---

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

              Tuesday, May 20, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 100

                            Headlines

23ANDME HOLDING: Court Sets July 14 Proofs of Claim Bar Date
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Parties Seek Extension of Briefing Schedule
AKELA CONTRACTING: $340K Class Settlement Wins Final Nod
ALL ELITE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Evans Suit Alleges
AMAZON.COM: Plaintiffs Seek to File Confidential Docs Under Seal

AMERICA PAC: Faces Maglietta Class Suit Over Breach of Contract
AMERICA PAC: Petition Signers File Class Suit Over Unpaid Referrals
AMP LTD: Court Issues Notice Over 2019 Superannuation Class Suit
APHRIA INC: Claim Form Submission Deadline Set for Aug. 26
APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over AirPods Max Headphones

APPLE INC: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Opposition Surreply
APPLE INC: Seeks Leave to File Opposition Surreply Under Seal
APPLE INC: Siri Settlement Claim Submission Deadline Set for July 2
ASPYR MEDIA: Bid to Consolidate Hearings in Mickelonis Tossed
ASPYR MEDIA: Can File Declaration Attachments Under Seal

BACKBLAZE INC: Investigates Potential Securities Claims
BAJCO INTERNATIONAL: Beard Seeks Conditional Status of Class Action
BANNER HEALTH: Class Cert. Bid Filing Modified to Oct. 2
BB COMPANY: Faces Suit Over Probiotic Dietary Supplement Labeling
BEIERSDORF INC: Faces Class Action Over Eucerin Lotions' False Ads

BITFARMS LTD: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Faces Class Suit Over Fire Risk in Vehicles
BOSTON CHILDREN'S: Settles Retirement Plan Class Suit for $3-Mil.
BULK MAIL: June 5 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
BURGER KING: Bid to Dismiss Coleman Class Action Tossed

BURGER KING: Faces Class Action Suit Over Misleading Whopper Ads
CAG BEAUTY: Fernandez Suit Alleges Blind-Inaccessible Website
CERNER CORP: Fails to Protect Private Info, Hoffman Alleges
CITIGROUP INC: Becker Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 11th Cir.
COINBASE INC: Seeks to Recover Deceptively Charged Hidden Fees

COMPASS DIVERSIFIED: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims
COMPASS MINERALS: $48MM Class Settlement to be Heard on July 30
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Class Suit Over iPhone Repair Warranty Info
CROWDVEST LLC: Johnson Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid
CSU: Parties Seek to Continue May 29 Hearing

DAVITA INC: Seeks to Stay Ruling on Conditional Certification Bid
DELTA AIR LINES: Faces Class Action Over CrowdStrike Outage
DIAGEO NORTH AMERICA: Faces Class Suit Over False Advertising
DIGIMARC CORP: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
DOCGO INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Genesee Due July 21

DOLLAR GENERAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Carter Due Nov. 12
DONALD TRUMP: Court Extends Time to Respond to Complaint
DONALD TRUMP: Court Tosses Bid to Decertify Class
DONALD TRUMP: Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification
DORSA FAMILY: Massey Suit Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA

DUKE ENERGY: Continues to Defend Mooresville Coal Ash Class Suit
ELEVANCE HEALTH: Holland Appeals Suit Dismissal to 1st Circuit
EQUIFAX INFO: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by Feb. 27, 2026
EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces Class Suit Over Pink Energy Scam Loans
FA BARTLETT: Filing for Class Cert Bid Continued to Dec. 5

FARO TECHNOLOGIES: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With AMETEK
FEDERAL INSURANCE: Purcell Seeks More Time to Oppose Exclusion Bid
FLOYD INC: Filing for Class Cert. in Austin Amended to July 7
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Suit Over "Made in USA" Claims
GENERAL MOTORS: Settlement in Chapman Gets Final Nod

GIGACLOUD TECHNOLOGY: Parties Must File Class Cert Bid by June 16
GLYCOMIMETICS INC: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With First Crescent
GOOGLE INC: Must File Bid to Seal Docs by May 23
GOOGLE LLC: Agrees to Settle Racial Discrimination Suit for $50MM
GOOGLE LLC: Seeks May 23 Deadline to Seal Class Cert Docs

GRAND AMERICA: Seeks Leave to File Short Sur-Reply to Class Cert
GREEN SOLUTIONS: Court Recommends Certification of Class
GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Junk Fees
GS OPERATING: Class Cert Bid Filing in Luciano Due April 20, 2026
HAMPTON PRODUCTS: Fernandez Alleges Blind-Inaccessible Website

HENRY INDUSTRIES: Court Denies Settlement Approval
HERTZ CORP: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach
HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS: Settles Antitrust Class Suit for $50-Mil.
HILTON HOTELS: Kifafi Appeals Post-Judgment Discovery Ruling
HOME DEPOT: Must Defend Against Fake Discounts Suit

HRM RESOURCES: McCormick Suit Seeks Class Certification
IHEARTMEDIA INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Due to Data Breach
INTREPID POTASH: Continues to Defend Minimum Wage Class Suit
IRONNET INC: $6.6MM Class Settlement to be Heard on July 30
JAPAN AMERICA: Fernandez Alleges Blind-Inaccessible Website

JELD-WEN INC: Settles Salary Range Class Action Lawsuit
JOHN CHRISTNER: Filing of Class Cert Bid Continued to May 22
KAISER FOUNDATION: Judge Dismisses Forfeitures' Class Action Suit
LAOS: Plaintiffs Urge Court to Keep Suit over Alleged Spying
LENDINGTREE LLC: Sapan Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 9th Cir.

LIBERTY MUTUAL: Watts Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
MDL 3010: Google Seeks May 23 Deadline to Seal Class Cert Docs
MDL 3047: Hartford Case Consolidated in Social Media Addiction Row
MISA LOS ANGELES: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Henry Alleges
MORGAN STANLEY: $120MM Class Settlement to be Heard on August 5

NATIONAL GENERAL: Renewed Bid for Class Cert Granted in Part
NEW SOUTH WALES: Class Action Over Music Festival Searches Begins
NEW YORK: Cyclists File Class Suit Over Red Light Tickets
OFFSPRING BEAUTY: Pittman Alleges Blind-Inaccessible Website
ONEAZ CREDIT: Class Cert Bid Filing in Aguilar Suit Due Oct. 10

ORTHOPAEDIC SPECIALISTS: Faces $5MM Data Breach Class Action Suit
OTAY LAKES: Seeks to Continue Class Certification Hearing
PEDIGREE PETFOODS: Faces Class Suit Over Vitamin D Toxicity
PEEK TRAVEL: Filing for Class Cert in Montgomery Due Jan. 30, 2026
PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER: $1.12M Class Settlement Gets Final Nod

PHOENIX OF HOMESTEAD: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Pardo Says
PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Hinton Due Nov. 21
PLAYA HOTELS: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Hyatt Hotels
POLAR BEVERAGES: Faces Class Suit Over Seltzer Natural Claims
POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Montpelier Suit Transferred to S.D. California

POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Reed-Custer Suit Transferred to S.D. California
QSR ENTERPRISES: Douglas Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
QUEBEC: Court Authorizes Class Action Over Undue Traffic Stops
QUEENS BOROUGH: Jackson Seeks Initial OK of Settlement Deal
ROCK HOLDINGS: Reopens Lead Plaintiff Appointment Process

ROCKLAND COUNTY, NY: Filing of Amended Complaint Due June 2
ROYAL BANK: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class of Investors
S.C. JOHNSON: Faces Class Suit Over Microplastics in Ziploc Bags
SUTTER HEALTH: Settles Fraudulent Bills Class Action for $11-Mil.
TALENTLAUNCH: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $1.2MM

TENNESSEE GAS: Parties Seek to Amend Class Cert Scheduling Order
TESLA INC: Matsko Seeks to File Class Cert Bid Under Seal
TESLA INC: Matsko Suit Seeks Class Certification
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Agrees to Settle Effexor XR Suit for $2.25MM
TIGER BRANDS: Offers Class Settlement to Listeriosis Victims

TRAJECTOR INC: Class Cert Filing in Wilson Due Jan. 9, 2026
UNITED SERVICES: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Tomczak Due May 20
UNITED STATES: A.A.R.P. Appeals Tossed TRO Bid to Fifth Circuit
UNITED STATES: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid
UNITED STATES: Tacoma Court Suit Over Outlier Rulings Certified

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Medical School Faces Class Action Suit
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Sued Over Intentional Discrimination
VESTA MINE: Must File Class Cert Response by May 23
VIEW INC: Settles Securities Class Action Suit for $1-Mil.
WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Omosikeji Suit Seeks to Recover OT Wages

WAYSTAR INC: Santoro Suit Removed to C.D. California
WEST PHARMACEUTICAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set July 7
WHC WORLDWIDE: Faces Class Suit Over SuperShuttle ADA Violations
WHOLE FOODS: Agrees to Settle $1.9-Bil. 401(k) Plan Class Suit
YARDI SYSTEMS: Bixler Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois


                            *********

23ANDME HOLDING: Court Sets July 14 Proofs of Claim Bar Date
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri (the "Court"), on April 30, 2025, entered an order (the
"Bar Date Order")  establishing, among other things, certain
deadlines for the filing of General Proof of Claim in the chapter
11 cases of 23ANDME HOLDING CO., et al.

By the Bar Date Order, the Court established: (i) July 14, 2025 at
either (a) 11:59 p.m. (prevailing Central Time) if submitted
electronically or (b) 4:59 p.m. (prevailing Central Time) if
submitted by hardcopy (the "General Bar Date"), as the general
deadline for entities currently holding potential claims and
Rejection Damages Claims, but excluding any entities currently
holding potential Cyber Security Incident Claims, to file General
Proofs of Claim in the Debtors' cases for claims against the
Debtors that arose or are deemed to have arisen prior to the date
on which the Debtors filed their chapter 11 petitions, March 23,
2025 (the "Petition Date"); and (ii) September 19, 2025 at either
(a) 11:59 p.m. (prevailing Central Time) if submitted
electronically or (b) 4:59 p.m. (prevailing Central Time) if
submitted by hardcopy (the "Governmental Bar Date"), as the general
deadline for governmental units to file General Proofs of Claim in
the Debtors' cases for claims against the Debtors that arose or are
deemed to have arisen prior to the Petition Date. As described
below, the Bar Date Order also establishes different bar dates for
certain categories of claims.

No later than April 28, 2025, each Debtor will have filed its
schedule of assets and liabilities and statement of financial
affairs (each, a "Schedule" and collectively across all Debtors,
the "Schedules"), settling forth, among other things, the amount,
nature and classification of all claims outstanding against each
Debtor as of the Petition Date.

As used in this Notice, the term "entity" has the meaning given to
it in section 101(15) of title 11 of the United States Code (the
"Bankruptcy Code"), and includes all persons, estates, trusts, and
the United States Trustee. As used in this Notice, the terms
"person" and "governmental unit" have the meanings given to them in
Bankruptcy Code sections 101(41) and 101(27), respectively.

As used in this Notice, the term "claim" means, as to or against
any of the Debtors and in accordance with Bankruptcy Code section
101(5): (i) any right to payment, whether or not such right is
reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, contingent,
matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable,
secured, or unsecured; or (ii) any right to an equitable remedy for
breach of performance if such breach gives rise to a right to
payment, whether or not such right to an equitable remedy is
reduced to judgment, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured,
disputed, undisputed, secured, or unsecured.

A. THE BAR DATES

The Bar Date Order establishes the following bar dates for filing
General Proofs of Claim or requests for payment of certain
administrative expenses in these cases (collectively, the "Bar
Dates"):

1. The General Bar Date. Pursuant to the Bar Date Order, except as
described below, all entities holding claims (whether secured,
unsecured, priority, or unsecured priority, including section
503(b)(9) claims) against the Debtors that arose or are deemed to
have arisen prior to the Petition Date are required to file General
Proofs of Claim so that such proofs of claim are actually received
by either the Clerk of the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri (the "Clerk of the Court") or the Debtors'
claims and noticing agent and administrative advisor, Kroll
Restructuring Administration LLC ("Kroll") by July 14, 2025 at
either (a) 11:59 p.m. (prevailing Central Time) if submitted
electronically or (b) 4:59 p.m. (prevailing Central Time) if
submitted by hardcopy.

2. The Governmental Bar Date. Pursuant to the Bar Date Order,
except as described below, all governmental units holding claims
against the Debtors that arose or are deemed to have arisen before
the Petition Date are required to file General Proofs of Claim so
that such proofs of claim are actually received by either the Clerk
of the Court or Kroll by September 19, 2025 at either (a) 11:59
p.m. (prevailing Central Time) if submitted electronically or (b)
4:59 p.m. (prevailing Central Time) if submitted by hardcopy.

3. The Rejection Bar Date. Pursuant to the Bar Date Order, any
entity asserting claims against the Debtors arising from or
relating to the rejection of executory contracts or unexpired
leases, in accordance with Bankruptcy Code section 365 and pursuant
to a court order or by operating of Bankruptcy Code section
365(d)(4), or claims otherwise related to such rejected agreements,
including: (i) secured claims, unsecured priority claims and
unsecured nonpriority claims that arose or are deemed to have
arisen prior to the Petition Date; and (ii) administrative claims
under Bankruptcy Code section 503(b), (collectively, "Rejection
Damages Claims") are required to file General Proofs of Claim so
that such proofs of claim
are actually received by either the Clerk of the Court or Kroll by
the later of (a) the General Bar Date and (b) the date that is 30
days following entry of the relevant order or deemed effective date
of the rejection of such rejected contract or unexpired lease of
the Debtors at either (i) 11:59 p.m. (prevailing Central Time) if
submitted electronically, or (ii) 4:59 p.m. (prevailing Central
Time) if submitted by hardcopy. The later of these dates is
referred to in this Notice as the "Rejection Bar Date." For the
avoidance of doubt, all prepetition and postpetition claims of any
kind or nature arising from or relating to rejected executory
contracts or unexpired leases must be filed by the Rejection Bar
Date. 4. The Amended Schedules Bar Date. Pursuant to the Bar Date
Order, if, subsequent to the date of this Notice, a Debtor amends
or supplements its Schedules to: (i) reduce the undisputed,
noncontingent, and liquidated amount of a claim against the Debtor;
(ii) change the nature or classification of a claim against the
Debtor in a manner adverse to the scheduled creditor; or (iii) add
a new claim to the Schedules with respect to a party that was not
previously served with notice of the Bar Dates, the affected
claimant is required to file a proof of claim or amend any
previously filed proof of claim in respect of the new or amended
scheduled claim so that such proof of claim is actually received by
either the Clerk of the Court or Kroll by the later of: (a) the
General Bar Date and (b) the date that is 30 days from the date on
which the Debtors mail notice of the amendment to the Schedules at
either (i) 11:59 p.m. (prevailing Central Time) if submitted
electronically, or (ii) 4:59 p.m. (prevailing Central Time) if
submitted by hardcopy. The later of these dates is referred to in
this Notice as the "Amended Schedules Date."

B. WHO MUST FILE A PROOF OF CLAIM

Unless one of the exceptions described in Section E below applies,
if you have a claim that arose or is deemed to have arisen prior to
the Petition Date, you MUST file a General Proof of Claim to vote
on a chapter 11 plan or to share in distributions from the Debtors'
bankruptcy estates. Claims based on acts or omissions of the
Debtors that occurred before the Petition Date must be filed on or
prior to the applicable Bar Date, even if such claims are not now
fixed, liquidated, or certain or did not mature or become fixed,
liquidated, or certain before the Petition Date. Except where the
Governmental Bar Date, Rejection Bar Date, or the Amended Schedules
Bar Date apply to establish a different deadline or one of the
exceptions described in Section E below applies, the following
entities must file General Proofs of Claim on or before the General
Bar Date:

1. any entity (i) whose prepetition claim against a Debtor is (A)
not listed in the applicable Debtor's Schedules or (B) listed as
contingent, disputed, or unliquidated, and (ii) that desires to
participate in these chapter 11 cases or share in any distribution
in any of these chapter 11 cases; and

2. any entity that believes that its prepetition claim is
improperly classified in the Schedules, or is listed in an
incorrect amount or against an incorrect Debtor, and that desires
to have its claim allowed in a classification or amount or against
a Debtor other than that identified in the Schedules.

C. WHAT TO FILE

The Debtors are enclosing a General Proof of Claim for use in these
cases, or you may use another proof of claim form that conforms
substantially to the standard proof of claim form, Official Form B
410. You will receive a different General Proof of Claim for each
claim scheduled in your name by the Debtors. You may utilize the
General Proof of Claim provided by the Debtors to file your claim.
Additional General Proof of Claim may be obtained, free of charge,
at the following: https://restructuring.ra.kroll.com/23andMe or
https://www.uscourts.gov/forms/bankruptcy-forms .

All General Proof of Claim must be signed by the claimant (or the
claimant's attorney or authorized agent) or, if the claimant is not
an individual, by an authorized agent of the claimant (electronic
signatures are acceptable). The General Proof of Claim must be
written in English and be denominated in United States currency.
You should attach to your completed General Proof of Claim any
documents upon which the claim is based (or, if such documents are
voluminous, attach a summary) or an explanation as to why the
documents are not available.

Except as otherwise set forth in the Bar Date Order, all claimants
asserting a claim against more than one Debtor must file a separate
proof of claim with respect to each such Debtor and identify on
each General Proof of Claim the particular Debtor against which
such claim is asserted and the case number for that particular
Debtor. If any General Proof of Claim does not clearly specify the
name of the Debtor against which the claim is asserted (including
listing multiple Debtors), that General Proof of Claim shall be
administered as though it was filed against 23andMe, Inc. (Case No.
25-40977), unless a single different case number is clearly
specified. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the failure of any entity
to file its proof of claim against the correct Debtor shall not
constitute cause to expunge the General Proof of Claim. Rather, the
Debtors may seek to reclassify the General Proof of Claim so that
the claim is asserted against the proper Debtor on notice to the
affected claimant.

Any entity asserting a Rejection Damages Claim with an
administrative claim component shall indicate as such on the
General Proof of Claim Form and include, as part of its proof of
claim, supporting documentation in accordance with Bankruptcy Rules
3001(c) and 3001(d), including the nature and basis of any portion
of the Rejection Damages Claim that asserts administrative priority
status under section 503(b) of the Bankruptcy Code (the "Rejection
Damages Claim Supplement"). For the avoidance of doubt, any entity
asserting a Rejection Damages Claim shall prepare its own Rejection
Damages Claim Supplement, and the Debtors will not provide a form
of the same.

Under the Bar Date Order, the filing of a proof of claim form,
along with an attached Rejection Damages Claim Supplement, if
applicable, shall be deemed to satisfy the procedural
requirements for the assertion of a Rejection Damages Claim
(including any administrative claim included therein). All other
administrative claims under section 503(b) of the Bankruptcy Code
must be made by separate requests for payment in accordance with
Bankruptcy Code section 503(a) and shall not be deemed proper if
made by proof of claim. No deadline has been established for the
filing of administrative claims other than (a) claims under
Bankruptcy Code section 503(b)(9) and (b) any portion of a
Rejection Damages Claim seeking administrative priority, which
claims must be filed by the General Bar Date and the Rejection Bar
Date, respectively.

D. WHEN AND WHERE TO FILE

All General Proofs of Claim must be (a) sent by first-class mail or
overnight courier to the Clerk of the Court, 111 S. 10th St., 4th
Floor, St. Louis, MO 63102; (b) sent by first-class mail to 23andMe
Holding Co. Claims Processing Center, c/o Kroll Restructuring
Administration LLC, Grand Central Station, PO Box 4850, New York,
NY 10163, or overnight courier or hand-delivery to 23andMe Holding
Co. Claims Processing Center, c/o Kroll Restructuring
Administration LLC, 850 3rd Avenue, Suite 412, Brooklyn, NY 11232;
or (c) filed electronically through the electronic filing system
available on the "Submit a Claim" page on Kroll's website at
https://restructuring.ra.kroll.com/23andMe. Proofs of claim must be
actually received on or before the applicable Bar Date.

General Proof of Claim will be deemed filed only when actually
received by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri or by Kroll on or before the applicable
Bar Date. General Proof of Claim may NOT be delivered by facsimile
or electronic mail transmission. Any facsimile or electronic mail
submission will not be accepted and will not be deemed filed until
submitted by one of the approved methods described above.

If you submitted a General Proof of Claim through non-electronic
means and wish to receive acknowledgement of the Court's or Kroll's
receipt of a proof of claim, you must submit to
the Court or Kroll by the applicable Bar Date and concurrently with
your General Proof of Claim: (a) a copy of the General Proof of
Claim; and (b) a self-addressed, postage prepaid return envelope.
Subject to any order by the Court to the contrary, filed General
Proof of Claim, excluding Individual Claims, will be posted on
Kroll's website at https://restructuring.ra.kroll.com/23andMe
as soon as is practicable after receipt.

E. WHO NEED NOT FILE A PROOF OF CLAIM

The Bar Date Order further provides that the following entities
need not file General Proof of Claim:

1. any entity holding a Cyber Security Incident Claim, which entity
shall submit a proof of claim in accordance with the proposed
procedures for filing a Cyber Security Incident Proof of Claim;

2. any entity that has already properly filed a signed proof of
claim against the correct applicable Debtor(s) with either the
Clerk of the Court or Kroll in a form substantially similar to
Official Form B 410;

3. any entity whose claim is listed on the Schedules, provided
that: (i) the claim is not scheduled as "disputed", "contingent",
or "unliquidated"; (ii) such entity agrees with the amount, nature,
and priority of the claim as set forth in the Schedules; and (iii)
such entity does not dispute that its claim is an obligation only
of the specific Debtor against which the claim is listed in the
Schedules;

4. any entity whose claim has previously been allowed by order of
the Court;

5. any entity whose claim has been paid in full by the Debtors
pursuant to the Bankruptcy Code in accordance with an order of the
Court;

6. any Debtor or non-Debtor affiliate having a claim against
another Debtor;

7. any entity whose claim is solely against any of the Debtors'
non-Debtor affiliates;

8. a current employee of the Debtors, if an order of this Court
authorized the Debtors to honor such claim in the ordinary course
of business for wages, commission, or
benefits; provided, however, that a current employee must submit a
proof of claim by the General Bar Date for all other claims arising
before the Petition Date, including claims for wrongful
termination, discrimination, harassment, hostile work environment,
and/or retaliation;

9. any holder of a claim allowable under Bankruptcy Code sections
503(b) and 507(a)(2) as an expense of administration incurred in
the ordinary course; provided, however, that any entity asserting a
claim entitled to priority under Bankruptcy
Code section 503(b)(9) must assert such claims by filing a request
for payment or a proof of claim on or prior to the General Bar
Date;

10. any entity holding a claim for which a separate deadline is
fixed by the Court;

11. any professionals retained by the Debtors and the Committee
pursuant to orders of the Court that assert administrative claims
for fees and expenses subject to the Court's approval pursuant to
sections 330, 331, and 503(b) of the Bankruptcy Code;
and

12. any person or entity who has been exempted from the requirement
to file a proof of claim by another order entered in these chapter
11 cases.

F. EXECUTORY CONTRACTS AND UNEXPIRED LEASES

As described in Section A above, any entity wishing to assert a
Rejection Damages Claim must file, by the Rejection Bar Date, a
General Proof of Claim for any prepetition or postpetition damages
caused by such rejection, or any other prepetition or postpetition
claims of any kind or nature whatsoever relating to the rejected
agreement. As further described in Section C above, any entity
asserting a Rejection Damages Claim with an administrative claim
component must file, along with its General Proof of Claim, an
Rejection Damages Claim Supplement.

G. CONFIDENTIALITY

Any General Proof of Claim filed by an individual ("Individual
Claims") is subject to the Confidentiality Protocol. Specifically,
Individual Claims will not be available to the general public.
Individual Claims will be held and treated as confidential by
Kroll, the Debtors, the Debtors' counsel and retained advisors, and
any of the Permitted Parties to the extent such Permitted Party
requests access to the Individual Claim. Furthermore, each
Permitted Party will execute and return to Debtors' counsel (with a
copy a Committee counsel) a confidentiality agreement substantially
in the form of the Confidentiality Agreement, by which such
Permitted
Party agrees to keep the information provided in the Individual
Claim confidential.

H. INFORMATION FOR THE DEBTORS' CUSTOMERS

If you believe you have a claim arising from or related to the
Debtors' DNA testing services (i.e., Ancestry Service, Health +
Ancestry Service, 23andMe+ Premium and 23andMe+ Total
Health), the Debtors advise that 23andMe, Inc. is the primary
Debtor entity engaged in that line of business.

If you believe you have a claim arising from or related to the
Debtors' telehealth business, the Debtors advise that Lemonaid
Health, Inc. is the primary Debtor entity engaged in that line of
business.

If you believe you have a claim arising from or related to the
Debtors' mail order pharmacy, the Debtors advise that LPRXOne, LLC
is the primary Debtor entity engaged in that line of
business.

I. CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO FILE A GENERAL PROOF
OF CLAIM BY THE APPLICABLE BAR DATE EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE SET FORTH
IN THE BAR DATE ORDER, ANY ENTITY THAT IS REQUIRED TO FILE A
GENERAL PROOF OF CLAIM WITH RESPECT TO A PARTICULAR CLAIM AGAINST A
DEBTOR BUT THAT FAILS TO DO SO BY THE APPLICABLE BAR DATE DESCRIBED
IN THIS NOTICE SHALL BE ESTOPPED AND ENJOINED FROM THE FOLLOWING:
(I) ASSERTING ANY SUCH CLAIM AGAINST THE DEBTORS OR THEIR ESTATES
OR AGAINST ANY REORGANIZED DEBTOR OR SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST
FOLLOWING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF A CHAPTER 11 PLAN OF REORGANIZATION
IN THESE CASES, OR PROPERTY THAT (A) IS IN AN AMOUNT THAT EXCEEDS
THE AMOUNT, IF ANY, THAT IS IDENTIFIED IN THE SCHEDULES ON BEHALF
OF SUCH ENTITY AS UNDISPUTED, NONCONTINGENT AND LIQUIDATED OR (B)
IS OF A DIFFERENT NATURE OR CLASSIFICATION THAN ANY SUCH CLAIM
IDENTIFIED IN THE SCHEDULES ON BEHALF OF SUCH ENTITY (ANY SUCH
CLAIM IN THIS SUBPARAGRAPH BEING REFERRED TO IN THIS NOTICE AS AN
"UNSCHEDULED CLAIM"); (II) VOTING UPON, OR RECEIVING DISTRIBUTIONS
UNDER, ANY CHAPTER 11 PLAN IN THESE CHAPTER 11 CASES IN RESPECT OF
AN UNSCHEDULED CLAIM; OR (III) WITH RESPECT TO ANY ADMINISTRATIVE
PRIORITY CLAIM COMPONENT OF ANY REJECTION DAMAGES CLAIM, ASSERTING
ANY SUCH PRIORITY CLAIM AGAINST THE DEBTORS OR THEIR ESTATES OR
PROPERTY.

J. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

The Debtors reserve the right to: (i) dispute, or assert offsets or
defenses against, any filed claim or any claim listed or reflected
in the Schedules as to nature, amount, liability, priority,
classification or otherwise; (ii) subsequently designate any
scheduled claim as disputed, contingent or unliquidated; and (iii)
otherwise amend or supplement the Schedules. Nothing contained in
this Notice shall preclude the Debtors from objecting to any claim,
whether scheduled or filed, on any grounds.

K. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Copies of the Debtors' Schedules, the Bar Date Order, the General
Proof of Claim and other information and documents regarding the
Debtors' chapter 11 cases are available for inspection and download
free of charge on Kroll's website at
https://restructuring.ra.kroll.com/23andMe. Copies of the Schedules
and other documents filed in these cases also may be examined
between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., prevailing Central
Time, Monday through Friday, at the U.S. Bankruptcy Court Eastern
District of Missouri, Office of the Clerk of Court, 111 South 10th
Street, Fourth Floor, St. Louis, MO 63102.

If you require additional information regarding the filing of a
proof of claim, you may contact Kroll at (888) 367-7556 (toll free
in the U.S. and Canada) or +1 (646) 891-5055 (international calls).
You also may contact Kroll by writing to:

23andMe Holding Co. Claims Processing Center
c/o Kroll Restructuring Administration LLC
850 3rd Avenue, Suite 412
Brooklyn, NY 11232

A HOLDER OF A POSSIBLE CLAIM AGAINST THE DEBTORS SHOULD
CONSULT AN ATTORNEY REGARDING ANY MATTERS NOT COVERED BY THIS
NOTICE, SUCH AS WHETHER THE HOLDER SHOULD FILE A PROOF OF CLAIM.


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Parties Seek Extension of Briefing Schedule
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CONDALISA LEGRAND on
behalf of herself, those similarly situated and the general public,
v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Case No. 3:22-cv-05815-TSH (N.D. Cal.), the
Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending briefing schedule
on the Defendant's motion to exclude portions of declarations of
Steven Gaskin and Colin Weir and the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.

Pursuant to Court Order, on Jan. 23, 2025, the Plaintiff filed her
Motion for Class Certification and on April 24, 2025, the Defendant
filed its opposition.

The Plaintiff's reply in support of her Motion for Class
Certification is due on June 19, 2025, which is a federal holiday.
The Motion for Class Certification is set to be heard on July 17,
2025.

In connection with Defendant's opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for
Class Certification, Defendant filed a Motion to Exclude, which is
also set to be heard on July 17, 2025.

The Plaintiff is currently working on her reply to the Motion for
Class Certification, which is due on June 19, 2025, a federal
holiday.

The parties stipulate and request that Plaintiff's opposition to
Defendant's Motion to Exclude be continued from May 8 to May 29,
and Defendant's reply in support of its Motion to Exclude be
continued from May 15 to June 20.

Abbott is an American multinational medical devices and health care
company.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 6, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CVYHry at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
          Melanie R. Monroe, Esq.
          Trevor M. Flynn, Esq.
          Peter Grazul, Esq.
          FITZGERALD MONROE FLYNN PC
          2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Telephone: (619) 215-1741
          E-mail: jfitzgerald@fmfpc.com
                  mmonroe@fmfpc.com
                  tflynn@fmfpc.com
                  pgrazul@fmfpc.com

                - and -

          Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
          Paula Brown, Esq.
          BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
          501 West Broadway, Suite 1490
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 338-1100
          E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com
                  pbrown@bholaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Mark McKane, Esq.
          Tracie L. Bryant, Esq.
          Gregg F. LoCascio, Esq.
          Michael A. Glick, Esq.
          Terence J. McCarrick, Esq.
          McClain Thompson, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          555 California Street, 27th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 439-1400
          Washington, DC 20004
          E-mail: mark.mckane@kirkland.com
                  tracie.bryant@kirkland.com
                  glocascio@kirkland.com
                  michael.glick@kirkland.com
                  tj.mccarrick@kirkland.com
                  mcclain.thompson@kirkland.com

AKELA CONTRACTING: $340K Class Settlement Wins Final Nod
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY SMTI1I,
l11dividually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
AKELA CONTRACTING LLC; AKELA CONTRACTING/CIVETT A COUSINS JV, JOINT
VENTURE, LLC; JDV SAFETY INC.; ALL EYES ON SAFETY INC; KARINE
WILLIAMS, individually; and BRIAN MCDERMOTT, individually, Case No.
1:22-cv-01185-VSB-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katharine H,
Parker entered an order granting unopposed motion for approval of
collective action settlement and dismissing action with prejudice:

The Court finds that the Parties' Settlement for $340,000.00 in
this action is fair, reasonable and just.

The notice packets for prospective collective members and opt-in
Plaintiffs are approved, and the claim form for prospective
collective members is approved, except that the claim forms shall
add the following language: "I consent to the jurisdiction of
Magistrate Judge Parker for all purposes in this lawsuit."

The Plaintiffs' Counsel's request for one-third of the Gross
Settlement Fund as attorneys' fees and request for out-of-pocket
costs is approved.

The named Plaintiff's request for a $10,000 service award is
approved.

Akela specializes in new construction, repairs, and restorations.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 6, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QHZvbr at no extra
charge.[CC]

ALL ELITE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Evans Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES EVANS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. All Elite Wrestling, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-05072 (N.D. Ill., May
8, 2025) alleges that Canali failed to design, construct, maintain,
and operate its website, through https://www.shopaew.com, to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and
visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal
access to the goods and services Seaside Breeze provides to their
non-disabled customers through https://www.shopaew.com. The
Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in
conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of the
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Shopaew.com provides a wide array of the goods, services, price
specials and other programs offered by All Elite Wrestling. Yet,
Shopaew.com contains significant access barriers that make it
difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired
customers to use the website. In fact, the access barriers make it
impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to even complete a
transaction on the website.

Thus, All Elite Wrestling excludes the blind and visually-impaired
from the full and equal participation in the growing Internet
economy that is increasingly a fundamental part of the common
marketplace and daily living. In the wave of technological advances
in recent years, assistive computer technology is becoming an
increasingly prominent part of everyday life, allowing blind and
visually-impaired persons to fully and independently access a
variety of services, the suit adds.

The Defendant controls and operates the website in the State of
Illinois and throughout the United States.BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David B. Reyes, Esq.
          EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC
          68-29 Main Street
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Telephone: (718) 914-9694
          E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law

AMAZON.COM: Plaintiffs Seek to File Confidential Docs Under Seal
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER MILLER,
CHRISTOPHER CAIN, KIMBERLY HALO, KELLY KIMMEY, JUMA LAWSON, SHARON
PASCHAL, and PHILIP SULLIVAN, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., and AMAZON
LOGISTICS, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-00204-BJR (W.D. Wash.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their request
permission to file forthcoming reply in further support of motion
for class certification and Confidential Exhibits in support
thereof provisionally under seal, and to file a redacted version of
the reply on the public docket.

On Sept. 10, 2024, the Parties entered into an Agreement Regarding
Discovery of Electronically Stored Information governing the
production and filing of "documents, testimony, exhibits,
electronically stored information ('ESI"), and any other materials
or information produced by the Parties during discovery [this]
action," including the treatment and handling of confidential
documents by any Party.

On Sept. 11, 2024, the Court endorsed the Agreement and entered a
Stipulated Protective Order which set forth the procedures to be
used by the Parties in connection with the production and filing of
documents that any Party has designated as "confidential" or
"highly confidential -- attorneys’ eyes only."

The Plaintiffs will today be filing a reply in further support of
their pending motion for class certification. With that reply,
Plaintiffs intend to file six exhibits which Defendants produced in
discovery, each of which Amazon has designated as "confidential."

Amazon.com is an online retailer that offers a wide range of
products.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 5, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CDMrr8 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Hillary Schwab, Esq.
          Brant Casavant, Esq.
          Brook Lane, Esq.
          FAIR WORK, P.C.
          192 South Street, Suite 450
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (617) 607-3260
          E-mail: hillary@fairworklaw.com
                  brant@fairworklaw.com
                  brook@fairworkflow.com

                - and -

          Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
          Toby J. Marshall, Esq.
          Jennifer Rust Murray, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103
          Telephone: (206) 816-6603
          E-mail: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com
                  tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com
                  jmurrary@terrellmarshall.com

AMERICA PAC: Faces Maglietta Class Suit Over Breach of Contract
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY MAGLIETTA, STEVEN REID, and JERRY VICTORIOUS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMERICA PAC,
GROUP AMERICA, LLC, and ELON MUSK, Case No. 2:25-cv-02364 (E.D.
Pa., May 8, 2025) is a class action for breach of contract and
promissory estoppel against the Defendants.

In October 2024, the Defendants offered payment to any registered
voter in certain swing states who signed America PAC's petition to
support the First and Second Amendments. The amount of the payment
was $47, although in Pennsylvania, it was later increased to $100.


The Defendants also offered a payment of $47 for each successful
referral of a registered voter in swing states who signed the
America PAC petition. This amount was also later increased to $100
for Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiffs and Class Members accepted Defendants' offers by
signing or successfully referring swing state voters to the America
PAC petition.

The Defendants have since failed to pay Plaintiffs and Class
Members in full for their signatures and referrals. The Defendants
are thus liable to Plaintiffs and Class Members.

Plaintiff Anthony Maglietta is an adult individual residing in
Lancaster, Pennsylvania. The Plaintiff Steven Reid is an adult
individual residing in Las Vegas, Nevada.

America PAC is a political action committee with a principal place
of business in Austin, Texas.

Elon Musk is an adult individual with a residence in Boca Chica,
Texas. Defendant Elon Musk is the founder of Defendant America
PAC.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          Thomas Fowler, Esq.
          Jeremy E. Abay, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN PC
          729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
                  tfowler@llrlaw.com
                  jabay@llrlaw.com

AMERICA PAC: Petition Signers File Class Suit Over Unpaid Referrals
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that a John Doe plaintiff filed a class
action lawsuit against Elon Musk, America PAC and Group America
LLC.

Why: The plaintiff claims the defendants failed to pay him and
others who signed and referred others to sign a petition for
America PAC despite promising compensation.

Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in Pennsylvania federal
court.

A new class action lawsuit alleges that Elon Musk, America PAC and
Group America failed to compensate some Pennsylvania voters who
were told they would be paid for signing a petition in support of
the First and Second Amendments.

Plaintiff John Doe's class action lawsuit claims Musk, America PAC
and Group America failed to pay registered voters in Pennsylvania
$47, and later increased to $100, to sign the petition and for each
successful referral of a registered voter who signed it.

Doe argues he and other class members accepted the defendants'
offers by signing the petition and successfully referring other
registered voters to sign it.

"Defendants have since failed to pay Plaintiff and Class Members in
full for their signatures and referrals," the Elon Musk petition
class action states.

Doe wants to represent a class of all persons who were registered
to vote in Pennsylvania when they signed the America PAC petition
and all persons who successfully referred a Pennsylvania registered
voter to sign the petition but did not receive the agreed-upon
payments.

Elon Musk class action claims plaintiff not paid $20K for
referrals

Doe argues the defendants failed to pay him the full promised
amounts for his referrals and that he estimates he is owed at least
$20,000 for them.

"Plaintiff has repeatedly contacted Defendants, making multiple
attempts to receive full payment for his referrals, but to no
avail," the Elon Musk petition class action explains.

Doe claims the defendants are guilty of breach of contract and
promissory estoppel and violated the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and
Collection Law.

The plaintiff demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and
injunctive relief and an award of compensatory and consequential
damages for himself and all class members.

A separate class action lawsuit was filed against Musk and others
earlier this year over claims Musk and the Department of Government
Efficiency unlawfully accessed federal computers containing the
personal and financial information of millions of individuals.

The plaintiff is represented by Shannon Liss-Riordan, Thomas Fowler
and Jeremy E. Abay of Lichten & Liss-Riordan P.C. The Elon Musk
petition class action lawsuit is Doe v. America PAC, et al., Case
No. 2:25-cv-01691, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. [GN]

AMP LTD: Court Issues Notice Over 2019 Superannuation Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Taylor of Financial Newswire reports that members of AMP
superannuation funds have been reminded of an ongoing class action
initiated in 2019 over fees.

The Federal Court has ordered the issue of a notice regarding the
class action being run by law firms Slater and Gordon and Maurice
Blackburn on behalf of current and former members of the AMP
Superannuation Fund.

The notice gives people identified as members or former members of
the AMP funds until 23 May to either participate in the class
action or opt out.

The class action, dating back to 2019, covers current and former
AMP superannuation fund members against AMP Superannuation Pty
Limited (formerly AMP Superannuation Limited) (ASL), N.M.
Superannuation Pty Ltd (NMS), AMP Life Limited (AMP Life), AMP
Services Limited (AMP Services) and the National Mutual Life
Association of Australasia Limited (NMLA).

The Federal Court document said the claim seeks to recover
compensation for group members who hold or held an AMP
superannuation account(s), other than a Platform Fund or Mature
Product, at any time from:

     a) 1 July 2008 for members of the AMP Superannuation Savings
Trust, AMP Retirement Trust, or the Eligible Rollover Fund; or

     b) 30 March 2011 for members of the Super Directions Fund.

The class action alleges that the superannuation fund trustees set
fees and charges on an internal basis that was not at arm’s
length with the result that the fees were not competitive.

AMP has denied the allegations and is defending the claim. [GN]

APHRIA INC: Claim Form Submission Deadline Set for Aug. 26
----------------------------------------------------------
Did you purchase shares of Aphria Inc. after January 29, 2018 and
hold them until March 23, 2018 and/or December 3, 2018?

A Settlement has been reached in the global class action against
Aphria and certain of its former officers and directors regarding
alleged misrepresentations made in certain of Aphria's public
disclosures released between January 29, 2018 and December 3, 2018.
Aphria and the other Defendants have denied all allegations against
them.

The Settlement provides for the payment by the Defendants of the
total amount of CAD$30,000,000 to resolve the Class Action. The
Settlement is a compromise of disputed Claims and is not an
admission of liability or wrongdoing by the Defendants.

The Settlement has been approved by the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice. The Court has appointed RicePoint Administration, Inc.,
d/b/a Verita Global as the Administrator of the Settlement. To be
eligible for compensation, Class Members must submit a completed
Claim Form to the Administrator no later than August 26, 2025. If
you do not file a claim by this deadline, you will be ineligible
for compensation.

Some Class Members -- investors who bought Aphria shares in
transactions in the United States prior to December 3, 2018 -- also
have rights in a certified parallel U.S. securities class action.

All Class Members should consult the Long-Form Notice available
online at www.AphriaSettlement.com or call toll-free:
1-888-700-9930 for more information about your rights, and how to
exercise them.


APPLE INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over AirPods Max Headphones
--------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Arthur Apicella filed a class action
lawsuit against Apple Inc.

Why: Apicella claims the company's AirPods Max headphones contain a
defect that causes condensation to accumulate inside their ear cups
during normal use.

Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in New York federal
court.

A new class action lawsuit alleges Apple's AirPods Max headphones
contain a defect that causes condensation to accumulate inside
their ear cups during normal use.

Plaintiff Arthur Apicella claims the alleged defect causes
performance problems such as degraded or no sound in one or both
ear cups, a failure to detect the user's ears, failure of the
active noise cancellation function and battery charging issues.

Apicella argues Apple knew or should have known about the defect
"long before" consumers began purchasing the AirPods Max headphones
in December 2020, yet sold and continues to sell the AirPods Max
without alerting purchasers about the problem.

"Apple knew or should have known, from its own internal records,
and from the complaints on Apple's website and third-party forums,
and through customer complaints directly to Apple's
representatives, of the Defect," the Apple AirPods Max class action
says.

The plaintiff seeks to represent a New York class of consumers who
purchased Apple AirPods Max headphones.

Apple refuses remedy or address alleged AirPods Max defect, class
action claims

Apicella argues Apple has not publicly acknowledged the defect and
refuses to remedy or address it at no expense when AirPods Max
owners request it within the one-year warranty period.

"Defendant has long been on notice of the claims of Plaintiff and
Class members and has refused to provide a remedy, instead placing
the blame on customers or refusing to acknowledge the existence of
the defect," the Apple AirPods Max class action alleges.

Apicella claims Apple is guilty of breach of implied warranty,
unjust enrichment, and fraud by omission and violating the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and New York General Business Law.

The plaintiff demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and
injunctive relief and an award of compensatory, exemplary and
statutory damages for himself and all class members.

A trio of consumers filed a separate class action lawsuit against
Apple last year over claims the company sold AirPods Pro Gen 1
headphones containing an audio defect.

The plaintiff is represented by Russell D. Paul, Shanon J. Carson
and Amey J. Park of Berger Montague PC.

The Apple AirPods Max class action lawsuit is Apicella, et al. v.
Apple Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-02261, in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York. [GN]

APPLE INC: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Opposition Surreply
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALASDAIR TURNER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
APPLE INC., a California corporation, Case No. 5:20-cv-07495-EJD
(N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order
granting its motion for leave to file surreply in opposition to the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification.

Accordingly, Apple requires an opportunity to respond and to
demonstrate that:

   -- the Plaintiff improperly and impermissibly seeks to rely on
      a new theory of liability in his Reply that the Court should

      not consider, and

   -- the Plaintiff still cannot certify a class based on his new
      impermissible theory because individual issues still
      predominate regarding injury, liability, and damages, and he

      still fails to propose a reliable or workable damages model.

The Plaintiff uses the new theory in his Reply to argue that Apple
"fabricated" or misconstrued Plaintiff's claims and that the Court
thus should disregard Apple's arguments in opposition to class
certification. That is false, asserts the suit.

The Plaintiff's earlier theories are expressly set forth in his
pleadings, including the operative Second Amended Complaint, and in
his Motion. Indeed, Plaintiff’s new theory directly contradicts
representations Plaintiff made previously to this Court in opposing
dismissal of his Complaint. Plaintiff also seeks to exclude the
expert report of Dr. Prince based on this same specious argument.

Apple designs, manufactures, and markets smartphones, personal
computers, tablets, wearables, and accessories worldwide.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 5, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wkmqYQ at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Claudia M. Vetesi, Esq.
          Camila A. Tapernoux, Esq.
          Adam J. Hunt, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Telephone: (415) 268-7000
          Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
          E-mail: CVetesi@mofo.com
                  CTapernoux@mofo.com
                  AdamHunt@mofo.com

APPLE INC: Seeks Leave to File Opposition Surreply Under Seal
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALASDAIR TURNER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
APPLE INC., a California corporation, Case No. 5:20-cv-07495-EJD
(N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order
granting its administrative motion to file under seal portions of
its administrative motion for leave to file a surreply and
attachments per L.R. 79-5.

Apple seeks to seal limited references in its Administrative Motion
for Leave to File a Surreply and attachments that reflect
confidential, specific, detailed information regarding Apple's
software development, troubleshooting, and operation, and regarding
Apple's data analytics practices. Apple limits access to this
information as a matter of policy and practice to employees who
need to know such information, and does not
publicly disclose this information -- requiring those employees to
sign confidentiality agreements, and emphasizing to them the
importance of maintaining confidentiality.

Disclosure of such information would cause Apple competitive harm
by giving third parties knowledge of Apple's business operations,
strategic decision-making regarding its software development,
troubleshooting, and operation, and regarding its data analytics
practices, to which they would not otherwise have access.

Apple designs, manufactures, and markets smartphones, personal
computers, tablets, wearables, and accessories worldwide.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 5, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=grsdEo at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Claudia M. Vetesi, Esq.
          Camila A. Tapernoux, Esq.
          Adam J. Hunt, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Telephone: (415) 268-7000
          Facsimile: (415) 268-7522
          E-mail: CVetesi@mofo.com
                  CTapernoux@mofo.com
                  AdamHunt@mofo.com

APPLE INC: Siri Settlement Claim Submission Deadline Set for July 2
-------------------------------------------------------------------
If you owned or purchased a Siri-enabled device and experienced an
unintended Siri activation during a confidential or private
communication between September 17, 2014, and December 31, 2024,
you should read this Notice as it may impact your legal rights:

Name:  ___________
Claimant Identification Code: ______
Confirmation Code: _________________

A settlement has been reached with Apple Inc. ("Apple") in a class
action lawsuit brought on behalf of current or former owners or
purchasers of a Siri-enabled iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, MacBook,
iMac, HomePod, iPod touch, or Apple TV ("Siri Device/Devices")
whose confidential or private communications were allegedly
obtained by Apple and/or shared with third parties as a result of
an unintended Siri activation.  Apple denies all of the allegations
made in the lawsuit and denies that Apple did anything improper or
unlawful.  The proposed Settlement is not an admission of guilt or
wrongdoing of any kind by Apple. The United States District Court
for the Northern District of California approved this notice.

Why am I receiving this notice?

Apple's records indicate that you may be a member of the Settlement
Class and may be entitled to receive a payment.  You are a member
of the Settlement Class if you are a current or former owner or
purchaser of a Siri Device, you reside in the United States or its
territories, and your  confidential or private communications were
obtained by Apple and/or were shared with third parties as a result
of an unintended Siri activation between September 17, 2014 to
December 31, 2024.  Under the terms of the Settlement, you are
eligible to submit a Claim Form to receive a payment if the Court
approves the Settlement and it becomes final.

What does the Settlement provide?

Apple has agreed to pay $95 million into a settlement fund. After
deducting Court-approved attorneys' fees and expenses, Service
Awards, and the costs of notice and settlement administration
(including any taxes), payments will be made from the Net
Settlement Amount to Settlement Class Members who submit a valid
and timely Claim Form.  For more information about how
distributions will be made to Settlement Class Members, please
visit www.LopezVoiceAssistantSettlement.com.

What are the expected payments?

Settlement Class Members may submit claims for up to five Siri
Devices on which they claim to have experienced an unintended Siri
activation during a conversation intended to be confidential or
private. Settlement Class Members who submit valid claims shall
receive a pro rata portion of the Net Settlement Amount for a Class
Payment up to a cap of $20 per Siri Device. The amount available to
Settlement Class Members will increase or decrease pro rata
depending on the total number of valid claims submitted, and Siri
Devices claimed.  The final amount will not be known until all
claims are evaluated.  The plan of allocation is described in
detail in the Settlement Agreement available at
www.LopezVoiceAssistantSettlement.com. Depending on the total
number of valid claims, this Plan of Allocation is subject to
modification by agreement of the Parties without further notice to
members of the Settlement Class, provided any such modification is
approved by the Court.

How do I file a claim?

In order to receive a payment, you must complete and submit a valid
Claim Form by July 2, 2025. You may submit claims for up to five
Siri Devices. Claims may be submitted online at
www.LopezVoiceAssistantSettlement.com or mailed to the address on
the form.  If you submit a Claim Form by mail, it must be
post-marked by July 2, 2025.  The Claim Form requires that you
confirm or update your current contact information and confirm the
following under oath: from September 17, 2014 to December 31, 2024,
(i) you purchased or owned a Siri Device in the United States or
its territories and enabled Siri on that device, (ii) you
experienced an unintended Siri activation, and (iii) the unintended
Siri activation you experienced occurred during a conversation
intended to be confidential or private.

You can access the Claim Form on
www.LopezVoiceAssistantSettlement.com. If you received an email or
postcard with a Claimant Identification Code and Confirmation Code
notifying you about the Settlement, use these codes when making a
claim.  If you did not receive an email or postcard about the
Settlement and don't have a Claimant Identification Code and
Confirmation Code, but believe you are a member of the Settlement
Class, you may still make a claim by going to
www.LopezVoiceAssistantSettlement.com and following the
instructions on how to submit a Claim Form. You may elect to
receive payment by physical check, electronic check, or
AutomatedClearing House ("ACH," a/k/a direct deposit). If you do
not complete and submit a valid Claim Form, you will not receive a
payment.

For more information and to review the full notice, please visit
and to www.LopezVoiceAssistantSettlement.com.

What are my other options?

You can do nothing, exclude yourself or object.  If you do nothing,
your rights will be affected and you won't get a payment. If you
don't want to be legally bound by the Settlement Agreement, you
must exclude yourself from it by July 2, 2025.  Unless you exclude
yourself, you will not be able to sue or continue to sue Apple for
any claim arising out of or related to the claims in this case.  If
you stay in the Settlement (i.e., do not exclude yourself), you may
object to it or ask for permission for you or your own lawyer to
appear and speak at the Final Approval Hearing – at your own
cost– but you do not have to do so.

A copy of Plaintiffs' Counsel's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and
Expenses and for Service Awards will be available at
www.LopezVoiceAssistantSettlement.com by May 28, 2025. You can
object to the requested award of attorneys' fees and expenses to
Plaintiffs' Counsel or Service Awards to the Class
Representatives.

Objections to the Settlement, attorneys' fees, and/or Service
Awards and requests to appear are due by July 2, 2025. The Final
Approval Hearing will be held on August 1, 2025, at 9:00 a.m., at
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, Oakland Courthouse, 1301 Clay Street, Courtroom 5 –
2nd Floor, Oakland, CA 94612.

More information about your options is in the detailed notice
available at www.LopezVoiceAssistantSettlement.com, or you may
contact the Settlement Administrator with any questions:

Lopez Voice Assistant Settlement Administrator
P.O. Box 6609
614 Cranbury Rd
East Brunswick, NJ 08816
1-888-981-4106
info@LopezVoiceAssistantSettlement.com

You may also access the docket in this case through the Court's
Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system at
https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov, or by visiting the office of the
Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California at any of the Court's locations
between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
Court holidays.

PLEASE DO NOT CALL THE COURT OR THE COURT CLERK'S OFFICE TO INQUIRE
ABOUT THIS SETTLEMENT

BY ORDER OF THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA.


ASPYR MEDIA: Bid to Consolidate Hearings in Mickelonis Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MALACHI MICKELONIS, JOSEPH
ALFILANI, JACOB ALVA- MELVILLE, MICAIAH FLORES, MATTHEW GORKA,
JARED HILLIARD, CHARLES KIRK, DAVID KIRKLAND, YALE LIEBOWITZ, JACOB
MUELLER, KEVIN MUNOZ, COLEBIE NIEDERMEIER, JOSHUA PALMER, BRYCE
PHILLIPS, CHRISTOPHER SOUSA, ROLANDO VAZQUEZ, ADRIAN VILLA, BRIAN
WALSH, and NICHOLAS YEE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. ASPYR MEDIA, INC. and DOES 1-5, Case No.
8:23-cv-01220-MWC-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michelle Williams
Court entered an order denying Aspyr's application to consolidate
hearings and related declaration:

The Court further entered an order as follows:

   1. The hearing on the Plaintiffs' motion for class
      certification is vacated from May 9, 2025, and rescheduled
      to May 23, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 6A. The briefing
      schedule is unchanged.

   2. The hearing on the Defendant's motion to strike the
      Plaintiffs' motion to certify class is vacated from May 16,
      2025, and rescheduled to May 23, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. in
      Courtroom 6A. The briefing schedule is unchanged.

   3. The hearing on the Defendant's motion to strike declaration
      of Dr. Andrea Lynn Matthews remains for May 23, 2025, at
      1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 6A. The briefing schedule is
      unchanged.

   4. The hearing on the Defendant's motion to strike expert
      report of Wade C. Roberts remains for May 23, 2025 at 1:30
      p.m. in Courtroom 6A. The briefing schedule is unchanged.

Aspyr is an American video game developer and publisher.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=g9EyRq at no extra
charge.[CC]

ASPYR MEDIA: Can File Declaration Attachments Under Seal
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MALACHI MICKELONIS, JOSEPH
ALFILANI, JACOB ALVA- MELVILLE, MICAIAH FLORES, MATTHEW GORKA,
JARED HILLIARD, CHARLES KIRK, DAVID KIRKLAND, YALE LIEBOWITZ, JACOB
MUELLER, KEVIN MUNOZ, COLEBIE NIEDERMEIER, JOSHUA PALMER, BRYCE
PHILLIPS, CHRISTOPHER SOUSA, ROLANDO VAZQUEZ, ADRIAN VILLA, BRIAN
WALSH, and NICHOLAS YEE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. ASPYR MEDIA, INC. and DOES 1-5, Case No.
8:23-cv-01220-MWC-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michelle Williams
Court entered an order granting the Defendant's application for
leave to file under seal attachments to application for leave to
file out of time and declaration of Michael Rogers in support of
the Defendant's motion for summary judgment.

   1. Attachment A to the Declaration of Michael Rogers, documents

      bearing Bates numbers ASPYR000597-598.

   2. Attachment B to the Declaration of Michael Rogers, documents

      bearing Bates numbers ASPYR000620-621.

   3. Attachment C to the Declaration of Michael Rogers, documents

      bearing Bates number ASPYR000622, 625-626, and 633.

   4. Attachment D to the Declaration of Michael Rogers, documents

      bearing Bates numbers ASPYR000629-630.

   5. Attachment F to the Declaration of Michael Rogers,
      documents bearing Bates number ASPYR000604.

Aspyr is an American video game developer and publisher.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fB6rHB at no extra
charge.[CC] 


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

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

What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=38633 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.

What is this about: On April 24, 2024, during market hours,
Investing.com issued an article entitled, "Backblaze stock plunges
amid Morpheus Research report." This article stated that Backblaze
"saw its shares plummet" as a result of a "scathing short report
from Morpheus Research. The report detailed a series of alleged
financial missteps and questionable practices since the company's
initial public offering (IPO) in November 2021." The article
further noted that Morpheus's report "highlights questionable
accounting practices, including financial manipulations and
inflated forecasts to pass audit thresholds."

On this news, Backblaze's stock fell 2.1% on April 24, 2025.

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

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

Contact Information:

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

BAJCO INTERNATIONAL: Beard Seeks Conditional Status of Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kieran Beard On behalf of
himself and those similarly situated, v. Bajco International, LLC,
et al., Case No. 4:25-cv-00170-JPC (N.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying case as an
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action and authorizing
him to send notice of the pendency of this action to his similarly
situated co-workers.

Specifically, the Plaintiff seeks conditional certification of the
following employees:

    "All current and former delivery drivers employed at the
    Defendants' Papa John's stores between the date three years
    prior to filing of the original complaint and the date of the
    Court's Order approving notice, excluding individuals who
    participated in the Gutzky v. Bajcosettlement and who stopped
    working for Bajco on or before Oct. 3, 2023.

The case is a wage and hour lawsuit filed on behalf of pizza
delivery drivers who work or worked at the Defendants' Papa John's
Pizza franchise stores.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to pay him and his
fellow drivers at least minimum wage, after accounting for the
drivers' vehicle expenses.

Bajco operates in the quick-serve restaurant, business management,
and commercial real estate industries.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 6, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SLTxTX at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

BANNER HEALTH: Class Cert. Bid Filing Modified to Oct. 2
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cheryl McCulley, et al.,
v. Banner Health, Case No. 2:23-cv-00985-SPL (D. Ariz.), the Hon.
Judge Steven P. Logan entered an order denying the Stipulation
Regarding Protective Order and the Stipulation Concerning Protocol
for Production of Documents.

The Court further entered an order granting as modified the Joint
Motion to Extend Case Deadlines as follows:

   1. The Motion for Class Certification and Plaintiffs' Class
      Certification Expert Disclosure shall be due by Oct. 2,
      2025.

   2. The Defendants' opposition to the motion for class
      certification and Defendants' class certification expert
      disclosure shall be due by Oct. 31, 2025.

   3. The Plaintiffs' reply in support of their motion for class
      certification shall be due by Nov. 28, 2025.

   4. Class certification discovery shall be completed by Nov. 28,

      2025.

   5. Expert disclosures shall be made by Dec. 15, 2025.

   6. Rebuttal disclosures shall be made by Jan. 14, 2026.

   7. Expert depositions shall be completed by Feb. 13, 2026.

   8. Dispositive motions shall be due by Feb. 20, 2026.

   9. The deadline to complete good-faith settlement discussions
      shall remain Oct. 24, 2025.

Banner provides medical care and services.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 6, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BGMwNV at no extra
charge.[CC]

BB COMPANY: Faces Suit Over Probiotic Dietary Supplement Labeling
-----------------------------------------------------------------
RACHEL LUXTON and EILEEN PHAN on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. BB COMPANY, Case No. 5:25-cv-04004-NC
(N.D. Cal., May 8, 2025) is a class action on behalf of a
nationwide, California and New York class of consumers seeking
redress for the Defendant's deceptive practices associated with the
advertising, labeling and sale of its Provitalize Probiotic Dietary
Supplement.

BB characterizes Provitalize as a "natural probiotic & weight
management dietary supplement" and markets it directly to women
seeking to manage and mitigate symptoms of menopause. Provitalize
claims to contain "clinically researched ingredients" in the form
of an "everyday probiotic formula optimized for weight management
and overall gut health." Among its label promises, are "sustained
weight management" and "enhancement of overall immune and
gastrointestinal health” effectuated through "natural and safe
ingredients at clinically effective doses."

The Defendant further touts these claims by promising probiotic
ingredients at "clinically effective doses." BB assures consumers
that the three probiotic strains (L. Gasseri SBT2055, B. Breve
IDCC4401 and B. Lactis R101-8) collectively amount to no less than
68 billion colony forming units (i.e., live probiotic bacteria),
the potency of which is reaffirmed through Defendant’s additional
"shelf stable potency promise."

Unfortunately for consumers, Provitalize's labels claims are false
and misleading for at least three distinct reasons, any one of
which independently renders the Product worthless, asserts the
suit.

Plaintiff Luxton is a resident of Pacific Grove, California. Ms.
Luxton purchased Provitalize through Amazon.com on August 2, 2024.


The BB Company is headquartered in Las Vegas, Nevada and, is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Maneuver Marketing Pte Ltd, a
Singaporean Company specializing in operating and scaling
hyper-growth health and wellness e-commerce brands.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

BEIERSDORF INC: Faces Class Action Over Eucerin Lotions' False Ads
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action lawsuit accuses Beiersdorf, Inc. of misleading consumers by
falsely advertising that certain Eucerin lotions contain natural
moisturizing factors.

According to the 15-page suit, product labeling prominently
represents that Eucerin Intensive Repair Lotion, Eucerin Advanced
Repair Cream and Eucerin Advanced Repair Lotion contain "Natural
Moisturizing Factors." Despite the representation, the items are
made with synthetically produced moisturizing ingredients, such as
lactic acid, glycine, sodium PCA, arginine HCL or ozokerite, the
Eucerin lawsuit contends.

Per the case, these synthetic ingredients are manufactured through
a variety of chemical and industrial processes and hardly match
consumers' understanding of a "natural" component.

The plaintiff, an Illinois resident, purchased one of the Eucerin
products at issue in July 2024, the complaint says. The woman
claims that she, like other consumers, relied on the labeling and
was misled into believing the lotion contained entirely natural
moisturizers.

The filing alleges that consumers have been overcharged as a result
of the products' false and misleading representations.

The lawsuit looks to represent all individuals in the United States
who purchased Eucerin Intensive Repair Lotion, Advanced Repair
Cream or Advanced Repair Lotion within the past five years. [GN]

BITFARMS LTD: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Bitfarms Ltd. ("Bitfarms" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: BITF)
and certain officers. The class action, filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and docketed
under 25-cv-02630, is on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired Bitfarms securities between March 21, 2023 and
December 9, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top
officials.

If you are an investor who purchased or otherwise acquired Bitfarms
securities during the Class Period, you have until July 8, 2025, to
ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A
copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To
discuss this action, contact Danielle Peyton at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free,
Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares
purchased.

Bitfarms operates integrated Bitcoin (also referred to as "BTC")
data centers in Canada, the United States ("U.S"), Paraguay, and
Argentina. The Company primarily owns and operates data centers
housing computers (referred to as "miners") designed for the
purpose of validating transactions on the Bitcoin Blockchain
(referred to as "mining"). Once BTC are mined, Bitfarms keeps them
as digital assets or exchanges them for U.S. dollars through
established cryptocurrency trading platforms. According to the
Company, Bitfarms' financing strategy involves, among other things,
strategically selling its BTC assets.

When Bitfarms sells its digital assets, the Company is required to
account for the proceeds it receives from those sales on its cash
flow statement, which provides an accounting of the cash used in
operations, including working capital, financing, and investing. A
company's cash flow statement generally includes three sections:
(i) cash flow from investing activities, which reports how much
cash has been generated or spent from investment-related activities
in a specific period; (ii) cash flow from operating activities,
which indicates the amount of money a company brings in from its
ongoing, regular business activities, such as manufacturing and
selling goods or providing a service to customers; and (iii) cash
flow from financing activities, which delineates a company's
financing, how it raises money, and how it pays money back by
highlighting actions such as stock issuances, borrowing money,
repurchasing shares, and repaying debt.

In 2021, the Company began to raise capital through, inter alia,
the issuance of warrants (the "2021 Warrants") -- i.e., derivatives
that gives the holder the right but not the obligation to buy an
underlying security at a certain price, quantity, and future time.

In March 2024, the Company identified a material weakness in its
internal control over financial reporting with respect to the
Company's classification of the 2021 Warrants. Specifically, the
Company acknowledged that "the control over accounting for complex
financing transactions did not operate effectively in 2021 as the
warrants issued in 2021 should have been classified as a financial
liability and accounted for at fair value through profit and loss,
and not as equity instruments." However, since identifying the
foregoing weakness, Bitfarms has consistently represented that it
was implementing remediation efforts including "expanding the
finance team to include more Chartered Professional Accountants
with technical expertise and experience in evaluating more complex
areas of [International Financial Reporting Standards] Accounting
Standards," "involving the Company's legal counsel on evaluating
complex agreements involving financial instruments," and "engaging
third-party consultants to assist with assessing the accounting for
complex financial instruments and review of financial statements."
Further, the Company has consistently stated that "its remediation
plan is expected to be completed during 2024."

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) Bitfarms maintained deficient internal controls
over financial reporting; (ii) as a result, the Company incorrectly
categorized proceeds derived from the sale of digital assets as a
cash flow from operating activities rather than as a cash flow from
investing activities; (iii) in addition, the Company overstated the
extent to which it had remediated, and/or its ability to remediate,
the material weakness in its internal controls over financial
reporting related to its classification of the 2021 Warrants; (iv)
the foregoing errors caused Bitfarms to misstate various items in
several of the Company's previously issued financial statements;
(v) as a result, these financial statements were inaccurate and
would likely need to be restated; and (vi) as a result, the
Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at
all relevant times.

On December 9, 2024, Bitfarms issued a press release announcing
that its consolidated financial statements for the fiscal years
2022 and 2023 contained a material error related to the
classification of proceeds from digital asset sales and would need
to be restated. Specifically, the Company revealed that "Bitfarms
previously categorized proceeds derived from the sale of digital
assets as a cash flow from operating activities. In conjunction
with the [United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC")]
review, it was determined that proceeds from the sale of digital
assets should be classified as cash flow from investing
activities." Additionally, Bitfarms stated that it was also
restating its financials "to adjust for an error in the accounting
for the redemption of warrants in 2023."

On this news, Bitfarms' stock price fell $0.13 per share, or 6.07%,
to close at $2.01 per share on December 10, 2024.

Then, on April 1, 2025, Bitfarms filed its Annual Report on Form
40-F with the SEC, reporting the Company's financial and operating
results for the year ended December 31, 2024 (the "2024 40-F").
With respect to the Company's accounting for the 2021 Warrants, the
2020 40-F reiterated Bitfarms' purported efforts to remediate the
previously announced material weakness but revealed that "its
remediation plan is expected to be completed after review and
testing of controls during 2025," contrary to its prior
representations that the remediation plan would be completed in
2024.

Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier
firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of
securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later,
Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for
the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered
billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members.
See www.pomlaw.com.

Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.

CONTACT:

     Danielle Peyton
     Pomerantz LLP
     dpeyton@pomlaw.com
     (646) 581-9980 ext. 7980 [GN]

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Faces Class Suit Over Fire Risk in Vehicles
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Archy Beauge filed a class
action lawsuit against BMW of North America LLC.

Why: Beauge claims BMW sold vehicles with a defective electrical
connector on the water pump that poses a fire risk.

Where: The BMW class action lawsuit was filed in North Carolina
federal court.

A new class action lawsuit accuses BMW of selling vehicles with
defective electrical connectors on their water pumps that can pose
a fire risk.

Plaintiff Archy Beauge claims BMW was aware of the defect but
failed to disclose it to consumers. The defect can cause an
electrical short circuit, potentially leading to a fire.

"When a vehicle manufacturer discovers a defect, it must explicitly
disclose the defect and make it right or cease selling the
vehicle," the BMW fire risk class action says.

Beauge wants to represent a nationwide class and North Carolina
subclass of consumers who purchased or leased certain BMW models
manufactured between 2012 and 2018, including the X1, Z4, 528i, X5,
2 Series, X3, X4, 3 Series, and 4 Series.

Class action claims BMW was aware of vehicle defect

BMW recalled more than 720,000 vehicles in August 2024 due to the
defect, according to the BMW fire risk class action, which argues
the recall did not fully compensate consumers for the diminished
value and inconvenience caused by the defect.

"Rather than refunding or reimbursing Plaintiff and Class members
the difference in value related to the diminished resale value,
Defendant has offered to simply fix the Class Vehicles with a fix
that appears to do no more than replace the defective systems with
no guarantee that the root cause of the problem is solved," the BMW
fire risk class action claims.

Beauge claims BMW is guilty of unjust enrichment, strict liability
and breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and in violation
of North Carolina's Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act and
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

The plaintiff demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and
injunctive relief and an award of actual, general, special,
incidental, statutory and consequential damages for himself and all
class members.

A consumer filed a similar class action lawsuit against BMW in
December over claims it failed to disclose the same defect.

The plaintiff is represented by Ryan A. Valente, Paul J. Doolittle
and Seth Little of Poulin Wiley Anastopoulo LLC and Philip J. Furia
and Jason P. Sultzer of Sultzer & Lipari PLLC.

The BMW fire risk class action lawsuit is Beauge, et al. v. BMW of
North America LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-00051, in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of North Carolina. [GN]

BOSTON CHILDREN'S: Settles Retirement Plan Class Suit for $3-Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that a $3 million
settlement has been reached that, if approved by the court, will
resolve a proposed class action lawsuit that alleged Boston
Children's Hospital and its board of directors and retirement
committee failed to prudently monitor the hospital's employee
retirement plan, causing it to pay excessive recordkeeping fees.

The proposed settlement looks to cover all individuals who
participated in the Children's Hospital Corporation Tax-Deferred
Annuity Plan at any time between January 18, 2016 and the date the
settlement receives preliminary approval (the class period). The
Boston Children's Hospital Retirement Plan settlement class also
includes beneficiaries of deceased participants and alternate
payees entitled to receive plan benefits under a qualified domestic
relations order, provided the associated participant was enrolled
in the plan during the class period.

A memo submitted in support of the proposed class action settlement
says the Boston Children's Hospital retirement plan had more than
20,000 participants at all times during the class period. If the
deal receives preliminary court approval, class members can expect
to receive notice of the settlement by mail or email within 30 days
of the preliminary approval date, the memo states.

Eligible class members do not have to do anything to receive Boston
Children's Hospital settlement benefits, court documents say.

Payments to current participants and beneficiaries or alternate
payees of a participant with an active account will be deposited
directly into their individual investment accounts within the
plan.

Payments to former participants and beneficiaries or alternate
payees of a former participant will be made by check.
Alternatively, these class members can elect to have payments
rolled over into another qualified retirement account.

Class members will be able to request a rollover of settlement
funds to another qualified retirement account, or update their
address or beneficiary information, through the official settlement
website once it is established.

According to court documents, the amount to be paid to each class
member has yet to be determined.

The initial Boston Children's Hospital lawsuit claimed the
defendants violated the federal Employee Retirement Income Security
Act by failing to select prudent investment options and ensure that
expenses for recordkeeping and administrative costs remained
reasonable. The defendants' alleged fiduciary breaches caused plan
participants to lose millions in retirement savings, the case
charged. [GN]

BULK MAIL: June 5 Settlement Opt-Out Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------
Competition Appeal Tribunal Case No 1639/7/7/24

Businesses, public bodies, charities and other persons who bought
bulk mail services in the UK at any time between 10 January 2014
and 29 May 2024 could receive redress from a collective action

Bulk Mail Claim Limited has been authorised by the UK Competition
Appeal Tribunal to bring collective proceedings against
International Distribution Services Plc (formerly Royal Mail Plc)
on behalf of all businesses, public bodies, charities and other
persons who bought bulk mail services in the UK at any time between
January 10, 2014 and May 29, 2024 (the "Class").

The Claim relies on Ofcom's August 14, 2018 decision titled
"Discriminatory pricing in relation to the supply of bulk mail
delivery services in the UK" which concluded that Royal Mail abused
its dominant position in the UK market for bulk mail delivery
services by attempting to introduce discriminatory prices contrary
to both EU and UK competition law.

   -- Members of the Class who were domiciled in the UK on
      May 29, 2024 will automatically be included in the Claim
      unless they request to "opt out" by June 5, 2025.

   -- Members of the Class who were not domiciled in the UK on
      May 29, 2024 will need to "opt-in" by June 5, 2025 in order
      to be included in the Claim.

More information about the Claim, and forms for opting in or out of
the Claim are available at www.BulkMailClaim.co.uk.

All Class members who remain in the Claim or opt-in to the Claim
will be bound by any Tribunal judgment. If money becomes available
following a trial or settlement, Class members will be eligible to
claim a share of the money. A Class member, however, will not be
able to bring an individual claim against Royal Mail raising the
same issues included in the Claim.

It is not possible to claim compensation yet, and there is no
guarantee that compensation will be available in the future. The
Claim will have to be proved in the Tribunal at trial or concluded
by way of an earlier settlement agreed between the class
representative, Bulk Mail Claim Limited, and Royal Mail.

To read the Tribunal's full Collective Proceedings Order and
judgment, and learn more about Class members' rights and options,
visit www.BulkMailClaim.co.uk or
www.catribunal.org.uk/cases/16397724-bulk-mail-claim-limited.


BURGER KING: Bid to Dismiss Coleman Class Action Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WALTER COLEMAN, et al., v.
BURGER KING CORPORATION, Case No. 1:22-cv-20925-RKA (S.D. Fla.),
the Hon. Judge Roy K. Altman entered an order that denying BKC's
motion to dismiss Coleman suit.

The Court says that the Plaintiffs have stated a viable
negligent-misrepresentation claim. In our prior order, we held that
BKC's "oversized images of the burgers"-which the Plaintiffs "saw
online, on TV, and on Burger King’s menu-ordering boards"-could
constitute an actionable misrepresentation under Florida law.

Nineteen Plaintiffs -- hailing from thirteen separate states --
have brought this putative class action "against defendant Burger
King, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated
individuals who purchased a Burger King menu item based on false
and misleading advertising concerning the size and/or the amount of
ingredients contained in said menu item."

Burger King is an American multinational chain of hamburger fast
food restaurants.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NceuJC at no extra
charge.[CC]

BURGER KING: Faces Class Action Suit Over Misleading Whopper Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mona Thomas, writing for People, reports that Burger King will face
a lawsuit over allegedly creating misleading Whopper ads.

A Florida judge denied the chain's dismissal request, ruling that
the case goes beyond typical advertising exaggeration

Burger King's burger is at the center of a legal battle that's
heating up in federal court.

On May 5, U.S. District Judge Roy K. Altman in Florida ruled that
Burger King must face a 2022 lawsuit claiming it misled hungry
customers with ads that exaggerated the size of its Whopper -- and
possibly other menu favorites.

According to the lawsuit obtained by USA TODAY, 19 plaintiffs from
13 different states say the chain "advertises its burgers as large
burgers compared to competitors" by showing them "containing
oversized meat patties and ingredients that overflow over the bun
to make it appear that the burgers are approximately 35% larger in
size, and contain more than double the meat, than the actual
burger." However, plaintiffs are arguing that not only is that not
the case, but the popular fast food chain is purposely creating
augmented advertisements to mislead consumers.

The lawsuit specifically highlights Burger King's marketing
campaigns starting in 2017, accusing the company of playing up the
"increased size of the burgers" in ads. But when it came time to
unwrap their orders, the plaintiffs say they believe there was no
change in the size of their entrees. "The amount of [ingredients]
contained in the actual [products] that customers receive did not
increase," the lawsuit states.

The plaintiffs are not only seeking refunds, they also want the
burger giant to wipe their current marketing strategy and start
anew. Plaintiffs are asking Burger King to "stop selling overstated
menu items or to correct the deceptive behavior," according to the
suit.

In a statement obtained by PEOPLE, the chain denies the
accusations. "The plaintiffs' claims are false," said a Burger King
spokesperson. "The flame-grilled beef patties portrayed in our
advertising are the same patties used in the millions of burgers we
serve to Guests across the U.S."

Burger King, for its part, attempted to get the case dismissed in
October 2023. In its motion to dismiss, the company argued that its
menu items are clearly described, such as the Whopper, which is
listed as "a [quarter] pound of flame-grilled beef." The chain also
claimed it uses the same beef patties in its ads in its
restaurants, and the ads have simply "styled sandwiches more
beautifully" than in-store crew members might create on an average
day.

"Reasonable consumers, however, know that the entire point of menu
board photos is to make the items look as appetizing as possible,"
the motion reads. "Pulling ingredients forward on a sandwich before
photographing it so that all ingredients are visible is not
consumer fraud in Florida or anywhere."

However, Judge Altman wasn't convinced of the chain's argument,
ultimately ruling for the case to proceed. The judge went on to add
that the plaintiffs' claims "go beyond mere exaggeration or
puffery." Judge Altman noted that Burger King may have overstated
its sandwich sizes "to a much greater degree" in newer ads --
again, pointing out those featuring the Whopper after 2017. [GN]

CAG BEAUTY: Fernandez Suit Alleges Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------
JUDITH ADELA FERNANDEZ MARTINEZ, on behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated v. CAG BEAUTY, LLC, Case No.
1:25-cv-03825 (S.D.N.Y., May 8, 2025) alleges that the Defendant
failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive
website, https://www.dirt-products.com, to be fully accessible to
and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons.

The Defendants 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 (ADA).

The 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.

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

The Defendant offers the commercial website, www.dirt-products.com,
to the public. The Website offers features which should allow all
consumers to access the goods and services offered by Defendant and
which Defendant ensures delivery of such goods and services
throughout the United States including New York State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, New York 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
                  Dana@Gottlieb.legal
                  Michael@Gottlieb.legal

CERNER CORP: Fails to Protect Private Info, Hoffman Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
FRANK HOFFMAN JR., on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. CERNER CORPORATION D/B/A ORACLE HEALTH, INC. and UNION
HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-00347-BCW (W.D. Mo., May 8,
2025) arises from the Defendants' failure to protect highly
sensitive data.

The Defendant is a healthcare provider -- and Defendant Oracle is a
third-party vendor that provides data migration services to Union
Health. As such, the Defendants stores a litany of highly sensitive
personal identifiable information and protected health information
-- about its, current and former patients.

But the Defendants lost control over that data when cybercriminals
infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data
breach (the "Data Breach"). It is unknown for precisely how long
the cybercriminals had access to Defendants' network before the
breach was discovered. In other words, Defendants had no effective
means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its
systems—thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to
its current and former patients' PII/PHI, says the suit.

Accordingly, cybercriminals were able to breach Defendants' systems
because the Defendants failed to adequately train its employees on
cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards
or protocols to protect the Class's PII/PHI. In short, the
Defendants' failures placed the Class's PII/PHI in a vulnerable
position -- rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals, the
suit alleges.

The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim, having received a breach
notice in April 2025. He brings this class action on behalf of
himself, and all others harmed by Defendants' misconduct.

Union Health is a healthcare provider—and Defendant Oracle is a
third-party vendor that provides data migration services to Union
Health.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John F. Garvey, Esq.
          Colleen Garvey, Esq.
          J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
          STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 390-6750
          E-mail: jgarvey@stranchlaw.com
                  cgarvey@stranchlaw.com
                  gstranch@stranchlaw.com

               - and -

          Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
          Amina A. Thomas, Esq.
          COHEN & MALAD, LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 636-6481
          Facsimile: (317) 636-2593
          E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
                  athomas@cohenandmalad.com

               - and -

          Raina Borelli, Esq.
          STRAUSS BORELLI PLLC
          908 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
          Chicago Illinois 60611
          Telephone: (872) 263-1100
          Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
          E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com

CITIGROUP INC: Becker Appeals Amended Suit Dismissal to 11th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WERNER JACK BECKER, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing their lawsuit entitled Werner Jack Becker, et al.,
individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Citigroup Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No.
0:24-cv-60834-AHS, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought against the Defendants for alleged express, unabashed
racial discrimination that violates federal and state law.

On July 31, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which
the Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on Aug.
14, 2024.

On Mar. 26, 2025, Judge Raag Singhal entered an Order granting the
Defendants' motion to dismiss. The case is dismissed with
prejudice.

On Mar. 28, 2025, Judge Singhal entered a corrected Order
dismissing the case without prejudice.

The appellate case is entitled Werner Becker, et al. v. Citigroup
Inc., et al., Case No. 25-11333, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, filed on April 18, 2025. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Appellants WERNER JACK BECKER, et al., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

            Bryan Weir, Esq.
            Brandon Michael Haase, Esq.
            CONSOVOY MCCARTHY, PLLC
            1600 Wilson Blvd., Ste. 700
            Arlington, VA 22209
            Telephone: (703) 243-9423
                       (864) 421-4575

                   - and –

            Michael Adam Sasso, Esq.
            Catherine Urbanek, Esq.
            SASSO & SASSO, PA
            1031 W. Morse Blvd., Ste. 120
            Winter Park, FL 32789
            Telephone: (407) 644-7161

Defendants-Appellees CITIGROUP INC., et al. are represented by:

            Alexander Virgil Maugeri, Esq.
            Jayant W. Tambe, Esq.
            JONES DAY
            250 Vesey St., Rm. 3127
            New York, NY 10281
            Telephone: (212) 326-3880

                     - and –

            Christopher Pagliarella, Esq.
            JONES DAY
            51 Louisiana Ave. NW
            Washington, DC 20001
            Telephone: (202) 879-3614

                     - and –

            Eliot Pedrosa, Esq.
            JONES DAY
            600 Brickell Ave., Ste. 3300
            Miami, FL 33131
            Telephone: (305) 714-9700

COINBASE INC: Seeks to Recover Deceptively Charged Hidden Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN CORDERO, PATRICK B. GOODWIN, HENRY HOBSON III, and CHRISTOPHER
JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. COINBASE, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-04024 (N.D. Cal., May
8, 2025) seeks to recover from Coinbase, hidden fees that it has
deceptively charged consumers for cryptocurrency trades in
violation of California and New York's consumer protection
statutes.

According to the complaint, instead of clearly disclosing to
consumers the actual amount that Coinbase charges for
cryptocurrency transactions, the company hides a portion of its
fees in the "price" it quotes. The
"price" Coinbase quotes consumers in a simple buy transaction on
its Order Preview (like the one above) is 1% higher than the market
price of the cryptocurrency that Coinbase shows elsewhere on its
website and mobile application.

The Plaintiffs bring this class action lawsuit to recover from
Coinbase the hidden Spread Fees that Coinbase has unlawfully
concealed from them and other similarly situated consumers and to
obtain an order enjoining Coinbase's unlawful conduct described
herein, asserting claims under California's Unfair Competition
Law.

Coinbase operates a trading platform where consumers can buy, sell,
or exchange cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin or Ethereum. Coinbase
presents consumers using its default trading option with an order
preview (the "Order Preview") before placing an order. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer L. Joost, Esq.
          Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
          Melissa L. Yeates, Esq.
          Jordan E. Jacobson, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ
          MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
          One Sansome Street, Suite 1850
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 400-3000
          Facsimile: (415) 400-3001
          E-mail: jjoost@ktmc.com
                  jmeltzer@ktmc.com
                  myeates@ktmc.com
                  jjacobson@ktmc.com

               - and -

          Gregory P. Joseph, Esq.
          Mara Leventhal, Esq.
          Christopher J. Stanley, Esq.
          Benjamin A. Taylor, Esq.
          JOSEPH HAGE AARONSON LLC
          800 Third Avenue, 30th Floor
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 407-1210
          Facsimile: (212) 407-1280
          E-mail: gjoseph@jhany.com
                  mleventhal@jhany.com
                  cstanley@jhany.com
                  btaylor@jhany.com

COMPASS DIVERSIFIED: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Compass Diversified Holdings (NYSE: CODI) resulting
from allegations that Compass Diversified may have issued
materially misleading business information to the investing
public.

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

What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=39216 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.

What is this about: On May 7, 2025, after market hours, Compass
Diversified filed a Form 8-K with the SEC in which it stated that
the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors "commenced an
internal investigation into the financing, accounting, and
inventory practices of Lugano Holding, Inc. ('Lugano'), a
subsidiary and operating segment of the Company, based on concerns
reported to Company management as to these practices. Upon being
notified of the concerns, Company management immediately informed
the Audit Committee, and the Audit Committee promptly retained
outside legal counsel to assist in conducting the investigation."
In addition, Compass Diversified disclosed that "[t]he
investigation, which remains ongoing, focuses on certain unrecorded
financing arrangements and irregularities identified in sales, cost
of sales, inventory, and accounts receivable recorded by Lugano."
Further, "the Audit Committee concluded that the Company's
consolidated financial statements and other financial information
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024 should no longer be
relied upon due to the materiality of the preliminary findings of
the investigation described above."

On this news, Compass Diversified's stock price fell 64.4% during
intraday trading.

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

Contact Information:

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

COMPASS MINERALS: $48MM Class Settlement to be Heard on July 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP and Kirby McInerney LLP issued a
statement regarding the proposed Settlement in the Compass Minerals
Securities Litigation:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF KANSAS

LOCAL 295 IBT EMPLOYER GROUP WELFARE FUND, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. COMPASS
MINERALS INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 2:22-cv-02432-EFM-ADM
CLASS ACTION

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

TO: ALL PERSONS OR ENTITIES WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
COMPASS MINERALS INTERNATIONAL, INC. ("COMPASS MINERALS") COMMON
STOCK BETWEEN OCTOBER 31, 2017, AND NOVEMBER 18, 2018, INCLUSIVE
(THE "CLASS PERIOD")

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

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the District of Kansas ("Court"), that the above-captioned
action ("Litigation") has been certified as a class action, except
for certain Persons and entities who are excluded from the Class by
definition as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement dated
March 27, 2025 ("Stipulation") and the detailed Notice of Pendency
and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"). The Stipulation
and Notice can be viewed at
www.CompassMineralsSecuritiesSettlement.com.

YOU ARE ALSO HEREBY NOTIFIED that Retail Wholesale Department Store
Union Local 338 Retirement Fund and Local 295 IBT Employer Group
Welfare Fund ("Plaintiffs"), and defendants Compass Minerals,
Frances J. Malecha, James D. Standen, and Anthony J. Sepich
("Defendants") have reached a proposed settlement of the Litigation
on behalf of the Class for $48 million in cash ("Settlement"). If
approved by the Court, the Settlement will resolve all claims in
the Litigation.

YOU ARE ALSO HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on July
30, 2025, at 1:30 p.m., before the Honorable Eric F. Melgren at the
United States District Court, District of Kansas, 401 N. Market,
Wichita, KS 67202, to determine whether: (1) the Settlement of the
above-captioned Litigation as set forth in the Stipulation for $48
million in cash should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate; (2) the Judgment as provided under the
Stipulation should be entered dismissing the Litigation with
prejudice; (3) to award Plaintiffs' Counsel attorneys' fees and
expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice) and,
if so, in what amounts; (4) to award Plaintiffs their costs and
expenses in representing the Class out of the Settlement Fund and,
if so, in what amounts; and (5) the Plan of Allocation should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate.

The Court may decide to change the date and/or time of the
Settlement Hearing, conduct the hearing by video or telephonic
conference, or otherwise allow Class Members to appear at the
hearing by telephone or videoconference, without further written
notice to the Class. It is important that you check the Settlement
website, www.CompassMineralsSecuritiesSettlement.com, before making
any plans to attend the Settlement Hearing. Any updates regarding
the Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time
of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or telephonic
appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the Settlement
website. Also, if the Court requires or allows Class Members to
participate in the hearing by telephone or videoconference, the
access information will be posted to the website.

IF YOU PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED COMPASS MINERALS COMMON
STOCK BETWEEN OCTOBER 31, 2017, AND NOVEMBER 18, 2018, INCLUSIVE,
YOUR RIGHTS ARE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION.

To share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must
establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release
form ("Proof of Claim") by mail (postmarked no later than August 5,
2025) or electronically via the Settlement website (no later than
August 5, 2025). Failure to submit your Proof of Claim by August 5,
2025, will subject your claim to rejection and preclude you from
receiving any of the recovery in connection with the Settlement of
this Litigation. If you are a Class Member and do not request
exclusion from the Class (as described below), you will be bound by
the Settlement and any judgment and release entered in the
Litigation, including, but not limited to, the Judgment, whether or
not you submit a Proof of Claim.

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

Compass Minerals Securities Settlement
Claims Administrator
c/o Verita Global
P.O. Box 301135
Los Angeles, CA 90030-1135

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

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

ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
Ellen Gusikoff Stewart
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 1-800-449-4900
settlementinfo@rgrdlaw.com

KIRBY McINERNEY LLP
Thomas W. Elrod
250 Park Avenue, Suite 820
New York, NY 10177
Telephone: 1-212-371-6600
settlements@kmllp.com

IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A
REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED BY JULY 9, 2025,
IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. IF YOU PROPERLY
EXCLUDE YOURSELF FROM THE CLASS, YOU WILL NOT BE BOUND BY ANY
RELEASES, JUDGMENTS, OR ORDERS ENTERED BY THE COURT IN THE
LITIGATION AND YOU WILL NOT RECEIVE ANY BENEFITS FROM THE
SETTLEMENT. EXCLUDING YOURSELF FROM THE CLASS IS THE ONLY OPTION
THAT MAY ALLOW YOU TO BE PART OF ANY OTHER CURRENT OR FUTURE
LAWSUIT AGAINST DEFENDANTS CONCERNING THE CLAIMS BEING RESOLVED BY
THE SETTLEMENT.

IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE
SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, THE REQUEST BY LEAD COUNSEL FOR
AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES NOT TO EXCEED 33-1/3% OF THE $48
MILLION SETTLEMENT AMOUNT AND EXPENSES NOT TO EXCEED $450,000, PLUS
INTEREST ON BOTH AMOUNTS, AND/OR THE REQUEST FOR AN AWARD TO
PLAINTIFFS PURSUANT TO 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(4). ANY OBJECTIONS MUST
BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND SENT TO LEAD COUNSEL AND DEFENDANTS'
COUNSEL BY
JULY 9, 2025, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE.

DATED: April 7, 2025

BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF KANSAS


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Faces Class Suit Over iPhone Repair Warranty Info
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that a consumer filed a class action
lawsuit against Costco Wholesale Corp.

Why: The plaintiff claims Costco failed to include certain required
repair and warranty information on the packaging of iPhones sold at
its retail locations.

Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in Washington state
court.

A new Costco class action lawsuit accuses the company of failing to
include certain required repair and warranty information on the
packaging of iPhones sold at its retail locations.

Plaintiff Bhaskar Gokarn Mishra filed the Costco iPhone lawsuit
complaint against Costco Wholesale Corp. on April 16 in Washington
state court, alleging violations of state consumer protection
laws.

The Costco class action lawsuit claims that Mishra, who purchased
an iPhone 14 Pro Max from Costco, was deceived by the company's
failure to include certain disclosures.

The plaintiff argues Costco's alleged omissions amount to a per se
violation of Washington's Consumer Protection Act (CPA). required
by Washington's Telephone Buyers' Protection Act (TBPA) on the
packaging of iPhones sold at its retail locations.

"Costco also does not clearly disclose the above information
required by the TBPA by posting notice in its stores or on the
Product page on its website," the Costco class action says.

Costco iPhone packaging caused financial harm, class action claims

Mishra claims he would not have purchased the iPhone from Costco,
or would have paid less for it, had the company clearly disclosed
the standard repair charges and warranty information as required by
law.

"The standard repair charges for an iPhone 16 'range from $99 for a
battery replacement on the iPhone 16 to $749 for "Other Damage" on
the iPhone 16 Pro Max,'" Mishra says.

Mishra claims Costco's failure to disclose the required information
deprived consumers of the opportunity to make informed purchasing
decisions and caused them to suffer financial harm.

Mishra wants to represent a class of consumers who purchased an
iPhone from Costco for personal use in Washington within the
applicable statute of limitations.

Mishra demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive
relief and an award of actual damages or presumed statutory damages
to the amount of $100 per violation.

In April 2024, iPhone was hit by two anti trust lawsuits alleging
it locked consumers into using certain products and prevented
competition by controlling access to the devices and their apps,
programs and operating systems.

Meanwhile, Costco is also facing another class action alleging the
company misleads consumers into believing that delivery is free on
its website.

The plaintiff is represented by Zachary M. Crosner of Crosner Legal
PC.

The Costco iPhone class action lawsuit is Bhaskar Gokarn Mishra v.
Costco Wholesale Corp., Case No. 25-2-11773-1 SEA, in the Superior
Court of the State of Washington, County of King. [GN]

CROWDVEST LLC: Johnson Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cynthia Johnson, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Crowdvest LLC,
Case No. 2:24-cv-01293-JPS (E.D. Wis.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order extending her deadline to file a motion for
class certification by sixty days, from May 12, 2025 to July 11,
2025.

The Plaintiff has diligently sought discovery from Crowdvest that
would be necessary for her to move for class certification,
including by:

   -- serving discovery requests within a week of the Court's
      order authorizing discovery on March 19, 2025,

   -- with a requested compliance date of April 21, 2025, and

   -- and promptly moving to compel discovery responses after
      Defendant failed to comply or confer regarding compliance on

      April 25, 2025.

However, despite retaining counsel who somewhat appeared in this
matter via an improperly filed Rule 68 Offer of Judgment, the
Defendant has failed to comply with its discovery obligations, and
Plaintiff remains without any of her requested discovery.

Crowdvest is a commercial real estate investment firm.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 6, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RMb84y at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alex D. Kruzyk, Esq.
          PARDELL, KRUZYK & GIRIBALDO, PLLC
          7500 Rialto Blvd., Suite 1-250
          Austin, TX 78735
          Telephone: (561) 726-8444
          E-mail: akruzyk@pkglegal.com

CSU: Parties Seek to Continue May 29 Hearing
--------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MADISON FISK, RAQUEL
CASTRO, GRETA CASTRILLON, CLARE BOTTERILL, MAYA BROSCH, HELEN
BAUER, CARINA CLARK, NATALIE FIGUEROA, ERICA GROTEGEER, KAITLIN
HERI, OLIVIA PETRINE, AISHA WATT, KAMRYN WHITWORTH, SARA ABSTEN,
ELEANOR DAVIES, ALEXA DIETZ, and LARISA SULCS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY and SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY,
Case No. 3:22-cv-00173-TWR-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the
Court to enter an order continuing the Class Certification hearing
and extending the deadline for filing pretrial motions by an
additional thirty days.

The Plaintiffs and Defendants request the Court find good cause
exists to continue the May 29, 2025, hearing for thirty days, and
extend the deadline for filing pretrial motions to 30 days after
the class certification hearing.

On April 7, 2025, the parties filed a joint motion to extend case
deadlines related to the class certification hearing and filing
pretrial motions to permit the parties to continue engaging in
arms-length settlement discussions through the Hon. Michael S.
Berg.

The Court granted the parties motion on the same day. The Court's
order reset the hearing regarding Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class
Certification to May 29, 2025, and the deadline to file pretrial
motions to June 11, 2025.

Since March 7, 2025, when the parties participated in a full-day
settlement conference with Judge Berg, the parties have continued
to have multiple separate productive conferences with Judge Berg
regarding settlement.

To permit the Plaintiffs and Defendants to continue exploring
settlement and to avoid wasting judicial resources, the parties
request that the Court continue the hearing regarding Plaintiffs’
motion for class certification, currently set for May 29, 2025, by
thirty days, or to the next available date for the Court after June
27, 2025. The parties also request the Court extend the deadline
for filing pretrial motions to 30 days after the class
certification hearing.

Board of Trustees governs the diverse and complex 23-campus system
by developing broad administrative policy for the campuses.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 6, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BIRo8Z at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David S. Casey, Jr., Esq.
          Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
          CASEY GERRY SCHENK
          FRANCAVILLA BLATT &
          PENFIELD, LLP
          110 Laurel Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238-1811
          E-mail: dcasey@cglaw.com
                  gmb@cglaw.com

                - and -

          Arthur H. Bryant, Esq.
          CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
          22525 Pacific Coast Hwy
          Malibu, CA 90265
          Telephone: (213) 788-4050
          Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
          E-mail: abryant@clarksonlawfirm.com

                - and -

          Amber Eck, Esq.
          Jenna Rangel, Esq.
          HAEGGQUIST & ECK, LLP
          225 Broadway, Ste 2050
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 342-8000
          E-mail: ambere@haelaw.com
                  jennar@haelaw.com

                - and -

          Lori Bullock, Esq.
          BULLOCK LAW PLLC
          309 East 5th St., Suite 202B
          Des Moines, IA 50309
          Telephone: (515) 423-0551
          E-mail: lbullock@bullocklawpllc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Brian M. Schwartz, Esq.
          Scott R. Eldridge, Esq.
          Erika L. Giroux, Esq.
          Ashley N. Higginson, Esq.
          MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK
          AND STONE, P.L.C.
          150 West Jefferson, Suite 2500
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 963-6420
          E-mail: schwartzb@millercanfield.com
                  eldridge@millercanfield.com
                  giroux@millercanfield.com
                  higginson@millercanfield.com

                - and -

          Rob Bonta, Esq.
          Jodi L. Cleesattle, Esq.
          Jennifer L. Santa Maria, Esq.
          ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA
          600 West Broadway, Suite 1800
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 738-9099
          Facsimile: (619) 645-2012
          E-mail: Jennifer.SantaMaria@doj.ca.gov

DAVITA INC: Seeks to Stay Ruling on Conditional Certification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDUIN LIGHTNER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated., v.
DAVITA, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-03104-NYW-KAS (D. Colo.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order staying a decision on
the Plaintiff's opposed motion for Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") conditional certification and court-authorized notice
pending a decision on DaVita's forthcoming motion to strike all
current opt-in forms.

The Plaintiff's motion seeks nationwide conditional certification
on the basis of several dozen consent-to-join forms, but those
forms were obtained using misleading advertising and direct
solicitation. The forms are also unusable on their face.

On April 21, 2025, Magistrate Judge Starnella ordered, over the
Plaintiff's objection, the Plaintiff to produce all advertisements
and solicitations used to obtain the consent forms. Once DaVita has
that information in its possession to review, it will have the full
universe of information it needs to file a motion to strike and
such motion should be decided before any decision on Plaintiff’s
conditional certification motion.

On Nov. 21, 2023, the Plaintiff Lightner filed this putative
collective action for unpaid overtime pursuant to the FLSA. Though
Plaintiff worked as a patient care technician out of a DaVita
clinic in Washington, she seeks to represent two proposed
collectives of approximately 68,000 nurses and patient care
technicians currently or formerly employed at any one of thousands
of DaVita clinics across 41 states.

The Plaintiff filed her conditional certification motion on March
3, 2025.

DaVita provides kidney dialysis services.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 6, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NLxA4W at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jessica G. Scott, Esq.
          Jessica E. Eller, Esq.
          WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL LLP
          370 Seventeenth Street, Suite 4500
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 244-1800
          Facsimile: (303) 244-1879
          E-mail: scott@wtotrial.com
                  eller@wtotrial.com

DELTA AIR LINES: Faces Class Action Over CrowdStrike Outage
-----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Croft, writing for Australian Aviation, reports that a class
action by Delta passengers whose flights were affected by 2024
CrowdStrike outage will go ahead, a US federal judge has ruled.

The international IT shutdown in July 2024 -- dubbed the world's
biggest ever -- was caused by a bungled software update issued by
the cyber security provider.

The update caused blue screens to appear on Microsoft-operated
systems, which prevented many firms from accessing their
internet-based 'cloud' services. For airlines, this particularly
impacted boarding, check-in and baggage data.

CrowdStrike took responsibility for the incident, and airlines
largely recovered quickly thanks to the cybersecurity firm's quick
action. However, Delta Air Lines suffered longer delays as its
systems required a manual fix per device.

The airline then filed a lawsuit against CrowdStrike for US$500
million, to which CrowdStrike responded with a lawsuit of its own,
claiming that the slow recovery was the fault of Delta Air Lines'
own systems.

"Delta's claims are based on disproven misinformation, demonstrate
a lack of understanding of how modern cybersecurity works, and
reflect a desperate attempt to shift blame for its slow recovery
away from its failure to modernise its antiquated IT
infrastructure."

Now, US District Judge Mark Cohen has said that a lawsuit filed by
Delta Air Lines customers who were denied full refunds for their
cancelled and delayed flights will proceed.

Delta Air Lines had previously sought the claims to be dismissed,
except for one by an international traveller under the Montreal
Convention. Cohen said that five of the nine plaintiffs may pursue
breach of contract claims, and a different group were able to
pursue claims under the Montreal Convention.

"This ruling is a major step forward for Delta passengers seeking
accountability," said one of the plaintiffs' lawyers, Joseph
Sauder.

The remaining four plaintiffs had their claims dismissed, with
Cohen saying they were dealt with by federal legislation.

John Brennan, one of the plaintiffs whose claim was dismissed, says
that he was offered only $219.45 in compensation, despite him and
his wife missing a $10,000 anniversary cruise due to being
stranded.

Delta attempted to dismiss the case under the Airline Deregulation
Act of 1978, which removed government control over airline fares,
market entry and routes. Cohen ruled in favour of the dismissal.

The plaintiffs also alleged that CrowdStrike reached out to Delta
to offer assistance in dealing with the outage "within hours of the
incident" and that even chief executive George Kurtz reached out to
Delta Airlines CEO Ed Bastian to provide assistance, but Delta
declined or did not respond.

Delta Air Lines said the outage cost it $550 million in revenue and
other costs, but it saved $50 million in fuel. [GN]

DIAGEO NORTH AMERICA: Faces Class Suit Over False Advertising
-------------------------------------------------------------
Felisa Rogers, writing for Mezcalistas, reports that on May 5, the
law firm Hagens Berman filed a class action lawsuit against Diageo
North America "for falsely marketing its highly popular tequila
brands and selling adulterated tequila to consumers."  

On January 13 of this year, we broke the story that agave farmers
were accusing large tequila companies of illegally mixing tequila
with cane alcohol, and that lab tests existed to support the
allegations. We've since been waiting for the proof to see the
light of day. It appears that day may finally be here. In the suit
filed in the Eastern New York division of the US District Court,
the Hagens Berman lawyers and their plaintiffs allege that flagship
Diageo "tequilas" are mislabeled as 100% agave–making the
products illegal in both the United States and Mexico.

When we asked Hagens Berman why they were taking on allegations
that have been largely ignored by both Mexican officials and the
international media, atorney Nathan Tarnor responded,

"Hagens Berman filed a class action lawsuit against Diageo because
independent laboratory testing showed its tequila was adulterated
and falsely labeled. It's not fair to consumers if they pay a
premium price for tequila but receive an inferior substitute
product. It's also not fair to agave farmers because major tequila
brands are using cheap substitute alcohols rather than 100% agave
as required by United States and Mexican law."

He went on to note, "This drives down the price of agave and
deprives agave farmers of a share of the profits that they would
otherwise receive if the tequila brands were following the law."

Are Casamigos and Don Julio 100% agave?

To quote the Class Action Complaint against Diageo, "Plaintiffs
paid super-premium prices for Casamigos and Don Julio tequila, but
they received neither a premium product nor 100% Blue Weber Agave
tequila. Instead, an investigation of Casamigos and Don Julio
tequilas has shown that they consist of significant concentrations
of cane or other types of alcohol rather than pure tequila."

The case against Diageo

According to the document, "The Additive Free Alliance ("AFA"), an
organization dedicated to tequila industry transparency, has shown
that it is possible to use Nuclear Magnetic Resonance laboratory
testing to confirm if tequila has been adulterated with cane
alcohol."

The case rests on these tests, which could prove that Diageo is in
violation of New York and New Jersey labeling laws and guilty of
false advertising and misleading consumers: "If Plaintiffs and the
proposed class members had known the truth of the ingredients in
the Product, they would not have bought Diageo tequilas or would
have paid less. As a result, Plaintiffs bring claims on their own
behalf and on behalf of other consumers of Diageo Product."

Rather gratifyingly, the brief extensively cites previous articles
from "the authoritative website Mezcalistas," using quotations from
our on-the-ground reporting and interviews to illustrate the
allegations of adulteration made by agave farmers and agrarian
activists in Mexico.

Why is this case such a huge deal? Regulators and monied interests
have been debating the components of tequila since at least 1949,
when Mexico formally defined the spirit as a product made from 100%
agave. Over the years, that definition has morphed, allowing for
legal additives such as vanilla and glycerin to soften the edges of
industrial production, as well as the introduction of a so-called
mixto category, or "tequilas" that can now be made with up to 49%
sugars from other sources–often cane alcohol.

The 90s saw the rise of premium tequila, with Patron paving the way
in the US for other high-end brands that proudly marketed
themselves as 100% agave. Internationally, tequila grew in
popularity and prestige, spawing an opinionated fanbase of hardcore
enthusiasts. While mixtos are totally legal, aficionados tend to
look down on any tequila that's not 100% agave. This stems from a
pervasive belief that the flavor of "good" tequila stems from good
water, quality agave, and skilled fermentation and distillation.
Diageo's prestige brands have built their reputation on the 100%
agave designation.

The battle between the Tequila Regulatory Council (CRT) and
transparency advocates over legal additives has been
well-documented, but the damning allegations of illegal
adulteration have been ignored by larger publications–both in the
US and in Mexico. We imagine that's about to change.

But can they win?

Diageo is a giant in the alcohol industry, with a portfolio that
spans the globe. In 2017, the corporation acquired Casamigos for
almost one billion USD. Diageo publicists touted Casamigos as "the
fastest growing super-premium tequila brand in the US." Meanwhile,
Don Julio is marketed as a "luxury premium tequila" and is among
the most popular tequilas on the market. In other words–Diageo
has a lot to defend, a lot to lose, and a lot of money to make sure
it doesn't lose. But their opponent is formidable.

Hagens Berman is a powerhouse that trades on class action lawsuits
against major corporations. For instance, the firm has filed 11
cases against various divisions or entities at Amazon, and
successfully settled a massive case on behalf of victims of the
Exon Valdez oil spill, a reflection of their impressive dedication
to environmental litigation. Hagens Berman took on Enron, and their
most recent announcement is a case against Apple. In other words,
these guys have the firepower to seriously threaten a global
spirits conglomerate.

As we've covered, agave farmers have long been protesting abuses by
"big tequila" and have been regularly alleging adulteration since
at least October of 2024. Readers who have been following the story
in Mexico may feel whiplash to find themselves across the border,
and on the eastern seaboard.

Who is suddenly making noise in New York and New Jersey?
Hospitality industry professionals who've been buying Diageo
products under the false assumption that the "super premium"
spirits are made from 100% blue agave.

The current plaintiffs are Avi Pusateri, Chaim Mishulovin, and
Sushi Tokyo Inc. Avi Pusateri is a bar consultant and a specialist
in kosher cocktails. He has been outspoken about additives in
tequila on his personal Instagram, Jazz Age Cocktails. (Which
reflects his personal opinions and should not be viewed as
case-related.) Chaim Mishulovin is a self-described "serial
entrepreneur" with an emphasis on kosher restaurants. Sushi Tokyo
Inc. is a New York corporation, with five restaurants in New York.
We approached Pusateri and Mishulovin for comment but,
unsurprisingly, neither are advised to speak on the case at
present.

But this roster of plaintiffs has the potential to get
bigger—much bigger. The brief states Pusateri and Mishulovin are
filing against Diageo on behalf of themselves and "others similarly
situated," making room for other plaintiffs to join the
case–basically anyone in New York or New Jersey who bought a
bottle of Don Julio or Casamigos within the statute of limitations.
The plaintiffs are requesting a trial by jury.

If the plaintiffs were to win, it's unlikely that most individual
consumers would walk away with much money from the lawsuit, but the
significance of the case is massive.

In addition to seriously undermining two of the most popular
tequila brands in the world (and one of the largest alcohol
corporations), the attendant publicity will likely be a serious
blow to the CRT's credibility. The organization has emphatically
maintained that it is carefully monitoring tequila for any form of
adulteration. If the allegations are true, these corrupted Diageo
tequilas are proof that the agaveros have been right all along.
[GN]

DIGIMARC CORP: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Oregon on behalf of those who acquired Digimarc Corporation
("Digimarc" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:DMRC) securities during the
period from May 3, 2024, through February 26, 2025 ("the Class
Period"). Investors have until July 7, 2025, to apply to the Court
to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

On February 26, 2025, Digimarc announced its financial results for
the fourth quarter and the full year of 2024. The Company reported
a 10% drop in quarterly subscription revenue, down to $5.0 million
from $5.6 million the previous year, and a decrease in annual
recurring revenue to $20.0 million from $22.23 million the prior
year. These declines "primarily reflect[ed] a $5.8 million decrease
in ARR due to the expiration of commercial contract in June 2024."
On this news, the price of Digimarc shares declined by $11.65 per
share, or approximately 43%, from $27.04 per share on February 26,
2025, to close at $15.39 on February 27, 2025.

The complaint alleges that defendants, throughout the Class Period,
failed to disclose that: (1) that a large commercial partner would
not renew a large contract on the same terms; (2) that, as a
result, Digimarc would renegotiate the large commercial contract;
and (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
subscription revenue and annual recurring revenue would be
adversely affected.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Digimarc securities, have
information, or would like to learn more about this investigation,
please contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney LLP by email at
investigations@kmllp.com, or fill out the contact form below, to
discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters
without any cost to you.

Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs' law firm
concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer
litigation. The firm's efforts on behalf of shareholders in
securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions
of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at
Kirby McInerney LLP's website.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.

Contacts

     Kirby McInerney LLP
     Thomas W. Elrod, Esq.
     (212) 699-1180
     https://www.kmllp.com
     investigations@kmllp.com [GN]


DOCGO INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Genesee Due July 21
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GENESEE COUNTY EMPLOYEES'
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. DOCGO INC. and ANTHONY CAPONE, Case No.
1:23-cv-09476-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katherine Polk Failla
entered a civil case management plan and scheduling order as
follows:

The Lead Plaintiff's motion for class certification and supporting
expert reports on issues are due no later than July 21, 2025.

The Defendants' opposition to class certification is due no later
than Sept. 19, 2025.

The Lead Plaintiff's reply in support of class certification and
supporting expert reports is due no later than Nov. 3, 2025.

All expert discovery, including reports, production of underlying
documents, and depositions, shall be completed no later than April
10, 2026.

The next pretrial conference is scheduled for Jan. 13, 2026 at
11:00 a.m.

DocGo provides mobile health and medical transportation services.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5Bh0Tz at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric I. Niehaus, Esq.
          Joseph J. Tull, Esq.
          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
          Christopher M. Wood, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN
          & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: ericn@rgrdlaw.com
                  jtull@rgrdlaw.com
                  srudman@rgrdlaw.com
                  drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com
                  cwood@rgrdlaw.com

                - and -

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jason J. Mendro, Esq.
          Lissa M. Percopo, Esq.
          Jeff Lombard, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          1700 M Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 955-8500
          Facsimile: (202) 467-0539
          E-mail: jmendro@gibsondunn.com
                  lpercopo@gibsondunn.com

                - and -

          Evan Cohen, Esq.
          FINN DIXON & HERLING LLP
          6 Landmark Square
          Stamford, CT 06901
          Telephone: (203) 325-5000
          Facsimile: (203) 325-5001
          E-mail: ecohen@fdh.com

DOLLAR GENERAL: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Carter Due Nov. 12
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAMON CARTER, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, v. DOLLAR GENERAL
CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01770-MWC-ADS (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Michelle Williams Court entered a civil trial order
as follows:

                  Event                             Court Order

  Last Date to Hear Motion to Amend Pleadings      June 20, 2025
  or Add Parties:

  Last Date to File Class Certification Motion:    Nov. 12, 2025

  Fact Discovery Cut-Off:                          Feb. 20, 2026

  Expert Disclosure (Initial):                     Feb. 27, 2026

  Expert Disclosure (Rebuttal):                    Mar. 13, 2026

  Expert Discovery Cut-Off:                        Mar. 27, 2026

Dollar is an American chain of discount stores.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 6, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sRx3td at no extra
charge.[CC]

DONALD TRUMP: Court Extends Time to Respond to Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALISHEA KINGDOM, et al.,
V. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00691-RCL (D.D.C.),
the Hon. Judge Royce Lamberth entered an order granting the
Defendants' consent motion for extension of time to respond to the
Plaintiffs' complaint.

The Defendants' deadline to respond to the Plaintiffs' complaint is
extended to three weeks from the date of this Court's ruling on
Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, to stay agency
action, and for provisional class certification.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 6, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=W1veDG at no extra
charge.[CC]

DONALD TRUMP: Court Tosses Bid to Decertify Class
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as G.F.F. et al., v. Donald
J. Trump et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-02886-AKH (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Alvin Hellerstein entered an order denying Respondents'
motion to decertify the class:

The Respondents move to decertify the Class of Petitioners. They
claim that there are only eight persons in the class Petitioners
seek to represent—too few to satisfy the requirement of
numerosity under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1).

The class, as amended, is defined as:

    "All noncitizens in federal, state, or local custody in the
    Southern District of New York who were, are, or will be
    subject to the March 2025 Presidential Proclamation entitled
    'Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of

    the United States by Tren De Aragua' and/or its
    implementation, who have not been given notice following the
    Supreme Court's decision of April 7, 2025, Trump v. J.G.G.,
    No. 24A931, 2025 WL 1024097, and granted a hearing."

Since the Class was properly certified, the Court denied
Respondents' motion.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 6, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=i2lchM at no extra
charge.[CC]

DONALD TRUMP: Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as D.B.U. and R.M.M., on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. DONALD J.
TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States,
et al., the Hon. Judge Charlotte Sweeney entered an order granting
the Petitioners' motion for class certification.

The Petitioners' class as proposed in the motion for class
certification is certified, specifically:

    "All noncitizens in custody in the District of Colorado who
    were, are, or will be subject to the March 2025 Presidential
    Proclamation entitled 'Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act
    Regarding the Invasion of the United States By Tren de Aragua'

    and/or its implementation."

Petitioners D.B.U. and R.M.M. are named as class representatives.

Lee Gelernt of American Civil Liberties Union Foundation is
appointed lead counsel for the certified class, and all ACLU
attorneys who have appeared in this matter as counsel of record for
Petitioners are appointed co-counsel for the certified class.

Although the parties' briefs do not explicitly frame their Rule
23(b)(2) arguments in these terms, considering Rule 23(b)(2)’s
two requirements in turn, see Shook, 543 F.3d at 604, the Court
concludes Petitioners have satisfied them.

The Defendants include PAMELA BONDI, Attorney General of the United
States, in her official capacity; KRISTI NOEM, Secretary of the
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in her official capacity;
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY; TODD LYONS, Acting Director
of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in his official
capacity; U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT; MARCO RUBIO,
Secretary of State, in his official capacity; U.S. STATE
DEPARTMENT; ROBERT GAUDIAN, Director of the Denver Field Office for
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in his official capacity;
and DAWN CEJA, Warden, Denver Contract Detention Facility, in her
official capacity, Case No. 1:25-cv-01163-CNS (D. Colo.).

A copy of the Court's order dated May 6, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZfJhdc at no extra
charge.[CC]

DORSA FAMILY: Massey Suit Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
RACHEL MASSEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DORSA FAMILY DENTISTRY PLLC, D/B/A PADRE ISLAND FAMILY
DENTISTRY, and SOPHI NABAVI, Case No. 2:25-cv-00120 (S.D. Tex., May
8, 2025) is an action individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated who worked for the Defendants anywhere in the
United States seeking to recover overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the provisions
of Sections 207 and 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938.

The Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members are those
similarly situated persons who worked for the Defendants, anywhere
in the State of Texas, at any time during the relevant statutes of
limitations through the final disposition of this matter, and have
not been paid overtime compensation in violation of federal law.

Although the Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members
routinely worked (and continue to work) in excess of 40 hours per
workweek, the Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members were
not paid overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.
Specifically, the Defendants regular practice¾including during
weeks when Plaintiff and the Putative Collective Members worked
recorded hours in excess of 40 -- was (and is) to pay straight time
for overtime hours, says the suit.

Dorsa provides dental services in Corpus Christi, Texas. Nabavi is
the managing member of Dorsa.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
          Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
          ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
          101 N. Shoreline Blvd, Suite 610
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452-1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452-128
          E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
                  austin@a2xlaw.com
                  lauren@a2xlaw.com
                  carter@a2xlaw.com

DUKE ENERGY: Continues to Defend Mooresville Coal Ash Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending March 31, 2025 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2025, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Mooresville Coal Ash class suit in North
Carolina.

On December 20, 2024, 15 plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in Iredell
County, North Carolina, against Duke Energy (Parent), Duke Energy
Carolinas and Duke Energy Progress (collectively "Duke Energy") on
behalf of a putative class alleging past and ongoing environmental
contamination in the Mooresville area of North Carolina. The
lawsuit alleges that Duke Energy disposed of and sold coal ash as
structural fill resulting in the contamination of soil, groundwater
and Lake Norman.

Plaintiffs claim that Duke Energy failed to properly remediate the
contamination and continues to pollute, and they assert that the
contamination has negatively impacted property values and led to
elevated cancer rates and other health issues.

The complaint asserts claims for negligence, nuisance, violations
of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act,
strict liability for ultra-hazardous activities and trespass.

Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive
damages, injunctive relief to stop further contamination,
remediation of contaminated areas and attorneys' fees and costs.
Duke Energy filed its Motion to Dismiss on March 7, 2025.

Duke Energy Corporation -- https://www.duke-energy.com/ -- is an
American electric power and natural gas holding company
headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.[BN]

ELEVANCE HEALTH: Holland Appeals Suit Dismissal to 1st Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
REBECCA HOLLAND is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing
her lawsuit entitled Rebecca Holland, individually and on behalf of
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Elevance Health,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00332-LEW, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Maine.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
brought against the Defendant's disability discrimination in the
provision of healthcare coverage.

On Oct. 21, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim, which Lance E. Walker granted on Apr. 9,
2025. Judgment is entered in favor of the Defendant.

The appellate case is entitled Performance Rebecca Holland v.
Elevance Health, Inc., Case No. 25-1359, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on April 20, 2025. [BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant REBECCA HOLLAND, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:

            Eleanor Hamburger, Esq.
            Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq.
            SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC
            3101 Western Ave., Ste. 350
            Seattle, WA 98121
            Telephone: (206) 223-0303

                    - and –

            Shelby Hannah Leighton, Esq.
            PUBLIC JUSTICE PC
            1620 L. St. NW, Ste. 630
            Washington, DC 20036
            Telephone: (202) 797-8600

                    - and –

            Joshua R. O'Neil, Esq.
            Anna P. Prakash, Esq.
            NICHOLS KASTER PLLP
            4700 IDS Center
            80 S. 8th St.
            Minneapolis, MN 55402
            Telephone: (612) 256-3200

Defendant-Appellee ELEVANCE HEALTH, INC. is represented by:

            Daniel Hofmeister, Esq.
            Alexandra M. Lucas, Esq.
            Bryan M. Webster, Esq.
            REED SMITH LLP
            10 S. Wacker Dr., 40th Fl.
            Chicago, IL 60606
            Telephone: (312) 207-6545
                       (312) 207-2425
                       (312) 207-1000

                   - and –

            Carol Burney Lewis, Esq.
            REED SMITH LLP
            515 S. Flower St., Ste. 4300
            Los Angeles, CA 90071
            Telephone: (213) 457-8248

                   - and –

            Christopher T. Roach, Esq.
            ROACH SANCHEZ LAW, LLC
            194 Main St.
            P.O. Box 29
            Freeport, ME 04032
            Telephone: (207) 808-7401

EQUIFAX INFO: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Bid by Feb. 27, 2026
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH SNYDER, et al., v.
EQUIFAX INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00757-RCY (E.D.
Va.), the Hon. Judge Roderick C. Young entered a Rule 16(b)
scheduling order as follows:

-- All fact discovery in this matter shall be completed on or
    before November 7, 2025.

-- The Plaintiffs' expert disclosures and reports shall be due on

    Dec. 12, 2025.

-- The Defendant's expert disclosures and reports shall be due on

    Jan. 16, 2026.

-- The Plaintiffs' rebuttal expert reports shall be due on Jan.
    30, 2026.

-- All expert discovery in this matter, including expert
    depositions, shall be completed on or before Feb. 13, 2026.

-- The Plaintiffs shall file any class certification motion under
    Rule 23 on or before Feb. 27, 2026.

-- The Defendant shall file its opposition to the Plaintiffs'
    certification motion, and the parties shall file any Daubert
    motions, on or before Mar. 20, 2026.

-- The Plaintiffs shall file their reply in support of their
    certification motion, and the parties shall file oppositions
    to any Daubert motions, on or before Apr. 3, 2026.

-- The parties shall file replies in support of any Daubert
    motions on or before April 13, 2026.

-- The parties shall appear for a hearing on the certification
    motion and any Daubert motions before the undersigned on June
    11, 2026, at 9:30 a.m.

Equifax is a global data, analytics, and technology company.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 6, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PdeJGS at no extra
charge.[CC]

EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Faces Class Suit Over Pink Energy Scam Loans
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action lawsuit accuses Experian Information Solutions, Inc. of
including inaccurate information on consumer reports about loans
associated with Pink Energy's alleged solar panel scam.

The 23-page lawsuit claims Experian has "blindly parrot[ed]" false
data supplied by "scam lenders" that worked with the now-bankrupt
solar company Pink Energy. The case asserts that instead of
investigating disputes or examining the credibility of its sources,
Experian has continued to report inaccurate data, ignoring consumer
complaints, communications from multiple attorneys general, public
statements and news coverage about the alleged loan scheme.

By doing so, Experian has violated the federal Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA), which requires consumer reporting agencies to
undertake reasonable efforts to ensure the "maximum possible
accuracy" of the data they publish, the suit contends.

According to the complaint, Pink Energy and its lending
partners—including Sunlight Financial LLC; Dividend Solar Finance
LLC; GoodLeap, LLC and Solar Mosaic, Inc.—issued the "scam" loans
as part of an alleged scheme to defraud thousands of consumers in
connection with the purchase of a rooftop solar panel system. Pink
Energy has since faced multiple lawsuits over allegedly deceptive
sales practices and filed for bankruptcy in October 2022, the suit
relays.

In November 2022, numerous attorneys general wrote to Pink Energy's
lending partners requesting they suspend loan payment obligations
for victimized consumers, the Experian lawsuit shares.

However, despite publicized statements from the attorneys general
and other "readily apparent" information about the alleged scheme,
Experian has allowed the lending companies to continue to
inaccurately report balances owed on the "bogus loans" on
consumers' credit files, the case contends.

The complaint was filed by three Virginia residents who claim their
credit reports show debts owed to one or more of Pink Energy's
lending partners even though they have no loan obligations to these
companies.

The plaintiffs disputed the debt with Experian and asserted that
the accounts should be deleted from their credit reports, the
filing states. However, the suit alleges that the company has
failed to conduct proper investigations of the disputes and remove
the challenged accounts from the consumers' files, in violation of
the FCRA.

The lawsuit looks to represent all United States residents for whom
Experian furnished a consumer report since January 1, 2023
containing an account where the original creditor of the loan was
one of Pink Energy's lending partners, and the account pertains to
the purchase of Pink Energy products and/or equipment. [GN]

FA BARTLETT: Filing for Class Cert Bid Continued to Dec. 5
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM BOWEN, as an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE
F.A. BARTLETT TREE EXPERT COMPANY, a Connecticut Corporation; and
DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 2:24-cv-10027-WLH-JC (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Wesley Hsu entered an order re stipulation to further
continue class certification briefing schedule:

                Event                 Current       New Proposed
                                      Deadline      Date

  Plaintiff's Motion for Class     June 18, 2025    Dec. 5, 2025
  Certification:

  Defendant's Opposition to        July 16, 2025    Jan. 6, 2026
  Class Certification:

  Plaintiff's Reply to             July 30, 2025    Jan. 20, 2026
  Defendant's Opposition to
  Class Certification:

  Hearing on Motion for Class      Aug. 22, 2025    Feb. 20, 2026
  Certification:  

Bartlett is an arboricultural, consulting and research and
development company.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 6, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HwevSQ at no extra
charge.[CC]

FARO TECHNOLOGIES: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With AMETEK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating FARO Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: FARO), relating to
the proposed merger with AMETEK, Inc. Under the terms of the
agreement, AMETEK will acquire all outstanding shares of FARO
Technologies common stock for $44 per share in cash.

NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you
should talk to a lawyer and ask:

     1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
     2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
     3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?

About Monteverde & Associates PC

Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . .
and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are
a national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.

No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in the above listed company and have concerns or wish to
obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our
website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.

Contact:

     Juan Monteverde, Esq.
     MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
     The Empire State Building
     350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
     New York, NY 10118
     Tel: (212) 971-1341
     E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN]

FEDERAL INSURANCE: Purcell Seeks More Time to Oppose Exclusion Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GILBERT PURCELL,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:23-cv-04927-JD (N.D. Cal.),
the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting stipulation
regarding briefing schedule on expert motions relating to the
plaintiff's motion for class certification:

-- The Plaintiff's deadline to oppose the Defendant's motion to
    exclude expert opinions of Arthur Olsen and Adam Cole in
    connection with the Plaintiff's class certification motion
    shall be extended to May 30, 2025.

-- The Defendant's deadline to file a reply in support of its
    motion to exclude expert opinions of Arthur Olsen and Adam
    Cole in connection with the Plaintiff's class certification
    motion shall be extended to June 25, 2025.

-- The Plaintiff's deadline to file any motion to exclude expert
    opinions in connection with Plaintiff’s class certification
    motion shall be May 30, 2025.

-- The Defendant's deadline to oppose any motion filed by the
    Plaintiff to exclude expert opinions in connection with the
    Plaintiff's class certification motion shall be June 25, 2025.

-- The Plaintiff's deadline to file a reply in support of his
    motion to exclude expert opinions in connection with the
    Plaintiff's class certification motion shall be July 16, 2025.


-- The hearing date for these motions should remain set for Sept.

    25, 2025.

On March 28, 2025, Plaintiff filed a motion for class
certification, which is set for hearing on Sept. 25, 2025.

The Plaintiff's deadline to oppose Defendant's Class Cert. Expert
Motion is currently May 9, 2025, the Defendant's deadline to file a
reply is May 16, 2025, and the hearing is set for Sept. 25, 2025.

Federal offers fire, marine, casualty, accident and health, and
property insurance services.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 6, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1ghN2C at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Oren Giskan, Esq.
          GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON
          LLP
          90 Broad St 2nd Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (646) 835-0773

                - and -

          Patrick Deblase, Esq.
          DEBLASE BROWN EYERLY LLP
          680 S Santa Fe Ave
          Los Angeles, CA 90021
          Telephone: (310) 575-9955

The Defendant is represented by:

          Richard B. Goetz, Esq.
          Zoheb P. Noorani, Esq.
          Andrew M. Levine, Esq.
          Jessica A. Snyder, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 430-6000
          Facsimile: (213) 430-6407
          E-mail: rgoetz@omm.com
                  znoorani@omm.com
                  alevine@omm.com
                  jsnyder@omm.com

FLOYD INC: Filing for Class Cert. in Austin Amended to July 7
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON AUSTIN, an
individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
FLOYD, INC., an Illinois Corporation; SUPER EGO HOLDING LLC, an
Illinois Limited Liability Company; SUPER EGO INC., an Illinois
corporation; SUPER EGO LOGISTICS LLC, an Illinois Limited Liability
Company; ROCKET EXPEDITING LLC, an Ohio Limited Liability Company
and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 3:24-cv-01214-AMO (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín entered an order granting
joint stipulation for further modification of scheduling order:

                    Event                            Deadline

  Plaintiff's motion for class certification        July 7, 2025
  and class certification expert reports:

  Defendants' opposition to motion for class        Aug, 7, 2025
  certification and opposing class certification
  expert reports, Daubert motion(s):

  Plaintiff's reply in support of motion for        Aug. 28, 2025
  class certification and opposing class
  certification expert reports, Daubert motions,
  an opposition(s) to Defendant's Daubert
  motion(s):

  Defendant's reply in support of Daubert           Sept. 9, 2025
  motion, opposition to the Plaintiff's
  Daubert motion(s):

  Plaintiff's reply in support of Daubert motion:   Sept. 16, 2025


  Close of fact discovery:                          Nov. 17, 2025

  Hearing on motion for class certification         To be noticed
  and Daubert motions:                              by the parties

                                                    based on the
                                                    Court's
                                                    availability
                                                    at the time of

                                                    filing.

Floyd operates as an online furniture company.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qY2fJX at no extra
charge.[CC]

GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Suit Over "Made in USA" Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Norman Husar filed a class
action lawsuit against General Motors LLC.

Why: Husar claims General Motors falsely advertises that some of
its ACDelco auto parts are made in the USA.

Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in Ohio federal court.

A nationwide new class action lawsuit accuses General Motors of
falsely advertising some of its ACDelco auto parts as being made in
the USA, when they are actually made in China.

Plaintiff Norman Husar filed the ACDelco parts class action lawsuit
complaint against General Motors LLC on March 25 in Ohio federal
court.

Husar argues the "Made in USA" claims constitute unfair and
deceptive acts or practices under the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices
Act, making them unlawful.

The lawsuit alleges that "Made in USA" claims on certain ACDelco
product packaging induce consumers to buy the parts instead of more
expensive parts actually made in the USA.

GM uses 'Made in USA' to charge a premium for ACDelco parts,
lawsuit claims

Husar alleges he purchased an ACDelco automatic transmission filter
packaged in a box with the labeling "Made in USA."

He decided to purchase the ACDelco transmission filter instead of
another brand transmission filter because of the "Made in USA"
claim of origin, he says.

However, when he opened the box to begin installing the
transmission filter on his vehicle, he was outraged to discover
that stamped onto the surface of the product was the phrase "Made
in China," Husar says.

Husar claims none of the other component parts of the filter were
stamped with "Made in USA" or any other country of origin.

As a result, consumers are paying a premium price for products that
are actually manufactured in China, the ACDelco parts class action
alleges.

Husar wants to represent anyone who purchased in the United States
an ACDelco product in packaging displaying "Made in USA" for end
use and not for resale, where all significant parts and processing
that go into the product are not of U.S. origin.

He is suing for violations of state and federal consumer laws and
is seeking certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs
and a jury trial.

In September 2024, General Motors agreed to a $35 million
settlement to resolve claims it equipped GMC Sierra and Chevrolet
Silverado trucks with defective engine parts. The claims deadline
is July 21, 2025.

The plaintiff is represented by Marc E. Dann, Brian D. Flick and
Michael A. Smith Jr. of Dann Law and Thomas A. Zimmerman Jr. and
Jeffrey D. Blake of Zimmerman Law Offices P.C.

The ACDelco parts class action lawsuit is Norman Husar v. General
Motors LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-00204, in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio. [GN]

GENERAL MOTORS: Settlement in Chapman Gets Final Nod
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK D. CHAPMAN, et al.,
v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Case No. 2:19-cv-12333-TGB-DRG (E.D. Mich.),
the Hon. Judge Terrence G. Berg entered an order granting the
Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class action settlement:

The Court finally modifies the class definitions in its Class
Certification Order to include the following Settlement Classes:

   "All persons or entities who purchased one or more of the Class

   Vehicles from a GM-authorized dealership in California from
   March 1, 2010, to the date of the Court-ordered settlement
   Notice;"

   "All persons or entities who purchased one or more of the Class

   Vehicles from a GM-authorized dealership in Florida from March
   1, 2010, to the date of the Court-ordered settlement notice;"

   "All persons or entities who purchased one or more of the Class

   Vehicles from a GM-authorized dealership in Illinois from March

   1, 2010, to the date of the Court-ordered settlement notice;"

   "All persons or entities who purchased one or more of the Class

    Vehicles from a GM-authorized dealership in Iowa from March 1,

    2010, to the date of the Court-ordered settlement notice;"

   "All persons or entities who purchased one or more of the Class

   Vehicles from a GM-authorized dealership in New York from March

   1, 2010, to the date of the Court-ordered settlement notice;"

   "All persons or entities who purchased one or more of the Class

   Vehicles from a GM-authorized dealership in Pennsylvania from
   March 1, 2010, to the date of the Court-ordered settlement
   Notice;" and

   "All persons or entities who purchased one or more of the Class

   Vehicles from a GM-authorized dealership in Texas from March 1,

   2010, to the date of the Court-ordered settlement notice."

   Excluded from the Settlement Classes are: GM; any affiliate,
   parent, or subsidiary of GM; any entity in which GM has a
   controlling interest; any officer, director, or employee of GM;

   any successor or assign of GM; and any judge to whom this
   Action is assigned, his or her spouse; individuals and/or
   entities who validly and timely opted-out of the previous
   certified classes or who validly and timely opt out of the
   settlement; and current or former owners of Class Vehicles that

   previously released their claims in an individual settlement
   with GM with respect to the issues raised the Action.

The Litigation is dismissed with prejudice and without costs. This
Judgment has been entered without any admission by any Party as to
the merits of any allegation in this litigation and shall not
constitute a finding of either fact or law as to the merits of
any claim or defense asserted in the litigation.

General Motors is an American multinational automotive
manufacturing company.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 6, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1rtLRg at no extra
charge.[CC]

GIGACLOUD TECHNOLOGY: Parties Must File Class Cert Bid by June 16
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE GIGACLOUD TECHNOLOGY INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. 1:23-cv-10645-JMF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Jesse Furman entered an order that no later than June 16, 2025, the
parties shall file a motion for class certification and preliminary
approval of the class-wide settlement.

In light of the Parties' settlement, the conference scheduled for
May 28, 2025, along with all existing deadlines in the case, are
adjourned sine die pending the submission of the filings

The parties shall also submit -- as a separate entry on the docket
and as a Word document submitted by email to Chambers at
furman_NYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov -- a proposed order
preliminarily approving the class-wide settlement, providing for
notice, and scheduling a settlement fairness hearing.

By letter filed on May 2, 2025, the Court has been advised that the
parties in this securities action have reached a settlement in
principle. As the parties acknowledge, Court approval is required
for settlement of the securities claims on a class-wide basis
pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6vREhZ at no extra
charge.[CC]

GLYCOMIMETICS INC: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With First Crescent
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating:

  -- GlycoMimetics, Inc. (NASDAQ: GLYC), relating to a proposed
merger with First Crescent Biopharma, Inc. Under the terms of the
agreement, pre-acquisition GlycoMimetics stockholders are expected
to own approximately 3.1% of the combined Company.

Click here for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/glycomimetics-inc-glyc/. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.

  -- Breeze Holdings Acquisition Corp. (OTC: BRZH), relating to its
proposed merger with YD Biopharma Limited. Under the terms of the
agreement, all Breeze Holdings ordinary shares will be converted
into the right to receive one ordinary share of the surviving
company.

Click here for more information:
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/breeze-holdings-acquisition-corp-2/.
It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

  -- ProAssurance Corporation (NYSE: PRA), relating to the proposed
merger with The Doctors Company. Under the terms of the agreement,
ProAssurance stockholders will receive $25.00 per share in cash.

Click here for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/proassurance-corporation-pra/. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

  -- Future Vision II Acquisition Corp. (NASDAQ: FVNNU), relating
to the proposed merger with Viwo Technology Inc. Under the terms of
the agreement, Viwo shareholders will receive in the aggregate
9,950,250 shares of Future Vision valued at $10.05 per share.

Click here for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/future-vision-ii-acquisition-corp-fvnnu/.
It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you
should talk to a lawyer and ask:

     1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
     2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
     3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?

About Monteverde & Associates PC

Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . .
and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are
a national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.

No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or
wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit
our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.

Contact:

     Juan Monteverde, Esq.
     MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
     The Empire State Building
     350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
     New York, NY 10118
     Tel: (212) 971-1341
     E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com[GN]

GOOGLE INC: Must File Bid to Seal Docs by May 23
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit GOOGLE DIGITAL PUBLISHER LITIGATION,
Case No. 1:21-cv-07034 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon Judge Kevin Castel
entered an order setting May 23, 2025, as deadline for Google to
move to seal material contained in the class certification motions
and associated filings.

On May 2, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed memoranda of law in support of
their motions for class certification, accompanied by declarations
in support under seal.

Those filings include and quote from numerous materials designated
by Google as Confidential or Highly Confidential, including
documents produced by Google, expert reports, and deposition
transcripts.

The Surefreight suit is consolidated in United States Judicial
Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Re: Google Digital
Advertising Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:21-md-03010 (PKC).

In the MDL, the Plaintiffs allege that Google has monopolized or
suppressed competition in digital display advertising. Moreover,
Rumble alleges many of the same business practices as the
MDL plaintiffs in support of its claim that Google has violated
federal antitrust law – for example, unlawful tying of its ad
exchange to its ad server for publishers and an unlawful agreement
to undermine the alleged "header bidding" threat to Google's ad
exchange.

Google is an American multinational corporation and technology
company focusing on online advertising, search engine technology,
cloud computing, computer software, quantum computing, e-commerce,
consumer electronics, and artificial intelligence.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 6, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wzbn3K at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Philip C. Korologos, Esq.
          BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
          55 Hudson Yards
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 446-2390
          E-mail: pkorologos@bsfllp.com

GOOGLE LLC: Agrees to Settle Racial Discrimination Suit for $50MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Golden, writing for DIVE, reports that Google agreed to a $50
million settlement in a class-action lawsuit brought by Black
current and former employees who alleged racial discrimination in
the company's policies and practices, according to a Thursday, May
8, court filing.

The lead plaintiff in Curley v. Google, LLC, an African American
female, designed outreach programs to allow the technology giant to
recruit students at historically Black colleges and universities.
She alleged in a 2022 complaint that Google discriminated and
retaliated against her and similarly situated employees on the
basis of race, sex and sexual orientation in violation of federal
and New York city and state laws.
In addition to providing monetary relief, Google said it would
adopt several provisions. For example, over a three–year period
following settlement, the company would identify race-based pay
disparities prior to finalizing pay changes for subsequent years.
It also would not require mandatory arbitration agreements for
employment-related disputes through and including August 2026 and
would not enforce existing, similar agreements during that time.

Dive Insight:

One of the world's most prominent companies has issued yet another
multimillion-dollar agreement to settle discrimination allegations.
Similar news came in 2021, when Google agreed to pay $3.8 million
to settle pay discrimination claims at California and Washington
state locations following a U.S. Department of Labor investigation
into pay disparities affecting women and Asian employees.

Prior to that, Google agreed to pay $11 million in 2019 to settle a
class-action age discrimination lawsuit alleging that the company
discriminated against job applicants ages 40 and above.

In the said settlement, three named plaintiffs claimed that they
were assigned lower-level roles, paid lower wages, given unfair
performance ratings, subjected to a hostile work environment and
denied advancement and leadership roles because of their race.
Google has faced criticism of its pay practices in the past, with
one internal 2022 survey reportedly finding a sharp decline in
employee pay satisfaction compared to 2021.

In her complaint, the lead plaintiff alleged that Google
"'under-leveled'" her by assigning her a seniority level lower than
that suggested by her education attainment and professional
experience. The company did not promote her or give her a merit pay
increase, she claimed, despite "stellar qualifications and
performance."

The plaintiff further alleged that "Google was biased against and
reluctant to hire Black talent, subjecting Black students to more
stringent hiring practices than non-Black candidates" as well as
hazing them and asking them "level-inappropriate questions" as a
means of intentionally tanking their interview scores.

"As Plaintiff's success in recruiting talented, well-qualified
Black candidates grew, she discovered that Google was not genuinely
interested in actual diversity and equal employment opportunities
but wanted only to burnish its public image for marketing
purposes," the plaintiff alleged. "Google wanted Plaintiff, as an
African American woman, to quietly put on a good face for the
company and toe the company line. But Plaintiff was unwilling to be
used as a mere marketing ploy."

"We've reached an agreement that involves no admission of
wrongdoing," a Google spokesperson told HR Dive in an email. "We
strongly disagree with the allegations that we treated anyone
improperly and we remain committed to paying, hiring, and leveling
all employees consistently." [GN]

GOOGLE LLC: Seeks May 23 Deadline to Seal Class Cert Docs
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Surefreight Global LLC,
Hanson Law Firm, PC, Michael Devaney, Nicholas Arrieta, Sara
Yberra, Michael Stellman, Vitor Lindo, Mark J. Astarita, Organic
Panaceas, LLC and Sweepstakes Today, LLC v. Google LLC and Alphabet
Inc., Case No. 1:21-cv-07001 (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask the
Court to enter an order setting May 23, 2025 as deadline for Google
to move to seal material contained in the class certification
motions and associated filings.

On May 2, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed memoranda of law in support of
their motions for class certification, accompanied by declarations
in support under seal.

Those filings include and quote from numerous materials designated
by Google as Confidential or Highly Confidential, including
documents produced by Google, expert reports, and deposition
transcripts.

The Surefreight suit is consolidated in United States Judicial
Panel On Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) Re: Google Digital
Advertising Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:21-md-03010 (PKC).

In the MDL, the Plaintiffs allege that Google has monopolized or
suppressed competition in digital display advertising. Moreover,
Rumble alleges many of the same business practices as the
MDL plaintiffs in support of its claim that Google has violated
federal antitrust law – for example, unlawful tying of its ad
exchange to its ad server for publishers and an unlawful agreement
to undermine the alleged "header bidding" threat to Google's ad
exchange.

Google is an American multinational corporation and technology
company focusing on online advertising, search engine technology,
cloud computing, computer software, quantum computing, e-commerce,
consumer electronics, and artificial intelligence.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 6, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YUgNQ8 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Justina K. Sessions, Esq.
          Eric Mahr, Esq.
          Andrew J. Ewalt, Esq.
          FRESHFIELDS US LLP
          855 Main Street
          Redwood City, CA 94063
          Telephone: (650) 618-9250
          E-mail: justina.sessions@freshfields.com
                  eric.mahr@freshfields.com

                - and -

          Craig M. Reiser, Esq.
          AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP
          630 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10111
          Telephone: (212) 728-2218
          E-mail: creiser@axinn.com

GRAND AMERICA: Seeks Leave to File Short Sur-Reply to Class Cert
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANN DESCANZO, et al., v.
GRAND AMERICA HOTELS & RESORTS, INC., et al., Case No.
2:19-cv-00443-HCN-DBP (D. Utah), the Defendants ask the Court to
enter an order granting them leave to file short sur-reply to
motion for class certification.

The Defendants contend that the Court should therefore authorize
them file a sur-reply brief of less than five pages of argument to
address Plaintiffs' new arguments. The purpose of a reply brief is
to respond to arguments made in an opposition, not to advance new
arguments that could have been asserted in the original moving
papers.

The Plaintiffs advance this new theory even though Grand
America’s interaction with most participants before they were
hired consisted of a single meeting in which the sponsor
participated. Defendants would have addressed the shortcomings in
this theory at length if it had been made in the Motion.

Grand is a chain of eight hotels and resorts in the Western United
States.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 5, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Gxr4TT at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          P. Alex McBean, Esq.
          ALEX MCBEAN LAW OFFICE PLLC
          505 South Main Street
          Bountiful, UT 84010
          E-mail: alex@alexmcbeanlaw.com

                - and -

          Alexander N. Hood, Esq.
          TOWARDS JUSTICE
          1410 High Street, Suite 300
          Denver, Colorado 80218
          E-mail: alex@towardsjustice.org

                - and -

          Elizabeth A. Adams, Esq.
          Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP
          936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 98103-8869
          E-mail: eadams@terrellmarshall.com
                  bterrell@terrellmarshall.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Matthew R. Lewis, Esq.
          Stephen Richards, Esq.
          KUNZLER BEAN & ADAMSON, PC
          50 W. Broadway, 10th Floor
          Salt Lake City, UT 84101
          Telephone: (801) 994-4646
          E-mail: mlewis@kba.law
                  srichards@kba.law

GREEN SOLUTIONS: Court Recommends Certification of Class
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM WEAVER, v. GREEN
SOLUTIONS OF FLORIDA LLC, Case No. 6:23-cv-02059-CEM-LHP (M.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge Leslie Hoffman Price recommends that the
Court:

   1. Grant the Plaintiff's motion for class certification;

   2. Certify the following class:

      "All persons (1) with a Florida area code telephone number
      (2) who received a call from GSFL Center (3) to a telephone
      number (a) purchased from Generational Energy or (b) for
      which Green Solutions has no record of the source (4) that
      was GSFL Center's first attempt to call the number and (5)
      was made using the ChaseData Dialer (6) in "Outbound" mode
      (7) as part of the "solar" campaign and (8) are included in
      Exhibit 8 to Plaintiff's expert's report.

   3. Appoint the Plaintiff William Weaver as class representative

      and the law firm of Kaufman P.A. as class counsel.

   4. Require class counsel to submit to the Court, by a date
      certain, a proposed schedule for providing the class members

      the requisite notice, as outlined in Federal Rule of Civil
      Procedure 23(c)(2).

On Oct. 25, 2023, Plaintiff William Weaver, on behalf of himself
and others similarly situated, filed the case against Defendant
Green Solutions of Florida LLC.

The Plaintiff alleges that his personal phone number is registered
on the National Do Not Call Registry, but he still received
non-emergency, automated telemarketing calls from Defendant
attempting to sell solar panels, without his consent.

Green is a company specializing in energy-saving solutions for
homes, focusing on insulation, radiant barriers, and solar
products.

A copy of the Court's report and recommendation dated May 5, 2025,
is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yVZCXK at no extra charge.[CC]

GREYSTAR REAL ESTATE: Faces Class Action Suit Over Junk Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action lawsuit claims Greystar illegally charges California tenants
undisclosed "junk fees" on top of their monthly rent, including
charges for pest control, trash disposal and utility administrative
services.

According to the 43-page lawsuit, Greystar forces tenants to pay
numerous fees for costs that, under California law, should be
absorbed by landlords and incorporated into the total rental rates.
The filing alleges that Greystar's junk fees often cost tenants an
extra $500 per year and are not included in its advertised rent
prices.

One plaintiff, a California resident, says that in 2022, they
viewed a unit listed for $3,434 per month at VOX Residences—a
Greystar-managed apartment complex in Los Angeles. It wasn't until
the plaintiff was provided with a formal lease agreement that they
learned they would be charged a $20 "new trash account fee," a $5
"trash administrative fee," a monthly $35 trash fee and a monthly
$3 pest control fee, the suit contends.

"Having already invested considerable time and energy in selecting
an apartment, including an in-person walk through, and with the
pressure of needing to move, [the plaintiff] was left no reasonable
alternative other than to sign the Greystar lease with unlawful
Junk Fees and other charges added on top of the originally
agreed-upon price," the case says. "In total, [the plaintiff] paid
$751 in unavoidable, mandatory Junk Fees to Greystar that were not
included in the advertised rental price."

Per the filing, California law prohibits Greystar from shifting the
costs of pest control and trash services to tenants. State law also
precludes the property management firm from making its units appear
cheaper than they actually are by omitting the extra fees, the case
asserts. The suit argues that this deceptive tactic, known as "drip
pricing," is used to trick consumers into paying more for a product
or service than they otherwise would have.

The Greystar lawsuit accuses the corporate landlord of exacerbating
California's decades-long housing crisis by driving up rental rates
and generally placing profits over people.

"Like [the plaintiffs], tens of thousands of Californians have been
impacted by Greystar's unlawful Junk Fee practices, which add up to
tens of millions of dollars each year in illegal charges borne by
consumers in the most critical of transactions," the case asserts.

The lawsuit looks to represent all individuals who, within the past
six years, were charged a mandatory fee by Greystar that exceeded
the advertised and/or contracted rental rate for a residential
lease in California.

The suit also seeks to cover all individuals who, within the past
six years, paid Greystar separate fees for pest control,
trash/trash administrative and/or utility administrative services
not included in the rent for a residential lease in California.
[GN]


GS OPERATING: Class Cert Bid Filing in Luciano Due April 20, 2026
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PEDRO LUCIANO, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. GS OPERATING, LLC,
Case No. 3:24-cv-05408-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge James Donato
entered a scheduling order as follows:

                     Event                        Deadline

  Fact discovery cut-off:                       Jan. 26, 2026

  Expert disclosures:                           Feb. 9, 2026

  Expert discovery cut-off:                     March 30, 2026

  Last day to file motion for class             April 20, 2026
  Certification:

  Last day to file dispositive and FRE 702      Sept. 14, 2026
  Motions:

  Pretrial conference:                          Jan. 21, 2027,

  Jury Trial:                                   Feb. 8, 2027

The Defendant provides comprehensive supply chain solutions for the
provision of "C"-class components and a wide variety of high
added-value.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 6, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CgsJaV at no extra
charge.[CC]

HAMPTON PRODUCTS: Fernandez Alleges Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
JUDITH ADELA FERNANDEZ MARTINEZ, on behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated v. HAMPTON PRODUCTS INTERNATIONAL
CORPORATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-03873 (S.D.N.Y., May 8, 2025) alleges
that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its interactive website, www.commandolock.com to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff's rights
under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The 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.

The Defendant offers the commercial website, www.commandolock.com/,
to the public. The Website offers features which should allow all
consumers to access the goods and services offered by Defendant and
which Defendant ensures delivery of such goods and services
throughout the United States including New York State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, New York 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
                  Dana@Gottlieb.legal
                  Michael@Gottlieb.legal

HENRY INDUSTRIES: Court Denies Settlement Approval
--------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Daniel J. Calabretta of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California denied without
prejudice the motion for preliminary approval of settlement in the
case styled Christine McEvoy and Leng Sam v. Henry Industries,
Inc., Case No. 2:22-cv-01678-DJC-SCR (E.D. Cal.).

The Plaintiffs sought approval of a $300,000 settlement on behalf
of themselves and approximately 80 drivers employed by the
Defendant to provide courier or delivery services in California
between August 19, 2018, and June 17, 2022.  Specifically, the
Plaintiffs sought (1) preliminary approval of the settlement
agreement between the Defendant and the Plaintiffs; (2)
certification of the proposed settlement class for settlement
purposes only; (3) approval of the form and content of the proposed
class notice; (4) appointment of Harold Lichten and Matthew W.
Thomson of Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., Adam Rose of the Law
Office of Robert Starr, and Jeff Vollmer of Goodwin & Goodwin, LLP
as class counsel; (5) appointment of the Phoenix Group as the
settlement administrator; and (6) scheduling of the final approval
of the settlement.

The Court found that before the Court can properly consider
preliminary approval of the settlement, the Plaintiffs should
address certain issues. The Court expressed concerns regarding the
adequacy of the class settlement, the certification of the
collective under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the existence of a
bona fide dispute, and the appointment of class counsel.

In their lawsuit, the Plaintiffs alleged  the Defendant committed
various violations of California and federal law, including: (1)
minimum wage violations under California Labor Code Sections 1197,
1194, and Wage Order No. 9; (2) overtime violations under
California Labor Code Sections 1194, 1198, 510, and 554, and Wage
Order No. 9; (3) failure to pay minimum wages under 29 U.S.C.
Section 201 et seq.; (4) failure to pay overtime under 29 U.S.C.
Sections 206(a)(1)(C) and 207(a); (5) wage statement violations
under California Labor Code Section 226(a); (6) unlawful business
acts or practices under California Business & Professions Code
Section 17200 et seq.; (7) misclassification as independent
contractors under California Labor Code Section 2802; and (8)
penalties under the Private Attorney General Act.  The Plaintiffs'
claims were based on the Defendant's classification of the drivers
as non-employee independent contractors when they were, in fact,
employees entitled to the protections of California and federal
law.

The parties agreed to settle for a total of $300,000, with no part
of the settlement reverting to the Defendant. The settlement
proposed several deductions from the total before distribution to
the class: (1) $10,000 for PAGA claims; (2) $85,675 in attorneys'
fees; (3) $5,000 to the settlement administrator; and (4) $5,000 in
service payments to the class representatives ($2,500 for each
class representative).

Overall, the settlement provided a net recovery of approximately
$194,325 for the class. The net amount was to be split into a
designated Rule 23 settlement fund for the release of state law
claims and an FLSA release fund for the release of FLSA claims,
with 90% allocated to the Rule 23 fund and 10% to the FLSA fund.

Regarding the FLSA collective certification, the Court noted the
motion for preliminary approval stated that class members who
submit an opt-in form would be deemed to release FLSA claims
without prejudice. The settlement fund allocated $19,432.50 to the
FLSA fund. However, the motion lacked independent analysis
discussing the certification of the FLSA collective.

The Court noted that the proposed settlement failed to justify the
valuation of all the Plaintiffs' claims. Specifically, based on
data regarding the amount of work performed by the putative class
and relevant pay records, the Plaintiffs' counsel estimated
approximately $1,400,000 in unreimbursed employee expenses under
California Labor Code Section 2802. However, no information was
provided about the maximum theoretical recovery for all claims. The
motion also did not clearly explain whether a bona fide dispute
existed.

On the PAGA component, there was no indication  the parties
submitted the proposed settlement to the California Labor and
Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) for comment, as required under
the California Labor Code. On the appointment of class counsel, the
motion provided minimal information about the experience of class
counsel.

A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6ROfKP from PacerMonitor.com.


HERTZ CORP: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------
Laura Layden, writing for News-Press, reports that Hertz has been
hit with class-action lawsuits over a data breach that exposed its
customers' personal information to cybercriminals.

Federal suits have been filed in multiple states, including Florida
and Illinois.

The cases would have to be qualified and certified as class actions
to proceed that way. Often, such cases get combined.

Mark Camplese, a resident of New Castle, Pennsylvania, is one of at
least two plaintiffs filing suits in the Middle District of
Florida's Fort Myers division, closest to Hertz's headquarters.

Failing to 'take precautions,' suit alleges

The rental car giant has its global headquarters in Estero.

In his suit, Camplese seeks millions in damages for the class, made
up of thousands of customers.

He accuses Hertz of failing to "take precautions designed to keep
individuals' private information secure," despite benefiting from
it.

That private information includes social security, driver's license
and credit card numbers and birthdates.

Hertz began alerting customers about the data breach on April 11,
saying some of their personal information may have been stolen, due
to unknown vulnerabilities in a vendor's software.

In a statement, Hertz said: "We take the privacy and security of
personal information seriously. This vendor event involves Cleo, a
file transfer platform used by Hertz for limited purposes.
Importantly, to date, our forensic investigation has found no
evidence that Hertz's own network was affected by this event."

Cleo is based in Rockford, Illinois, triggering multiple lawsuits
in that state.

Hertz notified customers of data breach in April

While Hertz confirmed the breach internally in February, following
its own investigation, the company stated it didn't want to notify
customers until after it determined "the scope of the event," and
identified "whose personal information may have been impacted."

The investigation found customer data was acquired by an
"unauthorized third party" after cyberattacks in October and
December of last year.

In his suit, Camplese claims he and many other customers have
suffered irreparable harm, with their personal information "exposed
to criminals for misuse."

He argues not only have he and others lost their ability to control
their private information, but they have been subjected to an
increased risk of identity theft. He faults Hertz for failing to
provide "prompt and accurate notice" of the breach, and concealing
it for an "unreasonable duration of time."

Personally, Camplese said, he's spent hours researching what
happened and taking steps to protect his finances and identity,
he's suffered fear, anxiety and stress, and he's experienced a
"significant uptick in spam calls, and texts."

He accuses Hertz of negligence, unjust enrichment, breach of
implied contract and breach of confidence.

Under the Class Action Fairness Act, damages must exceed $5 million
for a class-action case to be considered in federal court, and it
must involve at least 100 plaintiffs.

Camplese has demanded a jury trial.

He seeks damages "in amounts to be determined by the court and/or
jury," along with interest, attorneys' fees and other litigation
costs, and restitution.

Multiple class-action suits filed in Florida against Hertz

Muneerah Crawford, another Hertz customer from California, has
filed a similar case in the same federal court in downtown Fort
Myers over the breach, with more counts, or allegations, listed in
her complaint, including invasion of privacy.

She describes the breach as "widespread and preventable" affecting
"thousands, if not millions" of people in the United States. It
impacted customers of the Hertz, Thrifty, and Dollar rental car
brands, which share the same parent company.

The notorious Clop cybercriminal ransomware group claimed
responsibility for the attack via a statement on its website.

Crawford accuses Hertz of maintaining customers' private
information in a "reckless manner," and in "a condition vulnerable
to cyberattacks."

She seeks to represent a national class and a California subclass.
She alleges Hertz violated several of her state's laws, including a
Consumer Privacy Act.

Hertz is just one of many companies affected by the exploitation of
Cleo's vulnerability in its software platform late last year.

According to an article by BleepComputer, Clop stated they stole
the data for 66 companies. Among them: WK Kellogg and Western
Alliance Bank.

While the two lawsuits in Florida only named Hertz as a defendant,
others have included Hertz and Cleo, outside of the state.

One of at least two complaints filed against Hertz and Cleo in
Illinois, however, has been voluntarily dismissed.

Initially, Joshua Jonte, a Hertz customer, who filed a class-action
suit in the Northern District of Illinois, included Cleo as a
defendant, but he later removed it as a party in his amended
complaint.

While Cleo issued a patch in October 2024, it was insufficient. It
released another one in December to address the problems, urging
customers to "immediately" apply it.

Hertz has provided two years worth of identity monitoring services
to its affected customers at no cost, and urged customers to remain
diligent in protecting themselves.

Suit claims Hertz received a ransom demand from cybercriminals

In his complaint, Jonte claims Clop "purportedly issued a ransom
demand" to Hertz, threatening to release all stolen information
obtained from the data breach onto its leak page.

Hertz, he said, has not disclosed whether it paid a ransom.

As a policy, the company does not comment on pending litigation.

Hertz has not shared just how many of its customers were affected
by the data breach.

According to a notice filed by Hertz in Maine, however, 3,409
customers in that state alone were impacted.

TechCrunch reported another 96,600 or so in Texas may have been
affected. Hertz customers in Australia, Canada, the European Union,
New Zealand and The United Kingdom were also alerted about the
breach.

Hertz currently has more than 11,000 rental locations in 160
countries.

The company completed its move to Estero in 2016 -- after building
a new and modern world headquarters, off U.S. 41. [GN]

HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS: Settles Antitrust Class Suit for $50-Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------------
FirstWord Pharma reports that Hikma Pharmaceuticals PLC, along with
its wholly owned subsidiary Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. (the
Company), announced that it has reached an agreement to resolve the
majority of the class action antitrust lawsuits brought against the
Company by third-party payors in the US who have purchased or been
billed for Xyrem (sodium oxybate). These matters have been
previously disclosed as contingent liabilities in our financial
disclosures.

"We are pleased to have reached a settlement agreement that
protects the Company's interests and provides clarity to our
stakeholders," said Sam Park, Hikma's General Counsel. "We are
proud to have facilitated patients' access to a lower-cost
authorised generic version of this essential medicine, years ahead
of its patent expiration."

The settlement is subject to court approval and resolves the
majority of the cases pending against Hikma. If all conditions are
satisfied, Hikma agrees to pay up to $50 million in cash.

This settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing or liability, and
Hikma will continue to defend itself vigorously against any
litigation that this settlement does not resolve. [GN]

HILTON HOTELS: Kifafi Appeals Post-Judgment Discovery Ruling
------------------------------------------------------------
JAMAL KIFAFI is taking an appeal from a court order denying without
prejudice his motion for post-judgment discovery and accounting in
the lawsuit entitled Jamal Kifafi, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Hilton Hotels Retirement
Plan, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:98-cv-01517-CKK, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of the District of Columbia.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this action is
brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and similarly
situated individuals, to recover for violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), 29
U.S.C. Section 1001, et seq., in the Hilton Hotels Retirement Plan.
The Defendants are the Plan, the individual members of the
Committee of the Plan, the Hilton Hotels Corporation, and
individual Hilton officers or directors (collectively, "Defendants"
or "Hilton"). On May 15, 2009, the Court granted-in-part the
Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, finding that the
Defendants had violated ERISA's anti-backloading provision, 29
U.S.C. Section 1054(b)(1)(C), and had violated the Plan's vesting
provisions with respect to the rights of four certified subclasses.
Having found that the Defendants violated ERISA, the Court
requested that the parties submit briefs regarding the equitable
relief appropriate to remedy the violations.

On Sept. 23, 2022, the Plaintiff filed a motion for post-judgment
discovery and accounting.

On June 26, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file
supplemental evidence for record in support of motion for
post-judgment discovery.

On Mar. 19, 2025, Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly entered an Order
granting the Plaintiff's motion for leave to supplement the record
and denying his motion for post-judgment discovery and accounting.
Accordingly, this Court shall deny Kifafi's motion, but that denial
shall be without prejudice. If there are systemic problems or
failures in Hilton's efforts to satisfy its ongoing obligations to
class members in the future, this Court will entertain a motion for
suitable relief at that time.  

The appellate case is captioned Jamal Kifafi v. Hilton Hotels
Retirement Plan, et al., Case No. 25-7053, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, filed on
April 18, 2025. [BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant JAMAL J. KIFAFI, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

            Stephen Robert Bruce, Esq.
            STEPHEN R. BRUCE LAW OFFICES
            2701 31st Street, NW
            Washington, DC 20008
            Telephone: (202) 371-8013

Defendants-Appellees HILTON HOTELS RETIREMENT PLAN, et al. are
represented by:

            Jonathan K. Youngwood, Esq.
            SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP
            425 Lexington Avenue
            New York, NY 10017
            Telephone: (212) 455-2000

HOME DEPOT: Must Defend Against Fake Discounts Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Judge Mustafa T. Kasubhai of the United Stated District Court of
Oregon denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case titled as
RYAN ESGATE, v. HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., Case No. 6:24-cv-01806-MTK
(D. Or.).

Esgate, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, alleges that Defendant Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., d/b/a
Blinds.com, JustBlinds.com, and AmericanBlinds.com violated
Oregon's consumer protection laws by advertising false or
misleading discounts on its websites.

Plaintiff ordered samples from Blinds.com on November 5, 2021 and
on November 29, 2021, he revisited Blinds.com to complete his
purchase. On November 5, 2021, Blinds.com was offering a 45%
discount sitewide as part of a Veterans Day Sale, ending November
11, 2021. When Plaintiff revisited Blinds.com on November 29, 2021,
Blinds.com was offering 45% off everything plus an extra 5% off
every order as part of a Cyber Monday sale, ending December 1,
2021.

Based on Defendant's representations, Plaintiff believed that he
needed to act fast and purchase the products before they returned
to their normal full prices in three days. During the online
checkout process, Defendant represented to Plaintiff that the
combined regular selling price, or list price, for the products was
$6,858.61 and that he was receiving a total discount of $3,275.03,
resulting in a net 'sale' price of $3,583.58.

Unknown to Plaintiff, Defendant had never offered the products at
their advertised list prices. Defendant's alleged advertising and
pricing scheme consists of never-ending sales; when one sale ends,
the sale is either extended or another sale offering similar
discounts immediately takes its place.  But for Defendant's false
and misleading advertising and pricing scheme, Plaintiff would not
have purchased the products at the price he paid.

Plaintiff seeks "(1) statutory or actual damages; (2) punitive
damages; (3) appropriate equitable relief; (4) attorney's fees and
costs; and (5) permanent injunctive relief."
"Plaintiff alleges that he would purchase from Defendant's websites
in the future if he could have confidence regarding the truth of
Defendant's price and discount representations."

Defendant moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and
failure to state a claim. Defendant argues that its online
advertising activities were not expressly aimed at Oregon and that
Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue claims relating to websites and
products he never purchased. Defendant further contends that
Plaintiff's claims are time-barred under the statute of
limitations, as a reasonably diligent person would have discovered
the alleged pricing practices within one year of purchase.

The Court explains that "Plaintiff's claims rely on the 'purchase
price theory' of an ascertainable loss. The Oregon Supreme Court
explains: 'At its essence, the purchase price theory is that one
person has been induced by another person's unlawful activities to
pay money for something that the first person would not otherwise
have bought. In plaintiff's case, what she wanted was items of
clothing whose selling price had, at some earlier time, been what
defendants' false price listings indicated. What she received, on
the other hand, was merchandise that had never been offered for
sale at those prices.'"

Regarding personal jurisdiction, the Court states: "Plaintiff
alleges that Defendant, as a part of its regular course of
business, sold and shipped a product to Plaintiff in Oregon that he
would not have purchased but for Defendant's unlawful advertising
and pricing practices. These allegations plausibly state a claim
under the UTPA (Unlawful Trade Practices Act) . Under these alleged
circumstances, subjecting Defendant to suit in Oregon is
foreseeable and reasonable. Which is to say, the Court has personal
jurisdiction over Defendant."

"Defendant's sales of physical products into the forum via its
interactive website constitutes 'something more' sufficient to
establish express aiming. First, the sale occurred as part of
Defendant's regular course of business. And second, Defendant
exercised an adequate level of control over the distribution of its
products by shipping Plaintiff's purchase to him in Oregon."

The Court finds that it has personal jurisdiction because
Defendant's contacts with Oregon are such that 'the maintenance of
th[is] suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and
substantial justice.'"

Regarding the statute of limitations, the Court notes: "Under the
discovery rule, the statute of limitations does not begin to run
until a plaintiff knows or should have known the existence of a
legally cognizable claim."

"Plaintiff's visits to Blinds.com coincided with two known retail
sales events. His Blinds.com visits were approximately three weeks
apart. Knowledge of these facts would not excite the attention of a
reasonable person. Based on the allegations and limited record
before the Court, Plaintiff's interactions with Blinds.com did not
create a duty to investigate whether the promotions were false or
misleading. The inquiry into whether the discovery rule applies
ends there. Plaintiff plausibly alleges that he filed suit within
one year of discovering Defendant's allegedly unlawful trade
practices."

Regarding standing, the Court explains: "Defendant's argument that
Plaintiff lacks standing to sue for products he did not purchase on
Blinds.com or that were sold on Justblinds.com and
Americanblinds.com is a premature attack on the typicality,
adequacy, and commonality requirements of Rule 23."

"Plaintiff's allegations demonstrate that he has standing to pursue
his individual claim under the UTPA for the purchases he made from
Blinds.com. Whether Plaintiff may represent a class that includes
consumers who purchased different products from Defendant's three
websites is not before the Court at this time."

Regarding equitable relief, the Court notes: "Plaintiff plausibly
alleges that the remedies available under the UTPA are inadequate
to remedy Defendant's alleged harm."
"Plaintiff has standing to seek injunctive relief because he
plausibly alleges a concrete and particularized harm that is actual
and imminent."

For these reasons, the Court says Defendant's Corrected Motion to
Dismiss is denied ; Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is  denied as
moot; and Defendant's Unopposed Request for Judicial Notice is
granted.

A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fsbWLG from PacerMonitor.com.


HRM RESOURCES: McCormick Suit Seeks Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CINDY McCORMICK; RONALD
McCORMICK; and TRUPP LAND MANAGEMENT LLC, v. HRM RESOURCES, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; HRM RESOURCES II, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; HRM RESOURCES III, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; HRM RESOURCES IV, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; L. ROGER HUTSON, an individual;
TERRY PAPE, an individual; PAINTED PEGASUS PETROLEUM, LLC, a Texas
limited liability company; and JOHN HOFFMAN, an individual, Case
No. 1:24-cv-00823-CNS-CYC (D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
to enter an order certifying the proposed Class and appointing
Plaintiffs' counsel as Class counsel.

The proposed Class satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(a), Rule
23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3), the  Plaintiffs contend.

The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following Class:

    "All persons who are surface owners in the State of Colorado
    where such surface land has or had an oil or gas Well that was

    transferred by HRM to P3."

Furthermore, the Plaintiff request that the Court enter an order
granting the following relief:

-- The Court appoint Cindy McCormick, Ronald McCormick, and Trupp

    Land Management LLC as Representatives of the Class;

-- The Court appoint Plaintiffs' counsel as counsel for the
    Class;

-- Order Plaintiffs to propose an administrative scheduling order

    to guide the process of notifying the Class about the lawsuit;

    and

-- The Court grant such other relief as necessary.

The case concerns the Defendants' scheme to walk away from millions
of dollars of clean up liabilities by fraudulently transferring oil
and gas wells to an underfunded company—leaving behind hundreds
of dangerous, polluting wells and violating the rights of numerous
innocent surface owners.

HRM explores and produces oil and gas.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 9, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pfV1gr at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher P. Carrington, Esq.
          Benjamin W. Hudgens, Esq.
          Zigmas Polinauskas, Esq.
          RICHARDS CARRINGTON, LLC
          1444 Blake St
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 962-2690

                - and -

          Scott C. Borison, Esq.
          BORISON FIRM, LLC
          1900 S Norfolk St Ste 350
          San Mateo, CA 94403

                - and -

          John S. Rossiter Jr., Esq.
          Camille Sippel, Esq.
          Setareh Homayoni, Esq.
          CLIENTEARTH USA, INC.
          501 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 510
          Santa Monica, CA 90401

IHEARTMEDIA INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Due to Data Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley King, writing for Digital News Music, reports that a recent
class action lawsuit filed in New York's Southern District Court
has put iHeartMedia under scrutiny after a cyberattack in December
2024. The data breach allowed hackers to exfiltrate sensitive
information that iHeartMedia did not keep secure including social
security numbers, financial account details, and health insurance
data.

The complaint filed on behalf of Tennessee resident Cheryl Shields
and affected individuals, revolves around the significant delay in
notifying those who were impacted by the data breach in December.
iHeartMedia did not complete its investigation into the data breach
until April 11, 2025 and then only began the notification process
on April 30—over four months after the breach occurred.

"As a result of this delayed response, the plaintiff had no idea
for four months that their private information had been
compromised," the lawsuit reads. "The risk [from this data breach]
will remain for their respective lifetimes."

Shield's legal team argues that iHeartMedia's security protocols
were insufficient for a company of its scale and responsibility.
"Had iHeart properly monitored its networks, it would have
discovered the breach sooner," the lawsuit asserts. Her lawyers
argue that the stolen data represents a "treasure trove for data
thieves."

iHeartMedia says it quickly activated response protocols once the
data breach was discovered. Since the investigation, the company
says it has "enhanced its current security protocols to help avert
similar occurrences in the future." As a result of the data breach,
iHeartMedia has offered all impacted customers complimentary credit
monitoring service.

Data breaches can often lead to class action litigation like this
-- take the Equifax case in 2017. That class action lawsuit
resulted in a $425 million settlement after the personal
information of more than 150 million Americans was exposed.

The iHeartMedia data breach was much smaller -- but the full
national scope has not yet been disclosed. Attackers accessed and
obtained files stored at several of the company's local radio
stations over the course of a three-day period (December 24-27),
exploiting the holidays and reduced staffing during this time
period. [GN]


INTREPID POTASH: Continues to Defend Minimum Wage Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Intrepid Potash Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the
quarterly period ending March 31, 2025 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 6, 2025, that the Company continues
to defend itself from New Mexico Minimum Wage Act class suit in the
federal district court of New Mexico.

On November 6, 2024, the Company was served with a class action
lawsuit filed in federal district court in New Mexico. The suit
alleges that Intrepid and Intrepid Potash – New Mexico, LLC
violated the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act by failing to properly
compensate employees for putting on and removing personal
protective equipment ("PPE").

The complaint seeks all unpaid wages for putting on and removing
PPE for all class members, which is alleged to exceed $5 million.

The lawsuit is still in the early stages and the Company is
vigorously defending against the claims. Intrepid Potash --
http://www.intrepidpotash.com/-- is the only U.S. producer of
muriate of potash and supplied approximately 9% of
the country's annual consumption in 2015. Potash is applied as an
essential nutrient for healthy crop development, utilized in
several industrial applications and used as an ingredient in animal
feed. Intrepid also produces a specialty fertilizer, Trio(R),
which delivers three key nutrients, potassium, magnesium, and
sulfate, in a single particle.

IRONNET INC: $6.6MM Class Settlement to be Heard on July 30
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP announced that the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virgina has approved the
following announcement of a proposed class action settlement that
would benefit purchasers of IronNet, Inc. securities (NYSE: IRNT
andNYSE: IRNT.WS):

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

To: All persons who purchased IronNet securities from
September 14, 2021 through December 15, 2021, inclusive (the
"Class").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court
for the Eastern  District of Virginia, that Lead Plaintiff James
Shunk ("Lead Plaintiff") and additional named plaintiff Justin
Gruetzmacher (together, "Plaintiffs"), on behalf of themselves and
all members of the  Class, and Defendants IronNet, Inc. ("IronNet"
or the "Company"), Keith B. Alexander, James C. Gerber, and William
E. Welch (collectively, the "Individual Defendants" and with
IronNet, "Defendants"), have reached a proposed settlement of the
claims in the above-captioned class action (the "Action") and
related claims in the amount of $6,625,000 (the "Settlement").

A hearing will be held before the Honorable Rossie D. Alston, Jr.,
either in person or remotely in the Court's discretion, on July 30,
2025, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 1000 of the Albert V. Bryan United
States Courthouse, 401 Courthouse Square, Alexandria, VA 22314-5704
(the "Settlement Hearing") to determine: (i) whether the Court
should approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and
adequate; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with
prejudice as against Defendants, and the releases specified in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated September 23, 2024
(and in the Notice), should be granted; and (iii) whether Lead
Counsel's Fee and Expense Application should be approved. The Court
may change the date of the Settlement Hearing, or hold it remotely,
without providing another notice. You do NOT need to attend the
Settlement Hearing to receive a distribution from the Net
Settlement Fund.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY
PAYMENT. If you do not have the full Notice of Pendency and
Proposed Settlement of Class Action and Motion for Attorneys' Fees
and Expenses (the "Notice") and the Proof of Claim and Release Form
("Claim Form"), you may obtain copies of these documents by
visiting the website for the Settlement,
www.strategicclaims.net/ironnet, or by contacting the Claims
Administrator at:

IronNet Inc. Securities Litigation
c/o Strategic Claims Services
P.O. Box 230
600 N. Jackson Street, Suite 205
Media, PA 19063
866-274-4004
info@strategicclaims.net

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

BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD LLP
Laurence J. Hasson, Esq.
10 East 40th Street
New York, NY  10006
www.bernlieb.com
212-779-1414

If you are a Class Member, to be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim
Form postmarked or submitted online no later than July 23, 2025.
If you are a Class Member and do not timely submit a valid Claim
Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the
Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by all
judgments or orders entered by the Court, whether favorable or
unfavorable.

If you are a Class Member and wish to exclude yourself from the
Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice so that it
is received no later than July 9, 2025. If you properly exclude
yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or
orders entered by the Court, whether favorable or unfavorable, and
you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net
Settlement Fund.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Lead Counsel's Fee and
Expense Application, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation must be
filed with the Court, either by mail or in person, and be mailed to
counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions in the
Notice, such that they are received no later than July 9, 2025.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL
REGARDING THIS NOTICE.  ALL QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
OR YOUR ELIGIBILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SETTLEMENT SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO LEAD COUNSEL OR THE CLAIMS ADMINISTRATOR USING THE
CONTACT INFORMATION ABOVE.

DATED: May 5, 2025

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA


JAPAN AMERICA: Fernandez Alleges Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------
JUDITH ADELA FERNANDEZ MARTINEZ, on behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated v. JAPAN AMERICA TRADING AGENCY, Case
No. 1:25-cv-03874 (S.D.N.Y., May 8, 2025) alleges that the
Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
interactive website, https://www.jatai.net/ to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons.

The Defendants 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 (ADA).

The 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.

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

The Defendant offers the commercial website, www.jatai.net, to the
public. The Website offers features which should allow all
consumers to access the goods and services offered by Defendant and
which Defendant ensures delivery of such goods and services
throughout the United States including New York State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, New York 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
                  Dana@Gottlieb.legal
                  Michael@Gottlieb.legal

JELD-WEN INC: Settles Salary Range Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Jeld-Wen has agreed to a class
action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it failed to disclose
wage scales on job postings in Washington.

The Jeld-Wen class action settlement benefits individuals who
applied for a job opening in Washington with Jeld-Wen between Jan.
1, 2023, and March 6, 2025, where the job posting did not disclose
the wage scale or salary range for the position.

The Jeld-Wen wage scale class action lawsuit claimed the North
Carolina-based door and window manufacturer failed to disclose wage
scales or salary ranges on job postings for open positions. The
plaintiff in the case claims this conduct violated Washington law.

Jeld-Wen has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an
undisclosed sum to resolve the job posting class action lawsuit.

Under the terms of the Jeld-Wen class action settlement, class
members can receive an equal share of the net settlement fund.
Exact payment amounts will vary depending on the number of
participating class members and the amount deducted for settlement
expenses. No payment estimates are available at this time.

The deadline for exclusion and objection is June 2, 2025.

The final approval hearing for the Jeld-Wen class action settlement
is scheduled for July 11, 2025.

To receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a valid
claim form by June 2, 2025.

Who's Eligible
Individuals who applied for a job opening in Washington with
Jeld-Wen between Jan. 1, 2023, and March 6, 2025, where the job
posting did not disclose the wage scale or salary range for the
position.

Potential Award
TBD

Proof of Purchase
N/A

Claim Form

NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.

Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.

Claim Form Deadline
06/02/2025

Case Name
Spencer v. Jeld-Wen Inc., Case No. 23-2-19581-7-KNT, in the
Superior Court of the State of Washington in and for the County of
King

Final Hearing
07/11/2025

Settlement Website
JWEPOACase.com

Claims Administrator

    Spencer v. Jeld-Wen Inc.
    P.O. Box 26170
    Santa Ana, CA 92799
    info@JEWPOACase.com
    (888) 369-3780

Class Counsel

    Timothy W. Emery
    Patrick B. Reddy
    Paul Cipriani
    EMERY REDDY PLLC

Defense Counsel

    Adam T. Pankratz
    Mathew A. Parker
    OGLETREE DEAKINS [GN]

JOHN CHRISTNER: Filing of Class Cert Bid Continued to May 22
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDRE STOKES,
individually, on a representative basis, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated; v. JOHN CHRISTNER TRUCKING, LLC, an
Oklahoma Limited Liability Company; HIRSCHBACH, INC., an Indiana
Corporation; HIRSCHBACH MOTOR LINES, INC., an Iowa Corporation; and
DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 5:24-cv-01921-KK-SP (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Kenly Kiya Kato entered an order granting
stipulation to extend plaintiff’s deadline to file class
certification motion:

   1. The Action is stayed pending further Order of the Court,

   2. The Plaintiff's deadline to file his motion for class
      certification is continued from May 22, 2025, to Dec. 4,
      2025, and

   3. The Parties are ordered to submit a report regarding the
      outcome of mediation by no later than Nov. 4, 2025.

John provides truckload transportation services for pickup and
delivery of shipments.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4nzcew at no extra
charge.[CC]

KAISER FOUNDATION: Judge Dismisses Forfeitures' Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Van Bramer, writing for PlanSponsor, reports that a federal
judge has dismissed a class action complaint accusing Kaiser
Foundation Health Plan and its affiliates of mishandling forfeited
assets in its employee 401(k) plan in an alleged violation of
ERISA.

In Stacey M. Madrigal v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan Inc., et
al., U.S. District Judge Monica Ramírez Almadani, presiding in
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, granted
Kaiser's motion to dismiss all claims brought by former employee
Stacey M. Madrigal in a May 2 ruling.

The plaintiff alleged that Kaiser violated the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 by using forfeited, nonvested plan
assets to reduce its own future employer contributions instead of
applying them to participants' accounts or plan expenses. Madrigal
argued that this practice effectively harmed participants by
diminishing the overall pool of assets available to them.

But the court disagreed, finding Madrigal's claims legally
insufficient under ERISA.

"The fiduciary duty is fulfilled where the fiduciary ensures that
participants have received their promised benefits," Ramírez
Almadani wrote, adding that ERISA does not impose a broader duty to
maximize participant balances beyond what the plan terms require.

The judge ruled that the Kaiser Permanente Administrative
Committee, holding the fiduciary responsibility over the plan
assets, did not breach its duties because there was no allegation
that participants were denied any benefits promised under the
plan.

The court also dismissed claims that the use of forfeited funds
violated ERISA's anti-inurement provision, which bars plan assets
from improperly benefiting employers. Ramírez Almadani reasoned
that the funds never left the plan and were used to offset funding
obligations, so there was no violation.

Madrigal's claims under ERISA's prohibited transaction rules also
failed, with the court ruling that reallocating forfeitures within
a retirement plan does not meet the legal definition of a
"transaction" under ERISA.

The Kaiser Permanente 401K Plan, subjected to the litigation, had
more than $19.7 billion in assets in 2023. The dismissal gives
Madrigal 21 days to file an amended complaint.

Similar Case Law

The decision in the Kaiser case is part of a series of recent
lawsuits challenging how employers use participants' forfeited
401(k) funds.

A district court in Arizona recently dismissed a class action
complaint against Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings Inc.,
rejecting claims that the truck-loading company violated ERISA by
using forfeited funds to offset company contributions, rather than
to pay down plan expenses.

In November 2024, employers filed a complaint against Capital One,
alleging the bank violated its fiduciary duties under ERISA by
misusing participant-forfeited funds. Meanwhile, in March,
UnitedHealth Group agreed to a $69 million settlement to resolve a
class action lawsuit over investment fund selection in its 401(k)
Savings Plan.

"The cases haven't slowed down, but whether the litigation will
gain long-term traction will depend on how district courts continue
to rule—and, more significantly, whether appellate courts begin
to issue precedent in these early test cases," says Nate Ingraham,
a senior managing associate in the employee benefits and executive
compensation group at Thompson Hine LLP.

"There's been some speculation about whether the Department of
Labor might weigh in, but so far, they haven't taken any public
position. Going forward, the two most likely sources of clarity are
continued case law development and, potentially, future regulatory
action." [GN]

LAOS: Plaintiffs Urge Court to Keep Suit over Alleged Spying
------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in the case Seng Xiong, et al. v. Lao People's
Democratic Republic, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-02531-DJC-SCR (E.D.
Cal.), are challenging the Findings and Recommendations issued by
Magistrate Judge Sean C. Riordan of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California, dismissing the case.
Judge Riordan recommended that Defendant Yang's Motion to dismiss
be granted; Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment be denied;
Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend the Complaint be denied; and the
Complaint be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

Plaintiffs proceed under the Alien Tort Statute and seek redress
for an alleged campaign against the Hmong people carried out in
Southeast Asia and the United States. Plaintiffs Seng Xiong, Thaov
Xiong, Lor Vang, and Lue Vang allege they were born in Royal Laos
and have lawful permanent resident status in the United States.
Plaintiffs name as Defendants: (1) the Lao People's Democratic
Republic; (2) President Thongloun Sisoulithis; (3) Prime Minister
Sonxai Siphandon; (4) Minister of Justice Souansavan Vi-Gnaket; (5)
Minister of Defense Chansamone Chanyalath; (6) Minister of Public
Security Vilay Lakhamfong; and (7) Dr. Dao Yang. Plaintiffs are
represented by counsel. The only defendant who has appeared in this
action, Dr. Yang Dao, is proceeding pro se. This action was
accordingly referred to Judge Riordan pursuant to Local Rule
302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b).

Plaintiffs have been involved in a "Hmong Country mission" in the
Fresno, California area since April 2014. Plaintiffs elsewhere
refer to this as the "Hmong Homeland project," which apparently
seeks to establish a Hmong national homeland. Plaintiffs allege the
Laos government has waged a genocidal campaign against Hmong people
going back to 1972. They connect this "campaign of horrors" to
Hmong people's association with the CIA during the CIA's "secret
war in Laos during the Vietnam War era."

Each Plaintiff is seeking $20 million in damages from each
Defendant. Plaintiffs also seek injunctive relief to prevent "the
defendants and each of them from taking any further efforts to
interfere with the Plaintiffs' program to establish a Hmong
Homeland somewhere on this Earth."

Plaintiffs allege that Dr. Yang lives in the United States and
works on behalf of the Laos government "to spy on Hmong political
activities in the United States," and report back to Laos
government. Plaintiffs allege Dr. Yang's spying has gone on since
2007, and has taken place in California, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and
Washington, D.C.

Dr. Yang, 81, a resident of Minnesota, seeks dismissal of the case.
Dr. Yang states he was personally served in Minnesota, and that he
is a "former Hmong refugee." He states he has "never known,
interacted with, or met" any of the Plaintiffs. Dr. Yang argues
that the complaint "fails to establish jurisdiction, venue, or
state a claim from which relief can be granted."

Judge Riordan acknowledged, "The district courts shall have
original jurisdiction of any civil action by an alien for a tort
only, committed in violation of the law of nations or of the United
States." But he noted the Supreme Court has dramatically restricted
the reach of the ATS in recent decades, concluding "the presumption
against extraterritoriality applies to claims under the ATS, and
that nothing in the statute rebuts that presumption."

Judge Riordan held that Plaintiffs make vague allegations about Dr.
Yang's purported spying against the Hmong community in the United
States on behalf of the PDR. Plaintiffs cite no case law
establishing that any of these theories are actionable under the
ATS. Spying and the filing of a false police report are simply
generic state-law torts, not violations of the "law of nations."

Judge Riordan further found the allegations against the PDR
defendants largely concern foreign activities that -- standing
alone -- are not actionable under the ATS. Plaintiffs have not
shown that those alleged atrocities "touch and concern the
territory of the United States" "with sufficient force to displace
the presumption against extraterritorial application."

In objecting to the Court's Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff
want an opportunity to file an Amended Complaint saying the
proposed First Amended Complaint included evidence that "lay out
the undeniable fact that Dr. Dao was engaged in the territory of
the United States with spying activities; that the spying
activities occurred in the St. Paul, Minnesota area as well as in
Los Angeles, California and included activities and a network of
other spies in Fresno, California within the eastern district of
California and included actual personal appearances by
Dr. Dao in Fresno."  Plaintiffs state the First Amended Complaint
attaches several items of interest detailing Dr. Dao's residence in
the United States of America activities in Los Angeles, California
with the deputy Minister of State of the Laotian communist regime
active spying on among members especially those who were educated
members and politically active such as plaintiffs in this case, and
specifically Plaintiffs, who are working toward creating a Hmong
homeland to be established somewhere on Earth, including as
proposed countries Thailand and Philippines. The attachments to the
Proposed First Amended Complaint include a memo by Dr. Dao in which
he recounts his meeting with the deputy minister of state of the
Laos Communist regime, and admits that he basically exchanged
personal data that he collected on Hmong intellectuals and
politically active people; the discovery responses obtained from
that case further confirmed statements under oath by Dr. Dao, in
which he confirms his spying activities that occurred within the
territory of the United States and thus fully qualified under the
Kiobel standard for conduct occurring inside the United States and
fully invoked the Sexual Minorities Uganda case, where it was held
that such activities in the United States would constitute the
compliance with the occurrence of activities
within the United States.

A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0iK6sZ from PacerMonitor.com.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' objection is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8nYJP2 also from PacerMonitor.com.


LENDINGTREE LLC: Sapan Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL SAPAN is taking an appeal from a court order granting the
Defendant's motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled
Paul Sapan, individually and on behalf of and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Lendingtree, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
8:23-cv-00071-JWH-DFM, in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Sapan
commenced this action in Jan. 2023. In his Complaint, Sapan asserts
one claim for relief under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of
1991 ("TCPA").

On Jan. 8, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion for summary
judgment.

On Jan. 10, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class.

On Feb. 4, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion to stay pending
court's ruling on its motion for summary judgment.

On Feb. 5, 2025, the Defendant filed a motion for Order to modify
the Court's Scheduling Order.

On Mar. 18, 2025, Judge John W. Holcomb entered an Order granting
the Defendant's motion for summary judgment and denying as moot the
Plaintiff's class certification motion and the Defendant's stay
motion and joint motion to modify the scheduling order.

In sum, there is no genuine dispute regarding whether Lending Tree
could be vicariously liable for any TCPA violation committed by the
entity that called Sapan, whether or not that the entity was one of
Lending Tree's marketing affiliates.

The appellate case is entitled Sapan v. Lendingtree, LLC, Case No.
25-2528, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, filed on April 18, 2025.

The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:

   -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on April 23,
2025;

   -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on May 28, 2025; and

   -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on June 27, 2025. [BN]

Plaintiff-Appellant PAUL SAPAN, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:

            Justin Prato, Esq.
            PRATO & REICHMAN, APC
            3675 Ruffin Road, Suite 220
            San Diego, CA 92123

Defendant-Appellee LENDINGTREE, LLC is represented by:

            Kevin P. Polansky, Esq.
            NELSON, MULLINS, RILEY, AND SCARBOROUGH LLP
            One Financial Center, Suite 3500
            Boston, MA 02111

LIBERTY MUTUAL: Watts Suit Seeks to Certify Class & Subclasses
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIANE WATTS and ANTHONY
WATTS, and ADAM PIZZITOLA, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL PERSONAL INSURANCE COMPANY
and LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:23-cv-12845-BEM
(D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
certifying the Class, Missouri Subclass, and Illinois Subclass.

In the alternative, and only if the Court declines to certify a
class under Rule 23(b)(3), the Plaintiffs move to certify their
claims under Rule 23(b)(2).

The Plaintiffs also move to appoint Plaintiffs as Class
Representatives and appoint Berger Montague PC and Ochroch Benton
P.C. as Class Counsel.

Liberty Mutual is a property and casualty insurer.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 5, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=H3PsV3 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Shanon Carson, Esq.
          Y. Michael Twersky, Esq.
          Julie Selesnick, Esq.
          John G. Albanese, Esq.
          BERGER MONTAGUE PC
          1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875-3000
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                  mitwersky@bm.net
                  jselesnick@bm.net
                  jalbanese@bm.net

                - and -

          Richard M. Ochroch, Esq.
          Brett N. Benton, Esq.
          Andrew R. Ochroch, Esq.
          OCHROCH BENTON, P.C.
          318 S. 16th Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 735-2707
          E-mail: rochroch@ochroch-law.com
                  bbenton@ochroch-law.com
                  aochroch@ochroch-law.com

MDL 3010: Google Seeks May 23 Deadline to Seal Class Cert Docs
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re Google Digital Advertising Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 1:21-md-03010 (S.D.N.Y.), the Defendants ask
the Court to enter an order setting May 23, 2025, as deadline for
Google to move to seal material contained in the class
certification motions and associated filings.

On May 2, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed memoranda of law in support of
their motions for class certification, accompanied by declarations
in support under seal.

Those filings include and quote from numerous materials designated
by Google as Confidential or Highly Confidential, including
documents produced by Google, expert reports, and deposition
transcripts.

In the MDL, the Plaintiffs allege that Google has monopolized or
suppressed competition in digital display advertising. Moreover,
Rumble alleges many of the same business practices as the
MDL plaintiffs in support of its claim that Google has violated
federal antitrust law – for example, unlawful tying of its ad
exchange to its ad server for publishers and an unlawful agreement
to undermine the alleged "header bidding" threat to Google's ad
exchange.

Google is an American multinational corporation and technology
company focusing on online advertising, search engine technology,
cloud computing, computer software, quantum computing, e-commerce,
consumer electronics, and artificial intelligence.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 6, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=P09VDU at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Justina K. Sessions, Esq.
          Eric Mahr, Esq.
          Andrew J. Ewalt, Esq.
          FRESHFIELDS US LLP
          855 Main Street
          Redwood City, CA 94063
          Telephone: (650) 618-9250
          E-mail: justina.sessions@freshfields.com
                  eric.mahr@freshfields.com

                - and -

          Craig M. Reiser, Esq.
          AXINN, VELTROP & HARKRIDER LLP
          630 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10111
          Telephone: (212) 728-2218
          E-mail: creiser@axinn.com

MDL 3047: Hartford Case Consolidated in Social Media Addiction Row
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Karen K. Caldwell, Chairperson of the U.S. Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transfers the case captioned "Hartford
Casualty Ins. Co., et al. v. Instagram, LLC, et al." (C.A. No.
1:24-01422) from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Delaware to the Northern District of California and, with the
consent of that court, assigned to Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers for
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings in the
multi-district action styled as "In re: Social Media Adolescent
Addiction/Personal Injury Products Liability Litigation," MDL No.
3047.

Certain insurer parties in the District of Delaware Hartford
action, moved under Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the panel's order
conditionally transferring the action to MDL No. 3047. Defendants
Meta Platforms, Inc., and Instagram LLC (together, Meta) opposed
the motions to vacate.

Actions in the MDL involved factual questions arising from
"allegations that defendants' social media platforms are defective
because they are designed to maximize user screen time, which can
encourage addictive behavior in adolescents. Plaintiffs allege
defendants were aware, but failed to warn the public, that their
platforms were harmful to minors."

The Hartford action is an insurance coverage action in which
Hartford seeks a declaration that its duty to defend Meta in the
underlying MDL No. 3047 cases is excused or limited.

Transfer of insurance actions to an MDL "will always depend on the
particular facts and circumstances of the litigation," notes the
panel. Movants argue that Hartford and the MDL cases do not share
common questions of fact, and discovery is unlikely to
significantly overlap. They argue that their duty will be decided
as a matter of law based on a comparison of the insurance policy
language to the allegations of the underlying complaints. In
contrast, Meta argues that there will be discovery concerning the
validity of the insurers' defenses to the duty to defend based on
policy exclusions and that some of the factual bases on which the
insurers seek to avoid coverage are being actively developed in the
MDL. Hartford, therefore, does not seem to be limited to a duty to
defend analysis, the panel says.

There are overlapping insurance coverage lawsuits involving the
same parties, policies, and underlying claims are pending in two
courts across the country, hence, two separate judges need not
oversee motions practice and discovery, if needed, regarding these
claims, rules the panel. While it is unclear at this juncture how
much discovery will be required in Hartford, the panel finds the
transferee judge to be in the best position to make that
determination, adds the panel.

A full-text copy of the court's April 3, 2025 order is available at
https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/MDL-3047-Transfer_Order-3-25.pdf

MISA LOS ANGELES: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Henry Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSTANCE HENRY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Misa Los Angeles, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-05064 (N.D.
Ill., May 8, 2025) alleges that the Cedarville failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website,
www.misalosangeles.com, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act and The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, prohibiting
discrimination against the blind.

Because of the Defendant's denial of full and equal access to, and
enjoyment of, the goods, benefits and services of the website,
Plaintiff and the class have suffered an injury-in-fact which is
concrete and particularized and actual and is a direct result of
Defendant's conduct.

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
suit.

The Defendant provides to the public a website known as
www.misalosangeles.com which provides consumers with access to an
array of goods and services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Reyes, Esq.
          Equal Access Law Group PLLC
          68-29 Main Street,
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Telephone: (630) 478-0856
          E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law

MORGAN STANLEY: $120MM Class Settlement to be Heard on August 5
---------------------------------------------------------------
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK: COMMERCIAL DIVISION

CAMELOT EVENT DRIVEN FUND, A SERIES OF FRANK FUNDS TRUST¸
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, -against- MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, J.P. MORGAN
SECURITIES, LLC, CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS INC., GOLDMAN SACHS & CO.
LLC, MIZUHO SECURITIES USA LLC, SIEBERT WILLIAMS SHANK & CO., LLC,
BNP PARIBAS SECURITIES CORP., RBC CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC, U.S.
BANCORP INVESTMENTS, INC.,SMBC NIKKO SECURITIES AMERICA, INC., TD
SECURITIES (USA) LLC, SG AMERICAS SECURITIES, LLC, MUFG SECURITIES
AMERICAS INC., CASTLEOAK SECURITIES, L.P., SAMUEL A. RAMIREZ &
COMPANY, INC., ACADEMY SECURITIES, INC., R. SEELAUS & CO., LLC,
WELLS FARGO SECURITIES, LLC, BNY MELLON CAPITAL MARKETS, LLC,
INTESA SANPAOLO S.P.A., ICBC STANDARD BANK PLC, VIACOMCBS, INC.,
ROBERT M. BAKISH, KATHERINE GILL-CHAREST, SHARI E. REDSTONE,
CANDACE K. BEINECKE, BARBARA M. BYRNE, LINDA M. GRIEGO, ROBERT N.
KLIEGER, JUDITH A. MCHALE, RONALD L. NELSON, CHARLES E. PHILLIPS,
JR., SUSAN SCHUMAN, NICOLE SELIGMAN, and FREDERICK O. TERRELL,
Defendants.

Index No. 654959/2021
Justice Andrew Borrok
Part 53

SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION AND PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR
ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO: All persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
(i) the Class B Common Stock of ViacomCBS Inc. ("Viacom") issued in
Viacom's secondary public offering, which was announced on March
22, 2021, priced on March 23, 2021, and closed on March 26, 2021;
and/or (ii) Viacom's 5.75% Series A Mandatory Convertible Preferred
Stock issued in or traceable to Viacom's initial public offering of
that Preferred Stock, which was announced on March 22, 2021, priced
on March 23, 2021, and closed on March 26, 2021, and were damaged
thereby (the "Class").

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

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing (the "Settlement Hearing")
will be held on August 5, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable
Andrew Borrok of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, at the
New York County Courthouse, 60 Centre Street, Courtroom 238, New
York, New York 10007.  At the Settlement Hearing the Court will,
among other things: (i) determine whether the proposed settlement
of the above-captioned action (the "Action") for $120,000,000 in
cash (the "Settlement") as set forth in the Stipulation is fair,
reasonable, and adequate, and should be approved by the Court; (ii)
determine whether the Judgment as provided under the Stipulation
should be entered; (iii) determine whether the proposed Plan of
Allocation for the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund should
be approved by the Court as fair and reasonable; (iv) consider
Class Counsel's application for an award of attorneys' fees and
Litigation Expenses, including Plaintiffs' request for payment for
their efforts in prosecuting this Action on behalf of the Class;
(v) consider and rule upon such other matters as the Court may deem
appropriate.  Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing,
including any changes to the date or time of the hearing or updates
regarding in-person or remote appearances at the hearing, will be
posted to the Settlement Website,
www.ViacomArchegosSecuritiesLitigation.com.

This is a class action against Defendants Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC,
Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, and Wells Fargo Securities, LLC for
alleged violations of sections 11 and12(a)(2) of the Securities Act
of 1933 (the "Securities Act").  Plaintiffs claim that Defendants
violated the Securities Act by reason of material
misrepresentations and omissions in statements issued in connection
with the initial and secondary offerings referenced above. The
alleged misstatements and omissions relate to each Defendants'
respective relationship with Archegos Capital Management, LP.
Defendants deny they have committed any act or omission giving rise
to liability in this Action.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS ACTION.

To share in the distribution of the Settlement Fund, you must
establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release
Form (the "Claim Form") postmarked (if mailed), or submitted online
using the Settlement Website,
www.ViacomArchegosSecuritiesLitigation.com, no later than
August 22, 2025. Your failure to post-mark your Claim Form or to
submit it online using the Settlement Website by August 22, 2025,
will subject your claim to rejection and preclude your receiving a
recovery in connection with the Settlement of this Action.  If you
are a member of the Class and do not request exclusion therefrom,
you will be bound by the Settlement and any judgment and release
entered in the Action, including, but not limited to, the Judgment,
whether or not you submit a Claim Form.

If you have not received a copy of the full Notice of (I) Pendency
of Class Action and Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Hearing;
and (III) Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses (the
"Notice"), which more completely describes the Settlement and your
rights thereunder (including your right to object to the
Settlement), and a Claim Form, you may obtain these documents, as
well as a copy of the Stipulation and other settlement documents,
online at www.ViacomArchegosSecuritiesLitigation.com, by contacting
the Claims Administrator by email at
info@ViacomArchegosSecuritiesLitigation.com, or by writing to:

Viacom Archegos Securities Litigation
c/o JND Legal Administration
P.O. Box 91010
Seattle, WA 98111

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

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or Claim Form, may be
made in writing to Class Counsel:

Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
Attn: John Rizio-Hamilton
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Email: settlements@blbglaw.com

-or-

Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
Attn: Daniella Quitt
745 Fifth Avenue, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10151
Email: dquitt@glancylaw.com

If you are a member of the Class and wish to be excluded from the
Class, you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is
received no later than July 15, 2025, in the manner and form
explained in the Notice.  If you properly exclude yourself from the
Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders
entered by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to
share in the proceeds of the Settlement.

If you are a Class Member, you have the right to object to the
Settlement, the Plan of Allocation, the request by Class Counsel
for an award of attorneys' fees and Litigation Expenses and/or the
awards to Plaintiffs for representing the Settlement Class. Any
objections must be filed with the Court and sent to Class Counsel
and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than
July 15, 2025, in the manner and form explained in the Notice.

BY ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK,
COUNTY OF NEW YORK.

HONORABLE ANDREW BORROK, J.S.C.


NATIONAL GENERAL: Renewed Bid for Class Cert Granted in Part
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDD KING, et al., v.
NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Case No.
4:15-cv-00313-DMR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Donna M. Ryu entered
an order granting in part and denying in part the renewed motion
for class certification.

The court finds that Plaintiffs lack standing to assert a claim
against PEIC. PEIC is dismissed as a Defendant. The court grants
the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification as to their
UCL claim alleging unfair and unlawful business practices in
violation of Cal. Ins. Code section 1861.16(b).

The court denies the Plaintiffs' motion as to their claim for
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
The court certifies this modified class definition:

    "Policyholders of NG Defendants (NGIC, INIC, IPIC, and MICG)
    who purchased California GDD private passenger automobile
    policies, including renewals, and were not offered the lowest
    available GD rate within the control group during the Class
    Period."

The control group is defined as NGIC, INIC, IPIC, and MICG from
January 22, 2011 to present; and includes PEIC during the period of
April 19, 2013 to July 18, 2014.

The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action against the
Defendants alleging violations of section 1861.16(b) of the
California Insurance Code. The Plaintiffs now move to certify a
class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3).
The court held a hearing on March 27, 2025.

The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on Jan. 22, 2015.
The court granted the Defendants' motions to dismiss the first and
second amended complaints on Sept. 15, 2015 and May 16, 2016
respectively.

On June 11, 2021, the court granted in part and denied in part
Defendants’ motion to dismiss the 4AC.

National General is a property and casualty insurance company.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=is1zss at no extra
charge.[CC]

NEW SOUTH WALES: Class Action Over Music Festival Searches Begins
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Silva, writing for LSJ, reports that a class action
against the state of NSW brought by plaintiff Raya Meredith has
started in the Supreme Court of NSW.

In 2018, Meredith was strip-searched by the police at the Splendour
In The Grass music festival in New South Wales, a situation her
Barrister, Kylie Nomchong SC, described as invasive, humiliating,
and "akin to sexual assault".

In her opening statement, Nomchong noted the defendant admitted to
having falsely imprisoned the plaintiff but reinforced that this
situation is indicative of how the police working in music
festivals don't have adequate training, supervision, or inductions
to conduct strip searches. Nomchong said that the plaintiff would
not have been strip-searched without such preparation.

Meredith was searched after a police dog sniffed in her direction
and then moved away. The police officers took her to an area on the
side of the entrance to the festival, where some cubicles made of
tarpaulin-like materials had been installed. She was asked to
completely remove her clothes, including exposing her breasts and
her lower area, pulling her tampon, and bending over for the
inspector to conduct a more thorough inspection. At this time, a
male police officer entered the cubicle without warning.

Nomchong pointed out that none of the safeguards implemented by the
NSW Government to protect civilians were complied with. These
include assurance of privacy, the fact that consent had been
sought, no interrogation during the search, and no cavity searches.
According to the statement of claim, not only were questions asked
during the search, but the plaintiff was threatened when the police
officer told her, "If you are lying, you will get kicked out of the
Festival". The search didn't find any illegal substances and
lawyers for the State have admitted Meredith's imprisonment was
unlawful.

Meredith is one of the plaintiffs subjected to invasive and
potentially unlawful strip searches in music festivals between 2016
and 2022. They are part of this class action brought against the
state of New South Wales by the law firm Slater and Gordon and the
Redfern Legal Centre.

Justice Dina Yehia is presiding over the case, which was initially
expected to run over 20 days of hearings. It's now expected to be
considerably shorter, due to a reduced number of witnesses being
called.

Proceedings continue next week. [GN]

NEW YORK: Cyclists File Class Suit Over Red Light Tickets
---------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Duggan, writing for StreetsBlog NYC, asks when is the NYPD
going to learn the law? The Police Department must stop giving
cyclists red light tickets and criminal summonses for legally
moving through intersections on a pedestrian "Walk" sign and before
the traffic light changes to green for cars, according to a new
class action lawsuit.

The legal challenge in the Southern District of New York launched
on Wednesday, May 7, asks a federal judge to issue an injunction
against the nation's largest police force and make the city pay
damages to any cyclists wrongfully ticketed, detained or arrested
for going with the leading pedestrian interval, or LPI, a law that
has been on the books since 2019.

The NYPD has continued to give out traffic tickets -- and more
recently amping them up to criminal court summonses, as Streetsblog
has documented.

The new case in New York's Southern District aims to achieve what
previous lower level lawsuits have not: Force NYPD brass and
rank-and-file to follow the law by giving out clear guidance and
training, while tracking future red light tickets, according to
attorneys behind the suit. The city should also compensate people
who have gotten the phony tickets and criminal court summonses, the
suit argues.

"This action seeks to ensure the NYPD finally follows the law as it
has been written for years, and stops unlawfully detaining and
prosecuting cyclists when they've done nothing wrong," said Mariann
Wang of the firm Wang Hecker LLP, who filed the action. [GN]

OFFSPRING BEAUTY: Pittman Alleges Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
DEBBIE PITTMAN on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly
situated v. Offspring Beauty, Co., Case No. 1:25-cv-05071 (N.D.
Ill., May 8, 2025) alleges that Canali failed to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, https://versedskin.com, to be
fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and
visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal
access to the goods and services Seaside Breeze provides to their
non-disabled customers through versedskin.com. The Defendant's
denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore
denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction
with its physical locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's
rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Versedskin.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods,
services, price specials and other programs offered by Offspring
Beauty. Yet, Versedskin.com contains significant access barriers
that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and
visually-impaired customers to use the website. In fact, the access
barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users
to even complete a transaction on the website.

Thus, Offspring Beauty excludes the blind and visually-impaired
from the full and equal participation in the growing Internet
economy that is increasingly a fundamental part of the common
marketplace and daily living. In the wave of technological advances
in recent years, assistive computer technology is becoming an
increasingly prominent part of everyday life, allowing blind and
visually-impaired persons to fully and independently access a
variety of services, the suit adds.

The Defendant controls and operates the website in the State of
Illinois and throughout the United States.BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alison Chan, Esq.
          EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC
          68-29 Main Street
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Telephone: (718) 914-9694
          E-mail: achan@ealg.law

ONEAZ CREDIT: Class Cert Bid Filing in Aguilar Suit Due Oct. 10
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Deyra Pamela Carranza
Aguilar, v. OneAZ Credit Union, Case No. 2:24-cv-02657-SHD (D.
Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Sharad Desai entered an amended case
management order.

The deadline for completion of fact discovery, including discovery
by subpoena and all disclosures required under Rule 26(a)(3), shall
be Dec. 16, 2025.

Expert depositions shall be completed no later than Dec. 31, 2025.

Any Rule 35 physical or mental examination must be completed no
later than Oct. 21, 2025.

The plaintiff(s) shall file any motion for class certification by
Oct. 10, 2025.

Daubert motions shall be filed no later than Dec. 31, 2025.

Dispositive motions shall be filed no later than Jan. 30, 2026.

All parties and their counsel shall meet in person and engage in
good-faith settlement talks no later than Nov. 10, 2025.

OneAZ is a federally insured natural person credit union.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 6, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=g9ho0E at no extra
charge.[CC]

ORTHOPAEDIC SPECIALISTS: Faces $5MM Data Breach Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
David Krechevsky, writing for Hartford Business, reports that
Brookfield-based Orthopaedic Specialists of Connecticut (OSC),
which also has a location in Stamford, faces a $5 million class
action lawsuit over a data breach that occurred in March.

The lawsuit was filed May 6 in U.S. District Court for the District
of Connecticut by Danbury resident Marisa Mancini on behalf of more
than 22,000 patients of the orthopedic practice, and claims damages
in excess of $5 million.

According to an April 23 notice posted on Orthopaedic Specialists'
website, OSC notified "certain current and former patients" that
their personal information may have been compromised as part of a
"security incident."

The notice states that, on March 2, OSC experienced "a network
security incident that involved an unauthorized party gaining
access to our network environment."

Once the breach was detected, OSC said, it "immediately took steps
to secure the network environment and engaged a specialized
third-party forensic incident response firm to assist with securing
the network environment and investigating the extent of
unauthorized activity."

That investigation determined that the "unauthorized third party"
may have "acquired certain personal information as a result of this
incident," the notice states. That information may include names,
dates of birth, Social Security numbers, health insurance ID
numbers and medical information, OSC said.

"Notably, the types of information affected were different for each
individual, and not every individual had all the above listed
elements exposed," it said.

The notice adds that OSC "has no reason to believe that any
individual's information has been misused as a result of this
event," and that OSC "has not received any reports of misuse of
information and/or related identity theft since the date the
incident was discovered."

Despite that assertion, the notice states that OSC has arranged for
"complimentary credit monitoring services and identity theft
protection services" for the next 12 months for anyone affected by
the breach.

The incident was reported to the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services Office for Civil Rights, which maintains a national
database of breaches reported over the past two years. According to
the listing, the OSC data breach potentially affected 22,541
people.

According to the 38-page lawsuit, the data breach "was a direct
result of Defendant's failure to implement reasonable safeguards"
to protect patients' personal information from "a foreseeable and
preventable risk of unauthorized disclosure."

The lawsuit cites five "causes of action" against OSC on behalf of
Mancini and the potential class, including negligence, breach of
implied contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, and
violation of the deceptive trade practices act.

The lawsuit seeks class action status and requests a jury trial.

Mancini is represented by attorney Jeremy C. Virgil of the
Bridgeport law firm Zeldes, Needle & Cooper PC, and Paul J.
Doolittle of the Charleston, South Carolina-based law firm Poulin,
Willey, Anastopoulo.

Officials with OSC did not immediately respond to a request for
comment. [GN]

OTAY LAKES: Seeks to Continue Class Certification Hearing
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALBERT RENN, on behalf of
himself, all others similarly situated, and the general public, v.
OTAY LAKES BREWERY, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-01139-GPC-BLM (S.D.
Cal.), the Defendant will move the Court for an order continuing
the hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification
currently scheduled for June 6, 2025, and the related briefing
schedule thereon to permit:

   1) the Defendant to take the Plaintiff's duly noticed and
      agreed upon Deposition with production of documents;

   2) the Defendant to retain new counsel; and

   3) the counsel for Defendant to withdraw as counsel.

The Defendant seeks a short continuance for it to complete
precertification discovery and allow Defendant to retain new
counsel, as follows:

   a. The hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion be continued to Sept.
29,
      2025, or as soon thereafter as is convenient to the Court.

   b. The Defendant's Opposition be continued to Aug. 25, 2025, or

      as soon thereafter as is convenient to the Court.


   c. The Plaintiff's Reply Brief be continued to Sept. 8, 2025,
      or as soon thereafter as is convenient to the Court.

The Plaintiff filed his Motion on March 3, 2025. On April 14, 2025,
the Defendant filed its ex parte application to continue the
hearing on the Plaintiff's motion and related dates to permit the
Defendant to conduct meaningful discovery necessary to oppose the
Plaintiff's motion.

On April 15, 2025, the Plaintiff opposed the Defendant's ex parte
application.

On April 17, 2025, the Court granted the Defendant's ex parte
application in part.

Specifically, the Court continued the hearing on the Plaintiff's
Motion to June 27, 2025, Defendants opposition to May 16, 2025, and
Plaintiff's Reply to May 30, 2025.

Otay offers a variety of unique and flavorful beers.

A copy of the Defendant's motion dated May 5, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4Qt0Rp at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
          Melanie Rae Monroe, Esq.
          Trevor M. Flynn, Esq.
          Peter Grazul, Esq.
          FITZGERALD JOSEPH, LLP
          2341 Jefferson Street, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Telephone: (619) 215-1471
          E-mail: jfitzgerald@fmfpc.com
                  mmonroe@fmfpc.com
                  tflynn@fmfpc.com
                  pgrazul@fmfpc.com
                  paul@pauljosephlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Monica Y. Hernandez, Esq.
          Sara J. Triplett, Esq.
          Jeremy B. Freedman, Esq.
          NELSON MULLINS RILEY &
          SCARBOROUGH LLP
          750 B Street, Suite 2200
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 489-6110
          Facsimile: (619) 821-2834
          E-mail: monica.hernandez@nelsonmullins.com
                  sara.triplett@nelsonmullins.com
                  jeremy.freedman@nelsonmullins.com

PEDIGREE PETFOODS: Faces Class Suit Over Vitamin D Toxicity
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports a proposed class action
lawsuit alleges that Pedigree Complete Nutrition Roasted Chicken &
Vegetable Dog Kibble contains potentially toxic amounts of vitamin
D.

According to the 16-page lawsuit, independent testing performed by
Consumer Reports in February 2025 revealed that the kibble variety
contains vitamin D at levels 4.8 times the maximum amount permitted
by the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO).

The complaint says that dogs who ingest pet food with too much
vitamin D can develop vitamin D toxicity, which may result in
diarrhea, vomiting, lack of appetite, increased drinking and
urination, excessive drooling, weight loss and even death.

The suit accuses the maker of Pedigree kibble, Mars Petcare US,
Inc., of falsely advertising the product as a "100% Complete &
Balanced" diet for dogs. Indeed, Pedigree Complete Nutrition
Roasted Chicken & Vegetable Dog Kibble fails to meet the AAFCO’s
nutritional profile for "complete and balanced" pet food due to its
excessive vitamin D content, the case argues.

"Reasonable consumers believe, based on the Nutrition Claim, that
the Contaminated Kibble would contain all the nutrients required
for their pets and that those nutrients would be present in amounts
suitable for their pets," the filing contends.

The Pedigree lawsuit was filed by two consumers who say they
purchased the pet food under the belief that it was nutritionally
balanced and suitable as the sole diet for their dogs. The
plaintiffs claim, however, that the Pedigree kibble contained
undisclosed, elevated vitamin D levels that caused their dogs to
vomit and have diarrhea after consuming the food as directed.

"Had [Mars] not breached the express warranty by making the false
representations alleged herein, [the plaintiffs] and the Class
Members would not have purchased the Contaminated Kibble or would
not have paid as much as they did for them," the complaint claims.

The lawsuit looks to represent all United States residents who
purchased Pedigree Complete Nutrition Roasted Chicken & Vegetable
Dog Kibble during the applicable statute of limitations period.
[GN]

PEEK TRAVEL: Filing for Class Cert in Montgomery Due Jan. 30, 2026
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kyla Montgomery v. Peek
Travel, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-01015-AS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Arun Subramanian entered a civil case management plan and
scheduling order as follows

-- Amended pleadings may be filed without         Aug. 25, 2025
    leave of Court until:

-- All discovery is to be completed by:           Jan. 23, 2026

-- Post-discovery summary judgment                Jan. 30, 2026
    motions in the form prescribed by
    the Court's Individual Practices
    shall be served by:

-- A motion for class certification               Jan. 30, 2026
    shall be served by:

    answering papers by:                           Feb. 27, 2026

    reply papers by:                               March 20, 2026

Peek Travel is a platform that provides online travel arrangements
and options for booking tours and activities.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZTmjNF at no extra
charge.[CC]

PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER: $1.12M Class Settlement Gets Final Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON BRAUN and STEPHANIE
CARTER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
v. THE PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-04185-JMY (E.D.
Pa.), the Hon. Judge John Milton Younge entered an order:

-- certifying the settlement class;

-- granting final approval of the settlement; and

-- granting the Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees,
    reimbursement of reasonable litigation expenses, and service
    awards.

The Plaintiffs have summarized the relevant terms of the Settlement
as follows:

   a. The Settlement creates a Settlement Fund of $1,120,000 to be

      paid by Defendant.

   b. Class Members can file claims for pro rata payments from the

      Net Settlement Fund.

The Court thus certifies for settlement purposes only the following
Settlement Class:

The approximately 180,000 individuals identified on the Settlement
Class List generated by Defendant who established a digital
subscription account with Defendant at any time from Oct. 1, 2019
until Jan. 16, 2024, and used Facebook during that time.

Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) the Judge presiding
over this Action; (ii) Defendant, its subsidiaries, parent
companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which
Defendant or its parents have a controlling interest and their
current or former officers, directors, and employees; and (iii)
Settlement Class Members who submit a valid Request for Exclusion
prior to the Opt-Out deadline.

Accordingly, the Court finally appoints Spector Roseman & Kodroff,
P.C. and Goldenberg Schneider L.P.A. as Co-Lead Class Counsel
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1).

The Court also finally appoints Jason Braun and Stephanie Carter as
Class Representatives.

The Court also approves Class Counsel’s request for the
reimbursement of reasonable litigation expenses in the amount of
$15,000.00 to be paid from the Settlement Fund. The amount Class
Counsel requests is well below their actual expenses of $26,612.94
and is therefore reasonable.

The Court also approves service awards of $5,000.00 each for Class
Representatives Jason Braun and Stephanie Carter to be paid from
the Settlement Fund. Class Representatives were active participants
in the case from its inception through achieving Settlement and
should be compensated for the benefits they conferred on the Class
as a whole.

Philadelphia Inquirer is an American media company.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 6, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KXCw9q at no extra
charge.[CC]

PHOENIX OF HOMESTEAD: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Pardo Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO v. PHOENIX OF HOMESTEAD LLC AKA
BURGER KING RESTAURANT No. 4, Case No. 1:25-cv-22120 (S.D. Fla.,
May 8, 2025) is a class action seeking injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Defendant owns, operates and/or oversees the commercial
restaurant; to include its general parking lot, parking spots,
entrance access, path of travel and interior areas specific to the
tenant businesses therein and all other common areas open to the
public located within the commercial restaurant. The subject
commercial restaurant is open to the public and are located in
Miami, Florida.

The individual Plaintiff visits the commercial restaurant, to
include visits to the commercial restaurant and businesses located
within the commercial restaurant on December 19, 2024, and
encountered multiple violations of the ADA that directly affected
his ability to use and enjoy the commercial restaurant. He often
visits the commercial restaurant and businesses located within the
commercial restaurant in order to avail himself of the goods and
services offered there, and because it is approximately two and a
half miles from his residence (8 minutes) and is near other
business and restaurant he frequents as a patron.

The Plaintiff found the commercial restaurant to be rife with ADA
violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the
commercial restaurant and wishes to continue his patronage and use
of the premises and the business(es) located within the commercial
restaurant.

The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that is in
violation of the ADA at the subject commercial restaurant. The
barriers to access at Defendant's commercial restaurant has each
denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial
restaurant and has endangered his safety in violation of the ADA,
says the suit.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
           ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC
           7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104
           Miami, FL 33144
           Telephone: (786) 361-9909
           Facsimile: (786) 687-0445
           E-mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com
                  jr@ajperezlawgroup.com

PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Hinton Due Nov. 21
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHIRLEY HINTON, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. PLANNED
PARENTHOOD FEDERATION OF AMERICA, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-04529-JD
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge James Donato entered a second amended
scheduling order as follows:

                   Event                          Deadline

  Fact discovery cut-off:                       Sept. 5, 2025

  Expert disclosures:                           Sept. 19, 2025

  Rebuttal expert disclosures:                  Oct. 10, 2025

  Expert discovery cut-off:                     Oct. 31, 2025

  Last day to file motion for class             Nov. 21, 2025
  Certification:

  Pretrial conference:                          July 30, 2026,
                                                at 1:30 p.m.
  Jury Trial:                                   Aug. 10, 2026

Planned is a nonprofit organization that provides sexual health
care in the United States and globally.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 6, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9qzEIg at no extra
charge.[CC]

PLAYA HOTELS: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Hyatt Hotels
----------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating:

  -- Playa Hotels & Resorts N.V. (NASDAQ: PLYA), relating to the
proposed merger with Hyatt Hotels Corporation. Under the terms of
the agreement, Hyatt will acquire all outstanding shares of Playa
for $13.50 per share in cash.

ACT NOW. The Tender Offer expires on May 23, 2025.

Visit link for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/playa-hotels-resorts-n-v-plya/ It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

  -- The AZEK Company Inc. (NYSE: AZEK), relating to the proposed
merger with James Hardie Industries plc. Under the terms of the
agreement, AZEK shareholders will receive $26.45 in cash and 1.0340
ordinary shares of James Hardie per share of AZEK common stock
owned.

Visit link for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/the-azek-company-inc-azek/. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

  -- 180 Degree Capital Corp. (NASDAQ: TURN), relating to the
proposed merger with Mount Logan Capital Inc. Under the terms of
the agreement, the estimated post-merger shareholder ownership
would be approximately 40% for current 180 Degree Capital
shareholders.

Visit link for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/180-degree-capital-corp-turn/. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

  -- iCAD, Inc. (NASDAQ: ICAD), relating to the proposed merger
with RadNet, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, iCAD
stockholders will receive 0.0677 shares of RadNet common stock for
each share of iCAD common stock held at the closing of the merger.

Visit link for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/icad-inc-icad/.
It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.

NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you
should talk to a lawyer and ask:

     1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
     2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
     3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?

About Monteverde & Associates PC

Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders . . .
and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are
a national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.

No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or
wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit
our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.

Contact:

     Juan Monteverde, Esq.
     MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
     The Empire State Building
     350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
     New York, NY 10118
     Tel: (212) 971-1341
     E-mail: jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com [GN]

POLAR BEVERAGES: Faces Class Suit Over Seltzer Natural Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that plaintiffs Stacy Gradney and Sharon
Toll have filed a class action lawsuit against Polar Beverages.

Why: The plaintiffs allege "Polar 100% Natural Seltzers" contain
synthetic ingredients.

Where: The Polar selzer class action lawsuit was filed in
California federal court.

A new nationwide class action lawsuit alleges that Polar Beverages
falsely advertises its "Polar 100% Natural Seltzers" as being 100%
natural when they contain synthetic ingredients.

Plaintiffs Stacy Gradney and Sharon Toll filed the class action
complaint against Polar Beverages on March 2, 2025, in California
federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer
laws.

They argue the back of the package reinforces the "natural"
representation by claiming the seltzer contains "no sugar,
sweeteners, sodium or caffeine."

"Despite being characterized as a '100% Natural,' however, the
Product contains synthetic ingredients rendering the claim false,
misleading and in violation of the law," the Polar seltzer class
action lawsuit says.

Polar '100% Natural Seltzers' contain synthetic ingredients, class
action claims

Radiocarbon testing on multiple samples of Polar seltzers showed
they contain only 87% to 91% biobased carbon, indicating the
presence of 9% to 13% synthetic ingredients, the lawsuit states.

Further testing using gas chromatography mass spectrometry
identified the presence of ocimene quintoxide, a known synthetic,
and terpineols that are often used in synthetic flavorings, the
plaintiffs explain.

The plaintiffs argue that a reasonable consumer would understand
"100% natural" to mean the product is free from artificial
ingredients.

They allege Polar Beverages violated California and New York
consumer protection laws by falsely advertising its seltzer as 100%
natural.

The plaintiffs are looking to represent anyone in the United States
who bought Polar seltzer during the class period. They are suing
for violations of consumer protection laws and are seeking
certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury
trial.

This is not the first false advertising lawsuit that Polar
Beverages has faced. In 2019, a class action claimed that Polar
Seltzer water is actually mostly synthetic, though it is advertised
as "100% natural."

The plaintiffs are represented by Michael D. Braun of Kuzyk Law
LLP.

The Polar Beverages class action lawsuit is Gradney, et al. v.
Polar Beverages, Case No. 4:25-cv-02149, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland
Division. [GN]

POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Montpelier Suit Transferred to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Montpelier Roxbury Public Schools, and all
others similarly situated v. PowerSchool Group LLC, PowerSchool
Holdings, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-01124 was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on May
7, 2025.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01159-BEN-MSB to
the proceeding.

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

PowerSchool -- https://www.powerschool.com/ -- provides innovative
K-12 software and cloud-based solutions to improve educational
outcomes and simplify school operations.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James Patrick Frantz, Esq.
          William B. Shinoff, Esq.
          FRANTZ LAW GROUP APLC
          402 West Broadway, Suite 860
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 233-5945
          Fax: (619) 525-7672
          Email: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Reed-Custer Suit Transferred to S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Reed-Custer Community Unit School District
255U, and all others similarly situated v. PowerSchool Group LLC,
PowerSchool Holdings, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-01061 was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
California, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California on May 7, 2025.

The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01160-BEN-MSB to
the proceeding.

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

PowerSchool -- https://www.powerschool.com/ -- provides innovative
K-12 software and cloud-based solutions to improve educational
outcomes and simplify school operations.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James Patrick Frantz, Esq.
          William B. Shinoff, Esq.
          FRANTZ LAW GROUP APLC
          402 West Broadway, Suite 860
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Phone: (619) 233-5945
          Fax: (619) 525-7672
          Email: jpf@frantzlawgroup.com
                 wshinoff@frantzlawgroup.com

QSR ENTERPRISES: Douglas Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Douglas, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. QSR ENTERPRISES ADMIN, LLC, QSR EXECUTIVE ENTERPRISES,
LLC, QSR ENTERPRISES NORWALK, LLC, JASON PAYNE, Case No.
1:25-cv-00928-PAB (N.D. Ohio, May 8, 2025), is brought challenges
policies and practices of Defendants that violate the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act
("OMFWSA").

The Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek but
were paid their straight time hourly rate for some hours that
exceeded 40. The Plaintiff are entitled to be paid overtime
compensation equal to one and one-half times their regular rate of
pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.

The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff overtime compensation
one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours
worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. The Defendants' failure to
pay the lawful overtime rate, in violation of the FLSA and Ohio
law, was willful, knowing, and/or reckless. The Defendants knew it
was supposed to pay the Plaintiff an overtime premium, as they paid
some overtime, but not all overtime compensation earned by only
paying the Plaintiff at their straight time rate, says the
complaint.

The Plaintiff was employed for Defendants as a department manager
from September 23, 2023 to July 15, 2024 and as an hourly assistant
general manager from July 15, 2024 to the present.

The Defendants are involved in the food and service industry by
operating restaurants, in particular Defendants own and operate a
chain of approximately 24 restaurants across Ohio, under the trade
name McDonald's.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          1360 E 9th St, Suite 808
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Phone: (216) 230-2955
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com

               - and -

          Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
          NILGES DRAHER LLC
          7034 Braucher Street, N.W., Suite B
          North Canton, OH 44720
          Phone: (330) 470-4428
          Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
          Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com

QUEBEC: Court Authorizes Class Action Over Undue Traffic Stops
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sidhartha Banerjee, writing for CoastReporter, reports that a
Quebec Superior Court judge has authorized a class action suit
brought on behalf of racialized people who were stopped while
behind the wheel by police without reason to suspect an offence.

Justice Catherine Piche authorized the lawsuit in a ruling rendered
April 2025, which targets police in eight defendant cities and the
Quebec attorney general, which represents the provincial police.

The list of defendants covers police patrolling much of the
province, including its largest cities -- Montreal and surrounding
suburbs, Gatineau and Quebec City.

"It follows that even if we remain cautious at this stage . . . the
present request appears to me to be anything but frivolous," Piche
wrote.

The lawsuit was filed in November 2022 by Papa Ndianko Gueye,
following a stop in Longueuil, Que. just south of Montreal.

He represents "any racialized person who has been the victim of
racial profiling during a traffic stop without reason to suspect
the commission of an offence by the police services of one of the
defendant cities or by the Quebec provincial police since May 23,
2019."

Gueye alleges he was stopped while driving his white Audi on March
26, 2021, but didn't commit a traffic violation. The officer told
him he'd stopped him for driving over the speed limit, and Gueye
alleged the officer became aggressive and summoned backup quickly.

A few days after the stop, he went to the police station to ask
about the interception but was told police did not have any record
of it. He received three tickets in the mail, including one for
speeding. He alleges the interception was based on "no genuine
motive" and characterized it as racial profiling.

The class action was filed in November 2022, two weeks after a
landmark decision by Quebec Superior Court Justice Michel Yergeau
in a case seeking to have a common law rule allowing Canadian
police to stop drivers for no reason to be declared
unconstitutional.

Yergeau sided with Joseph-Christopher Luamba, a Montrealer of
Haitian descent, ruling racial profiling exists and is a reality
weighing heavily on Black people.

Yergeau's ruling effectively nullified Section 636 of the
province's Highway Safety Code, which gives officers discretionary
power to stop any vehicle without reason.

"The preponderant evidence shows that over time, the arbitrary
power granted to the police to carry out roadside stops without
cause has become for some of them a vector, even a safe conduit for
racial profiling against the Black community," Yergeau wrote in
October 2022.

"The rule of law thus becomes a breach through which this sneaky
form of racism rushes in."

Gueye's lawyers include a combination of the same lawyers in the
Luamba case. His filing alleges police forces in those cities
systematically exercised this power in a discriminatory manner in
violation of the rights and freedoms of those falling under the
class.

The Quebec government has appealed the Luamba ruling, arguing it
deprived police of an important tool to stop crime, but the Court
of Appeal upheld Yergeau's decision last year and gave the province
six months to make the necessary changes to the Highway Safety
Code.

Quebec's Public Security Department announced that most random
traffic stops by police had been suspended, after the Court of
Appeal refused to grant an extension.

Earlier this month, the Supreme Court of Canada agreed to hear a
case about whether it's constitutional for police to make a random
traffic stop without reasonable suspicion the driver has committed
an offence.

In the Gueye case, the parties are expected before the Superior
Court sometime in the next two months for a hearing.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 10, 2025.
[GN]

QUEENS BOROUGH: Jackson Seeks Initial OK of Settlement Deal
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TANYA JACKSON, an
individual; and CENTER FOR INDEPENDENCE OF THE DISABLED, NEW YORK,
a nonprofit organization; on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. QUEENS BOROUGH PUBLIC LIBRARY, THE BOARD OF
TRUSTEES OF QUEENS BOROUGH PUBLIC LIBRARY, AND THE CITY OF NEW
YORK, Case No. 1:19-cv-06656-DG-ST (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will
move the Court for an order certifying the proposed Class,
appointing the Plaintiffs as Class representatives, appointing the
Plaintiffs' counsel as Class counsel, preliminarily approving the
proposed Settlement Agreement, and approving the proposed notices
and proposed schedule for disseminating the notice and seeking
Final Approval.

The Defendant provides services for people with disabilities in New
York City.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated May 5, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AMc02C at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Madeleine J. Reichman, Esq.
          Shawna L. Parks, Esq.
          Amelia Evard, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES
          655 Third Avenue, Suite 2619
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 644-8644
          Facsimile: (212) 644-8636
          E-mail: mreichman@dralegal.org
                  sparks@dralegal.org
                  aevard@dralegal.org

ROCK HOLDINGS: Reopens Lead Plaintiff Appointment Process
---------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that Labaton Keller
Sucharow LLP ("Labaton") announces the reopening of the lead
plaintiff appointment process in a class action lawsuit against
Rock Holdings, Inc. ("RHI"). The action, which is captioned
Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern California v.
Rocket Companies, Inc., No. 21-cv-11528-TLL-APP (E.D. Mich.)
asserts claims under Section 10(b) and Section 20A of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on behalf of all persons who
purchased Rocket Companies, Inc. ("Rocket") Class A common stock on
March 29, 2021 through April 1, 2021, inclusive.

The action alleges that while in possession of material,
non-public, adverse information, Defendant RHI on March 29, 2021,
sold 20,200,000 shares of Rocket Class A common stock at $24.75 a
unit, for total proceeds of $499.95 million. Plaintiff Construction
Laborers Pension Trust for Southern California ("SoCal") and
members of the Class purchased Rocket stock contemporaneously with
Defendant RHI's sale of stock without access to this material,
non-public, adverse information.

On April 17, 2025, the Court issued an Opinion and Order in which
it granted Plaintiff SoCal's motion for leave to file a renewed
motion for class certification. In addition, the Court ordered
that, to the extent Plaintiff SoCal wished to seek renewed class
certification on narrowed insider trading claims, it was directed
to publish this notice.

If you purchased or acquired Rocket Class A common stock on March
29, 2021 through April 1, 2021 and were damaged thereby, you may be
a member of the "Class" and may be able to seek appointment as Lead
Plaintiff. Lead Plaintiff motion papers must be filed no later than
July 8, 2025. 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 this 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 retain counsel of your choice to represent you in
this action including in making a motion for appointment as Lead
Plaintiff.

If you would like to consider serving as Lead Plaintiff or have any
questions about this lawsuit, you may contact Connor C. Boehme,
Esq. of Labaton at (212) 907-0780, or via email at
cboehme@labaton.com.

Plaintiff SoCal is represented by Labaton, which represents many of
the largest pension funds in the United States and internationally
with combined assets under management of more than $4.5 trillion.
Labaton's litigation reputation is built on its half-century of
securities litigation experience, more than ninety full-time
attorneys, and in-house team of investigators, financial analysts,
and forensic accountants. Labaton has been recognized for its
excellence by the courts and peers, and it is consistently ranked
in leading industry publications. Offices are located in New York,
Delaware, London, and Washington, D.C. More information about
Labaton is available at labaton.com.

Contacts

     Connor Boehme, Esq.
     Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP
     (212) 907-0780
     cboehme@labaton.com [GN]

ROCKLAND COUNTY, NY: Filing of Amended Complaint Due June 2
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PALISADES ESTATES EOM,
LLC, et al., v. COUNTY OF ROCKLAND, et al., Case No.
7:23-cv-04215-NSR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Nelson Roman entered
an order as follows:

   1. The Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction is denied.


   2. The Defendants' motion to sever and transfer venue is
      granted to the extent of severing all of the Plaintiffs'
      claims as against: (1) Defendant Wyoming and transferring
      said claims to the Western District of New York; and (2)
      Defendants Onondaga, Salina, and Colonie and transfering
      said claims to the Northern District of New York.

   3. All claims asserted on behalf of the Asylum Refugees are
      deemed dismissed with prejudice on the basis that the
      Plaintiffs lack third-party standing.

   4. All claims asserted against Chautauqua, Dutchess, Fulton,
      Herkimer, Niagara, Oneida, Otsego, Orleans, Broome, Madison,

      Rensselaer, Schoharie, Schuyler, Suffolk, Sullivan and Tioga

      premised upon Emergency Orders which have since expired,
      allowed to lapse without being renewed or replaced are
      deemed dismissed with prejudice.

   5. All claims asserted against Orange, Rockland, Onondaga,
      Saratoga, Genesee, Greene, and Oswego premised upon
      Executive Orders which were allowed to lapse and
      subsequently revised are deemed dismissed with prejudice.

   6. The Plaintiffs' First Cause of Action premised upon an
      alleged violation of Contract Clause is deemed dismissed
      without prejudice.

   7. The Plaintiffs' Second Cause of Action premised upon an
      alleged violation Title II is deemed dismissed without
      prejudice.

   8. The Plaintiffs' Third Cause of Action premised upon an
      alleged violation of Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection
      and Due Process Clause is deemed dismissed without
      prejudice.

   9. The Plaintiffs' Fourth Cause of Action premised upon an
      alleged violation of Section 1981 is deemed dismissed with
      prejudice.

  10. Plaintiffs' Fifth Cause of Action premised upon an alleged
      violation of the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause is deemed
      dismissed without prejudice.

  11. Plaintiffs' Sixth Cause of Action premised upon an alleged
      violation of the Supremacy Clause is deemed DISMISSED with
      prejudice.

The Plaintiffs shall have until June 2, 2025, to file an Amended
Complaint as against the remaining Defendants consistent with this
opinion. Should Plaintiffs fail to timely file an amended pleading,
those claims dismissed without prejudice shall be deemed dismissed
with prejudice. In the event Plaintiffs file an amended pleading,
the remaining Defendants shall respond to the amended pleading on
or before June 22, 2025.

Rockland is the southernmost county on the west side of the Hudson
River in the U.S. state of New York.

A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated May 5, 2025, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8ADLlb
at no extra charge.[CC]

ROYAL BANK: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Class of Investors
---------------------------------------------------------
Bailey Seymour, writing for Eagle Valley News, reports that three
men who invested in an alleged Ponzi scheme run by a former
Victoria mortgage broker are looking to certify a class-action
lawsuit against the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) and the B.C.
Financial Services Authority (BCFSA), seeking damages for the 1,229
investors who lost money.

Dustin Frank Renz from Colwood, David Cumby from Edmonton, and Andy
Todd Wilson of Victoria have filed the suit with the B.C. Supreme
Court. They claim to be victims of Greg Martel, the owner of Shop
Your Own Mortgage, who is on the run from Canadian and U.S.
authorities and is believed to be living in Dubai after his 2023
deportation from Thailand.

Shop Your Own Mortgage allegedly took $300 million in investments
from more than 1,800 investors across the country under the guise
of short-term bridge loan investments, according to a court filing
by the plaintiffs lawyer Meldon Ellis.

The receiver appointed to oversee the insolvency proceedings for
the company, PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), analyzed thousands of
transactions and found that no legitimate bridge loans were made.
Instead, new investors funds were used to pay earlier investors
while millions were diverted to "failed ventures and Martel's
personal expenditures."

PwC's findings found that over $301 million was invested, with $210
million repaid using new funds. Ninety-one million dollars was lost
through options trading, a failed car-share business and Martel's
personal expenditures.

Shop Your Own Mortgage collapsed with over $316 million in
outstanding claims according to the court filing.

Martel processed the majority of investor deposits and transfers
through RBC, according to the filing. Under the Proceeds of Crime
(Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, RBC was obligated
to monitor account activity and report suspicious transactions. The
trio claim RBC did not fulfill their obligations, and the bank
"enabled the scheme to operate undetected for years."

Additionally, Martel -- who is also named as a defendant in the
suit -- and his company were licensed under the BCFSA. The
plaintiffs allege that the BCFSA received multiple complaints about
Martel but "failed to take adequate steps to investigate or
intervene, thereby allowing the fraudulent scheme to continue
unchecked."

According to PwC's bankruptcy document for the company, Martel did
not cooperate since the start of the receivership and bankruptcy
proceedings for Shop Your Own Mortgage.

"He did not turn over his books and records of [Shop Your Own
Mortgage], disclose the nature and extent of [Shop Your Own
Mortgage’s] assets, or answer questions put to him, even though
court orders were made directing him to do so," the document
noted.

PwC also alleged that not only was the company operating as a Ponzi
scheme, but Martel helped bring on bankruptcy by living in
"unjustifiable extravagance."

This includes spending by him and the company between 2018 and
2023: $3.1 million for travel such as private plane charters, $3.1
million for vehicles, $1.1 million for rent at multiple homes, and
$261,000 for meals.

The plaintiffs are asking for relief for economic loss from
negligence and breach of duty, and for out-of-pocket losses and
related financial harm. [GN]


S.C. JOHNSON: Faces Class Suit Over Microplastics in Ziploc Bags
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Adams, writing for About Lawsuits, reports that a
California woman has filed a class action lawsuit alleging that
certain Ziploc bags are made with polyethylene and polypropylene,
which can release dangerous microplastics under extreme
temperatures, such as those found in microwave ovens and freezers.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Linda Cheslow in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on April 25,
naming S.C. Johnson & Son, Inc. as the sole defendant.

S.C. Johnson has owned the Ziploc brand of plastic bags since 1998,
when it acquired DowBrands. Ziploc bags are reclosable storage
bags, typically made from polyethylene, which is a common type of
food-grade plastic. However, polyethylene has been known to leach
chemicals and microplastics under certain circumstances, including
stress and heat.

Microplastics are small fragments of plastic, under 5 millimeters
in length. In recent years, they have been found throughout
people's bodies, including human testicles and human brains. They
are known to affect the endocrine system and interfere with the gut
microbiome, also damaging DNA, which can lead to various other
illnesses, including cancer and cardiovascular disease.

According to Cheslow's lawsuit, Ziploc bags are marketed as
"microwave safe" and "suitable for freezer use," which prompted her
to purchase them sometime in 2024.

However, since the bags are made from polyethylene and
polypropylene, neither of these claims are factual, Cheslow says,
claiming that the plastic materials can break down under microwave
heat, while freezing the bags causes undue stress to the plastic.
In both instances microplastics could then be released by the bags,
the complaint points out.

As a result of these occurrences, Cheslow indicates that she and
other individuals have exposed themselves and their families to
undisclosed amounts of microplastics by using Ziploc bags merely as
they are advertised by the manufacturer.

In her complaint, Cheslow mentions a handful of Ziploc products by
name, including:

  -- Ziploc Freezer Bags Pint/Small, Freezer Bags Quart/Medium and
Freezer Bags Gallon/Large
  -- Ziploc Slider Freezer Bags Quart/Medium
  -- Ziploc Slider Freezer Gallon/Large Bags
  -- Ziploc Slider Storage Bags Quart/Medium
  -- Ziploc Slider Storage Bags Gallon/Large
  -- Ziploc Containers

"Defendant affirmatively represents that the Products are
'Microwave Safe,' and/or fit for the 'Freezer,' leading consumers
to believe they are fit to be microwaved and frozen without risk of
microplastics leaching into their food," the lawsuit states. "At
the same time, Defendant omits material information that the
Products release microplastics when microwaved and frozen as
intended, directed and instructed."

Cheslow raises allegations of violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumers Legal Remedies
Act, as well as unjust enrichment.

She is seeking certification of class action status for her
lawsuit, including a subclass for California residents, as well as
declaratory relief, injunction, damages, restitution, disgorgement
and punitive penalties from S.C. Johnson. [GN]

SUTTER HEALTH: Settles Fraudulent Bills Class Action for $11-Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Sutter Health agreed to pay $11
million to resolve a class action lawsuit claiming it submitted
fraudulent bills for anesthesia services that were not rendered,
were double-billed or were described in a misleading manner.

The Sutter Health class action settlement benefits all self-funded
payers who were citizens of California on Jan. 6, 2015, or that are
state and local governmental entities of the State of California
and that paid Sutter Health for any anesthesia services, other than
conscious sedation, administered in Sutter Health's operating rooms
at acute care hospitals at any time from Jan. 1, 2003, to Dec. 31,
2013.

The lawsuit alleged Sutter Health engaged in fraudulent, unlawful
and unfair business practices by submitting and receiving payment
on bills for "anesthesia services" that were not rendered,
resulting in self-funded payers paying more for anesthesia services
than they should have.

In March 2021, Sutter Health agreed to a $575M antitrust settlement
to resolve allegations it engaged in anticompetitive contracting
practices with major health insurance companies. In February 2022,
another antitrust class action alleged that the company engaged in
unfair practices in rural areas of northern California.

Sutter Health is a not-for-profit health system in Northern
California with 24 hospitals and more than 200 clinics.

Sutter Health has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $11
million to resolve the anesthesia billing class action lawsuit.

Under the terms of the Sutter Health anesthesia billing settlement,
class members can receive a cash payment based on the number of
active participants in their plan from 2003 through 2013 that they
list on their claim form.

The deadline for exclusion is June 7, 2022, and the deadline for
objection is May 12, 2025.

The final approval hearing for the Sutter Health class action
settlement is scheduled for July 24, 2025.

To receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a valid
claim form by June 9, 2025.

Who's Eligible
Certain California self-funded payers that compensated Sutter
Health for any anesthesia services, other than conscious sedation,
administered in Sutter Health's operating rooms at acute care
hospitals at any time from Jan. 1, 2003, to Dec. 31, 2013.

Potential Award
Varies.

Proof of Purchase
Claim Form 5500 or Form 5500-SF issued by the class member's
healthcare provider.

Claim Form

NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.

Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.

Claim Form Deadline
06/09/2025

Case Name
District Council #16 Northern California Health and Welfare Trust
Fund v. Sutter Health, et al., Case No. RG15753647, in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Alameda

Final Hearing
07/24/2025

Settlement Website
SutterAnesthesiaBillingLawsuit.com

Claims Administrator

    Sutter Anesthesia Billing Lawsuit Settlement
    c/o JND Legal Administration
    P.O. Box 91208
    Seattle, WA 98111
    info@SutterAnesthesiaBillingLawsuit.com
    (888) 995-0238

Class Counsel

    Christopher L. Lebsock, Esq.
    Arthur N. Bailey Jr., Esq.
    Bruce J. Wecker, Esq.
    Tae Kim, Esq.
    HAUSFELD LLP

Defense Counsel

    Sharif E. Jacob, Esq.
    Erin E. Meyer, Esq.
    Anjali Srinivasan, Esq.
    Maile Yeats-Rowe, Esq.
    Ryan J. Hayward, Esq.
    Michael K. Deamer, Esq.
    Imara H. McMillan, Esq.
    Niharika S. Sachdeva, Esq.
    KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS LLP [GN]

TALENTLAUNCH: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $1.2MM
----------------------------------------------------------
Top class Actions reports TalentLaunch has agreed to a $1.2 million
class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it failed to
prevent a data breach that compromised sensitive employee
information.

The settlement benefits individuals who received a data breach
notification from TalentLaunch informing them their private
information may have been compromised in a data breach in May
2023.

TalentLaunch is an employment agency that connects employers with
potential employees. The company has several branches, including
Alliance Industrial, Alliance Healthcare, Helpmates, Selectemp,
Bonney Staffing, Stivers and The McIntyre Group.

According to claims made in the class action lawsuit, TalentLaunch
failed to prevent a data breach in May 2023 that compromised
sensitive employee information. Plaintiffs in the case argued the
breach was the result of TalentLaunch's failure to implement
reasonable cybersecurity measures.

The TalentLaunch data breach was reportedly discovered in May 2023
and affected around 119,000 individuals.

TalentLaunch has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $1.2
million settlement to resolve the data breach class action
lawsuit.

Under the terms of the TalentLaunch data breach settlement, class
members can receive up to $5,000 in reimbursement for out-of-pocket
losses related to the data breach. This includes documented
expenses, such as identity theft or identity fraud, falsified tax
returns, communication charges, travel expenses and unpaid time off
work at the class member's regular hourly rate.

Class members can also receive a cash payment from the settlement.
According to the settlement website, each class member is estimated
to receive $53.77. However, this amount may be increased or
decreased depending on the number of claims filed. No payment will
exceed $350.

The deadline for exclusion and objection is June 25, 2025.

The final approval hearing for the TalentLaunch data breach
settlement is scheduled for Aug. 12, 2025.

To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid
claim form by July 25, 2025.

Who's Eligible
Individuals who received a data breach notification letter from
TalentLaunch informing them their information may have been
compromised in a May 2023 data breach.

Potential Award
Up to $5,000 in out-of-pocket loss reimbursement and a pro rata
cash payment of approximately $53.77.

Proof of Purchase
Documentation reasonably supporting the claim, such as receipts or
other documentation not "self-prepared" by the class member
concerning the costs incurred. "Self-prepared" documents such as
handwritten receipts are, by themselves, insufficient to receive
reimbursement but can be considered to clarify or support other
submitted documentation.

Claim Form

NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.

Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.

Claim Form Deadline
07/25/2025

Case Name
In re: TalentLaunch Data Breach Litigation, Case No. 1:24-cv-0456,
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio

Final Hearing
08/12/2025

Settlement Website
TLDataSettlement.com

Claims Administrator

     Settlement Administrator -- 83169
     c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC
     P.O. Box 5324
     New York, NY 10150-5324
     (833) 421-8132

Class Counsel

     Terence R. Coates
     MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO LLC

     Gary M. Klinger
     MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS PLLC

     Brian Flick
     DANNLAW

     Cassandra P. Miller
     STRAUSS BORRTELLI

     Tyler Bean
     SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP

Defense Counsel

     Christopher G. Dean
     MCDONALD HOPKINS LLC

TENNESSEE GAS: Parties Seek to Amend Class Cert Scheduling Order
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRADISH JOHNSON CO.,
LIMITED, individually and as representative of all those similarly
situated, V. TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY, L.L.C., et al., Case
No. 2:23-cv-07363-CJB-EJD (E.D. La.), the parties ask the Court to
enter an order granting joint motion to amend scheduling order for
class certification as follows:

   1. Fact discovery related to class certification will close on
      June 30, 2025.

   2. Expert discovery related to class certification will close
      on July 29, 2025.

   3. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification must be filed

      on or before Aug. 29, 2025.

   4. The Defendants' opposition to class certification must be
      filed on or before Sept. 29, 2025.

   5. The Plaintiff's final witness and exhibit lists for the
      class certification hearing must be filed on or before
      Oct. 7, 2025.

   6. The Defendants' final witness and exhibit lists for the
      class certification hearing must be filed on or before Oct.
      14, 2025.

   7. The Parties will exchange demonstratives and exhibits to be
      used at the class certification hearing one week before the
      class certification hearing.

   8. The Court will schedule a class certification hearing in
      November 2025, or later, based on the Court's availability.

On Jan. 3, 2025, this Court granted a joint motion of the parties
and amended the scheduling order originally entered in August 2024
related to class certification.'

On March 19, 2025, this Court granted a joint motion of the parties
and amended that scheduling order.

Tennessee Gas offers transportation, gathering, processing,
development, and management of natural gas.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated May 5, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1sLcVU at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Richard D. McConnell, Jr., Esq.
          Charles S. "Trey" McCowan, III
          John C. Funderburk, III
          Lily P. Pavy, III
          Michael R. Phillips, Esq.
          Claire E. Juneau, Esq.
          Tyler Moore Kostal, Esq.
          Louis M. Grossman, Esq.
          Jeffrey J. Gelpi, Esq.
          KEAN MILLER LLP
          400 Convention Street, Suite 700
          Baton Rouge, LA 70802
          Telephone: (225) 387-0999
          E-mail: richard.mcconnell@keanmiller.com
                  trey.mccowan@keanmiller.com
                  john.funderburk@keanmiller.com
                  lily.pavy@keanmiller.com
                  mike.phillips@keanmiller.com
                  claire.juneau@keanmiller.com
                  tyler.kostal@keanmiller.com
                  louis.grossman@keanmiller.com
                  jeff.gelpi@keanmiller.com

                - and -

          Morgan J. Wells, Jr., Esq.
          Evan J. Godofsky, Esq.
          LARZERLERE PICOU WELLS SIMPSON
          LONERO, LLC
          3850 N. Causeway Boulevard, Suite 500
          Metairie, LA 70002
          Telephone: (504) 834-6500
          Facsimile: (504) 834-6565
          E-mail: mwells@lpwsl.com
                  egodofsky@lpwsl.com

                - and -

          R. Scott Jenkins, Esq.
          Thomas A. Casey, Jr., Esq.
          Meghan E. Smith, Esq.
          Brett S. Venn, Esq.
          JONES WALKER LLP
          201 Saint Charles Avenue, Suite 5100
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Telephone: (504) 582-8000
          Facsimile: (504) 582-8583

TESLA INC: Matsko Seeks to File Class Cert Bid Under Seal
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Matsko v. Tesla, Inc., et
al (re Tesla Advanced Driver Assistance Systems Litigation), Case
No. 3:22-cv-05240-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order granting its administrative motion in compliance
with the Protective Order and Civil Local Rule 79-5, to identify
portions of the certification motion and exhibits that the
Defendant has designated "Confidential" and to redact the
information in accordance therewith.

The Plaintiff Conditionally Lodge Under Seal Documents Designated
as Confidential or Highly Confidential by Defendant Tesla Pursuant
to Civil Local Rule 79-5(e), the Plaintiff notifies the Court that
he has conditionally filed under seal documents which have been
designated Confidential or Highly Confidential by Tesla, or which
contain or reference information so designated. Specifically,
Plaintiff, in support of his Motion for Class Certification, has
conditionally filed under seal:

  (1) portions of Plaintiff's Memorandum of Points and
      Authorities in Support of his Motion for Class
      Certification;

  (2) Exhibits 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 27, and 29 to the Declaration
      of Julie L. Fieber in support of Plaintiff's Motion for
      Class Certification in full; and

  (3) portions of Exhibit Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 6 to the
      Certification Declaration.

Tesla is an American multinational automotive and clean energy
company.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 6, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Rbnm8I at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank M. Pitre, Esq.
          Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
          Julie L. Fieber, Esq.
          Makena A. Kershaw, Esq.
          COTCHETT PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP
          840 Malcolm Road
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: (650) 697-6000
          E-mail: fpitre@cpmlegal.com
                  tloeser@cpmlegal.com
                  jfieber@cpmlegal.com
                  mkershaw@cpmlegal.com

                - and -

          Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
          Nicholaus H. Woltering, Esq.
          BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
          7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 914-2001
          E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com
                  nwoltering@bottinilaw.com

                - and -

          David S. Casey, Jr., Esq.
          Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
          P. Camille Guerra, Esq.
          CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA
          BLATT & PENFIELD LLP
          110 Laurel Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238-1811
          E-mail: dcasey@cglaw.com
                  gmb@cglaw.com
                  camille@cglaw.com

TESLA INC: Matsko Suit Seeks Class Certification
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Matsko v. Tesla, Inc., et
al., (re Tesla Advanced Driver Assistance Systems Litigation), Case
No. 3:22-cv-05240-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Aug. 12, 2025,
will move for class certification, appointment of class
representatives and appointment of class counsel.

Tesla is an American multinational automotive and clean energy
company.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated May 6, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UUlgX3 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank M. Pitre, Esq.
          Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
          Julie L. Fieber, Esq.
          Makena A. Kershaw, Esq.
          COTCHETT PITRE & MCCARTHY LLP
          840 Malcolm Road
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: (650) 697-6000
          E-mail: fpitre@cpmlegal.com
                  tloeser@cpmlegal.com
                  jfieber@cpmlegal.com
                  mkershaw@cpmlegal.com

                - and -

          Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
          Nicholaus H. Woltering, Esq.
          BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
          7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 914-2001
          E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com
                  nwoltering@bottinilaw.com

                - and -

          David S. Casey, Jr., Esq.
          Gayle M. Blatt, Esq.
          P. Camille Guerra, Esq.
          CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA
          BLATT & PENFIELD LLP
          110 Laurel Street
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 238-1811
          E-mail: dcasey@cglaw.com
                  gmb@cglaw.com
                  camille@cglaw.com

TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Agrees to Settle Effexor XR Suit for $2.25MM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo Finance reports that Teva Pharmaceutical Industries recently
made headlines by agreeing to a $2.25 million settlement in a
class-action lawsuit concerning Effexor XR. This legal development,
although not directly affecting the physical trading of its stock,
played a part in the company's 26% increase last month. This
movement occurred within a generally positive market environment,
where major indices rose, bolstered by global trade developments
and a surge in Bitcoin. The market's positive backdrop, combined
with Teva's legal clarity, seemingly contributed to the broader
investor confidence, which resulted in substantial gains for the
company's stock.

The recent $2.25 million settlement related to Effexor XR® may
bolster investor confidence in Teva Pharmaceutical Industries by
resolving outstanding legal issues, yet it doesn't directly impact
their product lines or operational strategies. Nonetheless, this
development, in tandem with an overall positive market climate, has
significantly boosted Teva's share price by 26% within the past
month. Looking back, Teva's stock delivered a substantial total
return of 138.48% over the past three years. This performance
offers a brighter view of the company's trajectory compared to its
challenging earnings figures, potentially reassuring stakeholders
about its growth path.

Over the previous year, Teva's performance outpaced both the US
Market and the Pharmaceuticals industry, with the market returning
7.7% and the industry declining by 7.3%. These figures reinforce
the company's positive momentum, hinting at the potential for
sustained growth. However, given the negative earnings, this upward
trend remains reliant on future revenue and earnings prospects,
which hinge on pipeline progress and operational efficiency
improvements.

The influence of this legal resolution on Teva's revenue and
earnings projections could be neutral as ongoing growth strategies
focus more on product innovation and pipeline expansion. Meanwhile,
the stock's recent price movement positions it 28.6% below the
analyst consensus price target of US$22.38. This difference
suggests room for further appreciation, conditional upon achieving
projected revenue growth and future earnings improvements. Analysts
and investors alike will be closely watching if the company can
align its performance with these optimistic forecasts. [GN]

TIGER BRANDS: Offers Class Settlement to Listeriosis Victims
------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that Tiger Brands (TBSJ.J), South Africa's biggest
food producer, on Monday, May 5, 2025, offered to compensate
listeriosis victims, marking a major step toward resolving class
action after a 2017 outbreak that killed about 200 people and
sickened more than 1,000.

The offer was made by the attorneys representing Tiger Brands lead
insurer, QBE Insurance Group Limited (QBE.AX), on April 25, which
made settlement offers to specific classes of claimants who
suffered from listeriosis, the company said in a statement.

The current proposal provides for full compensation to claimants
for all proven damages, subject to a settlement mechanism that
still needs to be finalised -- including how individual damages
will be assessed.

In order to protect the privacy of the individuals participating in
the settlement offer, no details of the offer and/or payment will
be made public, the company said.

The offer has been made "without admission of liability," Tiger
Brands said.

In January of 2017 an outbreak of listeriosis, a food--borne
disease, occurred in South Africa that was traced back to a factory
run by a Tiger Brands subsidiary at the time, Enterprise Foods,
which makes processed sausages, bacon and deli meat.

"Today's announcement represents an important milestone and follows
shortly on measures already taken in February 2025 to offer interim
relief in the form of advance payments to identified claimants with
urgent medical needs," Tjaart Kruger, chief executive officer of
Tiger Brands, said in a statement.
The attorneys representing the plaintiffs will present the offer to
the claimants who qualify whereas those who accept the offer will
have the damages quantified. It is expected that this process will
take several weeks.

Before it can take effect, the High Court must review and approve
the agreement to ensure it fairly protects class members'
interests.

In a separate statement, the attorneys representing the plaintiffs
welcomed Tiger Brands "effective admission of liability," and
commended the company, its shareholders and insurers for agreeing
to compensate victims.

"This reflects a positive move towards corporate accountability,
responsible citizenship and justice for victims," they said in a
statement. [GN]

TRAJECTOR INC: Class Cert Filing in Wilson Due Jan. 9, 2026
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHET MICHAEL WILSON, V.
TRAJECTOR, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00023-MW-ZCB (N.D. Fla.), the
Hon. Judge Mark E. Walker entered a scheduling and mediation order
as follows:

-- The discovery deadline is extended to Dec. 17, 2025.

-- The parties may amend the pleadings on or before June 18,
    2025, or on a motion showing good cause for not amending by
    that date.

-- Expert disclosures are due on or before Oct. 29, 2025, and
    rebuttal expert disclosures are due on or before Nov. 26,
    2025.

-- The deadline to file a motion for class certification is Jan.
    9, 2026.

Trajector operates as a medical evidence development company.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LsiBEV at no extra
charge.[CC]

UNITED SERVICES: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Tomczak Due May 20
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MALLOREY TOMCZAK, KALITHA
HEAD, JOSEPHINE WALKER, AND LESLIE WYATT, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, v. UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE
ASSOCIATION, USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, USAA GENERAL
INDEMNITY COMPANY, AND GARRISON PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. 5:21-cv-01564-MGL (D.S.C.), the Hon. Judge Mary
Geiger Lewis entered a tenth amended scheduling order:

   -- The Plaintiffs shall file their motion for class
      certification no later than May 20, 2025.

   -- The Defendants shall file their brief in opposition to the
      Plaintiffs' motion for class certification no later than
      Sept. 16, 2025.

   -- The Plaintiffs shall file their reply brief in support of
      their motion for class certification no later than Nov. 12,
      2025.

   -- The Plaintiff(s) shall file and serve a document
      identifying by full name, address, and telephone number each

      person whom Plaintiff(s) expects to call as an expert at
      trial and certifying that a written report prepared and
      signed by the expert including all information required by
      Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(B) has been disclosed to other
      parties by May 20, 2025.

   -- The Defendant(s) shall file and serve a document identifying

      by full name, address, and telephone number each person whom

      Defendant(s) expects to call as an expert at trial and
      certifying that a written report prepared and signed by the
      expert including all information required by Fed. R. Civ. P.

      26(a)(2)(B) has been disclosed to other parties by Sept. 16,

      2025.

      The parties shall file a joint status report with the Court
      no later than Dec. 8, 2025.

United provides financial services.

A copy of the Court's order dated May 5, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1A8tRS at no extra
charge.[CC]


UNITED STATES: A.A.R.P. Appeals Tossed TRO Bid to Fifth Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A.A.R.P., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order denying
their motion for temporary restraining order (TRO) in the lawsuit
entitled A.A.R.P., et al., individually and on behalf of and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Donald J. Trump, in his
official capacity as President of the United States, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-59, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas.

Plaintiffs A.A.R.P. and W.M.M., Venezuelan nationals, assert that
they may be imminently deported to El Salvador or Venezuela
following a proclamation signed by President Donald J. Trump on
March 14, 2025, under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 providing that
"all Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members
of Tren de Aragua (TdA), are within the United States, and are not
actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United
States are liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and
removed as Alien Enemies. The Plaintiffs filed their joint petition
for a writ of habeas corpus on April 16, 2025. Neither A.A.R.P. nor
W.M.M. has been issued a notice of intent to remove them under the
Act. Contemporaneously with their petition, the petitioners moved
for an emergency, ex-parte restraining order against the
respondents. The petitioners claim in their motion that the
government may remove Venezuelan nationals, such as the
petitioners, to El Salvador or Venezuela with less than 24 hours'
notice in a summary proceeding without due process or the
opportunity for judicial review, potentially depriving the Court of
jurisdiction to hear the petitioners' habeas claims. Once the Court
is deprived of jurisdiction, the petitioners assert, they will risk
torture, abuse, persecution, and the inability to obtain relief.

On Apr. 17, 2025, Judge James Wesley Hendrix entered an Order
denying the Plaintiffs' motion for TRO.

In sum, the Court finds that the petitioners have not made a
sufficient showing at this stage to convince the Court that the
government will violate its representations to that effect or the
instructions of the Supreme Court. The petitioners have therefore
failed to meet their burden to show a substantial threat of
imminent, irreparable injury.

The appellate case is entitled A.A.R.P. v. Trump, Case No.
25-10534, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit, filed on April 18, 2025. [BN]

Plaintiffs-Petitioners A.A.R.P., et al., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, are represented by:

            Lee P. Gelernt, Esq.
            AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
            125 Broad Street
            New York, NY 10004
            Telephone: (212) 549-2616

Defendants-Respondents DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as
President of the United States, et al. are represented by:

            Nancy Naseem Safavi, Esq.
            U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
            P.O. Box 868
            Ben Franklin Station
            Washington, DC 20044
            Telephone: (202) 514-9875

                   - and –

            George M. Padis, Esq.
            U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
            1100 Commerce Street
            Dallas, TX 75242
            Telephone: (214) 659-8645

UNITED STATES: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHON ELIAS SUAZO-MULLER,
et al., v. Kristi Noem, Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland
Security, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00418-CJN (D.D.C.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order extending the time in
which to oppose the Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class to June
9, 2025.

The Plaintiffs contend that the proposed extension allows the court
to engage in the necessary consolidated review of the Plaintiffs'
claims for class certification and the Defendants' claims for
dismissal.

On April 26, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and a
motion to certify a class. As such, the Defendants' opposition to
Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class is currently due May 12,
2025, and Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12 is due on June 16, 2025.

The United States Department of Homeland Security is the U.S.
federal executive department responsible for public security,
roughly comparable to the interior or home ministries of other
countries.

A copy of the Defendants' motion dated May 6, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lbISWJ at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Jason K. Zubata, Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CIVIL DIVISION
          OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION
          Washington, DC 20044
          Telephone: (202) 532-4143
          E-mail: jason.k.zubata@usdoj.gov

UNITED STATES: Tacoma Court Suit Over Outlier Rulings Certified
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nina Shapiro of The Seattle Times reports that a lawsuit
challenging an unusual practice that has denied bond to many
immigrants held at the Northwest ICE Processing Center is likely to
succeed "or at least has raised serious questions," a federal judge
has said in a preliminary injunction.

Judge Tiffany Cartwright of the U.S. District Court in Western
Washington separately certified the suit as a class action, giving
it the potential to help possibly hundreds of detainees avoid
spending months in jail-like conditions at the Tacoma facility as
President Donald Trump ramps up immigration enforcement.

Despite the initial wins, the suit has provided only minimal help
to the undocumented Central Washington farmworker whose name it
bears, Ramon Rodriguez Vazquez.

In her late April injunction, Cartwright ordered Rodriguez be given
a bond hearing. Judge John Odell of the Tacoma immigration court
located inside the detention center -- whose judges are the focus
of the lawsuit -- held that hearing on Monday, May 5. He denied
Rodriguez bond. Another hearing Thursday, May 8, determined
Rodriguez will leave the country for Mexico by "voluntary
departure" in lieu of a deportation flight.

"We're in a little bit of a weird situation" said Aaron Korthuis of
the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, which brought the suit on
behalf of Rodriguez. Korthuis was noting the poor outcome for his
client. He nevertheless called Cartwright's injunction "terrific"
and said he is hopeful its reasoning will be applied to others.

One initial test was a bond hearing for Alfredo "Lelo" Juarez
Zeferino, a well known Skagit Valley farmworker activist whose
arrest and detention caused a stir among community members and
elected officials. Judge Theresa Scala denied bond in an apparent
indication that the U.S. District Court's rulings have not yet
influenced her.

Bond denials have become routine in the Tacoma court -- making it
one of the toughest, if not the toughest, immigration court in the
country when it comes to releasing detainees while their cases are
pending.

Immigration courts are part of the executive, rather than judicial,
branch of government. They fall under the supervision of the U.S.
Department of Justice.

The Trump administration has made clear its attempt to detain and
deport as many undocumented immigrants as possible. The practice in
question at Tacoma immigration court, though, predates Trump's
latest rise to power.

Since 2022, according to legal papers, most judges at the Tacoma
court have liberally applied a section of immigration law that
refers to "an applicant for admission" or someone "seeking
admission" to the U.S. without authorization. The section mandates
detention in such cases, although U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement retains discretion to release such migrants while their
cases are pending.

The Tacoma judges have said they don't have jurisdiction to issue
bonds to immigrants who at any time entered the U.S. without
inspection, not just those who are crossing or have just crossed
the border. An immigrant could have lived here for more than 15
years, as Rodriguez has, or at least 13 years, as Juarez has, and
still be considered "an applicant for admission" according to this
interpretation.

This is not the norm, Rodriguez said in his complaint. Cartwright
agreed in her preliminary injunction, calling the Tacoma judges'
logic "an outlier to the government's longstanding interpretation
and enforcement of its immigration laws."

She also pointed to the Tacoma court's exceptionally low rate of
granting bonds as an indicator of its outlier status. The court
granted 3% of bond requests in a 12-month period ending in
September 2023, a rate that was the lowest in the country,
according to a report by the Transactional Records Access
Clearinghouse. The most recent figure, for six months ending in
March, stands at 10%, compared with an average 27% for immigration
courts nationwide.

Cartwright's preliminary injunction only applied to Rodriguez
because class action lawsuits in certain immigration cases are only
actionable for the entire class once a final decision is reached,
according to Korthuis.

Delving into Rodriguez's case, Cartwright called the farmworker a
"strong candidate for release on bond." She noted he has a wife of
many years, four adult children and 10 grandchildren. One of those
grandchildren, a 6-year-old, has a heart defect and Rodriguez
assumed responsibility for taking her to surgeries and other
medical appointments in Spokane.

He has never been accused or convicted of a crime, Cartwright also
observed.

In a phone interview last month from the detention center,
Rodriguez, 61, said he thought the risk to him from Trump's
immigration crackdown was small. "I was being quiet," he said in
Spanish.

But federal agents carrying out a search warrant in February on a
trailer he shared with family members found cocaine and a gun. One
of the family members said the cocaine and gun were his alone, and
that he had a substance use problem.

Rodriguez testified at his bond hearing that he didn't know the
drugs and gun were in his home. That didn't seem to convince Odell,
who like other immigration judges deciding on bond is charged with
determining whether someone is a flight risk or danger to the
community.

After he was denied bond, Rodriguez said he would not appeal should
he be ordered deported, according to lawyer Andrea Lino, who
represented him at the hearing. After three months at the detention
center, she said, "he's really suffering." He been unable to sleep
and for a time did not receive blood pressure medication he
needed.

While Rodriguez's subsequent hearing resulting in the voluntary
departure order was underway, Juarez had a bond hearing in a
different courtroom at the detention center.

Dozens of farmworker activists, union members and other community
members, as well as one of four brothers who are U.S. citizens,
showed up to support him. Some gathered outside the facility while
as many as the court would allow observed the proceeding inside. At
least two dozen people also submitted letters on his behalf,
including seven elected officials, according to Juarez's lawyer,
Larkin VanDerhoef.

Before the hearing, VanDerhoef also submitted the preliminary order
and class certification in Rodriguez's case, though he allowed in
an interview that the U.S. District Court judge's reasoning was not
yet enforceable.

VanDerhoef said he worried Scala might say she has no jurisdiction
to issue a bond. "Otherwise, he's a great candidate," the lawyer
said of Juarez, 25, arrested in March as he was driving his partner
to her job at a tulip bulb company. "He has zero criminal
history."

Scala bought up jurisdiction right away, asking VanDerhoef and ICE
attorney Moreno Campbell for their opinions. Both said they believe
the judge has authority to issue a bond in this case.

Scala didn't issue an immediate opinion, instead moving on to the
merits of the case. Campbell, who said Juarez entered the U.S.
illegally from Mexico in 2008, when he was about 8, argued the
farmworker activist is a "high flight risk."

The ICE lawyer pointed to a 2018 removal order issued at a hearing
that Juarez failed to attend. She also said he had failed to comply
with a directive from the ICE officers who arrested him to open his
car window. The agents were forced to break the window to talk to
him, she said.

VanDerhoef took issue with both accounts. Juarez did not receive
notice of the 2018 hearing, as a Seattle immigration judge has
acknowledged, the lawyer said. At the time of Juarez's March
arrest, the farmworker activist did not flee but asked to see a
warrant from the ICE agents, according to VanDerhoef. The agents
did not produce one, the lawyer said.

Scala ended the morning hearing without coming to a decision but
made one by day's end. She said she did not have jurisdiction to
issue bond, though added that if she did she would set an amount of
$5,000, according to VanDerhoef.

The lawyer said he plans to appeal. [GN]

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Medical School Faces Class Action Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Colton of Fox News reports that The University of California,
Los Angeles, medical school was hit with a class-action lawsuit on
Thursday, May 8, for reportedly still employing a race-based
admissions process despite a 2023 Supreme Court ruling that
race-based programs for college admissions are unconstitutional,
Fox News Digital has learned.

"UCLA's Geffen School of Medicine has continually treated the
Students for Fair Admissions ruling as a recommendation, rather
than a binding law handed down by the highest court in the land,"
Dr. Stanley Goldfarb, chair of Do No Harm, told Fox News Digital.
"Do No Harm is fighting for all the students who have been racially
discriminated against by UCLA under the guise of political
progress. All medical schools must abide by the law of the land and
prioritize merit, not immutable characteristics, in admissions."

Do No Harm, a nonprofit organization dedicated to fighting against
"radical progressive ideology" in the health industry, and
nonprofit legal advocacy organization Students for Fair Admissions
filed the class-action lawsuit on behalf of applicants who
allegedly faced "intentional discrimination on the basis of race
and ethnicity in the admissions process" at UCLA's medical school,
according to the lawsuit.

"The numbers show that UCLA is engaged in intentional racial
balancing. Between 2020 and 2023, the percentage of white and Asian
applicants to Geffen was consistently around 73% of the total
applicant pool. Yet, the percentage of matriculants to Geffen who
are white and Asian plummeted: 65.7% in 2020, 57.1% in 2021, 57.8%
in 2022, and 53.7% in 2023," the lawsuit alleges.

UCLA's medical school is highly competitive with an acceptance rate
of about 3.3%, according to U.S. News and World Report's college
rankings.

The suit names a bevy of defendants, ranging from the medical
school to the governing board of the University of California's
college system to the associate dean of admissions at the medical
school.

Fox News Digital reached out to UCLA and the David Geffen School of
Medicine at UCLA for comment on the lawsuit but did not immediately
receive replies.

The suit alleges that the medical school's admissions process
violates the Supreme Court's ruling in the 2023 case, Students for
Fair Admissions v. Harvard. The nation's highest court ruled that
it is unconstitutional to use race-based affirmative action
programs in college admissions processes as it violates the Equal
Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

President Donald Trump additionally signed an executive order on
Jan. 21, one day after his inauguration, that restored "merit-based
opportunity" and charged federal agencies with enforcing civil
rights laws and "combat" DEI practices.

The lawsuit alleges that whistleblowers "with first-hand knowledge"
of the school's dean of admissions rolled out an admissions process
plan that requires Geffen "applicants to submit responses that are
intended to allow the Committee to glean the applicant's race,
which the medical school later confirms via interviews."

The admission committee, according to the suit, additionally
"routinely and openly discuss race (and racial proxies) and use
race as a factor to make admission decisions."

The David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA is already facing
investigation by the Department of Health and Human Services'
Office for Civil Rights over allegations it discriminates against
applicants on the basis of race, color or national origin.

"This investigation reflects the Administration's commitment to
honor the hard work, excellence, and individual achievement of all
students in the pipeline for the medical profession -- not just
those of particular racial backgrounds," Anthony Archeval, acting
director of the Office for Civil Rights at HHS, said in a press
release in March announcing the investigation.

The HHS investigation was sparked by multiple whistleblowers in the
admissions office claiming that the school set lower standards for
Black and Latino applicants compared to White and Asian
counterparts, the Washington Free Beacon reported this month. [GN]

UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA: Sued Over Intentional Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------
DO NO HARM; STUDENTS FOR FAIR ADMISSIONS; and KELLY MAHONEY,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. DAVID
GEFFEN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Case
No. 2:25-cv-04131 (C.D. Cal., May 8, 2025) is a civil action under
the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title IV
of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Unruh Civil Rights Act to
stop the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and various UCLA
officials from engaging in intentional discrimination on the basis
of race and ethnicity in the admissions process.

According to the complaint, the numbers show that UCLA is engaged
in intentional racial balancing. Between 2020 and 2023, the
percentage of white and Asian applicants to Geffen was consistently
around 73% of the total applicant pool. Yet the percentage of
matriculants to Geffen who are white and Asian plummeted: 65.7% in
2020, 57.1% in 2021, 57.8% in 2022, and 53.7% in 2023.

UCLA has withheld key admissions data from the public and its own
internal oversight body. UCLA has also effectively shut down its
own internal probe into its admissions practices by insisting on
non-disclosure agreements from the participants in the admissions
process. Geffen’s apparent illegal use of race has even prompted
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to begin an
investigation into its admissions practices, asserts the suit.

The Defendants include UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES;
REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA; MARIA ANGUIANO, ELAINE
BATCHLOR, JOSIAH BEHARRY, CARMEN CHU, MICHAEL COHEN, GARETH ELLIOT,
HOWARD GUBER, JOSE HERNANDEZ, NANCY LEE, RICHARD LEIB, HADI
MAKARECHIAN, ANA MATOSANTOS, ROBERT MYERS, LARK PARK, JANET REILLY,
MARK ROBINSON, GREGORY SARRIS, AND JONATHAN SURES JENNIFER LUCERO,
GAVIN NEW SOM, ELENI KOUNALAKIS, ROB ERT RIVAS, TONY THURMOND,
GEOFFREY PACK, AND ALFONSO SALAZAR, each in their personal and
official capacities as Regents; MICHAEL DRAKE, in his personal and
official capacities as the President of the UC System and Regent;
JULIO FRENK, in his personal and official capacities as the
Chancellor of UCLA; STEVEN DUBINETT, in his personal and official
capacities as the Dean of David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA;
JENNIFER LUCERO, in her personal and official capacities as the
Associate Dean of Admissions of David Geffen School of Medicine at
UCLA; ALICE KUO, RUSSELL BUHR, MA NUEL CELEDON, GARY HOLLAND,
CAROLYN HOUSER, CHRISTINE MYO, FAYSAL SAAB, each in their personal
and official capacities as members of the Admissions Oversight and
Policy Committee of David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA; and
MEMBERS OF THE ADMISSIONS COMMITTEE, in their personal and official
capacities as members of the Admissions Committee of David Geffen
School of Medicine at UCLA.

The UCLA School of Medicine is the accredited medical school of the
University of California, Los Angeles.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Thomas R. McCarthy, Esq.
          Cameron T. Norris, Esq.
          Frank H. Chang, Esq.
          Marie Sayer, Esq.
          Bryan Weir, Esq.
          CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PLLC
          1600 Wilson Blvd., Suite 700
          Arlington, VA 22209
          Telephone:(703) 243-9423
          E-mail: bryan@consovoymccarthy.com

               - and -

          Adam K. Mortara, Esq.
          LAWFAIR LLC
          40 Burton Hills Blvd., Suite 200
          Nashville, TN 37215
          Telephone: (773) 750-7154
          
               - and -

          John M. Begakis, Esq.
          ALTVIEW LAW GROUP LLP
          9454 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 825
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 230-5580
          E-mail: john@altviewlawgroup.com

VESTA MINE: Must File Class Cert Response by May 23
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GRAY v. VESTA MINE
SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-01069 (W.D. Pa., Filed July 25,
2024), the Hon. Judge Kezia OL Taylor entered an order regarding
response / briefing schedule for motion to certify class.

-- The Defendant is to file a response to the Motion by May 23,
    2025.

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

Vesta Mine is a family-owned business specializing in mining
products and services, emphasizing safety and customer
satisfaction.[CC]



VIEW INC: Settles Securities Class Action Suit for $1-Mil.
----------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Huff, writing for US Glass Mag, reports that View Inc.
reached an $11 million settlement with investors following a
multi-year class action lawsuit that accused the smart glass
manufacturer of federal securities law violations after the
company's move to go public in 2021.

The judge had previously dismissed the lawsuit in early 2024, but
allowed the lead plaintiff, Stadium Capital LLC, to file a third
amended complaint in June 2024. After several months of
back-and-forth negotiations, all parties agreed to resolve the case
in early 2025 for $11 million, ending a nearly four-year-long
lawsuit.

According to court documents, the $11 million settlement represents
16.3% to 32.8% of the estimated recoverable damages in the case.
That exceeds the median 7.5% recovery in cases "alleging claims
under the Exchange Act between 2015 and 2024 and exceeds the median
settlement amount of $10 million in the Ninth Circuit."

Court documents state that the settlement includes all individuals
who purchased or acquired View stock between Nov. 20, 2020, and May
10, 2022. The settlement also notes that while Stadium Capital and
its counsel believe the suit's claims have merit, they recognize
the expense and risk of continued litigation.

Prior to the settlement, Stadium Capital officials argued that View
made material misrepresentations to investors in, among other
filings with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission,
its Dec. 23, 2020, de-special purpose acquisition company (SPAC)
registration statement. The statement included two amendments
concerning a materially misstated and understated warranty accrual
related to View's "smart panels."

Court documents stated that on Aug. 16, 2021, View announced it had
begun an independent investigation concerning the "adequacy of the
company's previously disclosed warranty accrual." Due to this news,
View's share price fell $1.26, or over 24%, to close at $3.92 per
share on Aug. 17, 2021, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Stadium Capital officials argued that View's trading prices
declined as the market absorbed the company's revelations regarding
inaccuracies in its financial statements for 2019 and 2020,
specifically concerning liabilities associated with warranties.
They alleged that View and others had suffered significant losses
and damages due to its wrongful acts and omissions and the decline
in the market value of its securities.

Subsequent announcements regarding the repercussions of the
company's findings on its financial condition continued to impact
trading prices.

However, U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman stated in her
April 2024 order dismissing the case that Stadium Capital couldn't
"attribute its losses to the August 2021 announcement -- and thus
fails to allege loss causation -- because Stadium Capital sold its
stock before the truth of the underlying falsehood was revealed.
Put differently, because Stadium Capital sold its shares before the
truth was revealed, the alleged misrepresentations did not injure
Stadium Capital."

In April 2024, former CEO Rao Mulpuri announced an agreement with a
consortium of investors aiming to take View private while revealing
plans to proceed with a prepackaged Chapter 11 bankruptcy process.
[GN]

WAL-MART ASSOCIATES: Omosikeji Suit Seeks to Recover OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
SHERELLE OMOSIKEJI, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. WAL-MART ASSOCIATES, INC. d/b/a SAM’S CLUB, Case No.
1:25-cv-05074 (N.D. Ill., May 8, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs as a result of the Defendant's willful violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff brings this action under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23, on behalf of herself, individually, and all similarly
situated hourly-paid non-exempt employees of Defendant who worked
in Illinois, to recover unpaid wages, overtime wages, plus
interest, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Illinois Wage
Payment and Collection Act.

Accordingly, the Defendant revised hourly-paid workers' time clock
data to reflect less time than hourly-paid workers actually worked.
The Plaintiff and the putative FLSA collective members, IMWL class
members, and IWPCA class members are current and former
hourly-paid, non-exempt workers and were subject to Defendant’s
unlawful common policy of revising workers' time clock data from
the actual times workers' clocked in and out to reflect less time
than actually worked, and then paid workers for less overtime and
regular time than they were owed, says the suit.

The Plaintiff and the members of the putative collective and class
were employed by Defendant at Sam's Club retail stores and
distribution facilities in Illinois.

The Defendant owns and operates Sam's Club warehouse club retail
stores.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Brown, Esq.
          Eric Sands, Esq.
          BROWN, LLC
          205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 810
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (877) 561-0000
          Facsimile: (855) 582-5279
          E-mail: jtb@jtblawgroup.com
                  eric.sands@jtblawgroup.com

WAYSTAR INC: Santoro Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Clark Santoro, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. WAYSTAR, INC., a Delaware
corporation, DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV11048 was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on May 9, 2025, and assigned Case
No. 2:25-cv-04208.

While Plaintiff does not specify an amount of damages in his
Complaint, he asserts "Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled
restitution, disgorgement of all revenues, profits, and other
benefits Defendant obtained"--which includes "all persons within
California who visited Defendant's website, opted out of
non-essential tracking through Defendant's consent mechanism and
whose search queries or other communications were nevertheless
intercepted and transmitted to third parties without their
consent.[BN]

The Defendants are represented by:

          Dale Bish, Esq.c
          WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
          Professional Corporation
          650 Page Mill Rd.
          Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050
          Phone: (650) 493-9300
          Facsimile: (866) 974-7329
          Email: dbish@wsgr.com

WEST PHARMACEUTICAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set July 7
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action securities lawsuit was filed against West
Pharmaceutical Services, Inc. that seeks to recover losses of
shareholders who were adversely affected by alleged securities
fraud between February 16, 2023 and February 12, 2025.

CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
false statements and/or concealed that: (a) despite claiming strong
visibility into customer demand and attributing headwinds to
temporary COVID-related product destocking, West was in fact
experiencing significant and ongoing destocking across its
high-margin HVP portfolio; (b) West's SmartDose device, which was
purportedly positioned as a high-margin growth product, was highly
dilutive to the Company's profit margins due to operational
inefficiencies; (c) these margin pressures created the risk of
costly restructuring activities, including the Company's exit from
continuous glucose monitoring contracts with longstanding
customers; and (d) as a result of the foregoing, defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially false and/or misleading or lacked a
reasonable basis.

WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in West Pharmaceutical
Services, Inc. stock during the relevant time frame -- even if you
still hold your shares -- go to
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/west-pharmaceutical-services-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=147655&wire=1
to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or
obligation to participate.

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

CONTACT:

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


WHC WORLDWIDE: Faces Class Suit Over SuperShuttle ADA Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pleasanton Weekly reports that a class action lawsuit filed in
federal court in San Francisco on May 5, alleges that a popular
airport shuttle service used at Bay Area airports will not
accommodate passengers who use wheelchairs.

Three Bay Area plaintiffs, all with mobility disabilities, allege
that the airport transportation service called SuperShuttle
Express/Execucar does not provide accessible transportation for
passengers in wheelchairs to airports in San Francisco, Oakland and
San Jose, even though its website says that it provides such
services.

They assert claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act on
behalf of national and California classes against WHC Worldwide LLC
and WHC zShuttle LLC of Scottsdale, Arizona, the companies that
operate SuperShuttle.

The plaintiffs -- Jacqueline Garrett and Kathi Pugh of Berkeley,
and Dorene Giacopini of Richmond -- are all lawyers and all have
been advocates for individuals with disabilities. They each allege
that that they travel frequently for business or pleasure and use
wheelchairs for mobility. They each say that they have
unsuccessfully attempted to use the SuperShuttle airport service,
forcing them to use expensive workarounds or to cancel their
trips.

The complaint alleges that before the COVID-19 pandemic,
SuperShuttle -- known for its bright blue vans -- offered
wheelchair-accessible airport shuttles, but those services have
been eliminated. According to the court filing, "SuperShuttle owns
or previously owned a wheelchair accessible vehicle that fell into
disrepair and has not been repaired."

The plaintiffs contend that SuperShuttle's promotional materials
say that they have arrangements with independent third-party
operators to provide service to individuals with mobility
disabilities, but the plaintiffs have "repeatedly been told by
SuperShuttle representatives that no such options are available."

SuperShuttle's website on Tuesday, May 6, stated "SuperShuttle is
committed to providing exceptional service and welcomes all
passengers with disabilities, including individuals who use
wheelchairs."

A pop-up window provided the name and phone number of a customer
care representative to call for assistance. Calls to that number
were answered by a car dealership that said it had no connection to
SuperShuttle.

A request for comment on the lawsuit from WHC Worldwide LLC was not
immediately answered.

The ADA generally provides that businesses may not discriminate
against individuals with disabilities when providing goods or
services to the public, and they must make reasonable modifications
to their policies to give disabled customers access to their goods
or services on a basis equal to customers without disabilities.

SuperShuttle provides transport to San Francisco International
Airport, Oakland International Airport, and San Jose Mineta
International Airport, as well as major airports in Southern
California, Hawaii, Denver, Washington, D.C., and Seattle.

WHC zShuttle, alleged to operate SuperShuttle, is one of the
nation's largest providers of airport transportation services,
arranging transportation to and from 70 airports throughout the
United States. (SuperShuttle was allegedly acquired by WHC zShuttle
in 2020.)

SuperShuttle's website advertises three different types of ride
services: Shared rides (for independent "budget-conscious
travelers"), Express rides (large groups and "people who are
excited to get where they are going") and Black Car rides (popular
with business travelers and for special events.)

The plaintiffs are represented in the class action case by
Disability Rights Advocates, a Berkeley-based non-profit advocacy
organization that has litigated many far-reaching cases on behalf
of disabled clients. The group's website says, "DRA takes cases
involving wide-spread systemic civil rights violations that affect
a large group of people with disabilities."

Pugh, one of the three named plaintiffs, is on the advisory board
of the organization, according to its website. She was previously a
lawyer at San Francisco's Morrison Foerster firm, where for 20
years she ran the firm's pro bono program.

The other plaintiffs are also involved in disability rights work.

Garrett is the deputy director for the Pacific ADA Center and
Giacopini is a commissioner on the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission, the transportation planning agency for the nine-county
Bay Area, as a representative of the U.S. Department of
Transportation.

Giacopini's undergraduate degree is from Harvard University and her
law degree is from University of California Berkeley School of Law.
She was a founding member of the DRA.

The plaintiffs say that their litigation is "intended to halt
SuperShuttle's ongoing discrimination against individuals with
mobility disabilities."

The plaintiffs ask the court to order the defendants to comply with
the ADA by making its services available to disabled customers. The
plaintiffs seek monetary damages, but only for the named
plaintiffs.

Meredith Weaver, an attorney with DRA and the lead lawyer on the
case, said that SuperShuttle's failure to provide
wheelchair-accessible transportation has had a significant
real-world impact on each of the plaintiffs.

For example, one of the plaintiffs who travels out of Oakland seven
or eight times a year has had to hire a paid attendant who drives
to her house then drives her wheelchair-accessible van to the
airport, then drives it back and parks it at her house. The trip
takes hours and costs the plaintiff far more than the shuttle
service.

Weaver said she was not aware of similar ADA lawsuits involving
airport shuttle services. [GN]

WHOLE FOODS: Agrees to Settle $1.9-Bil. 401(k) Plan Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
CMarket has agreed to settle a class-action lawsuit that alleged
the company failed to prudently manage the administrative fees of
its $1.9 billion 401(k) plan, resulting in millions in losses for
employees.

The lawsuit, filed in 2023 by former employees under the case name:
Winkelman v. Whole Foods Market, Inc., accused the Amazon-owned
grocery chain of breaching its fiduciary duties under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that Whole Foods allowed
excessive recordkeeping fees charged by Fidelity Investments, the
plan's recordkeeper, between 2016 and 2020. These fees reportedly
ranged from $31 to $34 per participant annually, which the
plaintiffs argued were significantly higher than those charged by
comparable plans at companies like Apple, Costco, Lowe's, Google,
and Macy's, where fees ranged from $8 to $23 per participant.

The plaintiffs contended that given the size of Whole Foods' 401(k)
plan -- classified as a "jumbo" plan due to its substantial assets
and participant count -- the company had significant bargaining
power to negotiate lower fees but failed to do so. They asserted
that this oversight constituted a breach of the company's fiduciary
responsibilities to plan participants.

After a private mediation session, both parties reached an
agreement to settle the lawsuit. While the specific terms of the
settlement have not been disclosed to the public, the parties plan
to file details for court approval by mid-June 2025. [GN]

YARDI SYSTEMS: Bixler Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Brad Bixler, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated individuals v. YARDI SYSTEMS, INC., a
California corporation, Case No. 2025CH03939 was removed from the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on May 9,
2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-05149.

The Plaintiff alleges that Yardi, through the operation of its
website www.rentcafe.com, violated the Video Privacy Protection Act
("VPPA"). In that count, Plaintiff alleges Yardi: "knowingly caused
Plaintiff's and the other Class members' PII to be disclosed to
third parties, including specifically to Facebook through its use
of a Meta Pixel"; "did not obtain informed, written consent from
Plaintiff and the Class Members under the VPPA before disclosing
their PII, including specifically their viewing history, to third
parties"; and "knew that these disclosures identified Plaintiff and
the other Class Members to third parties."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eugene Y. Turin, Esq.
          Jordan R. Frysinger, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 West Wacker Drive, 9th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Phone: (312) 893-7002
          Email: eturin@mcgpc.com
                 jfrysinger@mcgpc.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Matthew C. Wolfe, Esq.
          Avery M. Epstein, Esq.
          SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
          111 South Wacker Drive, Suite 4700
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Phone: (312) 704-7700
          Email: mwolfe@shb.com
                 aepstein@shb.com


                            *********

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

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

Copyright 2025. 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 ***