/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/240527.mbx               C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, May 27, 2024, Vol. 26, No. 106

                            Headlines

3M COMPANY: South Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama
A.P.P. GROUP: Wahab Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
ABC PHONES: Terry Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
ALLEGHENY COLLEGE: Ortiz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
ALTIMMUNE INC: Mogan Sues Over Misleading Statements on Pemvidutide

ALTUGLAS LLC: Notifies Settlement of Chemical Spill Class Action
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Johnson Hits Illegal Biometric Data Collection
AMERICAN WATER: Subsidiary Continues to Defend Jeffries Class Suit
AMPAM PARKS MECHANICAL: Ramirez Sues Over Fiduciary Breaches
ANTERO RESOURCES: Mcardle Appeals Summary Judgment to 4th Cir.

ARIZONA: Judge to Issue Injunction Ruling in State Prison Suit
ASCENSION HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Ransomware Attack
AT&T INC: Orejudos and Felix Sue Over Breach of Customer Data
AXT INC: Nowakowski Sues Over Securities Law Violations
BAODEGA LLC: Velasquez Sues Over Labor Law Breaches

BAUSCH + LOMB: Continues to Defend Eaton Class Suit in Toronto
BAUSCH + LOMB: Continues to Defend Generic Pricing Antitrust Suit
BAUSCH + LOMB: Continues to Defend Gutierrez Class Suit in Calif.
BERKSHIRE BANK: O'Dell Files Suit in N.D. New York
BIC USA: Butler Sues Over Failure to Disclose Synthetic Chemicals

BIG SANDY FURNITURE: Porter Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Ohio
BK AUTO REPAIR: Faces Miranda Wage & Hour Class Lawsuit
BLENDJET INC: Gould Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois
BMO BANK: Tobiason Suit Removed to E.D. Wisconsin
CALIFORNIA CREDIT: DACA Recipient Sues Over ECOA Violations

CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE: Ortiz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
CAMPBELL SOUP: Perruzzi & Sullivan Sue for Worker Misclassification
CENTRAL STAR: Ray Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
CHANGE HEALTHCARE: CDC Sues Over Ransomware Attack
CHICAGO TRIBUNE: Journalists Sues Over Violations of Equal Pay

CITGO PETROLEUM: Court Certifies "Marriage Penalty" ERISA Suit
CITY OF HOPE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Sjodin Says
CLEARESULT CONSULTING: Dauch Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
COMANCHE COUNTY HOSPITAL: Whitmore Files Suit in Okla. Dist. Ct.
CONTINUUM HEALTH: Dressel Sues Over Cyber-Attack and Data Breach

COUNTRY LIFE: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Karim Claims
CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE: Sapan Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
CSX TRANSPORTATION: Faces Click et al. Suit Over FMLA Violations
CVS HEALTH: Druzgalski Suit Removed to C.D. California
DELTA AIR: Iuliano Seeks to Void Security Fee Refund Policy

DOLCE & GABBANA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Delays in Delivery
DOLLAR TREE: Faces Another Lawsuit Over Cinnamon Product Recalls
EQUINIX LLC: Holman Sues for California Labor Code Violations
ERNEST HEALTH: Fernandez Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info
ESSEX PROPERTY: Vivoli Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices

EVENT STAGING: Keller et al. Sue for Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
EXCELL OPERATING: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Farmer et al. Say
FAMILY DOLLAR: Bid for Attys.' Fees in Fields Suit Granted in Part
FAMILY DOLLAR: Bid for Attys.' Fees in Mull Suit Granted in Part
FAMILY DOLLAR: Bid for Attys.' Fees in Sharp Suit Granted in Part

FAMILY DOLLAR: Class Settlement in Brown Suit Has Final Approval
FAMILY DOLLAR: Class Settlement in Smith Suit Has Final Approval
FAMILY DOLLAR: Class Settlement in Whitney Suit Has Final Approval
FAMILY DOLLAR: Robertson's Bid for $10MM in Attys.' Fees Granted
FAMILY DOLLAR: Smith's Bid for $10MM in Attys.' Fees OK'd in Part

FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Croteau Sues Over Inadequate Data Security
FORWARD AIR: Class Action Lawsuit Seeks to Rescind Omni Merger
FVP CENTURY: Pardo Sues Over Architectural Barriers in Property
GAP INC: Carbajal Sues Over Alleged Use of Tracker Pixels
GENERAL MOTORS: Chevy Bolt Owners to Receive Settlement Checks

GLOBAL CORD: Gestion Sues Over Share Price Drop
GOYARD ECOM: Martinez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
GREEN DIAMOND: Valentine Sues Over Alleged Private Data Breach
GREEN ESCAPE: Tamayo Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages and Retaliation
HANDI-FOIL CORP: Hood Alleges Misleading "Made in the USA" Labels

HARBOR DIVERSIFIED: Faces Kothari Securities Fraud Suit
HORTUS NYC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Trippett Says
INARI MEDICAL: Faces Michiana Class Suit Over 21% Share Price Drop
JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Duran Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
LEPAGE BAKERIES: Court Defines "Transportation Workers" Exemption

LOVO: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Voice Theft
MDL 3032: Settlement in Pest Infestation Suit Has Final Approval
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Faces Chappell Suit Over Consumer Fraud
NATIONAL HEALTH: Precioso et al. Sue over Unlawful Labor Conditions
NEW SOUTH WALES: Strip Search Class Action Trial Date Set 2025

NOVO NORDISK: King Law Investigates Ozempic Side Effects
PACIFIC STEEL: Bid to Vacate Case Deadlines in Berber Terminated
PAGLIACCI PIZZA: Faces New Class Action From Delivery Drivers
PENNSYLVANIA: Court Dismisses Suit Over Property Law Violations
PILOT TRAVEL: Martin Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation

POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Keeton Sues Over Prerecorded Voice Messages
PRIME HYDRATION: Faces Suit Over Energy Drinks' Caffeine Content
PROGRESS RESIDENTIAL: Harris & Whitaker Sue Over Security Deposits
RCI DINING: Moffitt's Bid for Conditional Certification Denied
SALEM TOWNSHIP: Faces Liddle Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages

SALVATION ARMY: Settles FCRA Class Action Lawsuit for $1.87MM
SCHMIDT BAKING: Bid for Arbitration Granted; Silva Suit Stayed
SECRIST MARKETING: Goudelias to Seek Settlement Approval by May 29
SHOPIFY INC: Appeals Court Revisits Consumer Class Action Lawsuit
SPROUT SOCIAL: Faces Class Action Over Securities Law Violations

SPROUT SOCIAL: Faces Munch Class Suit Over 40.1% Share Price Drop
T-MOBILE US: Faces Class-Action Lawsuit Over Sprint Merger
T-MOBILE US: Loses Bid to Dismiss Sprint Merger Class Action Suit
TARKENTON SENIOR: Pinn Sues Over TCPA Violations
TEACHERS FEDERAL: Sennhenn Sues Over Unlawful Time Rounding Policy

TESLA INC: Faces Class Action Over Falsely Advertised Autopilot
UNITED STATES: Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss Bassen Suit
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces Suit Over Merger With Change Healthcare
UPHOLD HQ: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Marketing
VARSITY SPIRIT: Settles Greenwashing Class Action Law for $82.5MM

VENUS CONCEPT: Underpays Field Service Engineers, Keller Says
VESTIS CORP: Faces Class Action Over Securities Fraud
VISA INC: Settles Anti-Trust Class Suit Over Interchange Fees
VW GROUP: Settles Emissions Fraud Scandal Suit for EUR50MM
WALMART INC: Court Rejects Raw Honey Class Action Lawsuit

WENDY'S INTERNATIONAL: Appeals Remand Ruling in Little Labor Suit
WEST REALM: Bids to Sever Claims From Onusz Adversary Suit Denied
WHIRLPOOL CORP: Faces Class Action Over Appliance Buyout
XIRIUZ LLC: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Menendez Suit Alleges
YELP INC: Fails to Pay Proper Compensation, Schabot Suit Claims

[*] FCC Voices Concerns Over Data Sharing in Connected Vehicles
[*] Maryland Nursing Facilities Face Class Action on Lax Oversight

                            *********

3M COMPANY: South Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama
----------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Robert South, et al. v. 3M Company, et al.,
Case No. 01-CV-2024-901284.00. was removed from the Circuit Court
for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Jefferson County, Alabama, to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
on May 13, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00597-GMB.

The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M and certain other the Defendants
liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing,
and/or selling aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and/or
firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") that Plaintiffs allege were used
in firefighting activities, thereby causing injury to the
Plaintiffs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregory A. Cade, Esq.
          Gary A. Anderson, Esq.
          Kevin B. McKie, Esq.
          ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C.
          2160 Highland Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Phone: 205-328-9200
          Facsimile: 205-328-9456
          Email: gregc@elglaw.com
                 gary@elglaw.com
                  kmckie@elglaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          M. Christian King, Esq.
          Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq.
          W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq.
          Wesley B. Gilchrist, Esq.
          LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C.
          The Clark Building
          400 North 20th Street
          Birmingham, AL 35203-3200
          Phone: (205) 581-0700
          Email: cking@lightfootlaw.com
                 hprater@lightfootlaw.com
                 lradney@lightfootlaw.com
                 wgilchrist@lightfootlaw.com


A.P.P. GROUP: Wahab Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------
Angela Wahab, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly
situated v. A.P.P. GROUP, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-03781 (S.D.N.Y.,
May 16, 2024), is brought against Defendant for the failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website,
www.mackage.com (the "Website"), to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website, and
therefore denial of the goods and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA").

The Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and
visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation
of the ADA. Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures
so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.

The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website,
offering features which should allow all consumers to access the
goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of
such goods throughout the United States, including New York
State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rami Salim, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Phone: (201) 282-6500
          Fax: (201) 282-6501
          Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com


ABC PHONES: Terry Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Terry, and other similarly situated aggrieved employees, v.
ABC PHONES OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive,
Case No. 24SMCV02258 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., May 14,
2024), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the
California Labor Code failure to compensate for all hours worked;
failure to pay minimum wages; and failure to pay overtime.

ABC violated Labor Code because it failed to pay Plaintiff and
other similarly situated aggrieved employees for all hours worked,
including the statutory minimum wage for all hours worked and for
"off the clock" work. This is so because ABC had a company policy
wherein, they would disproportionately round down the number of
hours worked, resulting in "time shaving" and further resulting in
aggrieved employees not being paid for all hours worked.
Furthermore, since Plaintiff and others worked through their meal
periods while "off the clock" and while clocked out, they were not
compensated for all hours worked, which would be akin to a minimum
wage violation. Furthermore, ABC did not pay proper reporting time
pay to employees. Due to the above "off the clock" violations, ABC
also violated Labor Code §510 because it failed to pay Plaintiff
and other aggrieved employees overtime compensation, even though
they worked more than 8 hours per day, 12 hours per day, and/or 40
hours per week throughout their employment. Plaintiff's and other
aggrieved employees' actual work hours, including the "off the
clock" work and time shaving, entitled them to overtime
compensation however, ABC did not compensate its hourly, non-exempt
employees with the correct amount of overtime due to the "off the 2
clock" work and time shaving, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff started working at ABC in Sales on October 2023 and
is still currently employed.

ABC PHONES OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC. is a North Carolina corporation,
doing business in the County of Los Angeles, State of
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ALLEGHENY COLLEGE: Ortiz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Ortiz, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. ALLEGHENY COLLEGE, Case No. 1:24-cv-00465 (W.D.N.Y.,
May 14, 2024), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act. Because Defendant's interactive website,
https://allegheny.edu, including all portions thereof or accessed
thereon, including, but not limited to, https://alleghenygators.com
and https://www.alleghenyshop.com (collectively the "Website" or
"Defendant's website"), is not equally accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA and the RA.
Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website
available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader
programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired
individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and
services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals --thereby
increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons
that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.

The Defendant operates the Allegheny College online retail store as
well as the Allegheny College interactive website and advertises,
markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the
United States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: 212.228.9795
          Fax: 212.982.6284
          Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal


ALTIMMUNE INC: Mogan Sues Over Misleading Statements on Pemvidutide
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH MOGAN, Plaintiff v. ALTIMMUNE, INC., VIPIN K. GARG, RICHARD
I. EISENSTADT, M. SCOTT HARRIS, Defendants, Case No.
8:24-cv-01315-PX (D. Md., May 6, 2024) is a class action 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 and Rule 10b-5.

Plaintiff Mogan brings this federal securities class action on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Altimmune
securities between December 1, 2023 and April 26, 2024, both dates
inclusive. Throughout the Class period, Defendants made materially
false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business,
operations, and prospects. Among other things, the Defendants made
false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that
Altimmune overstated the potential for pemvidutide to stand out
from competing GLP-1 agonists based on the drug's efficacy and
tolerability results observed in the MOMENTUM Trial. The Defendants
also have overstated Altimmune's prospects for finding a strategic
partner to develop pemvidutide, says the suit.

Headquartered in Gaithersburg, MD, is a clinical stage
biopharmaceutical company that focuses on developing treatments for
obesity and liver diseases. Its common stock trades in an efficient
market on the Nasdaq Global Market under the ticker symbol "ALT".
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

            Daniel S. Sommers, Esq.
            S. Douglas Bunch, Esq.
            COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
            1100 New York Avenue N.W., Suite 500, East Tower
            Washington, DC 20005
            Telephone: (202) 408-4600
            Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
            E-mail: dsommers@cohenmilstein.com
                    dbunch@cohenmilstein.com

                    - and -

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

ALTUGLAS LLC: Notifies Settlement of Chemical Spill Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action settlement has been reached with Altuglas LLC and
Trinseo LLC in the lawsuit captioned McGraw, et al. v. Altuglas
LLC, et al., No. 240100060 (Phila. CCP). The settlement resolves
claims alleging that class members suffered out-of-pocket losses as
a result of the release of chemicals in the Delaware River in March
2023, and the public notice and drinking water advisories issued by
the City of Philadelphia and other media reports in connection with
that release. Defendants vigorously deny that they violated any law
but agreed to the settlement to avoid the expenses associated with
continuing the litigation. The settlement entitles Settlement Class
Members who suffered economic harm to compensation as described
further below.

The proposed settlement class includes "all persons that resided
in, or entities that operated a physical business located in, the
Impacted Area during March 24 to March 30, 2023." The term
"Impacted Area" means the following Zip Codes: 19102, 19103, 19106,
19107, 19109, 19111, 19112, 19114, 19115, 19116, 19119, 19120,
19121, 19122, 19123, 19124, 19125, 19126, 19128, 19129, 19130,
19132, 19133, 19134, 19135, 19136, 19137, 19138, 19140, 19141,
19144, 19145, 19146, 19147, 19148, 19149, 19152, 19154.

The lawsuit alleged that Defendants' manufacturing plant in
Bristol, Pennsylvania caused a release of chemicals into a
tributary of the Delaware River on March 24, 2023, upstream from
the Baxter Drinking Water Treatment Plant that supplies drinking
water to parts of Philadelphia. The City of Philadelphia
subsequently issued an alert, including via cell phone text
messages, that recommended people in the Impacted Area use bottled
drinking water until further notice, which media and news outlets
also broadcasted. The plaintiffs alleged that over the next several
days, residents in the Impacted Area incurred out-of-pocket losses
by purchasing bottled water and related transportation costs that
they would not have otherwise incurred, and that certain businesses
in the Impacted Area suffered business interruption losses.

Settlement terms. Under the settlement, Defendants agreed to create
a fund of $2.7 million from which to pay, subject to the Court's
approval, payments to Eligible Settlement Class Members who submit
a Claim Form, any attorneys' fees and expenses, a service award to
the class representatives, and notice and administration costs.
Eligible class members who submit a Claim Form affirming they
suffered economic loss as a result of the accidental release of
chemicals in the Delaware River, or because of the public notice
and drinking water advisories issued in connection with the
release, are eligible to receive a Base Payment of $25, which may
be adjusted, as described in the Settlement Agreement available at
www.PhillyWaterSettlement.com. Class members may also be eligible
for additional damages if they provide documentation to the
Settlement Administrator showing economic harm greater than $25.

How do I receive payment? To receive a payment, you must submit a
valid completed Claim Form. Claim Forms can be submitted online at
www.PhillyWaterSettlement.com, and can also be mailed to the Philly
Water Settlement Administrator, 1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210,
Philadelphia, PA, 19103, or emailed to
info@PhillyWaterSettlement.com. Claim Forms must be postmarked or
submitted online by August 16, 2024.

Do I have any other options? You may exclude yourself from the
Settlement Class by sending a written request for exclusion to the
Settlement Administrator emailed or postmarked no later than July
17, 2024. If you exclude yourself, then you cannot receive a
settlement payment, but you will not be bound by the Settlement. If
you do not exclude yourself, then you may object to the Settlement,
and you or your lawyer can appear before the Court. Your written
objection must be sent to the Settlement Administrator emailed or
postmarked no later than July 17, 2024. Specific instructions on
how to exclude yourself from the Settlement or object are available
at www.PhillyWaterSettlement.com.

Who Represents Me?  The Court has appointed lawyers from Berger
Montague PC, Levin Sedran & Berman LLP, and Kohn, Swift & Graf,
P.C. to serve as Lead Class Counsel. They will petition to be paid
legal fees and their reasonable expenses from the Settlement fund.
You may hire your own lawyer at your expense if you so choose.

When Will the Court Consider the Settlement?  The Court will hold a
final approval hearing on September 23, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. in
Courtroom 636, City Hall, Broad and Market Streets, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.

This notice is only a summary. For more information, including the
full Notice of Settlement and Settlement Agreement, visit
www.PhillyWaterSettlement.com, email
info@PhillyWaterSettlement.com, or call 888-605-0772.

Media Contact:

     Philly Water Settlement Administrator
     Angeion Group
     Shiri Lasman
     (215) 563-4116 [GN]

AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Johnson Hits Illegal Biometric Data Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Johnson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Amazon.com Services, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:24-cv-03208 (N.D. Ill., April 22, 2024) is a class action
brought by the Plaintiff to redress and curtail Defendant's
unlawful collections, obtainments, use, storage, and disclosure of
Plaintiff's sensitive and proprietary biometric identifiers and/or
biometric information in violation of the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act.

According to the complaint, Amazon.com Services employees,
including Plaintiff, are required to undergo biometric
authentication each shift in order to receive compensation.
Specifically, upon information and belief, Amazon.com Services has
collected and stored the facial geometry of each employee who was
required to use the facial geometry scanning technology as part of
its timeclock procedure.

As such, Plaintiff's facial geometry should have been permanently
destroyed by Amazon.com Services following each time punch and at
the conclusion of Plaintiff's employment. However, Amazon.com
Services failed to permanently destroy Plaintiff's facial geometry
scans following each time punch or at the conclusion of Plaintiff's
employment, says the suit.

Amazon.com Services, LLC provides e-commerce services. The Company
retails books, diamond jewelry, electronics, appliances, apparels,
and accessories. Amazon Fulfillment Services distributes its
products worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
          8401 Crawford Ave. Suite 104
          Skokie, IL 60076
          Telephone: (847) 986-5889
          Facsimile: (847) 673-1228
          E-mail: mike@fradinlaw.com

               - and -

          James L. Simon, Esq.
          11 1/2 N. Franklin Street
          Chagrin Falls, OH 44022
          Telephone: (216) 816-8696
          E-mail: james@simonsayspay.com

AMERICAN WATER: Subsidiary Continues to Defend Jeffries Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
American Water Works Co. Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the quarterly period ending March 31, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2024, that the
Company's subsidiary West Virginia-American Water Company (WVAWC)
continues to defend itself from the Jeffries class suit in West
Virginia Circuit Court in Kanawha County.

On the evening of June 23, 2015, a 36-inch pre-stressed concrete
transmission water main, installed in the early 1970s, failed.

The water main is part of the West Relay pumping station located in
the City of Dunbar, West Virginia and owned by the Company’s West
Virginia subsidiary ("WVAWC").

The failure of the main caused water outages and low pressure for
up to approximately 25,000 WVAWC customers.

In the early morning hours of June 25, 2015, crews completed a
repair, but that same day, the repair developed a leak.

On June 26, 2015, a second repair was completed, and service was
restored that day to approximately 80% of the impacted customers,
and to the remaining approximately 20% by the next morning. The
second repair showed signs of leaking, but the water main was
usable until June 29, 2015, to allow tanks to refill.

The system was reconfigured to maintain service to all but
approximately 3,000 customers while a final repair was being
completed safely on June 30, 2015.

Water service was fully restored by July 1, 2015, to all customers
affected by this event.

On June 2, 2017, a complaint captioned Jeffries, et al. v. West
Virginia-American Water Company was filed in West Virginia Circuit
Court in Kanawha County on behalf of an alleged class of residents
and business owners who lost water service or pressure as a result
of the Dunbar main break.

The complaint alleges breach of contract by WVAWC for failure to
supply water, violation of West Virginia law regarding the
sufficiency of WVAWC's facilities and negligence by WVAWC in the
design, maintenance and operation of the water system.

The Jeffries plaintiffs seek unspecified alleged damages on behalf
of the class for lost profits, annoyance and inconvenience, and
loss of use, as well as punitive damages for willful, reckless and
wanton behavior in not addressing the risk of pipe failure and a
large outage.

In February 2020, the Jeffries plaintiffs filed a motion seeking
class certification on the issues of breach of contract and
negligence, and to determine the applicability of punitive damages
and a multiplier for those damages if imposed.

In July 2020, the Circuit Court entered an order granting the
Jeffries plaintiffs' motion for certification of a class regarding
certain liability issues but denying certification of a class to
determine a punitive damages multiplier.

In August 2020, WVAWC filed a Petition for Writ of Prohibition in
the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia seeking to vacate or
remand the Circuit Court’s order certifying the issues class.

In January 2021, the Supreme Court of Appeals remanded the case
back to the Circuit Court for further consideration in light of a
decision issued in another case relating to the class certification
issues raised on appeal.

In July 2022, the Circuit Court entered an order again certifying a
class to address at trial certain liability issues but not to
consider damages.

In August 2022, WVAWC filed another Petition for Writ of
Prohibition in the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia
challenging the West Virginia Circuit Court's July 2022 order,
which petition was denied on June 8, 2023.

On August 21, 2023, the Circuit Court set a date of September 9,
2024, for a class trial on issues relating to duty and breach of
that duty.

The trial will not find class-wide or punitive damages.

The Company and WVAWC believe that WVAWC has valid, meritorious
defenses to the claims raised in this class action complaint.

WVAWC is vigorously defending itself against these allegations.

American Water Works Company, Inc. is a water utility company
based
in Camden NJ.





AMPAM PARKS MECHANICAL: Ramirez Sues Over Fiduciary Breaches
------------------------------------------------------------
Alfredo Ramirez and Ramon Santos Castro, individually and as
representatives of a class of all others similarly situated and on
behalf of the AMPAM Parks Mechanical, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership
Plan (the "AMPAM ESOP" or the "ESOP") v. AMPAM Parks Mechanical,
Inc., Charles E. Parks III, John D. Parks, John G. Mavredakis, the
AMPAM Board of Directors, Neil Brozen, and John and Jane Does 1-10,
Case No. 5:24-cv-01038 (C.D. Cal., May 16, 2024), is brought to
recover the losses suffered by the ESOP and the participants and
beneficiaries of the ESOP, to obtain other equitable and remedial
relief as provided by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 ("ERISA"), and to otherwise remedy Defendants' prohibited
transactions and fiduciary breaches in violation of ERISA.

The Plaintiffs and other employee-participants (whose ESOP
retirement accounts were used to purchase 100% of AMPAM stock from
the Sellers) were not given an opportunity to negotiate or
otherwise take part in the determination of the price that they
paid for AMPAM stock. They only found out about the ESOP
Transaction after the ESOP Transaction was completed and the $247
million purchase price was approved, which left the ESOP deeply in
debt and allowed the Sellers to cash out their interest in AMPAM.

In fact, rather than involving the employees whose retirement
accounts would be used to buy AMPAM, the Parks Brothers hand-picked
Neil Brozen ("Brozen" or "Defendant Brozen") as the Trustee of the
ESOP. Brozen was supposed to be an independent third party acting
with undivided loyalty to the ESOP and its participants. However,
and as discussed infra, the Parks Brothers collectively controlled
AMPAM and used the ESOP governance structure to retain the right to
fire Brozen as the ESOP Trustee if Brozen did not carry out the
wishes of the Parks Brothers and other Company insiders.

Because the ESOP did not have sufficient money to purchase the
AMPAM stock from the Sellers for $247 million, Brozen executed
loans whereby the ESOP borrowed virtually all of the ESOP's
purchase price. In addition, AMPAM itself guaranteed the loans the
ESOP took to finance the purchase of AMPAM stock. Thus, if the ESOP
could not make required loan payments, the Company was required to
do so, which made the Company indebted for almost its entire value
as a result of the ESOP Transaction that was orchestrated and
completed by Defendants. These loans are reported in filings with
the Department of Labor.

The imprudent and disloyal ESOP Transaction terms caused ESOP
participants to suffer monetary losses in their ESOP retirement
accounts. There is no recognized market for private stock like
AMPAM's, and the value of the stock is determined based on an
appropriate valuation report or stock appraisal. The valuation
documents related to AMPAM's stock are, and continue to be,
controlled by the Seller Defendants. Plaintiffs and other
employee-participants have never been given access to the valuation
reports underlying the value of the AMPAM stock in their retirement
accounts. Based on Defendants' duty to disclose all relevant
information that bears upon their retirement investments in AMPAM,
Mr. Ramirez and other employee-participants asked Defendants to
provide the valuation reports. However, Defendants refused to do
so.

The Defendants together orchestrated and carried out the ESOP
Transaction to serve the Sellers' interests while the ESOP
participants' interests were harmed. The ESOP obtained little
control over a company (AMPAM) whose operations were impaired by
the enormous debt load. As a result, the long-term value of AMPAM
stock was substantially in doubt. Ultimately, the ESOP Transaction
allowed the Parks Brothers to sell a non-controlling interest in
AMPAM to the ESOP participants for significantly more than such an
interest was worth because the Parks Brothers did not give up full
control over AMPAM. The Defendants' actions as outlined herein
harmed the ESOP and caused Plaintiffs and all other ESOP
participants to suffer significant losses to their ESOP retirement
savings, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs were participants in the ESOP as defined by ERISA.

AMPAM Parks Mechanical, Inc. provides residential plumbing
subcontractor services for multifamily residences.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun P. Martin, Esq.
          5998 Alcala Park, Warren Hall
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Phone: (619) 260-2347
          Facsimile: (619) 260-7933
          Email: smartin@sandiego.edu

               - and -

          Eleanor Frisch, Esq.
          Jacob T. Schutz, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          400 South 4th Street # 401-27
          Minneapolis, MN 55415
          Phone: (202) 408-4600
          Fax: (202) 408-4699
          Email: efrisch@cohenmilstein.com
                 jschutz@cohenmilstein.com


ANTERO RESOURCES: Mcardle Appeals Summary Judgment to 4th Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Mcardle Family Partnership has filed an appeal from the
District Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March 29, 2024
entered in the lawsuit styled McARDLE FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, Plaintiff
v. ANTERO RESOURCES CORPORATION and KEY OIL COMPANY, Defendants,
Civil No. 1:22-CV-1, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of West Virginia at Clarksburg.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case involves
allegations of underpayment, nonpayment, and untimely payment of
oil and gas royalties by Defendants Antero and Key Oil. The
Plaintiff brings individual and class action claims. The class
allegations are only against Antero.

The Plaintiff defines the class under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure as follows: Persons and entities,
including their respective successors and assigns, to whom Antero
has paid overriding royalties (ORRI Royalties) on oil and natural
gas, produced by Antero from wells located in West Virginia at any
time since April 15, 2012, pursuant to overriding royalty
agreements (the Royalty Agreements) which do not expressly allow
deductions for costs and expenses (excluding taxes).

On September 30, 2022, Judge Thomas S. Kleeh of the Northern
District of West Virginia denied the Defendants' motion to
bifurcate Count II and stay the remainder of the action, and
referred discovery motions to Magistrate Judge Michael J. Aloi.

The Defendants filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative,
motion for summary judgment with respect to Count Two. Plaintiff
also filed a cross-motion for summary judgment.

On May 29, 2024, Judge Kleen entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order
granting Defendants' motion and denying Plaintiff's motion.

The appellate case is captioned as Mcardle Family Partnership v.
Antero Resources Corporation, Case No. 24-1347, in the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on April 22,
2024.[BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant MCARDLE FAMILY PARTNERSHIP, a Pennsylvania
Limited Partnership, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, is represented by:

          Charles Edward Amos, II, Esq.
          Scott Sumner Segal, Esq.
          SEGAL LAW FIRM
          810 Kanawha Boulevard, East
          Charleston, WV 25301-0000
          Telephone: (304) 344-9100

               - and -

          Jason Patrick Foster, Esq.
          PENCE LAW FIRM PLLC
          10 Hale Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          Telephone: (304) 345-7250

               - and -

          Frank E. Simmerman, III, Esq.
          Frank Edward Simmerman, Jr., Esq.
          Chad Lewis Taylor, Esq.
          SIMMERMAN LAW OFFICE, PLLC
          254 East Main Street
          Clarksburg, WV 26301-0000
          Telephone: (304) 623-4900   

Defendants-Appellees ANTERO RESOURCES CORPORATION, a Delaware
corporation; KEY OIL COMPANY, a West Virginia corporation; and
FRANKLIN L. BUTLER, an individual, are represented by:

          Daniel T. Donovan, Esq.
          Charles S. Nary, Esq.
          Holly R. Trogdon, Esq.
          Sahng-Ah Yoo, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS, LLP
          1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 879-5000

               - and -

          Amy Marie Smith, Esq.
          Lauren K. Turner, Esq.
          STEPTOE LLP
          400 White Oaks Boulevard
          Bridgeport, WV 26330
          Telephone: (304) 933-8000

ARIZONA: Judge to Issue Injunction Ruling in State Prison Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Duhownik of Courthouse News Service reports that a federal
judge said she's prepared to issue a ruling finding the Arizona
Department of Corrections, Rehabilitation and Reentry in violation
of her permanent injunction in a decade-old federal class action
over the state's prison conditions.

U.S. District Judge Roslyn Silver revealed her disappointment in
the department's lack of compliance with the order -- which
required the department to increase staffing to provide better
physical and mental health care to the more than 40,000 prisoners
in Arizona's 14 prisons -- in a status conference.

"As far as the provisions of the injunction, I think 75% of them
have been violated already," the Bill Clinton appointee said from
her bench in a federal courthouse in Phoenix.

The April 2023 permanent injunction, based on a draft order from
that January, came nearly a year after Silver found that the prison
system "failed to provide, and continues to refuse to provide, a
constitutionally adequate medical care and mental health care
system for all prisoners."

The injunction identified staffing shortages in the department's
medical contractor, NaphCare, and required the vacant positions to
be filled by July 7, 2023.

Nearly a year after the deadline, the department is closer to its
goal, but still sees serious shortages.

To spur the department into compliance, court-appointed monitors
including a psychologist and a health care policy consultant issued
a staffing study and plan to implement in the Arizona prisons.
Silver considered approving the staffing plan, but wanted to hear
objections from the parties.

Because department heads worried that implementing the entire
staffing plan would prove too financially burdensome, the monitors
developed a pilot program that would first be conducted at two of
the 14 prisons for six months. After that, the parties could
analyze what issues need the most attention and finalize the
staffing plan for the entire prison system.

Dr. Marc Stern, an internist specialized in correctional medicine
and one of the court-appointed monitors, said in court that
staffing at the two pilot locations can't be increased by siphoning
staff away from other locations, but instead must come from an
overall increase in NaphCare employees.

While the department lamented high costs in its written response to
the staffing plan in April, it wasn't until that attorneys made its
financial situation clear.

"We don't have the money to do this," defense attorney Daniel
Struck told Silver. "It would require a new contract with NaphCare.
It would require asking for approval from the [Joint Legislative
Budget Council]. We can't do that in this amount of time."

Struck said the department has been operating at a deficit in its
attempts to follow other provisions of the permanent injunction.
Though it's been withholding money from NaphCare as sanctions for
not meeting staffing and salary requirements, it's still struggling
to make ends meet, Struck said.

He asked that he be given the chance to brief the court on
potential costs and contract amendments with NaphCare before Silver
issues a ruling.

Corene Kendrick, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union
representing the plaintiff class, showed no sympathy for the
department's apparent dire straits.

"This is just dragging things out," she told Silver. "Our clients
are continuing to suffer under a system that you found
unconstitutional almost two years ago."

Kendrick asked why the defendants didn't bring their financial
issues up earlier if they've known about the permanent injunction
since last January.

"They knew this was coming," she said.

Silver said she's ready to approve the staffing study and plan, but
may request more briefing from the parties on when, if at all, she
should order the pilot program to be implemented.

"I haven't decided what to do," she said.  

Struck said the department won't be financially ready to begin the
program until at least late 2025.

Earlier in the four-hour hearing, Stern dispelled some of the
department's concerns with the staffing study itself.

For example, the department contested the increase of licensed
physicians to reduce daily workloads to just 15 patients per
physician per day. The department argued that some of its
physicians can see up to 30 patients per day.

"It's just not realistic," Stern told the court, explaining that it
would require physicians to spend just 10-15 minutes per day with
each patient.

The case began in 2012 when a class of prisoners sued the state,
claiming inadequate health care in the prisons led to "unnecessary
pain and suffering, preventable injury, amputation, disfigurement,
and death."

In addition to increasing full-time staff, Silver's permanent
injunction required improvements in several areas including better
medical record documentation, patient confidentiality protections
and regular and timely delivery of medications. The Department of
Corrections is also required to implement programs for suicide
prevention and analysis, monitoring health care trends among
patients, language accessibility and rapid medical and mental
health screenings upon intake.

It's unclear which of the provisions Silver believes the department
is in violation of, but she said she'll allow the defendants to
brief the issue before she issues an official order. [GN]

ASCENSION HEALTH: Faces Class Action Over Ransomware Attack
-----------------------------------------------------------
Susan Morse of Healthcare Finance reports that Ascension is facing
two class action lawsuits for the May 8 ransomware attack that
reportedly continues to disrupt operations due to disconnection
from the Epic EHR and cause long ER wait times for some of the
health system's 140 hospitals.

On May 12, Katherine Negron filed a class action complaint against
Ascension in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois. On May 13, Ana Marie Turner filed a similar lawsuit in
federal court for the Western District of Texas. Both civil suits,
filed by the Law Offices of T.J. Jesky in Chicago, seek monetary
damages and demand a jury trial.

The Black Basta ransomware attack brought down the Ascension IT
Systems, the complaints said, citing the FBI and Cybersecurity and
Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA).

The lawsuits allege that Ascension failed to safeguard personal
identifying information and protected health information. Because
of the cyberattack, the plaintiffs were unable to effectively
communicate with their healthcare providers through the MyChart
patient portal or receive the requisite medical care and attention
they needed, the complaint said.

WHY THIS MATTERS

The ransomware attack resulted in the unauthorized disclosure of
PHI, including names, dates of birth, patient records and Social
Security numbers, the lawsuits said.

"Plaintiff and the Class also now forever face an amplified risk of
further misuse, fraud and identity theft due to their sensitive
Personal Information falling into the hands of cybercriminals as a
result of the tortious conduct of the defendant," said the Negron
lawsuit.

Ascension failed to implement "reasonable and industry standard
data security practices," the lawsuit said. "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' Private Information from a foreseeable and
preventable cyberattack."

In addition, according to the complaint, "(the) Defendant
maintained the Private Information in a reckless manner. In
particular, the Private Information was maintained on Defendant's
computer network in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks."

The plaintiffs also want improvements to Ascension's data security
systems, future annual audits and adequate credit-monitoring
services.

THE LARGER TREND

The cyberattack affected one of the largest health systems in the
country on the heels of a February ransomware attack that continues
to impact Change Healthcare. Change is owned by Optum, which is
affiliated with the largest insurer in the nation,
UnitedHealthcare.

Change, which offers claims management, was immediately taken
offline after the ransomware attack. While systems are coming back
online, the disruption continues to affect hospital and physician
practice revenue due to delays in claims payment.

UnitedHealth Group CEO Andrew Witty confirmed the company paid a
$22 million ransom in bitcoin to protect personal health
information. [GN]

AT&T INC: Orejudos and Felix Sue Over Breach of Customer Data
-------------------------------------------------------------
RACHEL LEE OREJUDOS and JEAN FELIX, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AT&T, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 3:24-cv-01085-E (N.D. Tex., May 6, 2024) arises from
Defendant's failure to adequately secure and safeguard Plaintiffs'
and approximately 73 million other individuals' personally
identifying information and asserts claims for, among other things,
negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, invasion
of privacy, and unjust enrichment.

Although AT&T's data systems were compromised at least as early as
2019, it initially covered up the breach. Indeed, AT&T denied its
systems had been breached or that customer data available on the
dark web came from their systems in 2021, and AT&T did not reveal
the true scope of the data breach until April 2024. Moreover, the
data breach was directly and proximately caused by AT&T's failure
to implement basic, reasonable, and industry-standard data security
practices necessary to protect their systems, software, and
networks from a foreseeable and preventable cyberattack, says the
suit.

Headquartered in Dallas, TX, AT&T is a telecommunications company
that provides internet services and products, a mobile 5G network,
and other telecommunications services and products to individuals
and businesses across the United States. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Joe Kendall, Esq.
         KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
         3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
         Dallas, TX 75219
         Telephone: (214) 744-3000
         Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
         E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com

                 - and -

         Amber L. Schubert, Esq.
         SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
         2011 Union St., Suite 200
         San Francisco, CA 94123
         Telephone: (415) 788-4220
         Facsimile: (415) 788-0161
         E-mail: aschubert@sjk.law

AXT INC: Nowakowski Sues Over Securities Law Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
CRAIG NOWAKOWSKI, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v.  AXT, INC., MORRIS S. YOUNG, and
GARY L. FISCHER, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-03341 (E.D.N.Y., May
6, 2024) seeks to recover compensable damages caused by Defendant's
violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Plaintiff Nowakowski brings this securities class action on behalf
of persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly
traded AXT, Inc. (AXTI) securities between March 24, 2021 and April
3, 2024, inclusive. Throughout the said period, Defendants
allegedly made several false and misleading statements or omissions
of material facts about the business and financial condition of the
AXTI. Among other things, Defendants failed to disclose that AXTI
overstated its property holding and that AXTI routinely engaged in
environmental violations and unsafe business practices, says the
suit.

AXTI operates as a materials science company that develops and
produces high-performance compound and single element semiconductor
substrates, also known as wafers. Its common stock trades on the
NASDAQ exchange under the ticker symbol "AXTI". [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

BAODEGA LLC: Velasquez Sues Over Labor Law Breaches
---------------------------------------------------
ROBINSON VELASQUEZ v. THE BAODEGA LLC, and KENNY YIE, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-03486 (S.D.N.Y., May 6, 2024) is a
class action accusing the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and related provisions from
Title 12 of New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations.

Plaintiff Velasquez was employed by Defendants as a dishwasher,
waiter, and kitchen assistant from approximately November 2022
until April 30, 2024. Despite the mandatory pay obligations,
Defendants compensated Plaintiff at a rate of $12.33 per hour and
willfully failed to pay Plaintiff his lawful overtime pay
throughout his employment. During this period, there were numerous
instances wherein Plaintiff worked well in excess of 40 hours per
workweek yet was not compensated at the overtime rate, says the
suit.

The Baodega LLC owns and operates a restaurant located at 7 W 20th
St., New York, NY. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

BAUSCH + LOMB: Continues to Defend Eaton Class Suit in Toronto
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch + Lomb Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending March 31, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Eaton class suit in the Federal Court in
Toronto, Ontario.

BHC and certain U.S. and Canadian subsidiaries (for the purposes of
this paragraph, collectively "the Company") have been named as
defendants in a proposed class proceeding entitled Kathryn Eaton v.
Teva Canada Limited, et al. in the Federal Court in Toronto,
Ontario, Canada (Court File No. T-607-20).

The plaintiff seeks to certify a proposed class action on behalf of
persons in Canada who purchased generic drugs in the private
sector, alleging that the Company and other defendants violated the
Competition Act by conspiring to allocate the market, fix prices,
and maintain the supply of generic drugs, and seeking damages under
federal law.

The proposed class action contains similar allegations to the In
re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation pending in
the United States Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The Company disputes the claims against it and this case will be
defended vigorously.

Bausch+Lomb Corporation is a subsidiary of Bausch Health Companies
Inc. and is a global eye health company based in Canada.

BAUSCH + LOMB: Continues to Defend Generic Pricing Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch + Lomb Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending March 31, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the generic pricing antitrust class suit in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

BHC's subsidiaries, Oceanside Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Bausch Health
US, LLC (formerly Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America LLC)
("Bausch Health US"), and Bausch Health Americas, Inc. (formerly
Valeant Pharmaceuticals International) ("Bausch Health Americas")
(for the purposes of this paragraph, collectively, the "Company"),
are defendants in multidistrict antitrust litigation ("MDL")
entitled In re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust
Litigation, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania (MDL 2724, 16 MD-2724).

The lawsuits seek damages under federal and state antitrust laws,
state consumer protection and unjust enrichment laws and allege
that the Company’s subsidiaries entered into a conspiracy to fix,
stabilize, and raise prices, rig bids and engage in market and
customer allocation for generic pharmaceuticals. The lawsuits,
which are brought as putative class actions by direct purchasers,
end payers, and indirect resellers, and as direct actions by direct
purchasers, end payers, insurers, hospitals, pharmacies, and
various Counties, Cities, and Towns, are consolidated into the MDL.


There are also additional, separate complaints which are
consolidated in the same MDL that do not name the Company or any of
its subsidiaries as a defendant.

State of Connecticut, et al. v. Sandoz, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
2:20-03539 (D. CT, C.A. No. 3:20-00802), in which Bausch Health US
and Bausch Health Americas are defendants has been remanded to and
is pending in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut.

There are cases pending in the Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia County against the Company and other defendants
related to the multidistrict litigation, but no complaint has been
filed in these cases.

The cases have been put in deferred status.

The Company disputes the claims against it and these cases will be
defended vigorously.

Bausch+Lomb Corporation is a subsidiary of Bausch Health Companies
Inc. and is a global eye health company based in Canada.

BAUSCH + LOMB: Continues to Defend Gutierrez Class Suit in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch + Lomb Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending March 31, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 1, 2024, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Gutierrez class suit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California.

On June 19, 2019, plaintiffs filed a proposed class action in
California state court against Bausch Health US and Johnson &
Johnson (Gutierrez, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et al., Case No.
37-2019-00025810-CU-NP-CTL), asserting claims for purported
violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, False
Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law in connection with their
sale of talcum powder products that the plaintiffs allege violated
Proposition 65 and/or the California Safe Cosmetics Act.

This lawsuit was served on Bausch Health US in June 2019 and was
subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California, where it is currently pending.

Plaintiffs seek damages, disgorgement of profits, injunctive
relief, and reimbursement/restitution.

Bausch Health US filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims,
which was granted in April 2020 without prejudice.

In May 2020, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and in June
2020, filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint further,
which was granted.

In August 2020, Plaintiffs filed the Fifth Amended Complaint.

On January 22, 2021, the Court granted the motion to dismiss with
prejudice.

On February 19, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

On July 1, 2021, Appellants (Plaintiffs) filed their opening brief;
Appellees’ response briefs were filed October 8, 2021.

This matter was stayed by the Ninth Circuit on December 7, 2021,
due to the preliminary injunction entered by the Bankruptcy Court
in the LTL bankruptcy proceeding.

This stay included Appellants' reply brief deadline, which was
previously due to be filed on or before December 2, 2021.

On March 9, 2022, the Ninth Circuit issued an order extending the
stay through July 29, 2022.

On July 29, 2022, Johnson & Johnson filed a status report in the
Gutierrez appeal, outlining the developments since the last status
report and the imposition of the stay.

Johnson & Johnson noted that following a July 26, 2022, hearing,
the Bankruptcy Court left the preliminary injunction in place, and
asked the Ninth Circuit to continue to stay this action while the
bankruptcy preliminary injunction remained in place.

On January 20, 2023, the Ninth Circuit extended the stay until
February 17, 2023.

On February 17, 2023, Johnson & Johnson requested that the court
afford it 60 days – until April 18, 2023, or seven (7) days
following any lifting of the LTL Bankruptcy Court's preliminary
injunction, whichever comes earliest – to provide an additional
status report about the bankruptcy proceeding and the Third Circuit
dismissal for which the LTL has requested a rehearing.

On April 7, 2023, Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. filed a status
report regarding the bankruptcy proceeding advising the Court of
the dismissal of the prior bankruptcy proceeding and the filing of
the second bankruptcy proceeding, as well as the preliminary
injunction and stay order, and requesting the stay of the appeal
remain in place until May 10, 2023, which was granted.

Following the entry of a preliminary injunction applicable to this
case, which was extended until August 26, 2023, the Ninth Circuit
extended the stay to June 15, 2023.

On June 22, 2023, Johnson & Johnson/LTL filed a status report
requesting the stay be extended to August 26, 2023, consistent with
the extension of the preliminary injunction by the bankruptcy
court.

On August 15, 2023, Johnson & Johnson filed a supplemental status
report notifying the Ninth Circuit that the second bankruptcy
proceeding was dismissed on August 11, 2023 so the stay could be
lifted and briefing could proceed to conclusion and setting of oral
argument.

On September 13, 2023, the Ninth Circuit lifted the stay.

On April 8, 2024, the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument on
Plaintiffs' appeal of the lower court's dismissal of the case with
prejudice, and, on April 29, 2024, the Ninth Circuit issued a
memorandum disposition that affirmed the dismissal of the case in
full. Bausch Health US disputes the claims in this lawsuit and will
defend it vigorously.

Bausch+Lomb Corporation is a subsidiary of Bausch Health Companies
Inc. and is a global eye health company based in Canada.

BERKSHIRE BANK: O'Dell Files Suit in N.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Berkshire Bank. The
case is styled as Mark S. O'Dell, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Berkshire Bank, Case No.
5:24-cv-00652-DNH-TWD (N.D.N.Y., May 13, 2024).

The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.

Berkshire Bank -- https://www.berkshirebank.com/ -- is an American
bank headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Peter M. Spett, Esq.
          Scott Silver, Esq.
          SILVER LAW GROUP
          11780 W. Sample Road
          Coral Springs, FL 33065
          Phone: (954) 755-4799
          Fax: (646) 895-7585
          Email: pspett@spettlaw.com
                 ssilver@silverlaw.com


BIC USA: Butler Sues Over Failure to Disclose Synthetic Chemicals
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Casina Butler and Benson Pai, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. BIC USA INC., Case No.
4:24-cv-02955-KAW (N.D. Cal., May 15, 2024), is brought to recover
damages and injunctive relief for Defendant's continuing failure to
disclose to consumers that its shaving razors sold under the brand
name "BIC" (collectively, the "Products"), contain per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), which are synthetic chemicals
that pose undue health risks, even at low levels.

Laboratory studies have shown that PFAS exposure raises a host of
health effects, such as various cancers, liver damage, and
immunotoxicity effects. Because of the concerns presented by PFAS,
consumers--like Plaintiffs--care about their presence, even if in
small amounts. Yet Defendant does not inform consumers of the
presence of PFAS in the Products, despite its knowledge that all
the Products contain PFAS. Indeed, Defendant itself recently
disclosed its intentional use of PFAS in its Products to the Maine
Department of Environmental Protection, in adherence to the Maine
PFAS reporting law requirements. The public advocacy group, Defend
Our Health, received this information under a Freedom of Access Act
request for public records and thereafter assisted in publishing
Defendant's disclosure of PFAS in its Products.

The Defendant knew or should have known that PFAS are unsafe and
raise health risks because "the dangers of PFAS are well known" to
the point where "public demand is leading to a growing market for
PFAS-free products." Based on Defendant's omission, a reasonable
consumer would expect that the Products are free from PFAS. Yet,
Defendant does not notify consumers, like Plaintiffs, that the
Products contain PFAS, synthetic chemicals that pose undue health
risks to humans. As such, Plaintiffs seek relief in this action
individually and as a class action on behalf of all purchasers of
the Products, says the complaint.

The Plaintiffs purchased Defendant's Razors.

The Defendant manufactures, markets, and sells shaving razors,
including the Products, throughout California and the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Emily A. Horne, Esq.
          Ines Diaz Villafana, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Phone: (925) 300-4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
          Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
                 ehorne@bursor.com
                 idiaz@bursor.com


BIG SANDY FURNITURE: Porter Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Ohio
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Big Sandy Furniture,
Inc. The case is styled as Marissa Porter, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Big Sandy Furniture,
Inc. doing business as: Big Sandy Superstore, Case No.
1:24-cv-00282-JPH (S.D. Ohio, May 15, 2024).

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

Big Sandy Furniture, Inc. doing business as Big Sandy Superstore --
https://www.bigsandysuperstore.com/ -- offer a large selection of
top-quality brands in appliances, electronics, mattresses, and
furniture.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
          14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 1205
          Miami, FL 33132
          Phone: (305) 479-2299
          Fax: (786) 623-0915
          Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com


BK AUTO REPAIR: Faces Miranda Wage & Hour Class Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
MILTON ISMAEL GARCIA MIRANDA, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. BK AUTO REPAIR & COLLISION LLC. (D/B/A BK
WASH & REPAIR CENTER), MOHAMMED AWAD, and MOHAMMAD HASSAN, Case No.
1:24-cv-03385 (E.D.N.Y., May 7, 2024) accuses the Defendants of
failing to pay appropriate minimum and overtime wages, in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Plaintiff, a former employee of Defendants, alleges that he was
not paid appropriate minimum wage and overtime compensation for all
hours that he worked. The Defendants allegedly maintained a policy
and practice of requiring Plaintiff and other similarly situated
employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing
the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and
state law regulations. The Plaintiff now brings claims for unpaid
minimum and overtime wages under the FLSA and the NYLL, as well as
liquidated damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs.

BK Auto Repair & Collision LLC operates a carwash and repair
business located in Brooklyn, NY. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

BLENDJET INC: Gould Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Tommy Gould, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. BLENDJET INC., Case No. 24LA501 was
removed from the Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Illinois, to
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois on May 15, 2024, and assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01273.

The Plaintiff alleges that BlendJet is liable for the defective
product under four Counts: breach of implied warranty under the
Uniform Commercial Code (Count I); deceptive practices under the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (Count
II); unfair practices under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act (Count III); and unjust enrichment
(Count IV).[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Alexander A. Pabon, Esq.
          SMITH, GAMBRELL & RUSSELL, LLP
          311 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 3000
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Email: apabon@sgrlaw.com


BMO BANK: Tobiason Suit Removed to E.D. Wisconsin
-------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Ean J. Tobiason, individually and on behalf of a
class of others similarly situated v. BMO BANK N.A., was removed
from the Circuit Court of Milwaukee, to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on May 13, 2024, and
assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-00590.

The Complaint alleges that "in addition to the unlawful collection
or attempt to collect deficiency balances from consumers, BMO has
maintained a practice and policy of reporting to the three national
consumer reporting agencies, to wit: Equifax Credit Information
Services, Inc., Experian, Inc., and TransUnion, LLC (hereinafter
referred to collectively as the "CRAs") false derogatory
information concerning Plaintiff and the members of a class as to
monies owed to BMO."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew Curtiss Lein, Esq.
          LEIN LAW OFFICES LLP
          PO Box 761
          15692 Highway 63 North
          Hayward, WI 54843
          Phone: (715) 634-4273
          Email: mlein@leinlawoffices.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jeffrey Jamison, Esq.
          BMO BANK N.A.- LEGAL
          320 S. Canal Street, 7th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 461-4694
          Email: jeffrey.jamison@bmo.com


CALIFORNIA CREDIT: DACA Recipient Sues Over ECOA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
A.J. S. Dhaliwal and Mehul N. Madia of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter &
Hampton LLP reports that on May 3, a California resident filed a
class action lawsuit in federal court accusing a Los Angeles-based
credit union of discriminatory practices, and raised a civil rights
claim under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981, and violations of the California's
Unruh Civil Rights Act. In the complaint, the plaintiff alleges his
automobile loan application was unfairly denied because of his
immigration status as a Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals
(DACA) recipient.

DACA, a federal immigration program, provides temporary work
permits and protection from deportation for certain undocumented
immigrants who arrived in the United States as children. According
to the complaint, despite initially receiving approval for the
loan, the credit union later requested additional documentation and
ultimately rejected his application because he is not a permanent
resident and does not possess an individual taxpayer identification
number.

Putting It Into Practice: The lawsuit, filed by the Mexican
American Legal Defense and Education Fund on the resident's behalf,
is the latest in a series of legal challenges against financial
institutions by the advocacy group on behalf of DACA recipients.
Recent settlements in similar cases underscore the importance of
lenders adhering to anti-discrimination laws and fair lending
practices. While ECOA allows a creditor to consider an applicant's
immigration status when necessary to determine the creditor's
rights regarding repayment, the CFPB and DOJ's view is that
"unnecessary or overbroad reliance on immigration status, including
when that reliance is based on bias, may run afoul of the law."
Accordingly, lenders must exercise extreme care if they use DACA
status in their underwriting practices. [GN]

CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE: Ortiz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Ortiz, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, Case No.
1:24-cv-00467 (W.D.N.Y., May 14, 2024), is brought against the
Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people.

The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act. Because Defendant's interactive website,
https://www.caltech.edu, including all portions thereof or accessed
thereon, including, but not limited to, https://gocaltech.coml,
https://caltech-athletics-shops.spiritsale.com/products, and
https://caltechstore.caltech.edu/, (collectively the "Website" or
"Defendant's website"), is not equally accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA and the RA.
Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website
available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader
programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired
individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and
services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals --thereby
increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons
that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.

The Defendant operates the Caltech online retail store as well as
the Caltech interactive website and advertises, markets, and
operates in the State of New York and throughout the United
States.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Phone: 212.228.9795
          Fax: 212.982.6284
          Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal


CAMPBELL SOUP: Perruzzi & Sullivan Sue for Worker Misclassification
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL PERRUZZI, JEREMIAH SULLIVAN, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY, and
SNYDER’S-LANCE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-11204 (D.
Mass., May 6, 2024) seeks for unpaid wages, overtime compensation,
and other damages arising from the misclassification of delivery
drivers as independent contractors and asserts claims for unjust
enrichment, breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, and for violations of the
Massachusetts General Laws.

The Plaintiffs regularly work anywhere from 35 to 50 hours per
week, delivering the Defendants' products along their designated
routes. However, due to the worker misclassification, Plaintiffs
have not been paid hourly compensation; have not received benefits,
paid time off, or protections should they be injured while
delivering Campbell's products; and have not been entitled to
compensation for expenses, says the suit.

Headquartered in Camden, NJ, Campbell Soup Company is a processed
foods manufacturer in the United States, producing meals,
beverages, and snacks under a variety of brand names and
distributing their products across the country, including in
Massachusetts. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Benjamin C. Rudolf, Esq.
         Sarah H. Varney, Esq.
         MURPHY & RUDOLF, LLP
         446 Main Street, Suite 1503
         Worcester, MA 01602
         Telephone: (508) 425-6330
         Facsimile: (508) 536-0834
         E-mail: brudolf@murphyrudolf.com
                 varney@murphyrudolf.com

CENTRAL STAR: Ray Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Tiarra Kristina Ray, and other similarly situated aggrieved
employees, v. CENTRAL STAR BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, INC.; MARY HOWARD;
and DOES 1 to 25, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV12059 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Los Angeles Cty., May 13, 2024), is brought against the Defendants
for violations of the California Labor Code failure to pay minimum
and overtime wages.

The Defendants violated Labor Code because it failed to pay
Plaintiff and other similarly situated aggrieved employees for all
hours worked, including the statutory minimum wage for all hours
worked and for "off the clock" work. This is so because Plaintiff
would engage in work-related tasks while she was clocked out for
lunch in that her meal breaks would be interrupted in that
Plaintiff would be driving clients or working out in the field. The
latter is considered a minimum wage violation in that Plaintiff was
not compensated for all hours worked. Moreover, the Defendants had
a company policy wherein they would disproportionately round down
the number of hours worked, resulting in "time shaving" and further
resulting in aggrieved employees not being paid for all hours
worked. Moreover, the Defendants failed to provide its employees
with proper and accurate reporting time pay, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff started working at the Defendants in 2022 as a Peer
Mentor.

Central Star Behavioral Health, Inc. is a California corporation,
doing business in the County of LOS ANGELES, State of
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CHANGE HEALTHCARE: CDC Sues Over Ransomware Attack
--------------------------------------------------
Cardiovascular Diagnostic Center (a professional medical
corporation), individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CHANGE HEALTHCARE INC., OPTUM, INC., and UNITEDHEALTH
GROUP, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00623-TAD-KDM (W.D. La., May 13,
2024), is brought against Defendants seeking redress for their
unlawful and tortious conduct and asserting claims for negligence
and unjust enrichment as a result of a breach and ransomware
attack.

Between February 12, 2024 and February 21, 2024, Change experienced
a data breach and ransomware attack which exposed sensitive medical
records and identifying information for up to 112 million United
States patients, as well as billing, insurance, and other data.

Hackers gained access to Change's systems and the data therein by
simply using compromised login credentials on an outward-facing web
based "portal" for employees. For nine days, the hackers,
undetected, proceeded to review the data in Change's internal
systems, exploiting apparently unrestricted access to not only
folders and files containing sensitive information from providers
across the healthcare industry, but also source code files for
Change's healthcare services.

The hackers, members of known cybercriminal organization BlackCat,
were not detected by any security measure implemented by
Defendants, even though they would have been detected, or even
stopped at the door, if Defendants had implemented basic
cybersecurity precautions that the FBI and other authorities
specifically urged businesses to implement, no later than April
2022, to prevent and protect against data breach and ransomware
attacks by this specific organization.

The Defendants, with basic industry standard cybersecurity, threat
detection, and incident response measures, including measures
recommended in response to the known tactics of BlackCat years
prior, could have prevented the attack and events that followed.
They chose instead to shift the brunt of the impact of their poor
security and planning to healthcare providers, including Plaintiff,
says the complaint.

The Plaintiff, Cardiovascular Diagnostic Center (A Professional
Medical Corporation) is a resident of Ouachita Parish, Louisiana.

Change is a subsidiary of healthcare mega-conglomerate UHG,
providing online administrative and technological support for
payers, providers, and consumers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew E. Lundy, Esq.
          Kristie M. Hightower, Esq.
          LUNDY LLP
          501 Broad Street
          Lake Charles, LA 70601
          Phone: (337) 439-0707
          Fax: (504) 439-1029
          Email: mlundy@lundyllp.com
                 khightower@lundyllp.com

               - and -

          Stephen J. Herman (#23129)
          Kerry J. Miller, Esq.
          Paul C. Thibodeaux, Esq.
          C. Hogan Paschal, Esq.
          FISHMAN HAYGOOD
          201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 4600
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Phone: (504) 586-5252
          Fax: (504) 586-5250
          Email: sherman@fishmanhaygood.com
                 kmiller@fishmanhaygood.com
                 pthibodeaux@fishmanhaygood.com
                 hpaschal@fishmanhaygood.com


CHICAGO TRIBUNE: Journalists Sues Over Violations of Equal Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kade Heather, writing for abc7, reports that seven Chicago Tribune
journalists filed a class-action lawsuit on May 16, Thursday,
against the newspaper and its owner, alleging violations of equal
pay based on sexual and racial discrimination.

The lawsuit claims systematic pay disparities between female and
male employees, as well as between Black and white employees under
its current ownership of Alden Global Capital and dating back to
its previous owner, the Tribune Publishing Co.

"This is, in part, about protecting journalism," Michael Morrison
of the law firm Alexander Morrison + Fehr, a California-based firm
that jointly filed the lawsuit with the Chicago-based KJC Law
Group, told the Sun-Times. "This is a fair pay act, and what we
want to make sure is that journalists of color and women get paid
fairly for similar experience that they have, and similar
backgrounds, for their skill that they've actually demonstrated in
this position."

Chicago Tribune, Alden Global Capital and Tribune Publishing Co.
are listed as the defendants in the lawsuit. They could not be
immediately reached for comment.

The lawsuit was filed in federal court by Madeline Buckley, a
criminal justice reporter; Terrence James, a photojournalist;
Stacey Wescott, a visual journalist; Colleen Kujawa, an editor;
Deanese Williams, a senior deputy content editor; Darcel Rockett, a
features reporter; and Christy Gutowski, a criminal justice
reporter.

The seven journalists are representing in the lawsuit more than 50
other women and Black employees of the newspaper. The lawsuit seeks
back pay for the disparities in wages, along with a restructuring
of the Tribune's compensation policies and practices.

"One thing remains consistent across each section of the Chicago
Tribune's news operation - women and African American employees are
underpaid by several thousands of dollars a year compared to their
male and white counterparts," the lawsuit states. "No legitimate
factors account for the enormous, statistically significant pay gap
that the Tribune has created and intentionally maintains."

The newspaper also used diversity recruitment programs to hire
women and minority journalists into temporary year-long positions
at salaries "significantly less than their colleagues who performed
the same work," the lawsuit said.

Williams, a Black woman, has received three raises since she was
hired by the Tribune in 2007 through one of the diversity
recruitment programs, according to the lawsuit. Her work has
contributed to multiple Illinois Press Association and other
awards, and she was honored by the Tribune for her "outstanding
professional performance."

Williams was promoted several times throughout her tenure, most
recently to deputy senior content editor in 2023, but is the
second-lowest paid employee with that title, the lawsuit states. A
24-year-old early career editor is the only editor who earns less
money than Williams, making $2,000 less than she does, the lawsuit
states.

James, who is the Tribune's only Black photojournalist, has earned
one "significant" pay raise in his 31 years working at the Tribune,
and earns less money than non-African American employees who
perform similar work, the lawsuit states.

Tribune employees have in the past raised concerns about unequal
pay for minority journalists to its past and current owners, the
lawsuit states.

The lawsuit also claims the Tribune has "intentionally" hired
minority journalists for positions at its six daily suburban
publications, which pay less than the Chicago newspaper.

"The concern I have is, if journalism is not in a fair place in
terms of pay equity for women and minorities, then these people
will not go into that profession. We might lose those important
voices, precisely at a time where we need to hear these voices,
where these voices can be drowned out," Morrison said. "This is
about fairness; it's not about asking for extra money or just
getting a raise because everybody needs more money."

Tribune journalists also earlier this year went on 24-hour strike,
joining hundreds of other Tribune Publishing employees in a
nationwide action to demand management pay fair wages and not
eliminate their 401(k) match benefits.[GN]

CITGO PETROLEUM: Court Certifies "Marriage Penalty" ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
On May 16, a federal judge certified a class of more than 1,700
participants and beneficiaries in two of CITGO Petroleum
Corporation's pension plans. This class certification ruling, along
with last week's ruling largely dismissing CITGO's motion for
summary judgement, paves the way for the class claims to move
forward to trial. Estimated financial exposure to CITGO could well
exceed $30 million.

The lawsuit against CITGO alleges that the Houston-based gas and
energy giant violated the federal Employee Retirement Income
Security Act ("ERISA") by failing to properly calculate joint and
survivor annuity ("JSA") benefits for retired employees and
imposing a "marriage penalty" that reduced their monthly pension
payments.

Specifically, plaintiffs claim that prior to 2018, CITGO's two
pension plans utilized inaccurate mortality tables (from the 1970s)
to determine the value of JSAs, resulting in married retirees
consistently receiving less than the actuarial equivalent of a
single-life annuity ("SLA") as required under ERISA. The lawsuit
seeks to recover the underpayments, and to reform the CITGO Plans
to fully comply with protections afforded by ERISA to pension plan
participants and their beneficiaries.

"We are very pleased the court granted class certification to more
than 1,700 CITGO employees and pensioners in this important ERISA
case," said Michelle C. Yau, chair of Cohen Milstein's Employee
Benefits/ERISA practice. "This ruling and the court's recent order
denying summary judgment pave the way for the class claims to move
forward to trial and affirm our confidence that our clients will
prevail. Married retirees and their beneficiaries deserve to
receive accurate pension payments after years of hard work and
should not be shortchanged or subjected to a ‘marriage
penalty.'"

Just ten days ago, on May 6, the same court rejected CITGO's motion
for summary judgment on three of four counts and partially denied
the motion on the fourth count. Specifically, the court rejected
CITGO's arguments that the lawsuit should be dismissed on the basis
of the statute of limitations, finding that all three plaintiffs
could proceed with their actuarial equivalence claims in Counts 1
through 3, and that two of the three plaintiffs could proceed with
their breach of fiduciary duty claim in Count 4. Further, the court
rejected CITGO's argument that the plaintiffs should have exhausted
administrative remedies rather than filing suit in federal court,
stating that it was "not persuaded that requiring exhaustion would
serve any useful purpose in this case." Finally, the court also
held that plaintiffs' claims were sufficiently meritorious to
proceed to trial and supported by expert testimony.

The case, Urlaub et al v. Citgo Petroleum Corporation et al. (N.D.
Ill.), was filed on August 3, 2021 in the United States District
Court of the Northern District of Illinois. It was brought on
behalf retirees in the CITGO Petroleum Corporation Salaried
Employees Pension Plan and the CITGO Petroleum Corporation Hourly
Employees Pension Plan who are receiving a joint and survivor
annuity.

This is one of six such "marriage penalty" ERSIA class actions the
firm has recently filed against several of the largest companies in
the United States, including AT&T, IBM, Intel, Luxottica, and
Southern Company.

About Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, a premier U.S. plaintiffs' law
firm, with over 100 attorneys across eight offices, champions the
causes of real people -- workers, consumers, small business owners,
investors, and whistleblowers -- working to deliver corporate
reforms and fair markets for the common good.

CITY OF HOPE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Sjodin Says
---------------------------------------------------------
JOHN SJODIN, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITY OF HOPE, Defendant, Case No.
5:24-cv-00847 (C.D. Cal., April 22, 2024) is a class action against
the Defendant seeking redress for its unlawful conduct and asserts
claims on behalf of the Class for negligence, negligence per se,
unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, declaratory
judgment, and common law invasion of privacy, and violation of the
California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, the
California Customer Records Act, and the California Unfair
Competition Law.

The Plaintiff brings this class action against Defendant for its
failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable
information and protected health information including, but not
limited to, contact information (e.g., email address, phone
number), date of birth, Social Security number, driver's license or
other government identification, financial details (e.g., bank
account and/or credit card details), health insurance information,
medical records and information about medical history and/or
associated conditions, and/or unique identifiers to associate
individuals with City of Hope.

Between September 19, 2023 and October 12, 2023, cybercriminals
infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected network servers and
accessed and exfiltrated highly sensitive Private Information
belonging to Plaintiff and Class Members which was being kept
unprotected and unencrypted. As a result of Defendant's failures
and the Data Breach, Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are
now at a current and substantial imminent and ongoing risk of
identity theft and shall remain at risk for the rest of their
lives, says the suit.

City of Hope is a pioneer in cancer research, treatment and
prevention and home to a National Cancer Institute-designated
comprehensive cancer center.[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

               - and -

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          Kennedy M. Brian, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235-1560
          Facsimile: (405) 239-2112  
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com
                  kpb@federmanlaw.com

CLEARESULT CONSULTING: Dauch Suit Transferred to D. Massachusetts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jason Dauch, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. CLEAResult Consulting Inc., Case No.
1:23-cv-01182 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on May 14, 2024.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:24-cv-11281-ADB to the
proceeding.

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

CLEAResult -- https://www.clearesult.com/ -- is the largest
provider of energy efficiency, energy transition and energy
sustainability solutions in North America.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David K. Lietz, Esq.
          MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLP
          5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 440
          Washington, DC 20015
          Phone: (866) 252-0878
          Email: dlietz@milberg.com

               - and -

          Joe Kendall, Esq.
          KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC - DALLAS
          3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 1450
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Phone: (214) 744-3000
          Fax: (214) 744-3015
          Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., Esq.
          Jennifer A. Riley, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          190 S. LaSalle, Suite 3700
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Phone: (312) 499-6700
          Email: GMaatman@duanemorris.com
                 JARiley@duanemorris.com

               - and -

          Emilee N. Crowther, Esq.
          DUANE MORRIS LLP
          900 S. Capital of Texas Hwy., Ste. 300
          Austin, TX 78746
          Phone: (512) 277-2256
          Email: encrowther@duanemorris.com


COMANCHE COUNTY HOSPITAL: Whitmore Files Suit in Okla. Dist. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Comanche County
Hospital Authority. The case is styled as Lori Whitmore,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Comanche County Hospital Authority d/b/a Comanche County Memorial
Hospital, Case No. CJ-2024-235 (Okla. Dist. Ct., Comanche Cty., May
13, 2024).

The case type is stated as "Civil Relief More Than $10,000: Breach
Of Agreement - Contract."

Comanche County Memorial Hospital -- https://www.ccmhhealth.com/ --
is an acute care facility specializing in health care services
including Emergency, Surgical, and Primary Care Services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew D. Alison, Esq.
          223 S Detroit Ave., Suite 200
          Tulsa, OK 74120


CONTINUUM HEALTH: Dressel Sues Over Cyber-Attack and Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Dressel, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. CONTINUUM HEALTH ALLIANCE, LLC, Case
3:24-cv-06176 (D.N.J., May 15, 2024), is brought on behalf of
citizens of all states in the United States who are the victims of
a targeted, intentional cyber-attack on Defendant that allowed
third party criminal hackers to access Defendant's computer systems
and exfiltrate patient data from approximately October 18, 2023 to
October 19, 2023 (the "Class" and "Class Members"), publicly
exposing the highly sensitive information and medical records of
approximately 377,119 patients from Defendant's computer network
("the Data Breach").

Despite that Continuum became aware of the Data Breach by October
19, 2023, it failed to send notice to Plaintiff and the Class
Members within 60 days as required by law. Incredibly, Continuum
failed to notify Plaintiff of the Data Breach for more than 6
months from its discovery of the same.

Continuum knowingly collected patient personally identifiable
information ("PII"), and protected health information ("PHI")
(collectively, "Private Information") in confidence, and has a
resulting duty to secure, maintain, protect, and safeguard that
Private Information against unauthorized access and disclosure
through reasonable and adequate security measures.

The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive and private personal
information--entrusted to Defendant, its officials, and agents--was
compromised, unlawfully accessed, and stolen due to the Data
Breach. Information compromised in the Data Breach includes name,
Social Security number, date of birth, health insurance
information, medical information, and phone number, other protected
health information defined by HIPAA, and other Private
Information.

As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members
suffered ascertainable losses, including, but not limited to, a
diminution in the value of their private and confidential
information, the loss of the benefit of their contractual bargain
with Defendant, out-of-pocket expenses and the value of their time
reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of the Data
Breach, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff provided her Private Information to a client of
Continuum who shared her Private Information with Continuum.

Continuum is a provider of health management and patient care
coordination services to healthcare organizations and health
insurers.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Janine L. Pollack, Esq.
          GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC
          745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
          New York, NY 10151
          Phone: (561) 232-6002
          Facsimile: (888) 421-4173
          Email: jpollack@4-justice.com
          E-Service: eService@4-justice.com

               - and –

          Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
          GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC
          102 Half Moon Bay Drive
          Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520
          Phone: (561) 232-6002
          Facsimile: (888) 421-4173
          Email: lfeldman@4-justice.com
          E-Service: eService@4-justice.com

               - and -

          David J. George, Esq.
          Brittany L. Sackrin, Esq.
          GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC
          9897 Lake Worth Road, Suite 302
          Lake Worth, FL 33467
          Phone: (561) 232-6002
          Email: dgeorge@4-justice.com
                 bsackrin@4-justice.com
          E-Service: eService@4-justice.com


COUNTRY LIFE: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Karim Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA KARIM, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Country Life, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-03048-DEH (S.D.N.Y., April 22, 2024) is a civil rights
action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate their website,
https://www.desertessence.com/, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.

This case arises out of Country Life's policy and practice of
denying the blind access to the services offered by
Desertessence.com. Due to its failure and refusal to remove access
barriers to the website, blind individuals have been and are being
denied equal access to Country Life, as well as to the numerous
goods, services and benefits offered to the public through
Desertessence.com.

Country Life, LLC controls and operates Desertessence.com in New
York State and throughout the United States. Desertessence.com is a
commercial website that offers products and services for online
sale. The online store allows the user to view skin, body, and hair
care products, make purchases, and perform a variety of other
functions.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE: Sapan Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CrossCountry
Mortgage, LLC. The case is styled as Paul Sapan, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CrossCountry
Mortgage, LLC, Case No. 8:24-cv-01064-JWH-DFM (C.D. Cal., May 16,
2024).

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

CrossCountry Mortgage -- https://crosscountrymortgage.com/ --
offers mortgage lending services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher J. Reichman, Esq.
          Justin Prato, Esq.
          PRATO AND REICHMAN APC
          3675 Ruffin Road, Suite 220
          San Diego, CA 92123
          Phone: (619) 683-7971
          Email: chrisr@prato-reichman.com
                 justinp@prato-reichman.com


CSX TRANSPORTATION: Faces Click et al. Suit Over FMLA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Click, Harvey Ferran, Nicholas Ingrodi, Brad Jackson, Jeremy
Likes, Chris Straight, Antoine Thompson, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. CSX Transportation, Inc., Case No.
3:24-cv-00451 (M.D. Fla., MAY 7, 2024), accuses the Defendant of
violating the Family Medical Leave Act.

The Plaintiffs are former and current employees of Defendant who
were allegedly subjected to FMLA violations. The Defendant
allegedly engaged in a pattern and practice of curbing its
employees' lawful use of FMLA leave by limiting and miscounting the
amount of FMLA leave its employees may take, implementing an
attendance policy which penalizes employees for taking FMLA leave,
and disciplining and terminating employees who use FMLA leave on
weekends and holidays. Plaintiffs seek back pay, monetary relief,
other compensatory relief, and injunctive and declaratory relief
for Defendant's conduct.

Headquartered in Jacksonville FL, CSX Transportation, Inc. provides
freight rail transportation services throughout the United States.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

        Nicholas D. Thompson, Esq.
        CASEY JONES LAW     
        323 N. Washington Avenue, Suite 200
        Minneapolis, MN 55401
        Telephone: (757) 477-0991
        E-mail: nthompson@caseyjones.law

CVS HEALTH: Druzgalski Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Clara Druzgalski, an individual; on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. CVS HEALTH
CORPORATION; and DOES 1 to 10, Case No. 24STCV04032 was removed
from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on May 13, 2024, and assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-03975.

In this action, Plaintiff alleges various injuries individually,
and on behalf of similarly situated persons, as a result of
allegedly receiving the Arexvy vaccine instead of the Abrysvo
vaccine (collectively, "RSV vaccines"). As a result of these
alleged injuries, Plaintiff asserts the following causes of action
against CVS: Violation of Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Negligence,
and Violation of California's Unfair Competition Act.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kristen Richer, Esq.
          Alexandra Ascione, Esq.
          BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 300
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Phone: (310) 284-3880
          Facsimile: (310) 284-3894
          Email: Kristen.Richer@btlaw.com
                 Aascione@btlaw.com


DELTA AIR: Iuliano Seeks to Void Security Fee Refund Policy
-----------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER IULIANO v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC, Case No.
CACE-24-006370 (Fla. Cir. 17th Judicial, Broward Cty, May 7, 2024,
May 7, 2024) is a class action seeking declaratory relief for
Defendant’s alleged unlawful practice of retaining unused
September 11 security fees.

The Plaintiff purchased a non-refundable Delta ticket on or about
November 18, 2023 for a flight that was set to depart on December
28, 2023. Plaintiff paid a total of $322.80 in fare, taxes, and
fees, including the September 11 security fee. Before his departure
date, Plaintiff canceled his flight and received a Delta eCredit
covering the price of the flight, as well as taxes and fees,
including the September 11 security fee. The eCredit must be used
within one year after issuance. No portion of the fare, taxes, and
fees Plaintiff paid was returned to his original form of payment.

The Plaintiff demands declaratory relief to resolve a dispute as to
whether Delta’s contract of carriage permits the company to
retain the September 11 security fee in case of canceled
non-refundable flights. To the extent any contract provision does
permit that practice, Plaintiff seeks a declaration that such a
provision violates federal law and is therefore void and
unenforceable.

Delta Air Lines is an American airline company headquartered in
Atlanta, GA. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Alec H. Schultz, Esq.
        Ellen Rose Belfer, Esq.
        HILGERS GRABEN PLLC     
        1221 Brickell Avenue, Suite 900
        Miami, FL 33131
        Telephone: (305) 630-8304
        E-mail: aschultz@hilgersgraben.com
                ebelfer@hilgersgraben.com

DOLCE & GABBANA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Delays in Delivery
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tristan Greene of CoinTelegraph reports that a disgruntled customer
has filed a class-action lawsuit against Italian fashion brand
Dolce & Gabbana and digital assets platform UNXD after alleged
delays in delivering nonfungible token (NFT) products caused the
digital assets to lose 97% of their value.

According to a report from Bloomberg, a customer identified as Luke
Brown paid $6,000 for "DGFamily NFTs," a Dolce & Gabbana product
combining digital and physical assets as privileges and experiences
within the brand’s greater ecosystem.

Class action

The NFTs were allegedly delivered over a week late, during which
their value plummeted by $5,800. A set of accompanying "outfits"
for the NFTs, purportedly meant for display in the metaverse, was
further delayed by 11 days after the initial delivery.

Brown has filed a class-action suit on behalf of all customers who
purchased the NFTs, alleging that Dolce & Gabbana and UNXD failed
to deliver on promises made at the point of transaction.

According to the report, the delivery delays occurred after Dolce &
Gabbana failed to obtain approval for the accompanying assets from
the UNXD NFT platform. It’s unclear at this time how many
customers may have been affected by the alleged delays.

An NFT industry concern

This case highlights the ongoing struggle for companies, brands and
marketers as the realm of physical goods, products, and assets
transitions to hybridized digitization.

A physical product, such as a fashionable clothing item, functions
in a dynamically different market than that of a digital asset,
often with little correlation to one another.

Further complicating the matter, the Dolce & Gabbana NFTs were
created on the Ethereum blockchain for the "D&G Metaverse."

The Ethereum blockchain powers the world’s second most popular
cryptocurrency, and as Cointelegraph reported, Dolce & Gabbana NFTs
have sold for millions of dollars in the past. These facts could
impact the class-action lawsuit if it moves forward. [GN]

DOLLAR TREE: Faces Another Lawsuit Over Cinnamon Product Recalls
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree is facing more legal fallout from cinnamon product
recalls.

Donna Bell filed the lawsuit in excess of $5 million against the
discount retailer and cinnamon supplier Colonna Brothers, Inc. The
lawsuit represents more than 100 shoppers.

On March 6, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a safety
alert informing grocers like Dollar Tree and Family Dollar that
ground cinnamon products were contaminated with high levels of lead
and should be taken off the shelves.

The products listed in the safety alert included La Fiesta brand
sold by La Superior and SuperMercados; Marcum brand sold by Save A
Lot; MK brands sold by SF Supermarket; Swad brand which can be
found at Patel Brothers; El Chilar brand sold by La Joya Morelense;
and Supreme Tradition brand found at Dollar Tree and Family
Dollar.

Dollar Tree and Family Dollar said they pulled the cinnamon
products from their shelves.

The safety alert stems from the October 2023 recall of cinnamon
applesauce pouches that led to almost 500 child illnesses in the
U.S. At the time of the recall, the FDA executed a targeted survey
of cinnamon products sold at discount stores.

According to the lawsuit, the FDA collected and tested 75 samples
from different retail locations and results showed lead
concentration between 2.03 and 3.37 parts per million in the
Supreme Tradition Ground Cinnamon product, which is hundreds of
times more than the FDA's safe levels.

The lawsuit also says manufacturer Colonna should have reasonable
measures in place to test the safety of its products and that
Dollar Tree is responsible for ensuring its products are safe for
human consumption.

Bell purchased the Supreme Tradition Ground Cinnamon in March of
2024 in the Bronx, N.Y., and the lawsuit says if she was aware of
the existence of lead in the product, she would have not purchased
it.

Bell and the group claim they have suffered injury and have lost
money due to the sale of the ground cinnamon product.

Dollar Tree and Colonna are being charged with three counts:
violation of New York General Business Laws 349 and 350 and unjust
enrichment.

Dollar Tree and manufacturer WanaBana are also facing a lawsuit
because of an applesauce pouches recall late last year. Parents of
a North Carolina family claim their children suffered from lead
poisoning after consuming the applesauce and face a lifetime of
treatment.

A high level of chromium was found in WanaBana apple cinnamon fruit
puree.

As of May 14, Dollar Tree operates 8,277 locations in the U.S.
according to ScrapeHero. [GN]

EQUINIX LLC: Holman Sues for California Labor Code Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD HOLMAN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. EQUINIX, LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 24CV438270 (Cal. Super., Santa
Clara Cty., May 7, 2024) accuses the Defendants of California Labor
Code violations and unfair business practices.

The Plaintiff previously worked for Defendants as an hourly,
non-exempt shipping employee. Plaintiff alleges that throughout his
employment, Defendants committed numerous violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business & Professions
Code, including among others, failure to pay minimum wages, failure
to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to
authorize and permit rest periods, failure to maintain accurate
records of hours worked, and failure to timely pay all wages to
terminated employees.

The Plaintiff seeks penalties, actual damages, injunctive relief,
and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs for Defendants' alleged
violations.

Based in San Jose, CA, Equinix LLC provides telephone voice and
data communication services. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Kane Moon, Esq.
        Allen Feghali, Esq.
        Hyunjin Kim, Esq.
        MOON LAW GROUP, PC     
        1055 W. Seventh St., Suite 1880
        Los Angeles, CA 90017
        Telephone: (213) 232-3128
        Facsimile: (213) 232-3125
        E-mail: kmoon@moonlawgroup.com
                afeghali@moonlawgroup.com
                hkim@moonlawgroup.com

                - and –
     
        Walter L. Haines, Esq.
        Jeremiah W. Nixon, Esq.
        UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
        5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 203
        Huntington Beach, CA 92649
        Telephone: (562) 256-1047
        Facsimile: (562) 256-1006
        E-mail: whaines@uelglaw.com

ERNEST HEALTH: Fernandez Sues Over Failure to Secure Personal Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
OVIDIO FERNANDEZ and BARBARA LAUDE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ERNEST HEALTH, INC.,
REHABILITATION HOSPITAL OF SOUTHERN NEW MEXICO, and REHABILITATION
HOSPITAL OF THE NORTHWEST, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
3:24-cv-00973-E (N.D. Tex., April 22, 2024) is a class action
against Defendants for their failure to properly secure and
safeguard Plaintiffs’ and other similarly situated consumers'
sensitive protected health information and personally identifiable
information provided to the Defendants.

On or about March 29, 2024, the Defendants announced that they were
the victim of a data security incident. The private information of
5,466 individuals is believed to have been exposed by the data
breach.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to adequately
protect Plaintiffs' and Class Members' private information -- and
failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information.
This unredacted private information was compromised due to the
Defendants' negligent and/or careless, says the suit.

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

Ernest Health, Inc. is a network of rehabilitation and long-tern
acute hospitals with locations throughout Arizona, California,
Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Montana, New Mexico, Ohio, South
Carolina, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joe Kendall, Esq.
          KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
          3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
          Dallas, TX 75219
          Telephone: (214) 744-3000
          Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
          E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

ESSEX PROPERTY: Vivoli Sues Over Unfair Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL W. VIVOLI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ESSEX PROPERTY TRUST, INC., a Maryland
Corporation; TROY WARNER, an individual; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 24STCV11484 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty, May
7, 2024), accuses the Defendants of unfair business practices and
violations of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

This action arises from Defendants' alleged offensive debt
collection activities against tenants, including Plaintiff, whereby
Defendants falsely represent that they will be or have already
reported tenants' disputed balances to credit reporting agencies.
Additionally, Defendants allegedly make inconsistent and confusing
demands upon tenants using confusing rent balance calculations that
are designed to manufacture a basis to claim a disputed balance
that does not actually exist. The Plaintiff claims that Defendants'
conduct violates the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
and constitutes unfair business practices, in violation of the
California Business & Professions Code.
   
Essex Property Trust, Inc. us a real estate investment trust based
in California. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        T. Steven Gregor, Esq.
        GREGOR LAW OFFICES     
        3104 Fourth Avenue
        San Diego, CA 92103
        Telephone: (619) 238-2700
        Facsimile: (619) 330-4748
        E-mail: sgregor@gregorlawoffices.com

EVENT STAGING: Keller et al. Sue for Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Carole Keller, Maggie Price, and Mary Givens, all individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Event Staging, Inc.,
Case No. 2:24-cv-00288 (E.D. Va., May 7, 2024) accuses the
Defendants of labor law violations and retaliation.

The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant as hourly-paid stagehands
during productions but had no official title for their jobs. The
Plaintiffs were also assigned in other departments performing other
tasks, such as electrical work and scenic/carpentry work, with
Plaintiffs also doing load-ins and load-outs at the beginning and
end of productions.

On multiple occasions, the Plaintiffs encountered issues with their
pay. In particular, Defendant allegedly failed to properly
compensate Plaintiffs for the hours that they actually worked,
including those in excess of 40 hours. When Plaintiffs opposed
Defendant's unlawful conduct, they were terminated by Defendant.
The Plaintiffs now bring claims for Defendant's alleged failure to
pay overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act, failure to pay
wages under the Virginia Wage Theft Act, and reprisal.       
   
Based in Virginia, Event Staging, Inc. is engaged in the business
of staffing live events. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

        Jacob M. Small, Esq.
        J. MADISON PLC     
        1750 Tysons Blvd., Suite 1500
        McLean, VA 22101
        Telephone: (703) 910-5062
        Facsimile: (703) 910-5107
        E-mail: jmsmall@jmadisonplc.com

EXCELL OPERATING: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Farmer et al. Say
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CLAUDE FARMER, JOSE L. SALINAS and RICARDO RODRIGUEZ, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EXCELL OPERATING,
INC., d/b/a EXCELL OPERATING COMPANY, INC., BULLZEYE OILFIELD
SERVICE LLC, THOMAS L. SWAREK, MICHAEL BOOTHE, KEITH MAXEY, and
ZACKRY MAXEY, Case No. 2:24-cv-00109 (S.D. Tex., May 7, 2024)
accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act by
failing to pay overtime.

The Plaintiffs are current and former non-exempt employees of
Defendants employed as Hourly, Day Rate, and Salaried Oilfield
Workers who routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek but
were allegedly not paid overtime. According to Plaintiffs,
Defendants are engaged in a practice of not compensating its
non-exempt employees for off-the-clock work, including during
meal-period breaks, as well as for all hours spent performing
mandatory tasks such as preparing tools and loading materials and
equipment prior to clocking in. The Defendants also do not pay
Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees for all hours spent
handling emails, phone calls, and/or texts with Defendants off the
clock, say the Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs seek to recover all unpaid overtime, liquidated damages
and other damages, and attorneys' fees and costs under the FLSA.
  
Excell Operating, Inc. is a trucking company based in Mississippi.
[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

        Clif Alexander, Esq.
        Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
        Blayne Fisher, Esq.
        ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC     
        101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Ste. 610
        Corpus Christi, TX 78401
        Telephone: (361) 452-1279
        Facsimile: (361) 452-1284
        E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                austin@a2xlaw.com
                blayne@a2xlaw.com

FAMILY DOLLAR: Bid for Attys.' Fees in Fields Suit Granted in Part
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Fields, et al. v. Family Dollar Inc., Case
No. 2:22-cv-02380 (W.D. Tenn.), Chief District Judge Sheryl H.
Lipman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Tennessee, Western Division, issued an order:

   (a) granting the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final
       Approval of Proposed Settlement and Supplement to
       Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses
       and Service Awards filed Feb. 8, 2024; and

   (b) granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs'
       Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service
       Awards filed Jan. 4, 2024.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is denied
without prejudice given its lack of compliance with the Court's
Local Rules. The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an award of $10
million.

The case involves allegations that Defendants Family Dollar Stores
of Tennessee, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Arkansas, LLC; Family
Dollar Stores of Alabama, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Louisiana,
LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Mississippi, LLC; Family Dollar Stores
of Missouri, LLC; Family Dollar Services, LLC; Family Dollar, Inc.;
Family Dollar Stores, Inc.; Dollar Tree, Inc.; and Dollar Tree
Stores, Inc. (collectively "Family Dollar"), deceptively,
negligently, recklessly, and/or intentionally sold products that
were contaminated by a rodent infestation in stores throughout
Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Missouri, and
Tennessee.

Plaintiffs Dondrea Brown, Muriel Vanessa Brown, Vinnie L. Smith,
Julian A. Graves, Reginald and Sonya Fields, Taylor Lorimer, Martha
"Keisha" Lacy, Sheena Bibbs, Jerome Whitney, Tina Bishop, Sonya
Mull, and Christine Robinson brought this case as a class of
customers of Family Dollar.

Family Dollar is a value chain store that sells groceries and
household goods at discounted prices. Family Dollar owns and
operates more than 8,000 stores and eleven distribution centers,
including a Family Dollar Distribution Center in West Memphis,
Arkansas ("Distribution Center 202"). Distribution Center 202
distributed products to Family Dollar stores in eleven states, six
of which had stores that were affected by the incidents that led to
this litigation. Eighty-five of these stores are located in
Arkansas.

In March 2021, the Arkansas Department of Health ("ADH") inspected
Distribution Center 202 and reported seeing "significant rodent
activity" in areas where human and pet food were stored. The ADH
notified the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") in October
2021, prompting an FDA investigation.

On Feb. 11, 2022, the FDA released a report that detailed a rodent
infestation that compromised products stored inside Distribution
Center 202. On Feb. 18, 2022, the FDA issued a Safety Alert that
directed consumers, who had shopped in affected stores, to discard
certain products that had potentially been contaminated by rodents.
The same day, Family Dollar temporarily closed 404 stores and
issued a voluntary recall of the FDA-regulated products sold in the
affected stores.

After learning of the rodent infestation, the Arkansas Attorney
General ("AG") began an investigation into potential violations of
Arkansas law, including the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act
("ADTPA"). On April 28, 2022, the AG filed a lawsuit against Family
Dollar in Arkansas state court ("Arkansas Case") asserting ADTPA
claims and several common law claims, Arkansas ex rel. Rutledge,
Case No. 60CV-22-2725, Pulaski Cty. Cir. Ct. (Apr. 28, 2022).
Through that lawsuit, Arkansas seeks actual and punitive damages,
disgorgement, restitution, civil penalties, and injunctive relief
against Family Dollar.

By June 2, 2022, thirteen lawsuits had been filed against the
Defendants in seven different federal jurisdictions. That day, the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation concluded
that the Western District of Tennessee was an appropriate
transferee district for consolidated proceedings, resulting in the
instant Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") (IN RE: Family Dollar
Stores, Inc., Pest Infestation Litigation MDL No.
2:22-md-3032-SHL-tmp). The Arkansas Case remained in state court,
and thus, was not transferred to the MDL.

On Aug. 12, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint in
the MDL. The Consolidated Complaint included claims for negligence,
negligence per se, negligent failure to warn, breach of implied
warranty, unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment, failure to
disclose, and violations of multiple Deceptive Trade Practice and
Consumer Protection Acts. The list includes Alabama Deceptive Trade
Practice Act; ADTPA; Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law; Mississippi Consumer Protection Act; Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act; and Tennessee Consumer Protection
Act.

The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Complaint
on Sept. 26, 2022. The Plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated
Complaint on Oct. 17, 2022, containing additional exhibits and
allegations. The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
Consolidated Amended Complaint on Oct. 20, 2022. The Court held a
hearing on that motion on Dec. 20, 2022. This motion was still
pending when the Court received the Parties' Notice of Settlement.

Before the filing of this lawsuit, the Plaintiffs conducted
extensive investigation of the facts and circumstances related to
the allegations in the Action. They also undertook significant
discovery efforts during the pendency of the case, including
serving 18 interrogatories, 58 requests for admission, 46 document
requests and disclosing four expert witnesses. They served numerous
third-party subpoenas and issued Freedom of Information Act
requests, which resulted in the production of tens of thousands of
pages of documents.

In late 2022, the Plaintiffs and an expert inspected Distribution
Center 202. The Defendants produced for review more than 24,000
pages of documents and disclosed six experts. The Plaintiffs
produced more than 6,000 pages of documents. Additionally, the
Defendants took, and the Plaintiffs defended, seven Settlement
Class Representatives depositions.

On Nov. 9, 2022, the Parties engaged in a mediation session, but
did not reach an agreement. On April 18, 2023, the Parties engaged
in a second mediation session. The Parties made significant
progress at that mediation, and the mediator prepared a proposal on
April 20, 2023, asking the Parties to approve or reject it by April
28, 2023.

The Plaintiffs' counsel requested and received two extensions of
that deadline to discuss the proposed settlement terms with the
Arkansas AG. On May 3, 2023, the AG was provided a copy of the
mediator's proposal, which included the material terms of the
Settlement: an uncapped, "claims made" settlement providing $25
Family Dollar gift cards to all claimants, who could attest that
they shopped at a Family Dollar store serviced by Distribution
Center 202 between Jan. 1, 2020, and Feb. 18, 2022.

On May 5, 2023, the Parties accepted the mediator's proposal and
began to prepare a long-form Settlement Agreement. On May 8, 2023,
the Parties shared a draft agreement with the AG, and, on May 30,
2023, they provided him with an updated draft. On June 7, 2023,
Arkansas requested that the Parties include a "carve out" from the
release to exclude the Arkansas Case from the proposed MDL
Settlement.

A few days later, Arkansas requested that the Parties remove a
provision that would reserve Family Dollar's right to object to any
attempted double recovery. Family Dollar agreed to the carve out
excluding the Arkansas Case, but refused to delete the reservation
of rights against double recovery.

On June 19, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Consolidated Class Action Settlement. The
Settlement Agreement that accompanied the Motion included both the
carve out and Family Dollar's reservation of rights.

On July 18, 2023, Arkansas filed a Motion to Intervene. The Court
granted the motion on Aug. 30, 2023, following a hearing. Arkansas
filed its supplemental brief on Sept. 8, 2023, objecting to the
proposed settlement. On Aug. 18, 2023, the Parties filed a
Supplemental Submission in Support of Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. This
submission increased the period in which settlement class members
may make their claims and revised the definition of the Settlement
Class.

On Oct. 27, 2023, the Court entered an Order Granting Preliminary
Approval of Proposed Settlement ("Preliminary Approval Order"),
preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement, overruling
Arkansas's objections, and directing that notice be given to the
members of the Settlement Class.

On Jan. 4, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Attorneys'
Fees. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Settlement Class
Members were provided with notice informing them of the terms of
the proposed settlement, their right to object and/or opt out and
of the date and time of the Final Approval hearing. The deadline
for members of the Settlement Class to object to the settlement, as
well as the deadline to opt out of the case, was Jan. 10, 2024. No
objections were received, and only 25 class members requested
exclusion.

On Feb. 8, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed this Motion for Final
Approval, the terms and conditions of which are set forth in the
Settlement Agreement. On April 5, 2024, the Court held the Final
Fairness Hearing on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval.

                   Settlement Agreement Terms

The Settlement Agreement provides for an uncapped, "claims made"
settlement that provides a $25 Family Dollar gift card to all
claimants, who could attest that they shopped at a Family Dollar
store serviced by Distribution Center 202 between Jan. 1, 2020, and
Feb. 18, 2022. These gift cards are (a) limited to one per
household; (b) may be used to purchase any item sold at Family
Dollar stores, excluding purchases prohibited or restricted by
state law (such as alcohol and tobacco); (c) are fully
transferable; (d) can be used in conjunction with other promotions
or discounts, including manufacturers' coupons and discounts; (e)
will not expire; (f) do not require separate purchase or the use of
the Settlement Class Member's money; and (g) can be used over
multiple discrete transactions until the value is exhausted.

In exchange for this relief, the Settlement Class Representatives
and Settlement Class Members release any and all claims arising
from the practices and claims that were or could have been alleged
in this action. However, the Settlement expressly excludes and does
not release any claims made by the Arkansas Attorney General in the
Arkansas Case.

Further, the Defendants reserve all rights to raise any and all
defenses to the claims raised in that case, including that monetary
relief would be inappropriate given the relief provided to
consumers through this Settlement.

             Motion for Final Approval of Settlement

The Court-appointed administrator, Angeion Group, LLC, distributed
the notice to the provisionally certified Rule 23 class members
using a multi-pronged campaign.

The Court previously found in its Preliminary Approval Order that
the Notice Plan was anticipated to adequately apprise all potential
class members of the terms of the Settlement Agreement, provide the
opportunity to make informed decisions, and comport with due
process. The Declaration of Steven Weisbrot of Angeion highlighted
the success of the notice program.

In its Preliminary Approval Order, the Court conditionally
certified a class. The Court also provisionally appointed the Class
Representatives. There has been no information presented to alter
the Court's previous conclusions.

For the same reasons the Court granted preliminary approval, the
Court grants final certification of the Class and final approval of
the appointment of the Class Representatives.

There were no objections to the Settlement, and only 25 valid
opt-outs were received. The lack of objections and low number of
opt-outs also supports approval of the settlement.

          Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service Awards

Because this is not a common fund case, Plaintiffs assert that the
lodestar method is appropriate. The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an
award of $10 million, which applies a multiplier of about two. The
Plaintiffs point out that the requested multiplier falls well
within the range of those approved by courts in the circuit. As
Plaintiffs point out, the lodestar method is favored in cases where
there is no common fund.

Judge Lipman notes that in this district, the Local Rules require
parties to submit an affidavit or declaration of counsel detailing
the number of hours spent on each aspect of the case and an
affidavit or declaration from another attorney in the community,
who is not otherwise involved in the case, setting out the
prevailing rate in the community for similar services.

The Plaintiffs have not complied with either of the Local Rules
requirements, Judge Lipman says. Although the declaration from
Interim Co-Lead Counsel, J. Gerard Stranch, IV, lists the work done
in this case, and provides the total number of hours work by each
attorney, the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated how much time was
spent on each aspect of the case.

Although not required, Judge Lipman says, one way to satisfy this
requirement is to submit billing records or affidavits from each
attorney detailing their work. The Plaintiffs also failed to
include an affidavit or declaration from another attorney in the
community, who is not involved in this case, that the hourly rates
charged here are reasonable.

Because of these deficiencies, Judge Lipman holds that the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is denied without prejudice.
The Plaintiffs may refile their Motion so long as it is brought
into compliance with this Court's Local Rules.

The Plaintiffs request reimbursement of litigation expenses in the
amount of $247,589.77 to cover amounts expended out-of-pocket in
the prosecution of the case. They seek to cover expenses such
meals, hotels, and transportation, and filing fees, service, and
court fees.

Finding these expenses to be routine and reasonable, the Court
awards $247,589.77 in expenses.

The Plaintiffs also request the approval of service awards totaling
$44,000, with eight class representatives (Sheena Bibbs, Tina
Bishop, Julian Graves, Martha Lacy, Taylor Lorimer, Sonya Mull,
Vinnie Smith, and Jerome Whitney) each to receive $5,000 and two
class representatives (Beverly Gordon and Sandra Walker) each to
receive $2,000. The amount of the award is based on the
representative's level of involvement in the case.

Judge Lipman finds, among other things, that each of the named
Plaintiffs spent considerable time pursuing the litigation.
Accordingly, the Court awards $44,000 in service awards, consistent
with the outlined terms.

                           Conclusion

The Court finds that the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and
reasonable and in the best interests of the Settlement Class
Members.

The Court finds that, for purposes of the Settlement only, all
prerequisites for maintenance of a class action set forth in
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) are satisfied and
certifies the following Settlement Class:

     All Persons who reside within Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana,
     Mississippi, Missouri, or Tennessee, and from Jan. 1, 2020,
     through Feb. 18, 2022, inclusive, purchased any product from
     an Affected Family Dollar Store.

Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) the Defendants; (ii)
the Defendants' agents, parents, officers, predecessors, directors,
legal representatives, heirs, successors and wholly or partly owned
subsidiaries or affiliates of the Defendants; (iii) Class Counsel
and any other attorneys, who represent Settlement Class
Representatives or the Settlement Class in this Action, as well as
their agents and employees; (iv) the judicial officers and court
staff assigned to this case, as well as their immediate family
members; and (v) Persons who timely requested to be excluded from
this Settlement.

Pursuant to Rule 23(e), the Court grants final approval of the
Settlement and finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable,
adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class Members
based on, among other things, the factors enumerated in UAW v. Gen.
Motors Corp., 497 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. 2007).

All objections to the Settlement are overruled. A list of those who
have timely opted out of the Settlement and who, therefore, are not
bound by the Settlement Agreement has been submitted to the Court
as Exhibit J to the Declaration of Steven Weisbrot of Angeion
Group, LLC. All other members of the Settlement Class are subject
to all provisions of the Settlement Agreement and this Court's
Order approving the Settlement Agreement.

The Release set forth in Paragraph 6 of the Settlement Agreement is
incorporated herein by reference and all Settlement Class
Representatives and Settlement Class Members will be fully subject
to all of these provisions.

For the reasons stated here, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys'
Fees is granted in part and denied in part. The Plaintiffs' request
for attorneys' fees is denied without prejudice and their request
for expenses is granted.

The Action, and all claims asserted, is settled and is dismissed on
the merits with prejudice, as set forth in the Final Judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 6, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/bdfjmcpv from PacerMonitor.com.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Bid for Attys.' Fees in Mull Suit Granted in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled Mull v. Family Dollar Stores of Tennessee,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02272 (W.D. Tenn.), Chief District
Judge Sheryl H. Lipman of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee, Western Division, issued an order:

   (a) granting the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final
       Approval of Proposed Settlement and Supplement to
       Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses
       and Service Awards filed Feb. 8, 2024; and

   (b) granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs'
       Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service
       Awards filed Jan. 4, 2024.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is denied
without prejudice given its lack of compliance with the Court's
Local Rules. The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an award of $10
million.

The case involves allegations that Defendants Family Dollar Stores
of Tennessee, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Arkansas, LLC; Family
Dollar Stores of Alabama, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Louisiana,
LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Mississippi, LLC; Family Dollar Stores
of Missouri, LLC; Family Dollar Services, LLC; Family Dollar, Inc.;
Family Dollar Stores, Inc.; Dollar Tree, Inc.; and Dollar Tree
Stores, Inc. (collectively "Family Dollar"), deceptively,
negligently, recklessly, and/or intentionally sold products that
were contaminated by a rodent infestation in stores throughout
Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Missouri, and
Tennessee.

Plaintiffs Dondrea Brown, Muriel Vanessa Brown, Vinnie L. Smith,
Julian A. Graves, Reginald and Sonya Fields, Taylor Lorimer, Martha
"Keisha" Lacy, Sheena Bibbs, Jerome Whitney, Tina Bishop, Sonya
Mull, and Christine Robinson brought this case as a class of
customers of Family Dollar.

Family Dollar is a value chain store that sells groceries and
household goods at discounted prices. Family Dollar owns and
operates more than 8,000 stores and eleven distribution centers,
including a Family Dollar Distribution Center in West Memphis,
Arkansas ("Distribution Center 202"). Distribution Center 202
distributed products to Family Dollar stores in eleven states, six
of which had stores that were affected by the incidents that led to
this litigation. Eighty-five of these stores are located in
Arkansas.

In March 2021, the Arkansas Department of Health ("ADH") inspected
Distribution Center 202 and reported seeing "significant rodent
activity" in areas where human and pet food were stored. The ADH
notified the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") in October
2021, prompting an FDA investigation.

On Feb. 11, 2022, the FDA released a report that detailed a rodent
infestation that compromised products stored inside Distribution
Center 202. On Feb. 18, 2022, the FDA issued a Safety Alert that
directed consumers, who had shopped in affected stores, to discard
certain products that had potentially been contaminated by rodents.
The same day, Family Dollar temporarily closed 404 stores and
issued a voluntary recall of the FDA-regulated products sold in the
affected stores.

After learning of the rodent infestation, the Arkansas Attorney
General ("AG") began an investigation into potential violations of
Arkansas law, including the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act
("ADTPA"). On April 28, 2022, the AG filed a lawsuit against Family
Dollar in Arkansas state court ("Arkansas Case") asserting ADTPA
claims and several common law claims, Arkansas ex rel. Rutledge,
Case No. 60CV-22-2725, Pulaski Cty. Cir. Ct. (Apr. 28, 2022).
Through that lawsuit, Arkansas seeks actual and punitive damages,
disgorgement, restitution, civil penalties, and injunctive relief
against Family Dollar.

By June 2, 2022, thirteen lawsuits had been filed against the
Defendants in seven different federal jurisdictions. That day, the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation concluded
that the Western District of Tennessee was an appropriate
transferee district for consolidated proceedings, resulting in the
instant Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") (IN RE: Family Dollar
Stores, Inc., Pest Infestation Litigation MDL No.
2:22-md-3032-SHL-tmp). The Arkansas Case remained in state court,
and thus, was not transferred to the MDL.

On Aug. 12, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint in
the MDL. The Consolidated Complaint included claims for negligence,
negligence per se, negligent failure to warn, breach of implied
warranty, unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment, failure to
disclose, and violations of multiple Deceptive Trade Practice and
Consumer Protection Acts. The list includes Alabama Deceptive Trade
Practice Act; ADTPA; Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law; Mississippi Consumer Protection Act; Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act; and Tennessee Consumer Protection
Act.

The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Complaint
on Sept. 26, 2022. The Plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated
Complaint on Oct. 17, 2022, containing additional exhibits and
allegations. The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
Consolidated Amended Complaint on Oct. 20, 2022. The Court held a
hearing on that motion on Dec. 20, 2022. This motion was still
pending when the Court received the Parties' Notice of Settlement.

Before the filing of this lawsuit, the Plaintiffs conducted
extensive investigation of the facts and circumstances related to
the allegations in the Action. They also undertook significant
discovery efforts during the pendency of the case, including
serving 18 interrogatories, 58 requests for admission, 46 document
requests and disclosing four expert witnesses. They served numerous
third-party subpoenas and issued Freedom of Information Act
requests, which resulted in the production of tens of thousands of
pages of documents.

In late 2022, the Plaintiffs and an expert inspected Distribution
Center 202. The Defendants produced for review more than 24,000
pages of documents and disclosed six experts. The Plaintiffs
produced more than 6,000 pages of documents. Additionally, the
Defendants took, and the Plaintiffs defended, seven Settlement
Class Representatives depositions.

On Nov. 9, 2022, the Parties engaged in a mediation session, but
did not reach an agreement. On April 18, 2023, the Parties engaged
in a second mediation session. The Parties made significant
progress at that mediation, and the mediator prepared a proposal on
April 20, 2023, asking the Parties to approve or reject it by April
28, 2023.

The Plaintiffs' counsel requested and received two extensions of
that deadline to discuss the proposed settlement terms with the
Arkansas AG. On May 3, 2023, the AG was provided a copy of the
mediator's proposal, which included the material terms of the
Settlement: an uncapped, "claims made" settlement providing $25
Family Dollar gift cards to all claimants, who could attest that
they shopped at a Family Dollar store serviced by Distribution
Center 202 between Jan. 1, 2020, and Feb. 18, 2022.

On May 5, 2023, the Parties accepted the mediator's proposal and
began to prepare a long-form Settlement Agreement. On May 8, 2023,
the Parties shared a draft agreement with the AG, and, on May 30,
2023, they provided him with an updated draft. On June 7, 2023,
Arkansas requested that the Parties include a "carve out" from the
release to exclude the Arkansas Case from the proposed MDL
Settlement.

A few days later, Arkansas requested that the Parties remove a
provision that would reserve Family Dollar's right to object to any
attempted double recovery. Family Dollar agreed to the carve out
excluding the Arkansas Case, but refused to delete the reservation
of rights against double recovery.

On June 19, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Consolidated Class Action Settlement. The
Settlement Agreement that accompanied the Motion included both the
carve out and Family Dollar's reservation of rights.

On July 18, 2023, Arkansas filed a Motion to Intervene. The Court
granted the motion on Aug. 30, 2023, following a hearing. Arkansas
filed its supplemental brief on Sept. 8, 2023, objecting to the
proposed settlement. On Aug. 18, 2023, the Parties filed a
Supplemental Submission in Support of Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. This
submission increased the period in which settlement class members
may make their claims and revised the definition of the Settlement
Class.

On Oct. 27, 2023, the Court entered an Order Granting Preliminary
Approval of Proposed Settlement ("Preliminary Approval Order"),
preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement, overruling
Arkansas's objections, and directing that notice be given to the
members of the Settlement Class.

On Jan. 4, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Attorneys'
Fees. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Settlement Class
Members were provided with notice informing them of the terms of
the proposed settlement, their right to object and/or opt out and
of the date and time of the Final Approval hearing. The deadline
for members of the Settlement Class to object to the settlement, as
well as the deadline to opt out of the case, was Jan. 10, 2024. No
objections were received, and only 25 class members requested
exclusion.

On Feb. 8, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed this Motion for Final
Approval, the terms and conditions of which are set forth in the
Settlement Agreement. On April 5, 2024, the Court held the Final
Fairness Hearing on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval.

                   Settlement Agreement Terms

The Settlement Agreement provides for an uncapped, "claims made"
settlement that provides a $25 Family Dollar gift card to all
claimants, who could attest that they shopped at a Family Dollar
store serviced by Distribution Center 202 between Jan. 1, 2020, and
Feb. 18, 2022. These gift cards are (a) limited to one per
household; (b) may be used to purchase any item sold at Family
Dollar stores, excluding purchases prohibited or restricted by
state law (such as alcohol and tobacco); (c) are fully
transferable; (d) can be used in conjunction with other promotions
or discounts, including manufacturers' coupons and discounts; (e)
will not expire; (f) do not require separate purchase or the use of
the Settlement Class Member's money; and (g) can be used over
multiple discrete transactions until the value is exhausted.

In exchange for this relief, the Settlement Class Representatives
and Settlement Class Members release any and all claims arising
from the practices and claims that were or could have been alleged
in this action. However, the Settlement expressly excludes and does
not release any claims made by the Arkansas Attorney General in the
Arkansas Case.

Further, the Defendants reserve all rights to raise any and all
defenses to the claims raised in that case, including that monetary
relief would be inappropriate given the relief provided to
consumers through this Settlement.

             Motion for Final Approval of Settlement

The Court-appointed administrator, Angeion Group, LLC, distributed
the notice to the provisionally certified Rule 23 class members
using a multi-pronged campaign.

The Court previously found in its Preliminary Approval Order that
the Notice Plan was anticipated to adequately apprise all potential
class members of the terms of the Settlement Agreement, provide the
opportunity to make informed decisions, and comport with due
process. The Declaration of Steven Weisbrot of Angeion highlighted
the success of the notice program.

In its Preliminary Approval Order, the Court conditionally
certified a class. The Court also provisionally appointed the Class
Representatives. There has been no information presented to alter
the Court's previous conclusions.

For the same reasons the Court granted preliminary approval, the
Court grants final certification of the Class and final approval of
the appointment of the Class Representatives.

There were no objections to the Settlement, and only 25 valid
opt-outs were received. The lack of objections and low number of
opt-outs also supports approval of the settlement.

          Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service Awards

Because this is not a common fund case, Plaintiffs assert that the
lodestar method is appropriate. The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an
award of $10 million, which applies a multiplier of about two. The
Plaintiffs point out that the requested multiplier falls well
within the range of those approved by courts in the circuit. As
Plaintiffs point out, the lodestar method is favored in cases where
there is no common fund.

Judge Lipman notes that in this district, the Local Rules require
parties to submit an affidavit or declaration of counsel detailing
the number of hours spent on each aspect of the case and an
affidavit or declaration from another attorney in the community,
who is not otherwise involved in the case, setting out the
prevailing rate in the community for similar services.

The Plaintiffs have not complied with either of the Local Rules
requirements, Judge Lipman says. Although the declaration from
Interim Co-Lead Counsel, J. Gerard Stranch, IV, lists the work done
in this case, and provides the total number of hours work by each
attorney, the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated how much time was
spent on each aspect of the case.

Although not required, Judge Lipman says, one way to satisfy this
requirement is to submit billing records or affidavits from each
attorney detailing their work. The Plaintiffs also failed to
include an affidavit or declaration from another attorney in the
community, who is not involved in this case, that the hourly rates
charged here are reasonable.

Because of these deficiencies, Judge Lipman holds that the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is denied without prejudice.
The Plaintiffs may refile their Motion so long as it is brought
into compliance with this Court's Local Rules.

The Plaintiffs request reimbursement of litigation expenses in the
amount of $247,589.77 to cover amounts expended out-of-pocket in
the prosecution of the case. They seek to cover expenses, such
meals, hotels, and transportation; and filing fees, service, and
court fees.

Finding these expenses to be routine and reasonable, the Court
awards $247,589.77 in expenses.

The Plaintiffs also request the approval of service awards totaling
$44,000, with eight class representatives (Sheena Bibbs, Tina
Bishop, Julian Graves, Martha Lacy, Taylor Lorimer, Sonya Mull,
Vinnie Smith, and Jerome Whitney) each to receive $5,000 and two
class representatives (Beverly Gordon and Sandra Walker) each to
receive $2,000. The amount of the award is based on the
representative's level of involvement in the case.

Judge Lipman finds, among other things, that each of the named
Plaintiffs spent considerable time pursuing the litigation.
Accordingly, the Court awards $44,000 in service awards, consistent
with the outlined terms.

                           Conclusion

The Court finds that the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and
reasonable and in the best interests of the Settlement Class
Members.

The Court finds that, for purposes of the Settlement only, all
prerequisites for maintenance of a class action set forth in
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) are satisfied and
certifies the following Settlement Class:

     All Persons who reside within Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana,
     Mississippi, Missouri, or Tennessee, and from Jan. 1, 2020,
     through Feb. 18, 2022, inclusive, purchased any product from
     an Affected Family Dollar Store.

Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) the Defendants; (ii)
the Defendants' agents, parents, officers, predecessors, directors,
legal representatives, heirs, successors and wholly or partly owned
subsidiaries or affiliates of the Defendants; (iii) Class Counsel
and any other attorneys, who represent Settlement Class
Representatives or the Settlement Class in this Action, as well as
their agents and employees; (iv) the judicial officers and court
staff assigned to this case, as well as their immediate family
members; and (v) Persons who timely requested to be excluded from
this Settlement.

Pursuant to Rule 23(e), the Court grants final approval of the
Settlement and finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate and in the best interests of the Settlement Class Members
based on, among other things, the factors enumerated in UAW v. Gen.
Motors Corp., 497 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. 2007).

All objections to the Settlement are overruled. A list of those who
have timely opted out of the Settlement and who, therefore, are not
bound by the Settlement Agreement has been submitted to the Court
as Exhibit J to the Declaration of Steven Weisbrot of Angeion
Group, LLC. All other members of the Settlement Class are subject
to all provisions of the Settlement Agreement and this Court's
Order approving the Settlement Agreement.

The Release set forth in Paragraph 6 of the Settlement Agreement is
incorporated herein by reference and all Settlement Class
Representatives and Settlement Class Members will be fully subject
to all of these provisions.

For the reasons stated here, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys'
Fees is granted in part and denied in part. The Plaintiffs' request
for attorneys' fees is denied without prejudice and their request
for expenses is granted.

The Action, and all claims asserted, is settled and is dismissed on
the merits with prejudice, as set forth in the Final Judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 6, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/h3spd8jm from PacerMonitor.com.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Bid for Attys.' Fees in Sharp Suit Granted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled Sharp v. Family Dollar, et al., Case No.
2:22-cv-02376 (W.D. Tenn.), Chief District Judge Sheryl H. Lipman
of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee,
Western Division, issued an order:

   (a) granting the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final
       Approval of Proposed Settlement and Supplement to
       Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses
       and Service Awards filed Feb. 8, 2024; and

   (b) granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs'
       Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service
       Awards filed Jan. 4, 2024.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is denied
without prejudice given its lack of compliance with the Court's
Local Rules. The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an award of $10
million.

The case involves allegations that Defendants Family Dollar Stores
of Tennessee, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Arkansas, LLC; Family
Dollar Stores of Alabama, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Louisiana,
LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Mississippi, LLC; Family Dollar Stores
of Missouri, LLC; Family Dollar Services, LLC; Family Dollar, Inc.;
Family Dollar Stores, Inc.; Dollar Tree, Inc.; and Dollar Tree
Stores, Inc. (collectively "Family Dollar"), deceptively,
negligently, recklessly, and/or intentionally sold products that
were contaminated by a rodent infestation in stores throughout
Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Missouri, and
Tennessee.

Plaintiffs Dondrea Brown, Muriel Vanessa Brown, Vinnie L. Smith,
Julian A. Graves, Reginald and Sonya Fields, Taylor Lorimer, Martha
"Keisha" Lacy, Sheena Bibbs, Jerome Whitney, Tina Bishop, Sonya
Mull, and Christine Robinson brought this case as a class of
customers of Family Dollar.

Family Dollar is a value chain store that sells groceries and
household goods at discounted prices. Family Dollar owns and
operates more than 8,000 stores and eleven distribution centers,
including a Family Dollar Distribution Center in West Memphis,
Arkansas ("Distribution Center 202"). Distribution Center 202
distributed products to Family Dollar stores in eleven states, six
of which had stores that were affected by the incidents that led to
this litigation. Eighty-five of these stores are located in
Arkansas.

In March 2021, the Arkansas Department of Health ("ADH") inspected
Distribution Center 202 and reported seeing "significant rodent
activity" in areas where human and pet food were stored. The ADH
notified the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") in October
2021, prompting an FDA investigation.

On Feb. 11, 2022, the FDA released a report that detailed a rodent
infestation that compromised products stored inside Distribution
Center 202. On Feb. 18, 2022, the FDA issued a Safety Alert that
directed consumers, who had shopped in affected stores, to discard
certain products that had potentially been contaminated by rodents.
The same day, Family Dollar temporarily closed 404 stores and
issued a voluntary recall of the FDA-regulated products sold in the
affected stores.

After learning of the rodent infestation, the Arkansas Attorney
General ("AG") began an investigation into potential violations of
Arkansas law, including the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act
("ADTPA"). On April 28, 2022, the AG filed a lawsuit against Family
Dollar in Arkansas state court ("Arkansas Case") asserting ADTPA
claims and several common law claims, Arkansas ex rel. Rutledge,
Case No. 60CV-22-2725, Pulaski Cty. Cir. Ct. (Apr. 28, 2022).
Through that lawsuit, Arkansas seeks actual and punitive damages,
disgorgement, restitution, civil penalties, and injunctive relief
against Family Dollar.

By June 2, 2022, thirteen lawsuits had been filed against the
Defendants in seven different federal jurisdictions. That day, the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation concluded
that the Western District of Tennessee was an appropriate
transferee district for consolidated proceedings, resulting in the
instant Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") (IN RE: Family Dollar
Stores, Inc., Pest Infestation Litigation MDL No.
2:22-md-3032-SHL-tmp). The Arkansas Case remained in state court,
and thus, was not transferred to the MDL.

On Aug. 12, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint in
the MDL. The Consolidated Complaint included claims for negligence,
negligence per se, negligent failure to warn, breach of implied
warranty, unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment, failure to
disclose, and violations of multiple Deceptive Trade Practice and
Consumer Protection Acts. The list includes Alabama Deceptive Trade
Practice Act; ADTPA; Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law; Mississippi Consumer Protection Act; Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act; and Tennessee Consumer Protection
Act.

The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Complaint
on Sept. 26, 2022. The Plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated
Complaint on Oct. 17, 2022, containing additional exhibits and
allegations. The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
Consolidated Amended Complaint on Oct. 20, 2022. The Court held a
hearing on that motion on Dec. 20, 2022. This motion was still
pending when the Court received the Parties' Notice of Settlement.

Before the filing of this lawsuit, the Plaintiffs conducted
extensive investigation of the facts and circumstances related to
the allegations in the Action. They also undertook significant
discovery efforts during the pendency of the case, including
serving 18 interrogatories, 58 requests for admission, 46 document
requests and disclosing four expert witnesses. They served numerous
third-party subpoenas and issued Freedom of Information Act
requests, which resulted in the production of tens of thousands of
pages of documents.

In late 2022, the Plaintiffs and an expert inspected Distribution
Center 202. The Defendants produced for review more than 24,000
pages of documents and disclosed six experts. The Plaintiffs
produced more than 6,000 pages of documents. Additionally, the
Defendants took, and the Plaintiffs defended, seven Settlement
Class Representatives depositions.

On Nov. 9, 2022, the Parties engaged in a mediation session, but
did not reach an agreement. On April 18, 2023, the Parties engaged
in a second mediation session. The Parties made significant
progress at that mediation, and the mediator prepared a proposal on
April 20, 2023, asking the Parties to approve or reject it by April
28, 2023.

The Plaintiffs' counsel requested and received two extensions of
that deadline to discuss the proposed settlement terms with the
Arkansas AG. On May 3, 2023, the AG was provided a copy of the
mediator's proposal, which included the material terms of the
Settlement: an uncapped, "claims made" settlement providing $25
Family Dollar gift cards to all claimants, who could attest that
they shopped at a Family Dollar store serviced by Distribution
Center 202 between Jan. 1, 2020, and Feb. 18, 2022.

On May 5, 2023, the Parties accepted the mediator's proposal and
began to prepare a long-form Settlement Agreement. On May 8, 2023,
the Parties shared a draft agreement with the AG, and, on May 30,
2023, they provided him with an updated draft. On June 7, 2023,
Arkansas requested that the Parties include a "carve out" from the
release to exclude the Arkansas Case from the proposed MDL
Settlement.

A few days later, Arkansas requested that the Parties remove a
provision that would reserve Family Dollar's right to object to any
attempted double recovery. Family Dollar agreed to the carve out
excluding the Arkansas Case, but refused to delete the reservation
of rights against double recovery.

On June 19, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Consolidated Class Action Settlement. The
Settlement Agreement that accompanied the Motion included both the
carve out and Family Dollar's reservation of rights.

On July 18, 2023, Arkansas filed a Motion to Intervene. The Court
granted the motion on Aug. 30, 2023, following a hearing. Arkansas
filed its supplemental brief on Sept. 8, 2023, objecting to the
proposed settlement. On Aug. 18, 2023, the Parties filed a
Supplemental Submission in Support of Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. This
submission increased the period in which settlement class members
may make their claims and revised the definition of the Settlement
Class.

On Oct. 27, 2023, the Court entered an Order Granting Preliminary
Approval of Proposed Settlement ("Preliminary Approval Order"),
preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement, overruling
Arkansas's objections, and directing that notice be given to the
members of the Settlement Class.

On Jan. 4, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Attorneys'
Fees. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Settlement Class
Members were provided with notice informing them of the terms of
the proposed settlement, their right to object and/or opt out and
of the date and time of the Final Approval hearing. The deadline
for members of the Settlement Class to object to the settlement, as
well as the deadline to opt out of the case, was Jan. 10, 2024. No
objections were received, and only 25 class members requested
exclusion.

On Feb. 8, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed this Motion for Final
Approval, the terms and conditions of which are set forth in the
Settlement Agreement. On April 5, 2024, the Court held the Final
Fairness Hearing on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval.

                   Settlement Agreement Terms

The Settlement Agreement provides for an uncapped, "claims made"
settlement that provides a $25 Family Dollar gift card to all
claimants, who could attest that they shopped at a Family Dollar
store serviced by Distribution Center 202 between Jan. 1, 2020, and
Feb. 18, 2022. These gift cards are (a) limited to one per
household; (b) may be used to purchase any item sold at Family
Dollar stores, excluding purchases prohibited or restricted by
state law (such as alcohol and tobacco); (c) are fully
transferable; (d) can be used in conjunction with other promotions
or discounts, including manufacturers' coupons and discounts; (e)
will not expire; (f) do not require separate purchase or the use of
the Settlement Class Member's money; and (g) can be used over
multiple discrete transactions until the value is exhausted.

In exchange for this relief, the Settlement Class Representatives
and Settlement Class Members release any and all claims arising
from the practices and claims that were or could have been alleged
in this action. However, the Settlement expressly excludes and does
not release any claims made by the Arkansas Attorney General in the
Arkansas Case.

Further, the Defendants reserve all rights to raise any and all
defenses to the claims raised in that case, including that monetary
relief would be inappropriate given the relief provided to
consumers through this Settlement.

             Motion for Final Approval of Settlement

The Court-appointed administrator, Angeion Group, LLC, distributed
the notice to the provisionally certified Rule 23 class members
using a multi-pronged campaign.

The Court previously found in its Preliminary Approval Order that
the Notice Plan was anticipated to adequately apprise all potential
class members of the terms of the Settlement Agreement, provide the
opportunity to make informed decisions, and comport with due
process. The Declaration of Steven Weisbrot of Angeion highlighted
the success of the notice program.

In its Preliminary Approval Order, the Court conditionally
certified a class. The Court also provisionally appointed the Class
Representatives. There has been no information presented to alter
the Court's previous conclusions.

For the same reasons the Court granted preliminary approval, the
Court grants final certification of the Class and final approval of
the appointment of the Class Representatives.

There were no objections to the Settlement, and only 25 valid
opt-outs were received. The lack of objections and low number of
opt-outs also supports approval of the settlement.

          Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service Awards

Because this is not a common fund case, Plaintiffs assert that the
lodestar method is appropriate. The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an
award of $10 million, which applies a multiplier of about two. The
Plaintiffs point out that the requested multiplier falls well
within the range of those approved by courts in the circuit. As
Plaintiffs point out, the lodestar method is favored in cases where
there is no common fund.

Judge Lipman notes that in this district, the Local Rules require
parties to submit an affidavit or declaration of counsel detailing
the number of hours spent on each aspect of the case and an
affidavit or declaration from another attorney in the community,
who is not otherwise involved in the case, setting out the
prevailing rate in the community for similar services.

The Plaintiffs have not complied with either of the Local Rules
requirements, Judge Lipman says. Although the declaration from
Interim Co-Lead Counsel, J. Gerard Stranch, IV, lists the work done
in this case, and provides the total number of hours work by each
attorney, the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated how much time was
spent on each aspect of the case.

Although not required, Judge Lipman says, one way to satisfy this
requirement is to submit billing records or affidavits from each
attorney detailing their work. The Plaintiffs also failed to
include an affidavit or declaration from another attorney in the
community, who is not involved in this case, that the hourly rates
charged here are reasonable.

Because of these deficiencies, Judge Lipman holds that the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is denied without prejudice.
The Plaintiffs may refile their Motion so long as it is brought
into compliance with this Court's Local Rules.

The Plaintiffs request reimbursement of litigation expenses in the
amount of $247,589.77 to cover amounts expended out-of-pocket in
the prosecution of the case. They seek to cover expenses, such
meals, hotels, and transportation; and filing fees, service, and
court fees.

Finding these expenses to be routine and reasonable, the Court
awards $247,589.77 in expenses.

The Plaintiffs also request the approval of service awards totaling
$44,000, with eight class representatives (Sheena Bibbs, Tina
Bishop, Julian Graves, Martha Lacy, Taylor Lorimer, Sonya Mull,
Vinnie Smith, and Jerome Whitney) each to receive $5,000 and two
class representatives (Beverly Gordon and Sandra Walker) each to
receive $2,000. The amount of the award is based on the
representative's level of involvement in the case.

Judge Lipman finds, among other things, that each of the named
Plaintiffs spent considerable time pursuing the litigation.
Accordingly, the Court awards $44,000 in service awards, consistent
with the outlined terms.

                           Conclusion

The Court finds that the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and
reasonable and in the best interests of the Settlement Class
Members.

The Court finds that, for purposes of the Settlement only, all
prerequisites for maintenance of a class action set forth in
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) are satisfied and
certifies the following Settlement Class:

     All Persons who reside within Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana,
     Mississippi, Missouri, or Tennessee, and from Jan. 1, 2020,
     through Feb. 18, 2022, inclusive, purchased any product from
     an Affected Family Dollar Store.

Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) the Defendants; (ii)
the Defendants' agents, parents, officers, predecessors, directors,
legal representatives, heirs, successors and wholly or partly owned
subsidiaries or affiliates of the Defendants; (iii) Class Counsel
and any other attorneys, who represent Settlement Class
Representatives or the Settlement Class in this Action, as well as
their agents and employees; (iv) the judicial officers and court
staff assigned to this case, as well as their immediate family
members; and (v) Persons who timely requested to be excluded from
this Settlement.

Pursuant to Rule 23(e), the Court grants final approval of the
Settlement and finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate and in the best interests of the Settlement Class Members
based on, among other things, the factors enumerated in UAW v. Gen.
Motors Corp., 497 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. 2007).

All objections to the Settlement are overruled. A list of those who
have timely opted out of the Settlement and who, therefore, are not
bound by the Settlement Agreement has been submitted to the Court
as Exhibit J to the Declaration of Steven Weisbrot of Angeion
Group, LLC. All other members of the Settlement Class are subject
to all provisions of the Settlement Agreement and this Court's
Order approving the Settlement Agreement.

The Release set forth in Paragraph 6 of the Settlement Agreement is
incorporated herein by reference and all Settlement Class
Representatives and Settlement Class Members will be fully subject
to all of these provisions.

For the reasons stated here, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys'
Fees is granted in part and denied in part. The Plaintiffs' request
for attorneys' fees is denied without prejudice and their request
for expenses is granted.

The Action, and all claims asserted, is settled and is dismissed on
the merits with prejudice, as set forth in the Final Judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 6, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/kcjbhw6f from PacerMonitor.com.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Class Settlement in Brown Suit Has Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled Brown, et al. v. Family Dollar, Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02390 (W.D. Tenn.), Chief District Judge
Sheryl H. Lipman of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee, Western Division, issued an order:

   (a) granting the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final
       Approval of Proposed Settlement and Supplement to
       Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses
       and Service Awards filed Feb. 8, 2024; and

   (b) granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs'
       Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service
       Awards filed Jan. 4, 2024.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is denied
without prejudice given its lack of compliance with the Court's
Local Rules. The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an award of $10
million.

The case involves allegations that Defendants Family Dollar Stores
of Tennessee, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Arkansas, LLC; Family
Dollar Stores of Alabama, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Louisiana,
LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Mississippi, LLC; Family Dollar Stores
of Missouri, LLC; Family Dollar Services, LLC; Family Dollar, Inc.;
Family Dollar Stores, Inc.; Dollar Tree, Inc.; and Dollar Tree
Stores, Inc. (collectively "Family Dollar"), deceptively,
negligently, recklessly, and/or intentionally sold products that
were contaminated by a rodent infestation in stores throughout
Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Missouri, and
Tennessee.

Plaintiffs Dondrea Brown, Muriel Vanessa Brown, Vinnie L. Smith,
Julian A. Graves, Reginald and Sonya Fields, Taylor Lorimer, Martha
"Keisha" Lacy, Sheena Bibbs, Jerome Whitney, Tina Bishop, Sonya
Mull, and Christine Robinson brought this case as a class of
customers of Family Dollar.

Family Dollar is a value chain store that sells groceries and
household goods at discounted prices. Family Dollar owns and
operates more than 8,000 stores and eleven distribution centers,
including a Family Dollar Distribution Center in West Memphis,
Arkansas ("Distribution Center 202"). Distribution Center 202
distributed products to Family Dollar stores in eleven states, six
of which had stores that were affected by the incidents that led to
this litigation. Eighty-five of these stores are located in
Arkansas.

In March 2021, the Arkansas Department of Health ("ADH") inspected
Distribution Center 202 and reported seeing "significant rodent
activity" in areas where human and pet food were stored. The ADH
notified the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") in October
2021, prompting an FDA investigation.

On Feb. 11, 2022, the FDA released a report that detailed a rodent
infestation that compromised products stored inside Distribution
Center 202. On Feb. 18, 2022, the FDA issued a Safety Alert that
directed consumers, who had shopped in affected stores, to discard
certain products that had potentially been contaminated by rodents.
The same day, Family Dollar temporarily closed 404 stores and
issued a voluntary recall of the FDA-regulated products sold in the
affected stores.

After learning of the rodent infestation, the Arkansas Attorney
General ("AG") began an investigation into potential violations of
Arkansas law, including the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act
("ADTPA"). On April 28, 2022, the AG filed a lawsuit against Family
Dollar in Arkansas state court ("Arkansas Case") asserting ADTPA
claims and several common law claims, Arkansas ex rel. Rutledge,
Case No. 60CV-22-2725, Pulaski Cty. Cir. Ct. (Apr. 28, 2022).
Through that lawsuit, Arkansas seeks actual and punitive damages,
disgorgement, restitution, civil penalties, and injunctive relief
against Family Dollar.

By June 2, 2022, thirteen lawsuits had been filed against the
Defendants in seven different federal jurisdictions. That day, the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation concluded
that the Western District of Tennessee was an appropriate
transferee district for consolidated proceedings, resulting in the
instant Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") (IN RE: Family Dollar
Stores, Inc., Pest Infestation Litigation MDL No.
2:22-md-3032-SHL-tmp). The Arkansas Case remained in state court,
and thus, was not transferred to the MDL.

On Aug. 12, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint in
the MDL. The Consolidated Complaint included claims for negligence,
negligence per se, negligent failure to warn, breach of implied
warranty, unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment, failure to
disclose, and violations of multiple Deceptive Trade Practice and
Consumer Protection Acts. The list includes Alabama Deceptive Trade
Practice Act; ADTPA; Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law; Mississippi Consumer Protection Act; Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act; and Tennessee Consumer Protection
Act.

The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Complaint
on Sept. 26, 2022. The Plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated
Complaint on Oct. 17, 2022, containing additional exhibits and
allegations. The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
Consolidated Amended Complaint on Oct. 20, 2022. The Court held a
hearing on that motion on Dec. 20, 2022. This motion was still
pending when the Court received the Parties' Notice of Settlement.

Before the filing of this lawsuit, the Plaintiffs conducted
extensive investigation of the facts and circumstances related to
the allegations in the Action. They also undertook significant
discovery efforts during the pendency of the case, including
serving 18 interrogatories, 58 requests for admission, 46 document
requests and disclosing four expert witnesses. They served numerous
third-party subpoenas and issued Freedom of Information Act
requests, which resulted in the production of tens of thousands of
pages of documents.

In late 2022, the Plaintiffs and an expert inspected Distribution
Center 202. The Defendants produced for review more than 24,000
pages of documents and disclosed six experts. The Plaintiffs
produced more than 6,000 pages of documents. Additionally, the
Defendants took, and the Plaintiffs defended, seven Settlement
Class Representatives depositions.

On Nov. 9, 2022, the Parties engaged in a mediation session, but
did not reach an agreement. On April 18, 2023, the Parties engaged
in a second mediation session. The Parties made significant
progress at that mediation, and the mediator prepared a proposal on
April 20, 2023, asking the Parties to approve or reject it by April
28, 2023.

The Plaintiffs' counsel requested and received two extensions of
that deadline to discuss the proposed settlement terms with the
Arkansas AG. On May 3, 2023, the AG was provided a copy of the
mediator's proposal, which included the material terms of the
Settlement: an uncapped, "claims made" settlement providing $25
Family Dollar gift cards to all claimants, who could attest that
they shopped at a Family Dollar store serviced by Distribution
Center 202 between Jan. 1, 2020, and Feb. 18, 2022.

On May 5, 2023, the Parties accepted the mediator's proposal and
began to prepare a long-form Settlement Agreement. On May 8, 2023,
the Parties shared a draft agreement with the AG, and, on May 30,
2023, they provided him with an updated draft. On June 7, 2023,
Arkansas requested that the Parties include a "carve out" from the
release to exclude the Arkansas Case from the proposed MDL
Settlement.

A few days later, Arkansas requested that the Parties remove a
provision that would reserve Family Dollar's right to object to any
attempted double recovery. Family Dollar agreed to the carve out
excluding the Arkansas Case, but refused to delete the reservation
of rights against double recovery.

On June 19, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Consolidated Class Action Settlement. The
Settlement Agreement that accompanied the Motion included both the
carve out and Family Dollar's reservation of rights.

On July 18, 2023, Arkansas filed a Motion to Intervene. The Court
granted the motion on Aug. 30, 2023, following a hearing. Arkansas
filed its supplemental brief on Sept. 8, 2023, objecting to the
proposed settlement. On Aug. 18, 2023, the Parties filed a
Supplemental Submission in Support of Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. This
submission increased the period in which settlement class members
may make their claims and revised the definition of the Settlement
Class.

On Oct. 27, 2023, the Court entered an Order Granting Preliminary
Approval of Proposed Settlement ("Preliminary Approval Order"),
preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement, overruling
Arkansas's objections, and directing that notice be given to the
members of the Settlement Class.

On Jan. 4, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Attorneys'
Fees. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Settlement Class
Members were provided with notice informing them of the terms of
the proposed settlement, their right to object and/or opt out and
of the date and time of the Final Approval hearing. The deadline
for members of the Settlement Class to object to the settlement, as
well as the deadline to opt out of the case, was Jan. 10, 2024. No
objections were received, and only 25 class members requested
exclusion.

On Feb. 8, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed this Motion for Final
Approval, the terms and conditions of which are set forth in the
Settlement Agreement. On April 5, 2024, the Court held the Final
Fairness Hearing on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval.

                   Settlement Agreement Terms

The Settlement Agreement provides for an uncapped, "claims made"
settlement that provides a $25 Family Dollar gift card to all
claimants, who could attest that they shopped at a Family Dollar
store serviced by Distribution Center 202 between Jan. 1, 2020, and
Feb. 18, 2022. These gift cards are (a) limited to one per
household; (b) may be used to purchase any item sold at Family
Dollar stores, excluding purchases prohibited or restricted by
state law (such as alcohol and tobacco); (c) are fully
transferable; (d) can be used in conjunction with other promotions
or discounts, including manufacturers' coupons and discounts; (e)
will not expire; (f) do not require separate purchase or the use of
the Settlement Class Member's money; and (g) can be used over
multiple discrete transactions until the value is exhausted.

In exchange for this relief, the Settlement Class Representatives
and Settlement Class Members release any and all claims arising
from the practices and claims that were or could have been alleged
in this action. However, the Settlement expressly excludes and does
not release any claims made by the Arkansas Attorney General in the
Arkansas Case.

Further, the Defendants reserve all rights to raise any and all
defenses to the claims raised in that case, including that monetary
relief would be inappropriate given the relief provided to
consumers through this Settlement.

             Motion for Final Approval of Settlement

The Court-appointed administrator, Angeion Group, LLC, distributed
the notice to the provisionally certified Rule 23 class members
using a multi-pronged campaign.

The Court previously found in its Preliminary Approval Order that
the Notice Plan was anticipated to adequately apprise all potential
class members of the terms of the Settlement Agreement, provide the
opportunity to make informed decisions, and comport with due
process. The Declaration of Steven Weisbrot of Angeion highlighted
the success of the notice program.

In its Preliminary Approval Order, the Court conditionally
certified a class. The Court also provisionally appointed the Class
Representatives. There has been no information presented to alter
the Court's previous conclusions.

For the same reasons the Court granted preliminary approval, the
Court grants final certification of the Class and final approval of
the appointment of the Class Representatives.

There were no objections to the Settlement, and only 25 valid
opt-outs were received. The lack of objections and low number of
opt-outs also supports approval of the settlement.

          Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service Awards

Because this is not a common fund case, Plaintiffs assert that the
lodestar method is appropriate. The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an
award of $10 million, which applies a multiplier of about two. The
Plaintiffs point out that the requested multiplier falls well
within the range of those approved by courts in the circuit. As
Plaintiffs point out, the lodestar method is favored in cases where
there is no common fund.

Judge Lipman notes that in this district, the Local Rules require
parties to submit an affidavit or declaration of counsel detailing
the number of hours spent on each aspect of the case and an
affidavit or declaration from another attorney in the community,
who is not otherwise involved in the case, setting out the
prevailing rate in the community for similar services.

The Plaintiffs have not complied with either of the Local Rules
requirements, Judge Lipman says. Although the declaration from
Interim Co-Lead Counsel, J. Gerard Stranch, IV, lists the work done
in this case, and provides the total number of hours work by each
attorney, the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated how much time was
spent on each aspect of the case.

Although not required, Judge Lipman says, one way to satisfy this
requirement is to submit billing records or affidavits from each
attorney detailing their work. The Plaintiffs also failed to
include an affidavit or declaration from another attorney in the
community, who is not involved in this case, that the hourly rates
charged here are reasonable.

Because of these deficiencies, Judge Lipman holds that the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is denied without prejudice.
The Plaintiffs may refile their Motion so long as it is brought
into compliance with this Court's Local Rules.

The Plaintiffs request reimbursement of litigation expenses in the
amount of $247,589.77 to cover amounts expended out-of-pocket in
the prosecution of the case. They seek to cover expenses, such
meals, hotels, and transportation; and filing fees, service, and
court fees.

Finding these expenses to be routine and reasonable, the Court
awards $247,589.77 in expenses.

The Plaintiffs also request the approval of service awards totaling
$44,000, with eight class representatives (Sheena Bibbs, Tina
Bishop, Julian Graves, Martha Lacy, Taylor Lorimer, Sonya Mull,
Vinnie Smith, and Jerome Whitney) each to receive $5,000 and two
class representatives (Beverly Gordon and Sandra Walker) each to
receive $2,000. The amount of the award is based on the
representative's level of involvement in the case.

Judge Lipman finds, among other things, that each of the named
Plaintiffs spent considerable time pursuing the litigation.
Accordingly, the Court awards $44,000 in service awards, consistent
with the outlined terms.

                           Conclusion

The Court finds that the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and
reasonable and in the best interests of the Settlement Class
Members.

The Court finds that, for purposes of the Settlement only, all
prerequisites for maintenance of a class action set forth in
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) are satisfied and
certifies the following Settlement Class:

     All Persons who reside within Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana,
     Mississippi, Missouri, or Tennessee, and from Jan. 1, 2020,
     through Feb. 18, 2022, inclusive, purchased any product from
     an Affected Family Dollar Store.

Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) the Defendants; (ii)
the Defendants' agents, parents, officers, predecessors, directors,
legal representatives, heirs, successors and wholly or partly owned
subsidiaries or affiliates of the Defendants; (iii) Class Counsel
and any other attorneys, who represent Settlement Class
Representatives or the Settlement Class in this Action, as well as
their agents and employees; (iv) the judicial officers and court
staff assigned to this case, as well as their immediate family
members; and (v) Persons who timely requested to be excluded from
this Settlement.

Pursuant to Rule 23(e), the Court grants final approval of the
Settlement and finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate and in the best interests of the Settlement Class Members
based on, among other things, the factors enumerated in UAW v. Gen.
Motors Corp., 497 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. 2007).

All objections to the Settlement are overruled. A list of those who
have timely opted out of the Settlement and who, therefore, are not
bound by the Settlement Agreement has been submitted to the Court
as Exhibit J to the Declaration of Steven Weisbrot of Angeion
Group, LLC. All other members of the Settlement Class are subject
to all provisions of the Settlement Agreement and this Court's
Order approving the Settlement Agreement.

The Release set forth in Paragraph 6 of the Settlement Agreement is
incorporated herein by reference and all Settlement Class
Representatives and Settlement Class Members will be fully subject
to all of these provisions.

For the reasons stated here, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys'
Fees is granted in part and denied in part. The Plaintiffs' request
for attorneys' fees is denied without prejudice and their request
for expenses is granted.

The Action, and all claims asserted, is settled and is dismissed on
the merits with prejudice, as set forth in the Final Judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 6, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/4kzuvazh from PacerMonitor.com.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Class Settlement in Smith Suit Has Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit entitled Smith, et al. v. Family Dollar Services,
LLC, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02382 (W.D. Tenn.), Chief District
Judge Sheryl H. Lipman of the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee, Western Division, issued an order:

   (a) granting the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final
       Approval of Proposed Settlement and Supplement to
       Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses
       and Service Awards filed Feb. 8, 2024; and

   (b) granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs'
       Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service
       Awards filed Jan. 4, 2024.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is denied
without prejudice given its lack of compliance with the Court's
Local Rules. The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an award of $10
million.

The case involves allegations that Defendants Family Dollar Stores
of Tennessee, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Arkansas, LLC; Family
Dollar Stores of Alabama, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Louisiana,
LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Mississippi, LLC; Family Dollar Stores
of Missouri, LLC; Family Dollar Services, LLC; Family Dollar, Inc.;
Family Dollar Stores, Inc.; Dollar Tree, Inc.; and Dollar Tree
Stores, Inc. (collectively "Family Dollar"), deceptively,
negligently, recklessly, and/or intentionally sold products that
were contaminated by a rodent infestation in stores throughout
Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Missouri, and
Tennessee.

Plaintiffs Dondrea Brown, Muriel Vanessa Brown, Vinnie L. Smith,
Julian A. Graves, Reginald and Sonya Fields, Taylor Lorimer, Martha
"Keisha" Lacy, Sheena Bibbs, Jerome Whitney, Tina Bishop, Sonya
Mull, and Christine Robinson brought this case as a class of
customers of Family Dollar.

Family Dollar is a value chain store that sells groceries and
household goods at discounted prices. Family Dollar owns and
operates more than 8,000 stores and eleven distribution centers,
including a Family Dollar Distribution Center in West Memphis,
Arkansas ("Distribution Center 202"). Distribution Center 202
distributed products to Family Dollar stores in eleven states, six
of which had stores that were affected by the incidents that led to
this litigation. Eighty-five of these stores are located in
Arkansas.

In March 2021, the Arkansas Department of Health ("ADH") inspected
Distribution Center 202 and reported seeing "significant rodent
activity" in areas where human and pet food were stored. The ADH
notified the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") in October
2021, prompting an FDA investigation.

On Feb. 11, 2022, the FDA released a report that detailed a rodent
infestation that compromised products stored inside Distribution
Center 202. On Feb. 18, 2022, the FDA issued a Safety Alert that
directed consumers who had shopped in affected stores to discard
certain products that had potentially been contaminated by rodents.
The same day, Family Dollar temporarily closed 404 stores and
issued a voluntary recall of the FDA-regulated products sold in the
affected stores.

After learning of the rodent infestation, the Arkansas Attorney
General ("AG") began an investigation into potential violations of
Arkansas law, including the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act
("ADTPA"). On April 28, 2022, the AG filed a lawsuit against Family
Dollar in Arkansas state court ("Arkansas Case") asserting ADTPA
claims and several common law claims, Arkansas ex rel. Rutledge,
Case No. 60CV-22-2725, Pulaski Cty. Cir. Ct. (Apr. 28, 2022).
Through that lawsuit, Arkansas seeks actual and punitive damages,
disgorgement, restitution, civil penalties, and injunctive relief
against Family Dollar.

By June 2, 2022, thirteen lawsuits had been filed against the
Defendants in seven different federal jurisdictions. That day, the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation concluded
that the Western District of Tennessee was an appropriate
transferee district for consolidated proceedings, resulting in the
instant Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") (IN RE: Family Dollar
Stores, Inc., Pest Infestation Litigation MDL No.
2:22-md-3032-SHL-tmp). The Arkansas Case remained in state court,
and thus, was not transferred to the MDL.

On Aug. 12, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint in
the MDL. The Consolidated Complaint included claims for negligence,
negligence per se, negligent failure to warn, breach of implied
warranty, unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment, failure to
disclose, and violations of multiple Deceptive Trade Practice and
Consumer Protection Acts. The list includes Alabama Deceptive Trade
Practice Act; ADTPA; Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law; Mississippi Consumer Protection Act; Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act; and Tennessee Consumer Protection
Act.

The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Complaint
on Sept. 26, 2022. The Plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated
Complaint on Oct. 17, 2022, containing additional exhibits and
allegations. The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
Consolidated Amended Complaint on Oct. 20, 2022. The Court held a
hearing on that motion on Dec. 20, 2022. This motion was still
pending when the Court received the Parties' Notice of Settlement.

Before the filing of this lawsuit, the Plaintiffs conducted
extensive investigation of the facts and circumstances related to
the allegations in the Action. They also undertook significant
discovery efforts during the pendency of the case, including
serving 18 interrogatories, 58 requests for admission, 46 document
requests and disclosing four expert witnesses. They served numerous
third-party subpoenas and issued Freedom of Information Act
requests, which resulted in the production of tens of thousands of
pages of documents.

In late 2022, the Plaintiffs and an expert inspected Distribution
Center 202. The Defendants produced for review more than 24,000
pages of documents and disclosed six experts. The Plaintiffs
produced more than 6,000 pages of documents. Additionally, the
Defendants took, and the Plaintiffs defended, seven Settlement
Class Representatives depositions.

On Nov. 9, 2022, the Parties engaged in a mediation session, but
did not reach an agreement. On April 18, 2023, the Parties engaged
in a second mediation session. The Parties made significant
progress at that mediation, and the mediator prepared a proposal on
April 20, 2023, asking the Parties to approve or reject it by April
28, 2023.

The Plaintiffs' counsel requested and received two extensions of
that deadline to discuss the proposed settlement terms with the
Arkansas AG. On May 3, 2023, the AG was provided a copy of the
mediator's proposal, which included the material terms of the
Settlement: an uncapped, "claims made" settlement providing $25
Family Dollar gift cards to all claimants, who could attest that
they shopped at a Family Dollar store serviced by Distribution
Center 202 between Jan. 1, 2020, and Feb. 18, 2022.

On May 5, 2023, the Parties accepted the mediator's proposal and
began to prepare a long-form Settlement Agreement. On May 8, 2023,
the Parties shared a draft agreement with the AG, and, on May 30,
2023, they provided him with an updated draft. On June 7, 2023,
Arkansas requested that the Parties include a "carve out" from the
release to exclude the Arkansas Case from the proposed MDL
Settlement.

A few days later, Arkansas requested that the Parties remove a
provision that would reserve Family Dollar's right to object to any
attempted double recovery. Family Dollar agreed to the carve out
excluding the Arkansas Case, but refused to delete the reservation
of rights against double recovery.

On June 19, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Consolidated Class Action Settlement. The
Settlement Agreement that accompanied the Motion included both the
carve out and Family Dollar's reservation of rights.

On July 18, 2023, Arkansas filed a Motion to Intervene. The Court
granted the motion on Aug. 30, 2023, following a hearing. Arkansas
filed its supplemental brief on Sept. 8, 2023, objecting to the
proposed settlement. On Aug. 18, 2023, the Parties filed a
Supplemental Submission in Support of Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. This
submission increased the period in which settlement class members
may make their claims and revised the definition of the Settlement
Class.

On Oct. 27, 2023, the Court entered an Order Granting Preliminary
Approval of Proposed Settlement ("Preliminary Approval Order"),
preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement, overruling
Arkansas's objections, and directing that notice be given to the
members of the Settlement Class.

On Jan. 4, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Attorneys'
Fees. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Settlement Class
Members were provided with notice informing them of the terms of
the proposed settlement, their right to object and/or opt out and
of the date and time of the Final Approval hearing. The deadline
for members of the Settlement Class to object to the settlement, as
well as the deadline to opt out of the case, was Jan. 10, 2024. No
objections were received, and only 25 class members requested
exclusion.

On Feb. 8, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed this Motion for Final
Approval, the terms and conditions of which are set forth in the
Settlement Agreement. On April 5, 2024, the Court held the Final
Fairness Hearing on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval.

                   Settlement Agreement Terms

The Settlement Agreement provides for an uncapped, "claims made"
settlement that provides a $25 Family Dollar gift card to all
claimants, who could attest that they shopped at a Family Dollar
store serviced by Distribution Center 202 between Jan. 1, 2020, and
Feb. 18, 2022. These gift cards are (a) limited to one per
household; (b) may be used to purchase any item sold at Family
Dollar stores, excluding purchases prohibited or restricted by
state law (such as alcohol and tobacco); (c) are fully
transferable; (d) can be used in conjunction with other promotions
or discounts, including manufacturers' coupons and discounts; (e)
will not expire; (f) do not require separate purchase or the use of
the Settlement Class Member's money; and (g) can be used over
multiple discrete transactions until the value is exhausted.

In exchange for this relief, the Settlement Class Representatives
and Settlement Class Members release any and all claims arising
from the practices and claims that were or could have been alleged
in this action. However, the Settlement expressly excludes and does
not release any claims made by the Arkansas Attorney General in the
Arkansas Case.

Further, the Defendants reserve all rights to raise any and all
defenses to the claims raised in that case, including that monetary
relief would be inappropriate given the relief provided to
consumers through this Settlement.

             Motion for Final Approval of Settlement

The Court-appointed administrator, Angeion Group, LLC, distributed
the notice to the provisionally certified Rule 23 class members
using a multi-pronged campaign.

The Court previously found in its Preliminary Approval Order that
the Notice Plan was anticipated to adequately apprise all potential
class members of the terms of the Settlement Agreement, provide the
opportunity to make informed decisions, and comport with due
process. The Declaration of Steven Weisbrot of Angeion highlighted
the success of the notice program.

In its Preliminary Approval Order, the Court conditionally
certified a class. The Court also provisionally appointed the Class
Representatives. There has been no information presented to alter
the Court's previous conclusions.

For the same reasons the Court granted preliminary approval, the
Court grants final certification of the Class and final approval of
the appointment of the Class Representatives.

There were no objections to the Settlement, and only 25 valid
opt-outs were received. The lack of objections and low number of
opt-outs also supports approval of the settlement.

          Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service Awards

Because this is not a common fund case, Plaintiffs assert that the
lodestar method is appropriate. The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an
award of $10 million, which applies a multiplier of about two. The
Plaintiffs point out that the requested multiplier falls well
within the range of those approved by courts in the circuit. As
Plaintiffs point out, the lodestar method is favored in cases where
there is no common fund.

Judge Lipman notes that in this district, the Local Rules require
parties to submit an affidavit or declaration of counsel detailing
the number of hours spent on each aspect of the case and an
affidavit or declaration from another attorney in the community,
who is not otherwise involved in the case, setting out the
prevailing rate in the community for similar services.

The Plaintiffs have not complied with either of the Local Rules
requirements, Judge Lipman says. Although the declaration from
Interim Co-Lead Counsel, J. Gerard Stranch, IV, lists the work done
in this case, and provides the total number of hours work by each
attorney, the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated how much time was
spent on each aspect of the case.

Although not required, Judge Lipman says, one way to satisfy this
requirement is to submit billing records or affidavits from each
attorney detailing their work. The Plaintiffs also failed to
include an affidavit or declaration from another attorney in the
community, who is not involved in this case, that the hourly rates
charged here are reasonable.

Because of these deficiencies, Judge Lipman holds that the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is denied without prejudice.
The Plaintiffs may refile their Motion so long as it is brought
into compliance with this Court's Local Rules.

The Plaintiffs request reimbursement of litigation expenses in the
amount of $247,589.77 to cover amounts expended out-of-pocket in
the prosecution of the case. They seek to cover expenses, such
meals, hotels, and transportation; and filing fees, service, and
court fees.

Finding these expenses to be routine and reasonable, the Court
awards $247,589.77 in expenses.

The Plaintiffs also request the approval of service awards totaling
$44,000, with eight class representatives (Sheena Bibbs, Tina
Bishop, Julian Graves, Martha Lacy, Taylor Lorimer, Sonya Mull,
Vinnie Smith, and Jerome Whitney) each to receive $5,000 and two
class representatives (Beverly Gordon and Sandra Walker) each to
receive $2,000. The amount of the award is based on the
representative's level of involvement in the case.

Judge Lipman finds, among other things, that each of the named
Plaintiffs spent considerable time pursuing the litigation.
Accordingly, the Court awards $44,000 in service awards, consistent
with the outlined terms.

                           Conclusion

The Court finds that the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and
reasonable and in the best interests of the Settlement Class
Members.

The Court finds that, for purposes of the Settlement only, all
prerequisites for maintenance of a class action set forth in
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) are satisfied and
certifies the following Settlement Class:

     All Persons who reside within Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana,
     Mississippi, Missouri, or Tennessee, and from Jan. 1, 2020,
     through Feb. 18, 2022, inclusive, purchased any product from
     an Affected Family Dollar Store.

Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) the Defendants; (ii)
the Defendants' agents, parents, officers, predecessors, directors,
legal representatives, heirs, successors and wholly or partly owned
subsidiaries or affiliates of the Defendants; (iii) Class Counsel
and any other attorneys, who represent Settlement Class
Representatives or the Settlement Class in this Action, as well as
their agents and employees; (iv) the judicial officers and court
staff assigned to this case, as well as their immediate family
members; and (v) Persons who timely requested to be excluded from
this Settlement.

Pursuant to Rule 23(e), the Court grants final approval of the
Settlement and finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate and in the best interests of the Settlement Class Members
based on, among other things, the factors enumerated in UAW v. Gen.
Motors Corp., 497 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. 2007).

All objections to the Settlement are overruled. A list of those who
have timely opted out of the Settlement and who, therefore, are not
bound by the Settlement Agreement has been submitted to the Court
as Exhibit J to the Declaration of Steven Weisbrot of Angeion
Group, LLC. All other members of the Settlement Class are subject
to all provisions of the Settlement Agreement and this Court's
Order approving the Settlement Agreement.

The Release set forth in Paragraph 6 of the Settlement Agreement is
incorporated herein by reference and all Settlement Class
Representatives and Settlement Class Members will be fully subject
to all of these provisions.

For the reasons stated here, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys'
Fees is granted in part and denied in part. The Plaintiffs' request
for attorneys' fees is denied without prejudice and their request
for expenses is granted.

The Action, and all claims asserted, is settled and is dismissed on
the merits with prejudice, as set forth in the Final Judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 6, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mtfujc54 from PacerMonitor.com.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Class Settlement in Whitney Suit Has Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned Whitney v. Family Dollar Inc., Case No.
2:22-cv-02138 (W.D. Tenn.), Chief District Judge Sheryl H. Lipman
of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee,
Western Division, issued an order:

   (a) granting the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final
       Approval of Proposed Settlement and Supplement to
       Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses
       and Service Awards filed Feb. 8, 2024; and

   (b) granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs'
       Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service
       Awards filed Jan. 4, 2024.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is denied
without prejudice given its lack of compliance with the Court's
Local Rules. The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an award of $10
million.

The case involves allegations that Defendants Family Dollar Stores
of Tennessee, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Arkansas, LLC; Family
Dollar Stores of Alabama, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Louisiana,
LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Mississippi, LLC; Family Dollar Stores
of Missouri, LLC; Family Dollar Services, LLC; Family Dollar, Inc.;
Family Dollar Stores, Inc.; Dollar Tree, Inc.; and Dollar Tree
Stores, Inc. (collectively "Family Dollar"), deceptively,
negligently, recklessly, and/or intentionally sold products that
were contaminated by a rodent infestation in stores throughout
Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Missouri, and
Tennessee.

Plaintiffs Dondrea Brown, Muriel Vanessa Brown, Vinnie L. Smith,
Julian A. Graves, Reginald and Sonya Fields, Taylor Lorimer, Martha
"Keisha" Lacy, Sheena Bibbs, Jerome Whitney, Tina Bishop, Sonya
Mull, and Christine Robinson brought this case as a class of
customers of Family Dollar.

Family Dollar is a value chain store that sells groceries and
household goods at discounted prices. Family Dollar owns and
operates more than 8,000 stores and eleven distribution centers,
including a Family Dollar Distribution Center in West Memphis,
Arkansas ("Distribution Center 202"). Distribution Center 202
distributed products to Family Dollar stores in eleven states, six
of which had stores that were affected by the incidents that led to
this litigation. Eighty-five of these stores are located in
Arkansas.

In March 2021, the Arkansas Department of Health ("ADH") inspected
Distribution Center 202 and reported seeing "significant rodent
activity" in areas where human and pet food were stored. The ADH
notified the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") in October
2021, prompting an FDA investigation.

On Feb. 11, 2022, the FDA released a report that detailed a rodent
infestation that compromised products stored inside Distribution
Center 202. On Feb. 18, 2022, the FDA issued a Safety Alert that
directed consumers, who had shopped in affected stores, to discard
certain products that had potentially been contaminated by rodents.
The same day, Family Dollar temporarily closed 404 stores and
issued a voluntary recall of the FDA-regulated products sold in the
affected stores.

After learning of the rodent infestation, the Arkansas Attorney
General ("AG") began an investigation into potential violations of
Arkansas law, including the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act
("ADTPA"). On April 28, 2022, the AG filed a lawsuit against Family
Dollar in Arkansas state court ("Arkansas Case") asserting ADTPA
claims and several common law claims, Arkansas ex rel. Rutledge,
Case No. 60CV-22-2725, Pulaski Cty. Cir. Ct. (Apr. 28, 2022).
Through that lawsuit, Arkansas seeks actual and punitive damages,
disgorgement, restitution, civil penalties, and injunctive relief
against Family Dollar.

By June 2, 2022, thirteen lawsuits had been filed against the
Defendants in seven different federal jurisdictions. That day, the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation concluded
that the Western District of Tennessee was an appropriate
transferee district for consolidated proceedings, resulting in the
instant Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") (IN RE: Family Dollar
Stores, Inc., Pest Infestation Litigation MDL No.
2:22-md-3032-SHL-tmp). The Arkansas Case remained in state court,
and thus, was not transferred to the MDL.

On Aug. 12, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint in
the MDL. The Consolidated Complaint included claims for negligence,
negligence per se, negligent failure to warn, breach of implied
warranty, unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment, failure to
disclose, and violations of multiple Deceptive Trade Practice and
Consumer Protection Acts. The list includes Alabama Deceptive Trade
Practice Act; ADTPA; Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law; Mississippi Consumer Protection Act; Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act; and Tennessee Consumer Protection
Act.

The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Complaint
on Sept. 26, 2022. The Plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated
Complaint on Oct. 17, 2022, containing additional exhibits and
allegations. The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
Consolidated Amended Complaint on Oct. 20, 2022. The Court held a
hearing on that motion on Dec. 20, 2022. This motion was still
pending when the Court received the Parties' Notice of Settlement.

Before the filing of this lawsuit, the Plaintiffs conducted
extensive investigation of the facts and circumstances related to
the allegations in the Action. They also undertook significant
discovery efforts during the pendency of the case, including
serving 18 interrogatories, 58 requests for admission, 46 document
requests and disclosing four expert witnesses. They served numerous
third-party subpoenas and issued Freedom of Information Act
requests, which resulted in the production of tens of thousands of
pages of documents.

In late 2022, the Plaintiffs and an expert inspected Distribution
Center 202. The Defendants produced for review more than 24,000
pages of documents and disclosed six experts. The Plaintiffs
produced more than 6,000 pages of documents. Additionally, the
Defendants took, and the Plaintiffs defended, seven Settlement
Class Representatives depositions.

On Nov. 9, 2022, the Parties engaged in a mediation session, but
did not reach an agreement. On April 18, 2023, the Parties engaged
in a second mediation session. The Parties made significant
progress at that mediation, and the mediator prepared a proposal on
April 20, 2023, asking the Parties to approve or reject it by April
28, 2023.

The Plaintiffs' counsel requested and received two extensions of
that deadline to discuss the proposed settlement terms with the
Arkansas AG. On May 3, 2023, the AG was provided a copy of the
mediator's proposal, which included the material terms of the
Settlement: an uncapped, "claims made" settlement providing $25
Family Dollar gift cards to all claimants, who could attest that
they shopped at a Family Dollar store serviced by Distribution
Center 202 between Jan. 1, 2020, and Feb. 18, 2022.

On May 5, 2023, the Parties accepted the mediator's proposal and
began to prepare a long-form Settlement Agreement. On May 8, 2023,
the Parties shared a draft agreement with the AG, and, on May 30,
2023, they provided him with an updated draft. On June 7, 2023,
Arkansas requested that the Parties include a "carve out" from the
release to exclude the Arkansas Case from the proposed MDL
Settlement.

A few days later, Arkansas requested that the Parties remove a
provision that would reserve Family Dollar's right to object to any
attempted double recovery. Family Dollar agreed to the carve out
excluding the Arkansas Case, but refused to delete the reservation
of rights against double recovery.

On June 19, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Consolidated Class Action Settlement. The
Settlement Agreement that accompanied the Motion included both the
carve out and Family Dollar's reservation of rights.

On July 18, 2023, Arkansas filed a Motion to Intervene. The Court
granted the motion on Aug. 30, 2023, following a hearing. Arkansas
filed its supplemental brief on Sept. 8, 2023, objecting to the
proposed settlement. On Aug. 18, 2023, the Parties filed a
Supplemental Submission in Support of Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. This
submission increased the period in which settlement class members
may make their claims and revised the definition of the Settlement
Class.

On Oct. 27, 2023, the Court entered an Order Granting Preliminary
Approval of Proposed Settlement ("Preliminary Approval Order"),
preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement, overruling
Arkansas's objections, and directing that notice be given to the
members of the Settlement Class.

On Jan. 4, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Attorneys'
Fees. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Settlement Class
Members were provided with notice informing them of the terms of
the proposed settlement, their right to object and/or opt out and
of the date and time of the Final Approval hearing. The deadline
for members of the Settlement Class to object to the settlement, as
well as the deadline to opt out of the case, was Jan. 10, 2024. No
objections were received, and only 25 class members requested
exclusion.

On Feb. 8, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed this Motion for Final
Approval, the terms and conditions of which are set forth in the
Settlement Agreement. On April 5, 2024, the Court held the Final
Fairness Hearing on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval.

                   Settlement Agreement Terms

The Settlement Agreement provides for an uncapped, "claims made"
settlement that provides a $25 Family Dollar gift card to all
claimants, who could attest that they shopped at a Family Dollar
store serviced by Distribution Center 202 between Jan. 1, 2020, and
Feb. 18, 2022. These gift cards are (a) limited to one per
household; (b) may be used to purchase any item sold at Family
Dollar stores, excluding purchases prohibited or restricted by
state law (such as alcohol and tobacco); (c) are fully
transferable; (d) can be used in conjunction with other promotions
or discounts, including manufacturers' coupons and discounts; (e)
will not expire; (f) do not require separate purchase or the use of
the Settlement Class Member's money; and (g) can be used over
multiple discrete transactions until the value is exhausted.

In exchange for this relief, the Settlement Class Representatives
and Settlement Class Members release any and all claims arising
from the practices and claims that were or could have been alleged
in this action. However, the Settlement expressly excludes and does
not release any claims made by the Arkansas Attorney General in the
Arkansas Case.

Further, the Defendants reserve all rights to raise any and all
defenses to the claims raised in that case, including that monetary
relief would be inappropriate given the relief provided to
consumers through this Settlement.

             Motion for Final Approval of Settlement

The Court-appointed administrator, Angeion Group, LLC, distributed
the notice to the provisionally certified Rule 23 class members
using a multi-pronged campaign.

The Court previously found in its Preliminary Approval Order that
the Notice Plan was anticipated to adequately apprise all potential
class members of the terms of the Settlement Agreement, provide the
opportunity to make informed decisions, and comport with due
process. The Declaration of Steven Weisbrot of Angeion highlighted
the success of the notice program.

In its Preliminary Approval Order, the Court conditionally
certified a class. The Court also provisionally appointed the Class
Representatives. There has been no information presented to alter
the Court's previous conclusions.

For the same reasons the Court granted preliminary approval, the
Court grants final certification of the Class and final approval of
the appointment of the Class Representatives.

There were no objections to the Settlement, and only 25 valid
opt-outs were received. The lack of objections and low number of
opt-outs also supports approval of the settlement.

          Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service Awards

Because this is not a common fund case, Plaintiffs assert that the
lodestar method is appropriate. The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an
award of $10 million, which applies a multiplier of about two. The
Plaintiffs point out that the requested multiplier falls well
within the range of those approved by courts in the circuit. As
Plaintiffs point out, the lodestar method is favored in cases where
there is no common fund.

Judge Lipman notes that in this district, the Local Rules require
parties to submit an affidavit or declaration of counsel detailing
the number of hours spent on each aspect of the case and an
affidavit or declaration from another attorney in the community,
who is not otherwise involved in the case, setting out the
prevailing rate in the community for similar services.

The Plaintiffs have not complied with either of the Local Rules
requirements, Judge Lipman says. Although the declaration from
Interim Co-Lead Counsel, J. Gerard Stranch, IV, lists the work done
in this case, and provides the total number of hours work by each
attorney, the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated how much time was
spent on each aspect of the case.

Although not required, Judge Lipman says, one way to satisfy this
requirement is to submit billing records or affidavits from each
attorney detailing their work. The Plaintiffs also failed to
include an affidavit or declaration from another attorney in the
community, who is not involved in this case, that the hourly rates
charged here are reasonable.

Because of these deficiencies, Judge Lipman holds that the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is denied without prejudice.
The Plaintiffs may refile their Motion so long as it is brought
into compliance with this Court's Local Rules.

The Plaintiffs request reimbursement of litigation expenses in the
amount of $247,589.77 to cover amounts expended out-of-pocket in
the prosecution of the case. They seek to cover expenses, such
meals, hotels, and transportation; and filing fees, service, and
court fees.

Finding these expenses to be routine and reasonable, the Court
awards $247,589.77 in expenses.

The Plaintiffs also request the approval of service awards totaling
$44,000, with eight class representatives (Sheena Bibbs, Tina
Bishop, Julian Graves, Martha Lacy, Taylor Lorimer, Sonya Mull,
Vinnie Smith, and Jerome Whitney) each to receive $5,000 and two
class representatives (Beverly Gordon and Sandra Walker) each to
receive $2,000. The amount of the award is based on the
representative's level of involvement in the case.

Judge Lipman finds, among other things, that each of the named
Plaintiffs spent considerable time pursuing the litigation.
Accordingly, the Court awards $44,000 in service awards, consistent
with the outlined terms.

                           Conclusion

The Court finds that the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and
reasonable and in the best interests of the Settlement Class
Members.

The Court finds that, for purposes of the Settlement only, all
prerequisites for maintenance of a class action set forth in
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) are satisfied and
certifies the following Settlement Class:

     All Persons who reside within Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana,
     Mississippi, Missouri, or Tennessee, and from Jan. 1, 2020,
     through Feb. 18, 2022, inclusive, purchased any product from
     an Affected Family Dollar Store.

Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) the Defendants; (ii)
the Defendants' agents, parents, officers, predecessors, directors,
legal representatives, heirs, successors and wholly or partly owned
subsidiaries or affiliates of the Defendants; (iii) Class Counsel
and any other attorneys, who represent Settlement Class
Representatives or the Settlement Class in this Action, as well as
their agents and employees; (iv) the judicial officers and court
staff assigned to this case, as well as their immediate family
members; and (v) Persons who timely requested to be excluded from
this Settlement.

Pursuant to Rule 23(e), the Court grants final approval of the
Settlement and finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable,
adequate, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class Members
based on, among other things, the factors enumerated in UAW v. Gen.
Motors Corp., 497 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. 2007).

All objections to the Settlement are overruled. A list of those who
have timely opted out of the Settlement and who, therefore, are not
bound by the Settlement Agreement has been submitted to the Court
as Exhibit J to the Declaration of Steven Weisbrot of Angeion
Group, LLC. All other members of the Settlement Class are subject
to all provisions of the Settlement Agreement and this Court's
Order approving the Settlement Agreement.

The Release set forth in Paragraph 6 of the Settlement Agreement is
incorporated herein by reference and all Settlement Class
Representatives and Settlement Class Members will be fully subject
to all of these provisions.

For the reasons stated here, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys'
Fees is granted in part and denied in part. The Plaintiffs' request
for attorneys' fees is denied without prejudice and their request
for expenses is granted.

The Action and all claims asserted are settled and is dismissed on
the merits with prejudice, as set forth in the Final Judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 6, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/bdezvn7u from PacerMonitor.com.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Robertson's Bid for $10MM in Attys.' Fees Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled Robertson, et al. v. Family Dollar Stores of
Arkansas LLC, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02378 (W.D. Tenn.), Chief
District Judge Sheryl H. Lipman of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Tennessee, Western Division, issued an order:

   (a) granting the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final
       Approval of Proposed Settlement and Supplement to
       Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses
       and Service Awards filed Feb. 8, 2024; and

   (b) granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs'
       Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service
       Awards filed Jan. 4, 2024.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is denied
without prejudice given its lack of compliance with the Court's
Local Rules. The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an award of $10
million.

The case involves allegations that Defendants Family Dollar Stores
of Tennessee, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Arkansas, LLC; Family
Dollar Stores of Alabama, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Louisiana,
LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Mississippi, LLC; Family Dollar Stores
of Missouri, LLC; Family Dollar Services, LLC; Family Dollar, Inc.;
Family Dollar Stores, Inc.; Dollar Tree, Inc.; and Dollar Tree
Stores, Inc. (collectively "Family Dollar"), deceptively,
negligently, recklessly, and/or intentionally sold products that
were contaminated by a rodent infestation in stores throughout
Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Missouri, and
Tennessee.

Plaintiffs Dondrea Brown, Muriel Vanessa Brown, Vinnie L. Smith,
Julian A. Graves, Reginald and Sonya Fields, Taylor Lorimer, Martha
"Keisha" Lacy, Sheena Bibbs, Jerome Whitney, Tina Bishop, Sonya
Mull, and Christine Robinson brought this case as a class of
customers of Family Dollar.

Family Dollar is a value chain store that sells groceries and
household goods at discounted prices. Family Dollar owns and
operates more than 8,000 stores and eleven distribution centers,
including a Family Dollar Distribution Center in West Memphis,
Arkansas ("Distribution Center 202"). Distribution Center 202
distributed products to Family Dollar stores in eleven states, six
of which had stores that were affected by the incidents that led to
this litigation. Eighty-five of these stores are located in
Arkansas.

In March 2021, the Arkansas Department of Health ("ADH") inspected
Distribution Center 202 and reported seeing "significant rodent
activity" in areas where human and pet food were stored. The ADH
notified the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") in October
2021, prompting an FDA investigation.

On Feb. 11, 2022, the FDA released a report that detailed a rodent
infestation that compromised products stored inside Distribution
Center 202. On Feb. 18, 2022, the FDA issued a Safety Alert that
directed consumers, who had shopped in affected stores, to discard
certain products that had potentially been contaminated by rodents.
The same day, Family Dollar temporarily closed 404 stores and
issued a voluntary recall of the FDA-regulated products sold in the
affected stores.

After learning of the rodent infestation, the Arkansas Attorney
General ("AG") began an investigation into potential violations of
Arkansas law, including the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act
("ADTPA"). On April 28, 2022, the AG filed a lawsuit against Family
Dollar in Arkansas state court ("Arkansas Case") asserting ADTPA
claims and several common law claims, Arkansas ex rel. Rutledge,
Case No. 60CV-22-2725, Pulaski Cty. Cir. Ct. (Apr. 28, 2022).
Through that lawsuit, Arkansas seeks actual and punitive damages,
disgorgement, restitution, civil penalties, and injunctive relief
against Family Dollar.

By June 2, 2022, thirteen lawsuits had been filed against the
Defendants in seven different federal jurisdictions. That day, the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation concluded
that the Western District of Tennessee was an appropriate
transferee district for consolidated proceedings, resulting in the
instant Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") (IN RE: Family Dollar
Stores, Inc., Pest Infestation Litigation MDL No.
2:22-md-3032-SHL-tmp). The Arkansas Case remained in state court,
and thus, was not transferred to the MDL.

On Aug. 12, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint in
the MDL. The Consolidated Complaint included claims for negligence,
negligence per se, negligent failure to warn, breach of implied
warranty, unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment, failure to
disclose, and violations of multiple Deceptive Trade Practice and
Consumer Protection Acts. The list includes Alabama Deceptive Trade
Practice Act; ADTPA; Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law; Mississippi Consumer Protection Act; Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act; and Tennessee Consumer Protection
Act.

The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Complaint
on Sept. 26, 2022. The Plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated
Complaint on Oct. 17, 2022, containing additional exhibits and
allegations. The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
Consolidated Amended Complaint on Oct. 20, 2022. The Court held a
hearing on that motion on Dec. 20, 2022. This motion was still
pending when the Court received the Parties' Notice of Settlement.

Before the filing of this lawsuit, the Plaintiffs conducted
extensive investigation of the facts and circumstances related to
the allegations in the Action. They also undertook significant
discovery efforts during the pendency of the case, including
serving 18 interrogatories, 58 requests for admission, 46 document
requests and disclosing four expert witnesses. They served numerous
third-party subpoenas and issued Freedom of Information Act
requests, which resulted in the production of tens of thousands of
pages of documents.

In late 2022, the Plaintiffs and an expert inspected Distribution
Center 202. The Defendants produced for review more than 24,000
pages of documents and disclosed six experts. The Plaintiffs
produced more than 6,000 pages of documents. Additionally, the
Defendants took, and the Plaintiffs defended, seven Settlement
Class Representatives depositions.

On Nov. 9, 2022, the Parties engaged in a mediation session, but
did not reach an agreement. On April 18, 2023, the Parties engaged
in a second mediation session. The Parties made significant
progress at that mediation, and the mediator prepared a proposal on
April 20, 2023, asking the Parties to approve or reject it by April
28, 2023.

The Plaintiffs' counsel requested and received two extensions of
that deadline to discuss the proposed settlement terms with the
Arkansas AG. On May 3, 2023, the AG was provided a copy of the
mediator's proposal, which included the material terms of the
Settlement: an uncapped, "claims made" settlement providing $25
Family Dollar gift cards to all claimants, who could attest that
they shopped at a Family Dollar store serviced by Distribution
Center 202 between Jan. 1, 2020, and Feb. 18, 2022.

On May 5, 2023, the Parties accepted the mediator's proposal and
began to prepare a long-form Settlement Agreement. On May 8, 2023,
the Parties shared a draft agreement with the AG, and, on May 30,
2023, they provided him with an updated draft. On June 7, 2023,
Arkansas requested that the Parties include a "carve out" from the
release to exclude the Arkansas Case from the proposed MDL
Settlement.

A few days later, Arkansas requested that the Parties remove a
provision that would reserve Family Dollar's right to object to any
attempted double recovery. Family Dollar agreed to the carve out
excluding the Arkansas Case, but refused to delete the reservation
of rights against double recovery.

On June 19, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Consolidated Class Action Settlement. The
Settlement Agreement that accompanied the Motion included both the
carve out and Family Dollar's reservation of rights.

On July 18, 2023, Arkansas filed a Motion to Intervene. The Court
granted the motion on Aug. 30, 2023, following a hearing. Arkansas
filed its supplemental brief on Sept. 8, 2023, objecting to the
proposed settlement. On Aug. 18, 2023, the Parties filed a
Supplemental Submission in Support of Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. This
submission increased the period in which settlement class members
may make their claims and revised the definition of the Settlement
Class.

On Oct. 27, 2023, the Court entered an Order Granting Preliminary
Approval of Proposed Settlement ("Preliminary Approval Order"),
preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement, overruling
Arkansas's objections, and directing that notice be given to the
members of the Settlement Class.

On Jan. 4, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Attorneys'
Fees. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Settlement Class
Members were provided with notice informing them of the terms of
the proposed settlement, their right to object and/or opt out and
of the date and time of the Final Approval hearing. The deadline
for members of the Settlement Class to object to the settlement, as
well as the deadline to opt out of the case, was Jan. 10, 2024. No
objections were received, and only 25 class members requested
exclusion.

On Feb. 8, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed this Motion for Final
Approval, the terms and conditions of which are set forth in the
Settlement Agreement. On April 5, 2024, the Court held the Final
Fairness Hearing on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval.

                   Settlement Agreement Terms

The Settlement Agreement provides for an uncapped, "claims made"
settlement that provides a $25 Family Dollar gift card to all
claimants, who could attest that they shopped at a Family Dollar
store serviced by Distribution Center 202 between Jan. 1, 2020, and
Feb. 18, 2022. These gift cards are (a) limited to one per
household; (b) may be used to purchase any item sold at Family
Dollar stores, excluding purchases prohibited or restricted by
state law (such as alcohol and tobacco); (c) are fully
transferable; (d) can be used in conjunction with other promotions
or discounts, including manufacturers' coupons and discounts; (e)
will not expire; (f) do not require separate purchase or the use of
the Settlement Class Member's money; and (g) can be used over
multiple discrete transactions until the value is exhausted.

In exchange for this relief, the Settlement Class Representatives
and Settlement Class Members release any and all claims arising
from the practices and claims that were or could have been alleged
in this action. However, the Settlement expressly excludes and does
not release any claims made by the Arkansas Attorney General in the
Arkansas Case.

Further, the Defendants reserve all rights to raise any and all
defenses to the claims raised in that case, including that monetary
relief would be inappropriate given the relief provided to
consumers through this Settlement.

             Motion for Final Approval of Settlement

The Court-appointed administrator, Angeion Group, LLC, distributed
the notice to the provisionally certified Rule 23 class members
using a multi-pronged campaign.

The Court previously found in its Preliminary Approval Order that
the Notice Plan was anticipated to adequately apprise all potential
class members of the terms of the Settlement Agreement, provide the
opportunity to make informed decisions, and comport with due
process. The Declaration of Steven Weisbrot of Angeion highlighted
the success of the notice program.

In its Preliminary Approval Order, the Court conditionally
certified a class. The Court also provisionally appointed the Class
Representatives. There has been no information presented to alter
the Court's previous conclusions.

For the same reasons the Court granted preliminary approval, the
Court grants final certification of the Class and final approval of
the appointment of the Class Representatives.

There were no objections to the Settlement, and only 25 valid
opt-outs were received. The lack of objections and low number of
opt-outs also supports approval of the settlement.

          Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service Awards

Because this is not a common fund case, Plaintiffs assert that the
lodestar method is appropriate. The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an
award of $10 million, which applies a multiplier of about two. The
Plaintiffs point out that the requested multiplier falls well
within the range of those approved by courts in the circuit. As
Plaintiffs point out, the lodestar method is favored in cases where
there is no common fund.

Judge Lipman notes that in this district, the Local Rules require
parties to submit an affidavit or declaration of counsel detailing
the number of hours spent on each aspect of the case and an
affidavit or declaration from another attorney in the community,
who is not otherwise involved in the case, setting out the
prevailing rate in the community for similar services.

The Plaintiffs have not complied with either of the Local Rules
requirements, Judge Lipman says. Although the declaration from
Interim Co-Lead Counsel, J. Gerard Stranch, IV, lists the work done
in this case, and provides the total number of hours work by each
attorney, the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated how much time was
spent on each aspect of the case.

Although not required, Judge Lipman says one way to satisfy this
requirement is to submit billing records or affidavits from each
attorney detailing their work. The Plaintiffs also failed to
include an affidavit or declaration from another attorney in the
community, who is not involved in this case, that the hourly rates
charged here are reasonable.

Because of these deficiencies, Judge Lipman holds that the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is denied without prejudice.
The Plaintiffs may refile their Motion so long as it is brought
into compliance with this Court's Local Rules.

The Plaintiffs request reimbursement of litigation expenses in the
amount of $247,589.77 to cover amounts expended out-of-pocket in
the prosecution of the case. They seek to cover expenses such
meals, hotels, and transportation; and filing fees, service, and
court fees.

Finding these expenses to be routine and reasonable, the Court
awards $247,589.77 in expenses.

The Plaintiffs also request the approval of service awards totaling
$44,000, with eight class representatives (Sheena Bibbs, Tina
Bishop, Julian Graves, Martha Lacy, Taylor Lorimer, Sonya Mull,
Vinnie Smith, and Jerome Whitney) each to receive $5,000 and two
class representatives (Beverly Gordon and Sandra Walker) each to
receive $2,000. The amount of the award is based on the
representative's level of involvement in the case.

Judge Lipman finds, among other things, that each of the named
Plaintiffs spent considerable time pursuing the litigation.
Accordingly, the Court awards $44,000 in service awards, consistent
with the outlined terms.

                           Conclusion

The Court finds that the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and
reasonable and in the best interests of the Settlement Class
Members.

The Court finds that, for purposes of the Settlement only, all
prerequisites for maintenance of a class action set forth in
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) are satisfied and
certifies the following Settlement Class:

     All Persons who reside within Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana,
     Mississippi, Missouri, or Tennessee, and from Jan. 1, 2020,
     through Feb. 18, 2022, inclusive, purchased any product from
     an Affected Family Dollar Store.

Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) the Defendants; (ii)
the Defendants' agents, parents, officers, predecessors, directors,
legal representatives, heirs, successors and wholly or partly owned
subsidiaries or affiliates of the Defendants; (iii) Class Counsel
and any other attorneys, who represent Settlement Class
Representatives or the Settlement Class in this Action, as well as
their agents and employees; (iv) the judicial officers and court
staff assigned to this case, as well as their immediate family
members; and (v) Persons who timely requested to be excluded from
this Settlement.

Pursuant to Rule 23(e), the Court grants final approval of the
Settlement and finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate and in the best interests of the Settlement Class Members
based on, among other things, the factors enumerated in UAW v. Gen.
Motors Corp., 497 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. 2007).

All objections to the Settlement are overruled. A list of those who
have timely opted out of the Settlement and who, therefore, are not
bound by the Settlement Agreement has been submitted to the Court
as Exhibit J to the Declaration of Steven Weisbrot of Angeion
Group, LLC. All other members of the Settlement Class are subject
to all provisions of the Settlement Agreement and this Court's
Order approving the Settlement Agreement.

The Release set forth in Paragraph 6 of the Settlement Agreement is
incorporated herein by reference and all Settlement Class
Representatives and Settlement Class Members will be fully subject
to all of these provisions.

For the reasons stated here, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys'
Fees is granted in part and denied in part. The Plaintiffs' request
for attorneys' fees is denied without prejudice and their request
for expenses is granted.

The Action, and all claims asserted, is settled and is dismissed on
the merits with prejudice, as set forth in the Final Judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 6, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/mrcmm3ew from PacerMonitor.com.


FAMILY DOLLAR: Smith's Bid for $10MM in Attys.' Fees OK'd in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled Smith v. Family Dollar Inc., et al., Case No.
2:22-cv-02375 (W.D. Tenn.), Chief District Judge Sheryl H. Lipman
of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee,
Western Division, issued an order:

   (a) granting the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final
       Approval of Proposed Settlement and Supplement to
       Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses
       and Service Awards filed Feb. 8, 2024; and

   (b) granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs'
       Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service
       Awards filed Jan. 4, 2024.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is denied
without prejudice given its lack of compliance with the Court's
Local Rules. The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an award of $10
million.

The case involves allegations that Defendants Family Dollar Stores
of Tennessee, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Arkansas, LLC; Family
Dollar Stores of Alabama, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Louisiana,
LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Mississippi, LLC; Family Dollar Stores
of Missouri, LLC; Family Dollar Services, LLC; Family Dollar, Inc.;
Family Dollar Stores, Inc.; Dollar Tree, Inc.; and Dollar Tree
Stores, Inc. (collectively "Family Dollar"), deceptively,
negligently, recklessly, and/or intentionally sold products that
were contaminated by a rodent infestation in stores throughout
Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Missouri, and
Tennessee.

Plaintiffs Dondrea Brown, Muriel Vanessa Brown, Vinnie L. Smith,
Julian A. Graves, Reginald and Sonya Fields, Taylor Lorimer, Martha
"Keisha" Lacy, Sheena Bibbs, Jerome Whitney, Tina Bishop, Sonya
Mull, and Christine Robinson brought this case as a class of
customers of Family Dollar.

Family Dollar is a value chain store that sells groceries and
household goods at discounted prices. Family Dollar owns and
operates more than 8,000 stores and eleven distribution centers,
including a Family Dollar Distribution Center in West Memphis,
Arkansas ("Distribution Center 202"). Distribution Center 202
distributed products to Family Dollar stores in eleven states, six
of which had stores that were affected by the incidents that led to
this litigation. Eighty-five of these stores are located in
Arkansas.

In March 2021, the Arkansas Department of Health ("ADH") inspected
Distribution Center 202 and reported seeing "significant rodent
activity" in areas where human and pet food were stored. The ADH
notified the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") in October
2021, prompting an FDA investigation.

On Feb. 11, 2022, the FDA released a report that detailed a rodent
infestation that compromised products stored inside Distribution
Center 202. On Feb. 18, 2022, the FDA issued a Safety Alert that
directed consumers, who had shopped in affected stores, to discard
certain products that had potentially been contaminated by rodents.
The same day, Family Dollar temporarily closed 404 stores and
issued a voluntary recall of the FDA-regulated products sold in the
affected stores.

After learning of the rodent infestation, the Arkansas Attorney
General ("AG") began an investigation into potential violations of
Arkansas law, including the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act
("ADTPA"). On April 28, 2022, the AG filed a lawsuit against Family
Dollar in Arkansas state court ("Arkansas Case") asserting ADTPA
claims and several common law claims, Arkansas ex rel. Rutledge,
Case No. 60CV-22-2725, Pulaski Cty. Cir. Ct. (Apr. 28, 2022).
Through that lawsuit, Arkansas seeks actual and punitive damages,
disgorgement, restitution, civil penalties, and injunctive relief
against Family Dollar.

By June 2, 2022, thirteen lawsuits had been filed against the
Defendants in seven different federal jurisdictions. That day, the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation concluded
that the Western District of Tennessee was an appropriate
transferee district for consolidated proceedings, resulting in the
instant Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") (IN RE: Family Dollar
Stores, Inc., Pest Infestation Litigation MDL No.
2:22-md-3032-SHL-tmp). The Arkansas Case remained in state court,
and thus, was not transferred to the MDL.

On Aug. 12, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint in
the MDL. The Consolidated Complaint included claims for negligence,
negligence per se, negligent failure to warn, breach of implied
warranty, unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment, failure to
disclose, and violations of multiple Deceptive Trade Practice and
Consumer Protection Acts. The list includes Alabama Deceptive Trade
Practice Act; ADTPA; Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law; Mississippi Consumer Protection Act; Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act; and Tennessee Consumer Protection
Act.

The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Complaint
on Sept. 26, 2022. The Plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated
Complaint on Oct. 17, 2022, containing additional exhibits and
allegations. The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
Consolidated Amended Complaint on Oct. 20, 2022. The Court held a
hearing on that motion on Dec. 20, 2022. This motion was still
pending when the Court received the Parties' Notice of Settlement.

Before the filing of this lawsuit, the Plaintiffs conducted
extensive investigation of the facts and circumstances related to
the allegations in the Action. They also undertook significant
discovery efforts during the pendency of the case, including
serving 18 interrogatories, 58 requests for admission, 46 document
requests and disclosing four expert witnesses. They served numerous
third-party subpoenas and issued Freedom of Information Act
requests, which resulted in the production of tens of thousands of
pages of documents.

In late 2022, the Plaintiffs and an expert inspected Distribution
Center 202. The Defendants produced for review more than 24,000
pages of documents and disclosed six experts. The Plaintiffs
produced more than 6,000 pages of documents. Additionally, the
Defendants took, and the Plaintiffs defended, seven Settlement
Class Representatives depositions.

On Nov. 9, 2022, the Parties engaged in a mediation session, but
did not reach an agreement. On April 18, 2023, the Parties engaged
in a second mediation session. The Parties made significant
progress at that mediation, and the mediator prepared a proposal on
April 20, 2023, asking the Parties to approve or reject it by April
28, 2023.

The Plaintiffs' counsel requested and received two extensions of
that deadline to discuss the proposed settlement terms with the
Arkansas AG. On May 3, 2023, the AG was provided a copy of the
mediator's proposal, which included the material terms of the
Settlement: an uncapped, "claims made" settlement providing $25
Family Dollar gift cards to all claimants, who could attest that
they shopped at a Family Dollar store serviced by Distribution
Center 202 between Jan. 1, 2020, and Feb. 18, 2022.

On May 5, 2023, the Parties accepted the mediator's proposal and
began to prepare a long-form Settlement Agreement. On May 8, 2023,
the Parties shared a draft agreement with the AG, and, on May 30,
2023, they provided him with an updated draft. On June 7, 2023,
Arkansas requested that the Parties include a "carve out" from the
release to exclude the Arkansas Case from the proposed MDL
Settlement.

A few days later, Arkansas requested that the Parties remove a
provision that would reserve Family Dollar's right to object to any
attempted double recovery. Family Dollar agreed to the carve out
excluding the Arkansas Case, but refused to delete the reservation
of rights against double recovery.

On June 19, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Consolidated Class Action Settlement. The
Settlement Agreement that accompanied the Motion included both the
carve out and Family Dollar's reservation of rights.

On July 18, 2023, Arkansas filed a Motion to Intervene. The Court
granted the motion on Aug. 30, 2023, following a hearing. Arkansas
filed its supplemental brief on Sept. 8, 2023, objecting to the
proposed settlement. On Aug. 18, 2023, the Parties filed a
Supplemental Submission in Support of Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. This
submission increased the period in which settlement class members
may make their claims and revised the definition of the Settlement
Class.

On Oct. 27, 2023, the Court entered an Order Granting Preliminary
Approval of Proposed Settlement ("Preliminary Approval Order"),
preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement, overruling
Arkansas's objections, and directing that notice be given to the
members of the Settlement Class.

On Jan. 4, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Attorneys'
Fees. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Settlement Class
Members were provided with notice informing them of the terms of
the proposed settlement, their right to object and/or opt out and
of the date and time of the Final Approval hearing. The deadline
for members of the Settlement Class to object to the settlement, as
well as the deadline to opt out of the case, was Jan. 10, 2024. No
objections were received, and only 25 class members requested
exclusion.

On Feb. 8, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed this Motion for Final
Approval, the terms and conditions of which are set forth in the
Settlement Agreement. On April 5, 2024, the Court held the Final
Fairness Hearing on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval.

                   Settlement Agreement Terms

The Settlement Agreement provides for an uncapped, "claims made"
settlement that provides a $25 Family Dollar gift card to all
claimants, who could attest that they shopped at a Family Dollar
store serviced by Distribution Center 202 between Jan. 1, 2020, and
Feb. 18, 2022. These gift cards are (a) limited to one per
household; (b) may be used to purchase any item sold at Family
Dollar stores, excluding purchases prohibited or restricted by
state law (such as alcohol and tobacco); (c) are fully
transferable; (d) can be used in conjunction with other promotions
or discounts, including manufacturers' coupons and discounts; (e)
will not expire; (f) do not require separate purchase or the use of
the Settlement Class Member's money; and (g) can be used over
multiple discrete transactions until the value is exhausted.

In exchange for this relief, the Settlement Class Representatives
and Settlement Class Members release any and all claims arising
from the practices and claims that were or could have been alleged
in this action. However, the Settlement expressly excludes and does
not release any claims made by the Arkansas Attorney General in the
Arkansas Case.

Further, the Defendants reserve all rights to raise any and all
defenses to the claims raised in that case, including that monetary
relief would be inappropriate given the relief provided to
consumers through this Settlement.

             Motion for Final Approval of Settlement

The Court-appointed administrator, Angeion Group, LLC, distributed
the notice to the provisionally certified Rule 23 class members
using a multi-pronged campaign.

The Court previously found in its Preliminary Approval Order that
the Notice Plan was anticipated to adequately apprise all potential
class members of the terms of the Settlement Agreement, provide the
opportunity to make informed decisions, and comport with due
process. The Declaration of Steven Weisbrot of Angeion highlighted
the success of the notice program.

In its Preliminary Approval Order, the Court conditionally
certified a class. The Court also provisionally appointed the Class
Representatives. There has been no information presented to alter
the Court's previous conclusions.

For the same reasons the Court granted preliminary approval, the
Court grants final certification of the Class and final approval of
the appointment of the Class Representatives.

There were no objections to the Settlement, and only 25 valid
opt-outs were received. The lack of objections and low number of
opt-outs also supports approval of the settlement.

          Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service Awards

Because this is not a common fund case, Plaintiffs assert that the
lodestar method is appropriate. The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an
award of $10 million, which applies a multiplier of about two. The
Plaintiffs point out that the requested multiplier falls well
within the range of those approved by courts in the circuit. As
Plaintiffs point out, the lodestar method is favored in cases where
there is no common fund.

Judge Lipman notes that in this district, the Local Rules require
parties to submit an affidavit or declaration of counsel detailing
the number of hours spent on each aspect of the case and an
affidavit or declaration from another attorney in the community,
who is not otherwise involved in the case, setting out the
prevailing rate in the community for similar services.

The Plaintiffs have not complied with either of the Local Rules
requirements, Judge Lipman says. Although the declaration from
Interim Co-Lead Counsel, J. Gerard Stranch, IV, lists the work done
in this case, and provides the total number of hours work by each
attorney, the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated how much time was
spent on each aspect of the case.

Although not required, Judge Lipman says, one way to satisfy this
requirement is to submit billing records or affidavits from each
attorney detailing their work. The Plaintiffs also failed to
include an affidavit or declaration from another attorney in the
community, who is not involved in this case, that the hourly rates
charged here are reasonable.

Because of these deficiencies, Judge Lipman holds that the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is denied without prejudice.
The Plaintiffs may refile their Motion so long as it is brought
into compliance with this Court's Local Rules.

The Plaintiffs request reimbursement of litigation expenses in the
amount of $247,589.77 to cover amounts expended out-of-pocket in
the prosecution of the case. They seek to cover expenses, such
meals, hotels, and transportation; and filing fees, service, and
court fees.

Finding these expenses to be routine and reasonable, the Court
awards $247,589.77 in expenses.

The Plaintiffs also request the approval of service awards totaling
$44,000, with eight class representatives (Sheena Bibbs, Tina
Bishop, Julian Graves, Martha Lacy, Taylor Lorimer, Sonya Mull,
Vinnie Smith, and Jerome Whitney) each to receive $5,000 and two
class representatives (Beverly Gordon and Sandra Walker) each to
receive $2,000. The amount of the award is based on the
representative's level of involvement in the case.

Judge Lipman finds, among other things, that each of the named
Plaintiffs spent considerable time pursuing the litigation.
Accordingly, the Court awards $44,000 in service awards, consistent
with the outlined terms.

                           Conclusion

The Court finds that the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and
reasonable and in the best interests of the Settlement Class
Members.

The Court finds that, for purposes of the Settlement only, all
prerequisites for maintenance of a class action set forth in
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) are satisfied and
certifies the following Settlement Class:

     All Persons who reside within Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana,
     Mississippi, Missouri, or Tennessee, and from Jan. 1, 2020,
     through Feb. 18, 2022, inclusive, purchased any product from
     an Affected Family Dollar Store.

Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) the Defendants; (ii)
the Defendants' agents, parents, officers, predecessors, directors,
legal representatives, heirs, successors and wholly or partly owned
subsidiaries or affiliates of the Defendants; (iii) Class Counsel
and any other attorneys, who represent Settlement Class
Representatives or the Settlement Class in this Action, as well as
their agents and employees; (iv) the judicial officers and court
staff assigned to this case, as well as their immediate family
members; and (v) Persons who timely requested to be excluded from
this Settlement.

Pursuant to Rule 23(e), the Court grants final approval of the
Settlement and finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate and in the best interests of the Settlement Class Members
based on, among other things, the factors enumerated in UAW v. Gen.
Motors Corp., 497 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. 2007).

All objections to the Settlement are overruled. A list of those who
have timely opted out of the Settlement and who, therefore, are not
bound by the Settlement Agreement has been submitted to the Court
as Exhibit J to the Declaration of Steven Weisbrot of Angeion
Group, LLC. All other members of the Settlement Class are subject
to all provisions of the Settlement Agreement and this Court's
Order approving the Settlement Agreement.

The Release set forth in Paragraph 6 of the Settlement Agreement is
incorporated herein by reference and all Settlement Class
Representatives and Settlement Class Members will be fully subject
to all of these provisions.

For the reasons stated here, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys'
Fees is granted in part and denied in part. The Plaintiffs' request
for attorneys' fees is denied without prejudice and their request
for expenses is granted.

The Action, and all claims asserted, is settled and is dismissed on
the merits with prejudice, as set forth in the Final Judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 6, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5cned7ej from PacerMonitor.com.


FINANCIAL BUSINESS: Croteau Sues Over Inadequate Data Security
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALISON CROTEAU, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. FINANCIAL BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SOLUTIONS, INC., Case
No. 2:24-cv-01946 (E.D. Pa., May 7, 2024) accuses the Defendant of
failing to properly secure Plaintiff's and Class members' private
information from hackers.

The Defendant experienced a data breach between February 14 and
February 26, 2024, during which an unauthorized party accessed and
obtained Plaintiffs' and Class members' highly sensitive personal
information, including Social Security numbers and account
information that Defendant collected and maintained for its
clients. The data breach occurred because of Defendant's alleged
failure to implement adequate data security practices and properly
monitor its computer network and systems. Plaintiff asserts claims
for negligence, negligence per se, breach of third-party
beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment,
says the suit.

Financial Business and Consumer Solutions, INC. (FBCS) is a debt
collection agency based in Hatboro, PA. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Nicholas Sandercock, Esq.
        Mason A. Barney, Esq.
        Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
        SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP     
        745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
        New York, NY 10151
        Telephone: (646) 357-1732
        E-mail: nsandercock@sirillp.com
                mbarney@sirillp.com
                tbean@sirillp.com

FORWARD AIR: Class Action Lawsuit Seeks to Rescind Omni Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Rose of The Greenville Sun reports that the legal battle over
the January merger of Greeneville-based Forward Air Corporation and
Omni Logistics continues with a class action lawsuit filed May 15
in Greeneville.

Plaintiffs Michael Roberts of Greeneville, a former senior vice
president of the corporation, and Cambria County Employees
Retirement System in Pennsylvania are asking the court to rescind
the merger and/or award an unspecified amount of damages to the
class of Forward Air's public shareholders when the merger closed.

The plaintiffs claim Forward Air, its board members and then-CEO
Thomas Schmitt violated Tennessee law by failing to provide
shareholders with the opportunity to vote on the merger of the
transportation companies.

In addition to Forward Air and Schmitt, defendants named in the
complaint are: Ronald W. Allen, Ana Amicarella, Valerie A.
Bonebrake, C. Robert Campbell, R. Craig Carlock, G. Michael Lynch,
George S. Mayes Jr., Chitra Nayak, Javier Polit, and Laurie A.
Tucker, all members of the Forward Air board of directors.

The 35-page complaint filed in the Chancery Court of the 3rd
Judicial District in Greene County recalls when Forward Air
announced on Aug. 10, 2023, that it was merging with Omni Logistics
LLC, based in Dallas, Texas, for $3.2 billion.

The complaint states that the 35% amount of equity issued by
Forward Air to Omni in the merger exceeds a 20% threshold that
state law requires for a shareholder vote.

The complaint also mentions a restructuring as part of the merger
in which Forward Air transferred all of its operating assets to a
newly registered Delaware limited liability company, Clue Opco LLC,
an umbrella partnership. As a result, Forward Air has been
converted from an operating company to a holding company.

As a part of the Merger, Forward Air entered into voting agreements
with Omni's principal owners, Ridgemont Equity Partners and EVE
Partners, LLC, the complaint explains.

"Pursuant to these agreements, Ridgemont and EVE (together with
certain other legacy Omni shareholders) are required to vote their
shares in favor of the directors nominated by the Director
Defendants, and against any other nominees," the complaint states.

This move "is nothing but a smokescreen created by Defendants in an
effort to evade the shareholder vote mandated by section
48-21-104," of state law, the complaint states.

"There is no rational justification for depriving shareholders of a
vote on the Merger, and the Director Defendants' manipulative
conduct in doing so was contrary to their fiduciary duties," the
complaint states. "By deliberately depriving Forward Air's
shareholders of their voting franchise, the Forward Air Board acted
disloyally, in bad faith, and in violation of Tennessee law, in
breach of their fiduciary duties."

Also, "There is overwhelming evidence that Forward Air's
shareholders would have rejected the merger had they been given the
opportunity to vote on it," the complaint continues.

"Perhaps most damningly for Forward Air, Scott Niswonger -- who
founded Forward Air in 1990 and served as its CEO until 2003 --
resigned from the Board in protest before the Board met to vote on
and approve the Merger on Aug. 10, 2023. Niswonger resigned in part
due to Forward Air depriving its shareholders of a vote," the
complaint continues.

In addition to rescinding the merger and/or other damages, the
plaintiffs are seeking attorneys' fees and costs in favor of the
class and "further equitable or other relief as the Court deems
just and proper."

According to the complaint, Roberts currently holds 5,000 shares of
Forward Air stock, and Cambria County currently holds 585 shares.

The complaint notes that Forward Air's stock closed at $110 per
share the day before the Merger was announced and "plummeted" over
$32 per share to $77.65 per share within a day of the announcement.
By Jan. 25, 2024, the date the merger closed, Forward Air's stock
had fallen to $46.87 per share, and as of March 20, 2024, the stock
"sagged" to below $27 per share.

The stock closed May 16, at $15.40 per share. [GN]

FVP CENTURY: Pardo Sues Over Architectural Barriers in Property
---------------------------------------------------------------
NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, Plaintiff v. FVP CENTURY, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-21758-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 6, 2024) is
a class action accusing the Defendant of violating the Americans
with Disabilities Act

The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at Defendant's
commercial property. She had difficulty traversing the path of
travel, as it is not continuous and accessible. In addition, the
property's ramps do not have ADA-compliant handrails, says the
suit.

FVP CENTURY, LLC, owned and operated a commercial property at 1665
West 68th Street, Hialeah, Florida, 33014. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Beverly Virues, Esq.
         Armando Mejias, Esq.
         GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L.
         350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200
         Coral Gables, Fl 33134
         Telephone: (305) 553-3464
         E-mail: bvirues@lawgmp.com
                 amejias@lawgmp.com

                 - and -

         Ramon J. Diego,Esq.
         THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A.
         5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103
         Miami, FL, 33155
         Telephone: (305) 350-3103
         E-mail: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com

GAP INC: Carbajal Sues Over Alleged Use of Tracker Pixels
---------------------------------------------------------
Ivonne Carbajal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Gap, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and PaeDae,
Inc., a Delaware Corporation, dba Gimbal, operating as Infillion,
Case No. 2:24-cv-01056-ROS (D. Ariz., May 7, 2024) accuses the
Defendants of violating Arizona's Telephone, Utility and
Communication Service Records Act by procuring customers'
communication service records without their consent.

The Plaintiff and Class members are recipients of Gap's marketing
emails that allegedly utilize and embed Infillion's tracker to
obtain, collect, record, and store Plaintiff and Class members'
information and communication service records. According to
Plaintiff, the hidden embedded email tracking pixels are intended
to monitor customers' behavior and to paint a uniquely identifiable
detailed picture of each recipient in order to create targeted
advertising campaigns for The Gap. The Defendants allegedly
procured the communication service records of Plaintiff and Class
members through deceptive means and without their authorization, in
violation of Arizona's Telephone, Utility and Communication Service
Records Act, says the suit.

The Gap, Inc. is an American retail group based in San Francisco,
CA. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        James X. Bormes, Esq.
        Catherine P. Sons, Esq.
        LAW OFFICE OF JAMES X. BORMES, P.C.     
        8 South Michigan Avenue, Suite 2600
        Chicago, IL 60603
        Telephone: (312) 201-0575
        E-mail: jxbormes@bormeslaw.com
                cpsons@bormeslaw.com

                - and -
     
        Michelle R. Matheson, Esq.
        MATHESON & MATHESON, P.L.C.
        15300 North 90th Street, Suite 550
        Scottsdale, AZ 85260
        Telephone: (480) 889-8951
        E-mail: mmatheson@mathesonlegal.com

                - and -
     
        Thomas M. Ryan, Esq.
        LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. RYAN, P.C.
        35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 650
        Chicago, IL 60601
        Telephone: (312) 726-3400
        E-mail: tom@tomryanlaw.com

GENERAL MOTORS: Chevy Bolt Owners to Receive Settlement Checks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chevy Bolt owners are eligible for settlement checks as part of a
$150 million class-action settlement with General Motors and South
Korean industrial group LG over faulty batteries.

According to documents filed in a Michigan court, Bolt EV owners
who installed software before Dec. 31, 2023 that had been designed
to fix the battery issue will be eligible to receive a check for up
to $1,400. Customers who sold their Bolt or terminated their leases
before the software remedy was released -- or ones who received a
replacement battery -- will receive a $700 check at minimum.

"GM, LG Energy Solution and LG Electronics have agreed to a
settlement with plaintiffs to resolve class action litigation
related to the Bolt EV battery recall," GM said in an emailed
statement to Reuters.

"As a result, Bolt owners who received a battery replacement or who
have installed the latest advanced diagnostic software may qualify
for compensation," the company said.

GM began recalling Bolt EVs after receiving multiple complaints
about the LG-branded batteries catching fire.

The recall effort ultimately cost GM nearly $2 billion. [GN]

GLOBAL CORD: Gestion Sues Over Share Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------
MW GESTION, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GLOBAL CORD BLOOD CORPORATION, TING ZHENG,
BING CHUEN (ALBERT) CHEN, YUEN KAM, MARK DA-JIAN CHEN, JENNIFER J.
WENG, DR. KEN LU, JACK CHOW, JACKY CHENG, GOLDEN MEDITECH HOLDINGS
LIMITED, GOLDEN MEDITECH STEM CELLS (BVI) COMPANY LIMITED, GM
PRECISION MEDICINE (BVI) LIMITED, GOLDEN MEDITECH PRECISION
MEDICINE LIMITED, GOLDEN MEDITECH (BVI) COMPANY LIMITED, and KPMG
HUAZHEN LLP, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-03071 (S.D.N.Y., April
22, 2024) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the
Plaintiff and a class consisting of all persons and entities other
than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Global Cord
securities between June 4, 2019 and May 3, 2022, both dates
inclusive, 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 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and
certain of its top officials.

On April 29, 2022, after the market closed, in a Form 6-K filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, Global Cord announced
that it had entered into a Material Definitive Agreement to acquire
Cellenkosfor over $1 billion, including $664 million in cash and
114 million Global Cord shares -- roughly the same number of the
Company's shares that were already outstanding.

Throughout the Class Period, the 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)
Global Cord employed a capital allocation strategy designed to
reserve funds for Company insiders and related parties rather than
for the benefit of Company shareholders; (ii) Global Cord's
decisions to reject multiple going private offers and enter into
the Transaction were nothing more than self-serving and conflicted
attempts by Defendants to divert company funds to corporate
insiders and related parties; (iii) Defendants fundamentally
misrepresented to investors Global Cord's approach to capital
allocation, strategic investments, acquisitions, and related party
transactions as a result of the misappropriation by Defendant Yuen
Kam and his entities of hundreds of millions of dollars from the
Company; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were
materially false and misleading at all relevant times, says the
suit.

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

Global Cord Blood Corporation provides umbilical cord blood storage
and ancillary services in the Beijing Municipality, Guangdong
Province, and Zhejiang Province of the People's Republic of
China.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
          Michael Grunfeld, Esq.
          J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
          Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq.
          Brandon M. Cordovi, Esq.
          POMERANTZ LLP
          600 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661-1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661-8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  mgrunfeld@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com
                  bcordovi@pomlaw.com

GOYARD ECOM: Martinez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------
SILVIA MARTINEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GOYARD ECOM, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-02987-AMD-LB (E.D.N.Y., April 22, 2024) is a civil rights
action against Defendant for the failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate Defendant's website, www.goyard.com, to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired people in violation of Plaintiff's
rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York
City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was injured when she
attempted multiple times, most recently on March 29, 2024, to
access Defendant's website from Plaintiff's home in an effort to
shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied
the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and
services.

The Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and
visually impaired consumers which is in violation of the ADA. The
Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

GOYARD ECOM, LLC offers a range of products including tote bags,
trunk bags, travel bags, and small leather goods.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rami Salim, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC  
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com

GREEN DIAMOND: Valentine Sues Over Alleged Private Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS VALENTINE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GREEN DIAMOND RESOURCE COMPANY, Defendant,
Case No. 2:24-cv-00620 (W.D. Wash., May 6, 2024) arises from
Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's
and other similarly situated persons' private information it
collected and maintained.

Green Diamond detected unusual activity on some of its computer
systems on June 27, 2023. Its investigation revealed that an
unauthorized party had access to certain company files between June
26 and June 27, 2023. However, Green Diamond waited until April
2024 to notify the public that they were at risk. Green Diamond
failed to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and Class
Members of the types of information that were accessed, and that
such information was subject to unauthorized access by
cybercriminals. Accordingly, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and
the Class, asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach
of implied contract, violations of the Washington Consumer
Protection Act, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief, says the
suit.

Based in Seattle, WA, Green Diamond is a forest products company
that owns and manages working forests in nine states throughout the
western and southern United States. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
         STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
         980 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 1610
         Chicago, IL 60611
         Telephone: (872) 263-1100
         E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com

                 - and -

         Mason A. Barney, Esq.
         Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
         SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
         745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
         New York, NY 10151
         Telephone: (212) 532-1091
         E-mail: mbarney@sirillp.com

GREEN ESCAPE: Tamayo Sues Over Unpaid OT Wages and Retaliation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gretys Tamayo and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff
v. The Green Escape LLC, Kimberly Fore, and Scott Fore, Defendants,
Case No. 5:24-cv-00238 (M.D. Fla., May 6, 2024) seeks to recover
monetary damages for unpaid overtime hours and retaliation under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Tamayo as a non-exempted, full-time, hourly nursery
employee from approximately March 25, 2024, to April 7, 2024, or 2
weeks. Although the Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours weekly, she
was paid only for 40 regular hours. In addition, Plaintiff was
fired due to her complaint for unpaid overtime hours, says the
suit.

Located in Eustis, FL, Green Escape is a nursery company providing
rare exotic plants. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
         ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
         9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
         Miami, FL 33156
         Telephone: (305) 446-1500
         Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
         E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

HANDI-FOIL CORP: Hood Alleges Misleading "Made in the USA" Labels
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIGETTE HOOD, individually and on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HANDI-FOIL CORP., HANDI-FOIL
ALUMINUM CORP., and JIFFY-FOIL CORP, Defendants, Case No.
4:24-cv-02373-DMR (N.D. Cal., April 22, 2024) is a class action
brought by the Plaintiff alleging violations of the California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California's Unfair Competition Law,
California's False Advertising Law, and unjust enrichment against
Defendants.

According to the complaint, the Defendants routinely misleads
consumers and violates the law by inaccurately labeling and
advertising its aluminum consumer products as "Made in the USA" and
"Made in USA" when the products are not completely processed
domestically or made of materials sourced in the United States of
America.

The Defendants make deceptive claims and misrepresentations on
their product labels, falsely implying that the products are
American, made in the United States, of American components.
Consumers rely on these representations, paying premium prices
because they believe Defendants' products are made in the United
States from American materials and are therefore more valuable,
says the suit.

Handi-Foil Corp. is a privately owned manufacturer of recyclable
aluminum products.[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

               - and -

          Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
          Domenica M. Russo, Esq.
          PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP
          One US Bank Plaza, Suite 1950
          St. Louis, MO 63104
          Telephone: bwise@peifferwolf.com
                     drusso@peifferwolf.com

HARBOR DIVERSIFIED: Faces Kothari Securities Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
VIRAL KOTHARI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HARBOR DIVERSIFIED, INC., CHRISTINE R. DEISTER, and
LIAM MACKAY, Case No. 1:24-cv-00556-WCG (E.D. Wis., May 7, 2024)
accuses the Defendants of violating the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of persons or entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded Harbor
Diversified securities between May 10, 2022 and March 29, 2024. The
Defendants allegedly made materially false and misleading
statements about Harbor Diversified's business, operations, and
prospects. In particular, Defendants failed to disclose that Harbor
Diversified's financial statements from May 9, 2022 to the present
were misstated due to improper revenue recognition and that the
company lacked adequate internal controls. When the truth emerged,
the price of Harbor Diversified stock fell, causing significant
losses and damages to Plaintiff and Class members, says the suit.

The Plaintiff seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other
relief pursuant the Securities Exchange Act.

Harbor Diversified, Inc. is a holding company based in Appleton,
WI. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

HORTUS NYC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Trippett Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
ALFRED TRIPPETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Hortus NYC Corp., Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-02971-VMS (E.D.N.Y., April 22, 2024) is a civil rights
action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate their website, https://www.hortusnyc.com, to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights
Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

This case arises out of Hortus NYC's policy and practice of denying
the blind access to the services offered by Hortusnyc.com. Due to
its failure and refusal to remove access barriers to Hortusnyc.com,
blind individuals have been and are being denied equal access to
Hortus NYC, as well as to the numerous goods, services and benefits
offered to the public through Hortusnyc.com.

Hortus NYC Corp. controls and operates Hortusnyc.com in New York
State and throughout the United States. Hortusnyc.com is a
commercial website and online platform that provides Asian cuisine
offered by Defendant in connection with its physical
locations.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

INARI MEDICAL: Faces Michiana Class Suit Over 21% Share Price Drop
------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHIANA AREA ELECTRICAL WORKERS' PENSION FUND, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. INARI MEDICAL, INC.,
WILLIAM HOFFMAN, ANDREW HYKES, and MITCH C. HILL, Case No.
1:24-cv-03686 (S.D.N.Y., May 13, 2024) is a federal securities
class action on behalf of all purchasers of shares of the common
stock of Inari between Feb. 24, 2022 through Feb. 28, 2024,
inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the
Defendants.

On Feb. 29, 2024, Inari shocked investors when the Company
disclosed it received a civil investigative demand by the U.S.
Department of Justice ("DOJ") over certain payments to healthcare
professionals relating to meals and consulting services, and warned
that "depending on the outcome of the investigation, there may be a
material impact on our business, results of operations, or
financial condition." In response to the disclosure, analysts that
closely follow the Company immediately reacted negatively and
downgraded the stock, the suit claims.

As a result of the DOJ investigation disclosure and the negative
analyst reactions, Inari's share price plummeted over $12 per share
or 21% the very next trading day -- from a closing price of $58.26
per share on Feb. 28, 2024 to $46.12 per share on Feb. 29, 2024 --
wiping out approximately $700 million in market capitalization in
one trading day.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants repeatedly touted
Inari's financial results and the success of its product sales, but
failed to disclose that these numbers were inflated by bribes and
other improper and illegal payments to healthcare providers, the
suit asserts.

As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
large decline in the market value of the Company’s common stock,
the Plaintiff MAEW and other class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, the suit adds.

Plaintiff MAEW is a union pension fund based in Lansing, Michigan
that manages all health, pension, and money purchase plan benefits
that the Michiana area electrical workers receive through
collective bargaining.

Inari is a medical device company that specializes in developing,
manufacturing and commercializing catheter-based technologies for
treating venous thromboembolism.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel L. Berger, Esq.
          Caitlin M. Moyna, Esq.
          Timothy Clark B. Dauz, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A.
          485 Lexington Avenue
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 722-8500
          Facsimile: (610) 722-8501
          E-mail: dberger@gelaw.com
                  cmoyna@gelaw.com
                  tdauz@gelaw.com

JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Duran Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
LILYBETH DURAN individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JP MORGAN CHASE & CO., Case No. 1:24-cv-03514
(S.D.N.Y., May 7, 2024) accuses the Defendant of inadequate data
security which led to a data breach.

The Plaintiff was a member of an employee-sponsored retirement
fund, for which Defendant served as a payment agent, between 2016
and 2024. Plaintiff's personal identifying information was
compromised in a data breach that occurred between August 26, 2021
and February 23, 2024 but was only discovered by Defendant on
February 26, 2024. The Defendant notified affected individuals
about the incident on or about April 18, 2024.

The data breach was allegedly caused by Defendant's failure to
implement adequate data security measures and follow industry
standard practices necessary to protect against unauthorized access
to customer PII. Defendants also allegedly underplayed the breach's
severity and obfuscated the nature of the Breach. Plaintiff, on
behalf of all others similarly situated, brings claims for
negligence, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, breach of
implied contract, and unjust enrichment.
   
JP Morgan Chase & Co is a multinational finance company based in
New York City, NY. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Jonathan M. Sedgh, Esq.
        MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP     
        350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6705
        New York, NY 10118
        Telephone: (212) 738-6299
        E-mail: JSedgh@forthepeople.com

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

                - and -
     
        John G. Emerson, Esq.
        EMERSON FIRM, PLLC
        2500 Wilcrest Drive, Suite 300
        Houston, TX 77042-2754
        Telephone: (800) 551-8649
        Facsimile: (501) 286-4659
        E-mail: jemerson@emersonfirm.com

LEPAGE BAKERIES: Court Defines "Transportation Workers" Exemption
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer L. Muse, writing for Honigman, reports that Wonder Bread,
Butterscotch Krimpets, and Jumbo Honey Buns were featured in a
recent unanimous decision by the Supreme Court of the United
States. But delicious baked goods were not the order of the day --
rather, the Court held that a transportation worker does not need
to work in the transportation industry in order to be exempt from
arbitrating their disputes under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA).
So, a distributor who transports Wonder Bread, Butterscotch
Krimpets, and Jumbo Honey Buns also cannot be compelled to
arbitrate their claims under the FAA.

A Tale of Differing Rationales

The Court's opinion in Bissonnette v. LePage Bakeries Park St., LLC
resolved a circuit split between the First Circuit and Second
Circuit Courts of Appeals regarding the interpretation of the
"transportation workers" exemption. Generally, the FAA provides
that arbitration agreements are "valid, irrevocable, and
enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity
for the revocation of any contract." A special exception exists for
"contracts of employment of seaman, railroad employees, or any
other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce."
Workers who fall into this category of employees cannot be
compelled under the FAA to arbitrate their claims with companies.

Two franchisees owned the rights to distribute the various packaged
baked goods in certain parts of Connecticut. These franchisees,
however, brought a putative class action against the company,
alleging various wage and hour violations under state and federal
law, among other things. The company moved to dismiss or compel
arbitration on the grounds that both franchisees had signed
contracts requiring them to arbitrate their claims individually.

Both the District Court and the Second Circuit found that these
arbitration agreements were valid, but for different reasons. The
District Court found that the franchisees had a "much broader scope
of responsibility" under the agreements, which suggested that they
were not principally truck drivers. The Second Circuit held that
the franchisees were in the "baking industry," not the
transportation industry, and as a result, were not exempt from the
FAA's reach.

After the appeal was decided, however, the Supreme Court held, in a
different case, that "a 'class of workers' is properly defined
based on what a worker does for an employer, 'not what [the
employer] does generally." The Second Circuit then reheard the
franchisees claims, but stated that to qualify under the exemption,
the industry must "peg its charges chiefly to the movement of goods
or passengers," and the revenue coming from that movement is the
predominant source of revenue for the industry. However, the Second
Circuit's decision conflicted with other decisions from the First
Circuit, and the Supreme Court elected to hear the case.

The Supreme Court Weighs In

In assessing the Second Circuit's opinion, the Supreme Court asked
the question: "Does a pizza delivery company derive its revenue
mainly from pizza or delivery?" The question highlighted the
difficulty in the Second Circuit's test, which would lead to
discovery to review a company's revenue models before deciding
whether or not the dispute should be subject to arbitration.

Citing well-established precedent, the Court affirmed its prior
position, finding that "a transportation worker is one who is
'actively' 'engaged in the transportation' of . . . goods across
borders via the channels of foreign or interstate commerce."
Transportation workers, whether in the baking industry or the
transportation industry, are all exempt from the FAA's requirement
to arbitrate claims.

Differences in the FLSA's Transportation Worker Exemption

Wage and hour enthusiasts are familiar with the Fair Labor
Standards Act's (FLSA) exemption that applies to certain
transportation workers. Under the Motor Carrier exemption, certain
drivers, driver's helpers, loaders and mechanics are exempt from
the FLSA's requirements, as the Secretary of Transportation
establishes qualifications and maximum hours of service for those
workers. Similar to the interpretation of the FAA, the
transportation involved in the employee's duties must be in
interstate or foreign commerce. But the employer must be a motor
carrier or private motor carrier under that law.

While a truck driver for a bakery may otherwise fall under the
FLSA's motor carrier exemption, that truck driver would still be
subject to the FLSA because the driver is not engaged by a motor
carrier. The driver for the bakery could be subject to the overtime
requirements of the FLSA, but would not be required to arbitrate
any disputes regarding those requirements under the FAA.

The Bottom Baked-Good Line

Ultimately, companies should curtail their use of arbitration with
any worker who is actively engaged in transporting goods has
executed one, regardless of what industry the company is in -- be
it baked goods, televisions, or passengers. In addition, companies
should carefully consider who it asks to transport those goods, in
order to avoid losing out on the protections that a well-drafted
arbitration provision can provide -- including a waiver of class or
collective actions. [GN]

LOVO: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Voice Theft
-------------------------------------------------
Winston Cho of The Hollywood Reporter reports that voiceover actor
Paul Skye Lehrman was at his friend's house in 2022 when a YouTube
video was pulled up from a channel called Military News about
Russia's advance into Ukraine. He immediately recognized the voice
as his own, though he never contracted with the channel operator
for use of his likeness.

"It was my voice dictating the conflict and talking about weapons,"
Lehrman says. "These are words I never said."

A year later, he was on his way to a doctor's appointment when he
says he again stumbled upon his voice in a podcast about
Hollywood's dual strikes in which a generative artificial
intelligence text-to-speech tool was used to answers questions
about the dangers of the technology. That's when he and his wife
Linnea Sage, also a voiceover actor who suspects her voice was
stolen in a similar manner, reached out to an attorney.

On May 16, they sued Berkeley-based AI startup LOVO in a proposed
class action filed in New York federal court accusing the company
of misappropriating their voices, as well as those of A-list talent
such as Scarlett Johansson, Ariana Grande and Conan O'Brien. It's
believed to the first lawsuit against an AI firm over the use of
likenesses to train an AI system and marks a growing rift between
creators and companies alleged to indiscriminately hoover troves of
data to power their technology.

The lawsuit seeks to represent other voiceover artists who believe
their voices were misappropriated by LOVO, which didn't respond to
a request for comment. It also looks to obtain a court order
blocking the company from continuing to undercut their work.

The actors join a growing list of rights holders that include
authors, artists and publications who've taken to court over what
they argue is the unauthorized and uncompensated theft of their
works and likenesses to fuel a multibillion dollar industry.

SAG-AFTRA general counsel Jeffrey Bennett says the misconduct
alleged in the lawsuit is "the type of thing we're going to see
more of as people fail to understand that there are rights that
exist in voices." The union maintains that training AI systems on
members' likenesses without consent is a violation of their
rights.

The lawsuit, which centers on an alleged violation of New York's
right of publicity law, says LOVO sells its services using "stolen
property" and falsely "represents that it has the legal right to
market these voices" when it doesn't.

In 2020, Lehrman was contacted by an unidentified user, who he
later learned was a LOVO employee, on freelance services platform
Fiverr to provide voiceover services, according to the complaint.
When he inquired further, he was allegedly told that his voice
would be "used for academic research purposes only." Lerhman, who
was paid $1,200, was assured in another message that it "will not
be used for anything else."

But two years later, the lawsuit claims that he recognized his
voice on the YouTube channel called Military News, which has more
than 336,000 subscribers, on a video about Russian weapons. "Then,
on or about June 13, 2023, Mr. Lehrman heard his voice being used
on a podcast episode of ‘Deadline Strike Talk,'" the complaint,
which notes that he wasn't compensated for the use, states.

According to the complaint, LOVO marketed his allegedly
misappropriated voice as part of its subscription service under the
stage name "Kyle Snow." The lawsuit states, "His voice was the
default voice for the software; his voice was also touted as one of
the five best text-to-speech voices, and it was used to advertise
and explain the product."

Sage, a voiceover artist of 14 years known for her work in Marvel
video games, was similarly offered a job on Fiverr in 2019 to
produce test scripts for radio ads. Like Lerhman, she was told that
her voice "will only be consumed internally, so will not require
rights of any sort," the lawsuit says.

But in 2023, Sage alleges she discovered that LOVO had been using
her voice as part of its subscription business under the name
"Sally Coleman."

While LOVO claims that its AI system was trained on thousands of
voices, the lawsuit claims that the voices of "Kyle Snow" and
"Sally Coleman" are distinctly those of Lehrman and Sage
respectively.

"The voices of other LOVO voice options are undoubtedly the voices
of other class Plaintiffs who neither gave their authorization to
use their voice – for either teaching Genny, use by LOVO, or sale
by LOVO as part of its service – and were never properly
compensated," writes Steve Cohen of Pollock Cohen, a lawyer for the
actors, in the complaint.

Lehrman, who has over a decade of experience as a voiceover artist
under his belt and is best known for his roles in NBC's New
Amsterdam CBS's Blue Bloods, estimates that he's seen a decline of
roughly 50 percent in his work since last year. He stresses that
the issue is not only that he's getting less job opportunities but
the "degradation of my reputation."

"My voice is literally saying things I wouldn't say with brands I
wouldn't work with in places I wouldn't want to be placed," he
explains. "In addition, I don't have control of the nuance of the
artistic delivery."

Sage's concerns are rooted in potentially being displaced from
Hollywood altogether with the rise of AI voice tools. If
misappropriation of her voice is allowed to continue from companies
like LOVO, she warns "99 percent of the work that voiceover artists
do will be replaced by AI voices."

"I haven't made it big, but I've been working with so many other
hard workers in this industry for my whole adult life," she adds.

For SAG-AFTRA, Bennett says this lawsuit "puts companies on notice
that you need to know what rights you're getting and what you want
to get." He urges members not to accept overbroad contract language
handing over rights in perpetuity.

"Now, we live in world where we can clone somebody's voice and
likeness," Bennet explains. "Those overbroad provisions are
incredibly dangerous now. You've potentially given up rights and
consented to be cloned."

Due to the rise of AI services that allow users to replicate
actors' likenesses, the union has been advocating for a federal
right of publicity law. There are currently no federal laws
covering the use of AI to mimic someone's voice. A patchwork of
state right of publicity laws has filled the void, but there's
little recourse in states that have not passed such statutes.

"The most significant thing to me about a federal voice and
likeness law is the creation of intellectual property right at
federal level of voice and likeness," Bennett says. "If there are
IP rights at the federal level, you've given yourself the ability
to go after online instances of use and demand that it come down."

While the class action seeks to represent talent whose voices were
used to train LOVO's AI system, as well as those whose voices were
misappropriated, it has the potential to expand to A-list talent.
The company also promotes its services using "barely-disguised
images and names" of celebrities, such as "Ariana Venti," "Barack
Yo Mama" and "Cocoon O'Brien." The company advertises to users that
they can "clone any voice," though it qualifies that they "cannot
use this cloned voice for imitation of celebrities, so only use
this tool for personal entertainment purposes." [GN]

MDL 3032: Settlement in Pest Infestation Suit Has Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the multidistrict litigation titled IN RE: Family Dollar Stores,
Inc., Pest Infestation Litigation, MDL No. 2:22-md-3032-SHL-tmp
(W.D. Tenn.), Chief District Judge Sheryl H. Lipman of the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, Western
Division, issued an order:

   (a) granting the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Final
       Approval of Proposed Settlement and Supplement to
       Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses
       and Service Awards filed Feb. 8, 2024; and

   (b) granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs'
       Unopposed Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service
       Awards filed Jan. 4, 2024.

Specifically, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is denied
without prejudice given its lack of compliance with the Court's
Local Rules. The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an award of $10
million.

The case involves allegations that Defendants Family Dollar Stores
of Tennessee, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Arkansas, LLC; Family
Dollar Stores of Alabama, LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Louisiana,
LLC; Family Dollar Stores of Mississippi, LLC; Family Dollar Stores
of Missouri, LLC; Family Dollar Services, LLC; Family Dollar, Inc.;
Family Dollar Stores, Inc.; Dollar Tree, Inc.; and Dollar Tree
Stores, Inc. (collectively "Family Dollar"), deceptively,
negligently, recklessly, and/or intentionally sold products that
were contaminated by a rodent infestation in stores throughout
Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Missouri, and
Tennessee.

Plaintiffs Dondrea Brown, Muriel Vanessa Brown, Vinnie L. Smith,
Julian A. Graves, Reginald and Sonya Fields, Taylor Lorimer, Martha
"Keisha" Lacy, Sheena Bibbs, Jerome Whitney, Tina Bishop, Sonya
Mull, and Christine Robinson brought this case as a class of
customers of Family Dollar.

Family Dollar is a value chain store that sells groceries and
household goods at discounted prices. Family Dollar owns and
operates more than 8,000 stores and eleven distribution centers,
including a Family Dollar Distribution Center in West Memphis,
Arkansas ("Distribution Center 202"). Distribution Center 202
distributed products to Family Dollar stores in eleven states, six
of which had stores that were affected by the incidents that led to
this litigation. Eighty-five of these stores are located in
Arkansas.

In March 2021, the Arkansas Department of Health ("ADH") inspected
Distribution Center 202 and reported seeing "significant rodent
activity" in areas where human and pet food were stored. The ADH
notified the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") in October
2021, prompting an FDA investigation.

On Feb. 11, 2022, the FDA released a report that detailed a rodent
infestation that compromised products stored inside Distribution
Center 202. On Feb. 18, 2022, the FDA issued a Safety Alert that
directed consumers, who had shopped in affected stores, to discard
certain products that had potentially been contaminated by rodents.
The same day, Family Dollar temporarily closed 404 stores and
issued a voluntary recall of the FDA-regulated products sold in the
affected stores.

After learning of the rodent infestation, the Arkansas Attorney
General ("AG") began an investigation into potential violations of
Arkansas law, including the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act
("ADTPA"). On April 28, 2022, the AG filed a lawsuit against Family
Dollar in Arkansas state court ("Arkansas Case") asserting ADTPA
claims and several common law claims, Arkansas ex rel. Rutledge,
Case No. 60CV-22-2725, Pulaski Cty. Cir. Ct. (Apr. 28, 2022).
Through that lawsuit, Arkansas seeks actual and punitive damages,
disgorgement, restitution, civil penalties, and injunctive relief
against Family Dollar.

By June 2, 2022, thirteen lawsuits had been filed against the
Defendants in seven different federal jurisdictions. That day, the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation concluded
that the Western District of Tennessee was an appropriate
transferee district for consolidated proceedings, resulting in the
instant Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") (IN RE: Family Dollar
Stores, Inc., Pest Infestation Litigation MDL No.
2:22-md-3032-SHL-tmp). The Arkansas Case remained in state court,
and thus, was not transferred to the MDL.

On Aug. 12, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Complaint in
the MDL. The Consolidated Complaint included claims for negligence,
negligence per se, negligent failure to warn, breach of implied
warranty, unjust enrichment, fraudulent concealment, failure to
disclose, and violations of multiple Deceptive Trade Practice and
Consumer Protection Acts. The list includes Alabama Deceptive Trade
Practice Act; ADTPA; Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law; Mississippi Consumer Protection Act; Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act; and Tennessee Consumer Protection
Act.

The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Complaint
on Sept. 26, 2022. The Plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated
Complaint on Oct. 17, 2022, containing additional exhibits and
allegations. The Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
Consolidated Amended Complaint on Oct. 20, 2022. The Court held a
hearing on that motion on Dec. 20, 2022. This motion was still
pending when the Court received the Parties' Notice of Settlement.

Before the filing of this lawsuit, the Plaintiffs conducted
extensive investigation of the facts and circumstances related to
the allegations in the Action. They also undertook significant
discovery efforts during the pendency of the case, including
serving 18 interrogatories, 58 requests for admission, 46 document
requests and disclosing four expert witnesses. They served numerous
third-party subpoenas and issued Freedom of Information Act
requests, which resulted in the production of tens of thousands of
pages of documents.

In late 2022, the Plaintiffs and an expert inspected Distribution
Center 202. The Defendants produced for review more than 24,000
pages of documents and disclosed six experts. The Plaintiffs
produced more than 6,000 pages of documents. Additionally, the
Defendants took, and the Plaintiffs defended, seven Settlement
Class Representatives depositions.

On Nov. 9, 2022, the Parties engaged in a mediation session, but
did not reach an agreement. On April 18, 2023, the Parties engaged
in a second mediation session. The Parties made significant
progress at that mediation, and the mediator prepared a proposal on
April 20, 2023, asking the Parties to approve or reject it by April
28, 2023.

The Plaintiffs' counsel requested and received two extensions of
that deadline to discuss the proposed settlement terms with the
Arkansas AG. On May 3, 2023, the AG was provided a copy of the
mediator's proposal, which included the material terms of the
Settlement: an uncapped, "claims made" settlement providing $25
Family Dollar gift cards to all claimants, who could attest that
they shopped at a Family Dollar store serviced by Distribution
Center 202 between Jan. 1, 2020, and Feb. 18, 2022.

On May 5, 2023, the Parties accepted the mediator's proposal and
began to prepare a long-form Settlement Agreement. On May 8, 2023,
the Parties shared a draft agreement with the AG, and, on May 30,
2023, they provided him with an updated draft. On June 7, 2023,
Arkansas requested that the Parties include a "carve out" from the
release to exclude the Arkansas Case from the proposed MDL
Settlement.

A few days later, Arkansas requested that the Parties remove a
provision that would reserve Family Dollar's right to object to any
attempted double recovery. Family Dollar agreed to the carve out
excluding the Arkansas Case, but refused to delete the reservation
of rights against double recovery.

On June 19, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed an Unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Consolidated Class Action Settlement. The
Settlement Agreement that accompanied the Motion included both the
carve out and Family Dollar's reservation of rights.

On July 18, 2023, Arkansas filed a Motion to Intervene. The Court
granted the motion on Aug. 30, 2023, following a hearing. Arkansas
filed its supplemental brief on Sept. 8, 2023, objecting to the
proposed settlement. On Aug. 18, 2023, the Parties filed a
Supplemental Submission in Support of Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement. This
submission increased the period in which settlement class members
may make their claims and revised the definition of the Settlement
Class.

On Oct. 27, 2023, the Court entered an Order Granting Preliminary
Approval of Proposed Settlement ("Preliminary Approval Order"),
preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement, overruling
Arkansas's objections, and directing that notice be given to the
members of the Settlement Class.

On Jan. 4, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Attorneys'
Fees. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Settlement Class
Members were provided with notice informing them of the terms of
the proposed settlement, their right to object and/or opt out and
of the date and time of the Final Approval hearing. The deadline
for members of the Settlement Class to object to the settlement, as
well as the deadline to opt out of the case, was Jan. 10, 2024. No
objections were received, and only 25 class members requested
exclusion.

On Feb. 8, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed this Motion for Final
Approval, the terms and conditions of which are set forth in the
Settlement Agreement. On April 5, 2024, the Court held the Final
Fairness Hearing on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Approval.

                   Settlement Agreement Terms

The Settlement Agreement provides for an uncapped, "claims made"
settlement that provides a $25 Family Dollar gift card to all
claimants, who could attest that they shopped at a Family Dollar
store serviced by Distribution Center 202 between Jan. 1, 2020, and
Feb. 18, 2022. These gift cards are (a) limited to one per
household; (b) may be used to purchase any item sold at Family
Dollar stores, excluding purchases prohibited or restricted by
state law (such as alcohol and tobacco); (c) are fully
transferable; (d) can be used in conjunction with other promotions
or discounts, including manufacturers' coupons and discounts; (e)
will not expire; (f) do not require separate purchase or the use of
the Settlement Class Member's money; and (g) can be used over
multiple discrete transactions until the value is exhausted.

In exchange for this relief, the Settlement Class Representatives
and Settlement Class Members release any and all claims arising
from the practices and claims that were or could have been alleged
in this action. However, the Settlement expressly excludes and does
not release any claims made by the Arkansas Attorney General in the
Arkansas Case.

Further, the Defendants reserve all rights to raise any and all
defenses to the claims raised in that case, including that monetary
relief would be inappropriate given the relief provided to
consumers through this Settlement.

             Motion for Final Approval of Settlement

The Court-appointed administrator, Angeion Group, LLC, distributed
the notice to the provisionally certified Rule 23 class members
using a multi-pronged campaign.

The Court previously found in its Preliminary Approval Order that
the Notice Plan was anticipated to adequately apprise all potential
class members of the terms of the Settlement Agreement, provide the
opportunity to make informed decisions, and comport with due
process. The Declaration of Steven Weisbrot of Angeion highlighted
the success of the notice program.

In its Preliminary Approval Order, the Court conditionally
certified a class. The Court also provisionally appointed the Class
Representatives. There has been no information presented to alter
the Court's previous conclusions.

For the same reasons the Court granted preliminary approval, the
Court grants final certification of the Class and final approval of
the appointment of the Class Representatives.

There were no objections to the Settlement, and only 25 valid
opt-outs were received. The lack of objections and low number of
opt-outs also supports approval of the settlement.

          Attorneys' Fees, Expenses and Service Awards

Because this is not a common fund case, Plaintiffs assert that the
lodestar method is appropriate. The Plaintiffs' counsel seeks an
award of $10 million, which applies a multiplier of about two. The
Plaintiffs point out that the requested multiplier falls well
within the range of those approved by courts in the circuit. As
Plaintiffs point out, the lodestar method is favored in cases where
there is no common fund.

Judge Lipman notes that in this district, the Local Rules require
parties to submit an affidavit or declaration of counsel detailing
the number of hours spent on each aspect of the case and an
affidavit or declaration from another attorney in the community,
who is not otherwise involved in the case, setting out the
prevailing rate in the community for similar services.

The Plaintiffs have not complied with either of the Local Rules
requirements, Judge Lipman says. Although the declaration from
Interim Co-Lead Counsel, J. Gerard Stranch, IV, lists the work done
in this case, and provides the total number of hours work by each
attorney, the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated how much time was
spent on each aspect of the case.

Although not required, Judge Lipman says, one way to satisfy this
requirement is to submit billing records or affidavits from each
attorney detailing their work. The Plaintiffs also failed to
include an affidavit or declaration from another attorney in the
community, who is not involved in this case, that the hourly rates
charged here are reasonable.

Because of these deficiencies, Judge Lipman holds that the
Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees is denied without prejudice.
The Plaintiffs may refile their Motion so long as it is brought
into compliance with this Court's Local Rules.

The Plaintiffs request reimbursement of litigation expenses in the
amount of $247,589.77 to cover amounts expended out-of-pocket in
the prosecution of the case. They seek to cover expenses, such
meals, hotels, and transportation; and filing fees, service, and
court fees.

Finding these expenses to be routine and reasonable, the Court
awards $247,589.77 in expenses.

The Plaintiffs also request the approval of service awards totaling
$44,000, with eight class representatives (Sheena Bibbs, Tina
Bishop, Julian Graves, Martha Lacy, Taylor Lorimer, Sonya Mull,
Vinnie Smith, and Jerome Whitney) each to receive $5,000 and two
class representatives (Beverly Gordon and Sandra Walker) each to
receive $2,000. The amount of the award is based on the
representative's level of involvement in the case.

Judge Lipman finds, among other things, that each of the named
Plaintiffs spent considerable time pursuing the litigation.
Accordingly, the Court awards $44,000 in service awards, consistent
with the outlined terms.

                           Conclusion

The Court finds that the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and
reasonable and in the best interests of the Settlement Class
Members.

The Court finds that, for purposes of the Settlement only, all
prerequisites for maintenance of a class action set forth in
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) are satisfied and
certifies the following Settlement Class:

     All Persons who reside within Arkansas, Alabama, Louisiana,
     Mississippi, Missouri, or Tennessee, and from Jan. 1, 2020,
     through Feb. 18, 2022, inclusive, purchased any product from
     an Affected Family Dollar Store.

Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) the Defendants; (ii)
the Defendants' agents, parents, officers, predecessors, directors,
legal representatives, heirs, successors and wholly or partly owned
subsidiaries or affiliates of the Defendants; (iii) Class Counsel
and any other attorneys, who represent Settlement Class
Representatives or the Settlement Class in this Action, as well as
their agents and employees; (iv) the judicial officers and court
staff assigned to this case, as well as their immediate family
members; and (v) Persons who timely requested to be excluded from
this Settlement.

Pursuant to Rule 23(e), the Court grants final approval of the
Settlement and finds that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate and in the best interests of the Settlement Class Members
based on, among other things, the factors enumerated in UAW v. Gen.
Motors Corp., 497 F.3d 615 (6th Cir. 2007).

All objections to the Settlement are overruled. A list of those who
have timely opted out of the Settlement and who, therefore, are not
bound by the Settlement Agreement has been submitted to the Court
as Exhibit J to the Declaration of Steven Weisbrot of Angeion
Group, LLC. All other members of the Settlement Class are subject
to all provisions of the Settlement Agreement and this Court's
Order approving the Settlement Agreement.

The Release set forth in Paragraph 6 of the Settlement Agreement is
incorporated herein by reference and all Settlement Class
Representatives and Settlement Class Members will be fully subject
to all of these provisions.

For the reasons stated here, the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys'
Fees is granted in part and denied in part. The Plaintiffs' request
for attorneys' fees is denied without prejudice and their request
for expenses is granted.

The Action, and all claims asserted, is settled and is dismissed on
the merits with prejudice, as set forth in the Final Judgment.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 6, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/5n8nts37 from PacerMonitor.com.


MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Faces Chappell Suit Over Consumer Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------
DAVID CHAPPELL, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, a New Jersey
corporation, and MERCEDES-BENZ GROUP AG, a German corporation, Case
No. 1:24-cv-01989-TWT (N.D. Ga., May 7, 2024) accuses the
Defendants of consumer fraud arising from Defendants' failure to
disclose a wheel configuration defect.

The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all
persons in Nevada and the United States who purchased or leased any
model year 2021-present S580 Sedan vehicles equipped with 21" AMG
V-multispoke wheel configuration marketed, sold, designed, and
manufactured by Defendants. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
failed to disclose that the Class vehicles' wheels were defective,
causing tire degradation that requires costly repairs and
replacements. Defendants allegedly knew of the wheel configuration
defect but actively concealed it from consumers, denying them
coverage for the said defect. The wheel configuration defect is
material as it poses a serious safety concern and could result in
significant and unexpected repair costs for consumers, says the
suit.

The Plaintiff brings claims for breach of express warranty,
violation of the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act, breach of
common law implied warranty of merchantability and breach of
implied warranty, breach of express and implied warranty under the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, unjust enrichment, and fraud. Plaintiff
also seeks declaratory and injunctive relief for Defendants'
alleged violations.
   
Headquartered in Georgia, Mercedes-Benz USA markets, distributes,
and sells Mercedes-branded automobiles and other motor vehicles.
[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

        Nathaniel James Heber, Esq.
        HEBER LAW FIRM LLC     
        3355 Lenox Road NE, Suite 750
        Atlanta, GA 30326
        Telephone: (404) 905-8470
        Facsimile: (470) 805-2016
        E-mail: nathan@heberfirm.com

                - and -
     
        Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
        Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
        Laura E. Goolsby, Esq.
        Nathan N. Kiyam, Esq.
        CAPSTONE LAW APC
        1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000
        Los Angeles, CA 90067
        Telephone: (310) 556-4811
        Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
        E-mail: Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
                Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
                Laura.Goolsby@capstonelawyers.com
                Nate.Kiyam@capstonelawyers.com

NATIONAL HEALTH: Precioso et al. Sue over Unlawful Labor Conditions
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NERISSA PRECIOSO, JAN VINCENT AUSTRIA, PATRICK BORJA, LIZALYNN
CABRAL, JOY CHUA, MARIE JODEL MONTALVO, and VINCENT ZAULDA, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs
v. NATIONAL HEALTH CORPORATION, JEFFREY R. SMITH, and MARIA WONG;
INFINITY CARE PARTNERS, LLC; and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case
No. 3:24-cv-00561 (M.D. Tenn., May 6, 2024) seeks for damages,
injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and other remedies for
violations of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, the Tennessee
Human Trafficking Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Fair Labor
Standards Act, and other federal and state law.

When the Plaintiffs and other Filipino nurses began work, National
Health Corporation (NHC) did not provide proper training, staffing,
equipment, and other resources needed for them to do their jobs
safely and professionally. The Plaintiffs and other Filipino nurses
were often subjected to discriminatory, illegal, and dangerous
conditions that threatened their own and their patients' safety and
health. In addition, Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs and other
Filipino nurses the required prevailing wage corresponding to the
skill level of the work the Plaintiffs were required to perform. In
addition, NHC materially misrepresented the terms and condition of
Plaintiffs' and other Filipino nurses' employment on the
applications with the U.S. Department of Labor by underreporting
Plaintiffs' and other Filipino nurses' education and experience,
the positions Plaintiffs and other Filipino nurses would fill,
and/or the NHC locations where Plaintiffs and other Filipino nurses
would work, says the suit.

Headquartered in Tennessee, NHC owns and operates over 150
residential medical facilities and home-health agencies in at least
eight states, including nursing homes, assisted living facilities,
hospice agencies, homecare agencies, and behavioral health
hospitals. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

         Caraline E. Rickard, Esq.
         Curt M. Masker, Esq.
         RICKARD MASKER, PLC
         810 Dominican Drive, Suite 314
         Nashville, TN 37228
         Telephone: (615) 200-8389
         Facsimile: (615) 821-0632
         E-mail: caraline@maskerfirm.com
                 curt@maskerfirm.com

                 - and -

         Daniel Werner, Esq.
         Justin M. Scott, Esq.
         RADFORD SCOTT, LLP
         315 W. Ponce de Leon Ave., Suite 1080
         Decatur, GA 30030
         Telephone: (678) 271-0300
         E-mail: dwerner@radfordscott.com
                 jscott@radfordscott.com

NEW SOUTH WALES: Strip Search Class Action Trial Date Set 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------
Redfern Legal Centre reports that a trial date has been set by the
NSW Supreme Court for the landmark strip search class action that
will challenge the legality of strip searches conducted by NSW
Police at music festivals over a six-year period.

The group proceeding, brought by Slater and Gordon Lawyers and
Redfern Legal Centre, will begin on May 5 next year (2025) and is
expected to run for four weeks.

Setting of the trial date follows an attempt by the NSW
government's legal representatives to have the case thrown out by
filing an unsuccessful application to dismiss the case over claims
of insufficient common issues between those who were strip
searched.

Redfern Legal Centre senior police accountability solicitor,
Samantha Lee, said the government appeared to be continuing its
attempts to prolong proceedings by recently advising that a
strike-out application would be made in relation to exemplary
damages being sought against NSW police for systemic issues related
to strip searches.

"The setting of a hearing date places further pressure on the
government to decide whether it will fight young people all the way
to a hearing or acknowledge the wrong that the invasive and harmful
practice of strip searches has perpetrated and pursue mediation,"
Ms Lee said.

The class action was filed in July 2022. Lead plaintiff Raya
Meredith alleges she was unlawfully strip-searched by NSW Police at
the Splendour in the Grass music festival in Byron Bay in 2018.

Slater and Gordon Lawyers and Redfern Legal Centre are jointly
running the class action on behalf of hundreds of other
festivalgoers who allege their strip searches by police between
2016 and 2022 constituted unlawful acts, including assault,
battery, and false imprisonment.

Class Actions Associate Meg Lessing, from Slater and Gordon, said
the trial date marked an important step towards obtaining justice
for group members.

"In addition to the trial date being set, Justice Garling has
ordered that police produce the contact details of everyone
searched by police at relevant music festivals so they can be
informed about their potential rights," Ms Lessing said.

"We encourage anybody who thinks they may be a group member in
these proceedings to register on the Slater and Gordon website to
ensure that they obtain updates about the case moving forward and
any active steps they may need to take to make a claim.

"We are looking forward to the court determining important legal
issues at trial so that people who have had their legal rights
infringed by police can be properly compensated." [GN]

NOVO NORDISK: King Law Investigates Ozempic Side Effects
--------------------------------------------------------
Egle Kristopaityte of Healthnews reports that class action lawsuit
alleges that manufacturers of Ozempic and similar drugs didn't
adequately warn the users about potential side effects. The lawsuit
could be filed as soon as summer 2024, according to a law firm.

Ozempic and other novel type 2 diabetes drugs that belong to a
class called GLP-1 agonists have been making the headlines for
helping lose up to 20% of body weight. As many of these drugs are
not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for
weight loss, some patients seeking to slim their waists use the
medications off-label.

However, with the increasing use -- 12% of American adults say they
have ever taken a GLP-1 agonist -- more and more users report
experiencing severe side effects.

The King Law firm is currently investigating 117 lawsuits against
Novo Nordisk, the manufacturer of Ozempic, and Eli Lilly, the maker
of Mounjaro.

Plaintiffs say they weren't warned of the consequences of using
these medications, which include bowel injuries like gastroparesis
(stomach paralysis), gastrointestinal obstruction, and ileus.

Gastroparesis is a condition where the stomach is unable to empty
food normally and can cause heartburn, nausea, and vomiting.
Gastrointestinal obstruction and ileus both involve the intestine
being unable to push food and waste out of the body.

The defendants say that intestinal issues as side effects of these
drugs were well known, including to doctors, who had an obligation
to inform the patients.

In September 2023, the FDA added a new warning to the Ozempic label
regarding the increased risk of ileus, calling it a serious but
rare side effect.

Nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and constipation are
the most common side effects of Ozempic, according to the drug
label. It also warns that the drug delays gastric emptying and can
increase the risk of pancreatitis and acute kidney injury, among
other conditions.

However, there is currently a disagreement over what should be
required to file a lawsuit: defendants seek plaintiffs to undergo a
gastric emptying study, while the plaintiffs' lawyers argue that a
doctor's diagnosis of these conditions should be sufficient, at
least in the early stages of a lawsuit.

The lawsuit points to the lack of long-term data

Additionally, there are 87 personal injury lawsuits for
gastroparesis, ileus and intestinal blockage or obstruction in
multidistrict litigation before Judge Gene E.K. Pratter in the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, according to the Lawsuit
Information Center.

The plaintiffs claim the drug labels do not adequately warn of
potential severe injuries related to the drugs despite ongoing use
and reported adverse effects.

Additionally, the complaint questions the safety of GLP-1 agonists
due to the lack of long-term safety studies, as the longest study
only extended to two years.

What is known about Ozempic side effects?

A 2022 systematic review associated the use of GLP-1 receptor
agonists with an increased risk of gallbladder or biliary diseases,
especially when taken at higher, for longer durations, and for the
purpose of weight loss.

Research from 2023 associated the medications with an elevated risk
of stomach paralysis, pancreatitis, and bowel obstruction in people
without diabetes who use these drugs for weight loss.

However, type 2 diabetes patients using GLP-1 agonists are not at a
higher risk of pancreatic cancer compared to those who use insulin
only, according to a study published in JAMA Pharmacy and Clinical
Pharmacology.

A 2024 study linked the use of GLP-1 agonists with rare but severe
psychiatric events, such as depression, anxiety, and suicidal
ideation. Another recent study found that people who use GLP-1
agonists are more likely to be dispensed with antidepressants.
However, it does not prove that Ozempic raises depression risk.

After a thorough investigation, the European Medicines Agency
concluded that the available evidence does not support a causal
association between GLP-1 agonists and suicidal and self-injurious
thoughts and actions. The conclusions echoed the findings of a
similar preliminary review by the FDA.

People using GLP-1 agonists may be at an increased risk of thyroid
cancer, as stated on the Ozempic label, although the evidence is
inconclusive.

The class action lawsuits over Ozempic and other drugs' side
effects may take several years to settle. Meanwhile, if you take
GLP-1 agonists, discuss all new symptoms with your healthcare
provider. [GN]

PACIFIC STEEL: Bid to Vacate Case Deadlines in Berber Terminated
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Berber v. Pacific Steel
Group, Case No. 4:21-cv-03446 (N.D. Cal., Filed May 7, 2021), the
Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order terminating the
parties' stipulation to vacate case deadlines, in light of the
Court's ruling at the May 7, 2024, Case Management Conference to
stay the class certification briefing schedule until further
notice.

The nature of suit states Labor/Management Relations.

Pacific Steel is a construction company.[CC]



PAGLIACCI PIZZA: Faces New Class Action From Delivery Drivers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bethany Jean Clement of Seattle Times reports that Seattle-area
chain Pagliacci Pizza stands accused of failing to properly
reimburse its delivery drivers for automobile expenses, according
to a class-action lawsuit filed in King County Superior Court.

This comes three years after the company settled another
class-action suit for $3.75 million that included similar mileage
reimbursement claims. "Pagliacci did not change its practices with
respect to driver reimbursements after that settlement in 2021,"
according to the new allegations.

The new lawsuit alleges that Pagliacci paid delivery drivers a set
amount for each delivery, regardless of distance, rather than on a
per-mile basis, resulting in insufficient reimbursement to cover
drivers' costs. The suit further alleges that the gap between the
company's payment for mileage under this policy and the actual cost
incurred by drivers was large enough that it sometimes resulted in
pay below the legal minimum wage.

The individual plaintiff on the suit "raised concerns" about the
policy throughout 2023, and in April 2024, Pagliacci began paying
delivery drivers on the per-mile basis, the filings say.

But during the three-year period leading up to April 2024,
according to the suit, Pagliacci reimbursed drivers between $1.54
and $1.62 per delivery, while the IRS mileage reimbursement rate
over that three-year period ranged from 56 cents per mile to 67
cents per mile. The suit also notes that costs for gas and auto
insurance in Western Washington exceed nationwide averages, and
that delivery drivers incur higher costs for repairs and related
expenses than the average driver, upon which the IRS estimate is
based.

"We currently reimburse our drivers at the IRS maximum for all
miles they drive," Pagliacci Pizza co-owner Matt Galvin said.
"While there is no Washington state regulation specifically
requiring reimbursement for delivery miles, we continually strive
to ensure our policies are fair and supportive of our crew."

The lawsuit alleges that because workers were denied full
reimbursement of costs necessarily incurred in performing their
jobs, Pagliacci was in violation of state minimum wage and wage
rebate law. Drivers at branches of the chain in Seattle would also
be ensured full reimbursement of such costs under Seattle's Wage
Theft Ordinance.

The individual plaintiff in the suit estimates his wages were
lessened by more than $1,000 per year by Pagliacci's alleged
failure to fully reimburse automobile expenses. The company employs
more than 200 drivers, Galvin said.

"We take all concerns seriously and are committed to addressing any
claims thoroughly," he said.

Wage theft is the failure of employers to pay employees what
they're legally owed. It happens to workers of all stripes, but a
Seattle Times report last month showed that no industry generates
more wage theft complaints in Washington than food service.

American workers who claim lost wages can file private lawsuits or
complaints with the U.S. Department of Labor, while the Washington
State Department of Labor and Industries handles complaints at the
state level. In Seattle, workers can file with the Office of Labor
Standards, which prioritizes investigations in industries like
food, construction and health care that are rife with labor
standards violations.

Washington restaurant workers filed more than 3,000 wage complaints
with L&I from 2018 to 2022, The Times verified by a public records
request. (Data covering last year was not available at the time of
publication.) National labor experts say the restaurant industry,
with its many small businesses, is consistently among the worst
offenders for these violations. [GN]

PENNSYLVANIA: Court Dismisses Suit Over Property Law Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Petter Hall of Pennsylvania Capital-Star reports that a federal
judge in Philadelphia has dismissed a class action lawsuit against
Pennsylvania Treasurer Stacy Garrity that claimed the state's
unclaimed property law violates the Constitution because it does
not require the treasury to pay interest to owners who reclaim
their property.

U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick granted Garrity's motion to
dismiss the lawsuit, which was filed last year on behalf of Chester
County resident Brian Dillow as the lead plaintiff.

Surrick wrote that courts around the country have found
Pennsylvania Disposition of Abandoned and Unclaimed Property Act
and similar laws do not violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth
Amendment.

Surrick cited a series of cases drawing on a 1982 U.S. Supreme
Court case that held an owner's failure to make use of property
does not constitute a "taking" by the government.

In that case, the Supreme Court said the Fifth Amendment requires
the government to pay a landowner for the use of land taken by the
government until it is returned or purchased.

"However, where there is no owner to whom the government is able to
grant compensation, as is the case with abandoned property, it does
not make sense to require the government to be financially liable
for this intervening period before an owner comes forward to claim
his property," Surrick wrote. "The government need not
‘compensate the owner for the consequences of his own neglect.'"

The Pennsylvania Treasury holds $4.5 billion in unclaimed property
while actively searching for its owners, a Treasury spokesperson
told the Capital-Star in February.

"This decision is exactly right," Garrity said in a statement. "I'm
pleased that the court correctly applied the law and dismissed this
case. Pennsylvania has been returning unclaimed property to its
rightful owners at a record pace, and I will continue to focus on
getting this money back where it belongs."

Each year hundreds of millions dollars are handed over to the
Treasury by financial institutions, insurance companies and other
entities required by law to give property to the state if they have
no contact with the owner for a given amount of time.

In 2022-23, the Treasury returned $274 million, the most ever in a
single fiscal year. But some of that money cannot be claimed by
anyone, spokesperson Erik Arneson said, and a portion of that
remainder each year goes into Pennsylvania's general fund to pay
for government programs.

The suit was filed shortly before the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in
another case in which Pennsylvania and Wisconsin separately sued
Delaware, arguing it had improperly kept hundreds of millions of
dollars paid to Delaware-based international payments provider
MoneyGram.

A court-appointed special master in 2021 found that Delaware
improperly required MoneyGram to turn over unclaimed funds that
should have been returned to the states where the unclaimed
MoneyGram checks were purchased.

Arneson said this week that the states and MoneyGram remain in
negotiations with the special master to work out the intricacies of
a settlement, including how much Delaware should pay, how much
MoneyGram should pay and what portion of the money owed should be
repaid with interest. Garrity estimated after the 2023 decision
that Pennsylvania could receive nearly $19 million. Delaware's
total liability could top $400 million. [GN]

PILOT TRAVEL: Martin Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alton Martin, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. Pilot Travel Centers LLC d/b/a Pilot
Travel Center #1047, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00449 (M.D. Fla.,
May 6, 2024), seeks to recover monetary damages for unpaid overtime
wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant Pilot Travel Center employed Plaintiff Alton Martin as a
maintenance and cleaning employee from May 01, 2023, to March 31,
2024, or 48 weeks. The Plaintiff was required by his manager to
work a minimum of two off-the-clock hours daily. However,
Plaintiff's manager clocked Plaintiff out and changed Plaintiff's
number of hours worked. The Defendant improperly deducted 2.5
hours, corresponding to 30 minutes of lunchtime, from Plaintiff's
wages even though Plaintiff did not take bonafide lunchtime hours.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks to recover 12.5 unpaid overtime
hours weekly for every week he worked for Defendant, liquidated
damages, and any other relief as allowable by law.

Pilot Travel Center is a retail business operating as a common gas
station and travel center. It provides travelers with amenities
such as fresh food, clean restrooms, showers, convenience stores,
several fast-food restaurants, ATMs, laundry facilities, etc. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
         ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
         9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
         Miami, FL 33156
         Telephone: (305) 446-1500
         Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
         E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Keeton Sues Over Prerecorded Voice Messages
--------------------------------------------------------------
BRITTANY KEETON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:24-cv-01174-DAD-CSK (E.D. Cal., April 22, 2024) seeks injunctive
relief and statutory damages arising from and relating to the
conduct of Defendant in negligently, knowingly, and willfully
contacting Plaintiff and class members on their cellular telephones
using an artificial or prerecorded voice without their prior
express written consent within the meaning of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

According to the complaint, beginning in late 2023 or early 2024,
the Defendant made about 100 calls to Plaintiff's cellular
telephone using an artificial or prerecorded voice without her
prior express consent. This barrage of calls occurred almost daily,
and to make matters worse, occurred even after Plaintiff instructed
Defendant to stop calling her, and after Defendant's attorneys
acknowledged receipt of the request for the calls to stop. The
conduct here is particularly reckless and glaring coming from a
publicly traded company valued in the billions of dollars, says the
suit.

PowerSchool Group LLC is a software purveyor for K-12 schools in
the U.S.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq.
          SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC
          166 Geary St., Ste 1500-1507
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 839-7077
          Facsimile: (888) 410-0415
          E-mail: yeremey@skclassactions.com

               - and -

          Joel D. Smith, Esq.
          SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC
          867 Boylston Street 5th Floor #1520
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 377-4704
          Facsimile: (888) 410-0415
          E-mail: joel@skclassactions.com

PRIME HYDRATION: Faces Suit Over Energy Drinks' Caffeine Content
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jon Syf of Top Class Action reports that Prime Hydration class
action alleges energy drinks contain higher-than-advertised amounts
of caffeine.

Prime Hydration class action overview:

Who: Plaintiff Bryant Preudhomme filed a class action lawsuit
against Prime Hydration LLC.

Why: Preudhomme claims that Prime Energy Drinks have higher than
advertised caffeine.

Where: The Prime Hydration Energy Drinks lawsuit was filed in
federal court in New York.

A consumer filed a class action lawsuit claiming that Prime
Hydration Energy Drinks have higher caffeine levels than
advertised.

Plaintiff Bryant Preudhomme's class action, filed in April in New
York federal court, claims that Prime Hydration practices false and
deceptive advertising.

YouTube personalities Logan Paul and KSI created the Prime
Hydration brand and began selling drinks in 2022 by pushing the
drinks to their 140 million combined YouTube followers.

The brand then began selling Prime Hydration Energy Drinks a year
later while using their accounts to begin "driving demand for the
products, particularly among school-age children and teenage boys,"
the Prime Hydration caffeine lawsuit says.

Caffeine has no place in diets of children, adolescents, CDC says.

Independent testing has shown that Prime Hydration Energy Drinks
have "substantially more than 200mg of caffeine," the Prime Energy
class action says. Monster and Red Bull contain between 86 and 111
mg of caffeine in each can.

Some schools have even banned the energy drinks due to their
elevated caffeine content, according to the lawsuit.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) says there is "no established
safe limit for caffeine in young children."

"Side effects for kids consuming caffeine could include rapid or
irregular heartbeats, headaches, seizures, shaking, stomach upset
and adverse emotional effects on mental health" the Prime Hydration
caffeine lawsuit says.

According to the CDC, 1,499 adolescents aged 12 to 17 years went to
the emergency room for an energy drink related emergency in 2011.

The plaintiff is represented by Philip J. Furia and Jason P.
Sultzer of Sultzer & Lipari PLLC and Paul J. Doolittle of Poulin
Willey Anastopoulo LLC.

The Prime Hydration caffeine class action lawsuit is Preudhomme v.
Prime Hydration LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-03568, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York. [GN]

PROGRESS RESIDENTIAL: Harris & Whitaker Sue Over Security Deposits
------------------------------------------------------------------
CHEYENNE HARRIS and ROBERT WHITAKER, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, v. PROGRESS RESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT
SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 6:24-cv-00859 (M.D. Fla., May 7, 2024),
accuses the Defendant of unlawfully taking security deposits from
its residential tenants and failing to provide tenants certain
required documents to impose a claim on security deposits, in
violation of Florida laws.

The Defendant is allegedly engaged in illegal and improper debt
collection activities, directly affecting Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated tenants. According to Plaintiffs, Defendant
utilizes a form lease that violates Florida law, prematurely takes
tenant security deposits, and fails to provide tenants the
statutorily required Notice of Intention to Impose a Claim on
Security Deposit Letter, in violation of the Florida Residential
Landlord Tenant Act (FRLTA). Additionally, Defendant allegedly
unlawfully takes the security deposit funds before they are due and
seeks a setoff for amounts due over and above the security deposit,
in violation of the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act, says
the suit.

The Plaintiffs seek actual damages in the security deposit amounts
collected or withheld by Defendant, statutory damages, attorneys'
fees and costs, and other relief available under the FRLTA and the
FCCPA.

Based in Altamonte Springs, FL, Progress Residential Management
Services, LLC is a provider of single-family rental homes in the
United States. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

        Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
        Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
        Pamela G. Levinson, Esq.
        Jeffrey L. Newsome, Esq.
        Christopher J. Brochu, Esq.
        VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A.     
        400 N Ashley Drive, Suite 1900
        Tampa, FL 33602
        Telephone: (352) 753-8600
        Facsimile: (352) 504-3301
        E-mail: bwarwick@vandwlaw.com
                jvarnell@vandwlaw.com
                plevinson@vandwlaw.com
                jnewsome@vandwlaw.com
                cbrochu@vandwlaw.com
                ckoerner@vandwlaw.com
                mjett@vandwlaw.com

RCI DINING: Moffitt's Bid for Conditional Certification Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit styled URSULA MOFFITT and KRISTEN WHITE, on behalf
of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs v. RCI DINING SERVICES (HARVEY), INC., Defendant, Case
No. 3:23-cv-01059-RJD (S.D. Ill.), Magistrate Judge Reona J. Daly
of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
denies without prejudice the Plaintiffs' Motion for Notice to
Potential Plaintiffs and for Conditional Certification.

Plaintiffs Moffitt and White, on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated individuals, filed this lawsuit against
Defendant RCI Dining Services (Harvey), Inc., d/b/a Scarlett's
Cabaret St. Louis. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant
employed them and other current and former exotic dancers to work
at Scarlett's Cabaret St. Louis in Washington Park, Illinois, from
April 2020–April 2023. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendant
misclassified them as non-employee contractors and, therefore,
failed to compensate them pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA").

The Plaintiffs now move for conditional certification of the
collective "to include all individuals that worked or performed as
exotic dancers for, at, or in Defendant's Scarlett's Cabaret St.
Louis during the period of April 2020 through the present."

The Defendants object, citing a contract between the Plaintiffs and
the Defendant that contained a collective action waiver.

Judge Daly notes that the Plaintiffs' affidavits list multiple ways
in which they contend the Defendant treated them and at least 100
other exotic dancers as employees (as opposed to independent
contractors), and then failed to pay them direct wages for hours
worked at or above the federal minimum wage rate.

The Defendant does not dispute the truthfulness of the Plaintiffs'
affidavits. Instead, the Defendant contends that a collective
action cannot be maintained because Plaintiffs Moffit and White
(and all others similarly situated) signed an "Entertainer License
Agreement" ("ELA"), which contained arbitration provisions.

The Defendant reasons that if the Court conditionally certifies the
collective, and permits the Plaintiffs to send notice to the other
similarly situated employees, the Court will be signaling approval
of the merits and otherwise stirring up litigation for a (the
Defendant contends) meritless claim that is barred for all
potential members by the collective waiver in the ELA. The
Defendant's reasoning emulates the observations and findings by the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in Bigger v. Facebook,
Inc., 947 F.3d 1043, 1049-50 (7th Cir. 2020), citing Hoffman-La
Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165, 171-174 (1989).

The collective action waiver relied upon by the Defendant is found
within a mutual arbitration agreement, Judge Daly says. The
Defendant apparently has no interest in enforcing or complying with
the arbitration provision, preferring that the individual
Plaintiffs file individual claims in court against it.

Regardless, because the Defendant contends that this Court should
not authorize notice because of the collective waiver, and because
the collective waiver is found within a mutual arbitration
agreement, Judge Daly holds that it is appropriate for the Court to
follow the procedure outlined by the Seventh Circuit in Bigger.

Accordingly, Judge Daly rules that the Plaintiffs' Motion for
Conditional Certification is denied without prejudice pending
resolution of the collective action waiver issue. The parties will
meet and confer, and submit a proposed scheduling order to
RJDpd@ilsd.uscourts.gov regarding the deadlines for disclosure and
discovery of the purported arbitration agreements containing the
class action waiver. A template for the proposed scheduling order
is attached to the Order.

Judge Daly holds that all the discovery, disclosures, and related
procedures must be completed by Oct. 1, 2024. The Court will hold a
status conference on Oct. 8, 2024, at 9:30 a.m., to discuss the
most efficient way for the parties to present their evidence
regarding the mutual arbitration agreements and collective waivers
to the Court.

In their Reply to the Defendant's Response to the Motion for
Conditional Certification, the Plaintiffs made legal arguments
against the enforcement of the collective action waiver,
considering that it is found within the arbitration agreement and
the Defendant failed to comply with their arbitration agreements.
The Defendant did not have the opportunity to address those
arguments because this district prohibits the filing of
sur-replies.

At any time prior to Aug. 1, 2024, Judge Daly holds that the
Plaintiffs may file a brief that contains their legal arguments
regarding the enforceability of the collective action waivers.
Within 30 days, the Defendant may file a response brief.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 2, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ytjmenap from PacerMonitor.com.


SALEM TOWNSHIP: Faces Liddle Suit Over Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Melinda Liddle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Salem Township Hospital, Case No. 3:24-cv-01246 (S.D.
Ill., May 7, 2024) accuses the Defendant of failure to pay
overtime, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of all current or former
hourly-paid nurse and technician employees of Defendant who
are/were not paid time and one-half their respective rates of pay
for all hours worked in excess of 40 during each workweek. The
Defendant is allegedly engaged in a policy and practice of
automatically deducting meal breaks of approximately 30 minutes for
each shift, even though nurses and technicians are routinely
required to respond to work demands during their shift, including
during supposed meal breaks. Such a practice resulted in
Defendant's failure to properly pay overtime premiums to Plaintiffs
and similarly situated employees, says the suit.

The Plaintiff seeks all damages available under the FLSA and
relevant state law, including back wages, liquidated and punitive
damages, legal fees and costs, and other remedies.

Salem Township Hospital is a healthcare facility located in Salem,
IL. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

SALVATION ARMY: Settles FCRA Class Action Lawsuit for $1.87MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Action reports that The Salvation Army agreed to pay more
than $1.87 million to resolve claims it failed to comply with the
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) when procuring job applicant
background checks.

The settlement benefits individuals who applied for employment with
The Salvation Army and whom the organization conducted a background
check on between Nov. 2, 2018, and May 17, 2021.

Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claim The Salvation Army
failed to follow federal regulations when procuring job applicant
background checks and taking action based on these reports. The
company allegedly procured these reports without providing proper
disclosures FCRA requires.

The Salvation Army is a Christian nonprofit that provides aid to
people in need and operates thrift stores around the country.

The Salvation Army agreed to pay more than $1.87 million to resolve
the FCRA class action lawsuit.

Under the terms of the settlement, consumers can receive a $95
voucher or coupon for use at a Salvation Army store in California,
Oregon, Washington, Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah,
Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada or Arizona.

The deadline for exclusion and objection is June 15, 2024.

The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Aug.
6, 2024.

No claim form is required to benefit from the settlement. Class
members who do not exclude themselves will automatically receive a
settlement payment as long as they verify their identity on the
settlement website.

Who's Eligible

Individuals who applied for employment with The Salvation Army and
whom the organization conducted a background check on between Nov.
2, 2018, and May 17, 2021

Potential Award

-- $95 voucher or coupon

Proof of Purchase

-- N/A

Exclusion Deadline

-- 06/15/2024

Case Name

Parker v. The Salvation Army, et al., Case No. 20-civ-04787, in the
Superior Court of the State of California for San Mateo County

Final Hearing

-- 08/06/2024

Settlement Website

-- www.ParkerFCRASettlement.com

Claims Administrator

      Parker v TSA
      c/o Settlement Administrator
      P.O. Box 23459
      Jacksonville, FL 32241
      (866) 294-8988

Class Counsel

      Shaun Setareh
      Jose Maria D Patino Jr
      SETAREH LAW GROUP
      9665 Wilshire Blvd #430
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Phone: (877) 777-3774

Defense Counsel
      
      Rod M Fliegel
      Angela J Rafoth
      Garrick Y Chan
      LITTLER MENDELSON PC
      633 West Fifth Street, 63rd Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Direct: (213) 443-4300
      Fax: (213) 443-4299 [GN]

SCHMIDT BAKING: Bid for Arbitration Granted; Silva Suit Stayed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael P. Shea of the U.S. District Court for the District
of Connecticut grants the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration
and stays the lawsuit entitled NATHANIEL SILVA and PHIL ROTHKUGEL,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. SCHMIDT BAKING DISTRIBUTION, LLC and SCHMIDT BAKING
COMPANY, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01695-MPS (D. Conn.).

Plaintiffs Nathaniel Silva and Phil Rothkugel brought this putative
class action against Defendants Schmidt Baking Company, Inc.
("SBC") and Schmidt Baking Distribution, LLC ("SBD") alleging that
they were the Defendants' employees and that the Defendants
misclassified them as independent contractors, made unlawful
deductions from their wages, and failed to pay them for overtime
work in violation of Connecticut wage laws.

The Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration, arguing that
arbitration agreements contained within the relevant contracts
govern the disputes at issue in this case.

SBC develops, manufactures, and markets bread and bread-like
products to retailers and foodservice outlets. To coordinate the
distribution of SBC's products, SBD, a subsidiary of SBC, enters
into Distribution Agreements with independent operators, which give
those companies exclusive rights to distribute and sell various
Schmidt products to outlets within their designated territories
(SBD's sole member is SBC).

Plaintiff Nathaniel Silva worked for SBC as a delivery driver from
approximately February 2020 to June 2020. In June 2020, SBC
informed Silva that to continue to work for SBC, he would need to
form a corporate entity and sign a Distribution Agreement with SBD.
Silva formed Silva's Baked Goods, Inc., and on June 24, 2020,
Silva's Baked Goods entered into a Distribution Agreement with SBD
for the right to distribute SBC bread products to a certain sales
area in Connecticut.

On Oct. 28, 2020, Silva's Baked Goods entered into a second
Distribution Agreement with SBD for the right to distribute to
another area within Connecticut. Silva signed each of these
agreements in his role as President of Silva's Baked Goods. He also
signed as controlling shareholder of Silva's Baked Goods, agreeing
to guarantee the full and complete performance by Silva's Baked
Goods of its obligations under the Distribution Agreements.

Plaintiff Phil Rothkugel worked for SBC as a delivery driver from
approximately October 2020 to December 2020. In December 2020, SBC
informed Rothkugel that to continue to work for SBC, he would need
to form a corporate entity and sign a Distribution Agreement with
SBD. Rothkugel formed Trout Slayers Baked Breads, Inc., and on Dec.
16, 2020, Trout Slayers entered into a Distribution Agreement with
SBD for the right to distribute Schmidt brand bread products to a
sales area in Connecticut. Rothkugel signed this agreement in his
role as President of Trout Slayers. He also signed as controlling
shareholder of Trout Slayers, agreeing to guarantee the full and
complete performance by Trout Slayers of its obligations under the
Distribution Agreements.

Judge Shea finds that the relevant provisions of the three
Distribution Agreements at issue here are indistinguishable. The
agreements provide Silva's Baked Goods and Trout Slayers with the
sole right to sell and distribute SBC Products to Outlets in the
Sales Area by Direct Store Delivery.

Article 11 of the Distribution Agreements sets forth the dispute
resolution procedures to be followed in the event of any dispute
arising out of the relationships created by the Agreements. Section
11.2 of the agreements provides that, in the event of any dispute,
either party may initiate a mediation procedure. Section 11.3 sets
forth the arbitration provision of the Distribution Agreements.

The Plaintiffs served their class action complaint, which was filed
in Connecticut superior court, on the Defendants on Nov. 30, 2023.
On Dec. 5, the Defendants' counsel contacted the Plaintiffs'
counsel to determine whether the Plaintiffs were interested in
mediating their disputes. The Plaintiffs declined to participate in
mediation. Then, the Defendants' counsel contacted the Plaintiffs'
counsel to determine whether the Plaintiffs would voluntarily
dismiss the complaint and resolve their claims in individual JAMS
arbitrations.

On Dec. 11, the Plaintiffs' counsel indicated that the Plaintiffs
intended to pursue their claims through litigation, that they
believed their disputes were not covered by an arbitration
agreement, and that the arbitration provisions in their
Distribution Agreements were unenforceable. On Dec. 15, the
Defendants filed with JAMS demands for individual arbitration of
the Plaintiffs' claims.

The Defendants removed the Plaintiffs' case from the Connecticut
superior court to this Court on Dec. 29. On Jan. 5, 2024, the
Defendants filed the pending motion to compel arbitration.

The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs, through corporate
entities they created and owned, entered into the Distribution
Agreements, and that the arbitration provisions of the Distribution
Agreements are binding on the Plaintiffs. The Defendants further
argue that the Distribution Agreements delegate to arbitrators all
disputes concerning the scope of the agreements' arbitration
provisions, including disputes over arbitrability.

Judge Shea finds that the Distribution Agreements contain none of
the characteristic elements of employment contracts, such as terms
regarding salaries or benefits. Instead, they read like what they
are--agreements between businesses. They provide that Silva's Baked
Goods and Trout Slayers will buy baked goods from SBD, with title
passing at the time of delivery; will have the right to operate the
business as they choose; will bear all risks and costs of operating
their businesses; and will be responsible for hiring and firing
their own employees.

In addition, Judge Shea finds, the Distribution Agreements leave
Silva's Baked Goods and Trout Slayers free both to distribute
merchandise for other firms, unless those firms compete with SBD or
joint carriage of the products would contaminate the SBD baked
products, and to sell their distribution rights, provided SBD
approves (which approval may not be unreasonably withheld).

These are not terms typically seen in contracts between a business
and its workers; they are, instead, terms that suggest a
supplier-distributor relationship between two companies, Judge Shea
opines. Further, corporations and limited liability companies
("LLCs") are not "workers" under the statute. Because the
Distribution Agreements here are between two business entities,
they are not contracts of employment and the Section 1 exception
does not apply. For these reasons, Judge Shea concludes that the
Plaintiffs are not exempt from arbitration under Section 1 of the
Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA").

Judge Shea also finds that the language of the Distribution
Agreements evinces an intent to bind both the Plaintiffs and SBC to
arbitrate their disputes. Section 11.7 of the Distribution
Agreements, entitled "Individual Action," provides, in pertinent
part, that the parties agree that only SBD (and its affiliates and
their respective owners, officers, directors, agents and employees,
as applicable) and DISTRIBUTOR (and its affiliates and their
respective owners, officers, and directors, as applicable) may be
the parties to any proceeding described in this Section.

Judge Shea does not agree with the Plaintiffs' suggestion that the
language in Section 11.7 is ambiguous. By their plain language, the
Distribution Agreements permit the Plaintiffs' companies'
affiliates and their respective owners, officers, and directors to
be made parties to a legal proceeding, including arbitration.

Because Judge Shea has concluded that the Distribution Agreements
require the Plaintiffs to arbitrate, the Court must grant the
Defendants' motion to compel arbitration unless it finds that the
arbitration provisions of the Distribution Agreements are
unenforceable. But Judge Shea may not decide the issue of
enforceability if the Distribution Agreements validly delegate that
issue to the arbitrator.

The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that
arbitration costs would be prohibitive. The Plaintiffs assert that
if they challenge the cost-shifting issue in front of an arbitrator
and lose, they must pay thousands of dollars to have obtained a
decision on the issue. They do not, however, explain how they
reached this estimate; rather, they simply point to arbitration
costs incurred in other cases, Judge Shea notes.

But the Plaintiffs cannot meet their burden of showing that they
likely will incur prohibitive arbitrator fees simply by showing the
fees that some arbitrators are charging somewhere, Judge Shea
opines. Moreover, the Plaintiffs have not provided evidence or
argument about the value of their claims, which is a critical
factor in a "prohibitive costs" analysis. The Plaintiffs,
therefore, have not carried their burden of demonstrating that they
would likely face prohibitive costs if they were required to
arbitrate their disputes.

In any event, Judge Shea notes, the Plaintiffs' concerns regarding
the cost- and fee-shifting provisions seem to be moot given a
notice sent to the parties from JAMS indicating that its Policy on
Employment Arbitration Minimum Standards will apply
"notwithstanding any contrary provisions in the parties'
pre-dispute arbitration agreement."

For these reasons, Judge Shea holds that the arbitration
agreements' cost- and fee-shifting provisions are not substantively
unconscionable and will not bar application of the delegation
clause, and that the delegation clauses are neither procedurally
nor substantively unconscionable.

In sum, Judge Shea holds that the Plaintiffs are not exempt under
Section 1 of the FAA; the arbitration agreements are binding on
them as owners and officers of their respective businesses; and the
arbitration agreements validly delegate their unconscionability
challenges to the arbitrator. Thus, all of the Plaintiffs'
remaining arguments are to be decided by an arbitrator.

For the reasons explained in this Ruling, the Court grants the
Motion to Compel Arbitration, and the action is stayed. The Clerk
is instructed to administratively close this case. Either party may
move to reopen this case following the decision by the arbitration
panel. Any such motion must be filed within 30 days of the
rendering of the decision and a copy of the decision must be filed
with the Court.

A full-text copy of the Court's Ruling dated May 2, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/ha5epdby from PacerMonitor.com.


SECRIST MARKETING: Goudelias to Seek Settlement Approval by May 29
------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York gives the Plaintiff until May 29,
2024, to file a motion for preliminary settlement approval in the
lawsuit captioned Elena Goudelias, Plaintiff v. Secrist Marketing
Strategies, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-08928-RFT
(S.D.N.Y.).

In light of the parties' notice that they have reached an agreement
in principle, all discovery deadlines are stayed. The Plaintiff has
until May 29, 2024, to file a motion for preliminary approval of
the parties' class-action settlement agreement.

A full-text copy of the Court's Order dated May 2, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/48azcea3 from PacerMonitor.com.


SHOPIFY INC: Appeals Court Revisits Consumer Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that as federal
appellate courts continue to grapple with questions about where
online businesses can be sued, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals agreed on Tuesday, May 14, to revisit the dismissal of a
California consumer class action against nationwide online payment
platform Shopify.

The court's en banc review will undoubtedly address an issue with
potentially huge implications for online businesses: Does it make
sense for courts weighing jurisdiction for suits against internet
defendants to draw a distinction between cases involving physical
goods and those focused on online services?

The three-judge 9th Circuit panel that first decided the Shopify
case highlighted that distinction in its ruling, opens new tab last
November. The panel affirmed the dismissal of claims by lead
plaintiff Brandon Briskin that Canada-based Shopify (SHOP.TO),
opens new tab and two U.S. subsidiaries secretly collected
confidential data from him and other California consumers, then
resold that information to merchants and other Shopify business
partners.

California courts, the panel said, did not have jurisdiction over
Briskin's case because he failed to show that Shopify -- which
provides payment services to merchants and consumers all over the
country -- aimed any conduct specifically at California.

The panel contrasted its decision with the holding in another 2023
9th Circuit opinion addressing jurisdiction in suits against online
businesses. In that case, Herbal Brands v. Photoplaza, a
three-judge appellate panel concluded, opens new tab that under the
U.S. Supreme Court's pre-internet decision in Keeton v. Hustler
Magazine -- which held, opens new tab that the delivery of physical
products is sufficient to establish jurisdiction -- Arizona had
jurisdiction over Herbal Brands' trademark infringement suit
against several Amazon resellers because the resellers had
delivered physical products to Arizona purchasers.

The Shopify panel, as I told you in November, said the Herbal
Brands ruling did not determine the outcome in Briskin's case
because Briskin's claims did not involve physical products.

A minor detour: Appellate courts have been struggling in the
internet era to define the limits of the Supreme Court's 1984
ruling in the Hustler case, as the Amazon resellers from the Herbal
Brands case told the justices when they petitioned for Supreme
Court review last fall. Some federal circuits have said the
delivery of a single product gives rise to jurisdiction. Other
appellate courts have been skeptical of that hair trigger.

Most recently, the 6th Circuit ruled, opens new tab last week in a
trademark case by AMB Media that Tennessee had jurisdiction to hear
the suit based on the defendants' delivery of about 20 allegedly
infringing products to Tennessee purchasers. The 6th Circuit noted
-- but declined to engage with -- the debate over "fringe cases"
involving the delivery of a single product. The Supreme Court also
appears to be reluctant to wade into this particular fray right
now, denying the Amazon resellers' petition in January in the
Herbal Brands case.

In their en banc petition, opens new tab in the Shopify case,
Briskin's counsel at Public Citizen argued that it's misguided to
distinguish between the delivery of physical products and the
provision of online services in determining jurisdiction.

Under the logic of the Supreme Court's decision in the Hustler case
and the 9th Circuit's ruling in Herbal Brands, Public Citizen
argued, Shopify exposed itself to the jurisdiction of California
courts by wooing California merchants to use the platform for
online sales and by processing payments from California consumers.

It simply doesn't make sense, the petition argued, that California
courts would have jurisdiction if a lawsuit accused a national
retail chain of setting up physical surveillance devices at cash
registers in California stores -- but, under the panel ruling in
the Shopify case, California cannot hear a case accusing a national
internet platform of online harvesting of the same data.

Shopify lawyers from Hueston Hennigan did not respond to my email
query. The company has denied that its "routine processing" of
credit card payments from Briskin and other consumers amounts to
illegal surveillance.

In Shopify's brief opposing en banc review, opens new tab, Hueston
Hennigan argued that the panel decision is consistent with decades
of precedent, from both the 9th Circuit and the Supreme Court,
requiring plaintiffs to allege that defendants did something more
than simply earning profits in a particular forum in order to
establish that forum's jurisdiction. The "something more" might be
delivering physical products, the Shopify brief said, but it could
also be advertising or marketing in a particular venue, or running
the business in a way that targets consumers in a particular
state.

The Shopify panel, Hueston Hennigan said, left the door open for
plaintiffs to establish jurisdiction over online platforms. It
simply held that Briskin and his lawyers failed to show that
Shopify aimed conduct at California.

Briskin counsel Nicolas Sansone of Public Citizen said in an
interview that even though we don't know how the en banc 9th
Circuit will ultimately rule, it's a good sign that the appeals
court took the case and vacated the panel opinion.

He's hoping, of course, that the court ends up ditching the
"antiquated" dichotomy between the sale and delivery of physical
products and the provision of online services. "Whether a company
profits by selling goods or extracting data," Sansone said, "we
don't see any reason why the jurisdictional analysis should be
different."

Shopify warned in its brief opposing en banc review that Briskin's
theory would subject nationwide online platforms to jurisdiction
wherever they operate, at the whim of plaintiffs. That regime,
Shopify said, "would destroy the clear limits set by the
Constitution and Supreme Court."

The original Shopify panel said its decision was a "novel" matter
of first impression. With the en banc court now poised to confront
the same tough issues, the case is more consequential than ever.
[GN]

SPROUT SOCIAL: Faces Class Action Over Securities Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP informs investors that a shareholder filed a class
action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Sprout Social, Inc. (NASDAQ: SPT) securities
between November 2, 2023 and May 2, 2024. Sprout Social is a
software company that develops and operates a web-based social
media management platform.

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 Allegations that
Sprout Social, Inc. (SPT) Failed to Disclose that Due to Challenges
the Company Would Revive its Fiscal Year 2024 Revenue Guidance

According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants
failed to disclose to investors:

     (1) the Company's sales and revenue growth were not indicative
of the Company's growth as it transitioned to an enterprise sales
cycle;

     (2) that the Company faced integration challenges with its
acquisition of Tagger;

     (3) as a result, the Company was "self inducing sales
headwinds;" and

     (4) as a result, the Company would revise fiscal year 2024
revenue guidance.

On May 2, 2024, Sprout Social announced the Company's operating
results for the first fiscal quarter of 2024, disclosing that the
Company had missed its revenue guidance for the quarter, and
revising its full year 2024 revenue guidance downward $20 million.
The Company's Chief Financial Officer Joe Del Preto stated the
Company had "underestimated the magnitude of enterprise
seasonality" and that the Company had also been "self-inducing
sales execution headwinds." On this news, Sprout Social's stock
price fell $19.33, or 40.1%, to close at $28.82 per share on May 3,
2024,

What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action
against Sprout Social, Inc. Shareholders who want to serve as lead
plaintiff for the class must file their motions with the court by
July 12, 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 Sprout Social, Inc.
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]

SPROUT SOCIAL: Faces Munch Class Suit Over 40.1% Share Price Drop
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD MUNCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SPROUT SOCIAL, INC., JUSTYN HOWARD, RYAN BARRETTO, and
JOE DEL PRETO, Case No. 1:24-cv-03867 (N.D. Ill., May 13, 2024) is
a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired Sprout Social securities between Nov. 2, 2023
and May 2, 2024, inclusive, against the Defendants under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On Aug. 3, 2023, the Company announced it had acquired Tagger
Media, Inc., a leading influencer marketing and social intelligence
platform used by enterprise brands and agencies.

On Sept. 27, 2023, the Company announced during its Investor Day
that it would be "accelerating our outbound marketing & sales
motion in enterprise" and focusing on mid-market and enterprise
leadership.

On May 2, 2024, after the markets closed, Sprout Social announced
the Company's operating results for the first fiscal quarter of
2024, disclosing that the Company had missed its revenue guidance
for the quarter.

On this news, Sprout Social's stock price fell $19.33, or 40.1%, to
close at $28.82 per share on May 3, 2024, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements. Specifically, the Defendants failed
to disclose to investors: (1) the Company's sales and revenue
growth were not indicative of the Company's growth as it
transitioned to an enterprise sales cycle; (2) that the Company
faced integration challenges with its acquisition of Tagger; and
(3) as a result, the Company was "self inducing sales headwinds,"
the suit asserts.

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

Plaintiff Munch purchased Sprout Social securities during the Class
Period, and suffered damages as a result of the federal securities
law violations and false and/or misleading statements and/or
material omissions.

Sprout Social is a software company which develops and operates a
web-based social media management platform.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marvin A. Miller, Esq.
          Lori A. Fanning, Esq.
          MILLER LAW LLC
          53 w. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1320
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 332-3400
          E-mail: mmiller@millerlaw.com

                - and -

          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201-9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
          E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com
                  clinehan@glancylaw.com

                - and -

          Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
          HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
          211 Perimeter Center Parkway, Suite 1010
          Atlanta, GA 30346
          Telephone: (770) 392-0090
          Facsimile: (770) 392-0029
          E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com

T-MOBILE US: Faces Class-Action Lawsuit Over Sprint Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
CPI reports that T-Mobile US must face a proposed consumer
class-action lawsuit challenging its $26 billion purchase of rival
Sprint in 2020. On May 16, the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals denied the telecom giant's bid to appeal a key ruling
that allowed the case to proceed.

In a brief order, the appellate court rejected T-Mobile's request
to appeal a decision that granted the plaintiffs legal "standing"
to pursue claims that the merger has driven up prices for wireless
services, according to a report by Reuters. T-Mobile had sought to
appeal this ruling immediately rather than waiting for the case to
unfold in the lower court. While a trial judge approved this
request in March, the 7th Circuit decided not to hear the appeal at
this stage.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are Verizon and AT&T customers who
argue that the merger between T-Mobile and Sprint has negatively
impacted them by increasing service prices. They are seeking
billions of dollars in damages and aim to have the merger undone
through the court system.

Related: Judge Orders T-Mobile to Face Suit Alleging
Anti-Competitive Practices

T-Mobile contends that these plaintiffs, being customers of its
competitors, should not have the standing to sue over its merger
with Sprint. Despite this contention, the lawsuit will proceed in
the lower court.

Brendan Glackin, an attorney representing the plaintiffs, expressed
approval of the appeals court's decision. "We look forward to
developing the record and trying the case to a jury in Chicago,"
Glackin stated.

Under U.S. antitrust law, consumers and other parties have the
authority to bring lawsuits concerning mergers and acquisitions.
T-Mobile's acquisition of Sprint had previously undergone
significant regulatory scrutiny and some government litigation but
was ultimately approved and completed. [GN]

T-MOBILE US: Loses Bid to Dismiss Sprint Merger Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Lipscombe, writing for Data Centre Dynamics, reports that
T-Mobile has lost its bid to dismiss a class action lawsuit
attempting to undo its $26 billion merger with Sprint.

As reported by Reuters, the carrier will now have to face the court
case after its appeal against it was rejected.

The class action suit on behalf of millions of consumers claims
that AT&T and Verizon subscribers have had to pay billions of
dollars extra for wireless service after the merger reduced
competition by cutting the number of US mobile from four to three.

The proposed suit was filed last year and seeks a range of
penalties, the most severe of which is the undoing of the merger.

In a court order, the Chicago-based 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals
denied T-Mobile's request to appeal a decision that argues
plaintiffs have a legal "standing" to prove their claims the merger
has increased prices for wireless services.

Illinois District Judge Thomas Durkin said in November that the
plaintiffs "plausibly" argued that higher prices stemmed directly
from the deal.

However, in March he ruled that T-Mobile could appeal his order,
noting that the plaintiffs' had not sufficiently alleged antitrust
standing. T-Mobile was unsuccessful.

"We look forward to developing the record and trying the case to a
jury in Chicago," said Brendan Glackin, an attorney for the
plaintiffs.

T-Mobile hasn't commented as of yet, but has previously called the
claims "speculative."

The merger with Sprint was first announced in 2018, and
subsequently completed in 2020. The deal faced scrutiny from
regulators but was eventually cleared. [GN]

TARKENTON SENIOR: Pinn Sues Over TCPA Violations
------------------------------------------------
KELLY PINN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. TARKENTON SENIOR SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:24-cv-01962-AT (N.D. Ga., May 6, 2024) arises out of Defendant,
Tarkenton Senior Solutions, LLC's relentless marketing practices
targeting senior citizens that violate the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

Plaintiff Pinn received numerous telemarketing calls to her
residential telephone number, which was registered on the National
Do-Not-Call Registry. Despite Plaintiff's repeated request to stop
the calls and to add her phone number to the Defendant's internal
do-not-call list, the Defendant continues to violate the TCPA and
ignore Plaintiff's privacy rights by making more unsolicited calls.


Headquartered in Atlanta, GA, Tarkenton Senior Solutions, LLC
offers final expense and life insurance products to senior
citizens. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         John A. Love, Esq.
         LOVE CONSUMER LAW
         2500 Northwinds Parkway, Suite 330
         Alpharetta, GA 30009
         Telephone: (404) 855-3600
         Facsimile: (404) 301-2300
         E-mail: tlove@loveconsumerlaw.com

                 - and -

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

TEACHERS FEDERAL: Sennhenn Sues Over Unlawful Time Rounding Policy
------------------------------------------------------------------
KATHLEEN SENNHENN, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff v. TEACHERS FEDERAL CREDIT UNION,
Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-03336 (E.D.N.Y., May 6, 2024) arises
from Defendant's policy and practice of improper time punch
rounding, which resulted in the failure to properly compensate
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees as required under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Plaintiff Sennhenn worked for Defendant as an hourly, nonexempt
employee from February 2019 to April 2023. Allegedly, Defendant
rounded Plaintiff's time punches to the nearest quarter-hour. As a
result, Plaintiff was not being paid for all hours worked in
accordance with federal and New York state law, says the suit.

Based in Hauppauge, NY, Teachers Federal Credit Union operates 30
bank branches across Long Island.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         David T. Sirotkin, Esq.
         MORELLI LAW FIRM, PLLC
         777 Third Avenue, 31st Floor
         New York, NY 10017
         Telephone: (212) 751-9800
         Facsimile: (212) 751-0046
         E-mail: dsirotkin@morellilaw.com

                 - and -

         Jacob R. Rusch, Esq.
         Zackary S. Kaylor, Esq.
         JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC
         444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800
         Saint Paul, MN 55101
         Telephone: (612) 436-1800
         Facsimile: (612) 436-1801
         E-mail: jrusch@johnsonbecker.com
                 zkaylor@johnsonbecker.com

TESLA INC: Faces Class Action Over Falsely Advertised Autopilot
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Carrier Management reports that a
U.S. judge on May 15, rejected Tesla's bid to dismiss a lawsuit
accusing Elon Musk's electric car company of misleading owners into
believing that their vehicles could soon have self-driving
capabilities.

The proposed nationwide class action accused Tesla and Musk of
having since 2016 falsely advertised Autopilot and other
self-driving technology as functional or "just around the corner,"
inducing drivers to pay more for their vehicles.

U.S. District Judge Rita Lin in San Francisco said owners could
pursue negligence and fraud-based claims, to the extent they relied
on Tesla's representations regarding vehicles' hardware and ability
to drive coast-to-coast across the U.S.

Without ruling on the merits, Lin said that "if Tesla meant to
convey that its hardware was sufficient to reach high or full
automation, the Read full story plainly alleges sufficient
falsity."

The judge dismissed some other claims.

Tesla and its lawyers did not immediately respond to requests for
comment. Lawyers for Tesla vehicle owners did not immediately
respond to similar requests.

The case was led by Thomas LoSavio, a retired California lawyer who
said he paid an $8,000 premium in 2017 for Full Self-Driving
capabilities on a Tesla Model S, believing it would make driving
safer if his reflexes deteriorated as he aged.

LoSavio said he was still waiting for the technology six years
later, with Tesla remaining unable "even remotely" to produce a
fully self-driving car.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for people who since 2016
bought or leased Tesla vehicles with Autopilot, Enhanced Autopilot
and Full Self-Driving features.

Tesla has for many years faced federal probes into whether its
self-driving technology might have contributed to fatal crashes.

Federal prosecutors are separately examining whether Tesla
committed securities fraud or wire fraud by misleading investors
about its vehicles' self-driving capabilities, according to three
people familiar with the matter.

Tesla has said Autopilot lets vehicles steer, accelerate and brake
in their lanes, and Full Self-Driving lets vehicles obey traffic
signals and change lanes.

But it had acknowledged that neither technology makes vehicles
autonomous, or excuses drivers from paying attention to the roads.

The case is In re Tesla Advanced Driver Assistance Systems
Litigation, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California,
No. 22-05240. [GN]

UNITED STATES: Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss Bassen Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Thompson M. Dietz of the United States Court of Federal
Claims grants in part and denies in part the Government's motion to
dismiss the lawsuit captioned NICHOLAS BASSEN, et al., Plaintiffs
v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00211-TMD (Fed.
Cl.).

The Plaintiffs in this class action, current and former members of
the United States military, sue the United States for backpay and
other relief, alleging that they suffered adverse personnel action
by the military due to their COVID-19 vaccination status. Before
the Court is the Government's motion to dismiss the first amended
complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Rule
12(b)(1) of the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims
("RCFC") and for failure to state a claim under RCFC 12(b)(6).

On Aug. 24, 2021, Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III issued a
COVID-19 vaccine mandate ("the Mandate"). Therein, Secretary Austin
directed the Secretaries of the Military Departments to immediately
begin full vaccination of all members of the Armed Forces under
Department of Defense ("DoD") authority on active duty or in the
Ready Reserve, including the National Guard, who are not fully
vaccinated against COVID-19. He explained that the mandatory
vaccination against COVID-19 will only use COVID-19 vaccines that
receive full licensure from the Food and Drug Administration
("FDA"), in accordance with FDA-approved labeling and guidance.
Following the Secretary's issuance of the Mandate, each branch of
the Armed Forces issued its own mandate.

On Dec. 27, 2021, Congress enacted the National Defense
Authorization Act ("NDAA") for Fiscal Year 2022 ("2022 NDAA").
Section 736 of the 2022 NDAA provided that any covered member of
the Armed Forces, who failed to comply with the Mandate, could
receive only "an honorable discharge" or "a general discharge under
honorable conditions."

On Dec. 23, 2022, Congress enacted the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2023
("2023 NDAA"). Section 525 of the 2023 NDAA directed the Secretary
of Defense to rescind the Mandate. Shortly thereafter, on Jan. 10,
2023, Secretary Austin rescinded the Mandate. He stated: "No
individuals currently serving in the Armed Forces shall be
separated solely on the basis of their refusal to receive the
COVID-19 vaccination if they sought an accommodation on religious,
administrative, or medical grounds. The Military Departments will
update the records of such individuals to remove any adverse
actions solely associated with denials of such requests, including
letters of reprimand...."

Following Secretary Austin's recission of the Mandate, the DoD
issued guidelines for implementing the policy change. For example,
on Feb. 24, 2023, the Deputy Secretary of Defense explained that
the Secretary's recission of the Mandate also rendered all DoD
Component policies, directives, and guidance implementing those
vaccination mandates as no longer in effect as of Jan. 10, 2023.

The Deputy Secretary clarified that, except if required for foreign
travel or if required under a new immunization mandate, DoD
Component heads and commanders will not require a Service member to
be vaccinated against COVID-19, nor consider a Service member's
COVID-19 immunization status in making deployment, assignment, and
other operational decisions. In addition, each branch of the Armed
Forces issued its own directive for implementing the rescission.

On Feb. 13, 2023, six named Plaintiffs filed the instant class
action. On June 13, 2023, the Government moved to dismiss the
complaint under RCFC 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Thereafter, the
Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint, adding four additional
Plaintiffs. The ten named Plaintiffs are Nick Bassen, Brent
Chisholm, Isaac Dailey, Kyle Davis, Billie Endress, Allen Hall,
Andrew Merjil, Paul Rodriguez, Hunger Springer, and Derrick Wynne.
These individuals are both active-duty service members and
reservists in the Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps.

The Plaintiffs assert five counts in their first amended complaint:
(1) Violation of the 2023 NDAA; (2) Violation of 10 U.S.C. Section
1107a; (3) Violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act
("RFRA"); (4) Illegal Exaction; and (5) Correction of Military
Records. In addition to class certification, they seek a minimum of
$2.2 million in damages, as well as reinstatement, correction of
military records, and other appropriate relief.

On Aug. 25, 2023, the Government filed the instant motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' amended complaint under RCFC 12(b)(1) and
12(b)(6), arguing that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over their claims and that they fail to state claims upon which
relief may be granted.

Judge Dietz notes that when the Government moves to dismiss a
complaint under Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff bears the burden of
establishing subject-matter jurisdiction by a preponderance of the
evidence, citing Tolliver Grp., Inc. v. United States, 20 F.4th
771, 775 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

The Government moves to dismiss each of the Plaintiffs' five counts
under either RCFC 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6). For the reasons explained
in this Opinion and Order, the Court concludes that it lacks
subject matter jurisdiction over Count I (Violation of the 2023
NDAA); that the Plaintiffs have sufficiently stated a Military Pay
Act ("MPA") claim under Count II (Violation of 10 U.S.C. Section
1107a); that Messrs. Chisholm, Hall, and Rodriguez have
sufficiently stated an MPA claim and Messrs. Springer, Dailey,
Endress, Merjil, Bassen, Davis, and Wynne have failed to state a
claim under Count III (Violation of the RFRA); and that all
Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim under Counts IV (Illegal
Exaction) and V (Correction of Military Records).

The Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction over Count I because
Section 525 is not money-mandating. The Court also finds, among
other things, that the Plaintiffs have standing to assert a claim
under the MPA for violation of 10 U.S.C. Section 1107a and that
they have adequately stated a claim for relief in Count II.

For these reasons, the Court rules that the Government's motion to
dismiss is granted-in-part and denied-in-part. The motion is
granted with respect to Counts I, III (with respect to Messrs.
Springer, Dailey, Endress, Merjil, Bassen, Davis, and Wynne), IV,
and V. These claims will be dismissed without prejudice. The motion
is denied with respect to Counts II and III (with respect to
Messrs. Chisholm, Hall, and Rodriguez).

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated May 2,
2024, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3pmtnvwp from
PacerMonitor.com.

Dale F. Saran -- dalesaran@gmail.com -- Finn Law Group, P.A., in
Olathe, Kansas, counsel for the Plaintiff. With whom were Brandon
Johnson and J. Andrew Meyer.

Kyle S. Beckrich -- kyle.beckrich@usdoj.gov -- U.S. Department of
Justice, Civil Division, in Washington, D.C., counsel for the
Defendant. With whom was Holly K. Bryant, U.S. Army Legal Services
Agency, of counsel.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Faces Suit Over Merger With Change Healthcare
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP informs investors that a shareholder filed a class
action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or
otherwise acquired UnitedHealth Group Inc. (NYSE: UNH) common stock
between March 14, 2022 and February 27, 2024. UnitedHealth is a
health care and well-being company comprised of two distinct and
complementary businesses: Optum and UnitedHealthcare.

The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that
UnitedHealth Group, Inc. (UNH) Failed to Disclose DOJ
Investigation

According to the complaint, on January 6, 2021, UnitedHealth
announced an agreement to acquire Change Healthcare ("Change") and
integrate it into its existing Optum business. In response, on
February 24, 2022, the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ") filed a
lawsuit challenging UnitedHealth's acquisition of Change. The DOJ
alleged that the proposed acquisition would violate antitrust laws
because the integration of Change and Optum would give UnitedHealth
unparalleled access to information regarding nearly every health
insurer, as well as health data on every single American.
UnitedHealth assured the DOJ, investors, and customers that Optum
would "maintain robust firewall processes" to prevent CSI from
being shared between Optum and UnitedHealthcare.

The court in the antitrust action ultimately permitted the
acquisition, repeatedly crediting UnitedHealth's firewall policy
and commitment to preventing the sharing of data between
UnitedHealthcare and Optum as the rationale for allowing the deal
to proceed.

Plaintiff alleges that on February 27, 2024, the Wall Street
Journal reported that the DOJ had re-opened its antitrust
investigation into UnitedHealth. In that article, the public
learned for the first time that the DOJ was investigating the
relationships between the Company's various segments, including
Optum. As a result of these disclosures, the price of UnitedHealth
stock declined by $27 per share, wiping out nearly $25 billion in
shareholder value.

The complaint alleges that UnitedHealth was aware of the DOJ
investigation since at least October 2023. Instead of disclosing
this material investigation to investors or the public,
UnitedHealth insiders sold more than $120 million of their
personally held UnitedHealth shares.

What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action
against UnitedHealth Group Inc. Shareholders who want to serve as
lead plaintiff for the class must file their motions with the court
by July 15, 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 UnitedHealth Group Inc.
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]

UPHOLD HQ: Faces Class Action Over Misleading Marketing
-------------------------------------------------------
David Pimentel at BlockTribune reports that on Thursday, April 25,
2024, a second amended class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York against
digital money platform Uphold HQ Inc. The lawsuit alleges consumer
fraud and seeks damages for thousands of customers who invested in
Uphold's interest-earning product called CredEarn, or Earn, which
promised returns on deposits of cryptocurrencies and other digital
assets.

The suit claims that Uphold knew Earn carried significant risks but
actively marketed it as a safe, traditional interest-earning
product similar to a savings account without properly disclosing
the underlying risks to consumers. In reality, the funds deposited
in Earn were invested in Cred, Inc., a cryptocurrency lending firm
that was grossly mismanaged and filed for bankruptcy in November
2020, causing customers to lose all their investments.

According to court documents, Uphold was aware of Cred's troubled
financial history, lack of proper accounting controls, and risky
ties to a Chinese micro-lending firm through meetings and its
representation on Cred's board. One Uphold board member even warned
in May 2020 that continuing to do business with Cred without more
oversight could result in losses for customers and lawsuits against
Uphold. However, Uphold allegedly failed to conduct a formal audit
of Cred or make Cred's risks clear to consumers.

The lawsuit maintains Uphold had a duty to disclose this material
information, but continued marketing Earn using uniform materials
without mention of Cred until just before its bankruptcy.
Plaintiffs claim Uphold knew Earn was essentially an unsecured loan
to Chinese gamers, not a secured, traditional banking product as
promoted, and that Uphold's actions constitute consumer fraud under
New York law where many disputes are governed. The suit seeks
restitution of lost funds and penalties. [GN]

VARSITY SPIRIT: Settles Greenwashing Class Action Law for $82.5MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CPI reports that in a significant development for the cheerleading
events industry, Varsity Spirit, along with its current and former
private equity owners, has reached a settlement agreement of $82.5
million to resolve a class action lawsuit. The lawsuit, filed more
than three years ago in Memphis federal court, accused the
cheerleading events promoter of overcharging athletes, reported
Reuters.

According to attorneys for the plaintiffs, the proposed accord aims
to address allegations that Varsity and affiliated entities engaged
in practices that purportedly excluded competitors from the cheer
industry, resulting in inflated prices that violated U.S. antitrust
law.

Both current owner Bain Capital and former owner Charlesbank
Capital, among others, were defendants in the lawsuit and have
agreed to participate in the settlement. Despite the settlement,
all defendants have maintained their denial of any wrongdoing.

The terms of the settlement, subject to court approval, have not
specified the individual contributions from each defendant towards
the $82.5 million total, as reported by Reuters.

In response to the settlement, Varsity, headquartered in Memphis,
issued a statement expressing its satisfaction with the resolution.
The company affirmed its confidence in having acted appropriately
and in the best interest of the sport. Bain Capital and the
plaintiffs involved in the lawsuit declined to comment, while
Charlesbank Capital did not immediately respond to requests for
comment.

This settlement follows a prior resolution reached by Varsity last
year, in which it settled a related case with gyms, spectators and
other direct purchasers for $43 million, also reported by Reuters.
[GN]

VENUS CONCEPT: Underpays Field Service Engineers, Keller Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL KELLER and LORENZO HERRING, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. VENUS CONCEPT USA INC,
Defendant, Case No. 0:24-cv-60657 (S.D. Fla., April 22, 2024)
arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful labor policies in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act, the California Labor
Code, and the California Business and Professions Code.

This action seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and all
allowable damages, interest, and attorney's fees and costs under
the FLSA and state laws for Plaintiffs individually, and as a
collective action for Plaintiffs and all current or former
salary-paid field service engineers company-wide who worked more
than 40 hours in any workweek performing FSE services for
Defendant, for which they were internally classified and paid by
any Defendant as "exempt" from the overtime laws within the period
beginning three years preceding the filing date of this Complaint
and ending on the date of judgment in this matter.

Plaintiffs Keller and Herring worked as FSEs for Defendant from
June 2021 until April 2023 and from April 2021 until December 2022,
respectively.

Venus Concept USA Inc. provides global medical aesthetic technology
services.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          8151 Peters Rd, Suite 4000
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 318-0268
          E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          C. Andrew Head, Esq.
          Bethany A. Hilbert, Esq.
          HEAD LAW FIRM, LLC
          4422 N Ravenswood Ave.
          Chicago, IL 60640
          Telephone: (404) 924-4151
          Facsimile: (404) 796-7338
          E-mail: ahead@headlawfirm.com
                  bhilbert@headlawfirm.com

VESTIS CORP: Faces Class Action Over Securities Fraud
-----------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. has filed a securities fraud class action lawsuit
(the "Class Action") in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia against Vestis Corporation ("Vestis"
or the "Company") (NYSE: VSTS) and certain of its executive
officers (collectively, "Defendants"). The Class Action asserts
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder on behalf of
all persons and entities that purchased Vestis common stock between
October 2, 2023 and May 1, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
and were damaged thereby. The Class Action filed by Saxena White
P.A. is captioned: Plumbers, Pipefitters and Apprentices Local No.
112 Pension Fund v. Vestis Corporation et al., No.
1:24-cv-02175-SDG (N.D. Ga.).

Based in Roswell, Georgia, Vestis is a provider of uniforms and
workplace supplies in the United States and Canada. The Company was
created as the result of its September 30, 2023 spinoff from food
services and facilities management provider Aramark. Vestis began
trading on the New York Stock Exchange on October 2, 2023, the
first day of the Class Period, under the ticker symbol "VSTS."

Leading up to Class Period before the spinoff, soon-to-be
executives of Vestis claimed that "investments are in place" to
deliver "5% to 7% topline growth" on compound annual growth rate
(CAGR). They also assured investors that the Company's sales force
had "reached their stride" and were "now hitting productivity
levels that we desire from them." As the Class Period progressed,
Defendants highlighted the "really, really great feedback" that
Vestis had received from its customer service initiatives and
maintained that the Company's growth would continue to accelerate
based on, among other things, Vestis "providing service excellence
to our customers."

The Class Action alleges that, during the Class Period, the
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and
failed to disclose that:

     (1) Aramark had historically underinvested in the business
that became Vestis;

     (2) Vestis operated with outdated facilities and an
underperforming sales force;

      (3) Vestis's outdated facilities and underperforming sales
force led to "service gaps" that had impeded the Company's levers
of growth and had resulted in customer attrition; and

      (4) as a result of the above, Defendants' statements about
Vestis's business, operations, and prospects were materially false
and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant
times.

The truth was revealed before markets opened on May 2, 2024, when
Vestis issued a press release announcing financial results for the
second quarter of fiscal year 2024, ended March 29, 2024.
Specifically, the Company disclosed that it had generated revenue
of $705 million, a 0.9% increase over the same quarter in the prior
year, and also had downwardly revised its revenue outlook for
fiscal year 2024 to a range of negative 1% to 0%. During the
corresponding earnings call with analysts that day, Chief Executive
Officer ("CEO") Kimberly Scott revealed the "challenges" facing the
Company related "to sales productivity and deliberate moderated
pricing actions," the latter of which CEO Scott explained were
necessary to "improve[] retention" and because "service gaps" had
"driven price sensitivity." During the same call, analysts pointed
out that Vestis had pivoted from a recent announcement of a price
increase to a price decrease and questioned Defendants about the
reversal in pricing capabilities. On this news, the price of Vestis
stock plummeted 45%, from a closing price of $18.47 per share on
May 1, 2024, to a closing price of $10.16 per share on May 2,
2024.

If you purchased Vestis common stock during the Class Period and
were damaged thereby, you are a member of the "Class" and may be
able to seek appointment as lead plaintiff. If you wish to apply to
be lead plaintiff, a motion on your behalf must be filed with the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia no later
than July 16, 2024. The lead plaintiff is a court-appointed
representative for absent members of the Class. You do not need to
seek appointment as lead plaintiff to share in any Class recovery
in the Class Action. If you are a Class member and there is a
recovery for the Class, you can share in that recovery as an absent
Class member.

You may contact Marco A. Dueñas (mduenas@saxenawhite.com), an
attorney at Saxena White P.A., to discuss your rights regarding the
appointment of lead plaintiff or your interest in the Class Action.
You also may retain counsel of your choice to represent you in the
Class Action. You may obtain a copy of the Complaint and inquire
about actively joining the Class Action at www.saxenawhite.com.

Saxena White P.A., with offices in Florida, New York, California,
and Delaware, is a leading national law firm focused on prosecuting
securities class actions and other complex litigation on behalf of
injured investors. Currently serving as lead counsel in numerous
securities class actions nationwide, Saxena White has recovered
billions of dollars on behalf of injured investors.

CONTACT INFORMATION

     Marco A. Dueñas, Esq.
     mduenas@saxenawhite.com
     Saxena White P.A.
     10 Bank Street, Suite 882
     White Plains, New York 10606
     Tel.: (914) 437-8551
     Fax: (888) 631-3611
     www.saxenawhite.com [GN]

VISA INC: Settles Anti-Trust Class Suit Over Interchange Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Rockman-Smith of brsw-cpa.com reports that Visa and
Mastercard has settled a $5.5 billion class action lawsuit that
claimed they violated anti-trust laws overcharging merchants with
interchange fees from January 1, 2004 through January 24, 2019. All
persons, businesses, and other entities that accepted Visa or
Mastercard branded debit or credit cards during that time period
are eligible to submit a claim to receive a portion of the
settlement fund. Payment amount is determined on a pro rata basis
meaning the payout will be a percentage of the settlement fund
proportionate to the business’s claim out of all claims filed
before the deadline of August 30, 2024.

An online portal has been established at paymentcardsettlement.com
to submit and view the status of claims. Claims can be submitted
with or without receiving a claim ID in the mail. If a business
doesn’t have a claim ID and control number, a claim can still be
submitted by providing the business name, tax ID number, and a
document showing proof of authorization such as a W-9 or merchant
statements that show both the tax ID and name. A human
administrator will need to review the authorization document and
accept it before a claim can be submitted, so that process will
require a follow up after initial documentation is submitted.

Transaction data from Visa and Mastercard has already been
collected, so there isn’t any need to dig through old records in
order to submit a claim. Because of this, the process of submitting
a claim is fairly simple and the use of third parties to file the
claim on your behalf is not encouraged. Businesses that have gone
out of business or filed bankruptcy during this time may still file
claims. [GN]

VW GROUP: Settles Emissions Fraud Scandal Suit for EUR50MM
----------------------------------------------------------
Harry Moran of Litigation Finance Journal reports that Altroconsumo
and VW Group have reached a ground-breaking agreement, providing
over 50 million euro relief to over 60,000 Italian consumers
affected by the emissions fraud scandal. Celebrating this major win
for Italian consumers, Euroconsumers calls on Volkswagen to now
also compensate Dieselgate victims in the other Euroconsumers
countries.

The settlement reached by Altroconsumo, arising from a
Euroconsumers coordinated class action which commenced in 2015
ensures that Volkswagen will allocate over 50 million euros in
compensation. Eligible participants stand to receive payments of up
to 1100 euros per individual owner.

This brings an end to an eight year long legal battle that
Altroconsumo together with Euroconsumers has been fiercefully
fighting for Italian consumers and marks a significant milestone in
seeking justice for those impacted by the 'Dieselgate' scandal.

"We extend our massive congratulations to Altroconsumo for reaching
this major settlement in favor of the Italian Dieselgate victims.
Finally, they will receive the justice and compensation they
deserve. This milestone underscores the importance of upholding
consumer rights and the accountability of big market players when
these rights are ignored, something Euroconsumers and all its
national organisations will continue to do together with even more
intensity under the new Representative Actions Directive" -- Marco
Scialdone, Head Litigation and Academic Outreach Euroconsumers

Together with Altroconsumo in Italy, Euroconsumers also initiated
Dieselgate class actions against the Volkswagen-group in Belgium,
Spain and Portugal. While the circumstances are shared, the
outcomes have been far from consistent.

"Euroconsumers was the first European consumer cluster to launch
collective actions against Volkswagen to secure redress and
compensation for all affected by the emissions scandal in its
member countries. After 8 years of relentless pursuit, we urge the
VW group to finally come through for all of them and give all of
them the compensation they rightfully deserve. All Dieselgate
victims are equal and should be treated with equal respect." –
Els Bruggeman, Head Policy and Enforcement Euroconsumers

Consumer protection is nothing without enforcement and so
Euroconsumers and its organisations will continue to lead important
class actions which benefit consumers all across the single market.


About Euroconsumers

Gathering five national consumer organisations and giving voice to
a total of more than 1,5 million people in Italy, Belgium, Spain,
Portugal and Brazil, Euroconsumers is the world's leading consumer
cluster in innovative information, personalised services and the
defence of consumer rights. Our European member organisations are
part of the umbrella network of BEUC, the European Consumer
Organisation. Together we advocate for EU policies that benefit
consumers in their daily lives. [GN]

WALMART INC: Court Rejects Raw Honey Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newline, to hire a class action
lawyer's second chance at suing Walmart over whether it can label
its honey as raw has failed.

Chicago federal judge Lindsay Jenkins on May 9 rejected the first
amended complaint of lawyer Spencer Sheehan, after dismissing the
original complaint Feb. 22. Plaintiff John Wertymer and Sheehan
allege Walmart adds foreign sugars during processing and
excessively heats it.

The heat causes the enzymes in raw honey to be destroyed, the suit
says, despite Walmart marketing its Great Value-brand honey as
organic and raw.

"The First Amended Complaint does not plead facts that make it
plausible that a reasonable consumer would expect raw honey to have
a mannose level below a specific level," Jenkins wrote.

"Even under the assumption that an ordinary consumer would not
expect 'raw' honey to contain foreign sugars, the First Amended
Complaint does not support an inference that Organic Raw Honey had
such foreign sugars."

Walmart argued in its motion to dismiss that its "Raw Honey" and
"Organic Raw Honey" satisfy the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
definition of "raw honey." It adds the following arguments:

  -- Wertymer's own lab found no foreign sugars;

  -- A product's status as organic is not impacted by foreign
sugars unless those sugars are prohibited by governing federal
regulations;

  -- Wertymer can't allege the honey he bought is worth less than
what he paid for it;

  -- He alleges no violation of a public policy or conduct so
oppressive that consumers couldn't avoid it;

-- He can't show Walmart had knowledge any statement was false;

  -- He does not face threat of future injury; and

  -- He has not alleged an intention to buy the honey again in the
future. [GN]

WENDY'S INTERNATIONAL: Appeals Remand Ruling in Little Labor Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy's International, LLC has filed an appeal from the District
Court's Order dated April 12, 2024 entered in the lawsuit styled
JEFFREY LITTLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WENDY'S INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Case No. 1:23-CV-03056-MEH,
in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado-Denver.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit was removed from
the District Court, City & County of Denver, Colorado, to the
District of Colorado on November 17, 2023. The case arises from the
Defendant's failure to pay wages under the Colorado Wage Claim Act
and the Colorado Minimum Wage Act.

On December 15, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the
case to state court.

On April 12, 2024, Magistrate Judge Michael E. Hegarty entered an
Order granting Plaintiff's motion to remand.

The appellate case is captioned as Wendy's International, LLC v.
Little, Case No. 24-703, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Tenth Circuit, filed on April 22, 2024.

Defendant-Petitioner WENDY'S INTERNATIONAL, LLC is represented by:

          David Coats, Esq.
          Cole A. Wist, Esq.
          SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS
          717 17th Street, Suite 1825
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 830-1776

               - and -

          Jill S. Kirila, Esq.
          SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS
          2000 Huntington Center
          41 South High Street, 20th Floor
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 365-2700

Plaintiff-Respondent JEFFREY LITTLE, individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated persons, is represented by:

          Brian Gonzales, Esq.
          BRIAN D. GONZALES LAW OFFICES
          2580 East Harmony Road, Suite 201
          Fort Collins, CO 80528
          Telephone: (970) 214-0562

               - and -

          Alexander Hood, Esq.
          TOWARDS JUSTICE
          PO Box 371680, Pmb 44465
          Denver, CO 80237-5680
          Telephone: (720) 239-2606

WEST REALM: Bids to Sever Claims From Onusz Adversary Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John T. Dorsey of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District
of Delaware denies the Motions to Sever Claims in the adversary
proceeding titled Onusz, et al. v. West Realm Shires Inc., et al.,
Adv. No. 22-50513-JTD (Bankr. D. Del.).

Judge Dorsey filed a letter explaining it is his ruling on the
Motions to Sever Claims filed by Caroline Ellison, Nishad Singh,
and Zixiao ("Gary") Wang (together, "FTX Executive Defendants").

After FTX Trading Ltd. ("FTX") filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy in
November 2022, four FTX customers ("Plaintiffs") filed this
adversary proceeding against a combination of the FTX Executive
Defendants and the Debtors ("Debtor-Defendants"). The Plaintiffs
seek (1) declaratory relief against the Debtor-Defendants, and (2)
damages under various common law causes of action against the
Debtor-Defendants and the FTX Executive Defendants, including
breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and
conversion. The common law causes of action are jointly pled
against the Debtor-Defendants and the FTX Executive Defendants.

In June 2023, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
consolidated certain class action cases pending against the FTX
Executive Defendants into an FTX multidistrict litigation ("MDL"),
In re FTX Cryptocurrency Exch. Collapse Litig., No. MDL 3076, 2023
WL 3829242 (U.S. Jud. Pan. Mult. Lit. June 5, 2023).

The FTX Executive Defendants subsequently filed the Motions to
Sever in this Court, arguing that the claims against them should
instead be transferred to and tried before the MDL. The FTX
Executive Defendants contend that severance here would promote
judicial economy because the MDL is already hearing similar claims
against them. In addition to these Motions to Sever, the FTX
Executive Defendants filed a motion before the MDL to transfer this
adversary proceeding from the Bankruptcy Court to the MDL, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. Section 1407.

The Plaintiffs disagree with the FTX Executive Defendants'
contention that severance weighs in favor of judicial economy,
pointing out that the FTX MDL involves more than a dozen cases
focused not on the misappropriation of customer deposits, but
rather on violations of Florida and California law for selling
"unregistered securities." The Plaintiffs further contend that the
FTX Executive Defendants are motivated by a desire to avoid payment
rather than a desire to promote convenience or judicial economy.

The MDL Panel denied the FTX Executive Defendants' motion to
transfer in April 2024. In its opinion, the MDL Panel noted that
the proposal to separate the claims against the FTX Executive
Defendants is not practicable. Many of the claims asserted in this
proceeding are pled against the Debtor-Defendants and FTX Executive
Defendants jointly.

The MDL Panel also noted that several of the questions at issue in
this adversary proceeding would be answered through the course of
the bankruptcy as a whole, and, therefore, judicial economy weighed
in favor of denying the transfer to MDL.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 allows a court to drop a party
or sever any claim against a party. Judicial economy is the primary
focus of the Rule 21 analysis, Judge Dorsey notes.

Consideration of these factors here leads Judge Dorsey to conclude
that the Motions to Sever should be denied. Following the MDL
Panel's April 2024 holding, Judge Dorsey explains that the movants'
arguments regarding judicial economy have no persuasive effect. The
Defendants argued that judicial economy weighed in favor of
transferring these cases so that the claims against them could be
tried before the MDL Panel, which the movants believed was a more
appropriate forum for the resolution of the claims.

Judge Dorsey notes that the MDL Panel has clearly denied the FTX
Executive Defendants' request to transfer its claims. Since the
Panel has foreclosed the possibility of hearing these claims, Judge
Dorsey points out that the movants' argument is moot, and they have
presented no alternative argument as to why severance would promote
judicial economy. Additionally, severance here does not appear
likely either to be convenient or to help achieve a quick
resolution.

Should the claims be severed, Judge Dorsey points out they would
become independent action, therefore, requiring the parties to
manage an additional action in an additional forum. The most
convenient and expeditious means to adjudicate these claims is to
litigate them within the adversary proceeding before this Court.

Finally, Judge Dorsey sees no basis for an argument that denying
the Motions to Sever would prejudice any party. Judge Dorsey points
out agrees with the Plaintiffs' contention that granting severance
carries a greater risk of prejudice to the Plaintiffs by causing
"needless complication and delay." Hence, the Motions to Sever are
denied.

Judge Dorsey says the parties should submit an appropriate form of
order under certification of counsel.

A full-text copy of the Court's Letter dated May 2, 2024, is
available at https://tinyurl.com/zjchuttw from PacerMonitor.com.


WHIRLPOOL CORP: Faces Class Action Over Appliance Buyout
--------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed
class action lawsuit alleges Whirlpool and AIG WarrantyGuard have
misrepresented extended service plans offered for Whirlpool
appliances in that the plans neither provide a level of coverage
comparable to the manufacturer's actual warranty nor cover 100
percent of the parts and labor necessary to repair a consumer's
appliance at no cost.

In particular, the 63-page Whirlpool lawsuit claims the companies'
marketing gives consumers the impression that the plans are being
offered by Whirlpool -- not AIG -- and essentially operate as an
extension to the appliance's original manufacturer warranty.
Instead, the suit says, the extended service plans at issue offer
only "limited" coverage and contain a provision that allows the
companies, at their sole discretion, to refuse to repair a covered
appliance and instead buy it back from the consumer with a one-time
cash payment. This cash payment "does not make the consumer whole"
as it is capped at 75 percent of the purchase price of the
bought-out appliance, the case says.

Ultimately, the buyout provision in the Whirlpool extended repair
plans, covering Whirlpool, KitchenAid, Amana, Maytag, Kenmore and
JennAir appliances, serves to help the company generate "unfair
profits" at the expense of unsuspecting consumers who "would have
no reason to suspect that the coverage they bargained and paid for
will be limited in such a manner," the breach-of-contract lawsuit
alleges.

The plaintiff, a Washington consumer, purchased a Geek Squad
Protection Plan for her KitchenAid dishwasher at the time she
bought the appliance from Best Buy, the filing says. The woman was
subsequently contacted by co-defendant AIG WarrantyGuard, an AIG
subsidiary and the obligor for Whirlpool's extended service plans
in most states, which offered to sell her a service plan at a price
lower than what she paid for the Geek Squad plan, the suit shares.

"Being a retiree on a budget, she cancelled her [Geek Squad] Plan
and purchased a KitchenAid Plan to save money," the case relays.

Unfortunately, the amount of money the plaintiff saved by switching
to a KitchenAid service plan was "more than offset" by what she had
to pay to buy a new appliance when Whirlpool and AIG WarrantyGuard
bought out her dishwasher, the lawsuit reads.

Several months before the defendants bought the plaintiff out of
her dishwasher, the woman filed a warranty claim for a different
issue, the case shares. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants,
in disregard of their service plan representations, required her to
find her own repair technician to resolve the issue, pay out of
pocket to cover the repair, and then seek reimbursement from
Whirlpool and AIG WarrantyGuard because, according to the
companies, they had no repair technicians in her area. Per the
case, the plaintiff was unable to find a repair technician who was
willing to perform the repairs in accordance with the defendants'
conditions.

"Plaintiff ended up receiving no benefits for her claim and had to
make do with a malfunctioning dishwasher until a subsequent failure
caused Defendants to buyout the appliance," the complaint states,
alleging the plaintiff's troubles with Whirlpool and AIG
WarrantyGuard are not isolated incidents given that thousands of
consumers each year purchase service plans "under the mistaken
belief" that they are buying extensions to Whirlpool's
manufacturer's warranties.

Overall, the defendants' "fraudulent and misleading conduct"
renders the Whirlpool extended repair plans at issue "essentially
worthless," or, alternatively, slashes their value to only a
fraction of that paid by consumers for the plans, the suit claims.

The lawsuit looks to cover all persons who, within the last four
years, bought a Whirlpool extended repair plan for an appliance
that was domiciled in the state of Washington at the time they
bought the plan. [GN]

XIRIUZ LLC: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Menendez Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
ARANI MENENDEZ, individually and other similarly situated v. XIRIUZ
LLC, and HIRALDO DE LA ROSA, individually, Defendants, Case No.
1:24-cv-21763-XXXX (S.D. Fla., May 6, 2024) seeks to recover
monetary damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendant Xiriuz employed Plaintiff Arani Menendez as a
non-exempted, full-time, hourly warehouse employee, from
approximately August 10, 2001, to April 05, 2024, or 138 weeks.
Plaintiff Menendez worked 45 hours weekly. However, Plaintiff was
paid for only 40 regular hours. Defendants automatically deducted
five working hours from Plaintiff's wages every week, corresponding
to one hour of lunchtime daily, even though Plaintiff was never
able to take bonafide lunch breaks., says the suit.

Defendant Xiriuz LLC is a distributor of electrical machinery,
equipment, and supplies. Defendant's place of business is 4340 West
104th Street, Hialeah, Florida

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
         ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
         9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
         Miami, FL 33156
         Telephone: (305) 446-1500
         Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
         E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

YELP INC: Fails to Pay Proper Compensation, Schabot Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
KELLIE SCHABOT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. YELP INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-00236
(M.D. Fla., May 6, 2024) accuses the Defendant of violating the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff Schabot worked for Defendant as an inside sales
representative from January 8, 2024, until February 29, 2024,
solely working remotely from her home in Clermont, FL. Allegedly,
the Defendant implemented unlawful schemes to avoid its full
overtime pay obligations under the FLSA. These schemes include not
paying overtime hours for work performed while suffered to work off
the clock and not paying overtime for those the hours they
performed work while clocked out for meal breaks or which were not
bonafide meal breaks.

Headquartered in San Francisco, CA, Yelp Inc. owns and operates the
Yelp.com website and Yelp mobile app, which publishes reviews about
businesses. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq
         FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
         12610 Race Track Road #225
         Tampa, FL 33626
         Telemarketing: (813) 639-9366
         Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
         E-mail: mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com

[*] FCC Voices Concerns Over Data Sharing in Connected Vehicles
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron H. Jacoby and Andrea M. Gumushian of ArentFox Schiff reports
that connected cars have been on the FTC's radar for years. Its
most recent blog post specifically highlights the Commission's
concerns regarding over collecting -- and the risk of secondary
uses -- of sensitive data, such as precise geolocation and
biometric information. Its recent enforcement actions show how the
Commission will prioritize protecting consumers against the illegal
collection, use, and disclosure of their sensitive personal data.
The FTC notes that using sensitive data for automated
decision-making can also be unlawful; using this data to build
algorithms could create liability for harmful automated decisions.
Further, secret disclosure of sensitive data can be an unfair
practice.  

The Recent Class Action Involving Data Sharing with Insurance
Companies

On the litigation front, unfair vehicle data sharing practices are
making a scene in federal court. In his complaint, Plaintiff Romeo
Chicco claims General Motors ("GM") and OnStar sold or shared his
driving data without his knowledge or consent, significantly
impacting his ability to find automobile insurance coverage. Once
Mr. Chicco finally did find adequate insurance coverage, his rate
nearly doubled based on information collected through OnStar's
Smart Driver Program and contained in a LexisNexis driver behavior
report. In compiling his data, and preparing and using that driver
behavior report, Mr. Chicco alleges LexisNexis violated the federal
Fair Credit Reporting Act, while GM and OnStar violated Florida's
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act and invaded his privacy
under Florida common law.

The complaint alleges a lack of transparency in and around how
driver behavior data can be collected and shared. Mr. Chicco
purchased a new 2021 Cadillac (in which OnStar is included as a
standard component) from a dealership in Delray Beach, Florida.
According to the complaint, the purchase agreement and related
documents made no mention of OnStar, LexisNexis, data-sharing, or
anything privacy-related. Representatives from the dealership told
Mr. Chicco that the OnStar Smart Driver Program "wasn't sold at the
store," and that OnStar "did not release information to a dealer
regarding when and who signed up for the [data sharing] program."

Notably, the complaint alleges that Mr. Chicco downloaded the
MyCadillac mobile application soon after leaving the dealership and
received a welcome email from Cadillac, which did not mention
OnStar's Smart Driver Program. Mr. Chicco's billing statements did
not include any purchases or payments for OnStar-related services,
and neither the welcome email nor subsequent diagnostic reports he
received via email mentioned data-sharing with third parties. All
in all, Mr. Chicco alleges he was not given any reason to believe,
whether through his interaction with the dealer or subsequent
emails from GM or OnStar, that his vehicle data, or any driver
behavior data, was being shared with third parties.

Fast forward two years later, plaintiff had to look for new
insurance and reached out to several providers. Mr. Chicco claims
he was summarily denied coverage each time he attempted to purchase
car insurance, ultimately learning the denials were based on
information contained in his "LexisNexis driver behavior report."
He eventually received the report and discovered 258 recorded
"driving events," including sharp accelerations, hard braking, and
high speeds, among other statistics.

Mr. Chicco inquired with LexisNexis and GM/OnStar, attempting to
untangle how his data had been shared to create the driver report.
None of the representatives he spoke with could tell him how he
ever became enrolled in the Smart Driver Program. Mr. Chicco
believes OnStar started sharing his data with LexisNexis after he
downloaded the MyCadillac mobile application, despite his lack of
express consent and enrolment in the Smart Driver Program.

Mr. Chicco eventually obtained OnStar's SmartDriver FAQ, which
confirmed that the OnStar Smart Driver program requires separate
enrollment than other basic OnStar services, and that the program
is not designed to collect the driving behavior data of its
customers without their consent. Upon consent and enrollment, the
vehicle will collect specific driving behavior data, including hard
braking events, hard acceleration events, speeds over 80 miles per
hour, average speed, late night driving, when a trip occurs, and
the number of miles driven.

Usage-Based Insurance Is Not New; the Scope and Quantity of Data
Collected from Vehicles Is.

Usage-based automotive insurance is not a new concept. The first
usage-based insurance program was launched by Progressive Insurance
Company in 1997. These programs were designed to assess driver risk
based on miles driven: fewer miles, lower risk, lower insurance
rate. Since the late 1990s, many insurance companies have followed
suit. But today the calculation is more complicated; there are more
factors that can be considered in whether someone exhibits "good or
"bad" driving behavior. Since 1997, telematics data and vehicle
technology have evolved dramatically. The type of data that can be
(and is) collected from a new vehicle (and potentially shared with
insurance companies and other data brokers) is more sensitive, more
personally identifiable, and in significantly greater quantities
per vehicle than when these usage-based insurance programs first
started.

Dealers Should Re-Examine Their Data Sharing Disclosure Practices
at the Point of Sale

Vehicle data collection -- and what dealerships know or don't know
about what OEMs are doing with customers' data -- can certainly
harm the customer and may ultimately find its way back to harm the
dealership in the form of an enforcement action or class action.
While a dealer may be transparent with customers about what the
dealership is doing with customers' data, that same transparency
may not exist between the dealer and OEM. The dealership may not be
in the best position to provide customers with the most
transparent, complete picture of how their data is being collected
and shared at the point of sale.

The dealership where Mr. Chicco purchased his Cadillac is not named
as a party in his class action, but Mr. Chicco's allegations
against GM and OnStar are intimately linked to his experience at
the dealership, and his understanding of what he was signing up for
at the time he purchased his vehicle. Mr. Chicco's experience
should serve as a warning to dealers of how a lack of transparency
with respect to vehicle data can create an impression of deceptive
trade practices, and also turn customers off from the brand. The
New York Times article that originally broke this story references
a "Palm Beach Cadillac owner" who "said he would never buy another
car from GM. He is planning to sell his Cadillac." So not only does
failing to disclose data sharing practices create legal risk under
privacy and consumer protection laws; it's also just bad business.

Recent State Laws Related Specifically to Vehicle Data and
Connected Car Technology

Recent shifts in the U.S. privacy regulatory landscape with respect
to vehicle data collection and sharing, should make manufacturers
and dealers reconsider whether they provide adequate transparency
to customers regarding data sharing at the point of sale; are
current practices good enough to meet the technological and
regulatory moment?

Current consumer-oriented state privacy laws don't deal directly
with the types of vehicle data insurance providers are interested
in; traditional "telematics" data. Vehicle history, brake data,
speed, and hard accelerations aren't the types of data defined as
"personal" by the state privacy laws. Since 2023, state
legislatures have been introducing vehicle-related privacy bills
that focus on the types of data not typically dealt with in the
state comprehensive privacy laws.

New Jersey, Tennessee, New York, and California have all passed or
introduced legislation related specifically to vehicle data. These
recent laws aim to enhance privacy protections related to in-car
surveillance technologies, such as sensors, cameras, and even
connected car applications that capture vehicle telematics and
location data.

New Jersey enacted a law in January 2024 requiring dealers to
delete consumers' personal information from vehicles they sell or
trade in. It is likely the information implicated in this law
consists of anything that could be stored in a vehicle infotainment
system, or transferred to the vehicle via a Bluetooth connection.
This could include navigation history, geolocation data, internet
browsing history, text and voice communication records, and garage
codes.

Tennessee proposed a law in January 2024 to develop a registry of
drivers who do not want car companies to collect their data, which
would require automakers to give drivers a right to opt out. In New
York, a bill was introduced in the state Senate earlier this year
that would update New York's insurance laws to require automotive
insurers to disclose how they factor telematics data into
automotive insurance rates. In California, several proposed bills
consider connected vehicle issues. One, signed into law in October
2023, requires auto manufacturers to disclose the presence of
in-vehicle cameras.

In sum, the regulatory landscape for connected vehicle data is in a
massive state of flux. Manufacturers and dealers can protect
themselves by (1) understanding what data flows through vehicles
and how; (2) providing increased transparency to customers at the
point of sale; and (3) limiting their collection and use of
personal data to what is necessary to provide the product or
service. [GN]

[*] Maryland Nursing Facilities Face Class Action on Lax Oversight
------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Moore, writing for WTOPNews, reports that a class action
lawsuit filed in federal court this week alleges the Maryland
Department of Health has failed to conduct annual inspections of
dozens of nursing facilities and allowed a backlog of complaints
over care to pile up -- leaving residents with disabilities
vulnerable.

The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Maryland, lists five
plaintiffs -- all residents of Maryland nursing facilities and all
with serious mobility impairments.

The lawsuit lists several accounts of poor care and neglect,
including residents being left in soiled clothing for hours and
others confined to their beds for weeks.

Overall, the suit claims the department has allowed 181 nursing
facilities to go at least 16 months without conducting an
inspection, known as a survey. That's 81% of the state's 225
licensed nursing facilities. The department has allowed more than
100 facilities to go four years without an annual inspection, the
suit claims.

"When MDH fails to carry out its oversight responsibilities,
dangerously poor-quality care within nursing facilities goes
undetected and uncorrected," the lawsuit stated.

The department's performance completing annual surveys "is among
the worst" in the U.S., the suit claims, with only one other state
-- Kentucky -- "more delinquent than Maryland."

WTOP reached out the Maryland Department of Health for comment on
the lawsuit. In an email, a spokesman said: "The Maryland
Department of Health is committed to providing the best care to
Maryland residents. We do not have any further comment on active
litigation."

The suit was filed by the Public Justice Center and the group
Justice in Aging. It seeks class action status, arguing the
department's alleged lax oversight violates the federal Americans
with Disabilities Act and state regulations.

The lawsuit also points to a serious backlog of complaints brought
directly by residents -- some alleging "serious allegations of harm
to residents" -- that the lawsuit says have not been investigated.

While complaints raising issues that amount to what the department
considers "immediate jeopardy" to a resident are investigated
promptly, in line with state regulations, the department regularly
allows other complaints to languish, according to the lawsuit.

Overall, over the past three years, the department reported some
13,173 complaints and facility-related reports, of which fewer than
half have been investigated, according to the lawsuit.

"This results in nursing facility residents waiting months, or even
years, for their complaints that they were harmed by abuse,
neglect, poor-quality care, or rights violations, to be
investigated," the lawsuit stated.

In one account included in the lawsuit, lawyers said a 54-year-old
woman with muscular dystrophy, who uses a wheelchair, had been left
in soiled clothing for up to two hours waiting for staff to respond
to her call bell.

The lawsuit says the facility, whose name is redacted, is often
without hot water and despite the woman filing a complaint last
September, the department has not yet investigated.

Another resident cited in the lawsuit, a 61-year-old man with
paralysis of all four limbs, has been confined to his bed in his
shared room since March 2023, with the exception of medical
appointments. [GN]


                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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

                   *** End of Transmission ***