty Vega, and the New

      York Integrated Network ("NYIN") are appointed
representatives
      for the Class.

   -- appointing Vladeck, Raskin & Clark, P.C., and New York Law
      School Legal Services, Inc., a counsel for the Class.

The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 58.

On Feb. 27, 2024, the Plaintiffs in the above-captioned action (the

"Proposed Class Representatives") filed a class certification
motion on behalf of themselves and a putative class consisting of
all "Paratransit Users," defined to mean "[a]ll people who cannot
consistently use fixed-route transit because of a disability, and
who use Access-A-Ride or would use Access-A-Ride if it had response
and travel times more comparable to the MTA's fixed-route
transit,";

The Parties have conferred regarding class certification and have
agreed, subject to the approval of the Court, to the terms and
conditions set forth in this Stipulation;

Metropolitan is a public benefit corporation responsible for public
transportation in the New York City metropolitan area of the U.S.
state of New York.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 12, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ij5Sdv at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Maia Goodell, Esq.
          Emily Bass, Esq.
          VLADECK, RASKIN & CLARK, P.C.
          111 Broadway, Suite 1505
          New York, NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 403-7300
          E-mail: mgoodell@vladeck.com

                - and -

          Britney R. Wilson, Esq.
          NEW YORK LAW SCHOOL
          LEGAL SERVICES, INC.
          185 West Broadway
          New York, NY 10013
          E-mail: Britney.Wilson@nyls.ed

The Defendants are represented by:

          Gregory F. Laufer, Esq.
          Tamar Holoshitz, Esq.
          Kerissa N. Barron, Esq.
          Matthew Clarida, Esq.
          PAUL WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON
          & GARRISON
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 373-3000
          E-mail: glaufer@paulweiss.com
                  tholoshitz@paulweiss.com
                  kbarron@paulweiss.com
                  mclarida@paulweiss.com

MONTANA: Faces Class Action Over Refusal to Update Sex Designation
------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 18, 2024, two transgender women filed a class-action
lawsuit against the State of Montana and various state agencies
challenging a 2022 policy that categorically bars transgender
people from correcting the sex designation on their birth
certificates. The lawsuit also challenges a policy that makes it
impossible for transgender Montanans to update the sex listed on
their driver's licenses.

In 2021, Montana enacted SB 280, a law that only allows for changes
in sex designation on birth certificates "on receipt of a court
order indicating that the sex of a person has been changed by
surgical procedure." Two transgender people challenged the law in
state court which soon issued a preliminary injunction blocking the
state from enforcing SB 280. Ignoring the court, the Montana
Department of Public Health and Human Services (DPHHS) issued an
emergency rule in 2022, which it would later convert to a permanent
rule, implementing a total ban on changes to sex designations on
birth certificates.

The lawsuit filed in state court challenges that 2022 policy, as
well as a subsequently-adopted policy and practice of the Motor
Vehicle Division to no longer allow changes to the sex designations
on driver's licenses. The plaintiffs, represented by the American
Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Montana, and Nixon Peabody LLP,
also seek a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of these
regulations, policies, and practices.

Plaintiff Jessica Kalarchik, a veteran who served in the United
States Army for 31 years, says, "After finally being able to live
my life openly as the woman I know myself to be, I am frustrated
that my birth state, Montana, is forcing me to carry around a birth
certificate that incorrectly lists my sex as male. I am being
forced to use a birth certificate that is inaccurate and that
places me at risk of discrimination and harassment whenever I have
to present it. I live my life openly as a woman, I am treated as a
woman in my daily life, and there is no reason I should be forced
to carry a birth certificate that incorrectly identifies me as
male."

"Once again the State of Montana has chosen to adopt a draconian
policy that is clearly intended to marginalize transgender
Montanans," said Akilah Deernose, executive director for the ACLU
of Montana. "Here in Montana we treasure our right to privacy and
to live our lives free from governmental intrusion. The State of
Montana clearly has not learned any lessons from the past few
years, where Courts have repeatedly struck down unconstitutional
laws targeting transgender Montanans."

"Forcing anyone to carry documents that contradict their identity
violates their right to privacy and is unjust discrimination and
unconstitutionally compelled speech," said Malita Picasso, staff
attorney for the ACLU's LGBTQ & HIV Project. "Such a policy marks
transgender people for further mistreatment and discrimination,
essentially requiring them to carry papers that out them as
transgender any time they need to provide identity documents. The
state has repeatedly tried to subvert the freedom of transgender
Montanans to control their own identity, and we'll continue to
fight this baseless policy until no transgender person is denied
this fundamental right." [GN]

MOUNTAIRE FARMS: Ovando Suit Seeks FLSA Conditional Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACINTO GOMEZ OVANDO and
MARIA DEL CARMEN PERALTA BAEZA, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. MOUNTAIRE FARMS, INC. and MOUNTAIRE
FARMS OF NORTH CAROLINA CORP., Case No. 7:23-cv-00004-M-RJ
(E.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs asks the Court to enter an order
granting the following relief:

   (1) conditional certification of this action as a representative

       collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA");

   (2) approval of the proposed FLSA notice of this action and the

       consent form in both English and Spanish;

   (3) an updated production of names, last known mailing
addresses,
       alternate addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, and

       dates of employment of all putative FLSA plaintiffs/R. 23
class
       members;

   (4) ability to email and/or text message the proposed Notice,
along
       with utilizing regular U.S. Mail;

   (5) certification of this action as a class action under Rule
23(a)
       and (b)(3) for the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act claims;
and

   (6) appointing named Plaintiffs Gomez Ovando and Peralta Baeza
as
       class representatives and the Law Offices of Gilda A.
       Hernandez, PLLC as class counsel.

Mountaire is a U.S. chicken producer operating four processing
plants in Delaware and North Carolina.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 12, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=h6gfRr at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq.
          Hannah B. Simmons, Esq.
          Matthew S. Marlowe, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A.
          HERNANDEZ, PLLC
          1020 Southhill Dr. Ste. 130
          Cary, NC 27513
          Telephone: (919) 741-8693
          Facsimile: (919) 869-1853
          E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com
                  hsimmons@gildahernandezlaw.com
                  mmarlowe@gildahernandezlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jerry H. Walters, Jr., Esq.
          Michael S. McIntosh, Esq.
          Laura A. Saracina, Esq.
          Joshua B. Waxman, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          620 South Tryon Street, Suite 950
          Charlotte, NC 28202
          Telephone: (704) 972-7013
          Facsimile: (704) 333-4005
          E-mail: jwalters@littler.com
                  mmcintosh@littler.com
                  lsaracina@littler.com
                  jwaxman@littler.com

NBC UNIVERSAL: Faces D.P & F.C. Disability Discrimination Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
D.P. and F.C., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NBCUNIVERSAL MEDIA, LLC; UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS LLC
d/b/a Universal Studios Hollywood; UNIVERSAL CITY DEVELOPMENT
PARTNERS, LTD. d/b/a Universal Orlando Resort; and UNIVERSAL CITY
TRAVEL PARTNERS d/b/a Universal Parks & Resorts Vacations, Case No.
2:24-cv-02889 (C.D. Cal., April 9, 2024) accuses the Defendants of
discriminating against disabled customers by failing to implement
policies and practices respecting the civil rights and needs of
disabled individuals.   

According to the complaint, the Defendants own and operate
Universal-branded theme parks and resort properties around the
world, including Universal Studios Hollywood in California and
Universal Orlando Resort in Florida. Plaintiffs are individuals
with disabilities who were allegedly deprived of their right to
meaningfully access and enjoy the services, facilities, and
privileges offered by Defendants at the mentioned theme parks due
to Defendants' disability access policy called the "Attraction
Assistance Program". Under this policy, all disabled park guests
are required to use the IBCCES system to request accommodations at
Defendants' amusement parks prior to their visits. The process
involves gathering and submitting sensitive medical documentation,
says the suit.

The Plaintiffs allege that such a policy denies disabled
individuals full and equal access to Defendants' services, in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, California's
Unruh Civil Rights Act, and California's Disabled Persons Act.   

NBC Universal Media is an American multinational mass media and
entertainment conglomerate headquartered at 30 Rockefeller Plaza,
New York, NY. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Neal J. Deckant, Esq.
         Julia K. Venditti, Esq.
         BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.     
         1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
         Walnut Creek, CA 94596
         Telephone: (925) 300-4455
         Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
         E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com
                 jvenditti@bursor.com

NEW YORK, NY: Seeks to Stay Class Certification Briefing
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as L.T. et al v. The New York
City Department of Education et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-09826-MMG
(S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order staying
in fully briefing Plaintiffs' motions for class certification and a
preliminary injunction filed March 08, 2024, until the Court rules
on Defendants' motion to dismiss for, inter alia, lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction and lack of Article III standing.

The Plaintiffs brought this action pursuant to the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act 20 U.S.C. section 1400 et seq ("IDEA")
arguing that eight identified students are entitled to a right to a
free and appropriate public education ("FAPE") until their 22nd
birthdays.

A copy of the Defendants motion dated Apr. 8, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=quA8mx at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jordan Doll, Esq.
          THE CITY OF NEW YORK
          LAW DEPARTMENT
          100 Church Street
          New York, NY 10007
          Telephone: (212)-356-2624
          E-mail: jdoll@law.nyc.gov

NIO INC: Discovery Ongoing on Consolidated Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
NIO Inc. disclosed in its Form 20-F report for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2023, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 9, 2024, that discovery is currently ongoing
with regards to "In re NIO, Inc. Securities Litigation," Case No.
1:19-cv-01424, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York.

Between March and July 2019, several securities class action
lawsuits were filed against us, certain of our directors and
officers, our underwriters in the IPO and our process agent. Some
of these actions have been withdrawn, transferred, consolidated or
dismissed. Abovementioned action commenced during the
aforementioned time period remains pending, under the caption. The
plaintiffs in this case allege, in sum and substance, that the
company's statements in the registration statement and/or other
public statements were false or misleading and in violation of the
U.S. federal securities laws. The court denied its motion to
dismiss in August 2021, and granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in August 2023.

Nio Inc. is a Chinese multinational automobile manufacturer
headquartered in Shanghai, specializing in designing and developing
electric vehicles. It conduct operations in China primarily through
subsidiaries and is a holding company with no material operations
of its own.


NORLITE LLC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Jan. 1, 2025
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hill, et al., v. Norlite,
LLC, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00439 (N.D.N.Y., Filed April 16,
2021), the Hon. Judge Anne M. Nardacci entered an order setting
scheduling order deadlines as follows:

-- Completion of written discovery and document     July 15, 2024
    production due:

-- Completion of fact witness depositions due:      Aug. 15, 2024

-- Plaintiff's Disclosure of Experts                Sept. 15,
2024
    (class certification issues) due:

-- Deadline to depose Plaintiffs' Experts:          Oct. 15, 2024

-- Defendants' Disclosure of Experts                Nov. 15, 2024
    (class certification issues) due:

-- Deadline to Depose Defendants' Experts           Dec. 15, 2024
    Due:

-- Motion for Class Certification due:              Jan. 1, 2025

The nature of suit states Real Property -- Torts to Land.[CC]

NORTH BROTHERS: Fraud Suit Dismissed, Arbitration Agreement Upheld
------------------------------------------------------------------
BridgeTower Media Newswires of Michigan Lawyers Weekly reports that
a class action complaint accusing a car dealership of fraudulent
business practices was properly dismissed by a trial court because
of an agreement to arbitrate in the parties' lease agreement, the
Michigan Court of Appeals has held.

After leasing a car from North Brothers Ford, Inc., Richard
Emerzian filed a class action lawsuit, alleging that the dealership
had customers sign blank pricing sheets when purchasing vehicles,
only to later fill in inflated prices for after-market add-ons --
for example, hundreds of dollars for a $50 wheel lock, or $359 for
$170 floor mats.

The dealership moved to dismiss based on a provision in the lease
agreement stating that either party may select arbitration to
settle any claim related to the lease agreement.

Emerzian objected, arguing the provision did not apply because his
claims were based on the price sheet, not on the lease agreement.

The Wayne County Circuit Court disagreed and granted the
dealership's motion for dismissal. Emerzian appealed, but the
appeals court affirmed the decision.

"In this case, the plain language of the arbitration provision
suggests that plaintiff's claims fell within the agreement," the
judges wrote. "Plaintiff's claims emanated from the amount that he
was charged to lease the vehicle, mainly the allegedly inflated
costs on the price sheet. Plaintiff did not agree to pay any
amount, including the costs listed on the price sheet, until he
signed the lease agreement."

It was likely that Emerzian's claims could not "be maintained
without reference to the contract or relationship at issue," and
thus were subject to the arbitration clause as claims "related to"
the lease agreement, the judges said.

Emerzian told the court that the lease agreement and the price
sheet constituted two different contracts with two different
purposes.

"However, the price sheet does not seem to be a contract, but more
of a breakdown of the price of the leased vehicle with added costs
such as the floor mats and wheel locks," the court pointed out.
"There was no provision for acceptance of what was offered, and
plaintiff promised no consideration on this form. The form merely
indicated recognition of the invoice price of the vehicle and the
price of fees and add-on accessories."

The court also rejected Emerzian's concerns that the dealership
failed to retain the right to invoke the arbitration provision in
the lease agreement when it assigned the deal to a third party.

" [T]he parties agreed that plaintiff would lease a vehicle, that
claims against defendant related to the lease would be subject to
arbitration, and that the lease agreement was assigned," the judges
wrote. "Because plaintiff's claims against defendant were related
to his lease of the vehicle under the agreement, the entire
agreement between the parties should be considered, and defendant
should be able to enforce the terms, even though all financial
rights under the lease had been assigned."

Judges Mark J. Cavanagh, Kathleen Jansen and Allie Greenleaf
Maldonado issued the published per curiam decision in Emerzian v.
North Bros. Ford Inc. (MiLW 07-107816). [GN]

NORTH CAROLINA: Court Extends Deadline to File Class Cert Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DOE 1, et al., v. NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, et al., Case No.
1:24-cv-00017
(M.D.N.C., Filed Jan 8, 2024), the Hon. Judge Loretta C. Biggs
entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' consent motion for
extension of time to move for class certification.

-- The Plaintiffs' deadline for filing a motion for class
determination shall be 90 days from the date upon which the parties
file their Rule 26(f) report in this action.

The nature of suit states Civil Rights Violation.

The 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.[CC]

NOVA HOME: Savinova Seeks to File Renewed Class Cert Bid
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as YELENA SAVINOVA, et. al.,
v. NOVA HOME CARE, LLC, et. al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01612-SVN (D.
Conn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting
their renewed motion for class certification.

On March 29, 2024, the Court issued an Order denying the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.

Based on the caselaw and argument, the Plaintiffs posit that the
Court should certify the class and order Defendants to promptly
produce the schedules (including client names) and pay records for
all the remaining 88 live-in caregivers on the original lists who
worked for both companies.

The Defendants should also produce lists of all live-in caregivers
who joined either company since the original lists were produced in
January 2022. If the two lists show additional overlap of
employees, the Defendants should be ordered to promptly produce the
schedules (including client names) and pay records for the
additional employees.

Once, the records are processed, the Plaintiffs will report back to
the Court on the actual number of putative class members, at which

time the Court could simply decertify the class if numerosity is
not met.

Alternatively, the Court could reopen discovery for the limited
purpose of obtaining the same information in support of a renewed
motion for certification

Nova offers a wide range of home health aide services to
individuals.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 12, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uvo3gd at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mariusz Kurzyna, Esq.
          ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
          8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Telephone: (301) 587-9373
          Facsimile: (240) 839-9142
          E-mail: mkurzyna@zagfirm.com

                - and -

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

OKLAHOMA: Court Strike Gunter's Bid to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA GUNTER, AUSTIN
GUNTER; and AARON VANBUSKIRK; v. STATE OF OKLAHOMA, et al., Case
No. 5:23-cv-00706-SLP (W.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Scott Palk
entered an order:

   1. Denying the Plaintiff Melissa Gunter's motion for relief from

      Judgment and Order;

   2. Denying the Plaintiffs' motion to reopen and grant extension
of
      time to appeal; and

   3. Striking Ms. Gunter's motion to certify class.

Ms. Gunter's motion for relief from judgment and order is denied as
procedurally improper, the court says.

The Court also says that "even if the Plaintiffs are correct that
they did not receive the Order and Judgment until the day their
Notice of Appeal was filed—March 18, 2024 -- their Motion is
untimely because it was filed on April 3, 2024, 16 days after the
Plaintiffs contend, they received notice, which was two days after
the statutory deadline."

On Dec. 19, 2023, the Court entered an Order dismissing the action
for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8
despite the Court's prior Order describing pleading standards in
federal court and the deficiencies in the Plaintiffs' complaint.
The Court separately
entered its Judgment of Dismissal that same day.

On Feb. 22, 2024, the Plaintiff Melissa Gunter filed a motion for
relief from judgment and order.

Oklahoma is a landlocked state in the South Central region of the
United States.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 11, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mS8pln at no extra
charge.[CC]

OPTILINE ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Astu Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
WALTER ASTU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OPTILINE ENTERPRISES, LLC; TOMMY BOLDUC; and
MICHAEL BOLDUC, Defendants, Case No. (Mass. Cmmw., Suffolk Cty.,
April 9, 2024) is an action against the Defendants' failure to pay
the Plaintiff and the class minimum wages, and overtime
compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Plaintiff Astu was employed by the Defendants as a manager.

OPTILINE ENTERPRISES, LLC is a construction company which acts as a
subcontractor for larger entities to, amongst other things, put up
drywall, framing, and gypsum floors. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew D. Patton, Esq.
          Raven Moeslinger, Esq.
          Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, P.C.
          One Boston Place, Suite 2600
          Boston, MA 02108
          Telephone: (617) 338-9400
          Email: mdp@mass-legal.com

ORRICK & HERRINGTON: Plaintiffs Seek Initial Nod of Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Re Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP
Data Breach Litigation, Case No. 3:23-cv-04089-SI (N.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs will move the Court on May 17, 2024, under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23 for an order:

   (a) finding that the proposed settlement is within the range of

       final approval as fair, reasonable, and adequate, and
granting
       preliminary approval of the proposed Settlement;

   (b) approving the form and substance of the proposed notice, as

       well as the proposed methods of disseminating notice to the

       Settlement Class;

   (c) scheduling a date for the final fairness hearing and
relevant
       deadlines in connection therewith; and

   (d) such other and further relief as this Court deems just and
       proper.

After multiple days of long mediation discussions, the Parties
reached a global settlement to resolve this consolidated class
action litigation. Under the Agreement, Orrick will pay
$8,000,000.00 into a Settlement Fund.

Importantly, the Settlement Fund is non-reversionary, so that no
part of it will ever revert to Orrick, and Settlement Class Members
who complete the Claim Form are entitled to cash payments of: up to
$2,500.00 for out-of-pocket expenses, $7,500.00 for extraordinary
losses, $25.00 per hour for up to five hours of attested time (for
a total of $125.00), an alternative cash payment of $75.00, and
$150.00 for California Subclass Members' California Consumer
Privacy Act ("CCPA") claims, subject to pro rata reduction or
increase, depending on the number of claims. Settlement Class
Members are also entitled to seek three years of additional credit
monitoring.

Under the terms of the Agreement, the Parties have agreed, for the
purposes of the Settlement only, to the certification of the
Settlement Class, defined as follows:

     "All residents of the United States who were sent notice that

     their personal information was accessed, stolen, or
compromised
     as a result of the Data Breach.

Excluded from the Settlement Class are (i) Orrick, any Entity in
which Orrick has a controlling interest, and Orrick’s partners,
officers, directors, legal representatives, successors,
subsidiaries, and assigns; (ii) any judge, justice, or judicial
officer presiding over the Action and the members of their
immediate families and judicial staff, and (iii) any individual who
timely and validly opts out
of the Settlement.

Orrick is an international law firm.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 11, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HhQSaJ at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235-1560
          Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
          E-mail: WBF@federmanlaw.com

OWEN FARICY: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Taylor Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT TAYLOR, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. OWEN FARICY MOTOR COMPANY, a Colorado corporation, Case
No. 1:24-cv-00957 (D. Colo., April 9, 2024) seeks unpaid wages and
damages for Defendant's alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards
Order, and the Colorado Wage Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a non-exempt,
hourly-paid technician from July 5, 2023 until the termination of
his employment on or about February 7, 2024. The Plaintiff and
other technicians regularly worked more than 40 hours each week but
Defendant allegedly failed to pay them overtime premiums at one and
one-half their regular rate of pay for hours worked above 40 in
individual work weeks. Further, Defendant allegedly improperly
applied a piece-rate compensation as it failed to follow the
standard process of determining the regular rate of pay for him and
similarly situated employees, says the Plaintiff.

Based in Colorado Springs, CO, Owen Faricy Motor Company is engaged
in the automotive dealership business. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Samuel D. Engelson, Esq.
        Michael D. Kuhn, Esq.
        Andrew E. Swan, Esq.
        LEVENTHAL | LEWIS KUHN TAYLOR SWAN PC     
        3773 Cherry Creek N. Drive, Suite 710
        Denver, CO 80209
        Telephone: (720) 699-3000
        Facsimile: (866) 515-8628
        E-mail: sengelson@ll.law
                mkuhn@ll.law
                aswan@ll.law

PACIFIC STEEL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Berber Continued to June 3
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISRAEL BERBER,
individually, and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant
to the California Private Attorneys General Act; v. PACIFIC STEEL
GROUP, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. 4:21-cv-03446-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order granting Plaintiffs'
unopposed motion for administrative relief seeking further
revisions to the Court's relief order pursuant to L.R. 7-11.

The Court also orders as follows:

   1. The Plaintiffs' May 20, 2024 deadline to file their motion
for
      class certification ("MCC") is continued to Monday, June 3,
      2024.

   2. The Defendant's July 8, 2024 deadline to file its opposition
to
      the Plaintiffs' MCC is continued to Monday, July 22, 2024.

   3. The Plaintiffs' Aug. 11, 2024 deadline to file their reply to

      the Defendant's opposition to Plaintiffs' MCC is continued to

      Monday, Aug. 26, 2024.

   4. The MCC hearing is continued to Thursday, Sept. 26, 2024 at
2:00
      p.m.

A copy of the Court's order dated Apr. 8, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZIVV80 at no extra
charge.[CC]

PACIFIC STEEL: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Gay Continued to June 3
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDON GAY, individually,
and on behalf of the general public similarly situated; ISRAEL
BERBER, individually, and on behalf of other aggrieved employees
similarly situated; v. PACIFIC STEEL GROUP, an unknown business
entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
4:20-cv-08442-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam,
Jr. entered an order granting Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for
administrative relief seeking further revisions to the Court's
relief order pursuant to L.R. 7-11.

The Court also orders as follows:

   1. The Plaintiffs' May 20, 2024 deadline to file their motion
for
      class certification ("MCC") is continued to Monday, June 3,
      2024.

   2. The Defendant's July 8, 2024 deadline to file its opposition
to
      the Plaintiffs' MCC is continued to Monday, July 22, 2024.

   3. The Plaintiffs' Aug. 11, 2024 deadline to file their reply to

      the Defendant's opposition to Plaintiffs' MCC is continued to

      Monday, Aug. 26, 2024.

   4. The MCC hearing is continued to Thursday, Sept. 26, 2024 at
2:00
      p.m.

Pacific Steel is rebar fabricator.

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

PANERA LLC: Faces Class Suit Over Mislabeled Grain Bagel Flats
--------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action lawsuit alleges Panera has misled consumers about its
sprouted grain bagel flats since they are made mostly with
"less-healthy, non-sprouted grains" and contain only trace amounts
of their key advertised ingredient.

The 19-page Panera lawsuit claims the fast-casual restaurant chain
has deceived consumers into believing sprouted grains are the
exclusive or primary source of grain in the bagels at issue. The
filing contends that consumers would not have bought Panera's
sprouted grain bagel flats, or would have paid less for them, had
they known the bagels consisted mostly of "conventional,
non-sprouted grains," with very little actual sprouted grains.

Per the complaint, "sprouted grain blend" is listed last in the
Panera Sprouted Grain Bagel Flats ingredients list, meaning the
item consists of more salt and yeast than actual sprouted grain
flour. Specifically, the bagel flats likely consist of less than
0.4 percent actual sprouted grains, the case calculates.

"As such, the advertising of the Product as 'sprouted grain' is
false and deceptive," the lawsuit states.

The suit contends that the impression that the Panera bagel flats
have sprouted grains as their main source of grain is critical to
consumers when making a purchasing decision. In particular,
sprouted grains contain fewer starches, have lower carbohydrate
content, are easier to digest, and have a lower gylcemic index in
comparison to regular grains, the case notes.

"In contrast, the processed wheat and white flour, primarily used
in the Product by Panera, is stripped of its nutritional
components, including fiber, vitamins, and minerals, thus offering
minimal nutritional value," according to the suit.

The lawsuit looks to cover California residents who, within the
applicable statute of limitations period, bought a sprouted grain
bagel flat from Panera.

Are you owed unclaimed settlement money? Check out our class action
rebates page full of open class action settlements. [GN]

PAPA JOHN'S: Class Cert Bid Filing Modified to Jan. 17, 2025
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDDIE GUERRA, et al., v.
PAPA JOHN'S INTERNATIONAL INC, Case No. 3:23-cv-01933-LB (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Laurel Beeler entered a revised scheduling
order.

                Case Event                      Filing
Date/Disclosure
                                                 Deadline/Hearing
Date

  Class-certification non-expert discovery          Nov. 22, 2024
  Completion:

  Class-certification expert discovery              Dec. 20, 2024
  Completion:

  Class-certification motion filed:                 Jan. 17, 2025

  Opposition due:                                   Feb. 21, 2025

  Reply due:                                        Mar. 28, 2025

  Hearing/further case-management conference:       Apr. 17, 2025

  Non-expert discovery completion date:             July 25, 2025

  Expert Disclosures:                               July 25, 2025

  Expert Discovery Completion Date:                 Sept. 26, 2025


  Last Hearing Date for Dispositive Motions         Oct. 30, 2025

  Final pretrial conference:                        Feb. 5, 2026

  Trial:                                            Feb. 17, 2026

A copy of the Court's order dated April 11, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fG4cQL at no extra
charge.[CC]

PATINA ORLANDO: Plaintiffs Must Move for Class Cert Bid by June 14
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAHYANA COSME and TIMOTHY
GOCKLIN, v. PATINA ORLANDO, LLC and WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS
U.S., INC., Case No. 6:23-cv-00796-WWB-RMN (M.D. Fla.), the Hon.
Judge Robert Norway entered an order granting in part and denying
in part the Defendant's unopposed motion to stay discovery and
class certification briefing.

The Plaintiffs may move for class certification on or before June
14, 2024.

The parties may move for another extension of time if such relief
is needed once that deadline approaches.

The Court has taken a "preliminary peek" at the Defendant Patina
Orlando, LLC's Motion to Dismiss, Defendant Walt Disney Parks and
Resorts U.S., Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss, and Plaintiff's Motion for
Leave to File Fourth Amended Complaint and cannot say that the
Motions to Dismiss are "clearly meritorious and truly case
dispositive."

On Aug. 31, 2023, the Plaintiff filed the operative Complaint
against
The Defendants, alleging violations of the Civil Rights Act of
1866, 42 U.S.C. section 1981, the Florida Civil Rights Act of 1992,
Fla. Stat. section 760.01, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, 42 U.S.C. section 2000.

Then on Sept. 20, 2023, the Court entered the Case Management and
Scheduling Order, which set the deadline to move for class
certification as on or before April 19, 2024.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 11, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kfSiuR at no extra
charge.[CC]

PATINA ORLANDO: Seeks to Stay Discovery & Class Cert. Briefing
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAHYANA COSME, TIMOTHY
GOCKLIN, and The Class They Seek to Represent, v. PATINA ORLANDO,
LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company d/b/a TUTTO ITALIA
RISTORANTE and VIA NAPOLI REISTORANTE E PIZZERIA And WALT DISNEY
PARKS AND RESORTS U.S., INC. d/b/a EPCOT, Case No.
6:23-cv-00796-WWB-RMN (M.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court to
enter an order staying discovery and class certification briefing
until Patina's motion to dismiss or alternatively strike, Disney's
motion to dismiss, and Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file 4th Ac
are resolved.

If the Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend to file a 4th AC is denied,
and both Patina and Disney's Motions to Dismiss are granted in
full, the entire case will be dismissed, and class certification
briefing and discovery will be unnecessary. If the Motions to
Dismiss are granted in part, or if Patina's Alternative Motion to
Strike is granted, the scope of discovery could be narrowed and
class certification briefing could be unnecessary. Therefore, the
Court should stay discovery and class certification briefing until
it has decided on the pending motions.

On May 10, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint
to correct a filing error where the wrong defendant had been
named.

On Sept. 20, 2023, the Court issued a Case Management and
Scheduling Order.

On Sept. 29, 2023, Patina and Disney moved to dismiss Plaintiffs'
Third Amended Complaint.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Apr. 8, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3jI24a at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James J. Henson, Esq.
          Matthew R. Gunter, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
          20 N. Orange Avenue, Suite 1600
          Orlando, FL 32802

The Defendants are represented by:

          Stephanie L. Adler-Paindiris, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          390 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1285
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 246-8440
          Facsimile: (407) 246-8441
          E-mail: Stephanie.adler-paindiris@jacksonlewis.com

                - and -

          Paul Scheck, Esq.
          Mary Ruth Houston, Esq.
          SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP
          300 South Orange Avenue, Suite 1600
          Orlando, FL 32801

PERION NETWORK: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 17
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman urges Perion Network Ltd. (NASDAQ: PERI) investors
who suffered substantial losses to submit your losses now.

Class Period: Feb. 9, 2021-April 5, 2024
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: June 17, 2024
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/peri
Contact An Attorney Now: PERI@hbsslaw.com
844-916-0895

Perion Network Ltd. (PERI) Securities Fraud Class Action:

Digital advertiser Perion Network and most senior executives were
recently hit with an investor class action, following the company's
announcement of disastrous preliminary Q1 2024 results and updated
full year 2024 guidance.

The suit, which is brought on behalf of damaged investors who
purchased, or otherwise acquired, Perion common stock during the
period from Feb. 9, 2021 through Apr. 5, 2024, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), alleges claims of securities fraud stemming from
Defendants' alleged misstatements and omissions.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Defendants misrepresented
and concealed that:

     (1) Perion's search advertising business was not a reliable
and significant growth driver and was in fact in decline;

     (2) Perion's long-term relationship with Microsoft and search
services agreement would not provide stability for Perion's search
advertising business;

     (3) there was an increased risk of Microsoft acting to
unilaterally change its advertising pricing and mechanisms to the
detriment of Perion while the search services agreement was in
place;

     (4) Perion's AI technology and Microsoft's investment in
ChatGPT would not protect or grow Perion's search advertising
revenue; and

     (5) based on the foregoing, Defendants lacked a reasonable
basis for their positive statements about Perion's search
advertising business and related financial results, growth, and
prospects.

The truth about Perion's search advertising business emerged on
Apr. 8, 2024, when Perion announced disappointing preliminary Q1
2024 results and slashed its FY guidance.

The company revealed that "[i]n the first quarter of 2024, Perion
experienced a decline in search advertising activity, attributable
to changes in advertising pricing and mechanisms implemented by
Microsoft Bing in its Search Distribution marketplace."

Perion also revealed that, "[t]hese adjustments led to a reduction
in Revenue Per Thousand Impressions (RPM) for both Perion and other
Microsoft Bing distribution partners" and "contributed to decreased
search volume."

The Company also disclosed that for the full 2024 year, it now
expects revenue in the range of $590 million to $610 million, down
from the prior guidance range of $860 million to $880 million the
Company gave on Febr. 7, 2024

On this news, the price of Perion common stock declined by $8.61
per share, or appx. 40%, in a single trading day.

"We are investigating whether Perion knowingly concealed adverse
changes in its search advertising business," said Reed Kathrein,
the Hagens Berman partner leading the investigation.

If you invested in Perion and have substantial losses, or have
knowledge that may assist the firm's investigation, submit your
losses now »

If you'd like more information and answers to frequently asked
questions about the Perion case and our investigation, read more
»

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

About Hagens Berman

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

PERION NETWORK: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Investors
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP informs investors that a shareholder filed a class
action on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Perion Network Ltd. (NASDAQ: PERI) common stock
between February 9, 2021 and April 5, 2024. Perion is a global
technology company that provides digital advertising solutions to
brands, agencies, and publishers in North America, Europe, and
internationally.

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

The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating the Allegations that
Perion Network Ltd. (PERI) Misled Investors Regarding its Business
Prospects  

According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants
failed to disclose that:

     (1) Perion's search advertising business was not a reliable
and significant growth driver and was in fact in decline;

     (2) Perion's long-term relationship with Microsoft and search
services agreement would not provide stability for Perion's search
advertising business;

     (3) there was an increased risk of Microsoft acting to
unilaterally change its advertising pricing and mechanisms to the
detriment of Perion while the search services agreement was in
place; and

     (4) Perion's AI technology and Microsoft's investment in
ChatGPT would not protect or grow Perion's search advertising
revenue. When the truth was revealed, Perion's common stock
declined by $8.61 per share, or approximately 40%, from $21.11 per
share on April 5, 2024, to close at $12.50 on April 8, 2024.

What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action
against Perion Network Ltd. Shareholders who want to serve as lead
plaintiff for the class must file their motions with the court by
June 17, 2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You
do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a
recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent
class member.

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

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

To be notified if a class action against Perion Network Ltd.
settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage
in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today.

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

Contact:

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

PERMIAN RESOURCES: Faces Antitrust Class Action Over Price Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Burns Charest has filed a proposed class action lawsuit alleging
that shale oil producers have conspired to engage in price fixing
of petroleum-based fuel products. The lawsuit, Foos v. Permian
Resources Corp., alleges that between 2017 and 2023 oil producers
met regularly with each other and with the Organization of
Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to coordinate their collective
oil output and maintain higher prices for retail gasoline.

The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of New Mexico and related news coverage can be viewed on Law.com.
[GN]


POLISH ON PEARL: Seek to Stay Class Cert Bid Briefing, Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELEXIS LEE, v. POLISH ON
PEARL, INC., and AMANDA VAN'T HUL, Case No. 1:23-cv-03343-PAB-STV
(D. Colo.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order:

-- staying any briefing and ruling related to Plaintiff's
    certification motion until an Answer is filed,

-- ruling on the upcoming Motion to Stay this matter, and

-- issuing a Scheduling Order (to include briefing on Plaintiff's

    Certification Motion).

Additionally, it is the undersigned's belief the Court struck or
intended to strike the upcoming Scheduling Conference in this
matter during the April 4, 2024, Status Conference because of the
pending Motion to Stay and Defendants' answer or other pleading to
the Complaint not yet filed and by setting a May 16, 2024, Status
Conference, but it was not reflected in the Status Conference
Minute Order.

The Defendants accordingly request the Court vacate the Scheduling
Conference set for April 25, 2024 until it can be rescheduled at
the time of the May 16, 2024, Status Conference.

The case was filed by the Plaintiff on Dec. 19, 2023, against the
Defendants alleging various wage and hour claims under Federal,
State, and City laws.

On Jan. 18, 2024, the Plaintiff filed her motion for certification
before the Defendants were served with the instant lawsuit, and
prior to any answer, Scheduling Conference, or Scheduling Order.

On March 14, 2024, the Court granted Defendants' motion for
extension of Time to answer or otherwise respond to the Plaintiff's
Complaint and set an Answer deadline for April 18, 2024.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 9, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zWxP0e at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Stephen B. Rotter, Esq.
          THE WORKPLACE COUNSEL
          1401 Lawrence Avenue, Suite 1600
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 625-6400
          E-mail: stephen@theworkplacecounsel.com

PROCTER & GAMBLE: Court Narrows Claims in Tobin Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK TOBIN, v. PROCTER &
GAMBLE COMPANY, Case No. 4:23-cv-05061-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Jeffrey White entered an order granting in part, and denying
in part Defendant's motion, as follows:

-- The Plaintiff's FAL, UCL, and Quasi-Contract claims are
dismissed,
    without prejudice, for failure to plead facts showing that the

    Plaintiff lacks an adequate remedy at law;

-- The Plaintiff's Breach of Express Warranty claim is dismissed
    because the Plaintiff fails to plead the appropriate measure of

    damages;

-- The Plaintiff's CLRA claim remains, because the claim is not
    preempted and the Plaintiff plausibly alleges that a reasonable

    consumer would be misled by the Representations.

The Plaintiff may file an amended pleading, if it so chooses, by
May 1, 2024.

The Court orders the parties to appear for a Case Management
Conference on June 21, 2024. The parties shall submit an updated
Joint Case Management Statement no later than June 14, 2024.


The Plaintiff brings the following claims on behalf of himself and
a putative class who purchased the Product or other products
bearing allegedly similar labels:

   (1) violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, Business
and
       Professions Code sections 17200, et seq.;

   (2) violations of California's False Advertising Law, Business
and
       Professions Code sections 17500, et seq. ("FACL claim");

   (3) violations of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
Civil
       Code.

The Plaintiff includes in his definition of "Products" Defendant's
DayQuil Severe Honey Cold & Flu and DayQuil and NyQuil Kids Honey
Cold & Cough + Congestion. He also includes labels for the same
Products that state the Products are "flavored with real honey."

Procter is an American multinational consumer goods corporation.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Vza8sZ at no extra
charge.[CC]

R&G BRENNER: Cinar Class Cert Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cinar v. R&G Brenner
Income Tax, LLC, Case No. 1:20-cv-01362 (E.D.N.Y., Filed March 13,
2020), the Hon. Judge Rachel P. Kovner entered an order referring
the motion for class certification to Mag. Judge Cho.

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

R&G Brenner is a financial services company providing tax
preparation services in New York.[CC]

RESONETICS LLC: Parties Seek to Extend Class Cert Deadlines
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER REYES, an
individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, v. RESONETICS, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
3:23-cv-01552-RBM-BGS (S.D. Cal.), the Parties asks the Court to
enter an order extending the discovery and the class certification
deadlines by 120 days respectively.

In the interest of efficiency and to conserve resources, to allow
the Parties to engage in the Belaire-West process and thereafter
resolve discovery issues, and participate in mediation scheduled
for May 22, 2024, the Parties request that the Court extend the
discovery and class certification motion deadlines by 120 days.

The Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint against Resonetics on
July 19, 2023, in San Diego Superior Court and Resonetics removed
to this Court on Aug. 23, 2023.

The Class Action Complaint asserts wage claims on behalf of the
Defendant's current and former employees.

On Sept. 1, 2023, the Parties conveyed their intent for early
private
mediation and began efforts to select a mediator.

On March 26, 2024, the Parties filed a Joint Motion for a
Protective Order. The Parties have also initiated the Belaire West
process with the services of Phoenix Class Action Administration
Solutions and the opt-out notices were mailed on April 4, 2024 and
provide the putative class members with 30 days (up to May 4, 2024)
to opt out of disclosure.

Resonetics provides laser technology services.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 10, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WCpxCi at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roman Shkodnik, Esq.
          D.LAW, INC.
          400 N Brand Blvd 7th Floor
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (855) 372-4693

The Defendants are represented by:

          Guillermo A. Escobedo, Esq.
          Lana B. Nassar, Esq.
          Lisa Xu, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          225 Broadway, Suite 1800
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 573-4900
          Facsimile: (619) 573-4901
          E-mail: Guillermo.Escobedo@jacksonlewis.com
                  Lana.nassar@jacksonlewis.com
                  Lisa.Xu@jacksonlewis.com

RESURGENT CAPITAL: Haston Seeks Final Approval of Settlement Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIMOTHY HASTON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, L.P., FRONTLINE ASSET STRATEGIES, LLC,
and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No. 2:20-cv-01008-WSH (W.D. Pa.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:

-- granting final approval of the Parties' Settlement Agreement,
and

-- certifying the Class defined in the Agreement for settlement.

Resurgent manages debt portfolios for credit grantors and debt
buyers.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 11, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=d9KXiZ at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Abramowicz
          Kevin Tucker, Esq.
          Chandler Steiger, Esq.
          Stephanie Moore, Esq.
          EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC
          6901 Lynn Way, Suite 215
          Pittsburgh, PA 15208
          Telephone: (412) 223-5740
          Facsimile: (412) 626-7101
          E-mail: kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com
                  ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com
                  csteiger@eastendtrialgroup.com
                  smoore@eastendtrialgroup.com

                - and -

          Eugene D. Frank, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF EUGENE D. FRANK, P.C.
          3202 McKnight East Drive
          Pittsburgh, PA 15237
          Telephone: (412) 366-4276
          Facsimile: (412) 366-4305
          E-mail: efrank@edf-law.com

REVLON CONSUMER: Faces Jurdi Data Privacy Suit
----------------------------------------------
LILLIAN JURDI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. REVLON CONSUMER PRODUCTS LLC, a New York limited
liability company; DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No.
24STCV08861 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 9, 2024) accuses
the Defendants of violating the California Trap and Trace Law.

The Plaintiff brings this action over Defendant Revlon's alleged
use of a TikTok tracing process that allowed it to identify
customers visiting its website, https://www.revlonsanz.com. The
Defendant allegedly installed on its website software developed by
TikTok to learn the location, source, and identity of website
visitors. The Plaintiff and all others who visited Revlon's website
were allegedly subjected to a fingerprinting and de-anonymization
process using the TikTok software without their express or implied
consent.

The Plaintiff claims that the TikTok software is a trap and trace
device, the use of which is prohibited under the California Trap
and Trace Law which is part of the California Invasion of Privacy
Act.

Revlon Consumer Products LLC sells cosmetics and hair treatment
products and is based in New York, NY. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Robert Tauler, Esq.
        Matthew J. Smith, Esq.
        TAULER SMITH LLP     
        626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550
        Los Angeles, California 90017
        Telephone: (213) 927-9270
        Facsimile: (310) 566-9886
        E-mail: robert@taulersmith.com
                matthew@taulersmith.com

RIVIAN AUTOMOTIVE: Misleads Investors, Class Action Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Rivian Automotive, Inc. ("Rivian" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:RIVN) and certain officers. The class action, filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
Califorina, and docketed under 24-cv-03269, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that
purchased or otherwise acquired Rivian securities between March 1,
2023 and February 21, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
against the Company and certain of its top officials.

If you are a shareholder who purchased or otherwise acquired Rivian
securities during the Class Period, you have until June 18, 2024,
to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A
copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To
discuss this action, contact Danielle Peyton at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free,
Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares
purchased.

Rivian, together with its subsidiaries, designs, develops,
manufactures, and sells electric vehicles and accessories. The
Company sells its products directly to customers in the consumer
and commercial markets.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that:

     (i) Rivian had overstated demand for its products, as well as
its ability to withstand negative, near-term macroeconomic impacts;


    (ii) accordingly, Rivian's business was experiencing reduced
demand and increased customer cancellations as a result of, inter
alia, high interest rates;

   (iii) as a result, Rivian's order bank had significantly
deteriorated;

    (iv) all the foregoing was likely to, and did, negatively
impact the Company's anticipated earnings and vehicle production
targets for 2024; and

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

On February 21, 2024, Rivian announced its fourth quarter and full
year 2023 financial results. Among other items, Rivian announced
that it expected to produce 57,000 vehicles in 2024, significantly
lower than analyst expectations of 80,000 vehicles. The Company
further forecasted an adjusted earnings before interest, taxes,
depreciation, and amortization loss of $2.7 billion for full year
2024, compared to analyst expectations of $2.59 billion, and
announced plans to cut 10% of salaried staff, citing economic
uncertainty. On the subsequent earnings call to discuss these
results, Rivian's Chief Executive Officer, Defendant Robert J.
Scaringe, revealed that "historically high interest rates . . .
ha[ve] negatively impacted demand" and "[o]ur order bank has
notably reduced overtime . . . along with the impact of
cancellations due to both the macroenvironment and [various]
customer factors" such as "delivery timing, location of order,
monthly payments, and customer readiness."

On this news, Rivian's stock price fell $3.94 per share, or 25.6%,
to close at $11.45 per share on February 22, 2024.

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

ROCKET MORTGAGE: Tolbert Bid for Class Cert. Terminated
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Courtney Tolbert v. Rocket
Mortgage, LLC et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-01450-MCS-PVC (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Mark Scarsi entered an order directing the Clerk to
terminate the motion for class certification and the request for
dismissal.

Rocket is an American mortgage lender.

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


RTX CORP: Plaintiffs Seeks to Seal Class Certification Reply
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TARAH KYE BOROZNY, et al.,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. RTX
CORPORATION, PRATT & WHITNEY DIVISION, et al., Case No.
3:21-cv-01657-SVN (D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order sealing its Class Certification Reply, Daubert Opposition,
and the unredacted Exhibits.  

The Plaintiffs move to seal unredacted versions of its Class
Certification Reply, Daubert Opposition, and certain Exhibits as
they are subject to the Amended Protective Order. The Exhibits
consist of documents exchanged between the parties in discovery
that certain
Defendants have designated as "CONFIDENTIAL" or
"CONFIDENTIAL-ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY," as well as deposition
transcripts subject to confidentiality designations by one or more
Defendants. According to the Amended Protective Order, Plaintiffs
must treat the Exhibits
as designated unless and until the Court rules otherwise.

RTX is an American multinational aerospace and defense
conglomerate.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Apr. 8, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Hqaajz at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Daniel L. Brockett, Esq.
          Manisha M. Sheth, Esq.
          Steig D. Olson, Esq.
          Thomas Lepri, Esq.
          Daniel F. Loud, Esq.
          Justin Reinheimer, Esq.
          QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
          SULLIVAN, LLP
          51 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10010
          Telephone: (212) 849-7000
          E-mail: danbrockett@quinnemanuel.com
                  manishasheth@quinnemanuel.com
                  steigolson@quinnemanuel.com
                  thomaslepri@quinnemanuel.com
                  danielloud@quinnemanuel.com
                  justinreinheimer@quinnemanuel.com

                - and -

          Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
          Robin A. van der Meulen, Esq.
          Matthew J. Perez, Esq.
          Johnny M. Shaw, Esq.
          DICELLO LEVITT LLP
          485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 933-1000
          E-mail: gasciolla@dicellolevitt.com
                  rvandermeulen@dicellolevitt.com
                  mperez@dicellolevitt.com
                  jshaw@dicellolevitt.com

                - and -

          Joseph D. Garrison, Esq.
          Stephen J. Fitzgerald, Esq.
          Joshua R. Goodbaum, Esq.
          Amanda M. DeMatteis, Esq.
          GARRISON, LEVIN-EPSTEIN,
          FITZGERALD & PIRROTTI, P.C.
          405 Orange Street
          New Haven, CT 06511
          Telephone: (203) 777-4425
          E-mail: jgarrison@garrisonlaw.com
                  sfitzgerald@garrisonlaw.com
                  jgoodbaum@garrisonlaw.com
                  adematteis@garrisonlaw.com

                - and -

          David A. Slossberg, Esq.
          Erica Oates Nolan, Esq.
          Timothy C. Cowan, Esq.
          HURWITZ SAGARIN SLOSSBERG &
          KNUFF, LLC
          135 Broad Street
          Milford, CT 06460
          Telephone: (203) 877-8000
          E-mail: DSlossberg@hssklaw.com
                  ENolan@hssklaw.com
                  TCowan@hssklaw.com

RUSSELL INVESTMENTS: Johnson Suit Seeks Class Status
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANN JOHNSON, AS THE
REPRESENTATIVE OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS, AND ON
BEHALF OF THE ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD. RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN,
v. RUSSELL INVESTMENTS TRUST COMPANY (F/K/A RUSSELL TRUST COMPANY),
ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD., AND ROYAL CARIBBEAN CRUISES LTD.
INVESTMENT COMMITTEE, Case No. 1:22-cv-21735-RNS (S.D. Fla.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:

-- certifying the following proposed class:

    "All participants and beneficiaries of the Royal Caribbean
    Cruises, Ltd. Retirement Savings Plan at any time from Oct. 1,

    2015 to the date Russell was removed as the Plan's investment
     manager"

-- appointing the Plaintiff as the class representative for the
    class and the Plaintiff's counsel as class counsel.

The Plaintiff filed this action in the Western District of
Washington on June 7, 2021.

On March 15, 2022, the Court transferred the case to the Southern
District of Florida, which requires exhaustion of administrative
remedies before proceeding in federal court.

On June 30, 2022, the Court granted the parties' request to stay
all case deadlines while Plaintiff exhausted administrative
remedies.

The Plaintiff brings the motion for class certification to provide
participants in the Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd. Retirement Savings
Plan the same opportunity for class-wide relief that is routinely
granted to plan participants in other cases involving Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) breach of fiduciary duty
claims.

Russell Investments is a global investment management firm.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Apr. 8, 2024 is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=23nqmR at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          WENZEL, FENTON, CABASSA, P.A.
          1110 N. Florida Avenue, Suite 300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 224-0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229-8712
          E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com

                - and -

          Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
          Brock J. Specht, Esq.
          Ben Bauer, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4700 IDS Center
          80 South 8th Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256-3200
          Facsimile: (612) 338-4878
          E-mail: lukas@nka.com
                  bspecht@nka.com
                  bbauer@nka.com

SAINT LUKE'S: Faces Class Suit Over Sterilization Procedures
------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica McMaster and Sam Hartle of KSHB reports that lawyers
representing a Kansas City-area family filed a class action lawsuit
last week against Saint Luke's Hospital over allegations the
hospital failed in its sterilization procedures.

The lawsuit, filed in Jackson County Circuit Court on behalf of
William Berberich and his wife Barbara Berberich, alleges the
hospital failed to perform "proper sterilization procedures" in a
surgery on William in April 2022. The lawsuit says William
developed complications that required a follow-up surgery.

Attorneys believe other patients may have been harmed by the
hospital's alleged failure to follow procedures in 2022 and 2023.

Saint Luke's Hospital of Kansas City released a statement morning
to KSHB 41 News.

"Saint Luke's does not comment on pending litigation," the hospital
said in the statement. "Saint Luke's sterile processing team
adheres to and follows the standards set by the nation's most
reputable governing organizations including the Association of
Operating Room Nurses and the Healthcare Sterile Processing
Association, the Association of Operating Room Nurses, The Joint
Commission (TJC), Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service (CMS),
and Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation
(AAMI)."

The suit comes months after a KSHB 41 I-Team report revealed
concerns over the sterilization practices made by the hospital's
former Sterile Processing Manager, Elizabeth Bell. [GN]

SCOTT SEMPLE: Request to Submit Further Docs in Vega Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Vega v. Semple, et al.,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00107 (D. Conn., Filed Jan. 25, 2017), the Hon.
Judge Maria E. Garcia entered an order denying the request to
submit further documents and/or to supplement the record.

-- The renewed motion for class certification was filed on Oct.
20,
    2023.

-- The Defendants filed their opposition brief with exhibits on
Dec.
    13, 2023.

The Court, of its own accord, sought the submission of a discrete
number of sealed documents that were not provided to the Court.
Those documents were submitted on March 1, 2024. The Court
considers the pleadings closed.

The nature of suit states Prisoner Civil Rights.[CC]

SHANE SEATON: All Discovery Stayed in Barrera Suit
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARMANDO BARRERA, JR.;
TYRON DYERALLE DAVIS; CESAR RUEDA; MONTY ALLEN HENDRICKS; v. R.
SHANE SEATON, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00018-H (N.D. Tex.), the
Hon. Judge James Wesley Hendrix entered an order as follows:

   (1) The Plaintiffs' requests for joinder and class
certification,
       to the extent that they assert them here, are denied.

   (2) The complaint of Armando Barrera, Jr. will continue under
this
       Civil Action No. 1:24-CV-00018-H. All other plaintiffs will
be
       terminated from this action.

   (3) The complaints of each of the other three named plaintiffs
       shall be severed into separate actions for each Plaintiff,
with
       a new cause number being assigned to each Plaintiff.

   (4) All discovery in this case is stayed until an answer is
filed
       or until further order.

   (5) No motions for appointment of counsel may be filed until the

       Court has completed its screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
section
       1915(e)(2), which may include a hearing pursuant to Spears
v.
       McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985), or other proceedings

       deemed appropriate by the Court.

In Jan. 2024, Plaintiffs -- four pretrial detainees being held in
Howard County Detention Center (HCDC) -- jointly filed and signed a
pleading that prompted the Clerk to open a new civil-rights action
under 42 U.S.C. section 1983.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=StaSW5 at no extra
charge.[CC]

SHANE SEATON: All Discovery Stayed in Davis Suit
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARMANDO BARRERA, JR.;
TYRON DYERALLE DAVIS; CESAR RUEDA; MONTY ALLEN HENDRICKS; v. R.
SHANE SEATON, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00050-C (N.D. Tex.), the
Hon. Judge James Wesley Hendrix entered an order as follows:

   (1) The Plaintiffs' requests for joinder and class
certification,
       to the extent that they assert them here, are denied.

   (2) The complaint of Armando Barrera, Jr. will continue under
this
       Civil Action No. 1:24-CV-00018-H. All other plaintiffs will
be
       terminated from this action.

   (3) The complaints of each of the other three named plaintiffs
       shall be severed into separate actions for each Plaintiff,
with
       a new cause number being assigned to each Plaintiff.

   (4) All discovery in this case is stayed until an answer is
filed
       or until further order.

   (5) No motions for appointment of counsel may be filed until the

       Court has completed its screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
section
       1915(e)(2), which may include a hearing pursuant to Spears
v.
       McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985), or other proceedings

       deemed appropriate by the Court.

In Jan. 2024, Plaintiffs -- four pretrial detainees being held in
Howard County Detention Center (HCDC) -- jointly filed and signed a
pleading that prompted the Clerk to open a new civil-rights action
under 42 U.S.C. section 1983.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8shwMc at no extra
charge.[CC]

SHANE SEATON: All Discovery Stayed in Hendricks Suit
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARMANDO BARRERA, JR.;
TYRON DYERALLE DAVIS; CESAR RUEDA; MONTY ALLEN HENDRICKS; v. R.
SHANE SEATON, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00052-C (N.D. Tex.), the
Hon. Judge James Wesley Hendrix entered an order as follows:

   (1) The Plaintiffs' requests for joinder and class
certification,
       to the extent that they assert them here, are denied.

   (2) The complaint of Armando Barrera, Jr. will continue under
this
       Civil Action No. 1:24-CV-00018-H. All other plaintiffs will
be
       terminated from this action.

   (3) The complaints of each of the other three named plaintiffs
       shall be severed into separate actions for each Plaintiff,
with
       a new cause number being assigned to each Plaintiff.

   (4) All discovery in this case is stayed until an answer is
filed
       or until further order.

   (5) No motions for appointment of counsel may be filed until the

       Court has completed its screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
section
       1915(e)(2), which may include a hearing pursuant to Spears
v.
       McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985), or other proceedings

       deemed appropriate by the Court.

In Jan. 2024, Plaintiffs -- four pretrial detainees being held in
Howard County Detention Center (HCDC) -- jointly filed and signed a
pleading that prompted the Clerk to open a new civil-rights action
under 42 U.S.C. section 1983.

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

SHANE SEATON: All Discovery Stayed in Rueda Suit
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARMANDO BARRERA, JR.;
TYRON DYERALLE DAVIS; CESAR RUEDA; MONTY ALLEN HENDRICKS; v. R.
SHANE SEATON, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00051-H (N.D. Tex.), the
Hon. Judge James Wesley Hendrix entered an order as follows:

   (1) The Plaintiffs' requests for joinder and class
certification,
       to the extent that they assert them here, are denied.

   (2) The complaint of Armando Barrera, Jr. will continue under
this
       Civil Action No. 1:24-CV-00018-H. All other plaintiffs will
be
       terminated from this action.

   (3) The complaints of each of the other three named plaintiffs
       shall be severed into separate actions for each Plaintiff,
with
       a new cause number being assigned to each Plaintiff.

   (4) All discovery in this case is stayed until an answer is
filed
       or until further order.

   (5) No motions for appointment of counsel may be filed until the

       Court has completed its screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
section
       1915(e)(2), which may include a hearing pursuant to Spears
v.
       McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985), or other proceedings

       deemed appropriate by the Court.

In Jan. 2024, Plaintiffs -- four pretrial detainees being held in
Howard County Detention Center (HCDC) -- jointly filed and signed a
pleading that prompted the Clerk to open a new civil-rights action
under 42 U.S.C. section 1983.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HtUC7h at no extra
charge.[CC]

SHARECARE INC: Faces Class Action Over Securities Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Sharecare, Inc. (NASDAQ: SHCR) between May 10, 2023
and March 28, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Sharecare investors under the
federal securities laws.

To join the Sharecare class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=24143 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.

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

     (1) Sharecare lacked adequate internal controls and;

     (2) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business,
operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all times. When the true
details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors
suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve
as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than June 18,
2024. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf
of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to
join the litigation, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=24143 or to discuss
your rights or interests regarding this class action, please
contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at
866-767-3653 or via e-mail at case@rosenlegal.com.

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

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

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

Contacts

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

SHOPPERS DRUG: Faces Class Suit Over Unethical Corporate Practices
------------------------------------------------------------------
CP24 reports that Shoppers Drug Mart is facing a proposed
class-action lawsuit by current and former franchise owners at the
retail chain who allege parent company Loblaw engaged in corporate
practices that placed them in an "irredeemable conflict of
interest" and put patient care at risk.

The suit, which has not yet been certified, was filed at the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice by Toronto-based law firm
Ricketts Harris LLP and lists the plaintiffs as current and former
pharmacists, who had their agreements with the company terminated
after 2014.

In a statement of claim reviewed by CTV News Toronto, the class
action alleges that a number of corporate practices introduced by
Loblaw after its acquisition of Shoppers Drug Mart in 2014 created
"risks to patient safety and pose a significant risk of causing
patient harm."

Some of those practices, according to the lawsuit, include imposing
targets on the volume of "MedsCheck" appointments -- Ontario's
medication review service -- and minimizing support staff hours in
an effort to increase revenue and decrease costs.

The claim notes that Shoppers Drug Mart can and has terminated its
contracts with franchise owners who "breach key obligations" or
criticize their business decisions.

Sivajanan Sivapalan, an Ontario pharmacist and lead plaintiff in
the suit, entered an agreement with Shoppers Drug Mart to run a
franchise in Beamsville, Ont. in 2011. He subsequently renewed his
agreement in 2014, 2017, and 2020.

The suit alleges, after Sivapalan "expressed concerns" regarding
the corporate practices to Shoppers Drug Mart, his agreement was
terminated without reason on Jan. 23, 2023.

Moreover, since Shoppers Drug Mart was acquired by Loblaw,
franchise owners say they have expressed concerns about the
corporate policies and their "increased risk to patient safety."
But the claim argues that Shoppers Drug Mart and Loblaw have taken
"little to no action" to address the concerns.

Following a meeting on March 25, the Ontario College of Pharmacists
(OCP) announced a "zero tolerance" policy for business practices
that impede pharmacists "ability to deliver effective care" after
hearing from "thousands" of pharmacy professionals.

In a news release, which does not name any pharmacy retail chain
specifically, the OCP said it found the reports of "inappropriate
pressure" to conduct MedsCheck appointments "deeply troubling."

"The College will consider every tool available to us to address
those concerns," the OCP said.

To that end, the claim says the OCP policy puts franchise owners at
"increased risk of regulatory scrutiny and sanction" from Shoppers
Drug Mart.

"Our high-level goal is to seek justice for Shoppers Drug Mart
franchisees - pharmacists - who have been forced to practice under
corporate policies that place them in an irredeemable conflict of
interest, which affects their ability to provide safe and effective
patient care," lead counsel Andrea Sanche told CTV News Toronto in
an email.

When asked for comment on the suit, Loblaw told CTV News Toronto
that the case has "no merit, whatsoever" and the company plans to
"vigorously defend" itself.

The class-action is seeking, among other things, damages for
Loblaw's alleged breaches of contract with currrent and former
franchise owners, the amount of which has yet to be determined.
[GN]

SLEDGE INC: Larsen Seeks to Extend Class Cert Bid Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW LARSEN, ET AL., On
Behalf of Themselves and All Other Similarly Situated Individuals,
v. SLEDGE, INC., ET AL., Case No. 1:24-cv-00388-CRC (D.D.C.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order that:

   (1) Plaintiffs' motion to extend the deadline for filing a
motion
       for Class Certification is granted; and

   (2) Plaintiffs be permitted to file their Motion for Class
       Certification at a date to be set at the Federal Rule of
Civil
       Procedure 26(f) conference.

No Party will be prejudiced by granting this extension. Indeed, no
defendant has filed their initial pleading and the Plaintiffs have
not even obtained service on all Defendants. Therefore, the
Plaintiffs have demonstrated good cause for enlarging the class
certification deadline.

Mr. Andrew Larsen, filed the instant action on Feb. 8, 2024,
against Sledge, Inc. and It's My Party, Inc. as a "Collective and
Class Action Complaint."

On Apr. 5, 2024, the Plaintiff amended his complaint, adding
several named Plaintiffs and additional Defendants.

The Plaintiffs bring collective action claims under the Federal
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), the District of Columbia
Minimum Wage Act Revision Act of 1992 ("DCMWA"), and the District
of Columbia Wage Payment and Collection Law ("DCWPCL").

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 10, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lcW95c at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael K. Amster, Esq.
          ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC
          8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400
          Silver Spring, MD 20910
          Telephone: (301) 587-9373
          Facsimile: (240) 839-9142
          E-mail: mamster@zagfirm.com

SOUTHSTATE BANK: Parties Must Confer Class Certification Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fullwood-Demps v.
SouthState Bank, N.A., Case No. 6:24-cv-00662 (M.D. Fla., Filed
April 5, 2024), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order
directing the parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a
motion for class certification and advise the Court of agreeable
deadlines in their case management report.

The deadlines should include a deadline for

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

   (2) discovery - class action;

   (3) motion for class certification;

   (4) response to motion for class certification; and

   (5) reply to motion for class certification.

The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Other
Personal.

SouthState provides consumer, commercial, mortgage, and wealth
management solutions.[CC]

SPORTSMAN’S WAREHOUSE: Faces Kogut Class Suit in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sportsman's Warehouse Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K
Report for the fiscal period ending February 3, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 4, 2024 that the
Company faces the Kogut class suit in the Delaware Court of
Chancery.

On January 22, 2024, Jon Kogut filed a putative class action
lawsuit against the Company and the members of its Board of
Directors in the Delaware Court of Chancery (the "2024 Delaware
Litigation").

The lawsuit asserts claims on behalf of a putative class comprised
of all stockholders other than defendants and any current directors
or officers of the Company and is captioned Kogut v. Bejar, et al.,
C.A. No. 2024-0055-MTZ (Del. Ch.).

In his complaint, Mr. Kogut contends that certain provisions in the
Company’s advance notice bylaws (the "Challenged Provisions") are
invalid and void and that the members of the Board have breached
their fiduciary duty of loyalty by adopting and maintaining the
Challenged Provisions.

In addition to seeking declaratory, equitable, and injunctive
relief, Mr. Kogut seeks an award of attorneys' fees and other costs
and expenses on behalf of the putative class.

Sportsman's Warehouse Holdings Inc. operates as a holding company.
The Company, through its subsidiaries, provides sporting goods and
equipment, bicycles, footwear, electronics, and apparels.
Sportsman's Warehouse Holdings serves customers in the United
States. [BN]



SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS: Settlement in McFadden Suit Gets Initial Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN MCFADDEN, DAVID
SCHMIDT, and PETER DONCEVIC on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, the SPRINT
COMMUNICATIONS EMPLOYEE BENEFITS COMMITTEE, and JOHN/JANE DOES 1-5,
Case No. 2:22-cv-02464-DDC-GEB (D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Daniel
Crabtree entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion
for preliminary settlement approval.

The court preliminarily certifies the proposed settlement class and
preliminarily approves the parties' Settlement Agreement. The court
directs the Defendants to cause the notice to be sent in the form
and manner the parties proposed and adopts the Plaintiffs' schedule
for related deadlines.

The plaintiffs ask the court to certify preliminarily the following
settlement class:

      "All participants and beneficiaries of the Plan who began
      receiving a 50%, 75% or 100% JSA or a QPSA on or after Nov.
11,
      2016, through and including the Preliminary Approval Date
whose
      benefits had a present value that was less than the present
      value of the SLA they were offered using the applicable
Treasury
      Assumptions as of each participant's Benefit Commencement
Date."

      Excluded from the Class are Defendants and any individuals
who
      are subsequently determined to be fiduciaries of the Plan.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) by failing to pay
retirement benefit amounts that satisfy the actuarial equivalence
requirements of
ERISA.

Plaintiff Kevin McFadden worked for Sprint for over 26 years and
began receiving benefits under the Sprint Retirement Pension Plan
in 2017. Plaintiff David Schmidt worked for Sprint for 45 years and
began receiving his Plan benefits in 2022. And plaintiff Peter
Doncevic worked for Sprint for 19 years and began receiving his
Plan benefits in 2021. All three plaintiffs receive joint and
survivor annuity (JSA) benefits—with their spouses as
beneficiaries—rather than single life annuity (SLA) benefits.

Sprint provides long distance telecommunication services.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Q6cQ7t at no extra
charge.[CC]

TAMKO BUILDING: Scheduling Conference in Snyder Reset for May 6
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Snyder et al v. Tamko
Building Products, Inc., Case No. 2:19-cv-02630 (D. Kan., Filed
Oct. 15, 2019), the Hon. Judge Julie A. Robinson entered an order
granting motion to re-set scheduling conference.

-- Scheduling Conference re-set for:              May 6, 2024

The nature of suit states property damage product liability.

Tamko manufactures residential and commercial roofing,
waterproofing, and composite decking.[CC]

TARGET CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Data Privacy Breach
------------------------------------------------------
ABC7 Chicago Digital Team of Eye Witness News reports that a woman
filed a class action lawsuit against Target, accusing the retailer
of storing customers' biometric data without consent.

Arnetta Deans, an Illinois resident, accused the company of
violating Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act.

The documents also pointed to several social media posts of alleged
former Target employees saying the company takes a pictures of
customers using surveillance systems without informing customers.

As the Illinois law allows, Deans is asking for $5,000 for each
intentional or reckless violation of BIPA, and $1,000 for every
negligent violation of the law.

Last year, a similar complaint was filed against Meta, the parent
company of Instagram.
What is biometric data?

Biometrics are unique physical characteristics, such as
fingerprints.

For example, Department of Homeland Security uses biometrics to
detect and prevent illegal entry into the country.

ABC7 Chicago reached out to Target Corp. for a comment on the class
action lawsuit and did not immediately hear back. [GN]

TARGET CORP: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Halley Due May 29
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CORBIN HALLEY, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
TARGET CORPORATION, a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 8:17-cv-00692-JGB-MRW (C.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Jesus Bernal entered an order approving stipulation regarding
class certification briefing
schedule and hearing.

-- Plaintiff's deadline to file motion for        May 29, 2024
    class certification:

-- Target's deadline to file opposition to        July 12, 2024
    plaintiff’s motion for class
    certification:  

-- Plaintiff's deadline to file reply in           Aug. 7, 2024:
    support of motion for class
    certification:

-- Hearing on plaintiff's motion for               Sept. 9, 2024
    class certification:

Target is an American retail corporation that operates a chain of
discount department stores and hypermarkets.

A copy of the Court's order dated Apr. 8, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wIz8lD at no extra
charge.[CC]

TOWANDA COMMUNITY: Filing for Discovery Plan Due May 14
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Smtih v. Towanda Community
Fire Protection District, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01011 (C.D.
Ill., Filed Jan. 11, 2024), the Hon. Judge entered a class
certification order as follows:

-- A discovery plan pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f)(3) shall be

    filed on or before May 14, 2024.

-- If the complaint makes allegations on behalf of a class, the
    proposed discovery plan should include a deadline for filing a

    motion to certify class at a stage early in the case.

-- The Discovery Plan event may be found in the CM/ECF system
within
    the other Documents category.

-- All counsel must read and be familiar with the standing order
    attached to this text order prior to their Rule 26(f) planning

    meeting.

The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.[CC]


TWITTER INC: Fact Discovery Deadline in Adler Reset to June 10
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EITAN ADLER, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. TWITTER, INC., and X
CORP., Case No. 3:23-cv-01788-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Parties seek to
extend the fact discovery and class certification deadlines as
follows:

-- The fact discovery deadline is hereby reset to June 10, 2024.

-- The deadline for filing any motion for class certification is
    reset to July 12,2024.

-- The deadline for opposing class certification shall be Aug. 9,

    2024.

-- The deadline for filing a reply in support of class
certification
    shall be Aug. 23, 2024.

The extension of these deadlines will not impact the trial date set
by the Court, which shall remain March 24, 2025.  
The deadline for Plaintiff to file his motion for class
certification is June 7, 2024.

The Parties have completed several depositions, but have additional
depositions that need to be completed, which have required
coordinating the schedules of multiple witnesses and counsel.

The Parties have conferred and reached agreement to request that
the fact discovery deadline and class certification deadline be be
continued for a period of approximately eight weeks in order to
allow them to complete all discovery.

Twitter is an American social media company based in San Francisco,
California.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 9, 2024, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MxTYvz at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Eric Meckley, Esq.
          Brian D. Berry, Esq.
          Kassia Stephenson, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS, & BOCKIUS, LLP
          One Market, Spear Street Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 442-1000
          E-mail: eric.meckley@morganlewis.com;
                  brian.berry@morganlewis.com;
                  kassia.stephenson@morganlewis.com

UNILEVER PLC: Agrees to Settle Suave Benzene Class Suit for $2MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Unilever agreed to pay $2 million to
resolve a Suave benzene class action claiming the company sold
aerosol deodorants that were contaminated with benzene, a human
carcinogen linked to blood cancer. No proof of purchase is required
for consumers to benefit from the Suave settlement.

The Suave settlement benefits consumers who purchased Suave 24-Hour
Protection Powder Aerosol Antiperspirant and Suave 24-Hour
Protection Fresh Aerosol Antiperspirant products between Jan. 1,
2018, and March 7, 2024.

According to the Suave benzene class action lawsuit, Unilever
endangered consumers by selling Suave deodorant products that were
contaminated with benzene. Though Unilever recalled these products
in March 2022, consumers allegedly may have been exposed to
benzene. Benzene exposure is linked to leukemia and other serious
health conditions.

Unilever is a household product manufacturer that sells products
under numerous brands, including Suave.

Unilever hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $2 million
Suave benzene settlement to resolve the class action lawsuit.

Under the terms of the Suave benzene settlement, class members can
receive a full refund of the price they paid for covered products
as long as they can provide proof of purchase with their valid
claim. Without proof of purchase, class members can receive $3.29,
the average retailed price, per purchased product for up to three
products per household.

Class members' payments will be reduced by the amount of cash or
voucher payments the class member has received or will receive for
claims made through the reimbursement recall program. Class member
payments may be increased or decreased proportionately so that the
total amount paid equals the available Suave settlement funds.

The deadline for exclusion and objection is July 15, 2024.

The final approval hearing for the Suave settlement is scheduled
for Sept. 13, 2024.

Class members must submit a valid claim form by July 15, 2024, to
benefit from the Suave benzene settlement.

Who's Eligible

Consumers who purchased Suave 24-Hour Protection Powder Aerosol
Antiperspirant and Suave 24-Hour Protection Fresh Aerosol
Antiperspirant products between Jan. 1, 2018 and March 7, 2024

Potential Award

Varies

Proof of Purchase

Itemized sales receipt, retail score club/loyalty card record or
other documents showing the purchase of a covered product, the
purchase price and the date and location of purchase

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

Claim Form Deadline

07/15/2024

Case Name

Barnes v. Unilever United States Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-06191, in
the U.S District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Final Hearing

09/13/2024

Settlement Website
SuaveSettlement.com

Claims Administrator

   Suave Antiperspirant Settlement Administrator
   1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210
   Philadelphia, PA19103
   Tel: 888-903-7198

Class Counsel

   Charles E Schaffer
   LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
   510 Walnut St # 500
   Philadelphia, PA 19106
   Phone: +1 877-882-1011

   Nick Suciu III
   MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
   800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
   Knoxville, TN 37929
   Phone: 866-252-0878

   Jonathan Shub
   SHUB & JOHNS LLC
   Four Tower Bridge, 200 Barr Harbor Dr #400
   Conshohocken, PA 19428
   Phone: +1 610-477-8380

   Max S Roberts
   BURSOR & FISHER PA
   701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420
   Miami, FL 33131
   Phone: 305-330-5512

   Jason P Sultzer
   THE SULTZER LAW GROUP PC
   630 Freedom Business Center Drive, 3rd Floor
   King of Prussia, PA 19406
   Tel: 610-365-4722

Defense Counsel

   James P Muehlberger
   SHOOK HARDY & BACON LLP
   2555 Grand Blvd.
   Kansas City, MO 64108
   Tel: 816-474-6550
   Fax: 816-421-5547 [GN]

UNITED PARCEL: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due July 19
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Rebecca Orr v. United
Parcel Service Inc. et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-00421-SSS-SP (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sunshine Sykes entered an order setting the
deadlines for Plaintiff's motion for class certification:

                    Event                          Deadline

  Last Date to Hear Motion to Amend Pleadings    May 31, 2024
  or Add Parties

  Deadline for Plaintiff to File Motion for      July 19, 2024
  Class Certification and Any Class
  Certification Expert Report

  Deadline for Defendant to File Opposition      Aug. 2, 2024
  to Class Certification and Any Class
  Certification Expert Report

  Deadline for Plaintiff to File Reply in        Aug. 9, 2024
  Support of Motion for Class Certification
  and Any Class Certification Rebuttal
  Expert Report

  Class Certification Hearing                    Sept. 6, 2024

Pursuant to the Court’s Standing Order, all merits discovery is
stayed.

The Court further directs the parties to engage in a phased
discovery plan. Phase 1 shall consist of pre-certification
discovery to determine the scope and size of the putative class, as
well as whether Plaintiff is able to meet the prerequisites of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Phase 2 shall consist of merits
discovery. The Scheduling Conference scheduled for April 19, 2024,
is vacated.

United Parcel delivers packages and documents.

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

UNITED STATES: Faces Suit Over Discrimination Against Black-Farmers
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action lawsuit alleges the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) has for decades systematically discriminated against Black
farmers, particularly in its administration of federal loan
programs. Also named as a defendant is U.S. Secretary of
Agriculture Tom J. Vilsack.

The 116-page civil rights suit was filed by two Black sugarcane
farmers in Louisiana -- Wenceslaus "June" Provost Jr. and Angela
Provost -- who say they were "set up for failure" by the USDA after
being repeatedly denied equal access to adequate, timely and
feasible farm loans due to their race. The complaint shares that
the Provosts, beginning in 2007, were forced to run their farming
operation with 25 to 50 percent of the funding white farmers were
given for the same number of acres, using USDA loans that often
weren't approved until far too late into the growing season to be
of real use.

Since success in the industry is largely determined by "the whims"
of unpredictable weather conditions and market prices, many farmers
rely on USDA loan programs to sustain their operations from year to
year, the suit explains.

Without proper funding from the federal agency, the plaintiffs'
4,000-plus acre farm was "slowly crushed" over less than a decade
until they lost nearly everything, the case says. After Mr.
Provost's bankruptcy petition was dismissed by the USDA in 2018,
the agency foreclosed on the farmer's collateralized assets,
including his home, land and farming equipment, the lawsuit
states.

The Provosts' experience is not unique, the filing contends, citing
USDA data that reveals the agency rejected 16 percent of Black
farmers who applied for a direct loan in 2022, compared to four
percent of white farmers. Records also show that the USDA, between
2006 and 2016, was six times as likely to foreclose on a Black
farmer as it was to foreclose on a white farmer, the suit relays.

Per the filing, the USDA admits that its disproportionate
allocation of funds in favor of white farmers has cost Black
farmers "hundreds of billions of dollars." The lawsuit largely
blames the USDA's well-documented and longstanding pattern of
racial discrimination on its decentralized structure, which grants
local officials "broad, almost unfettered discretion" when it comes
to the administration of loans, allowing the officials "free rein
to discriminate."

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs' troubles with the USDA
began in 2007, when an official informed Mr. Provost that taking
over his family farm meant he would have to take on around $800,000
of his late father's debt. The plaintiff says he didn't want to
begin his independent farming career in that much debt, but the
USDA offered him no other choice.

"Such choices did, of course, exist -- including a direct loan to
carry out farm operations, a direct loan to purchase or lease new
farming equipment, or debt forgiveness for Provost Sr.," the suit
shares. "They simply were not offered to Mr. Provost."

The filing says that this incident was just one of many
discriminatory and unlawful acts USDA officials have carried out --
and continue to carry out -- against the plaintiffs.

"They insisted Mr. and Mrs. Provost should have supervised loan
accounts where official signoff was required before a single dollar
could be spent. They allowed USDA county committee members to abuse
their authority and enrich themselves by targeting and taking over
Mr. and Mrs. Provost's land. And when Mr. and Mrs. Provost did not
have the funds to fertilize, weed, spray, water, plant, and harvest
at the right time because of the USDA's untimely and inadequate
loans, USDA officials said Mr. and Mrs. Provost were just ‘bad
farmers.' Mr. Provost is, in fact, an award-winning farmer whose
family has farmed sugarcane in Louisiana for generations."

The Guardian details how the plaintiffs dealt with "unrelenting
acts of apparent sabotage" throughout 2014, which the case contends
were deliberate attempts to drive the couple out of business. For
instance, the complaint says, dead cats were left inside Mr.
Provost's tractor, cinderblocks were hidden in Mrs. Provost's
fields to damage her equipment, and motor oil was repeatedly
drained from vehicles. That same year, USDA staffers photocopied
Mr. Provost's signature onto documents without permission to make
it appear as if he had approved lower loan amounts, the suit
alleges.

After facing years of lending discrimination and other unlawful
treatment, the Provosts lodged several formal complaints between
2016 and 2018 in which they urged the USDA to investigate and
rectify local officials' discriminatory behavior, all to no avail,
the case shares.

"Those complaints were met with a pattern of delay and neglect by
the defendants, who -- despite documented proof in support -- left
the Provosts' complaints lingering for years, with no sign of any
resolution," the suit alleges.

Indeed, the lawsuit says the USDA office in charge of dealing with
such complaints, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil
Rights, is no more than a "dismissal factory" that conducts only
"sham" investigations.

The lawsuit looks to represent the following classes:

"All Black farmers whose farm loan applications were delayed and/or
denied on account of race within the last five years."

"All Black farmers whose civil rights complaints regarding
discriminatory acts by or with the acquiescence of the USDA have
not been timely and adequately investigated in accordance with law
within the last six years."

"All Black farmers who applied for a federal farm program with the
USDA and had their applications denied or reduced within the last
five years based on delinquent USDA debts that the USDA has
acknowledged should be forgiven on account of past
discrimination."

"All Black farmers who lost land leases to USDA officials --
including county committee members -- who had access to information
provided by socially disadvantaged farmers when applying for
federal farm programs with the USDA." [GN]

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Ninth Circuit Revives Putative Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Roberts Disability Law reports that in Ryan S. v. UnitedHealth
Grp., Inc., No. 22-55761, __ F.4th __ , 2024 WL 1561668 (9th Cir.
Apr. 11, 2024), Plaintiff-Appellant Ryan S. brought a putative
class action against Defendant-Appellee UnitedHealth Group, Inc.
and its subsidiaries alleging that the Defendants violated the Paul
Wellstone and Pete Domenici Mental Health Parity and Addiction
Equity Act of 2008 ("Parity Act"), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1185a, and their
ERISA fiduciary duties by applying a more stringent review process
for outpatient, out-of-network mental health and substance use
disorder (MH/SUD) treatment than to comparable medical/surgical
treatment. The district court dismissed Plaintiff's claims for
failure to state a claim. The Ninth Circuit held that, as a matter
of first impression, Plaintiff sufficiently alleged that Defendants
applied an internal process that violates the Parity Act. As such,
Plaintiff also sufficiently alleged a breach of fiduciary duty
under ERISA. However, Plaintiff did not state a claim for violation
of ERISA plan terms. The court reversed the district court's
dismissal of two of Plaintiff's claims and remanded the matter for
further proceedings.

Plaintiff filed this putative class action after his ERISA group
health plan denied most of the costs of his outpatient,
out-of-network substance use disorder programs. In the operative
Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
"violated three of ERISA's requirements: (1) the Parity Act,
codified at 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1185a; (2) the fiduciary duty of
loyalty, described in 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1104; and (3) the requirement
under Sec. 1104 to follow the contractual terms of a beneficiary's
plan." Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants maintain a
system that subjects MH/SUD treatment claims to a more stringent
review process than other medical/surgical claims and that this
violates their ERISA fiduciary duties.

With respect to the Parity Act, the court noted that there is no
clear law on how to state a claim for a Parity Act violation, which
can occur in a few forms. "Plaintiffs can allege that an ERISA plan
contains an exclusion that is discriminatory on its face, that the
plan contains a facially neutral term that is discriminatorily
applied to MH/SUD treatment, or that the plan administrator applies
an improper internal process that results in the exclusion of some
MH/SUD treatment." Here, Plaintiff alleged an internal process
violation. He did not need to allege a "categorical" practice or
the uniform denial of his benefits. This is because handling MH/SUD
treatment claims more stringently violates the Parity Act
regardless of whether it leads to the uniform denial of all claims.
A plaintiff need not specify the different process that allegedly
applies to the analogous category of medical/surgical benefits in
order to meet the plausibility pleading standard. Plaintiff needs
only to plausibly allege the existence of a procedure used in
assessing MH/SUD claims that is more restrictive than those used in
assessing other claims. Here, Plaintiff cites to a 2018 report by
the California Department of Managed Healthcare that concluded that
UHC processed MH/SUD clams differently by applying a process called
"Algorithms for Effective Reporting and Treatment (ALERT)" that
could trigger a more intensive review process for MH/SUD claims.
The court explained that "[a] pleading standard under which such a
comprehensive investigation is insufficient would make it
inordinately difficult for a plaintiff to challenge an internal
process, given the likelihood that an individual claimant's own
administrative record would not shed light on the internal
processes to which the claims were subjected. The plausibility
pleading standard is not that unreachable."

Because Plaintiff sufficiently alleged a Parity Act violation, the
court found that this was enough to support his ERISA breach of
fiduciary duty claim since the language in the statute suggests
that violation of the Parity Act is a breach of fiduciary duty.
However, the court found that Plaintiff did not sufficiently allege
a violation of a specific plan term. [GN]

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Faces Ozorio Wage & Hour Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
SALVADOR OZORIO, an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA; a
California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
24STCV08892 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 9, 2024) accuses
the Defendants of violating the California Labor Code.

The Plaintiff has worked for Defendants from approximately March
2020 up to the present as a non-exempt employee, with duties that
included, but were not limited to, cleaning, sanitizing, and
stocking empty supplies. For at least 4 years prior to the filing
of this action, the Defendant has committed several violations of
the California Labor Code, including, among others, failing to pay
Plaintiff and Class members overtime wages and minimum wages,
failing to provide meal and rest periods, failing to provide
accurate wage statements, and failing to timely pay wages, says the
Plaintiff.

University of Southern California is a private institution located
in Los Angeles, CA. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
        Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq.
        BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.      
        1460 Westwood Boulevard
        Los Angeles, CA 90024
        Telephone: (310) 438-5555
        Facsimile: (310) 300-1705
        E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw.com
                jeff@tomorrowlaw.com

VANTAGE SUPPORTED: Employees Seeks Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Shiner, writing for abc17news.com, reports that an employee at
an assisted living facility in California, Missouri, has sued their
employer, claiming the facility did not pay full wages.

Nikki Green has filed a petition against Vantage Supported Living,
LLC and is seeking a class-action certification for the lawsuit.

The petition -- filed in the Western District court of Missouri --
claims multiple Fair Labor Standards Act violations, including that
overtime and straight time wages were not paid and that the
employer received unjust enrichment from not paying. [GN]


VIEW INC: Court Dismisses Suit Over Misstated Financial Results
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shearman & Sterling LLP of JD Supra reports that on April 9, 2024,
Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a
putative class action asserting claims under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 against a technology company, certain of its
current and former officers and directors, and related corporate
entities. Mehedi v. View, Inc., 2024 WL 1560009 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 9,
2024). Lead plaintiff alleged that the company materially misstated
its financial results. The Court held that lead plaintiff could not
establish loss causation and therefore lacked standing to pursue
claims on behalf of the putative class, requiring the case to be
dismissed in its entirety.

The company became publicly traded after completing a merger with a
special purpose acquisition company. Id. at *1. Five months after
going public, the company announced in August 2021 that its audit
committee had begun investigating the company's disclosures
respecting warranty accruals related to a product the company
offered. Id. In November 2021, the company announced that the
investigation revealed that the company had materially misstated
its liabilities in connection with its warranty-related
obligations, and that the company would therefore need to restate
its financial information. Id. Lead plaintiff, however, did not own
any company stock in November 2021, having sold its stock after the
company's August 2021 announcement. Id. at *6.

The Court first held that lead plaintiff could not plead loss
causation as required by Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, because
lead plaintiff had sold its shares before the truth of the
company's situation had been announced to the market. Id. The Court
observed that, while the company had announced in August 2021 the
subject of the audit committee's investigation, the truth
respecting the company's financial statements became known only
when the investigation was completed in November 2021; therefore,
the Court held lead plaintiff could not attribute its alleged
losses to the company's August 2021 announcement. Id. at *7. The
Court rejected the suggestion that the August 2021 announcement
amounted to a partial corrective disclosure; rather, the Court
noted that the announcement merely announced an investigation, and
an investigation "simply puts investors on notice of a potential
future disclosure of fraudulent conduct." Id. (quoting Loos v.
Immersion Corp., 762 F.3d 880, 890 (9th Cir. 2014)). As the Court
explained, "because [lead plaintiff] sold its shares before the
truth was revealed, [lead plaintiff] was not injured by the alleged
misrepresentations." Id. at *8. In the absence of an injury, the
Court held lead plaintiff lacked constitutional standing to pursue
a claim against the company. Id.

The Court similarly concluded that lead plaintiff lacked standing
to pursue a claim under Section 14 of the Exchange Act, which
concerns alleged misstatements in a proxy statement. Id. Lead
plaintiff held shares as of the record date (January 2021) for the
merger proxy that allegedly contained misstated financial
information respecting the company's warranty accruals, but sold
those shares in March 2021, before the truth of the company's
alleged financial misstatements reported in that proxy statement
was revealed in November 2021. Thus, the Court held lead plaintiff
could not show that the revelation of this information caused it to
suffer an economic loss. Id. at *9. While lead plaintiff also
purchased shares after the record date, the Court held that those
shares could not be the basis upon which to state a claim
concerning alleged misstatements in the company's proxy statement.
Id.

The Court further held that the addition of a proposed new
plaintiff in an amended complaint could not cure the fact that the
original lead plaintiff never had standing. Id. While the Court
observed that the appointment of a new or additional lead plaintiff
would not violate the requirements for lead plaintiff approval set
forth in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, the Court
explained that it could not allow this substitution based on
binding Ninth Circuit precedent, requiring the dismissal of case
where the original plaintiff never had standing to pursue the case
from the outset. Id. at *9–10. The Court further explained that,
while the Court had permitted the filing of an amended complaint,
it had not specifically granted leave to add a new plaintiff, and
that, in any event, adding a new plaintiff could not cure lead
plaintiff's lack of standing. Id. at *10. The Court thus dismissed
the entire action with prejudice. Id. at *11. [GN]

VIEW INC: Court Tosses Mehedi Suit
----------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ASIF MEHEDI, et al., v.
VIEW, INC., et al., Case No. 5:21-cv-06374-BLF (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Beth Labson Freeman entered an order that:

   1. Defendants View, Inc., and Rao Mulpuril's motion to dismiss
is
      granted without leave to amend.

   2. Defendants Howard Lutnick, Paul Pion, Alice Chan, Anshu Jain,

      Robert J. Hochberg, Charlotte S. Blechman, CF Finance
Holdings
      II, LLC, Cantor Fitzgerald & Co., Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P.,
and
      CF Group Management, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 183)
is
      granted without leave to amend.

   3. Defendant Vidul Prakash's motion to dismiss is granted
without
      leave to amend.

The case is a putative class action for securities fraud against
View, Inc. and various individuals connected to View's SEC filings.
Before the Court are Defendants' motions to dismiss Plaintiffs'
second amended complaint. The Plaintiffs oppose the motion. The
Defendants have filed replies. The Court held a hearing on the
motions on March 14, 2024.

On March 8, 2021, View became a publicly traded company through a
merger with CF II, a special purpose acquisition company. The
Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants made material
misrepresentations to investors concerning a materially misstated
and understated warranty accrual related to Legacy View's "smart
panels."

On Aug. 18, 2021, the initial complaint was filed in this case. The
initial complaint brought claims on behalf of a putative class of
investors who bought View securities between Nov. 30, 2020 and Aug.
16, 2021 and allegedly suffered losses based on View's making
materially false or misleading statements and failing to disclose
material adverse facts about the company's business, including
warranty costs and internal controls.

On August 21, 2023, Stadium Capital filed the second amended
complaint. The second amended complaint changes the end of the
class period to Nov. 9, 2021, and brings claims against: View,
Inc., f/k/a CF Finance Acquisition Corp. II; current and former
officers and directors of View and CF II; and and entities related
to CF II.

View is a technology company that manufactures smart building
products, including a "smart" glass panel that adjusts in response
to the sun.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8XS40A at no extra
charge.[CC]

WALGREEN CO: Seeks to Seal Certain Portions of Materials
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELISA BARGETTO, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. WALGREEN CO., Case
No. 3:22-cv-02639-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to
enter an order to seal certain portions of the following materials
filed by Walgreens in connection with Walgreen Co.'s Opposition to
Plaintiff’s motion for class certification:

Document No.   Document       Portions to Seal      Basis for
Sealing

  Exhibit 1   Excerpted          Highlighted       Contains
personal
              pages from         portion           information of
the
              the transcript     at 21:22.         Plaintiff.
              of the
              deposition of
              Plaintiff Elisa
              Bargetto

  Exhibit 3   Declaration of     Highlighted       Contains
quotations
              Gil Ramirez        portions in       from and
                                 Par. 7, 10 and       substantive
                                 Exhibit A.        references to
                                                   materials
                                                   designated by
                                                   Walgreens as  
                                                   Confidential.

  Exhibit 4   Declaration        Highlighted       Contains
personal
              of Marcus          portions          information of
              Osacky             in par.5             Plaintiff.

Walgreen provides online medical products.

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Cory E. Manning, Esq.
          Jarrett Coco, Esq.
          Miles E. Coleman, Esq.
          NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP
          1320 Main St., 17th Floor
          Columbia, SC 29201
          Telephone: (803) 255-5524
          Facsimile: (803) 256-7500
          E-mail: cory.manning@nelsonmullins.com
                  jarrett.coco@nelsonmullins.com
                  miles.coleman@nelsonmullins.com

WALMART INC: Acne Treatment Drugs Contain Benzene, Sanderlin Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EMILY SANDERLIN, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WALMART, INC., Defendant, Case No.
4:24-cv-01656-RBH (D.S.C., April 2, 2024) seeks redress for the
economic harms caused by Defendant's sale of acne treatment drug
products containing benzoyl peroxide (BPO) without warning
Plaintiff and other consumers that (1) the BPO in the products is
at high risk of degrading, and in fact degrades, into benzene under
normal use, handling, and storage conditions, and (2) said products
contain benzene, which is a well-known human carcinogen.

According to the complaint, the Defendant knew or should have known
that the BPO in the acne products it sold to the Plaintiff and
Proposed Class under the Equate brand would degrade into benzene.
The Defendant misled Plaintiff and Proposed Class by representing
the BPO Products only had the ingredients listed and -- by omission
-- did not contain benzene.

As a result of Defendant's misconduct and consumer deception, the
Plaintiff and Proposed Class have been economically harmed, as they
purchased a product -- one containing a deadly human carcinogen --
that they otherwise would never have purchased, says the suit.

Walmart, Inc. is an American multinational retail corporation that
operates a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and
grocery stores in the United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          T. Ryan Langley, Esq.
          LANGLEY LAW FIRM
          229 Magnolia Street
          Spartanburg, SC 29306
          Telephone: (864) 774-4662
          Facsimile: (864) 580-7041
          E-mail: ryan@thelangleylawfirm.com

               - and -

          Christopher B. Hood, Esq.
          HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS, LLC
          2224 1st Avenue N
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 326-3336
          Facsimile: (205) 314-5919
          E-mail: chood@hgdlawfirm.com

WESTELL TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Settlement Hearing Set June 14
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE COURT OF CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

IN RE WESTELL TECHNOLOGIES, INC STOCKHOLDER LITIGATION

C.A. No. 2022-0090-NAC

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF STOCKHOLDER
CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT,
SETTLEMENT HEARING, AND RIGHT TO APPEAR

TO:

All persons who held fewer than 1,000 shares of Westell
Technologies, Inc. ("Westell" or the "Company") common stock
(ticker: "WSTL") immediately prior to and received cash in exchange
for their shares of Westell common stock in the amount of $1.48 per
share as a result of a 1,000-to-1 reverse stock split of Westell's
common stock, which was followed immediately by a 1-to-1,000
forward stock split of Westell's common stock (the "Class").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an order of the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware (the "Court"), that the
above-captioned stockholder class action (the "Action") is pending
in the Court.

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that (i) lead plaintiff Pankaj Sharma
("Plaintiff"), on behalf of himself and the Class, and (ii)
defendants Westell Technologies, Inc., The Voting Trust Agreement
Dated February 23, 1994, among Mr. Penny, Mr. Simon and Certain
Members of the Penny Family and the Simon Family, Robert W.
Foskett, Kirk Brannock, Scott Chandler, Timothy Duitsman, Cary
Wood, Mark Zorko, and Patrick J. McDonough, Jr. (collectively,
"Defendants" and together with Plaintiff, the "Settling Parties")
have reached a proposed settlement for $2,200,000.00 in cash (the
"Settlement"). The terms of the Settlement are stated in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, Compromise, and Release
between Plaintiff and Defendants, dated February 13, 2024 (the
"Stipulation"), a copy of which is available at
www.WestellStockholderSettlement.com. If approved by the Court, the
Settlement will resolve all claims in the Action against
Defendants.

A hearing (the "Settlement Hearing") will be held on June 14, 2024,
at 1:30 p.m., before The Honorable Vice Chancellor Nathan A. Cook,
either in person at the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
500 North King Street, Wilmington, DE 19801, or remotely by Zoom
(in the discretion of the Court), to, among other things:

     (i) determine whether the proposed Settlement on the terms and
conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and
adequate to the Class, and should be approved by the Court;

    (ii) determine whether a Judgment, substantially in the form
attached as Exhibit D to the Stipulation, should be entered
dismissing the Action with prejudice as against Defendants;

   (iii) determine whether the proposed Plan of Allocation of the
Net Settlement Fund is fair and reasonable, and should therefore be
approved;

    (iv) determine whether the application by Plaintiff's Counsel
for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses should be approved,
including Plaintiff's application for an incentive award;

     (v) hear and rule on any objections to the Settlement, the
proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or to the application by
Plaintiff's Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses,
including Plaintiff's application for an incentive award; and

    (vi) consider any other matters that may properly be brought
before the Court in connection with the Settlement. Any updates
regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date
or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or remote
appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the Settlement
website, www.WestellStockholderSettlement.com.

If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by
the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to
share in the Net Settlement Fund. If you have not yet received the
Notice, you may obtain a copy of the Notice by contacting
Plaintiff's Counsel using the contact information below. A copy of
the Notice can also be downloaded from the Settlement website,
www.WestellStockholderSettlement.com.

If the Settlement is approved by the Court and the Effective Date
occurs, the Net Settlement Fund will be distributed on a pro rata
basis to Class Members in accordance with the proposed Plan of
Allocation stated in the Notice or such other plan of allocation as
is approved by the Court. Under the proposed Plan of Allocation,
Class Members consist of all persons who held fewer than 1,000
shares of Westell common stock immediately prior to and received
cash in exchange for their shares of Westell common stock in the
amount of $1.48 per share as a result of the Transaction. Pursuant
to the proposed Plan of Allocation, each Class Member will be
eligible to receive a pro rata payment from the Net Settlement Fund
equal to the product of (i) the number of shares of Westell common
stock held by the Class Member and (ii) the "Per-Share Recovery"
for the Settlement, which will be determined by dividing the total
amount of the Net Settlement Fund by the total number of shares of
Westell common stock held by the Class Members immediately prior to
the Transaction. As explained in further detail in the Notice,
pursuant to the Plan of Allocation, payments from the Net
Settlement Fund to Class Members will be made in the same manner in
which Class Members received the Transaction Consideration. Class
Members do not have to submit a claim form to receive a payment
from the Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or Plaintiff's Counsel's application for an award of
attorneys' fees and litigation expenses, including Plaintiff's
application for an incentive award, in connection with the
Settlement must be filed with the Register in Chancery in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware and delivered to Plaintiff's
Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no
later than May 30, 2024, in accordance with the instructions set
forth in the Notice.

Please do not contact the Court or the Office of the Register in
Chancery regarding this notice. All questions about this notice,
the proposed Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the
Settlement should be directed to the Settlement Administrator or
Plaintiff's Counsel.

Requests for the Notice, and all other inquiries, should be made to
Plaintiff's Counsel:

     Herbert W. Mondros
     Rigrodsky Law, P.A.
     300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 210
     Wilmington, Delaware 19801
     (302) 295-5310
     hwm@rl-legal.com

     Shane Rowley
     Rowley Law PLLC
     50 Main Street, Suite 1000
     White Plains, NY 10606
     (914) 400-1920
     srowley@rowleylawplc.com

BY ORDER OF THE COURT OF
CHANCERY OF THE STATE OF
DELAWARE [GN]

WILLIAMS & CO: Court Certifies Property Schemes Advice Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal court judge has granted 134 property investors leave to
contest a single 'class action' claim against a solicitor which is
alleged to have provided negligent professional advice on an
investment scheme.

Williams & Co Solicitors gave advice about nine different property
schemes relating to projects promoted by Northern Powerhouse
Developments (NPD) between 2017 and 2019, operating through various
associated companies. High-profile property developers Gavin
Woodhouse and Robin Forster were behind the firm, which last year
claimed to have a revenue of some GBP4.5 million on one funding
website.

Investors had put in retirement cash or life savings, in some cases
up to GBP100,000, losing a total of GBP14 million.

David Niven, partner at Penningtons Manches Cooper which is
representing the claimants, explains that NPD was a holding company
set up to acquire hotels and care homes which were to be
refurbished and sold as individual rooms to investors by way of a
long lease.

Buyers would enter into a sub-lease to a management firm who would
pay a guaranteed rent with guaranteed buy-back provisions.

Investors paid all the money upfront before getting the lease; but
at the time of exchange, the firm didn't own the hotel in question,
says Niven. They never completed.

Forster has been subject to an FCA investigation when he was
previously found to have taken GBP57 million from 380 investors in
an illegal care home investment scheme through Qualia Care
Properties Ltd and Qualia Care Developments Ltd.

"The projects amounted to an illegal collective investment scheme,
and we would say the same model was being operated in the hotels as
well," Niven tells LandlordZONE.

Bust

"The developer has gone bust so there's nothing in the estate to
pay my claimants any of their losses back, so we've had to try and
look for another target: the lawyer whose job it was to protect the
buyers," he adds.

"It's a scandal as there was no protection -- they didn't warn them
what the risks were likely to be."

Although it could take 18 months before the case goes to trial,
Niven is confident of their success. [GN]

WOLTER INC: Mayberry Seeks Unpaid Wages & Damages
-------------------------------------------------
CODY MAYBERRY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. WOLTER, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00424-PP (E.D. Wis.,
April 9, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws.

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from approximately May 2022
to on or about March 29, 2024 as an hourly-paid, non-exempt
dispatcher and service admin. He asserts that Defendant operated an
unlawful compensation system that failed to compensate Plaintiff
and all other current and former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees
for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40 hours in a
workweek. According to Plaintiff, Defendant's actions were
intentional, willful, and in violation of the FLSA and the WWPCL.


Headquartered in Brookfield, WI, Wolter Inc. offers material
handling, industrial storage, workplace storage, automation,
generators, engineered systems, and other related services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        James A. Walcheske, Esq.
        Scott S. Luzi, Esq.
        David M. Potteiger, Esq.
        WALCHESKE & LUZI, LLC     
        235 N. Executive Drive, Suite 240
        Brookfield, WI 53005
        Telephone: (262) 780-1953
        Facsimile: (262) 565-6469
        E-mail: jwalcheske@walcheskeluzi.com
                sluzi@walcheskeluzi.com
                dpotteiger@walcheskeluzi.com

WOODSTREAM CORP: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Maroney Due June 25
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Maroney et al., v.
Woodstream Corporation, Case No. 7:19-cv-08294-KMK-JCM (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Kenneth M. Karas entered an order adjusting the
class certification motion deadline as follows:

-- Deadline to file Class Certification Motion:      June 25,
2024

-- Deadline to Disclose Class Certification          June 25, 2024

    Experts:

-- Deadline to Make Class Certification              Aug. 6, 2024

    Experts Available for Deposition:

-- Deadline to File Opposition to Class              Aug. 23,
2024
    Certification:

-- Deadline to Disclose Class Certification          Aug. 23,
2024
    Opposition Experts:

-- Deadline to Make Class Certification              Sept. 24,
2024
    Opposition Experts Available for
    Deposition:

-- Deadline to Reply in Support of Class             Oct. 3, 2024
    Certification:

Woodstream manufactures and markets pest control and wildlife
caring and control products.

A copy of the Court's order dated April 9, 2024, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ik9pQj at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Robyn E. Bladow, Esq.
          KIRKLAND &. ELLIS LLP
          333 South Hope Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 680-8400
          Facsimile: (213) 680-8500
          E-mail: robyn.bladow@kirkland.com

XCEL ENERGY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Smokehouse Creek Fire
------------------------------------------------------------------
Potts Law Firm filed the lawsuit on behalf of Donnie Parker, the
owner of Spring Creek Ranch in Skellytown, Texas, on April 11,
2024, in Amarillo Division of the United States District Court for
the Northern Division of Texas. The lawsuit arises out of the
Smokehouse Creek Fire which started on February 26, 2024 and
destroyed over 1,000,0000 acres of rangelands where 85% of the
state's cattle are located. The lawsuit is against the corporate
defendants Xcel Energy Services, Inc., Southwestern Public Service
Company and Osmose Utilities Services, Inc. The lawsuit claims that
the three defendants negligently failed to maintain and repair a
defective utility pole which started the fire that burned for
nearly three weeks and has been called the worst wildfire in the
state's history.

The lawsuit seeks to recover property losses for all owners of
ranches negatively impacted by the fire including their loss of
grasslands, damage and death to wildlife, loss of fencing, loss of
cattle, and loss of physical structures.

Derek Potts, lead attorney for Mr. Parker and Spring Creek Ranch
said in a statement: "All of the ranchers in the panhandle whose
land was burned are likely looking at years for their properties
and cattle businesses to recover from this horrific event that
could have been easily prevented. We have brought this lawsuit on
their behalves and are seeking speedy and fair compensation for
them all from the Court."

The lawsuit is, Donnie Parker d/b/a Spring Creek Ranch,
Individually and on Behalf of Others Similarly Situated v Excel
Energy Services, Inc., et al., Case No.: 2:24-cv-00078-Z. [GN]

XTO ENERGY: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due Jan. 13, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hystad Ceynar Minerals,
LLC, on behalf of itself and a class of similarly situated persons,
v. XTO Energy, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00030-DLH-CRH (D.N.D.), the
Hon. Judge Clare Hochhalter entered an order granting the
Plaintiff's motion and amending the pretrial deadlines as follows:

   (1) All fact discovery will be completed by the following
deadline,
       with all discovery pursuant to Rules 33, 34, and 36 to be
       served a minimum of 33 days prior to the deadline: Sept. 26,

       2024.

   (2) The deadlines for exchanging complete expert witness reports

       are as follows:

       Oct. 10, 2024, for Plaintiff(s);
       Nov. 25, 2024, for Defendant; and
       Dec. 10, 2024, for any rebuttal experts.

   (3) The parties shall have until Dec. 20, 2024, to complete
       discovery depositions of expert witnesses.

   (4) The deadlines for briefing on class certification are as
       follows:

       Plaintiff's motion for class certification:  Jan. 13, 2025
       Defendants' response:                        Feb. 13, 2025;
and
       Plaintiff's reply:                           March 3, 2025.

   (5) The deadline for all dispositive motions will be 30 days
after
       opt out deadline if class certification is granted.

The final pretrial conference on January 14, 2025, is rescheduled
for Oct. 14, 2025, at 9:00 AM by telephone. To participate, the
parties should call (877) 810-9415 and enter access code 8992581.

The jury trial set January 27, 2025, shall be reset for Oct. 27,
2025, at 9:00 AM in Bismarck (Eagle Courtroom) before Judge
Hovland. A ten (10) day trial is anticipated.

On March 18, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a "Motion to Amend the March
22, 2023 Scheduling Order." It avers that there is good cause to
extend the pretrial deadlines due to delays in obtaining discovery
from Defendant and has submitted proposed dates.
On April 1, 2024, the Defendant filed a response to the Plaintiff's
motion. It requests that the court extend the pretrial deadlines
approximately eight weeks beyond the dates proposed by the
Plaintiff in its motion.

On April 5, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a reply in which it advises
that it does not take issue with the deadlines proposed by the
Defendant.

XTO is involved with the production, processing, transportation,
and development of oil and natural gas resources.

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

ZALKIN LAW: Deats Loses Bid for Initial OK of Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARIANA DEATS, v. THE
ZALKIN LAW FIRM, P.C., Case No. 3:23-cv-02005-L-SBC (S.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge James Lorenz entered an order denying the
Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement.

The Plaintiff does not articulate how damages would be calculated
if the Class prevailed at trial. On the other hand, in its Removal,
the Defendant calculated that the maximum reasonable value of the
case at trial would exceed $5 million. The Plaintiff has not
contested it on the issue of federal jurisdiction. Instead, she
proposed a $285,000 Settlement without explanation of the vast
discrepancy in the value of the case.

Next, the Court cannot approve the Settlement's cy pres provision.
The parties propose to distribute any uncashed settlement checks to
Child USA as a cy pres recipient.

The parties provide no explanation why this organization would be
an appropriate for this class action.

As defined in the Settlement, the Class potentially encompasses a
larger group, namely

     "All individuals whose protected health information or
personally
     identifiable information was exposed to unauthorized third
     parties as a result of the data breach discovered by the
     Defendant on or April 6, 2023[, except for the o]fficers,
     directors, employees, and agents of Defendant who received a
     Notice of Data Breach letter."

On April 4, 2023, a known cybercriminal group infiltrated
Defendant's computer network and accessed client information
including driver's license and social security numbers, medical
information, and highly sensitive details from client case files
concerning sexual abuse and harassment. After the breach, the
Plaintiff received an email from the cybercriminal group stating
the group was in possession of her case file. The email included
images of what appeared to be attorney notes about her case
detailing highly personal information. Although the Defendant
learned of the data breach on April 6, 2023, it did not start
notifying its clients until Sept. 6, 2023. The Defendant sent a
Notice of Data Breach to 523 clients.

Zalkin handles major personal injury, wrongful death, medical
malpractice, product liability, maritime and aviation accident
cases.

A copy of the Court's order dated Apr. 8, 2024 is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ljeos6 at no extra
charge.[CC]

[*] Quebec Court Approves Class Action Against 16 Opioid Makers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Underwriter reports that a Quebec Superior Court judge has
authorized a class-action lawsuit against 16 pharmaceutical
companies that are alleged to have misled consumers about the
efficacy and dangers of opioid medications.

The class action includes everyone in Quebec who was diagnosed with
opioid use disorder after being prescribed opioid medications made
by the pharmaceutical companies between 1996 and the present.

Margo Siminovitch, one of the lawyers representing people who
developed opioid use disorder, says the lawsuit's representative
plaintiff was never warned about the risks of the drugs.

Jean-Francois Bourassa, a roofer, was prescribed opioids after a
fall on the job in 2005 and used them for more than a decade,
developing an addiction.

The pharmaceutical companies argued against allowing the class
action to proceed, saying it treated all opioids as if they were
the same and included companies whose drugs the representative
plaintiff never consumed.

The suit seeks $30,000 in damages for each member of the class,
plus additional damages to be determined on an individual basis, as
well as $25 million in punitive damages. [GN]

                        Asbestos Litigation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: BNSF Railway Ordered to Pay $4MM in Damages
------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Beth Hanson and Matthew Brown, writing for Associated Press,
reports that a federal jury said BNSF Railway contributed to the
deaths of two people who were exposed to asbestos decades ago when
tainted mining material was shipped through a Montana town where
thousands have been sickened.

The jury awarded $4 million each in compensatory damages to the
estates of the two plaintiffs, who died in 2020. Jurors said
asbestos-contaminated vermiculite that spilled in the rail yard in
the town of Libby, Montana was a substantial factor in the
plaintiffs' illnesses and deaths.

Family members of the two victims hugged their attorneys after the
verdict was announced. An attorney for the plaintiffs said the
ruling brought some accountability, but one family member told The
Associated Press that no amount of money would replace her lost
sister.

"I'd rather have her than all the money in the world," Judith
Hemphill said of her sister, Joyce Walder.

The vermiculite from Libby has high concentrations of
naturally-occurring asbestos and was used in insulation and for
other commercial purposes in homes and businesses across the U.S.

After being mined from a mountaintop outside town, it was loaded
onto rail cars that sometimes spilled the material in the Libby
rail yard. Residents have described piles of vermiculite being
stored in the yard and dust from the facility blowing through
downtown Libby.

The jury did not find that BNSF acted intentionally or with
indifference so no punitive damages were awarded. Warren Buffett's
Berkshire Hathaway Inc. acquired BNSF in 2010, two decades after
the W.R. Grace & Co. vermiculite mine near Libby shut down and
stopped shipping the contaminated mineral.

The estates of the two victims argued that the railroad knew the
asbestos-tainted vermiculite was dangerous and failed to clean it
up. Both lived near the rail yard decades ago and died from
mesothelioma, a rare lung cancer linked to asbestos exposure.

The pollution in Libby has been cleaned up, largely at public
expense. W.R. Grace, which played a central role in the town's
tragedy, filed for bankruptcy in 2001 and paid $1.8 billion into an
asbestos trust fund to settle future cases.

Yet the long timeframe over which asbestos-related diseases develop
means people previously exposed are likely to continue getting sick
for years to come, health officials say.

The case in federal civil court over the two deaths was the first
of numerous lawsuits against the Texas-based railroad corporation
to reach trial over its past operations in Libby. Current and
former residents of the small town near the U.S.-Canada border want
BNSF held accountable, accusing it of playing a role in asbestos
exposure that health officials say has killed several hundred
people and sickened thousands.

"This is good news. This is the first community exposure case that
will hold the railroad accountable for what they've done," said
Mark Lanier, an attorney for Walder and Hemphill's estates.

The railroad was considering whether to appeal, said a BNSF
spokesperson, who referred to it as a "very sad case."

"They (the jury) had the difficult task of evaluating conduct that
occurred more than 50 years ago, before BNSF ever existed," said
Kendall Sloan, the railroad's director of external communications.

BNSF attorney Chad Knight told jurors last week the railroad's
employees didn't know the vermiculite was filled with hazardous
microscopic asbestos fibers.

"In the '50s, '60s and '70s no one in the public suspected there
might be health concerns," Knight said Friday.

The railroad's experts also suggested during the trial that the
plaintiffs could have been exposed to asbestos elsewhere.

The railroad said it was obliged under law to ship the vermiculite,
which was used in insulation and for other commercial purposes, and
that W.R. Grace employees had concealed the health hazards from the
railroad.

U.S. District Judge Brian Morris had instructed the jury it could
only find the railroad negligent based on its actions in the Libby
Railyard, not for hauling the vermiculite.

Former Libby resident Bill Johnston, who followed the trial, said
he was glad the victims' estates got a substantial award.

Johnston, 67, recalled playing in piles of vermiculite at the rail
yard as a child and helping his father add piles of the material to
their home garden, where it was used as a soil amendment. He, his
two siblings and their parents have all been diagnosed with
asbestos-related diseases, Johnston said Monday.

"They didn't do anything intentionally to cause this harm to their
body. Other people knew about it and didn't care," he said of Libby
asbestos victims. "What's that worth? It's hard to put a value on
that. But when you say you're going to die prematurely or the life
you have left is going to be tethered to an oxygen bottle, there
should be some value that makes their life easier in the end."

BNSF was formed in 1995 from the merger of Burlington Northern
railroad, which operated in Libby for decades, and the Santa Fe
Pacific Corporation.

Looming over the proceedings was W.R. Grace, which operated the
mountaintop vermiculite mine 7 miles (11 kilometers) outside of
Libby until it closed in 1990. Morris referred to the chemical
company as "the elephant in the room" during the BNSF trial and
reminded jurors repeatedly that the case was about the railroad’s
conduct, not W.R. Grace's separate liability.

Federal prosecutors in 2005 indicted W. R. Grace and executives
from the company on criminal charges over the contamination in
Libby. A jury acquitted them following a 2009 trial.

The Environmental Protection Agency descended on Libby after 1999
news reports of illnesses and deaths among mine workers and their
families. In 2009 the agency declared in Libby the nation's first
ever public health emergency under the federal Superfund cleanup
program.

A second trial against the railroad over the death of a Libby
resident is scheduled for May in federal court in Missoula.



ASBESTOS UPDATE: J&J and Kenvue To Pay $45MM in Talc Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Cailey Gleeson, writing for Forbes.com, reports that an Illinois
Court ordered pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson and Kenvue to
pay $45 million to a family that alleged the companies'
talcum-based baby powder led to the death of a relative diagnosed
with a fatal cancer linked to asbestos exposure, the company's
latest legal issue involving talc products.

Theresa Garcia died in July 2020 after being diagnosed with
mesothelioma, a cancer frequently connected to asbestos exposure,
and her family filed a lawsuit alleging that Garcia's frequent use
of the companies' talcum-based baby powder led to her diagnosis,
according to a news release from legal firm Dean Omar Branham
Shirley, which represented the family.

The firm's news release said that throughout the case attorneys
showed evidence that the products "contained asbestos fibers" and
experts "explained that the daily use and amount inhaled by Ms.
Garcia throughout her life led to her mesothelioma."

The jury found that Kenvue, the former consumer healthcare division
of the pharmaceutical giant that became an independent company in
August 2023, was responsible for 70% of the issues that led to
Garcia's death while Johnson & Johnson and another unit were
responsible for the remaining 30%, according to the release.

J&J's Worldwide Vice President of Litigation Erik Haas said in a
statement the company plans to appeal the ruling immediately and
expects to be successful, going on to say: "The verdict in this
trial is irreconcilable with the decades of independent scientific
evaluations confirming talc is safe, does not contain asbestos, and
does not cause cancer."

Johnson & Johnson won a similar lawsuit in a Florida Court,
according to multiple outlets, after a jury decided the company's
baby powder did not lead to the ovarian cancer diagnosis of
Patricia Matthey, who used the powder daily and died in 2019 after
being diagnosed with the cancer in 2016.

"Johnson & Johnson has maintained that its talc-based baby powder
does not contain asbestos nor does it cause cancer, and announced
in August 2022 it would swap out the substance with cornstarch in
products globally beginning in 2023. It previously announced the
discontinuation of its talc-based products in North America in
2020, citing declining sales. The Justice Department opened a probe
into the products in July 2019, investigating what the company knew
about the risk of cancer. Amid thousands of lawsuits over
allegations of talc-induced health problems, Johnson & Johnson
filed for bankruptcy twice, in October 2021 and April 2023. As part
of one of the filings, the company proposed an $8.9 billion
settlement last April to resolve the claims brought by thousands of
plaintiffs, but the plan was ultimately rejected by a judge in
July.


                            *********

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 ***