/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250128.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, January 28, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 20 Headlines 1-800-FLOWERS.COM: Edwards Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages 1248 HOLDINGS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Tobler, et al. Lawsuit 300 M STREET: Nichols Suit Removed to D. Columbia 3M COMPANY: Connolly Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Farne-Heaton Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Fraer Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: Friend Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Gailor Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: Gardiner Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Glassford Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Godfrey Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Chemicals 3M COMPANY: Gray Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 621 MADISON STREET: JPC Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. AARP: Markels Seeks to File Class Cert Bid Under Seal AARP: Markels Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class ACTION URGENT CARE: Schatz Sues Over Unlawfully Shared Information AEGIS MEDIA: Kennedy Suit Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement AFFINITY CARDIOVASCULAR: Case Management Order Entered in Battles AIR LIQUIDE: Bid to Continue Class Cert Schedule in Booze Tossed AIR METHODS: Class Settlement in Williams Suit Gets Final Nod AIR-O-FAN: Court Issues Show Cause Order in Meier, et al. Suit AKIMA GLOBAL: Bently Seeks Detention Officers' Unpaid Wages AKUMIN OPERATING: Guillen Files Suit in S.D. Florida ALLSTATE CORP: Bare Sues Over Illicitly Obtained Data ALLSTATE CORP: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Sharing ALLSTATE CORP: Sued Over Unlawful Collection of Driving Data ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Class Settlement in Tobajian Gets Final Nod ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Settlement in Tobajian Suit Gets Final Court OK ALTERNATIVE VENTURES: Cavaliere and LeBlanc Sue Over False Ads AMERICAN ADDICTION: Faces Capellan Suit Over Data Security Failure AMERICAN TAX: Mott Allowed Leave to Conduct Class Cert. Discovery AMHERST COLLEGE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Ortiz Says AMN HEALTHCARE: Loses Bid to Compel Arbitration in Pappas Suit ANDREW MCFARLAND: Latimore Suit Seeks Class Certification ARM SOLUTIONS: Henry Suit Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections ARMY AND AIR FORCE: 7th Cir. Vacates Dismissal of Thompson Suit ARVATO USA LLC: Lewis Suit Removed to C.D. California ASCEND LEARNING: Discloses Customers' Info to Meta, Hetrick Says ASCENSION HEALTH: Cancels Insurance Without Notice, Nicholas Claims ATHENA BITCOIN: Carew Suit Removed to D. New Jersey BANK OF AMERICA: Boyer-Gomez Sues Over Deceptive Practices BANK OF AMERICA: Class Cert Bid Filing in Nguyen Due March 17 BDO USA: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over ESOP Inflated Valuation BERRY DUNN: Settles 2023 Data Breach Class Action Suit for $7.25MM BEVERAGE WORKS: Ortiz Seeks Withdrawal of Class Cert. Bid BEYOND MEAT: Jackson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BH RETAIL SOUTH: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property BH SOUTH DIXIE: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Commercial Property BIOPLUS SPECIALTY: Settlement in Gilbert Suit Gets Final Court Okay BLOCK INC: Gonsalves Sues Over Exchange Act Violation BOAR'S HEAD: Pompilio Seeks Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement BOOZ ALLEN: Belpointe Sues Over Failure to Establish Security BOOZ ALLEN: Fails to Secure Tax Return Info, Safe Harbor Suit Says BOSTON IVF LLC: Suit Filed in Mass. Super. Ct. BROOKLYN BEDDING: Deposition Subpoena Filed in Phillips Suit BYTEDANCE INC: Parties Seek Continuance of Class Cert Hearing CALIFORNIA: Eastern District Court Dismisses Navedo v. Doerer CALYX ENERGY: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Mar. 27, 2026 CAPITAL ONE: Faces Coleman Suit Over Content Creators' Commission CAREMARK PHC: Class Cert Bid Response Extended to Feb. 7 CARMAX: Can Compel Arbitration of Individual Claims in Pilcher Suit CASPER SLEEP: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website CBS PERSONNEL: Monge Suit Removed to C.D. California CELANESE CORP: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims CHAPS AND CO: Website Not Accessible to the Blind, Liz Suit Says CHARAF INVESTMENTS: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property CHARLES SCHWAB: Morris Suit Transferred to C.D. California CHARLES T. SITRIN: Cotton Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages CHATTEM INC: Gurrola Sues Over Mislabeled Mouthrinse Products CIOX HEALTH: Jackson Sues Over Failure to Secure Information CIRCOR AEROSPACE: Enriquez Suit Removed to C.D. California COLUMBUS TRADING-PARTNERS: Tucker Sues Over Inaccessible Website COMCAST CABLE: Judge Recommends Arbitration in DeGraphenreed Suit CONNECTONCALL.COM: Jones Sues Over Inadequate Security Practices COOK COUNTY SHERIFF'S: Smith Sues Over Unpaid Wages CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE: Wins Summary Judgment in Johnstone TCPA Suit CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE: Wins Summary Judgment v. Johnstone CSX TRANSPORTATION: Bell Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee CVS HEALTH: Court Affirms Dismissal of Rhode Island Securities Suit DAIRY FARMERS: Court Reviews Discovery Bifurcation in Othart Suit DAN POST BOOT: Battle Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website DAVE INC: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims DINE BRANDS: Bryant Suit Alleges Telemarketing Text Messages DISCOUNT MOTORS: Embry Wins Bid for Partial Summary Judgment DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Settles Data Breach Class Suit for $1.45MM DUKE UNIVERSITY: Settles Class Suit Over Underpaid Pension Benefits EIGHT SAINTS SKINCARE: Fagnani Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website EMBASSY INC: Zhang Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website EMINENT INC: Delgado Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida EXCELSIOR ORTHOPAEDICS: Parrizzi Sues Over Compromised Info FALONI LAW: Veeramachaneni Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections FARMERS INSURANCE: Class Cert Filing in Starling Due Oct. 27 FIRST FINANCIAL: Price Files Suit in C.D. California FLORIDA: Discriminates White Homeowners, Anderson Suit Alleges FLUX POWER: Kassam, et al. Suit Transferred to California Court FRAGRANCE ONE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cole Suit Says FRANK & WOOLDRIDGE: Negron Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio FRIENDLY'S AND TILTED: Court Narrows Claims in Elmer Wage Lawsuit FUBOTV INC: Burdette Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of PII GEE'S HEATING: Mott Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia GEN CERRITOS LLC: Miranda Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. GIBRALTAR INDUSTRIES: Bucec Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation GIVAUDAN FLAVORS: Pre-Class Certification Discovery Continued GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Parties Seek Extension of Reply Filing GOODWRX LLC: Moten Suit Removed to D. Nevada GOOGLE LLC: Court Narrows Claims in Hubbard, et al. Lawsuit GOOGLE LLC: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid in Privacy Suit by Jan. 31 GUARDIANVETS INC: Hatfield Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages GULFPORT APPALACHIA: Moore Sues Over Underpaymant of Gas Royalties HAWAII RADIOLOGIC: Faces Luth Class Action Suit in D. Hawaii HELLO PRODUCTS: Mouthrinse "Not Safe" for Kids Under 6, Miller Says HOMETOWN AMERICA: Ruling to Compel Discovery Responses Entered HOPP INC: Rhodes Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Exotic Dancers HRB TAX GROUP: McDaniel Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII HRB TAX GROUP: Moscato Sues Over Failure to Secure PII HRB TAX: Buehring Sues Over Unprotected Private Information HRM RESOURCES: Status Conference in McCormick Suit Set for Jan. 29 HSCGP LLC: Settles Class Action Suit Over Data Sharing Violations HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Masters Class Suit Over Fuel System Defect IDS PROPERTY: Audatex Loses Bid to Dismiss Ameriprise Lawsuit ILLINOIS: Bids on Expert Opinions OK'd in Part in Ross v. Gossett INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiffs Deadline Set Mar 18 INTEL MEDIA: M.D. Pennsylvania Allows Jackson to Amend Complaint ITC MIDWEST: IECA, et al. Can't Challenge Abandonment Incentive JMC COMMUNITIES: Griffith, et al. Suit Remanded to State Court JOHN WARE: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Sexual Assault JPMORGAN CHASE: Wins Bid to Toss Remaining Claims in Pessin Suit KELLYANN LLC: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid LA PLAYA GRILL: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property LJUBICA CONTRACTORS: Court Narrows Claims in Vicente, et al. Suit LOANDEPOT INC: Class Settlement in Daroya Suit Gets Final Nod LOS ANGELES, CA: Griffin Suit Seeks to Certify Class LOVEPOP INC: Website Not Accessible to the Blind, Riley Alleges LOWER LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Wilson Suit Claims LYTX INC: Settles Illinois BIPA Class Action for $4.25-Mil. MAGNA INT'L: Class Settlement in Davis Suit Wins Final Approval MASTERCARD INC: Faces Hayman Suit Over Gender Pay Disparity MAXIMUS EDUCATION: E.D. Virginia Dismisses Ackerman Class Suit MDL 2873: Firefighters Exposed to Toxic Chemicals, Carr Suit Says MDL 2873: Firefighters Exposed to Toxic Chemicals, McLean Suit Says MEDUSIND INC: Faces Miterin Suit Over Patients' Compromised Info MEDUSIND INC: Faces Morgan Suit Over Unauthorized Access of Info MIB: Motion for Judgment on Pleadings in Michalski Suit Denied MICHIGAN: Williams Suit v. MDOC Dismissed Without Prejudice MISSISSIPPI: Wins Bid for Entry of Judgment MORGAN STANLEY: Bertonis Sues Over Fraudulent Cash Sweep Programs MYHERITAGE (USA): Podroykin Sues Over Leaked Genetic Testing Info NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Blizzard Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls NCH HEALTHCARE: McFalls' Bid for Class Cert Bid Partly OK'd NEWARK GROUP: Ryan Suit Seeks to Certify Four Classes NORTHEAST REHABILITATION: Ciaravolo Sues Over Unprotected Info NOW OPTICS: Marous TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Classes ODEON INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Riley Suit Alleges OH MEXICO: Ramirez Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Buzzers OHM VASUDEVAY: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Cheli Alleges OMNI FAMILY: Court Consolidates, Stays 13 Related Data Breach Cases PACIRA BIOSCIENCES: Faces Alvarez Suit Over 47% Stock Price Drop PARK HAPPY: Simpson Sues Over Illegal Use of Clients' Private Info PARKING REVENUE: Issues Illegal Parking Citations, Settimi Claims PAUL SCHNELL: Magistrate Judge Recommends Dismissal of Jackson Suit PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Faces Lyon Suit Over Honey Browser Extension PENNSYLVANIA: Hammond, Henderson & Walker Suits Moved to M.D. Pa. PERRIGO COMPANY: Firefly Mouthwash Dangerous for Kids, Gibson Says PIH HEALTH: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Julian Alleges POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Mayfeild Claims POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Pettinger Says POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Suit Alleges POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Fails to Protect Info, Mayfeild Suit Alleges POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Habbal Sues Over Failure to Secure Clients' Info POWERSCHOOL: Faces Suit Over Failure to Secure Customers' Info PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Class Suit Over Toilet Paper Greenwashing PROCTER & GAMBLE: Gurrola Sues Over Crest Toothpastes' False Labels PROCTER & GAMBLE: Singer Sues Over Melatonin Products' False Label PROFESSIONAL FINANCE: Settles Data Breach Class Suit for $25MM PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Martinez Says QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Motion to Reconsider Ruling in Roche Suit Okayed RDO EQUIPMENT: Initial Scheduling Conference in Munoz Vacated RENE RUIZ: Tucker Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Online Store RENOVATOR'S SUPPLY: Blind Can't Access Website, Walker Suit Says REPUBLIC SERVICES: CIS Communications Seeks to Certify Class RESULTS CUSTOMER: Warren WARN Suit to Remain in Delaware Court RUBUS MANAGEMENT: Must Face FLSA Sec. 203 Claim in Decollibus Suit RUSH STREET: Brady Sues Over Alleged Private Data Breach S & K SECURITY: Owes Security Guard Unpaid OT Wages, Damages SABER HEALTHCARE: Class Settlement in Kuchar Suit Gets Approval SAINA BP: Underpays Local Delivery Drivers, Rivera Suit Alleges SELECT PORTFOLIO: Bell Sues Over Unlawful Homeowner Fees SHOE DYNASTY: Faces Henry Suit Over Online Store's Access Barriers SOC LLC: Niffen's Motion to Intervene in Darrough Suit Granted TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Discloses User's Info to FB, Luna Alleges TRANSOCEAN LTD: Bids for Lead Plaintiffs Deadline Set February 24 TYCON MEDICAL: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Mikell Says U.S. ANESTHESIA: Monopolizes Anesthesia Services, Musharbash Says UNITED 1ST: Ownby Must Conduct Class Certification by May 13 UNITEDHEALTHCARE SERVICES: Settles TCPA Class Suit for $2.5-Mil. UNIVERSAL SCREEN: CFC Appointed Cy Pres Recipient in Burzdak Suit UPMC: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Harrington Due April 4 USAA FEDERAL: Class Counsel Awarded $64,202,833.59 in Fees VMD SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Change Venue of Rue, et al. Suit WALDORF=ASTORIA: Court Narrows Claims in Bolos, et al. Lawsuit WALGREENS BOOTS: Securities Suit Over SEC Disclosures Consolidated WALMART INC: Parties Seek to Continue Class Cert Bid Briefing WALSWORTH PUBLISHING: Faces Bowerman Class Suit in E.D. Mo. WEXFORD HEALTH: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Spurlock Due March 24 WK KELLOGG: Faces Class Action Over False Advertising of Cereal WRII CORP: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Bunting Suit Says ZUORA INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Silver Lake [*] B.C. Supreme Court Certifies Opioid Class Action Lawsuit ********* 1-800-FLOWERS.COM: Edwards Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages -------------------------------------------------------------- Audra Edwards, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 1-800-FLOWERS.COM, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-00523-MW-MAF (N.D. Fla., Dec. 23, 2024), is brought pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA") and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act ("FTSA") as a result of the Defendant's unsolicited text messages. To promote its goods and services, Defendant engages in unsolicited text messaging and continues to text message consumers after they have opted out of Defendant's solicitations. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of Plaintiff and members of each proposed class. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff and members of each proposed class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was in Florida when Plaintiff received the above text messages. The Defendant is a New York corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO PA 401 E Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 305.336.7466 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E Las Olas Blvd., Suite 120 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Email: meisenband@eisenbandlaw.com 1248 HOLDINGS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Tobler, et al. Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------- Chief Judge Eric F. Melgren of the United States District Court for the District of Kansas denied 1248 Holdings, LLC's motion to dismiss the first amended complaint in the case captioned as JAKOB TOBLER and MICHELLE MCNITT, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. 1248 HOLDINGS, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 24-2068-EFM-GEB (D. Kan.). Plaintiffs Jakob Tobler and Michelle McNitt are two asset and wealth management professionals who bring this putative class action against several named and unnamed Defendants. Defendants are asset and wealth management companies. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants conspired to engage in an illegal "no poach" agreement in which they agreed not to compete for or hire each others' employees, specifically asset and wealth management professionals. 1248 is one of the named Defendants that seeks dismissal of the claims against it, asserting that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 1248 is the parent company of Mariner Wealth Advisors, LLC. Mariner Wealth Advisors, LLC owns and controls the other companies within Mariner Subsidiaries. Martin C. Bicknell owns more than 50% of 1248's shares and serves as its Manager. He also serves as the President and CEO of Mariner Wealth Advisors, LLC. On July 18, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint bringing five counts against Defendants: two claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, one antitrust claim under Kansas law, one tortious interference with business expectancy claim, and a claim for unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs bring all claims on behalf of themselves and all persons employed by Defendants as asset and wealth management professionals from November 2008 until the present. At the outset, the Court notes that 1248's motion to dismiss does not challenge the sufficiency of the facts alleged in support of the elements of Plaintiffs' five claims. Instead, 1248 challenges the sufficiency of the facts implicating 1248 in the conspiracy between Mariner Subsidiaries and American Century. 1248 challenges this link in three ways. First, 1248 asserts that Plaintiffs cannot rely on 1248's parent relationship to Mariner Subsidiaries to show its involvement in the conspiracy. Second, to the extent Plaintiffs seek to show 1248's direct involvement in the conspiracy, 1248 argues that the specific facts alleged demonstrate nothing more than a typical parent-subsidiary relationship. Finally, 1248 argues that Plaintiffs cannot rely upon general allegations made against "Mariner" or "Defendants" that are inclusive of, but not specific to, 1248. 1248 asserts that liability cannot be established upon the parent-subsidiary relationship between itself and its Mariner Subsidiaries. It is well established that a parent company is not automatically liable for its subsidiary's misconduct. Although a parent company may be protected from derivative liability for a subsidiary's involvement in a conspiracy, no such protection exists when the parent is directly involved in the conspiracy. In this case, Plaintiffs assert that when Mr. Bicknell entered into the conspiracy not to compete for American Century's employees on behalf of Mariner Subsidiaries, he also entered into the agreement on behalf of 1248. Thus, Plaintiffs do not proceed under a theory of derivative liability based upon 1248's status as a parent company, but rather Plaintiffs allege that, through the actions of its Manager, Mr. Bicknell, 1248 was directly a participant in the wrong complained of. 1248 asserts that the specific facts Plaintiffs rely upon to establish 1248's direct involvement in the conspiracy are typical of any parent-subsidiary relationship, and so they are insufficient to state a claim. Plaintiffs link 1248 to the conspiracy through Mr. Bicknell's role as the President and CEO of Mariner Wealth Advisors and the Manager and indirect owner of 1248. Plaintiffs allege that it was in these roles that Mr. Bicknell engaged in the conspiracy with American Century. Judge Melgren concludes that the Complaint sufficiently describes 'which defendant is alleged to have done what' and 'what the misconduct was.' 1248 has been identified, through its Manager Mr. Bicknell, as engaging in concretely defined misconduct -- that is, entering into an agreement not to hire or compete for asset and wealth management professionals employed by a competitor. Accordingly, the Complaint sufficiently puts 1248 on notice that Plaintiffs allege that 1248 engaged in the conspiracy to refrain from competing for or hiring the other Defendants' employees. A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cR2KKK from PacerMonitor.com. 300 M STREET: Nichols Suit Removed to D. Columbia ------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Abigail Nichols, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. 300 M STREET DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC, LCOR ASSET MANAGEMENT LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Case No. 2024-CAB-007450 was removed from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Jan. 17, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00138. The Plaintiff asserts multiple claims under the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act ("CPPA") alleging that the manner in which Defendants assessed and charged rental application fees, assessed and charged common area electricity, assessed and charged a trash fee, assessed and charged a service fee, and disclosed certain utility fees to tenants of an apartment building known as Cielo constituted a deceptive trade practice under the CPPA.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Randolph T. Chen, Esq. Jason S. Rathod, Esq. Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq. MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H Street, NE, Suite 302 Washington, D.C. 20002 Phone: 202-470-3520 Fax: 202-800-2730 Email: rchen@classlawdc.com nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com - and - F. Peter Silva II, Esq. Anna Haac, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 1010 Washington, D.C. 20006 Phone: 202-973-0900 Fax: 202-973-0950 Email: psilva@tzlegal.com ahaac@tzlegal.com The Defendants are represented by: Lauren M. Upton, Esq. SHULMAN ROGERS, P.A. The Banner Building at McHenry Row 1215 East Fort Avenue, Suite 301 Baltimore, MD 21230 Phone: (410) 520-1334 Facsimile: (301) 230-2891 Email: lupton@shulmanrogers.com 3M COMPANY: Connolly Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ------------------------------------------------------------------- Bernard Connolly, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Case No. 2:24-cv-07535-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 20, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS, known as "forever chemicals" because they resist biodegradation, persist in the environment, and accumulate in people and other living organisms, have contaminated the land, air, and water, through the use of AFFF containing PFAS for fire suppression activities. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. Defendants' AFFF contained PFOS, PFOA, PFBS, and/or the chemical precursors to PFOS and/or PFBS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are man-made compounds that are persistent, toxic, and bioaccumulative when released into the environment, and pose a significant risk to human health and safety. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. Not knowing the true nature of the products consumers were required to use, PFAS, and/or AFFF containing PFAS has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages, costs incurred and to be incurred by Plaintiff, and any other damages that the Court or jury may deem appropriate for bodily injury arising from the intentional, malicious, knowing, reckless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants in connection with the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's service in the United States Air Force. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Phone (305) 375-0111 Email: james@ferrarolaw.com 3M COMPANY: Farne-Heaton Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals -------------------------------------------------------------- Krista Farne-Heaton, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Case No. 2:24-cv-07529-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 20, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS, known as "forever chemicals" because they resist biodegradation, persist in the environment, and accumulate in people and other living organisms, have contaminated the land, air, and water, through the use of AFFF containing PFAS for fire suppression activities. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. Defendants' AFFF contained PFOS, PFOA, PFBS, and/or the chemical precursors to PFOS and/or PFBS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are man-made compounds that are persistent, toxic, and bioaccumulative when released into the environment, and pose a significant risk to human health and safety. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. Not knowing the true nature of the products consumers were required to use, PFAS, and/or AFFF containing PFAS has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages, costs incurred and to be incurred by Plaintiff, and any other damages that the Court or jury may deem appropriate for bodily injury arising from the intentional, malicious, knowing, reckless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants in connection with the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's service in the United States Air Force. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Phone (305) 375-0111 Email: james@ferrarolaw.com 3M COMPANY: Fraer Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams --------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Fraer, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Case No. 2:24-cv-06729-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 21, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS, known as "forever chemicals" because they resist biodegradation, persist in the environment, and accumulate in people and other living organisms, have contaminated the land, air, and water, through the use of AFFF containing PFAS for fire suppression activities. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. Defendants' AFFF contained PFOS, PFOA, PFBS, and/or the chemical precursors to PFOS and/or PFBS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are man-made compounds that are persistent, toxic, and bioaccumulative when released into the environment, and pose a significant risk to human health and safety. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. Not knowing the true nature of the products consumers were required to use, PFAS, and/or AFFF containing PFAS has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages, costs incurred and to be incurred by Plaintiff, and any other damages that the Court or jury may deem appropriate for bodily injury arising from the intentional, malicious, knowing, reckless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants in connection with the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's service in the United States Army. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Phone (305) 375-0111 Email: james@ferrarolaw.com 3M COMPANY: Friend Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jeff Raymond Friend, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-07188-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 10, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. TOG is personal protective equipment designed for heat and moisture resistance in order to protect firefighters in hazardous situations. Most turnout gear is made up of a thermal liner, moisture barrier, and an outer layer. The inner layers contain PFAS, and the outer layer is often treated with additional PFAS. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF or TOG products were used by Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of Defendants' AFFF or TOG products and relied on Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendants' AFFF or TOG products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with thyroid cancer. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors, and/or sellers of PFAS-containing AFFF and TOG products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF and TOG production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James Ryan Ziminskas, Esq. THEMIS LAW, PLLC 7718 Wood Hollow Drive, Suite 105 Austin, TX 78731 Phone: (737) 208-1636 Email: rziminskas@themislawpllc.com 3M COMPANY: Gailor Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Gailor, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:24-cv-06914-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 27, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (“AFFF”) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid (“PFOA”) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (“PFOS”) and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS, seeking relief against Defendants for personal injury and due to exposure from PFAS related to the direct use of AFFF, a firefighting foam containing PFAS compounds and for direct exposure to AFFF and/or exposure from ingestion of PFAS from their water supply. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. When consumed, PFOS and PFOA have been linked to numerous and serious health issues. PFOA and PFOS are associated with a variety of illnesses, including but not limited to, kidney cancer, testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, liver cancer, and thyroid cancer. The chemicals are particularly dangerous for pregnant women and young children. As the manufacturers of AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF, the Defendants knew or should have known that the inclusion of Toxic Surfactants in AFFF presented an unreasonable risk to human health. The Defendants’ PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products’ condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants’ AFFF products and relied on the Defendants’ instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff’s consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant’s AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. The Plaintiffs had no way to know that they were being exposed to toxic chemicals until the contamination was recently discovered. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants’ AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff’s training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or Plaintiff’s water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Phone: 540-672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com 3M COMPANY: Gardiner Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams -------------------------------------------------------------- George Gardiner, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:24-cv-06911-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 27, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (“AFFF”) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid (“PFOA”) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (“PFOS”) and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS, seeking relief against Defendants for personal injury and due to exposure from PFAS related to the direct use of AFFF, a firefighting foam containing PFAS compounds and for direct exposure to AFFF and/or exposure from ingestion of PFAS from their water supply. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. When consumed, PFOS and PFOA have been linked to numerous and serious health issues. PFOA and PFOS are associated with a variety of illnesses, including but not limited to, kidney cancer, testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, liver cancer, and thyroid cancer. The chemicals are particularly dangerous for pregnant women and young children. As the manufacturers of AFFF and/or PFAS for use in AFFF, the Defendants knew or should have known that the inclusion of Toxic Surfactants in AFFF presented an unreasonable risk to human health. The Defendants’ PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products’ condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants’ AFFF products and relied on the Defendants’ instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff’s consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant’s AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. The Plaintiffs had no way to know that they were being exposed to toxic chemicals until the contamination was recently discovered. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants’ AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff’s training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was directly exposed to AFFF through firefighting and/or Plaintiff’s water supply was contaminated with PFOS and PFOA as an after effect of such use. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tayjes Shah, Esq. THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Ave. Orange, VA 22960 Phone: 540-672-4224 Email: tshah@millerfirmllc.com 3M COMPANY: Glassford Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals ----------------------------------------------------------- Allen Glassford, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Case No. 2:24-cv-07612-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 23, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of Decedent's exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Decedent's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during his service in the United States Marines and was diagnosed with kidney cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tessa G. Cuneo, Esq. Alexandra W. Robertson, Esq. ASK LLP 2600 Eagan Woods Drive, Suite 400 St. Paul, MN 55121 Phone: (651) 406-9665 Facsimile: (651) 406 Email: tcuneo@askllp.com arobertson@askllp.com 3M COMPANY: Godfrey Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Chemicals ----------------------------------------------------------------- Randy Godfrey, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Case No. 2:24-cv-06725-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 21, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS, known as "forever chemicals" because they resist biodegradation, persist in the environment, and accumulate in people and other living organisms, have contaminated the land, air, and water, through the use of AFFF containing PFAS for fire suppression activities. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. Defendants' AFFF contained PFOS, PFOA, PFBS, and/or the chemical precursors to PFOS and/or PFBS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are man-made compounds that are persistent, toxic, and bioaccumulative when released into the environment, and pose a significant risk to human health and safety. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. Not knowing the true nature of the products consumers were required to use, PFAS, and/or AFFF containing PFAS has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages, costs incurred and to be incurred by Plaintiff, and any other damages that the Court or jury may deem appropriate for bodily injury arising from the intentional, malicious, knowing, reckless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants in connection with the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's service in the United States Army. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Phone (305) 375-0111 Email: james@ferrarolaw.com 3M COMPANY: Gray Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams --------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Gray, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC.; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; ROYAL CHEMICAL COMPANY, LTD.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, LP; and JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20, Case No. 2:24-cv-06716-RMG (D.S.C., Nov. 21, 2024), is brought for damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. PFAS, known as "forever chemicals" because they resist biodegradation, persist in the environment, and accumulate in people and other living organisms, have contaminated the land, air, and water, through the use of AFFF containing PFAS for fire suppression activities. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. Defendants' AFFF contained PFOS, PFOA, PFBS, and/or the chemical precursors to PFOS and/or PFBS. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are man-made compounds that are persistent, toxic, and bioaccumulative when released into the environment, and pose a significant risk to human health and safety. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. Not knowing the true nature of the products consumers were required to use, PFAS, and/or AFFF containing PFAS has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages, costs incurred and to be incurred by Plaintiff, and any other damages that the Court or jury may deem appropriate for bodily injury arising from the intentional, malicious, knowing, reckless and/or negligent acts and/or omissions of Defendants in connection with the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and during Plaintiff's service in the United States Army. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James L. Ferraro, Jr., Esq. THE FERRARO LAW FIRM 600 Brickell Avenue, 38th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Phone (305) 375-0111 Email: james@ferrarolaw.com 621 MADISON STREET: JPC Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against 621 MADISON STREET QOZB, LLC, ET AL. The case is styled as Josephanthony Plastering Corp., individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. Boston IVF LLC, Case No. 501823/2025 (Mass. Super. Ct., Kings Cty., Jan. 17, 2025). 621 Madison Street is a rental building located in Brooklyn, New York.[BN] AARP: Markels Seeks to File Class Cert Bid Under Seal ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAN MARKELS, WILLIAM MARTIN, AND LYNN SEDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AARP, Case No. 4:22-cv-05499-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court to enter an order granting motion to consider whether portions of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, the Expert Report of Dr. Zubair Shafiq, Plaintiffs' Proposed Trial Plan, the Proposed Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, and certain exhibits attached to the Declaration of Simon S. Grille in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification should be sealed. All of the material that is the subject of this motion has been designated "Confidential" by one of the parties or non-party, Meta. AARP is an interest group in the United States focusing on issues affecting those over the age of fifty. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=a6HLZH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam E. Polk, Esq. Simon Grille, Esq. Reid Gaa, Esq. Anthony Rogari, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 Facsimile: (415) 981-4846 E-mail: apolk@girardsharp.com sgrille@girardsharp.com rgaa@girardsharp.com arogari@girardsharp.com The Defendant is represented by: Travis LeBlanc, Esq. Matthew D. Brown, Esq. Bethany Lobo, Esq. Harrison B. Park, Esq. Tiana Demas, Esq. Josef Teobho Ansorge, Esq. Jessie Simpson LaGoy, Esq. COOLEY LLP 3 Embarcadero Center, 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4004 Telephone: (415) 693-2000 E-mail: tleblanc@cooley.com brownmd@cooley.com blobo@cooley.com hpark@cooley.com tdemas@cooley.com ansorgejt@cooley.com jsimpsonlagoy@cooley.com Counsel for Meta Platforms, Inc. Laurie Edelstein, Esq. Paige E. Zielinski, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 455 Market Street, Suite 2100 San Francisco, CA 94105-2453 Telephone: (415) 293-5943 E-mail: ledelstein@jenner.com PZielinski@jenner.com AARP: Markels Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAN MARKELS, WILLIAM MARTIN, and LYNN SEDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AARP, Case No. 4:22-cv-05499-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court pursuant to Rules 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) or, alternatively, (c)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on June 17, 2025 for an order certifying a Class of: "all persons in the United States who subscribed to AARP and requested or obtained video content on aarp.org while logged into their Facebook account on the same browser between June 19, 2021 and the present." Excluded from the Class are Defendant AARP, its parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers and directors; any entity in which AARP has a controlling interest; governmental entities; and all judges assigned to hear any aspect of this litigation, as well as their staff and immediate family members. The Plaintiffs request that the Court certify the Class under Rules 23(b)(2) and (b)(3) and appoint them as class representatives, appoint Girard Sharp LLP as class counsel, and direct the parties to submit a proposed plan of notice. The Plaintiffs are AARP members who allege that AARP disclosed the specific video materials that they requested or obtained from its website to Meta Platforms, Inc. without obtaining the requisite consent under the Video Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA"). AARP is an interest group in the United States focusing on issues affecting those over the age of fifty. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wFC5w6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam E. Polk, Esq. Simon Grille, Esq. Reid Gaa, Esq. Anthony Rogari, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 Facsimile: (415) 981-4846 E-mail: apolk@girardsharp.com sgrille@girardsharp.com rgaa@girardsharp.com arogari@girardsharp.com The Defendant is represented by: Travis LeBlanc, Esq. Matthew D. Brown, Esq. Bethany Lobo, Esq. Harrison B. Park, Esq. Tiana Demas, Esq. Josef Teobho Ansorge, Esq. Jessie Simpson LaGoy, Esq. COOLEY LLP 3 Embarcadero Center, 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4004 Telephone: (415) 693-2000 E-mail: tleblanc@cooley.com brownmd@cooley.com blobo@cooley.com hpark@cooley.com tdemas@cooley.com ansorgejt@cooley.com jsimpsonlagoy@cooley.com Counsel for Meta Platforms, Inc. Laurie Edelstein, Esq. Paige E. Zielinski, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK LLP 455 Market Street, Suite 2100 San Francisco, CA 94105-2453 Telephone: (415) 293-5943 E-mail: ledelstein@jenner.com PZielinski@jenner.com ACTION URGENT CARE: Schatz Sues Over Unlawfully Shared Information ------------------------------------------------------------------ Marisa Schatz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ACTION URGENT CARE, INC., Case No. 24CV451842 (Cal. Super. Ct., Santa Clara Cty., Nov. 15, 2024), is brought on behalf of all California residents who accessed actionurgentcare.com (the "Website"), to schedule an appointment for a medical consultation, treatment, and/or services as a result of the Defendant's illegal actions of sharing information. When booking medical services online, patient privacy is crucial. Patients expect, as they should, that their information will be held in confidence and not shared with third parties without their knowledge or consent. The sensitive nature of information related to medical consultation and treatments, such as those offered by Defendant, amplifies the need for privacy during online bookings. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant aided, employed, agreed, and conspired with LinkedIn to intercept sensitive and confidential communications sent and received by Plaintiff and Class Members, including communications containing protected medical information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has maintained a LinkedIn account. The Defendant is a provider of urgent care, primary care, and telehealth medical services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sarah N. Westcot, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2100 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 676-9006 Email: swestcot@bursor.com AEGIS MEDIA: Kennedy Suit Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as STACEY PARKS KENNEDY, ANGELA BOZELL and BRITTNEY WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AEGIS MEDIA AMERICAS, INC., BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF AEGIS MEDIA AMERICAS, INC., THE BENEFITSPLUS 401(K) PROFIT SHARING PLAN COMMITTEE, and JOHN DOES 1-30, Case No. 1:20-cv-03624-MMG (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. Granting final approval to the class action settlement in this action on the terms of the Class Action Settlement Agreement, fully executed on Aug. 20, 2024, and previously filed with the Court on Aug. 20, 2024; 2. Certifying the Class as defined in the Aug. 29, 2024 Preliminary Approval Order; 3. Appointing Plaintiffs as Class Representatives and Plaintiffs' Counsel Capozzi Adler, P.C. as Lead Class Counsel for the Settlement Class under FED. R. CIV. 23(g); 4. Finding that the manner in which the Settlement Class was notified of the Settlement was the best practicable under the circumstances and adequately informed the Settlement Class members of the terms of the Settlement, how to lodge an objection and obtain additional information; and 5. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Aegis is a marketing and advertising agency. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4sS2OK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 Facsimile: (717) 233-4103 E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com AFFINITY CARDIOVASCULAR: Case Management Order Entered in Battles ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHNNA BATTLES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. AFFINITY CARDIOVASCULAR SPECIALIST, LLC d/b/a ALABAMA CARDIOLOGY GROUP, Case No. 3:24-cv-01074 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Holmes entered an initial case management order: The initial case management conference was held on January 2, 2025. Counsel participating were: Paul Doolittle and Seth Little for Plaintiff and Jonathan Harris for Defendant. From the parties’ proposed initial case management order (Docket No. 22) and discussion during the initial case management conference, and pursuant to Local Rule 16.01, the following case management schedule and plan is adopted: The Plaintiff contends that the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), 28 U.S.C. § 1332. As set forth more fully in Defendant's pending Motion to Dismiss, Defendant denies that Plaintiff has standing to sue, and thus denies that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Around June 6, 2024, an unauthorized party gained access to Defendant's network and maintained access to Defendant's network for nearly a month. The parties shall exchange initial disclosures pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1), which must include copies (not descriptions) of responsive documents, on or before Jan. 31, 2025. The Plaintiff must file a motion for class certification on or before August 29, 2025. Defendant must file its opposition brief within twenty-eight (28) days of Plaintiff's motion. Affinity is a medical establishment that diagnoses and provides treatment advice for various health conditions. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=35sqfZ at no extra charge.[CC] AIR LIQUIDE: Bid to Continue Class Cert Schedule in Booze Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Booze v. Air Liquide Advanced Materials, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-01288 (N.D. Cal., Filed March 1, 2024), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered an order denying the stipulation to continue the class certification schedule. If necessary, the parties may propose another schedule that keeps the hearing on the motion for class certification in May, the Court says. The nature of suit states Diversity-Employment Discrimination. Air Liquide offers a complete range of electronics advanced materials including Voltaix (TM) and ALOHA (TM) deposition precursors and enScribe (TM) etchants.[CC] AIR METHODS: Class Settlement in Williams Suit Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RACHEL WILLIAMS AND GENOVEVA MILTON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AIR METHODS, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00642-NRN (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge N. Reid Neureiter entered an order granting final approval of class action settlement and attorneys' fees, costs, and service awards; and entering final judgment and dismissal: The Court approves the Releases provided in the Settlement Agreement and orders that, as of the Effective Date, the Released Claims will be released as to Released Parties. The Court grants final approval of the appointment of Gary M. Klinger and David K. Lietz of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLC as Settlement Class Counsel. The Court grants Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Service Awards. The Court awards Settlement Class Counsel $80,000 in attorneys' fees and $1,278.50 for the reimbursement of litigation expenses, to be paid according to the terms of the Settlement Agreement. This amount of fees and reimbursement of expenses is fair and reasonable. The Court also approves settlement administration expenses to be paid from the Settlement Fund in the amount of $54,968.00. The Court grants final approval of the appointment of Rachel Williams and Genoveva Milton as Class Representatives. The Court awards each Class Representative a service award of $2,500 for their service to the Class. The Court certifies the following Class for settlement purposes only under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3), subject to the Settlement Class exclusions set forth in the Settlement Agreement: The Settlement Class: "The approximately 24,568 individuals who received direct notification that their Personal Information may have been implicated in the Security Incident." The Settlement Class specifically excludes: 1) Air Methods, LLC and its officers and directors; (2) all Persons who submit a timely and valid request for exclusion from the Settlement Class; (3) the Court; and (4) any person found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be guilty under criminal law of initiating, causing, aiding or abetting the criminal activity occurrence of the Security Incident, or who pleads nolo contendere to any such charge. Air Methods provides ambulance services. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fNQIuL at no extra charge.[CC] AIR-O-FAN: Court Issues Show Cause Order in Meier, et al. Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Kirk E. Sherriff of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California ordered the plaintiffs in the case captioned as MARK MEIER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LARRY E. DAVIS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01192-KES-SKO (E.D. Calif.) to show cause in writing why the complaint should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiffs' complaint filed Oct. 3, 2024, asserts shareholder derivative claims, including for breach of fiduciary duties, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, breach of the duty of honest services, conspiracy, and conversion against various defendants. They assert their claims individually and on behalf of a class consisting of "all similarly situated shareholders within the State of California." On Dec. 12, 2024, defendant Air-O-Fan Products Corp. filed a consolidated motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, motion for a more definite statement, and motion to strike, and, separately, a motion for bond pursuant to California Corporations Code section 800(b). Defendants Larry E. Davis; Larry Davis and Charlotte Davis, Trustees of the Larry and Charlotte Davis Living Trust; David Lincoln; Brent A. Davis, Trustee of the Brent A. Davis 2012 Irrevocable Trust; Davis and Davis Distributors; Davis Equipment, Inc.; Davis and Davis Distributors No. 2, Inc.; and Vrad Products, Inc. also filed a motion for bond on Dec. 13, 2024. On Jan. 6, 2025, following plaintiffs' failure to oppose the motions, the Court took the motions under submission. Because this is a civil action in which the matter in controversy, exclusive of interest, exceeds $25,000, and because each cause of action asserted arises under the laws of the State of California or is subject to adjudication in the courts of the State of California." Therefore, plaintiffs do not facially allege any claim based on federal question jurisdiction, the Court finds. Defendants do not move to dismiss based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. However, the Court has reviewed the allegations in the complaint, and finds that the complaint fails to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction. The four named plaintiffs in the complaint are individuals domiciled in Indiana, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina. However, plaintiffs purport to bring their claims on behalf of a class consisting of "all similarly situated shareholders within the State of California." As plaintiffs allege the defendants to be domiciled in California, it appears that the parties are not completely diverse. Nor have plaintiffs alleged that the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement has been met. According to the Court, to the extent that plaintiffs intend to bring their claim pursuant to the provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act, they fail to plead such jurisdiction. For example, nothing in their complaint suggests compliance with the requirements that the class comprise 100 or more members and that the amount-in-controversy exceed $5,000,000. Indeed, the complaint alleges that the entire outstanding common and preferred stock of defendant Air-O-Fan is "held by 35 shareholders of record." Therefore, the complaint fails to adequately plead jurisdiction under Sec. 1332(d), the Court concludes. Accordingly, the Court orders: 1. Within fifteen days of the entry of this Order, plaintiffs shall show cause in writing why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 2. Alternatively, within fifteen days of the entry of this Order, plaintiffs may voluntarily dismiss their complaint. 3. Failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this action for lack of jurisdiction. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sE2qA2 from PacerMonitor.com. AKIMA GLOBAL: Bently Seeks Detention Officers' Unpaid Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- JARED BENTLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AKIMA GLOBAL SERVICES, LLC and AKIMA LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00013 (W.D.N.Y., January 6, 2025) seeks to recover untimely wage compensation for Plaintiff and all non-exempt manual workers who worked for Defendants in New York State. Plaintiff Bentley was employed by Defendants as a detention officer from on or about March 2024 until September 2024. Despite being manual workers, the Defendants have failed to properly pay Plaintiff and other manual workers their wages within seven calendar days after the end of the week in which these wages were earned. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendants' unlawful conduct and asserts claims for violations of the New York Labor Law. Headquartered in Herndon, VA, Akima Global Services, LLC provide several services to the federal government in the core areas of information technology; facilities & ground logistics; aerospace solutions; protective services; systems engineering; mission support; furniture, fixtures & equipment; and construction. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian S. Schaffer, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 AKUMIN OPERATING: Guillen Files Suit in S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Akumin Operating Corp. The case is styled as Eduardo Guillen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Akumin Operating Corp. formerly known as: Akumin Corp., Case No. 0:25-cv-60088-WPD (S.D. Fla., Jan. 15, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Akumin Corp. -- https://akumin.com/ -- provides radiology and diagnostic imaging services. The Company offers computed tomography, digital x-ray, mammography, nuclear medicine, and magnetic resonance imaging services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. EKSM, LLP 1105 Milford Street Houston, TX 77006 Phone: (888) 350-3931 Email: firm@ellzeylaw.com - and - Carlos V. Leach, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 631 S. Orlando Avenue, Suite 300 Winter Park, FL 32789 Phone: (407) 574-4999 Fax: (833) 423-5864 Email: cleach@theleachfirm.com ALLSTATE CORP: Bare Sues Over Illicitly Obtained Data ----------------------------------------------------- Amanda Bare, and Christina Hartzell, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. THE ALLSTATE CORPORATION, ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ARITY, LLC, ARITY 875, LLC, and ARITY SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00621 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 17, 2025), is brought to recover the damages they have sustained and enjoin Defendants' illicitly obtained data. Unbeknownst to consumers, Defendants, through various subsidiaries and affiliates, have collected "trillions of miles" of consumers' "driving behavior" data from mobile device applications, in-car devices, and vehicles. Defendants then used this voluminous data, all of which they intercepted and collected without consumers' consent, to set automotive insurance rates for their own customers, and sold this ill-gotten data to competing carriers that likewise used it to the detriment of their customers. Not once did Defendants disclose to consumers, including Plaintiffs, that Defendants routinely intercepted, collected and sold their mobile device data, let alone seek and secure consumers' consent to do so. The Defendants covertly collected much of their "trillions of miles" of data by maintaining active connections with consumers' mobile devices and harvesting the data directly from their phones by developing and equipping in both third-party and proprietary mobile device applications a free software development kit ("SDK") that effectively "bugged" consumers' smartphones, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs have routinely and regularly used mobile applications that embedded Defendants' tracking software in the form of SDKs. The Allstate Corporation provides insurance products, including car insurance, throughout the United States, including Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel O. Herrera, Esq. Bryan L. Clobes, Esq. Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq. Nabihah Maqbool, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 135 S. LaSalle, Suite 3210 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 782-4880 Facsimile: (312) 782-4485 Email: herrera@caffertyclobes.com nhagman@caffertyclobes.com bclobes@caffertyclobes.com nmaqbool@caffertyclobes.com ALLSTATE CORP: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Sharing ----------------------------------------------------------- Teresa Moss, writing for Repairer Driven News, reports that a class action lawsuit against Allstate for allegedly collecting and selling data, including geolocation data without the consumer's consent has been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division. The suit states Allstate and Arity, an Allstate company, conspired to secretly collect and sell "trillions of miles" of consumer "driving behavior" data from mobile devices, in-car devices and vehicles. It alleges that Allstate used the data to build a database that houses the driving behavior of more than 45 million Americans. The suit claims Allstate created the business to support its business and to profit from selling the driver behavior data to third parties. "Millions of Americans, including plaintiff and class members, were never informed about, nor consented to defendants' continuous collection and sale of their data," the suit says. Data collected included geolocation data, accelerometer data, magnetometer data and gyroscopic data. This suit claims the defendants paid app developers millions to integrate software into their apps. It also says Allstate gave incentives to developers to increase the size of their database. It says apps have been paid to use Arity SDK since at least 2017. Apps that integrated Arity SDK include Routely, Life360, GasBuddy and Fuel Rewards, according to the lawsuit. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced last week that he also had filed suit against Allstate and Arity for the collection and selling of data. The insurance company's actions violate the Texas Data Privacy and Security Act, the release says. The law requires clear notice and informed consent regarding how a company will use Texans' consent to collect or sell their sensitive data, according to the release. "Our investigation revealed that Allstate and Arity paid mobile apps millions of dollars to install Allstate's tracking software," said Paxton in the release. "The personal data of millions of Americans was sold to insurance companies without their knowledge or consent in violation of the law. Texans deserve better and we will hold all these companies accountable." Last Month, Paxton sent a notice of violation to Arity claiming it fails to clearly inform consumers about the data it collects and how it is sold. Allstate Insurance has participated in past roundtables with federal and state officials to discuss the importance of the "right to repair" and joined the call for federal legislation. Allstate is also a listed member of the CAR Coalition. According to their website "The CAR Coalition believes consumers deserve the right to control who has access to their vehicle-generated data and when." In August, Paxton filed suit against General Motors and subsidiary OnStar for "false, deceptive, and misleading" business practices related to the alleged collection and sale of more than 1.8 million Texans' private driving data to insurance companies. [GN] ALLSTATE CORP: Sued Over Unlawful Collection of Driving Data ------------------------------------------------------------ Kimberleigh Duffield, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. THE ALLSTATE CORPORATION, ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ARITY, LLC, ARITY 875, LLC, and ARITY SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00609 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 17, 2025), is brought on behalf of herself and the putative Class, which is comprised of millions of Americans who were never informed about, nor consented to, Defendants' continuous collection and sale of their driving data. The Defendants conspired to secretly collect and sell "trillions of miles" of consumers' "driving behavior" data from mobile devices, in car devices, and vehicles. Defendants used the illicitly obtained data to build the "world's largest driving behavior database," housing the driving behavior of over 45 million Americans. Defendants created the database for two main purposes: to support Defendants' car insurance business and profit from selling the driving behavior data to third parties, including other car insurance carriers ("Insurers"). Millions of Americans, including Plaintiff and Class Members, were never informed about, nor consented to, Defendants' continuous collection and sale of their data. The Defendants covertly amassed a collection of "trillions of miles" of data and related data points by maintaining active connections with Plaintiff's and Class Members' mobile devices. Defendants achieved this by developing and integrating their software into third Party mobile applications ("apps"). As a result, when Plaintiff and Class Members used these apps, Defendants could monitor their locations and movements in real-time, thereby allowing Defendants to surreptitiously collect a multitude of highly valuable data directly from consumers' mobile phones. On information and belief, much of the driving data Defendants shared is improperly and inaccurately associated with Plaintiff. As a result, and in spite of her impeccable driving record, Plaintiff has paid higher insurance premiums than she would have in the absence of Defendants' course of conduct. Likewise, Plaintiff values her privacy, Defendants have violated her privacy in a multitude of ways, and she is highly offended by Defendants' course of conduct, says the complaint. The Plaintiff's cell phone contains mobile applications that have embedded Defendants' Arity SDK. The Allstate Corporation provides insurance products, including car insurance, throughout the United States, including Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel O. Herrera, Esq. Bryan L. Clobes, Esq. Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq. Nabihah Maqbool, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 135 S. LaSalle, Suite 3210 Chicago, IL 60603 Phone: (312) 782-4880 Facsimile: (312) 782-4485 Email: herrera@caffertyclobes.com nhagman@caffertyclobes.com bclobes@caffertyclobes.com nmaqbool@caffertyclobes.com ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Class Settlement in Tobajian Gets Final Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Maria Tobajian, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:23-cv-00753-DMG-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dolly Gee entered an order granting final approval of class action settlement and dismissing the Plaintiff's claims: The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Litigation and over the Parties, including all Class Members with respect to the Class certified for settlement purposes, which is as follows: "All persons in California whose cellular telephone conversation on at least one outgoing call from the LDU Business Unit of Defendant was recorded by Defendant and/or its agent(s) without that person's consent within the Class Period." Excluded from the Class are: (i) individuals who are or were during the Class Period officers or directors of Defendant or any of its respective Affiliates; (ii) the District Judge and any Magistrate Judge assigned to the case, their staff, their spouses, and persons within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouses of such persons; and (iii) all persons who file a timely and proper request to be excluded from the Class. The Court finally appoints Abbas Kazerounian, Ryan L. McBride, and Aryanna Young of the law firm of Kazerouni Law Group, APC, as Class Counsel. The Court finally designates Plaintiff Maria Tobajian as the Class Representative. Allstate offers home, auto, commercial, farm, life, health, recreational vehicle, and other personal insurance services. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4ZuHja at no extra charge.[CC] ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Settlement in Tobajian Suit Gets Final Court OK ------------------------------------------------------------------- Chief Judge Dolly M. Gee of the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted final approval of the class action settlement in the case captioned as Maria Tobajian, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, CV No. 23-00753-DMG (PDx) (C.D. Calif.) The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Litigation and over the Parties, including all Class Members with respect to the Class certified for settlement purposes, which is as follows: All persons in California whose cellular telephone conversation on at least one outgoing call from the LDU Business Unit of Defendant was recorded by Defendant and/or its agent(s) without that person's consent within the Class Period. Excluded from the Class are: (i) individuals who are or were during the Class Period officers or directors of Defendant or any of its respective Affiliates; (ii) the District Judge and any Magistrate Judge assigned to the case, their staff, their spouses, and persons within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouses of such persons; and (iii) all persons who file a timely and proper request to be excluded from the Class. The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement was negotiated at arm's length by experienced counsel who were fully informed of the facts and circumstances of the Litigation and of the strengths and weaknesses of their respective positions. The Court finally certifies the Settlement Class for settlement purposes and finds, for settlement purposes only, that the Litigation satisfies all the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Specifically: (a) the Class is sufficiently numerous that joinder of all its members is impracticable; (b) there are questions of law and fact common to the Class; (c) the claims of Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the Class she seeks to represent; ( d) Plaintiff has and will continue to fairly and adequately represent the interests of the Class for purposes of entering into the Settlement Agreement; (e) the questions of law and fact common to the Class Members predominate over any questions affecting any individual Class Member; (f) the Class is ascertainable; and (g) a class action settlement is superior to the other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. The Court finally appoints Abbas Kazerounian, Ryan L. McBride, and Aryanna Young of the law firm of Kazerouni Law Group, APC, as Class Counsel. The Court finally designates Plaintiff Maria Tobajian as the Class Representative. The Court finally approves the Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). The terms and provisions of the Settlement Agreement, including all exhibits thereto, have been entered into in good faith and are hereby fully and finally approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate as to, and in the best interests of, each of the Parties and the Class Members. The Court approves the plan of distribution for the Settlement Fund as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. The Administrator is ordered to comply with the terms of the Agreement with respect to distribution of Settlement Relief, including a second payment, if feasible. Should any unclaimed funds be distributed, the Court approves the National Consumer Law Center and the Center on Privacy and Technology at Georgetown Law as equal recipients of those unclaimed funds, after accounting for the costs of administering that distribution. The Court finds that cy pres distribution to these organizations would be suitable based upon the objectives of the underlying statute and the interests of the class members. Class Counsel have moved pursuant to the Agreement, Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(h) and 52(a) for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses. Accordingly, Class Counsel are awarded $990,000.00 as a combined award for attorneys' fees and litigation expenses, comprised of $976,594.04 in fees and $13,405.96 in expenses, from the Settlement Fund, which this Court finds to be fair and reasonable, and which amount shall be paid to Class Counsel from the Settlement Fund in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. The Court also finds that Class Counsels' hourly rates are reasonable. The Class Representative, as identified in the Preliminary Approval Order, is compensated in the amount of $3,000.00 for her efforts in this case, which amount shall be paid to the Class Representative from the Settlement Fund in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. The terms of the Agreement and of this Final Approval Order, including all exhibits thereto, shall be forever binding in all pending and future lawsuits maintained by the Plaintiff and all other Settlement Class Members, and anyone claiming through them such as heirs, administrators, successors, and assigns. Dicheng Hu filed a timely and valid exclusion and therefore is not bound by the Final Approval Order or Judgment. The Court dismisses all Released Claims, with prejudice, without costs to any Party, except as expressly provided for in the Agreement and this Order. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=isI8OZ from PacerMonitor.com. ALTERNATIVE VENTURES: Cavaliere and LeBlanc Sue Over False Ads -------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID CAVALIERE and DALLAS LEBLANC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ALTERNATIVE VENTURES LLC, doing business as PRESS'D, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00137 (C.D. Cal., January 6, 2025) arises from Defendant's false, misleading, deceptive, and negligent sales practices regarding its 7-Hydroxymitragynine (7-OH) tablet products. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendant has intentionally failed to disclose the material facts regarding the dangers of 7-OH consumption anywhere on its 7-OH tablets' labeling, packaging, or marketing material. As a result, the Defendant has violated warranty law and state consumer protection laws. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek relief in this action on behalf of themselves, and as a class action, on behalf of similarly situated purchasers of Defendant's 7-OH tablet products, for the following violations of: (i) California's Unfair Competition Law, (ii) California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, (iii) California's False Advertising Law, (iv) breach of implied warranty; (v) unjust enrichment, and (vi) fraud by omission. Headquartered in Wyoming, Alternative Ventures LLC., d/b/a PRESS'D, owns and operates the website www.itspressd.com, and also advertises, markets, distributes, and sells its 7-OH products in California and throughout the United States. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Neal J. Deckant, Esq. Luke Sironski-White, Esq. Karen B. Valenzuela, Esq. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ndeckant@bursor.com lsironski@bursor.com kvalenzuela@bursor.com - and - Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. Scott G. Braden, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1234 Camino del Mar Del Mar, CA 92014 Telephone: (619) 762-1910 Facsimile: (858) 313-1850 E-mail: todd@lcllp.com scott@lcllp.com AMERICAN ADDICTION: Faces Capellan Suit Over Data Security Failure ------------------------------------------------------------------ ANELL CAPELLAN, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN ADDICTION CENTERS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00024 (M.D. Tenn., January 6, 2025) is a class action arising out of Defendant's failures to properly secure and safeguard approximately 422,424 Class members' sensitive private information. According to the complaint, the Defendant's data security failures allowed a targeted cyberattack to compromise Defendant's network that contained the private information of Plaintiff and other individuals. The data breach resulted in the publication of Plaintiff's and Class members' private information in November 2024. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant seeking redress for its unlawful conduct and asserting claims for: (i) negligence and negligence per se, (ii) breach of implied contract, (iii) breach of fiduciary duty, (iv) unjust enrichment, and (vi) declaratory relief. American Addiction Centers, Inc. is a nationwide addiction treatment center that specializes in evidence-based treatment and mental healthcare services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. Tanner R. Hilton, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com AMERICAN TAX: Mott Allowed Leave to Conduct Class Cert. Discovery ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM MOTT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN TAX SERVICE, LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-00275-SCJ (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Steve Jones entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for leave to conduct class certification and damages discovery. -- The Plaintiff shall have 120 days from the date of this Order to conduct class certification and damages-related discovery, including third-party discovery. The Plaintiff shall file a motion to certify class pursuant to Rule 23 or motion for default judgment on behalf of the Named Plaintiff no later than 45 days after the close of the discovery period. American Tax is a national Tax resolution, tax planning and tax services company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6Z2pzF at no extra charge.[CC] AMHERST COLLEGE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Ortiz Says -------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH ORTIZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. TRUSTEES OF AMHERST COLLEGE, Case No. 1:25-cv-00033 (W.D.N.Y., Jan. 9, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.amherst.edu, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, prohibiting discrimination against the blind. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on Jan. 3, 2025, in an attempt to purchase the North Face Jester Backpack, and to view the information on the Website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied him a shopping and recreational experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public, the suit says. The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer frustration and humiliation as a result of the discriminatory conditions present on Defendant's Website. These discriminatory conditions continue to contribute to Plaintiff's sense of isolation and segregation, the suit asserts. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Mr. Ortiz is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. Trustees of Amherst College is a federally funded, private liberal arts college with its main campus located at 220 South Pleasant Street, Amherst, MA 01002.[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, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal AMN HEALTHCARE: Loses Bid to Compel Arbitration in Pappas Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denies the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit captioned JEAN PAPPAS, et al., Plaintiffs v. AMN HEALTHCARE SERVICES, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-01426-JST (N.D. Cal.). Before the Court is AMN Healthcare Services, Inc., as well as Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. and Kaiser Foundation Hospitals' ("Kaiser") (collectively, "Defendants'") motion to compel arbitration. Kaiser is a non-profit corporation that operates healthcare facilities in California. AMN is a nationwide provider of temporary healthcare staffing solutions, and places healthcare professionals like traveling nurses in temporary assignments at facilities. Healthcare facilities such as Kaiser, offer a "bill rate"--the total amount the facility is willing to pay a staffing agency, such as AMN, for every hour worked by a traveling nurse. AMN then deducts costs, overhead, and profit margin from the bill rate and advertises the hourly rate it is willing to pay a traveling nurse to accept the facility assignment. AMN uses recruiters, who pitch traveling nurses on new job opportunities. Plaintiffs Jean Pappas, Johannah Hetherington, Nikole Domke, Michelle Anderson, and Jane Angell are traveling nurses. Kaiser contracts with nurse staffing agencies like AMN to recruit and employ travel nurses like the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated to fill certain staffing needs at Kaiser facilities. AMN recruiters called the Plaintiffs and verbally communicated: (1) a description of the assignment, including the location of the assignment, length of assignment, and total compensation; and (2) the potential repercussions associated with a nurse cancelling the assignment, including potentially being blacklisted from working at AMN or the hospital. Rick Woods, a former recruiter for AMN, notes that the recruiters were not trained or instructed to mention arbitration or other dispute resolution procedures. The Plaintiffs were told on the call that they would be emailed a Professional Services Agreement ("PSA") confirming the verbal agreement and that they should sign the document immediately. In the email attaching the PSA, the recruiters noted that the details discussed regarding the verbal agreement are reflected in the contract for review and for signing electronically. All Plaintiffs accepted a travel assignment from AMN to relocate and work at a Kaiser facility located in California. After the Plaintiffs committed to an assignment and began work, AMN gave the Plaintiffs "take-it-or-leave it" demands that they either accept pay decreases or face termination. On March 8, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint alleging that AMN knowingly engaged in "bait-and-switch" practices and perpetrated fraud on travel nurses in a quest for profit and market share. The Plaintiffs contend that AMN's "take-it-or-leave-it" demands to accept less pay or be terminated violate the California Labor Code and California's Unfair Competition Law and give rise to claims for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel, fraudulent inducement, fraudulent concealment, and negligent misrepresentation. The Plaintiffs additionally sue Kaiser for inducing breach of contract and for tortious interference with contractual relations. They seek damages, disgorgement, costs, attorneys' fees, and pre-and post-judgment interest. Prior to their start date, AMN required each Plaintiff to sign and acknowledge a form employment agreement called a PSA to begin work. The PSAs are two pages long, and substantially similar for all clinicians, except for the specific assignment details. Each Plaintiff signed and acknowledged a PSA. The last section of each PSA is titled "ARBITRATION OF DISPUTES" in boldface. The Defendants move to compel arbitration of the Plaintiffs' claims under the PSA. The Plaintiffs do not contest the existence of the arbitration agreement or that their individual claims fall within the scope of that agreement. They oppose the motion on the grounds that the arbitration agreement is unconscionable and, therefore, unenforceable. The Plaintiffs argue that the arbitration provision is procedurally unconscionable because it was contained in a contract of adhesion. They also argue, among other things, that the Court should find additional oppression factors for two reasons: (1) AMN placed them under significant time pressure to accept the PSA such that they did not have time to have an attorney review the terms; and (2) that AMN failed to attach the JAMS rules. The Court finds that Plaintiffs faced undue time pressure in their consideration of the PSAs and that is evidence of oppression. Overall, the Court finds that there is a moderate degree of procedural unconscionability based on the adhesive nature of the form contract, the pressure on prospective employees to sign the PSA immediately, and the indeterminate language regarding cost-shifting. The Court also concludes that the fee-shifting provision in the PSAs is substantively unconscionable. While the PSA displays a moderate degree of procedural unconscionability, Judge Tigar finds it contains a high degree of substantive unconscionability, rendering the PSA unconscionable. Given this, the next question is whether the substantively unconscionable provision can be severed from the contract. The Court finds the Plaintiff's first argument to be dispositive. The Court agrees with Hale's analysis and, accordingly, declines to sever the unconscionable provision, citing Hale v. Brinker Int'l, Inc., No. 21-CV-09978-VC, 2022 WL 2187397, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 17, 2022). For these reasons, the Court denies the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4k9rzvys from PacerMonitor.com. ANDREW MCFARLAND: Latimore Suit Seeks Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Roy Latimore, et al., v. Andrew McFarland, warden, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00077-DHB-BKE (S.D. Ga.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting to certify class. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LCgIpl at no extra charge.[CC] ARM SOLUTIONS: Henry Suit Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections ----------------------------------------------------------- SHONNA HENRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ARM SOLUTIONS INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-03172-E (N.D. Tex., Dec. 18, 2024) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is referred to Judge Ada Brown. ARM Solutions Inc. is a full service collection agency providing custom debt recovery solutions for companies of all sizes in various markets. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nayeem N. Mohammed, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF NAYEEM N MOHAMMED 539 W Commerce St #1899 Dallas, TX 75208 Telephone: (972) 767-9099 Facsimile: (630) 575-8188 Email: nayeem@nnmpc.com - and - Joshua Cohen, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: jcohen@steinsakslegal.com ARMY AND AIR FORCE: 7th Cir. Vacates Dismissal of Thompson Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled LINDA THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant v. ARMY AND AIR FORCE EXCHANGE SERVICE, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 23-2447 (7th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit vacates the dismissal of the putative class action lawsuit. The appeal is from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois (Case No. 22-cv-2799; Staci M. Yandle, Judge). The appeal involves the rare case where the parties agree that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's claim. At issue is what happens next. Plaintiff Linda Thompson filed a putative class action against the Army and Air Force Exchange Service (the "Exchange") in Illinois state court, alleging that the Exchange printed her credit card's expiration date on purchase receipts in violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act ("FACTA"). The Exchange removed the case to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1442(a)(1), which provides for federal agency removal. Once in federal court, Thompson moved to remand the case back to state court, and the Exchange moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Both parties focused on Thompson's lack of Article III standing. The district court elected to dismiss the lawsuit. It reasoned that the Exchange did not need to assert a colorable federal defense to remove the action and that the Exchange possessed an absolute right to litigate in federal court. The Panel agrees that the Exchange was not required to present a federal defense to remove this case. But the district court erred in dismissing the lawsuit. The Panel, therefore, vacates the judgment and remands, with instructions to remand the case to state court. The Panel concludes that the district court properly held that the Exchange need not assert a colorable federal defense to remove Thompson's case. But it erred in dismissing the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Appeals Court, therefore, vacates the judgment and remands with instructions to remand the action to state court. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/38jm75b7 from PacerMonitor.com. ARVATO USA LLC: Lewis Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case is styled as Markely Lewis, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Arvato USA LLC Erroneously Sued As Arvato Digital Services, LLC; Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2428692 was removed from the San Bernardino Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Dec. 20, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:24-cv-02693-AB-SHK to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated Other Labor for Labor/Mgmnt. Relations. Arvato Group -- https://arvato.com/ -- is an internationally active service group that develops and implements customized solutions for various business processes for customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. Sang D. Song, Esq. Stanley Jungjoon Park, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 725 South Figueroa St., 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-232-3128 Fax: 213-232-3125 Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com psong@moonlawgroup.com spark@moonlawgroup.com The Defendants are represented by: Veronica T. Hunter, Esq. Orlando J Arellano, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 689-0404 Fax: (213) 689-0430 Email: Veronica.Hunter@jacksonlewis.com orlando.arellano@jacksonlewis.com ASCEND LEARNING: Discloses Customers' Info to Meta, Hetrick Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- ALLISON HETRICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ASCEND LEARNING, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-10103 (D. Mass., Jan. 14, 2024) alleges that the Defendant knowingly discloses Plaintiff's and its other customers' identities and their purchases of prerecorded video content or subscriptions to access prerecorded video content to Meta Platforms, Inc. formerly known as Facebook, Inc., in violation of the federal Video Privacy Protection Act. Over the past two years, the Defendant has systematically transmitted (and continues to transmit today) its customers' personally identifying video viewing information to Meta using a snippet of programming code called the "Meta Pixel," which Defendant chose to install and configure on its family of websites (websites owned by its affiliates, brands, and partners), the Plaintiff avers. The information Defendant disclosed (and continues to disclose) to Meta via the Meta Pixel includes the customer's Facebook ID, the title and URL corresponding to the specific prerecorded video or the subscription that each of its customers purchased on any one of its Websites. The Plaintiff has never consented, agreed, authorized, or otherwise permitted the Defendant to disclose her Private Video Information to Meta. In fact, the Defendant has never even provided the Plaintiff with written notice of its practices of disclosing its customers' Private Video Information to third parties such as Meta, the suit says. Ms. Hetrick is a consumer of the video products and services offered on Defendant's www.atitesting.com website. She subscribed to Defendant's website on March 2024 and maintained her subscription throughout the term of the plan selected. Ascent is an online educational provider of integrated software, assessments, learning content, and analytics solutions across a variety of industries, including healthcare.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William F. Sinnott, Esq. B. Stephanie Siegmann, Esq. HINCKLEY, ALLEN & SNYDER LLP 28 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 345-9000 Facsimile: (617) 345-9020 E-mail: wsinnott@hinckleyallen.com ssiegmann@hinckleyallen.com - and - Tyler K. Somes, Esq. Elliot O. Jackson, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Ave., Suite 610 Miami, FL 33131-3302 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 Facsimile: (305) 200-8801 E-mail: tsomes@hedinllp.com ejackson@hedinllp.com ASCENSION HEALTH: Cancels Insurance Without Notice, Nicholas Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- RYDER NICHOLAS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASCENSION HEALTH, ASCENSION HEALTH d/b/a ASCENSION PERSONALIZED CARE, and US HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-00051 (E.D. Mo., January 13, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of contract, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and violations of the Texas Insurance Code and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The case arises from the unlawful cancellation of insurance coverage to the Plaintiff and the proposed Class members who received health insurance from Ascension Personalized Care. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to provide notice that the insurance coverage was no longer available to the Plaintiff and the proposed Class members. As a result of the Defendants' failure to provide notice, the Plaintiff and the proposed Class members have suffered widespread injury and damages, including a complete lack of insurance coverage to date, says the suit. Ascension Health is a not-for-profit corporation based in St. Louis, Missouri. Ascension Health, doing business as Ascension Personalized Care, is a health plan provider based in St. Louis, Missouri. US Health and Life Insurance Company is an insurance firm based in Troy, Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John F. Garvey, Esq. Colleen Garvey, Esq. Ellen A. Thomas, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 701 Market Street, Suite 1510 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 390-6750 Email: jgarvey@stranchlaw.com cgarvey@stranchlaw.com ethomas@stranchlaw.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com ATHENA BITCOIN: Carew Suit Removed to D. New Jersey --------------------------------------------------- The case is styled as Karen Carew, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Athena Bitcoin, Inc., Matias Goldenhorn, K&K Convenience Store d/b/a Country Farm Convenience Store, Sukhwinder Singh d/b/a Country Farm Food N Smoke Shop, Case No. MON-L-003971-24 was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Monmouth County, to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on Jan. 17, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00608 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property. Athena Bitcoin -- https://athenabitcoin.com/ -- is a cryptocurrency technology company dedicated to building open financial systems to serve the global community.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. BANK OF AMERICA: Boyer-Gomez Sues Over Deceptive Practices ---------------------------------------------------------- Jean-Baptiste Boyer-Gomez, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No. 1:25-cv-10123 (D. Mass., Jan. 17, 2025), is brought to challenge the deceptive business practices of the Defendant related to its advertised and agreed upon terms and conditions. The Plaintiff saw, relied upon, and entered into a binding agreement with Defendant pursuant to its Bonus Miles and XP Offer (the "Offer"). Upon Plaintiff's completion of his end of the Offer, Defendant applied a different offer and refused to abide by the original terms. The Defendant, while on the phone with Plaintiff, informed Plaintiff that numerous other individuals had spoken to them about this bait-and-switch. Nevertheless, Defendant refused to honor the original agreement. The Plaintiff makes these allegations on information and belief, with the exception of those allegations that pertain to Plaintiff, or to Plaintiff's counsel, which Plaintiff alleges on personal knowledge. While many violations are described below with specificity, this Complaint alleges violations of the statutes cited in their entirety. Any violations by Defendant were knowing, willful, and intentional, and Defendant did not maintain procedures reasonably adapted to avoid any such violation. Unless otherwise indicated, the use of a Defendants' name in this Complaint includes all agents, employees, officers, members, directors, heirs, successors, assigns, principals, trustees, sureties, subrogees, representatives, and insurers of Defendants named, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person who resides in Somerville, Massachusetts. Bank of America is a national banking association doing business in the State of Massachusetts with a principal place of business in North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicola S. Yousif, Esq. Matthew McKenna, Esq. SHIELD LAW, LLC 157 Belmont St. Brockton, MA 02301 Phone: (508) 588-7300 Email: nick@shieldlaw.com matt@shieldlaw.com BANK OF AMERICA: Class Cert Bid Filing in Nguyen Due March 17 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELLE NGUYEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No. 5:23-cv-04999-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge P. Casey Pitts entered an order granting the Amended Case Management Order as follows: Event Deadline Joinder and Other Amendments: Dec. 20, 2024 Fact Discovery Cutoff: Aug. 1, 2025 Expert Discovery Cutoff: Aug. 1, 2025 Briefing Schedule for Class Certification Motion by: Mar. 17, 2025 Opposition by: Apr. 15, 2024 Reply by: May 6, 2025 Hearing on: May 29, 2025 Pretrial Conference: Nov. 18, 2025 Trial: Jan. 26, 2026 Bank of America offers saving and current account, investment and financial services, and online banking. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=me08JH at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason S. Hartley, Esq. Jason M. Lindner, Esq. HARTLEY LLP 101 West Broadway, Suite 820 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 400-5822 E-mail: hartley@hartleyllp.com lindner@hartleyllp.com - and - George A. Hanson, Esq. Alexander T. Ricke, Esq. Caleb J. Wagner, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 Facsimile: (816) 714-7101 E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com ricke@stuevesiegel.com wagner@stuevesiegel.com The Defendant is represented by: Adam P. KohSweeney, Esq. Chelsea E. Espiritu, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-3823 Telephone: (415) 984 8700 Facsimile: (415) 984 8701 E-mail: akohsweeney@omm.com cespiritu@omm.com BDO USA: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over ESOP Inflated Valuation ---------------------------------------------------------------- Adrienne Gonzalez, writing for Going Concern, said that we knew it was only a matter of time before someone filed a class action lawsuit against BDO USA for all that ESOP stuff. Pretty much ever since the secret partner meeting happened back in 2023 we've heard from countless current and former partners saying "Gee I wish someone would sue the shit out of BDO" (paraphrasing) for everything related to BDO's deal with Apollo and the ESOP. Here's a transcript of just one such voicemail: I'm a current member of BDO, a partner or now principal as we're called. I read your article on Going Concern, there's a lot of good information there. I'd love to see a class action suit by the former partners. Unfortunately, I'm a current partner so I'm not willing to start something like that, but we would love to see that, there's been a lot of discussions that we're hoping some partners who have left would do that because of a lot of the things that you mentioned in the article. Well buddy, it's your lucky day. On January 17, Tristin Taylor -- who is listed as a current employee of the firm in the lawsuit -- filed a class action complaint against BDO in United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts Eastern Division alleging various naughtiness related to the ESOP. The allegations in the complaint, embedded in its entirety below, include (reminder . . . allegations): Inflated Stock Valuation: -- BDO executives allegedly inflated company revenues and valuations before selling 42% of the company's stock to the ESOP for $1.3 billion, a price claimed to be above fair market value. -- The inflated valuation caused the ESOP to overpay and unduly enriched BDO executives who sold their shares but retained control over the company. Conflicts of Interest: -- The creation of the ESOP was allegedly structured to benefit company executives who influenced the valuation process and the appointment of trustees. Governance Issues: -- The ESOP did not obtain control over the company despite its purchase of a significant share of BDO stock, as the governance structure allowed BDO executives to retain voting power and control. Debt Burden: -- The ESOP was financed through a high-interest loan facilitated by BDO, leading to significant financial strain on the company and the ESOP. ERISA Violations: -- The lawsuit claims violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), including breaches of fiduciary duty, prohibited transactions, and imprudent investment decisions that harmed ESOP participants. This is not the first-time allegations of inflated revenues have floated (clearly, if you read the headline of this post). Here are two separate instances we've written about: Some specifics from the suit: Prior to the Transaction, the BDO ESOP had no assets with which to purchase the Company's stock. To facilitate the transaction, the Company entered into a private credit deal with Apollo Global Management affiliates ("Apollo"), through which Apollo provided the Company the funds required to consummate the transaction. Based on the best information available to Plaintiff, the loan between Apollo and the Company carried a floating interest rate based on the Secured Overnight Financing Rate plus 6%. As of December 31, 2023, this resulted in an interest rate of 11.36%. BDO guaranteed and is required to make contributions to the ESOP sufficient to pay all loan payments due, thereby reducing BDO's future cash flows by the amount necessary to service the ESOP's Transaction debt. Had Defendants provided truthful information concerning BDO's past and future financial performance and ensured that the ESOP trustee conducted the rigorous due diligence required by ERISA, the ESOP would not have purchased 42% of the Company's stock for $1.3 billion while obtaining no control of the Company. I linked it already but just in case: Let's Look at Apollo's 10-Q to Get Specifics on Their Deal with BDO. The day before BDO put out a press release about the ESOP, Financial Times wrote that "BDO partners [are] in line for windfall after $1.3bn debt deal with Apollo Global Management." The civil suit complaint says: Rather than find an arm's-length purchaser for their shares that would scrutinize BDO's financial position and wrest control of the Company from their hands, the Company's executives created a captive buyer for their shares through the creation of the ESOP. The BDO employees who were the intended beneficiaries of the ESOP were not permitted to negotiate the terms or purchase price of the Company stock that executives would offload into employees' retirement accounts. Rather, the Company's Board of Directors selected a trustee that they believed would acquiesce to the Board's will. Despite the ESOP purchasing Company stock, neither employees nor the ESOP obtained control over the Company's future cash flows or strategic direction. Even worse, the Board adopted an ESOP governance structure such that the ESOP itself was controlled by BDO's executives shortly after the ESOP Transaction. BDO's Executive Team thus retained control and power over the ESOP including the right to vote all shares held by ESOP. As a result, BDO executives received $1.3 billion for selling 42% of their BDO stock but did not give up control over the Company. Defendants in the suit are BDO USA, P.C., the Board of Directors of BDO USA, P.C., BDO USA CEO and "key architect" of the transaction Wayne Berson, and BDO ESOP Trustees Catherine Moy, Stephen Ferrara, Mark Ellenbogen, Matthew Becker, William Eisig, and Patrick Donaghue. The ESOP plan has approximately 10,000 participants. The plaintiff retained counsel from Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC who can be reached via this contact form or hit them up at these emails: -- myau@cohenmilstein.com -- dsutter@cohemilstein.com -- rwheeler@cohenmilstein.com -- cbressman@cohenmilstein.com [GN] BERRY DUNN: Settles 2023 Data Breach Class Action Suit for $7.25MM ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that Berry, Dunn, McNeil & Parker has agreed to pay a $7,250,000 settlement to resolve a proposed class action lawsuit that alleged the consulting and accounting firm was liable for a September 2023 data breach. The official website for the class action settlement can be found at BDSettlement.com. The class members covered by the settlement include all individuals whose private information was potentially accessible to an unauthorized third party as a result of the Berry, Dunn, McNeil & Parker data breach that was discovered on September 14, 2023, including those who were sent notification of the incident. The deal was preliminarily approved by the court in December 2024. If the settlement is granted final approval by the court at a hearing set for June 6, 2025, each class member who files a timely, valid claim form can to receive up to $5,000 for documented losses related to the Berry, Dunn, McNeil & Parker data breach. Alternatively, eligible individuals can opt to receive a $100 cash payout, which may increase or decrease on a pro-rata basis depending on the number of valid claims that are submitted, the settlement website shares. Covered individuals can also submit a claim for three years of complimentary credit monitoring services. Claim forms must be filed online or postmarked by May 22, 2025. You can submit a claim online by clicking here. You'll be asked to enter the notice ID and confirmation code found in the settlement notice you should have received. You can also download a claim form and send it in by mail. Settlement benefits and cash payments will be sent to claimants only after the settlement receives final approval from the court and any appeals are resolved. A consolidated class action complaint was filed against Portland, Maine-based Berry, Dunn, McNeil & Parker in June 2024. The lawsuit claims that cybercriminals hacked into the systems of co-defendant Reliable Networks, a technology consulting company and a managed service provider for Berry Dunn's Health Analytics Practice Group. According to the case, the defendants failed to comply with industry-standard data security practices, resulting in the exposure of consumers' names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, individual health insurance policy numbers and other personal details. [GN] BEVERAGE WORKS: Ortiz Seeks Withdrawal of Class Cert. Bid --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID ORTIZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. THE BEVERAGE WORKS NY, INC., dba THE BEVERAGE WORKS, Case No. 1:24-cv-04424-ARR-JRC (E.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting withdrawal of motion for class certification and related relief. The Plaintiff files the notice in light of the Parties' settlement in principle, which was conveyed to Magistrate Judge James R. Cho on Jan. 10, 2025. Beverage Works offers energy drinks products. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Fe6DGd at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jack A. Raisner, Esq. Rene S. Roupinian, Esq. RAISNER ROUPINIAN LLP 270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1801 New York, NY York 10016 Telephone: (212) 221-1747 Facsimile: (212) 221-1747 E-mail: jar@raisnerroupinian.com rsr@raisnerroupinian.com BEYOND MEAT: Jackson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- Sylinia Jackson, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. BEYOND MEAT, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00391 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 15, 2025), is brought against the Defendants for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully and equally accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its services offered thereby, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because the Defendant's website, https://www.beyondmeat.com/en-US/, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. BEYOND MEAT, INC., operates the Beyond Meat online retail store, as well as the Beyond Meat interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: dana@gottlieb.legal michael@gottlieb.legal jeffrey@gottlieb.legal BH RETAIL SOUTH: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property -------------------------------------------------------- Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. BH RETAIL SOUTH DIXIE, LLC; and MACY'S RETAIL HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a MACY'S, Case No. 1:25-cv-20271-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 17, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property and restaurant and bar business within the commercial property. Although over 30 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. The Plaintiff found the commercial property and commercial restaurant business located within the commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the commercial property and commercial restaurant business located within the commercial property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The barriers to access have likewise posed a risk of injury(ies), embarrassment, and discomfort to Plaintiff and others similarly situated. The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. MACY'S RETAIL HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a MACY'S, owned and/or operated a commercial retail store within the Commercial Property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beverly Virues, Esq. Armando Mejias, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, Fl 33134 Phone: (305) 553-3464 Primary Email: bvirues@lawgmp.com Secondary Emails: amejias@lawgmp.com jacosta@lawgmp.com - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Phone: (305) 350-3103 Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com BH SOUTH DIXIE: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Commercial Property ------------------------------------------------------------------ Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. BH SOUTH DIXIE SL MALL LLC; and THE TJX COMPANIES, INC. d/b/a TJ MAXX, Case No. 1:25-cv-20231-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 15, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property and restaurant and bar business within the commercial property. Although over 30 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. The Plaintiff found the commercial property and commercial restaurant business located within the commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the commercial property and commercial restaurant business located within the commercial property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The barriers to access have likewise posed a risk of injury(ies), embarrassment, and discomfort to Plaintiff and others similarly situated. The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. BH SOUTH DIXIE SL MALL LLC, owns, operates, and oversees the Commercial Property, its general parking lot and parking spots specific to the business therein, located in Miami Dade County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beverly Virues, Esq. Armando Mejias, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, Fl 33134 Phone: (305) 553-3464 Primary Email: bvirues@lawgmp.com Secondary Emails: amejias@lawgmp.com jacosta@lawgmp.com - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Phone: (305) 350-3103 Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com BIOPLUS SPECIALTY: Settlement in Gilbert Suit Gets Final Court Okay ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted final approval of the class action settlement in the case captioned as BONNIE GILBERT; DAVID GATZ; WENDY BRYAN; LORI GRADER; DARYL SWANSON; PATRICIA WHITE; ALICIA DUNN; CRYSTAL HULLETT; and STEPHEN GABBARD, Plaintiffs, v. BIOPLUS SPECIALTY PHARMACY SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 6:21-cv-2158-RBD-DCI (M.D. Fla.). Plaintiffs brought a class action suit against Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and declaratory judgment after a data breach involving information on Defendant's network. The parties agreed to settle the claims on a class-wide basis, and the Court preliminarily approved the settlement agreement. Plaintiffs now move unopposed for final approval of the Settlement and for attorney's fees and costs. Fee Motion Plaintiffs request a fee award of $424,128.96. They propose that $341,666.66 of the fee award come from a non-reversionary common fund and $82,462.30 come from a reversionary claims-made fund. Plaintiffs also ask for $15,000.00 in costs. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge Daniel C. Irick's Report and Recommendation on the Fee Motion that the fee award of $341,666.66 from the Common Fund, representing one-third of that fund, is reasonable as the case was complex, the case may have been considered undesirable because of its complexity and the risk of no recovery, class counsel achieved a significant settlement providing monetary relief to all class members despite the inherent risk of no recovery, and no class member objected. The Court also agrees with the R&R that class counsel's expenses, capped at $15,000.00, are reasonable. So the R&R is due to be adopted, the Fee Motion granted, and class counsel awarded $424,128.96 in attorney's fees and $15,000.00 in expenses. Settlement Motion The Court finds the Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate. There has been no opposition, the members are treated equitably, and the factual record was sufficiently developed. The Court finally certifies the following class: All persons whose personal information was impacted in the Data Incident. The Settlement Class specifically excludes: (i) BioPlus and its respective officers and directors; (ii) all Settlement Class Members who timely and validly request exclusion from the Settlement Class; (iii) the Judge and/or magistrate assigned to evaluate the fairness of this settlement; and (iv) any other Person found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be guilty under criminal law of initiating, causing, aiding, or abetting the Data Incident or who pleads nolo contendere to any such charge. The Court finally designates the named Plaintiffs as Class Representatives. The Court finally appoints the named Plaintiffs' counsel as Class Counsel. The Court finds it has personal jurisdiction over all settlement class members and Defendant. This action is dismissed with prejudice. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=m36qNC from PacerMonitor.com. BLOCK INC: Gonsalves Sues Over Exchange Act Violation ----------------------------------------------------- Corinne Gonsalves, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. BLOCK, INC., JACK DORSEY, and AMRITA AHUJA, Case No. 3:25-cv-00642 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 17, 2025), is brought on behalf of all purchasers of Block Class A common stock between February 26, 2020 and April 30, 2024, inclusive ("Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies and recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"), SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Defendants claimed that Block maintained robust anti- money laundering ("AML") and other compliance protocols and procedures designed to effectively prevent the use of the Company's products and services from being used for illicit or criminal activities. These and similar representations made by defendants during the Class Period were materially false and misleading when made. In truth, and as defendants knew or recklessly disregarded, Block failed to implement even basic due diligence and know your customer ("KYC") protocols, effectively creating a haven for criminal and illicit activities on its Square and Cash App platforms. Among the numerous illegal activities that proliferated on Block products during the Class Period, Company customers used Block products to engage in money laundering, child sexual abuse, sex trafficking, drug trafficking, terrorism financing, contract killings, and illicit payments to entities and persons subject to economic sanctions. Block failed to report thousands of suspicious transactions to regulatory authorities, permitted customers subject to sanctions alerts to complete transactions before the alerts were resolved, and failed to screen customer biographies against sanctions key word lists, among numerous other compliance shortfalls. As former employees would later reveal, defendants failed to course-correct, even after senior Block leadership was alerted to these deficiencies and despite numerous red flags, ultimately leading to multiple whistleblower complaints and probes and fines by regulators. As a result of defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the subsequent declines in the market value of Block Class A common stock, which dropped 77% to a low of less than $66 per share by Class Period end from its Class Period peak of over $289 per share, plaintiff and other members of the Class (defined below) suffered significant financial losses and economic damages under the federal securities laws, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased Block Class A common stock. Block is a financial technology conglomerate.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shawn A. Williams, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Post Montgomery Center One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: 415/288-4545 Fax: 415/288-4534 Email: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com – and – Michael A. Troncoso, Esq. Brian E. Cochran, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-8498 Phone: 619/231-1058 Fax: 619/231-7423 Email: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com BOAR'S HEAD: Pompilio Seeks Prelim. Approval of Class Settlement ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Frank Pompilio, Rita Torres, Samantha Chuskas, Sheryl Gatoff, and Robby Harper, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Boar's Head Provisions Co. Inc, Case No. 7:24-cv-08220-PMH (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) for an Order: 1) preliminarily approving this proposed class action settlement; 2) preliminarily certifying the class for settlement purposes; and 3) granting approval of the proposed notice plan. Boar's Head is a supplier of delicatessen meats, cheeses and condiments. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gpCi3P at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. Jeremy Francis, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12061 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com francisj@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - Michael R. Reese, Esq. REESE LLP 100 West 93rd Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10025 Telephone: (212) 643-0500 E-mail: mreese@reesellp.com - and - Nick Suciu III, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 6905 Telegraph Road, Suite 115 Bloomfield Hills, MI 48301 Telephone: (313) 303-3472 E-mail: nsuciu@milberg.com - and - Paul Doolittle, Esq. POULIN WILLEY ANASTAPOULO 32 Ann St, Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (800) 313-2546 E-mail: pauld@akimlawfirm.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRIN & BERMAN 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and - Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq. Andrew Costello, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: jbrown@leedsbrownlaw.com BOOZ ALLEN: Belpointe Sues Over Failure to Establish Security ------------------------------------------------------------- Belpointe Sleepovation Investment, LP, individually on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON, INC., Case No. 8:25-cv-00179-DKC (D. Md., Jan. 17, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's willful, knowing, and negligent failure to establish basic information security protocols, enabling its own employee to unlawfully access and disseminate the confidential Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") tax return data of Plaintiff and tens of thousands of proposed class members. Booz Allen has made billions of dollars from American taxpayers through its contracts with the Department of the Treasury and the IRS. As a government vendor, Booz Allen accessed and reviewed troves of confidential taxpayer data, including tax returns and return information. Although it was keenly aware of the amount of confidential data it had access to--and the ramifications for allowing this data to remain unprotected--Booz Allen allowed its own employee to illegally access and disclose confidential tax returns and return information. From 2018 through 2021, Booz Allen employee Charles "Chaz" Littlejohn used his position at Booz Allen to access, collect and disseminate the tax returns and/or return information of tens of thousands of American taxpayers' information, including Plaintiff's data. Booz Allen's shirking of responsibility for this historic breach cannot continue, and it must be held to account for its role in the access and dissemination of the confidential data of hundreds of thousands of taxpayers, including Plaintiff's and putative Class members, says the complaint. The Plaintiff received a letter from the IRS notifying it that Charles Littlejohn was charged in connection with unauthorized disclosure of Plaintiff's tax return or return information. Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. is an American government and military contractor.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James P. Ulwick, Esq. KRAMON & GRAHAM, P.A. 750 East Pratt Street, Suite 1100 Baltimore, MD 21202 Phone: (410) 752-6030 Email: julwick@kg-law.com - and - James Pizzirusso, Esq. Nicholas Murphy, Esq. Amanda V. Boltax, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 888 16th Street, Ste. 300 Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 540-7200 Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com nmurphy@hausfeld.com mboltax@hausfeld.com - and - Steven Nathan, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street, Fourteenth Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: (646) 357-1100 Email: snathan@hausfeld.com - and - Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq. NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C. 1133 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor New York, NY 10036 Phone: (917) 438-9102 Email: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com - and - Michele S. Carino, Esq. CARINO LAW LLC 42 Eweler Avenue Floral Park, NY 11001 Phone: (347) 452-3675 Fax: (929) 262-6896 Email: mcarino@carinolaw.com BOOZ ALLEN: Fails to Secure Tax Return Info, Safe Harbor Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ SAFE HARBOR INTERNATIONAL LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:25-cv-00139-TDC (D. Md., January 14, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of 26 U.S.C. Sections 6103 and 7431. The case arises from Booz Allen's systemic failure to safeguard its computer systems, failure to protect Internal Revenue Service networks and databases, and failure to monitor and restrict its personnel's data access, at the expense of the confidential tax return information of Plaintiff and Class members. According to the complaint, Booz Allen willingly allowed its employees unrestricted and unmonitored access to IRS databases and systems. As a result of the Defendant's omissions and negligence, the sensitive tax return information of the Plaintiff and Class members were compromised and stolen, says the suit. Safe Harbor International LLC is a limited liability company, with its principal place of business in the District of Columbia. Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. is an American government and military contractor, headquartered in McLean, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nathaniel K. Risch, Esq. MANN & RISCH LLC 101 E. Chesapeake Ave., Ste. 403 Towson, MD 21286 Telephone: (410) 929-5145 Email: nate@mannrisch.com - and - Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. Israel Rosenberg, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 100019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com irosenberg@bursor.com BOSTON IVF LLC: Suit Filed in Mass. Super. Ct. ---------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Boston IVF LLC. The case is styled as Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Boston IVF LLC, Case No. 2584CV00152 (Mass. Super. Ct., Suffolk Cty., Jan. 17, 2025). The case type is stated as "Business Litigation." Boston IVF LLC -- https://www.bostonivf.com/ -- is a fertility specialists at Boston IVF offer world-renowned infertility treatment services in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Maine, and New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael S. Appel, Esq. KETTERER BROWNE AND ASSOCIATES LLC 336 South Main St. Bel Air, MD 21014 Phone: (855) 522-5297 BROOKLYN BEDDING: Deposition Subpoena Filed in Phillips Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ A Deposition Subpoena on Brynn Grossman was filed in the case captioned as SEAN PHILLIPS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BROOKLYN BEDDING LLC, Case No. 5:24-mc-00014-JGB-DTB (C.D. Cal., Dec. 18, 2024). The case is assigned to Judge Jesus G. Bernal and referred to Magistrate Judge David T. Bristow. Brooklyn Bedding LLC operates as a home furnishing store. The Company offers mattresses, pillows, sheets, blankets, covers, foundations, adjustable bases, and masks. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brynn Grossman, Esq. Simon Carlo Franzini, Esq. DOVEL AND LUNER LLP 201 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 Email: simon@dovel.com - and - Grace Bennett, Esq. DOVEL AND LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Boulevard Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 Email: grace@dovel.com The Defendant is represented by: Erica R Graves, Esq. BLANK ROME LLP 2029 Century Park East, 6th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 239-3400 Facsimile: (424) 239-3434 Email: erica.graves@blankrome.com - and - Harrison Maxwell Brown, Esq. BLANK ROME LLP 2029 Century Park East Suite 6th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 239-3400 Facsimile: (424) 239-3434 Email: harrisonbrown@blankrome.com - and - Anahit Tagvoryan, Esq. BLANK ROME LLP 2029 Century Park East 6th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (424) 239-3400 Facsimile: (424) 239-3434 Email: atagvoryan@blankrome.com BYTEDANCE INC: Parties Seek Continuance of Class Cert Hearing ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as REECE YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BYTEDANCE INC. and TIKTOK INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-01883-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order as follows: 1. The hearing on Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be continued to Feb. 6, 2025, at 10:00 AM; and 2. The deadline for the parties to re-file documents in accordance with the Court's Jan. 13, 2025 sealing order shall be continued by one week to Jan. 22, 2025 at 5:00 PM. The Defendants' lead counsel, Lauren Blas, and her family unexpectedly had to evacuate their home due to wildfires on the evening of Jan. 7, 2025. On Jan. 13, 2025, the Court issued its order on the parties' sealing motions with respect to briefing filed in connection with Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification, directing the parties to re-file certain documents by Jan. 15, 2025, at 5:00 PM, and advising that the parties may seek to continue this deadline in light of the wildfire emergency in Los Angeles. The Parties agree that, under the circumstances, proceeding with the in-person hearing on Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification on Jan. 16, 2025, would cause undue hardship for Defendants' counsel. ByteDance is a technology company operating a range of content platforms. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3pPwjz at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven N. Williams, Esq. STEVEN WILLIAMS LAW, P.C. 201 Spear Street, Suite 1100 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 697-1509 Facsimile: (415) 230-5310 E-mail: swilliams@stevenwilliamslaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Jesse A. Cripps, Esq. Lauren M. Blas, Esq. Leonora Cohen, Esq. Viola H. Li, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 333 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 229-7000 Facsimile: (213) 229-7520 E-mail: JCripps@gibsondunn.com LBlas@gibsondunn.com LCohen@gibsondunn.com VHLi@gibsondunn.com CALIFORNIA: Eastern District Court Dismisses Navedo v. Doerer ------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California dismisses the lawsuit styled CHRISTIAN NAVEDO, Plaintiff v. J. DOERER, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-01179-KES-EPG (E.D. Cal.). Plaintiff Christian Navedo is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983. This case was severed from Benanti v. Doerer, Case No. 1:24-cv-01108-CDB (PC), on Oct. 3, 2024. In that case, another plaintiff, Michael Benanti, filed a complaint purportedly as a class action on behalf of himself and several other individuals, including the named Plaintiff in this case, Navedo. However, only Benanti signed that original complaint. Navedo did not sign the complaint or otherwise indicate he intended to join that lawsuit. Because a non-attorney plaintiff like Benanti proceeding pro se may not represent others, Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker in Benanti denied the request to proceed in a class action, severed each of the individual plaintiff's claims, opened individual cases for each plaintiff listed on the caption, and directed each plaintiff to submit a signed complaint within 45 days from service of the order. The Oct. 3, 2024 order warned that "[f]ailure to comply with this order may result in the dismissal of the plaintiff's case." The current case with Plaintiff Navedo, Navedo v. Doerer, 1:24-cv-01179-EPG, is one such severed case. However, Plaintiff Navedo has not responded to the Court order or otherwise indicated that he intends to prosecute this case, Judge Grosjean notes. Given Navedo's failure to respond, and in light of the fact that Navedo did not sign the original complaint but was merely listed in the caption, dismissal for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with a court order is appropriate, Judge Grosjean holds. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), a court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with court orders and to prosecute. In determining whether to dismiss an action under Rule 41(b) for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with a Court order, the Court must weigh the following factors: (1) the public's interest in expeditious resolution of litigation; (2) the court's need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy favoring disposition of cases on their merits, Judge Grosjean opines, citing Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir. 2002) (citing Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260–61 (9th Cir. 1992)). After weighing the factors, the Court finds that dismissal without prejudice is appropriate. Accordingly, the Court rules that the Clerk of Court will assign a district judge to this case. And it is recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute and failure to follow Court's orders. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. Judge Grosjean holds that these findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States district judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(l). Within thirty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, the Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Any objections will be limited to no more than 15 pages including exhibits. The Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/5h5wawzf from PacerMonitor.com. CALYX ENERGY: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Mar. 27, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TERESA GARRISON PRATT, et al., v. CALYX ENERGY III, LLC, et al., Case No. 6:24-cv-00452-GLJ (E.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Gerald Jackson entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. Motions for leave to amend or add March 13, 2025 additional parties: 2. Preliminary Fact Witness Lists to be April 14, 2025 exchanged by: 3. Class Certification Discovery Cutoff: Jan. 8, 2026 4. Plaintiffs' Expert Reports on Class Jan. 27, 2026 Certification: 5. Defendants’ Expert Reports on Class Feb. 27, 2026 Certification: 6. Expert Deposition Cutoff: Apr. 17, 2026 7. Class Certification Motion filed with Mar. 27, 2026 all supporting evidence, including expert disclosures: 8. Class Certification Response filed May 8, 2026 with all supporting evidence, including rebuttal expert disclosure, if any: 9. Class Certification Reply filed with May 29, 2026 any rebuttal evidence, including rebuttal expert disclosures, if any: Calyx is an oil and gas producer. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=C1CrwE at no extra charge.[CC] CAPITAL ONE: Faces Coleman Suit Over Content Creators' Commission ----------------------------------------------------------------- SHONNA COLEMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Capital One Financial Corporation, Wikibuy LLC, and Wikibuy Holdings LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00060 (E.D. Va., Jan. 13, 2025) contends that Capital One Shopping is causing content creators to lose out on commissions to which they are entitled during the online checkout process. The suit alleges that Capital One programmed the Capital One Shopping browser extension to systematically appropriate commissions that belong to the Plaintiff and class members. This is done by Capital One Shopping substituting its own affiliate marketing cookie in place of the content creator's affiliate marketing cookie, even when the online shopper had used the content creator's specific affiliate web link to navigate to the purchase page. Capital One's conduct harmed the Plaintiff and the Class because the Capital One Shopping browser extension systematically steals commission payments from the rightful owners—i.e., the individual who promoted and shared the affiliate link and generated the referral and ultimate sale of a product or service, the Plaintiff avers. Plaintiff Coleman is an influencer and content creator who earns commission payments from affiliate marketing links she shares on social media, including Facebook and X. Capital One is a diversified bank that offers a broad array of financial products and services to consumers, small businesses and commercial clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee A. Floyd, Esq. BREIT BINIAZAN 2100 East Cary Street, Suite 310 Richmond, VA 23223 Telephone: (804) 351-9040 E-mail: lee@bbtrial.com - and - E. Michelle Drake, Esq. Marika K. O'Connor Grant, Esq. Sophia M. Rios, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1229 Tyler Street NE, Suite 205 Minneapolis, MN 55413 Telephone: (612) 594-5999 Facsimile: (612) 584-4470 E-mail: emdrake@bm.net moconnorgrant@bm.net srios@bm.net CAREMARK PHC: Class Cert Bid Response Extended to Feb. 7 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Flowers v. Caremark PhC, L.L.C, Case No. 4:24-cv-04031 (W.D. Ark., Filed April 18, 2024), the Hon. Judge Susan O. Hickey entered an order granting motion for extension of time to file response to the Plaintiff's motion for class certification to Feb. 7, 2025. -- The Plaintiff shall file his reply on or before March 7, 2025. The nature of suit states other statutory actions. Caremark was founded in 1994. The Company's line of business includes the practice of general and specialized medicine and surgery.CC] CARMAX: Can Compel Arbitration of Individual Claims in Pilcher Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California granted in part CarMax Auto Superstores, Inc.'s motion to compel arbitration and stay the case captioned as DOUGLAS PILCHER, Plaintiff, v. CARMAX AUTO SUPERSTORES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00854-CDB (E.D. Calif.). Plaintiff Douglas Pilcher initiated this putative class action with the filing of a complaint on May 29, 2024, against Defendant CarMax Auto Superstores, Inc. in the Superior Court of California, County of Kern, with the assigned case number BCV-24-101786. On July 24, 2024, Defendant removed the action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Plaintiff asserts that CarMax violated the California False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Secs. 17500, et seq. and the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Secs. 17200, et seq. by allegedly failing to perform advertised 125+ point inspections of three vehicles Plaintiff purchased from CarMax. Plaintiff seeks on behalf of himself and the putative class members preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, disgorgement, restitution, and damages. Pending before the District Court is Defendant's motion to stay proceedings and compel arbitration, filed on July 31, 2024. Defendant seeks to compel arbitration and stay the case because: (1) Plaintiff entered into a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement supported by mutual consent and consideration for the purchase of three vehicles from Defendant, and as part of that valid agreement, Plaintiff agreed to waive his right to participate in a class action, either by serving as a representative or a class member; (2) the parties expressly chose an arbitrator, not a court, to determine any issues of arbitrability; (3) even if the District Court were to reach the issue of arbitrability -- review of which Defendant contends is specifically reserved for the arbitrator -- Plaintiff's claims fall within the scope of the parties' arbitration agreement; and (4) the District Court is required to stay the case pending the conclusion of the parties' arbitration. Plaintiff opposes Defendant's motion solely on the grounds that his class action claims seek the award of public injunctive relief, and as a matter of California law, it is illegal for a company to attempt to contract away a right to seek public injunctive relief. As part of the transactions for the first and second vehicles, Plaintiff signed retail installment contracts. As part of the third vehicle transaction, he signed a used vehicle bill of sale. Each contract includes an agreement to arbitrate. The arbitration agreement also describes the types of disputes subject to arbitration. The arbitration agreement provides the Federal Arbitration Act as the governing law of the provision. It also provides for choosing the arbitration administrator. Plaintiff's signature appears on each of the vehicle contracts containing the arbitration agreement. The District Court finds that a valid agreement to arbitrate exists between the parties. Because the District Court has already found that a valid arbitration agreement exists and appears to include language requiring the issues of arbitrability and scope to be arbitrated, the Court finds that Plaintiff's individual claims are subject to arbitration. The District Court finds Plaintiff's requested relief seeking to enjoin Defendant's practice in falsely advertising 125+ point inspections on vehicles for sale when those inspections have not been done is public injunctive relief. Because the arbitration agreement permits a party to seek public injunctive relief expressly authorized by statute, as are Plaintiff's claims under the UCL and the false advertising law insofar as they seek to enjoin Defendant's false advertisements, the District Court determines these claims should be decided in a judicial forum. Defendant's motion to compel arbitration and stay the instant case pending completion of the arbitration process is granted in part to the extent of compelling arbitration of Plaintiff's individual claims but declining to compel arbitration of Plaintiff's requests for public injunctive relief. The District Court will stay the instant action pending the arbitration proceedings of Plaintiff's remaining, arbitrable individual claims. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6IOtPO from PacerMonitor.com. CASPER SLEEP: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Casper Sleep Inc., Case No. 0:25-cv-00190 (D. Minn., Jan. 16, 2025), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.casper.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind. The Defendant offers sleep products for sale including, but not limited to, mattresses, bedding, pillows, bed frames, sleep accessories and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC Jason Gustafson (#0403297) 222 South Ninth Street, Suite 1600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: chad@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com CBS PERSONNEL: Monge Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Oscar T. Monge, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. CBS PERSONNEL SERVICES LLC; YUSEN LOGISTICS (AMERICAS) INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV32893 was removed from the Superior Court of the state of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 16, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00419. The Complaint alleges seven causes of action which Plaintiff pursues on a class action basis: failure to pay wages for all hours worked at minimum wage in violation of Labor Code, failure to pay overtime wages for daily overtime worked in violation of Labor Code, failure to authorize or permit meal periods in violation of Labor Code; failure to authorize or permit rest periods in violation of Labor Code, failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements in violation of Labor Code; failure to timely pay all earned wages and final paychecks due at time of separation of employment in violation of Labor Code; and unfair business practices, in violation of Business and Professions Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Daniel B. Chammas, Esq. Min K. Kim, Esq. FORD HARRISON LLP 350 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 237-2400 Facsimile: (213) 237-2401 Email: dchammas@fordharrison.com mkim@fordharrison.com CELANESE CORP: 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 Celanese Corporation (NYSE: CE) resulting from allegations that Celanese may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Celanese 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=33409 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 November 4, 2024, after market hours, Celanese reported its third quarter earnings, which included net sales which were "down slightly from the previous quarter[.]" Commenting on these results, the announcement quoted the Company's now-former CEO as saying that in "the third quarter, we faced a severely constrained demand environment that, in some cases like auto, degraded swiftly. I want to thank our teams for executing our value enhancing initiatives that are delivering improvements today while also laying the foundation for future growth[.] Still, these actions have been increasingly offset in the current environment and the earnings generated fell short of our expectations. In response we are taking additional measures to navigate current challenges while positioning Celanese for long-term success. We are confident these actions will accelerate our growth and enhance long-term value." On this news, Celanese stock fell 26.3% on November 5, 2024. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm 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] CHAPS AND CO: Website Not Accessible to the Blind, Liz Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- PEDRO LIZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Chaps and Co NY, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00203 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 9, 2025) sues the Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://www.chapsandco.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons under the Americans with Disabilities Act. On Nov. 26, 2024, the Plaintiff wanted to refresh his haircut and decided to look for a local barber shop. Thus, the Plaintiff discovered Defendant's website Chapsandco.com. After browsing the various options, he found a haircut style he decided to make an appointment for. However, his booking experience was hindered by significant accessibility issues on the site. While searching for the booking link, he was struggling to bypass the menu and all the link it included, as he was forced to tab through all of them even if the menu was closed. It made the navigation time-consuming and frustrating, the suit says. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Chaps and Co's policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to the blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Mr. Liz is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. Chaps and Co provides premium grooming services for men, including expert haircutting, hot towel shaves, facial massages, and waxing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1 1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com CHARAF INVESTMENTS: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property ----------------------------------------------------------- Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. CHARAF INVESTMENTS OF FLORIDA, INC.; and PHOENIX OF QUAIL ROOST LLC d/b/a BURGER KING, Case No. 1:25-cv-20252-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 16, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property and restaurant and bar business within the commercial property. Although over 30 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. The Plaintiff found the commercial property and commercial restaurant business located within the commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the commercial property and commercial restaurant business located within the commercial property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The barriers to access have likewise posed a risk of injury(ies), embarrassment, and discomfort to Plaintiff and others similarly situated. The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. PHOENIX OF QUAIL ROOST LLC d/b/a BURGER KING, owned and/or operated a commercial restaurant within the Commercial Property located in Miami, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beverly Virues, Esq. Armando Mejias, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, Fl 33134 Phone: (305) 553-3464 Primary Email: bvirues@lawgmp.com Secondary Emails: amejias@lawgmp.com jacosta@lawgmp.com - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Phone: (305) 350-3103 Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com CHARLES SCHWAB: Morris Suit Transferred to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as David M. Morris, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Charles Schwab Corporations, Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-00985 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Dec. 22, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:24-cv-11010-HDV-E to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. The Charles Schwab Corporation -- https://www.schwab.com/ -- provides a full range of brokerage, banking and financial advisory services through its operating subsidiaries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam A. Schwartzbaum, Esq. Scott Adam Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Avenue Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (305) 740-1423 Email: adam@edelsberglaw.com scott@edelsberglaw.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 1925 Century Park East, No 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS AND GENTILE PA 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com The Defendants are represented by: Brian Michael Ercole, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP 200 S Biscayne Blvd., Ste. 5300 Miami, FL 33131-2339 Phone: (305) 415-3416 Email: brian.ercole@morganlewis.com CHARLES T. SITRIN: Cotton Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Regis Cotton, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. CHARLES T. SITRIN HEALTH CARE CENTER, INC., Case No. 6:25-cv-00071-DNH-ML (N.D.N.Y., Jan. 15, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and under the New York Labor Law Articles 6 and 19 ("NYLL") and the supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations ("NYCRR") as a result of the Defendants failure to pay unpaid overtime wages. The Plaintiff regularly worked 40 or more hours per week. The Plaintiff observed that other Class Members also worked in excess of forty hours a week. Although Plaintiff and other Class Members routinely worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff and other Class Members overtime at the required rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The Defendant denied Plaintiff and other Class Members overtime pay as a result of a widely applicable, illegal pay practice. The Defendant is aware of its obligation to pay overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours each week in accordance with federal and state laws, but failed to do so. When Plaintiff worked over 40 hours a week, Defendant only paid Plaintiff straight time wages for each hour of work, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant part time as a receptionist from October 2018 through July 2023 and as a Companion Care Aide (CCA) from August 2021 through July 2023. The Defendant operates a health care center in New Hartford, New York, that offers a range of health care and related services including medical rehabilitation, assisted living, and long term residential care to the elderly and individuals with disabilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariyam Hussain, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 110 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2500 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (773) 666-4316 Email: mhussain@bm.net - and - Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq. Michael J. Anderson, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 875-4635 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 Email: crodriguez@bm.net manderson@bm.net CHATTEM INC: Gurrola Sues Over Mislabeled Mouthrinse Products ------------------------------------------------------------- PATRICIA GURROLA, DEENA JOHNSON, EILEEN AVILES, & SUSHMADAVI LAKERAM, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated v. CHATTEM, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00366 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 13, 2025) seeks to hold the Defendant accountable for its false and misleading labeling of ACT Rinse, which puts the health of millions of children at risk. ACT Rinse comes in a variety of bright colors, and prominently features candy, fruit, and cartoon imagery with the word "Kids" emblazoned on the front label in rainbow-colored crayon-styled font, all of which conveys the clear impression that the product is meant for and safe for young children to use. In stark contrast to Defendant's labeling, fluoride mouthrinse is considered by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to be too dangerous for children under 6 to use. ACT Rinse, which has the same fluoride concentration as adult rinses, is actually more dangerous for young children than adult rinses because it comes in candy and fruit flavors that entice children to use and swallow more of the product, the suit claims. Despite the overwhelming scientific consensus that fluoride mouthrinse should not be swallowed, ACT Rinse comes in juice flavors ("Groovy Grape," "Wild Watermelon," and "Pineapple Punch") and packaging that looks like a kids flavored drink product. Presenting fluoride mouthrinse (a drug that should not be swallowed by any age group, especially young children) as a kids' flavored drink product is both dangerous and deceptive, the Plaintiffs assert. Ms. Gurrola began purchasing ACT Rinse for G.K. in 2021, when he was two years old. She continued purchasing the product for G.K. until 2024. The Defendant manufactures and sells a popular kids mouthrinse product called ACT Anticavity Fluoride Rinse.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Connett, Esq. Aaron Siri, Esq. Elizabeth A. Brehm, Esq. Lisa Considine, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 700 S. Flower St., Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (888) 747-4529 E-mail: mconnett@sirillp.com aaron@sirillp.com ebrehm@sirillp.com lconsidine@sirillp.com CIOX HEALTH: Jackson Sues Over Failure to Secure Information ------------------------------------------------------------ Bill Jackson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Ciox Health LLC d/b/a Datavant Group, Case No. 2:24-cv-03682-CDB (D. Ariz., Dec. 20, 2024), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its clients' patients. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal information--which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against disclosure--was targeted, compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the Data Breach. Datavant collected and maintained certain personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and the putative Class Members, who are (or were) patients at Defendant's clients. The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach was exfiltrated by cyber-criminals and remains in the hands of those cyber-criminals who target Private Information for its value to identity thieves. The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect its clients' patients' Private Information from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by, inter alia, intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data systems were protected against unauthorized intrusions; failing to take standard and reasonably available steps to prevent the Data Breach; and failing to provide Plaintiff and Class Members prompt and accurate notice of the Data Breach. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Defendant's negligent conduct because the Private Information that Defendant collected and maintained has been accessed and acquired by data thieves, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a former patient at Defendant's clients. The Defendant is a health data platform company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Cristina Perez Hesano, Esq. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7508 N. 59th Avenue Glendale, AZ 85301 Phone: (602) 730-7100 Fax: (602) 794-6956 Email: cperez@perezlawgroup.com - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 402 W Broadway, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (858) 209-6941 Email: jnelson@milberg.com CIRCOR AEROSPACE: Enriquez Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Paul Anthony Enriquez, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, and the general public v. CIRCOR AEROSPACE, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 to 50, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2406805 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 17, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-00154. The Plaintiff's Complaint also alleges that he is entitled to 30 days' wages as a penalty under Labor Code § 203 for the late payment of final wages (which CIRCOR denies). Based on his hourly wage rate at the time his employment ended of $19.54, Plaintiff is seeking $4,689.60 on this claim. ($19.54 per hour x 8 hours per day x 30 days = $4,689.60). The Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant "intentionally provided Plaintiff with written wage statements that Defendants have known do not comply with Labor Code section 226(a)" and that Plaintiff is entitled to recover damages as a result (which CIRCOR denies).[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Thomas H. Petrides, Esq. Gabrielle M. Mercurio, Esq. VEDDER PRICE (CA), LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (424) 204-7700 Fax: (424) 204-7702 Email: tpetrides@vedderprice.com gmercurio@vedderprice.com COLUMBUS TRADING-PARTNERS: Tucker Sues Over Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- Henry Tucker, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. COLUMBUS TRADING-PARTNERS USA INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00443 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 15, 2025), is brought against the Defendants for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully and equally accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its services offered thereby, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because the Defendant's interactive website, https://www.cybex-online.com/en/us, (the "Website" or "Defendant's website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. COLUMBUS TRADING-PARTNERS USA INC., operates the Cybex online retail store, as well as the Cybex interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal jeffrey@gottlieb.legal dana@gottlieb.legal COMCAST CABLE: Judge Recommends Arbitration in DeGraphenreed Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Alistair E. Newbern of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee recommends that Comcast Cable Communications, LLC's motion to compel arbitration and dismiss the case captioned as DAVID DeGRAPHENREED, Plaintiff, v. COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-00283 (M.D. Tenn) be granted. This civil action arises out of a written agreement for the purchase and provision of residential internet services between pro se Plaintiff David DeGraphenreed and Defendant Comcast Cable Communications, LLC. DeGraphenreed alleges consumer protection and common law claims against Comcast related to a data breach that Comcast announced in December 2023. Comcast has filed a motion to compel arbitration and dismiss this action under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. Secs. 1 et seq. DeGraphenreed makes two arguments in opposition to Comcast's motion to compel arbitration and dismiss. His first argument is that the Services Agreement is wholly unenforceable because Comcast breached the Services Agreement by engaging in deceptive or unfair practices including falsely advertising its security surrounding their customers' personal identifying information. However, Judge Newbern says DeGraphenreed's argument that the Services Agreement is unenforceable as a whole is properly resolved by an arbitrator and not by this Court. DeGraphenreed argues that the arbitration provision is unconscionable for three reasons. He argues that the fact there is less discovery in arbitration than in litigation is not equitable for him because, in this case, the limitation of discovery hinders certain aspects of proving the severity of negligence from the actions by Comcast before and after the 2023 data breach. He also argues that the arbitration provision is unenforceable because it was buried in the legalese of the Service Agreement. He contends that the arbitration provision is unconscionable because it was not specifically shown to him during the sign-up process. The Court finds DeGraphenreed also has not met his burden to show that the Services Agreement's arbitration clause is unconscionable. A copy of the Court's Report and Recommendation is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DLvKmE from PacerMonitor.com. CONNECTONCALL.COM: Jones Sues Over Inadequate Security Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CONNECTONCALL.COM LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-08776-AYS (E.D.N.Y., Dec. 23, 2024), is brought to recover damages, equitable relief, attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons whose Sensitive Information was compromised as a result of Defendant's inadequate security practices and the Data Breach that occurred because of Defendant's actions. On May 12, 2024, ConnectOnCall detected suspicious activity within its network environment, which was later confirmed to be an unauthorized network intrusion that resulted in threat actors gaining access to confidential files containing Sensitive Information (the "Data Breach"). The investigation revealed that between February 16, 2024 and May 12, 2024, an unknown third-party gained access to Defendant's IT Network and accessed certain data including provider-patient communications. According to ConnectOnCall's report filed with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office for Civil Rights on December 11, 2024, cybercriminals compromised the Sensitive Information of approximately 914,138 individuals. The Sensitive Information compromised in the Data Breach included names, phone numbers, medical record numbers, dates of birth, information related to health conditions, treatments or prescriptions, and Social Security numbers. Despite discovering the suspicious activity on May 12, 2024, ConnectOnCall did not begin notifying affected individuals until December 11, 2024, or approximately seven months after the initial detection of the Data Breach. The type of highly sensitive information impacted by the Data Breach can be used to orchestrate a wide range of fraudulent activities, including but not limited to medical insurance fraud, financial fraud, and identity theft. As a result of Defendant's actions and inactions, Plaintiff and Class Members have been forced to undertake time consuming and costly efforts to mitigate the actual and potential harm caused by the Data Breach's exposure of their Sensitive Information, including placing freezes and alerts with credit reporting agencies, contacting their financial institutions and health insurance providers, closing or modifying financial accounts, and monitoring their credit reports and accounts for unauthorized activity. Plaintiff and Class Members were, and continue to be, at significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm. The risk will remain for their respective lifetimes, says the complaint. The Plaintiff now face a lifetime risk of identity theft. The Defendant offers a product that healthcare providers purchase to improve their after-hours call process and enhance communications between providers and their patients, operating in multiple states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David S. Almeida, Esq. Elena A. Belov, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Ave. Chicago, IL 60614 Phone: (708) 437-6476 Email: david@almeidalawgroup.com elena@almeidalawgroup.com COOK COUNTY SHERIFF'S: Smith Sues Over Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------- Michael Smith, on behalf himself and all others similarly situated v. COOK COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, Case No. 1:25-cv-00480 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 15, 2025), is brought challenges policies and practices of Defendant that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL") due to unpaid wages. The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid wages resulting from Defendant's failure to compensate Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees for undergoing mandatory security screenings without pay, resulting in a failure to compensate them for all hours worked, including overtime hours, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a Deputy at the Cook County Sheriff's Department from March 2022 to February 2023. Cook County Sheriff's Department is a governmental entity responsible for managing correctional facilities in Cook County, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7034 Braucher St NW, Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Phone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Robi J. Baishnab, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 1360 East 9th Street, Ste. 808 Cleveland, OH 44114 Phone: (216) 230-2955 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE: Wins Summary Judgment in Johnstone TCPA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Bridget Meehan Brennan of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted CrossCountry Mortgage, LLC's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case LINDA JOHNSTONE and L.D., by and through her mother, LINDA JOHNSTONE, individually and on behalf of all persons and entities similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE, LLC, Defendant, CASE NO.: 1:22-cv-01111 (N.D. Ohio). Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Defendant's Motion to Strike or Exclude Plaintiffs' Supplemental Expert Declaration are denied as moot. Plaintiffs allege Defendant violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act by making an unauthorized call to Plaintiffs' cellular telephone using a prerecorded voice message. Defendant CrossCountry Mortgage, LLC is a mortgage lender that occasionally purchases consumer information from third-party lead providers. In July 2021, CCM began purchasing customer leads from iLeads.com, LLC. In February 2022, CCM received information from iLeads indicating a consumer named Julie Johnson was interested in refinancing her mortgage. The associated telephone number was (805) 657-XXXX. In March 2022, CCM contacted the 657 Number twice: on March 2, 2022, and again on March 8, 2022. However, that number belonged to Plaintiffs. Plaintiff alleged CCM contacted her cellular telephone, the 657 Number, with a robocall prerecorded message. The complaint proposed a nationwide class of persons who received the same or substantially similar robocall message from Defendant. On April 15, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. They attached a Supplemental Expert Declaration of Aaron Woolfson in support. On the same day, CCM filed a motion for summary judgment. On April 29, 2024, CCM filed a motion to strike the supplemental Woolfson declaration, arguing the declaration untimely offers new opinions on the prerecorded call claim that are unrelated to the original declaration, and these opinions were not disclosed in compliance with the Court's case management deadlines. Alternatively, CCM argues the supplemental declaration should be excluded as unreliable. Motion for Summary Judgment In its summary judgment motion, CCM argues: (1) Plaintiffs cannot genuinely demonstrate the March 8th call was a prerecorded call because evidence demonstrates it was a live call; (2) Plaintiffs have not pled, and cannot prove, the March 2nd call was made with an artificial or prerecorded voice; and (3) Plaintiffs cannot show CCM willfully and knowingly violated the TCPA because the calls to the 657 Number were intended for someone else. As to the March 8th call, Plaintiffs concede CCM provided evidence that during the March 8, 2022 call to Plaintiffs, a live agent must have come on the line. Summary judgment is therefore granted with respect to the March 8th call. Plaintiffs are precluded from raising new claims or allegations regarding the March 2nd call in opposition to summary judgment. The Court finds Plaintiffs did not produce any evidence about the March 2nd call, let alone significant probative evidence to establish CCM used an artificial or prerecorded voice. Based on the record, a reasonable jury could not find for Plaintiffs. Defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted. Finally, even if Plaintiffs could proceed on the March 2nd prerecorded call claim and could meet their summary judgment burden, Plaintiffs cannot establish that CCM willfully or knowingly violated the TCPA, the Court concludes. Plaintiffs have not disputed this evidence or put forth any supporting evidence that CCM's conduct was willful or knowing. According to the Court, even if Plaintiffs could survive summary judgment, treble damages are not appropriate. A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wl9fCw from PacerMonitor.com. CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE: Wins Summary Judgment v. Johnstone ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDA JOHNSTONE and L.D., by and through her mother, LINDA JOHNSTONE, individually and on behalf of all persons and entities similarly situated, v. CROSSCOUNTRY MORTGAGE, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-01111-BMB (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Bridget Meehan Brennan entered an order granting the Defendant's motion for summary judgment: -- The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and the Defendant's motion to strike or exclude Plaintiffs' supplemental expert declaration are denied as moot. -- The Plaintiffs cannot sustain their request for treble damages under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) where Plaintiffs have not shown CCM knew it was calling the wrong number but continued to call Plaintiffs anyway. -- Even if Plaintiffs could survive summary judgment, treble damages are not appropriate. -- The complaint proposed a nationwide class of persons who received the same or substantially similar robocall message from Defendant. The Plaintiffs allege the Defendant violated the TCPA by making an unauthorized call to the Plaintiffs' cellular telephone using a prerecorded voice message. CrossCountry is a nonbank lender based in Cleveland. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Wk0BEK at no extra charge.[CC] CSX TRANSPORTATION: Bell Suit Transferred to M.D. Tennessee ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Daniel Bell, Jeremy Bright, Andrew Brown, Jared Brown, Jeff Burgess, Hank Crossman Jr., Nathan Dove, Ken Enlow, Jason Ewing, Justin Foringer, Scott Gales, Barry Gillum, Lamont Paulk, Joseph Richardson, Moussa Sayed, Chris Scott, Jason Siewert, William Wasdin, Cleatis Webb, and Jeffrey Whisner, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CSX Transportation, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-00744 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee on Nov. 27, 2024. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:24-cv-01416 to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Labor for Family and Medical Leave Act. CSX -- https://www.csx.com/ -- is a leading supplier of rail-based freight transportation in North America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: P. Matthew Darby, Esq. BERMAN, SOBIN, GROSS, FELDMAN & DARBY, LLP 1301 York Road, Suite 600 Lutherville, MD 21093 Phone: (410) 769-5400 Facsimile: (410) 769-9201 Email: mudarby@bsgfdlaw.com - and - Nicholas D. Thompson, Esq. THE MOODY LAW FIRM 500 Crawford Street, Suite 200 Portsmouth, VA 23704 Phone: (757) 393-4093 Facsimile: (757) 397-7257 Email: nthompson@moodyrrlaw.com - and - Adam W. Hansen, Esq. APOLLO LAW LLC 400 South 4th Street, Suite 401M - 250 Minneapolis, MN 55415 Phone: (612) 927-2969 Facsimile: (419) 793-1804 Email: Adam@apollo-law.com CVS HEALTH: Court Affirms Dismissal of Rhode Island Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case styled In re CVS Health Corporation Securities Litigation, Judge Erin Lynch Prata, Paul A. Suttell and C.J. Robinson of the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Providence County Superior Court dismissing the entirety of City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System and David Freundlich's Revised Amended Consolidated Complaint. The RACC alleged violations of Secs. 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. This is a consolidated securities action brought on behalf of persons who acquired CVS Health Corporation common stock issued after CVS's 2018 merger with Aetna. Both plaintiffs acquired CVS common stock via the merger. The plaintiffs aver that the registration statement, prospectus, and all other documents relating to the merger violate Secs. 11, 12, and 15 of the Securities Act because they contained misstatements of fact and omitted certain information. CVS is a Delaware-incorporated company with its principal place of business in Woonsocket, Rhode Island. It has over 9,800 retail locations, with more than 1,100 walk-in clinics, and manages over 94 million pharmacy plans. Its business is broken into three segments: Corporate (Corporate), Pharmacy Services (Pharmacy), and Retail/Long Term Care (LTC). The Retail/LTC segment sells merchandise and prescription drugs. The plaintiffs' complaint alleges that the offering documents contained materially false and misleading statements concerning the health of CVS's LTC business after its purchase of Omnicare, Inc., a provider of pharmaceuticals, consulting, and other healthcare services, on Aug. 18, 2015. The plaintiffs also take issue with CVS's compliance with generally accepted accounting principles. Except for its specialty pharmacy business, Omnicare's operations became part of CVS's Retail/LTC segment. The plaintiffs allege that CVS failed to disclose that cost-cutting at Omnicare would result in poor customer service and employment of less experienced CVS employees. According to the plaintiffs, CVS's attempts to run Omnicare like its Retail business caused customers to look to competitors. The plaintiffs specifically take issue with the following misleading or non-disclosures in the offering documents: (1) the loss of customers in the LTC business; (2) deteriorating customer service; (3) operating Omnicare like a Retail business; (4) competition from companies with higher quality service; and (5) an inability to integrate acquired pharmacies into the LTC segment. In an order dated Feb. 20, 2023, the Superior Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiffs' action is barred because of collateral estoppel. It agreed that the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, and principles of judicial economy favored dismissal. The Superior Court made its collateral estoppel ruling sua sponte, as neither party argued that issue. The plaintiffs timely appealed. The plaintiffs first argue that the Court should reverse the trial justice's decision to preclude plaintiffs' action because collateral estoppel was never argued to the Superior Court, the trial justice incorrectly applied the collateral estoppel framework, and due process bars the exercise of collateral estoppel. The defendants assert that the plaintiffs waived an appeal challenging the Superior Court's determination that the RACC was not viable on the merits because the plaintiffs' initial brief focused on the trial justice's collateral estoppel ruling alone. The plaintiffs denied that they waived an appeal of the merits of the Superior Court's determination by stating there was no decision on the merits. The defendants extensively argued that the trial justice properly concluded that plaintiffs failed to state a legally viable securities' action. According to the judges, the plaintiffs were clearly well acquainted with the argument that the RACC failed to state a viable claim under the Securities Act. The plaintiffs could have repackaged the same arguments they made a half dozen times in the course of this litigation for our review and still complied with Rule 16(f)'s generous word count. Further, their preference to wait until their reply brief to address the defendants' stance on the viability of the plaintiffs' securities claims was misguided. The plaintiffs' initial brief also neglected to address the trial justice's determination that the RACC must be dispatched in the best interest of the judicial economy. By not analyzing judicial economy and comity principles as an independent basis for dismissing the RACC in its initial brief, the issue is waived, the Supreme Court concludes. A copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3nzJec from PacerMonitor.com. DAIRY FARMERS: Court Reviews Discovery Bifurcation in Othart Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Damian L. Martinez of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico grants in part the Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider the Discovery Bifurcation Order in the lawsuit captioned OTHART DAIRY FARMS, LLC; PAREO FARM, INC.; PAREO FARM II, INC.; DESERTLAND DAIRY, LLC; DEL ORO DAIRY, LLC; BRIGHT STAR DAIRY, LLC; and SUNSET DAIRY, LLC; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DAIRY FARMERS OF AMERICA, INC.; SELECT MILK PRODUCERS, INC.; and GREATER SOUTHWEST AGENCY, Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00251-MIS-DLM (D.N.M.). The matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider the Discovery Bifurcation Order and to Compel Defendants to Properly Respond to Plaintiffs' Requests for Production, and the Plaintiffs' Opposed Motion to Suspend Certain Deadlines. The Plaintiffs, all New Mexico dairy farmers, filed this putative class action lawsuit on April 4, 2022, and allege that the Defendants, who are non-profit dairy cooperatives and associated entities, have conspired in violation of the Sherman Act to suppress pay to dairy farmers. The Defendants moved to dismiss on May 31, 2022, and the Court stayed discovery while the motion was pending. The Court denied the motion to dismiss on March 11, 2024, and Judge Martinez held a Rule 16 Scheduling Conference on April 17, 2024. The Court entered a Scheduling Order that bifurcated discovery into class certification discovery and merits discovery. The Court stated that the parties will be allowed generous merits discovery relevant to the Rule 23 analysis. Since that time, the Court has held regular discovery status conferences with the parties in an effort to help manage discovery needs as they arose. On March 25, 2024, prior to the Scheduling Conference, the Plaintiffs served Requests for Production (RFPs) on the Defendants. The Defendants served Amended Responses and Objections to the RFPs on June 24, 2024. On July 25, 2024, the Court held a discovery status conference with the parties to resolve questions regarding 11 subpoenas the Plaintiffs sent to non-parties. The parties disagreed about whether the subpoenas were relevant to class certification, merits, or both. The Court reviewed the subpoenas and found that many of the questions did not go to class certification issues at all. The Plaintiffs later informed the Court that they "suspended" the non-party subpoenas while counsel for the parties conduct party discovery issues. On Aug. 12, 2024, before the Plaintiffs offered limited modifications to the RFPs, and in an effort to resolve their objections, the Defendants voluntarily agreed to produce materials that the Defendants decided were "class-related." On Aug. 13, 2024, the parties reported that they were continuing to discuss the Plaintiffs' requests for production. On Aug. 27, 2024, via a letter to counsel, the Plaintiffs agreed to make temporary changes (until the litigation proceeds to merits discovery) to the RFPs by amending 18 of the 48 requests, suspending seven other requests, and offering to suspend four other requests if the Defendants agreed to other amended requests. On Oct. 16, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider the Court's Bifurcation Order and to compel responses to their requests for production. On Oct. 17, 2024, the parties confirmed their continued dispute about the Plaintiffs' RFPs during a regular discovery conference with the Court. On Nov. 19, 2024, the Plaintiffs moved to suspend all future deadlines because they were impacted by the ongoing discovery disputes. The parties have met and conferred several times since the reconsideration motion was filed but have been unable to come to an agreement on the discovery disputes. The Court notes, among other things, that after the parties submitted numerous filings, it was left to sift through a blizzard of filings totaling 451 pages. The Court wasted valuable time and resources trying to locate exhibits using the parties' murky citations. Going forward in this lawsuit, Judge Martinez directs counsel to attach all exhibits to the brief and may not submit multiple, separate documents as exhibits. The Court also directs counsel to refer to exhibits with a document number and pinpoint citation. Going forward in this lawsuit, Judge Martinez directs counsel to seek approval of the Court for any extension of page limits to briefs, or if they anticipate needing to submit more than 75 pages of exhibits. The Plaintiffs contend that discovery has essentially ground to a halt in this matter because the parties cannot agree on what is class and what is merits discovery. Consequently, the Plaintiffs argue, the Court should rescind its Bifurcation Order and allow both class and merits discovery to occur simultaneously. The Plaintiffs argue that the blame for the breakdown in discovery should be firmly placed on the Defendants' shoulders. The Court disagrees with this contention. In the nine months since the Plaintiffs first served the RFPs at issue here, the Court has held three discovery conferences in which the parties could have sought the Court's assistance on these issues. Judge Martinez says the Court cannot comprehend why the Plaintiffs specifically requested monthly status conferences to help move discovery along, yet when given the option to receive informal assistance with discovery disputes, the Plaintiffs declined the Court's offer to help and instead chose the more litigious and costly option of formal briefing and an in-person hearing. This is, of course, the Plaintiffs' prerogative, Judge Martinez says. Judge Martinez points out that the Plaintiffs may not spin this history, however, to disavow any responsibility for the protracted dispute. The Court finds both parties have dragged their feet on this discovery dispute: the Defendants by having an unnecessarily narrow definition of class-related discovery, and the Plaintiffs by seeking merits-related discovery in violation of the bifurcation order and by refusing to utilize the Court's repeated offers to help. Accordingly, the Court will exercise its discretion to reconsider its interlocutory order and will rescind the bifurcation order. Discovery on both class certification and merits will now proceed simultaneously. The Court vacates both the Jan. 16, 2025 telephonic discovery conference and the Jan. 23, 2025 in-person motion hearing. Instead, the parties will use these two dates as opportunities to meet and confer and draft a new Joint Status Report with suggested deadlines, as well as limits concerning written discovery and depositions. The parties will submit the Joint Status Report no later than Jan. 31, 2025. Consequently, the Court also grants the motion to suspend deadlines pending a new scheduling order. The Court will hold a telephonic scheduling conference on Feb. 13, 2025, at 1:00 p.m. MST. The Court will deny the Plaintiffs' request to compel discovery responses as moot. Because of the change this Opinion brings to discovery parameters, the Plaintiffs will withdraw, amend, and reserve their discovery requests on Defendants after the February scheduling conference. At the scheduling conference, the parties should be prepared to discuss and resolve any overarching discovery disputes that remain after this Opinion, such as geographic scope. Finally, the Court provides this word of warning to counsel: although the Court understands there are disagreements in litigation, counsel in this matter have been contentious every step of the way. Moving forward, the Court will require the parties to make an authentic effort to use the resources available--i.e., to genuinely engage during regular discovery status conferences and to utilize the Court's assistance through informal discovery hearings--prior to filing discovery motions. If there is a discovery dispute that cannot be resolved through regular discovery status conferences or informal discovery hearings, the Court will set formal discovery motions for in-person hearings in Las Cruces, and lead counsel will be required to appear. Therefore, the Court rules that the Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of the Discovery Bifurcation Order and to Compel Defendants to Respond is granted in part: the Court rescinds the Bifurcation Order and denies as moot the request to compel discovery responses. The Plaintiffs' Motion to Suspend Certain Deadlines is granted. The Court further orders that the Jan. 16, 2025 and Jan. 23, 2025 settings are vacated. The parties will file a new Joint Status Report no later than Jan. 31, 2025. The Court will hold a scheduling conference on Feb. 13, 2025, at 1:00 p.m. MST. Counsel will call 855-244-8681 and use access code 2314 983 7724 to be connected. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p9uz4w4 from PacerMonitor.com. DAN POST BOOT: Battle Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- Andre Battle, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Dan Post Boot Company, Case No. 1:25-cv-00580 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 17, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Dan Post Boot provides to their non-disabled customers through https://danpostboots.com (hereinafter "Danpostboots.com" or "the website"). 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 Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's website, Danpostboots.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually- impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Dan Post Boot's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Dan Post Boot provides to the public a website known as Danpostboots.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a wide variety of western-style boots for men, women, and children.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: 718.705.8706 Fax: 718.705.8705 Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com DAVE INC: Rosen Law 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 Dave Inc. (NASDAQ: DAVE) resulting from allegations that Dave may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. SO WHAT: If you purchased Dave 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=32893 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 November 12, 2024, the Justice Department, together with the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC"), announced a civil enforcement action against Dave Inc. and its co-founder, President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors, Jason Wilk, for alleged violations of the FTC Act and the Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act ("ROSCA"). The government's lawsuit alleges that the defendants misled consumers by deceptively advertising Dave's cash advances, charging hidden fees, misrepresenting how Dave uses customers' tips and charging recurring monthly fees without providing a simple mechanism to cancel them. On this news, Dave's stock fell 8% on December 31, 2024. WHY ROSEN LAW: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm 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] DINE BRANDS: Bryant Suit Alleges Telemarketing Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------ STEFANIE BRYANT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DINE BRANDS GLOBAL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00047-CSK (E.D. Cal., January 6, 2025) alleges violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Between October 7, 2024, and November 25, 2024, the Defendant caused five marketing text messages to be transmitted to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number before 8:00 AM and after 9:00 PM, in violation of the TCPA. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct that has resulted in invasion of privacy to Plaintiff and the Class members. Headquartered in Pasadena, CA, Dine Brands Global, Inc. owns and operates full-service restaurants. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com DISCOUNT MOTORS: Embry Wins Bid for Partial Summary Judgment ------------------------------------------------------------ Magistrate Judge H. Brent Brennenstuhl of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Owensboro Division, grants the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment in the lawsuit styled SHYANN EMBRY, et al., PLAINTIFFS v. DISCOUNT MOTORS, LLC, et al., DEFENDANTS, Case No. 4:23-cv-00078-HBB (W.D. Ky.). Before the Court is the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of the Defendants' liability. Defendant Eddie Howard has responded, Defendants Discount Motors, LLC, and Donald Adams have responded, and the Plaintiffs have replied. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73 the parties have consented to Judge Brennenstuhl's exercise of final judgment authority. Discount Motors is a Kentucky limited liability company selling used cars. Defendant Don Adams owns and is employed by Discount Motors. Defendant Eddie Howard was an employee. Plaintiffs Shyann Embry and Leah Early purchased used vehicles from Discount Motors and allege that the Defendants manipulated the odometers on the vehicles to misrepresent the mileage in violation of the Federal Odometer Act. In addition to their individual claims, Embry and Early asserted claims on behalf of a class of other purchasers of used car with similarly manipulated odometer mileage. The Court has, without opposition from the Defendants, certified the claims as a class action. The Plaintiffs' present motion seeks partial summary judgment on the Defendants' liability, reserving for trial the issue of damages. The Plaintiffs contend that Adams and Howard purchased hundreds of cars from two auto auction businesses in Indiana and transported them to Discount Motors in Owensboro, Kentucky. The Plaintiffs allege that Discount Motors possessed a device capable of altering a vehicle odometer reading. The Defendants, or others at their direction, used the device to alter the mileage reflected on the vehicle odometer to reflect a lower mileage total. After the mileage was altered, the Defendants would apply for new titles reflecting the lowered mileage. The Plaintiffs contend that the Defendants did so because the lowered mileage increased the vehicles' values. The Plaintiffs represent that they have identified over one hundred transactions between 2019 and 2023 where they and the Class purchased vehicles with altered odometers. The Plaintiffs contend that, had they known the true mileage of the vehicles, they would not have purchased them During Adams' deposition, at which he appeared as Discount Motors' designated representative, he was specifically questioned about eleven vehicles Discount Motors sold where the vehicles were advertised for sale with lower mileage than reflected on the auction purchase documentation. For two vehicles, he speculated that the instrument gauges had been replaced with ones taken from junked vehicles, but was unable make the representation with any certainty. For the remainder, he had no knowledge of why the mileage was decreased. Judge Brennenstuhl has reviewed the entirety of Adams' deposition testimony and, other than speculation that an instrument gauge had been replaced in a few instances, he had no explanation for why the odometer readings decreased between Discount Motors' purchase and sale. Moreover, he did not dispute that the odometer readings had decreased while in Discount Motors' possession. In responding to the motion for summary judgment, Adams and Discount Motors state "it should be noted that neither Don Adams nor Eddie Howard has ever acknowledged that they altered the odometers on the vehicles that were purchased by Embry, Early, or any other members of the purported class." However, Judge Brennenstuhl points out, simply stating that they have not confessed to altering the odometers does not create a question of fact. To the contrary, Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A) requires the Defendants to rebuff the Plaintiffs' factual assertions by pointing to some part of the record to demonstrate a disputed question of fact. Judge Brennenstuhl finds Adams and Discount Motors have failed to do so. Instead, Judge Brennenstuhl opines, Adams and Discount Motors seek refuge in the fact that, for each of the vehicles in question, the purchaser was provided an application for Kentucky certificate of title or registration, on which there was an express notation advising the purchaser "The odometer reading is not the actual mileage. WARNING - ODOMETER DISCREPANCY" and a Kentucky Department of Transportation transfer of ownership and disclosure of mileage stating "I hereby certify that the odometer reading is NOT the actual mileage. WARNING - ODOMETER DISCREPANCY." Indeed, Discount Motors has testified that every car the business sold was accompanied by this disclaimer. Beyond this, Adams and Discount Motors offer no legal authority, or developed argument, as to how this disclosure creates a question of fact as to whether they violated the Federal Odometer Act or bar the Plaintiffs' claims against them, Judge Brennenstuhl opines. The Court infers that Adams and Discount Motors argue that they made no representation that the mileage reflected on the vehicle title was accurate and, to the contrary, disclosed that there was a discrepancy in the odometer reading. Judge Brennenstuhl points out that this fails to absolve them of liability. The Plaintiffs' evidence that the odometers were altered to reflect lower mileage on vehicles is unrefuted. Judge Brennenstuhl explains that it is not enough, however, that the Defendants violated the Act. They must also have done so with the intent to defraud. The case for finding intent to defraud is strongest where, as here, the Plaintiffs have demonstrated intentional tampering with the odometer in direct violation of the Act. Judge Brennenstuhl finds, among other things, that the Plaintiffs have established that Adams and Howard participated in the acquisition and sale of vehicles with altered odometers and participated in the procurement of sale and title documents indicative of mileage alteration. This is sufficient to establish their participation in a conspiracy to tamper with the odometers. Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of the Defendants' liability. The Plaintiffs are awarded judgment against the Defendants on the issue of liability. The issue of damages is reserved for future adjudication. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Orde is available at https://tinyurl.com/5ysa7894 from PacerMonitor.com. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Settles Data Breach Class Suit for $1.45MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that District of Columbia Health Benefit Exchange Authority (DCHBX), also known as DC Health Link, has agreed to pay a $1,450,000 settlement to resolve a proposed class action lawsuit filed over a data breach that may have impacted as many as 254,388 individuals, including members of Congress, their staff and their families. The data breach settlement covers anyone residing in the United States who was sent notice by DC Health Link that their private information was potentially accessible or known to be compromised by the data incident discovered on or about March 6, 2023. The official website for the deal can be found at DCHBXSettlement.com. Only class members who submit a valid claim form online or by mail by the March 28, 2025 deadline will be eligible to receive a DC Health Link settlement payout. To file a claim form online, head to this page. You will need to provide the unique ID and PIN found on the personalized settlement notice you should have received. Contact the settlement administrator if you cannot locate your unique ID and PIN. Class members whose personal information was breached and exposed by cybercriminals on a public forum are instructed to fill out a Group 1 claim form. Class members whose information may have been breached but was not found publicly posted and there is no other evidence of compromise or exposure are instructed to fill out a Group 2 claim form. As part of the settlement, eligible individuals can receive reimbursement for documented monetary losses fairly traceable to the DC Health Link data breach, including the costs of mitigating its effects. Group 2 class members may claim up to $2,500 in documented losses. Group 1 class members may claim up to $10,000 in documented losses, including "extraordinary losses" such as unreimbursed identity theft charges and falsified tax returns. Alternatively, covered individuals can opt for a pro-rated cash payment. Group 1 cash payments will be three times the amount of Group 2 cash payments. Payments will be calculated based on the amount of money left in the settlement fund after attorneys' fees, administration expenses, the costs of credit monitoring services and documented losses are paid out. All class members are eligible to also claim one year of free credit monitoring and identity protection services if they have not already enrolled in the credit monitoring services previously offered by DC Health Link. The DC Health Link class action settlement was preliminarily approved by the court on November 13, 2024. It is now up to the court to determine whether it will grant final approval to the deal at a hearing scheduled for February 21, 2025. "If the Court approves the Settlement, eligible Settlement Class Members whose claims were approved by the Settlement Administrator will be sent payment after all appeals and other reviews, if any, are completed," the settlement site says. "Please be patient." An initial class action lawsuit filed against DC Health Link claimed that the health insurance marketplace for D.C. residents was negligent in protecting consumers' private information, which is now allegedly in the hands of thieves. [GN] DUKE UNIVERSITY: Settles Class Suit Over Underpaid Pension Benefits ------------------------------------------------------------------- Zoe Kolenovsky and Abby Spiller of The Chronicle report that Duke recently announced its intention to settle a class action lawsuit in which several former employees accused the University of underpaying their retirement benefits. In September 2023, retired Duke Health nurse Joy Franklin sued Duke and its retirement board, claiming that the University used an outdated formula to calculate pension benefits -- which allegedly shortchanged former employees by millions of dollars in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Duke moved to have the case dismissed and to compel arbitration, meaning a third party would act as a mediator between the plaintiffs and defendants to resolve the matter outside of court. However, U.S. District Judge Catherine Eagles ruled against the University's petition in February. Duke appealed Eagles' ruling, sending the case out of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in March. Oral arguments for the appeal had been set for Jan. 31, but on Jan. 14, Duke informed the appeals court that it agreed to settle with Franklin. The parties requested a pause in the appeal to allow them to finalize the settlement terms and get approval from the district court. The settlement amount was not reported. University administration declined to comment on the settlement. Franklin could not be reached for comment in time for publication. Franklin was employed as a clinical registered nurse in the cardiac intensive care unit in the Duke University Health System until she retired in 2018. In the September 2023 lawsuit, Franklin alleged that the University's use of "outdated and unreasonable actuarial equivalency formulas" violated ERISA, resulting in a reduction to her monthly benefit. Under ERISA, participants who select a pension plan other than the standard single-life annuity (SLA) are required to receive an actuarial equivalent, meaning that the benefits are equal in value. Franklin, who selected the qualified joint survivor annuity (QJSA) -- which pays a lifetime monthly annuity and, if the beneficiary dies, pays half that annuity to their spouse for life -- claimed that her payments were not actuarially equivalent. She alleged that prior to 2023, the University based its formulas for calculating joint survivor annuities on "50-year-old data," including mortality tables and interest rates. The University altered its actuarial equivalency formulas July 1, 2023, meaning that participants who began receiving benefits after that date earned a larger pension. However, the University reportedly did not apply the new formula to those who began receiving payments before that date. Per the lawsuit, those who receive QJSAs automatically receive less than those who opt for an SLA, since the plan pays for two people instead of one. Still, Franklin reported that she qualified for a monthly SLA benefit of $2,081.78, making the $1,806.99 she received through the 50% QJSA plan less than the SLA's actuarial equivalent value. She claimed that payments using the outdated formula reduced her monthly payments by $64.32 and her pension's present value by $10,309. Franklin alleged that these pay practices also resulted in reduced payments by millions of dollars for up to 7,500 other plan participants who may have been affected. In addition to the claims of underpayment, Franklin also alleged that the University violated ERISA's anti-forfeiture rules and fiduciary duties. [GN] EIGHT SAINTS SKINCARE: Fagnani Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------- Mykayla Fagnani, Individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. EIGHT SAINTS SKINCARE, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00384 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 15, 2025), is brought this civil rights action against the Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, https://eightsaintsskincare.com/, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen reading software to read website content using the computer. EIGHT SAINTS SKINCARE, LLC, operates the Eight Saints Skincare online retail store, as well as the Eight Saints Skincare interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal jeffrey@gottlieb.legal dana@gottlieb.legal EMBASSY INC: Zhang Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Zhang, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. The Embassy, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-00502 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 17, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services the Defendant provides to their non-disabled customers through https://us.officinecreative.store (hereinafter "Us.officinecreative.store" or "the website"). 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 Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's website, Us.officinecreative.store, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in The Embassy's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Embassy provides to the public a website known as Us.officinecreative.store which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a wide variety of high-quality men's and women's footwear, including sneakers, boots, loafers, dress shoes, sandals, high heels, and flats, as well as belts, wallets, bags, and handbags.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: 718.705.8706 Fax: 718.705.8705 Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com EMINENT INC: Delgado Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against EMINENT, INC. The case is styled as Diana Delgado, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EMINENT, INC. doing business as: Revolve Clothing, Case No. 1:25-cv-20275-RKA (S.D. Fla., Jan. 17, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Eminent Inc., doing business as Revolve Clothing -- https://www.revolve.com/ -- designs and manufactures clothing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Faaris Kamal Uddin, Esq. Gerald Donald Lane, Jr., Esq. Zane Charles Hedaya, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1700 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: faaris@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com EXCELSIOR ORTHOPAEDICS: Parrizzi Sues Over Compromised Info ----------------------------------------------------------- ANTHONY PARRIZZI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. EXCELSIOR ORTHOPAEDICS LLP, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00042 (W.D.N.Y., January 13, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, and violation of the New York Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the protected health information (PHI) and personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated current and former patients stored within its network systems following a data breach discovered on June 23, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Excelsior Orthopaedics LLP is an orthopedics and sports medicine provider, with its principal place of business located in Amherst, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Linda H. Joseph, Esq. SCHRODER, JOSEPH & ASSOCIATES, LLP 394 Franklin Street, Second Floor Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 881-4902 Facsimile: (716) 881-4909 Email: ljoseph@sjalegal.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina Borelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com FALONI LAW: Veeramachaneni Alleges Wrongful Debt Collections ------------------------------------------------------------ SUBHAKAR VEERAMACHANENI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FALONI LAW GROUP LLC; and HS FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-11104-JXN-J (D.N.J., Dec. 12, 2024) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt. The case is assigned to Judge Julien Xavier Neals and referred to Magistrate Judge James B. Clark. Faloni Law Group, LLC is a full service law firm in New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq. 17 Sylvan Street Suite 102B Rutherford, NJ 07070 Telephone: (201) 507-6300 Email: lh@hershlegal.com FARMERS INSURANCE: Class Cert Filing in Starling Due Oct. 27 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLY STARLING, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-08644-FMO-KS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando Olguin entered a scheduling and case management order as follows: 1. Any stipulation or motion to amend as to any claims, defenses and/or parties shall be lodged/filed no later than April 10, 2025, failing which it shall be deemed that party's waiver of any such amendments in this action. All "Doe" defendants are to be identified and named on or before April 10, 2025, on which date all remaining "Doe" defendants will be dismissed, unless otherwise ordered by the court upon a showing of good cause. 2. All fact discovery shall be completed no later than July 10, 2025. The court does not bifurcate discovery. 3. All expert discovery shall be completed by Sept. 25, 2025. The parties must serve their Initial Expert Witness Disclosures no later than July 24, 2025. Rebuttal Expert Witness Disclosures shall be served no later than Aug. 25, 2025. 4. The parties shall complete their settlement conference before a private mediator no later than July 10, 2025. 5. Any motion for class certification shall be filed no later than Oct. 27, 2025, and noticed for hearing regularly under the Local Rules. 6. The court will set dates and deadlines for summary judgment, trial, the pretrial conference, and the parties' pretrial filings after the resolution of the motion for class certification. Farmers Insurance provides insurance products and services. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=z8ruZS at no extra charge.[CC] FIRST FINANCIAL: Price Files Suit in C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against First Financial Security, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Yvette Price, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. First Financial Security, Inc., Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-10985-MCS-RAO (C.D. Cal., Dec. 20, 2024). The nature of suit is stated Other P.I. for Contract Dispute. First Financial Security (FFS) -- https://www.firstfinancialsecurity.com/ -- is a national brokerage agency that works to equip, train, and support licensed insurance representatives.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago Merlini Coelho, Esq. Chumahan Benjamin Bowen, Esq. Jennifer M. Leinbach, Esq. Reuben Aguirre, Esq. Shahin Rezvani, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Phone: (213) 381-9988 Fax: (213) 381-9989 Email: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com chumahan.bowen@wilshirelawfirm.com jennifer.leinbach@wilshirelawfirm.com srezvani@wilshirelawfirm.com FLORIDA: Discriminates White Homeowners, Anderson Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- KARIMA ANDERSON, ANDREW BECKER, SHANNA BROWN, WAYNE NEWELL, REZA KUSANI, STUART REESE, ROBIN REESE, ZACK THOMPSON, and VICTOR KHOURY v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE (FDOC) and J. ALEX KELLY, in his official capacity as Florida Secretary of Commerce, Case No. 4:25-cv-00016-AW-MAF (N.D. Fla., Jan. 13, 2025) is a class action alleging that FDOC systematically discriminated against white homeowners when providing COVID-19 relief, in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. As part of its Florida Homeowner Assistance Fund program, FDOC prioritized "socially disadvantaged individuals" in everything from the development and marketing of its program to approving applications. FDOC impermissibly identified "socially disadvantaged individuals" based on their race. FDOC considers a homeowner to be a socially disadvantaged individual if the homeowner is a "an individual who (i) identifies as Black American, Hispanic American, Asian American or Native American (i.e., Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, or an enrolled member of a Federally or State recognized Indian Tribe)." Under this race-based tiered scheme, FDOC would, for example, prioritize an application submitted by a black or Latino homeowner with a household size of 3 in Leon County, Florida and an income less than or equal to $90,000 (100% AMI) over an application submitted by a white homeowner in that county with the same household size and income unless that white homeowner could meet one of the other socially disadvantaged individual factors (like having limited English proficiency or living in a persistent poverty county), the Plaintiffs aver. As a result of FDOC's racial discrimination, white homeowners (including the Plaintiffs) who struggled with the economic consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic lost out on financial assistance they needed to pay their mortgages, the suit asserts. Plaintiff Karima Anderson contracted COVID-19, which impacted her ability to work, caused a substantial loss in income, and led her to struggle to pay her mortgage. FDOC is the "state's chief agency for business recruitment and expansion and economic development."[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William T. Thompson, Esq. Matthew H. Frederick, Esq. Mark M. Rothrock, Esq. Jared B. Magnuson, Esq. Jonathan F. Cohn, Esq. LEHOTSKY KELLER COHN LLP 408 W. 11th Street, 5th Floor Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 693-8350 E-mail: will@lkcfirm.com matt@lkcfirm.com mark@lkcfirm.com jared@lkcfirm.com jon@lkcfirm.com FLUX POWER: Kassam, et al. Suit Transferred to California Court --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Cristina D. Silva of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted the motion filed by defendants Flux Power Holdings, Inc. and Ronald F. Dutt to transfer the case captioned as Asfa Kassam, et al., Plaintiffs v. Flux Power Holdings, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-02051-CDS-BNW (D. Nev.) to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. The motion addresses these factors, stating that the factors weigh in favor of transfer because: (1) the action could have initially been filed in the Southern District of California; (2) Flux's principal place of business and headquarters are in Vista, California; (3) defendants Dutt and Scheiwe reside in Southern California; (4) the parties and the witnesses have contacts with the forum; (5) Southern California would seemingly be convenient for the parties and witnesses; (6) contacts with Nevada are limited; and (7) much of the discovery that would be disclosed in this litigation is located in California Upon review of the motion, Judge Silva agrees that these factors weigh in favor of transfer. She also agrees with defendants that the other factors a court should consider when resolving a motion to transfer are neutral. Accordingly, the majority of factors weigh in favor of transferring this action, so defendant's motion is granted. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lZIQfW from PacerMonitor.com. FRAGRANCE ONE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cole Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- HARON COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Fragrance One, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00088 (N.D. Ill., January 6, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of fragrances on Fragrance.one. Despite his efforts, however, the Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Fragrance One, Inc. owns and operates the website, https://fragrance.one, which provides consumers the ability to view and purchase diverse range of scents for both men and women, as well as deodorants, candles, and bundles. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented: David Reyes, Esq. ASHER COHEN LAW PLLC 2377 56th Dr., Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: dreyes@ashercohenlaw.com FRANK & WOOLDRIDGE: Negron Files FDCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Frank & Wooldridge Co., LPA. The case is styled as Juan J. Hernandez Negron, Jennifer Acevedo Delvalle, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Frank & Wooldridge Co., LPA, Case No. 1:24-cv-02132-DCN (N.D. Ohio, Dec. 10, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Frank & Wooldridge Co., L.P.A. is a debt collection law firm.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Flick, Esq. Marc E. Dann, Esq. Jeff Crossman, Esq. THE DANN LAW FIRM CO LPA 15000 Madison Avenue Lakewood, OH 44107 Phone: (216) 373-0539 Email: bflick@dannlaw.com notices@dannlaw.com jcrossman@dannlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Boyd William Gentry, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF BOYD W. GENTRY 4031 Colonel Glenn Highway, 1st Floor Beavercreek, OH 45431 Phone: (937) 839-2881 Email: bgentry@boydgentrylaw.com FRIENDLY'S AND TILTED: Court Narrows Claims in Elmer Wage Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Edward S. Kiel of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the case captioned as BRIANNA ELMER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. AMOL R. KOHLI, et al., Defendants, Case No. 22–cv–02303–ESK–AMD (D.N.J.). Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and a class of Tipped Employees, commenced this action against defendants for providing insufficient tip credit notices and paying insufficient wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New Jersey Minimum Wage and Hour Law. Of the 26 defendants named, 25 defendants are corporate entities that own, operate, manage, and/or otherwise control various Friendly's and Tilted Kilt Pub & Eatery restaurants in New Jersey and Pennsylvania. The remaining defendant is Amol R. Kohli, who plaintiff alleges is the the lone individual listed as a member of the board of directors and the sole incorporator of the Corporate Defendants. Kohli is also identified as the Corporate Defendants' President and/or CEO. Between 2016 and 2021, plaintiff was employed by defendants as a server. Plaintiff primarily worked at the Friendly's location in Gloucester, New Jersey but occasionally worked at defendants' Voorhees, Glassboro, and Cinnaminson, New Jersey locations as well. Defendants AARK Hospitality Gloucester Inc., AARK Hospitality Voorhees II, Inc., and AARK Hospitality Glassboro FR, LLC managed and/or operated the Friendly's locations in Gloucester, Vorhees and Glassboro. The entity that managed and/or operated the Cinnaminson location is not named as a defendant. Although plaintiff predominately worked at the Friendly's managed and/or operated by AARKH Gloucester, she alleges that because all defendants operate as a single integrated enterprise, they are all equally liable for having violated the FLSA and NJMWHL. On Nov. 3, 2023, plaintiff filed the three-count second amended complaint, adding information to establish this Court's jurisdiction over the Pennsylvania Defendants. On Dec. 1, 2023, defendants filed the Motion seeking dismissal of: (1) the Pennsylvania Defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction; (2) counts two and three against all defendants for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; (3) all defendants, except AARKH Gloucester, for failure to state a claim under a single integrated enterprise theory; and (4) the FLSA claims outside of the two year statute of limitations. Personal Jurisdiction The Court finds although plaintiff raises claims on behalf of a class and collective, she fails to plead how any Pennsylvania Defendant caused her harm. Furthermore, to the extent plaintiff argues that this Court has jurisdiction over all defendants because they operate a single integrated enterprise, our courts have expressly found that such a theory is only relevant for finding liability, not for determining whether a court may exercise personal jurisdiction. Accordingly, this Court lacks specific personal jurisdiction over the Pennsylvania Defendants. Subject Matter Jurisdiction Defendants argue that as to counts two and three, plaintiff failed to establish that she suffered an injury in fact. They note that while plaintiff alleges that she received a deficient tip credit notification from AARKH Gloucester, she fails to specifically allege that she was paid less than minimum wage for completing tasks such as table service. Since these counts are predicated largely on an alleged technical, procedural violation of the FLSA/NJ[M]WHL and plaintiff presents no allegations that any alleged compliance failure resulted in any real, concrete harm, defendants argue that plaintiff lacks standing to brings these counts, which should accordingly be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. According to the Court, defendants' arguments to dismiss counts two and three are meritless. Failure to State a Claim While plaintiff alleges that each Corporate Defendant can be traced to Kohli, shared ownership, by itself, means little. The Court emphasizes that despite sharing employee guidelines and some other services, the Corporate Defendants do not have interrelated operations, resources, or, management. Judge Kiel says despite some minimal, shared activities, defendants are not involved directly' in each other's production, distribution, and marketing. Plaintiff alleges that in his capacity as owner and operator of the Corporate Defendants, Kohli exercises sufficient control over the labor policies and practices to be considered her employer. At no point does plaintiff sufficiently plead that Kohli was involved with her hiring, firing, or daily activities. The Court finds that no employee-employer relationship existed between plaintiff and Kohli. Statute of Limitations Defendants argue that because plaintiff alleges that defendants had attempted to include a tip credit notification, defendants' conduct cannot be considered willful. Judge Kiel holds, however, that such conduct raises a question of fact for a jury to determine. A copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aHDibs from PacerMonitor.com. FUBOTV INC: Burdette Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of PII --------------------------------------------------------- Ne'tosha Burdette, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. FUBOTV INC., a New York corporation, Case No. 2024LA001460 (Ill., 18th Judicial Cir. Ct., DuPage Cty., Dec. 10, 2024), is brought against Defendant for violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA"), which prohibits the disclosure of consumers' video viewing history without their informed, written consent. Critically, Defendant utilizes sophisticated tracking technology that collects its subscribers' personally identifiable information ("PII"), including information which identifies a person as having viewed specific videos on Defendant's streaming service. Defendant knowingly discloses this information to third party advertisers so that they can target specific users with specifically tailored advertisements based on their viewing history. However, Defendant discloses its subscribers' PII without their consent, and in doing so, Defendant has violated the VPPA and Plaintiff's and the other Class members' statutory rights. Accordingly, Plaintiff brings this class action for legal and equitable remedies to redress and put a stop to Defendant's practices of knowingly disclosing its subscribers' PII to third- parties in violation of the VPPA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff subscribed to Defendant's FuboTV streaming service in the past two years. The Defendant is the operator of one of the most popular video streaming and live tv services in the nation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eugene Y. Turin, Esq. Jordan R. Frysinger, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 893-7002 Email: eturin@mcgpc.com jfrysinger@mcgpc.com GEE'S HEATING: Mott Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gee's Heating and Air, Inc. The case is styled as William Mott, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Gee's Heating and Air, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00014-SCJ (N.D. Ga., Jan. 16, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Gee's Heating and Air, Inc. -- https://geehvac.com/ -- is a heating and cooling company in Flowery Branch, Georgia, offering installation of high-quality HVAC systems designed for longevity and energy efficiency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Love, Esq. LOVE CONSUMER LAW 2500 Northwinds Parkway, Ste. 330 Alpharetta, GA 30009 Phone: (404) 855-3600 Email: tlove@loveconsumerlaw.com GEN CERRITOS LLC: Miranda Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against GEN CERRITOS, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Humberto Higareda Miranda, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GEN CERRITOS, LLC, GEN ALHAMBRA LLC, GEN CHINO HILLS LP, GEN CONCORD LP, GEN FREMONT LP, GEN MILPITAS LP, GEN MOUNTAIN VIEW LP, GEN NORTHRIDGE LP, GEN RANCHO CUCAMONGA LP, GEN RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT LLC, GEN ROWLAND HEIGHTS LP, GEN SACRAMENTO LP, GEN SAN JOSE LP, GEN TORRANCE LLC, Case No. 25STCV00983 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 15, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." GEN CERRITOS, LLC -- https://www.genkoreanbbq.com/cerritos -- offers a Premium Korean BBQ dining experience.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Bibiyan, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: 310-438-5555 Fax: 310-300-1705 Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com GIBRALTAR INDUSTRIES: Bucec Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ryan Bucec and Larry Larson, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. GIBRALTAR INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00048 (M.D. Fla., Jan. 15, 2025), is brought seeking to redress for unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA"). Prior to July 1, 2024, Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees were not paid overtime premiums as required for all hours worked in excess of forty in any given workweek. Gibraltar's policy of misclassifying workers with "supervisor" titles who were primarily performing non-exempt manual labor was common to other individuals similarly situated to Plaintiffs. Until July 1, 2024, Gibraltar treated Plaintiffs and others similarly situated as exempt from overtime. As a result, Gibraltar has violated the FLSA by its failure to pay complete and proper overtime premiums for overtime hours worked by Plaintiffs, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employees of Gibraltar's awning company located in Jacksonville, Florida. Gibraltar owns an awning manufacturing company called Sunesta which is located in Jacksonville, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher J. Brochu, Esq. Janet R. Varnell, Esq. Brian W. Warwick, Esq. Pamela G. Levinson, Esq. Jeffrey L. Newsome, Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A. 400 N Ashley Drive, Suite 1900 Tampa, FL 33602 Phone: (352) 753-8600 Facsimile: (352) 504-3301 Email: cbrochu@vandwlaw.com jvarnell@vandwlaw.com bwarwick@vandwlaw.com plevinson@vandwlaw.com jnewsome@vandwlaw.com ckoerner@vandwlaw.com - and - Matthew K. Handley, Esq. Rachel Nadas, Esq. HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC 1201 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 200K Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 559-2411 Email: mhandley@hfajustice.com GIVAUDAN FLAVORS: Pre-Class Certification Discovery Continued -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RIVERA v. GIVAUDAN FLAVORS CORPORATION, Case No. 2:23-cv-21387 (D.N.J., Filed Oct. 23, 2023), the Hon. Judge Michael E. Farbiarz entered an order that the parties shall continue to engage in pre-class certification discovery. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Givaudan is a Swiss multinational manufacturer of flavors, fragrances and active cosmetic ingredients.[CC] GLAXOSMITHKLINE PLC: Parties Seek Extension of Reply Filing ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DeCostanzo v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-04869-NJC-AYS (E.D.N.Y.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint application for a one-month extension of the Jan. 15, 2025, deadline for Plaintiff's reply in support of Plaintiff's motion for class certification and GSK's reply in support of its motion for summary judgment. The parties believe postponement of the deadline would facilitate resolution discussions, permit the parties to focus on mediation and potentially narrow the areas in dispute if a full resolution of this civil action cannot be reached. Following service of GSK's opposition to Plaintiff's motion for class certification and Plaintiff's opposition to GSK's motion for summary judgment, the parties have engaged in discussions about potential resolution. Most recently, the parties have agreed to participate in mediation as soon as possible in the coming weeks. The parties submit that there is good cause for the requested accommodation. The parties believe that postponement of the Reply Deadline by one month will aid their resolution efforts, including by allowing the parties to focus their efforts on preparing for mediation rather than their motion papers and attendant confidentiality issues. Postponement would also serve the interest of judicial economy because mediation discussions could narrow the scope of disputes covered by the pending motions. Alternatively, if the Court is not inclined to grant an extension of the Reply Deadline, the parties request that the Court order a brief stay of all deadlines and for the parties to provide a status report to the Court in one month. On Dec. 24, 2024, the parties jointly requested a twelve-day extension of the Reply Deadline. On December 27, 2024, the Court denied the parties' request. However, since that time the parties have made significant progress in resolution discussions, which is why the parties come before the Court again to ask for its assistance. With the exception of the deadline to complete depositions of experts whose reports are served in connection with the parties’ replies, the requested extension would not affect any other deadlines. GSK is a British multinational pharmaceutical and biotechnology company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CH7OTc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Connett, Esq. Elizabeth A. Brehm, Esq. Sonal Jain, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: mconnett@sirillp.com ebrehm@sirillp.com sjain@sirillp.com The Defendants are represented by: Grant R. MacQueen, Esq. J. Gordon Cooney, Jr., Esq. Natalie M. Georges, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP 101 Park Avenue New York, NY 10178 Telephone: (212) 309-6000 Facsimile: (212) 309-6001 E-mail: grant.macqueen@morganlewis.com gordon.cooney@morganlewis.com natalie.georges@morganlewis.com GOODWRX LLC: Moten Suit Removed to D. Nevada -------------------------------------------- The case styled as Lajuana Moten, and Mario Cardenas, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. GOODWRX, LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. A-24-906408-B was removed from the Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County, Nevada, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada on Jan. 15, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00096. This action is properly removed to federal court under federal question jurisdiction because Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint contains claims arising under federal law, specifically the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason Kuller, Esq. Rachel Mariner, Esq. RAFII & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 1120 N. Town Center Dr., Suite 130 Las Vegas, NV 89144 Phone: (725) 245-6056 Fax: (725) 220-1802 Email: jason@rafiilaw.com rachel@rafiilaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Mary F. Chapman, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MARY F. CHAPMAN, LTD. 8440 W. Lake Mead Blvd., Suite 203 Las Vegas, NV 89128 Phone: (702)202-4223 Fax: (702)202-2003 GOOGLE LLC: Court Narrows Claims in Hubbard, et al. Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Susan Van Keulen of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part Google LLC and YouTube, LLC's motion to dismiss the sixth amended complaint in the case captioned as NICHOLE HUBBARD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GOOGLE LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 19-cv-07016-SVK (N.D. Calif.). Defendants Google LLC and YouTube, LLC operate a video-sharing website where users may post videos on their channels and view videos posted by others free of charge. Google collects data from YouTube users, which it uses to generate advertising revenue for both itself and those who own some of the more-popular YouTube channels. Plaintiffs -- minor children represented by their parents and legal guardians -- commenced this putative class action against Google and the owners of certain YouTube channels to remedy the harm they allegedly suffered as a result of Google's collection of their data. The Court previously dismissed all of Plaintiffs' claims with limited leave to amend. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a sixth amended complaint, and Defendants again now move to dismiss. Plaintiffs bring 42 claims under the laws of 18 states. Broadly speaking, their claims fall into three categories: (1) Intrusion upon seclusion, (2) Unjust enrichment, and (3) Violations of consumer-protection statutes. Plaintiffs seek to obtain, inter alia, damages and equitable relief. Privacy Claims The Court previously dismissed Plaintiffs' privacy claims because Plaintiffs did not sufficiently allege that Defendants engaged in highly offensive conduct. Plaintiffs assert several new allegations in the SAC to demonstrate the highly offensive nature of Defendants' conduct. Defendants argue that none of these new allegations suffices, but the Court holds that at least two do. The Court finds Plaintiffs sufficiently allege that Google engaged in highly offensive conduct. The Court, therefore, will not dismiss the privacy claims. Unjust-Enrichment Claims Defendants argue that Plaintiffs' unjust-enrichment claims fail because the benefits Defendants allegedly received were not unjustly conferred, and Plaintiffs allege no facts showing Defendants were enriched at Plaintiffs' expense. Specifically, according to Defendants, they remain insulated from claims of unjust enrichment because: (1) Plaintiffs received access to YouTube without payment; (2) Defendants did not receive a benefit as the result of any alleged mistake, fraud, coercion, or request; and (3) Plaintiffs did not suffer any loss as a result of Defendants' conduct. Despite Defendants raising these arguments, which extend across three pages of the Motion, Plaintiffs do not address the arguments in their Opposition. Plaintiffs attempted to do so, but the identified portions of the Opposition do not address Defendants' direct attacks on Plaintiffs' claims of unjust enrichment. Instead, those portions address an argument raised by Defendants in support of dismissal of all of Plaintiffs' requests for equitable relief. Plaintiffs neglected to respond to critical arguments in Defendants' Motion. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have conceded the point on Defendants' two arguments, and the Court will therefore dismiss the unjust-enrichment claims without leave to amend. Consumer-Protection Claims Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated the consumer-protection statutes of 13 states when they appropriated Plaintiffs' information without parental consent. The Court dismissed these claims in the Prior Order to the extent that Plaintiffs sought to recover damages because Plaintiffs had failed to sufficiently allege that they suffered a loss as a result of Defendants' conduct. Defendants argue that the Court should again dismiss these claims because Plaintiffs do not sufficiently allege that they suffered a loss. Plaintiffs argue that they sufficiently allege various forms of loss other than privacy loss in the SAC. The Court disagrees. According to the Court, Plaintiffs may pursue: (1) damages under the statutes of Indiana, Massachusetts and New Hampshire; and (2) equitable and injunctive relief under the statutes of Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Hampshire and Tennessee. To the extent that any of these statutes permits a particular form of recovery only upon a showing of loss, injury or damages, Plaintiffs may pursue such recovery only in connection with their alleged loss of privacy. Plaintiffs may not pursue these claims to the extent based on any other alleged harm they suffered, and the Court will dismiss Plaintiffs' claims under the remaining consumer-protection statutes without leave to amend. Claims Against Channel Owners Plaintiffs' allegations focus on Google's conduct. The Channel Owners request that the Court dismiss them from this action because Plaintiffs' allegations do not establish their direct or secondary liability for the claims at issue. The Court agrees. The Court finds Plaintiffs do not satisfy the actual-knowledge standard because they offer no nonconclusory allegations that the Channel Owners knew Google engaged in wrongdoing. Plaintiffs base their claims on the collection of their data. Unquestionably, the Channel Owners did not engage in that collection. Necessarily, therefore, the Court cannot hold them directly liable under Plaintiffs' claims. Searching for an alternative hook to direct liability, Plaintiffs argue that the Channel Owners violated the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act and that a violation of the COPPA per se constitutes a sufficient allegation of Plaintiffs' various claims. This argument fails because Plaintiffs do not sufficiently allege that the that the Channel Owners violated the COPPA. The Court dismisses all of Plaintiffs' claims to the extent asserted against the Channel Owners without leave to amend. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=exAV6R from PacerMonitor.com. GOOGLE LLC: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid in Privacy Suit by Jan. 31 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Google RTB Consumer Privacy Litigation, Case No. 4:21-cv-02155-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order as follows: 1. Google's opposition to the motion shall be due by Jan. 31, 2025; 2. Plaintiffs' reply in support of the motion shall be due by March 7, 2025. On Nov. 8, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification. One of Google's principal expert witnesses whose report Google will rely upon for its Opposition has been affected by the wildfires in the Los Angeles area, including being subject to evacuation orders from his home, and therefore requires additional time to complete his analysis and prepare his report. 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 (AI). A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jEJV2I at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq. Jonathan Levine, Esq. Bethany Caracuzzo, Esq. PRITZKER LEVINE LLP 1900 Powell Street, Suite 450 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 692-0772 Facsimile: (415) 366-6110 E-mail: ecp@pritzkerlevine.com jkl@pritzkerlevine.com bc@pritzkerlevine.com - and - Joe Cotchett, Esq. Nanci Nishimura, Esq. Brian Danitz, Esq. Jeffrey G. Mudd, Esq. Karin B. Swope, Esq. COTCHETT PITRE & McCARTHY 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200 Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 697-6000 Facsimile: (6500 597-0577 E-mail: POmalley@cpmlegal.com nnishimura@cpmlegal.com BDanitz@cpmlegal.com JMudd@cpmlegal.com KSwope@cpmlegal.com - and - David A. Straite, Esq. Corban Rhodes, Esq. James Ulwick, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLC 485 Lexington Avenue. 10th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 993-1000 E-mail: dstraite@dicellolevitt.com crhodes@dicellolevitt.com Julwick@dicellolevitt.com - and - Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq. BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC., Esq. 7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (858) 914-2001 Facsimile: (858) 914-2002 E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Whitty Somvichian, Esq. Aarti Reddy, Esq. Kyle C. Wong, Esq. Reece Trevor, Esq. Anupam Dhillon, Esq. COOLEY LLP 3 Embarcadero Center, 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4004 Telephone: (415) 693-2000 Facsimile: (415) 693-2222 E-mail: wsomvichian@cooley.com areddy@cooley.com kwong@cooley.com rtrevor@cooley.com adhillon@cooley.com GUARDIANVETS INC: Hatfield Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Alaina Hatfield, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, known and unknown v. GUARDIANVETS, INC., and JOHN DILLON, individually, Case No. 1:25-cv-00635 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 17, 2025), is brought against the Defendants for their misclassification of their workers as independent contractors and their resulting failure to pay earned overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"). Throughout her tenure with the Defendants, the Plaintiff regularly and consistently worked over 40 hours per week. For example, between February 2022 through July 2022, the Plaintiff worked, on average, between 45 and 50 hours per week. The Plaintiff never received overtime pay as mandated by the FLSA and IMWL for any hours that she worked in excess of 40 in a given week. Instead, the Plaintiff received her normal wage, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for GuardianVets from January 18, 2022, until September 23, 2022. GuardianVets is a business that offers virtual veterinary triage services to animal hospitals and clinics.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexandros Stamatoglou, Esq. GARFINKEL GROUP, LLC 701 N. Milwaukee Avenue, The CIVITAS Chicago, IL 60642 Phone: (312) 736-7991 Fax: (312) 549-9623 Email: alex@garfinkelgroup.com GULFPORT APPALACHIA: Moore Sues Over Underpaymant of Gas Royalties ------------------------------------------------------------------ GRACE E. MOORE GREAT-GRANDCHILDREN TRUST OF 2006, WESBANCO TRUST AND INVESTMENT SERVICES, JEFFEREY MCCAMIC, JOSEPH GORSHA, DAMON FALDOWSKI, DAMON FALDOWSKI II, and MARK FALDOWSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GULFPORT APPALACHIA, LLC, GULFPORT ENERGY CORPORATION, RICE DRILLING D LLC, EQT PRODUCTION COMPANY, EQT ENERGY, LLC, EQT CORPORATION, and JOHN/JANE DOES 1-5 ABC ENTITIES 1-5, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00030-EAS-KAJ (S.D. Ohio, January 13, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and piercing of corporate veil. The case arises from the Defendants' systematic underpayment of royalties owed to the Plaintiffs and the putative classes. According to the complaint, the Defendants are underpaying the royalties owed to their lessors by failing to honor the terms of the applicable lease agreements that contain "market enhancement" provisions, or nearly identical equivalents. The Defendants are improperly deducting expenses from putative Class members' royalties, in contravention of the commands of their leases. The Plaintiffs and the members of the putative classes have suffered monetary damage, both past and future, as a result of these breaches, says the suit. Gulfport Appalachia, LLC is a natural gas-weighted exploration and production company with its headquarters in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Gulfport Energy Corporation is a natural gas-weighted exploration and production company with its headquarters in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. EQT Corporation is an independent natural gas producer with its principal place of business in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Rice Drilling D LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of EQT Corporation, with its principal place of business in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. EQT Production Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of EQT Corporation, with its principal place of business in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. EQT Energy, LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of EQT Corporation, with its principal place of business in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ethan Vessels, Esq. FIELDS, DEHMLOW & VESSELS 309 Second Street Marietta, OH 45750 Telephone: (740) 374-5346 Facsimile: (740) 374-5349 Email: ethan@fieldsdehmlow.com - and - Shawn K. Judge, Esq. Mark H. Troutman, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 1554 Polaris Parkway, Suite 325 Columbus, OH 43240 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 Email: skj@classlawgroup.com mht@classlawgroup.com HAWAII RADIOLOGIC: Faces Luth Class Action Suit in D. Hawaii ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action has been filed against Hawaii Radiologic Associates, LTD captioned as MICHAEL LUTH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HAWAII RADIOLOGIC ASSOCIATES, LTD, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00544-KJM-NONE (D. Haw., Dec. 12, 2024). The case is assigned to Magistrate Judge Kenneth J. Mansfield. awaii Radiologic Associates, Ltd. provides diagnostic imaging services. The Company offers services include CT and CT Angiography, 3T MRI and Breast MRI, digital mammography, high definition ultrasound, and digital x-ray and fluoroscopy. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Turbin, Esq. TURBIN CHU HEIDT 737 Bishop Street Ste 2730 Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (808) 528-4000 Email: richturbin@turbin.net - and - Janice D. Heidt, Esq. TURBIN CHU HEIDT 737 Bishop Street Ste 2730 Honolulu, HI 96813 Telephone: (808) 528-4000 Email: jheidt@turbin.net HELLO PRODUCTS: Mouthrinse "Not Safe" for Kids Under 6, Miller Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- AMBER MILLER, JOSH COOK, and MARINA VASILYEVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HELLO PRODUCTS LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00071-AGS-BLM (S.D. Cal., January 13, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for unlawful and deceptive business practices in violation of California's Unfair Competition Law, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and the New York General Business Law. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its mouthrinse product called Hello Kids Fluoride Rinse. According to the complaint, while the Defendant's labeling conveys the impression that the rinse is specially formulated to be safe for young children, it is not. The product is considered by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to be too dangerous for children under 6 to use. The product, which has the same fluoride concentration as adult rinses, is actually more dangerous for young children than adult rinses because it comes in candy and fruit flavors that entice children to use and swallow more of the product. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiffs and similarly situated consumers suffered economic loss by, at a minimum, purchasing the product for far more than its value, the suit alleges. Hello Products, LLC is a manufacturer of personal care products, with a principal place of business in North Bergen, New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Connett, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 700 S. Flower St., Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (888) 747-4529 Email: mconnett@sirillp.com - and - Aaron Siri, Esq. Elizabeth A. Brehm, Esq. Lisa Considine, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (888) 747-4529 Email: aaron@sirillp.com ebrehm@sirillp.com lconsidine@sirillp.com HOMETOWN AMERICA: Ruling to Compel Discovery Responses Entered -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bartok, et al., v. Hometown America Management, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-10790 (D. Mass., Filed May 13, 2021), the Hon. Judge Leo T. Sorokin entered an order on motion to compel discovery responses: -- The Plaintiffs first request is denied because there is no basis to find that the Defendants have forfeited the "Class Conflict Narrative" at this time. Plaintiffs' alternative request is allowed in part, as described below. For their part, Defendants request sixty days to voluntarily supplement their answers to Interrogatory 24. -- This request is allowed. The Plaintiffs shall voluntarily supplement their answers to Interrogatory 24 on or before March 11. The parties shall then file a joint status report addressing the points identified in Defendants' proposal, on or before March 18. -- The Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Class Certification on the Rule 23(b)(2) Injunctive Relief Classes shall be due no later than sixty days after the Court resolves any disputes identified by the parties' joint status report as well as the completion of any further discovery ordered as a result of that joint status report. -- If the joint status report indicates no disputes remain, then the Motion is due no later than 67 days after the filing of the status report. The schedule for Plaintiff's Renewed Motion for Class Certification on the Rule 23(b)(3) Damages Classes will remain as it was adopted in the Court's Fourth Case Management Order, Doc. No. 208 . The Motion to Compel, remains under advisement. The nature of suit states Real Property. Hometown provides real estate management services. The Company offers recreational facilities such as swimming pools, clubhouses, basketball courts.[CC] HOPP INC: Rhodes Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Exotic Dancers ----------------------------------------------------------- NAQUAYLIA RHODES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOPP, INC. D/B/A NIGHT MOVES, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00068-JPH-MG (S.D. Ind., January 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for unpaid minimum wages, unlawful kickbacks, and tip deductions in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Indiana Wage Payment Statute. The Plaintiff worked as an exotic dancer the Defendant's Night Moves Gentlemen's Club in Bloomington, Indiana from September 2024 through December 2024. Hopp, Inc., doing business as Night Moves, is a club owner and operator in Bloomington, Indiana. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 Facsimile: (240) 839-9142 Email: ggreenberg@zagfirm.com - and - Robert P. Kondras, Jr., Esq. HASSLER KONDRAS MILLER LLP 100 Cherry Street Terre Haute, IN 47807 Telephone: (812) 232-9691 Facsimile: (812) 234-2881 Email: kondras@hkmlawfirm.com HRB TAX GROUP: McDaniel Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII ---------------------------------------------------------- Tanisha McDaniel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HRB TAX GROUP, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-00789-SRB (W.D. Mo., Dec. 10, 2024), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and at least thousands of Class Members' sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII"), which, as a result, is now in criminal cyberthieves' possession. Between May 13 and August 7, 2024, hackers targeted and accessed Defendant's network systems without authorization and stole Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive, confidential PII stored therein, including their full names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, financial account numbers, and other sensitive data, causing widespread injuries to Plaintiff and Class Members (the "Data Breach"). The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former customers of Defendant who, in order to obtain tax preparation and related financial services from Defendant, were and are required to entrust Defendant with their sensitive, non-public PII. Defendant could not perform its operations or provide its revenue-generating services without collecting Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and retains it for many years, at least, even after the customer relationship has ended. The Defendant breached these duties owed to Plaintiff and Class Members by failing to safeguard their PII it collected and maintained, including by failing to implement industry standards for data security to protect against, detect, and stop cyberattacks, which failures allowed criminal hackers to access and steal thousands of consumers' PII from Defendant's care. The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII, and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive data. This unencrypted, unredacted PII was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect its customers' sensitive data. The Defendant maintained the PII in a reckless manner. In particular, PII was maintained on and/or accessible from Defendant's network in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks. The mechanism of the cyberattack and potential for improper disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was a known risk to Defendant, and thus, Defendant knew that failing to take reasonable steps to secure the PII left it in a dangerous condition, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a former customer of Defendant and received tax preparation and related financial services from Defendant prior to the Data Breach. The Defendant is a financial services company providing tax and accounting services under the trade name 'H&R Block' to consumers throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maureen M. Brady, Esq. MCSHANE & BRADY, LLC 4006 Central Street Kansas City, MO 64111 Phone: (816) 888-8010 Facsimile: (816) 332-6295 Email: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-525-4100 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com HRB TAX GROUP: Moscato Sues Over Failure to Secure PII ------------------------------------------------------ Jessie Moscato, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HRB TAX GROUP, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-00790-SRB (W.D. Mo., Dec. 10, 2024), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and at least thousands of Class Members' sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII"), which, as a result, is now in criminal cyberthieves' possession. Between May 13 and August 7, 2024, hackers targeted and accessed Defendant's network systems without authorization and stole Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive, confidential PII stored therein, including their full names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, financial account numbers, and other sensitive data, causing widespread injuries to Plaintiff and Class Members (the "Data Breach"). The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former customers of Defendant who, in order to obtain tax preparation and related financial services from Defendant, were and are required to entrust Defendant with their sensitive, non-public PII. Defendant could not perform its operations or provide its revenue-generating services without collecting Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and retains it for many years, at least, even after the customer relationship has ended. The Defendant breached these duties owed to Plaintiff and Class Members by failing to safeguard their PII it collected and maintained, including by failing to implement industry standards for data security to protect against, detect, and stop cyberattacks, which failures allowed criminal hackers to access and steal thousands of consumers' PII from Defendant's care. The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII, and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive data. This unencrypted, unredacted PII was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect its customers' sensitive data. The Defendant maintained the PII in a reckless manner. In particular, PII was maintained on and/or accessible from Defendant's network in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks. The mechanism of the cyberattack and potential for improper disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was a known risk to Defendant, and thus, Defendant knew that failing to take reasonable steps to secure the PII left it in a dangerous condition, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a former customer of Defendant and received tax preparation and related financial services from Defendant prior to the Data Breach. The Defendant is a financial services company providing tax and accounting services under the trade name 'H&R Block' to consumers throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maureen M. Brady, Esq. MCSHANE & BRADY, LLC 4006 Central Street Kansas City, MO 64111 Phone: (816) 888-8010 Facsimile: (816) 332-6295 Email: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com HRB TAX: Buehring Sues Over Unprotected Private Information ----------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM BUEHRING, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HRB TAX GROUP, INC. D/B/A H&R BLOCK, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-00009-LMC (W.D. Mo., January 6, 2025) arises from the data breach that was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect consumers' personally identifiable information from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. On or about November 26, 2024, the Defendant began sending Plaintiff and other data breach victims a notice of data breach letter informing them that their PII that improperly accessed and obtained by unauthorized third parties on between May 13, 2024 and August 7, 2024. However, in its notice letter, Defendant failed to specify whether it undertook any efforts to contact the Class members whose data was accessed and acquired in the data breach to inquire whether any of the Class members suffered misuse of their data, whether Class members should report their misuse to Defendant, and whether Defendant set up any mechanism for Class members to report any misuse of their data, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and for violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. HRB Tax Group, Inc. is a financial services company providing tax and accounting services under the trade name "H&R Block" to consumers throughout the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John F. Garvey, Esq. Colleen Garvey, Esq. Ellen Thomas, Esq. STRANCH JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 701 Market Street, Ste. 1510 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 390-6750 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 E-mail: jgarvey@stranchlaw.com cgarvey@stranchlaw.com ethomas@stranchlaw.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com - and - Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (786) 879-8200 Facsimile: (786) 879-7520 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com HRM RESOURCES: Status Conference in McCormick Suit Set for Jan. 29 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as McCormick, et al. v. HRM Resources, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00823 (D. Colo., Filed March 25, 2024), the Hon. Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney entered an order regarding joint motion to modify scheduling order to extend class certification motion deadline: -- The Parties have contacted Chambers to schedule a Status Conference to discuss and reset case deadlines following the Order entered on the Motions to Dismiss. -- The Status Conference is set for Jan. 29, 2025, 11:00 AM in Courtroom C205 before Magistrate Judge Cyrus Y. Chung. The nature of suit states real property -- torts to land. HRM is an oil and gas exploration, and production company headquartered in Denver.[CC] HSCGP LLC: Settles Class Action Suit Over Data Sharing Violations ------------------------------------------------------------------ Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a settlement has been reached to resolve a proposed class action lawsuit that claimed the manager of a slew of healthcare companies' websites unlawfully disclosed patients' personal and health information to third parties, including Facebook, via tracking tools embedded on patient portals. The official website for the class action settlement with defendant HSCGP, LLC can be found at HSCGPSettlement.com. The deal covers anyone in the United States who, between August 1, 2021 and June 30, 2023, accessed the patient portal of a company whose website was maintained by HSCGP, including those found on this list. According to the settlement website, class members who submit a valid claim form online or by mail by May 19, 2025 will be eligible to receive a $38 cash payment from the settlement. To file a claim form online, head to this page. You will need to provide your unique Class Member ID, which is located on the settlement notice you should have received in the mail. Alternatively, you may download a PDF claim form to print and return by mail. The settlement agreement, which resolves the class action lawsuit against HSCGP, was preliminarily approved by the court on November 26, 2024. It is now up to the court to decide whether to grant final approval to the terms of the deal at a hearing set for March 19, 2025. If the settlement is ultimately approved by the court, eligible class members will receive cash payments within 160 days after the deal is finally approved and any appeals are resolved, the site says. [GN] HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Masters Class Suit Over Fuel System Defect --------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY MASTERS and MICHELLE FRANK-CROWDER individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals v. HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA., INC., a California corporation, KIA MOTORS AMERICA, INC., a California corporation, HYUNDAI MOTOR COMPANY, a South Korean corporation, and KIA MOTORS CORPORATION, a South Korean corporation, Case No. 2:25-at-00047 (E.D. Cal., Jan. 9, 2025) is a consumer class action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all persons in the United States who purchased or leased any Hyundai or Kia-brand vehicle equipped with a T-GDI 1.6L Gamma II engine, including the 2020-2024 Hyundai Sonata and 2021-2024 Kia K5 vehicles. The suit contends that the Defendants manufactured, marketed, distributed, and/or sold the Class Vehicles without disclosing that the Class Vehicles' fuel systems, including the evaporative emissions control system ("EVAP system") and the Engine Control Module ("ECM"), were defective. Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that the fuel systems, including the EVAP system and ECM, are defective in that they are designed and manufactured, assembled, and/or installed (aka workmanship) in a manner that prevents the gas vapors in the system as well as air from the outside from being properly directed towards the intake manifold, allowing those vapors instead to build up in the fuel tank and other areas of the fuel system. As a result, the vehicle experiences poor engine performance, misfires, rough idling, a lack of motive power, a fuel cap that is hard to remove, a noticeable fuel odor in the interior compartment, difficulty filling the gas tank, expansion of or distortion of the shape of the fuel tank, and increased emissions. In particular, the distortion of the fuel tank is often so great it causes sudden and loud popping noises and damages other parts of the vehicle, including dislodging the backseat and bending the vehicle's frame, the Plaintiffs say. On Sept. 5, 2022, the Plaintiff Masters purchased a new 2023 Hyundai Sonata equipped with a T-GDI 1.6L Gamma II engine at Folsom Lake Hyundai, an authorized Hyundai dealership located in Folsom, California. On June 20, 2022, the Plaintiff Frank-Crowder purchased a new 2022 Kia K5 equipped with a T-GDI 1.6L Gamma II engine from Volvo Kia Joliet, an authorized Kia dealership located in Joliet, Illinois. Hyundai Motor is the warrantor and distributor of Hyundai vehicles.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Cody R. Padgett, Esq. Majdi Hijazin, Esq. Nate N. Kiyam, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 E-mail: Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com Majdi.Hijazin@capstonelawyers.com Nate.Kiyam@capstonelawyers.com - and - Russell D. Paul, Esq. Amey J. Park, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: rpaul@bm.net apark@bm.net IDS PROPERTY: Audatex Loses Bid to Dismiss Ameriprise Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jennifer L. Rochon of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the Audatex North America, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the case captioned as AMERIPRISE CAPTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY, as subrogee of IDS PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, -against- AUDATEX NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1: 22-cv-05964 (JLR) (S.D.N.Y.). Plaintiff Ameriprise Captive Insurance Company brings this action against Defendant Audatex North America, Inc., alleging that Audatex breached its contractual obligations to indemnify the cost of defending and settling another lawsuit, Zuern v. IDS Prop. Cas. Ins. Co., No. 19-cv-06235, 2021 WL 735751 (W.D. Wash. Feb. 25, 2021), and to carry certain insurance. The Dsitrict Court dismissed the Complaint, and on May 23, 2024, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its order. Now before the District Court is Defendant's second motion to dismiss the Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Zuern Litigation In October 2011, Audatex and IDS entered into an Application Service Provider Agreement whereby Audatex agreed to provide certain software and services to IDS. The Agreement included Audatex's Autosource vehicle-valuation software. IDS used Autosource to calculate the value of a vehicle when an insured submitted a claim for the total loss of their vehicle. Audatex's Autosource tool applied a Typical Negotiation Adjustment to the total cash value for vehicles. The TNA reduced the total cash value of a vehicle based on the assumption that buyers are often able to negotiate down the advertised price for a vehicle when purchasing from a dealership. The TNA applied by Autosource typically reduced the value of a vehicle by approximately 6 to 7 percent. In November 2019, auto-insurance customers brought a class-action lawsuit against IDS alongside IDS' affiliates Ameriprise Insurance Company and Ameriprise Auto & Home Insurance. The suit alleged that IDS used improper adjustments to reduce insureds' total loss valuations and claims payments in violation of Washington law and contractual obligations under its insurance contracts. The Zuern Plaintiffs asserted that Ameriprise's valuation of insureds' vehicles was based on an AudaExplore market valuation report that listed values of comparable vehicles sold or for sale in the same geographic area as the insured. As a result, Autosource applied a TNA when running its valuation reports. The Zuern Plaintiffs pleaded that, as a general business practice, Ameriprise impermissibly offered its insureds a claim amount equivalent to the valuation of the loss vehicle that is specified in the market valuation report prepared by third-party AudaExplore. In December 2020, IDS settled the Zuern Litigation. IDS and Ameriprise ultimately paid a total of approximately $2,500,000 to defend and resolve the Zuern Litigation. IDS twice demanded that Audatex indemnify it for all costs related to the lawsuit. Audatex declined to do so. IDS further requested that Audatex provide the contact information for the insurance carrier that issued the required coverage under Section 24 and Schedule 8.0 of the Agreement. Audatex did not provide proof of such coverage in response to Plaintiff's request. Motion to Dismiss After the case was remanded, on July 15, 2024, Audatex filed a second motion to dismiss the Complaint, relying primarily on the Ameriprise Content carveout highlighted by the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit held that Plaintiff had pleaded facts sufficient to establish that the Zuern claims resulted from or arose out of Ameriprise's use of Audatex's valuation tool. It further held that Audatex's valuation tool need not have been the proximate cause of the Zuern claims. It was sufficient that Ameriprise had plausibly alleged some causal relationship between Audatex's services and the Zuern claims against Ameriprise. It found that, to the extent the indemnification provision conflicted with other provisions in the Agreement, the indemnification provision's notwithstanding clause trumped any conflicting terms in the contract. Defendant argues that the carveout applies to the Zuern claims and therefore defeats Plaintiff's claim for a breach of the indemnification provision. Defendant separately argues that Plaintiff's other contractual theories are not at issue on remand and, in any event, fail on the merits. Defendant urges that the carveout applies and that Plaintiff's claim premised on a breach of the indemnification provision is therefore deficient as a matter of law. The District Court disagrees. The District Court finds that Plaintiff plausibly alleges that the Ameriprise Content carveout does not apply in this case. Therefore, given that the Second Circuit has held that Plaintiff plausibly alleges that the Zuern claims resulted from or arose out of the Audatex system for purposes of Section 20.1.1, the District Court denies Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claim for a breach of Section 20.1.1 of the parties' Agreement. A copy of the Court's Opinion and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wgjdoA from PacerMonitor.com. ILLINOIS: Bids on Expert Opinions OK'd in Part in Ross v. Gossett ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Staci M. Yandle of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois grants in part and denies in part a motion to bar expert testimony and a motion to exclude certain opinions in the lawsuit styled DEMETRIUS ROSS, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GREG GOSSETT, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-00309-SMY (S.D. Ill.). Plaintiffs Demetrius Ross, Kevin L. Hamilton, Ronald Smith, Jonathan Tolliver, and Glenn Verser, current and former inmates of the Illinois Department of Corrections ("IDOC"), bring this class action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated for violations of their constitutional rights as alleged in the Second Amended Complaint. The Plaintiffs' claims concern the constitutionality of facility-wide shakedowns that occurred at Illinois River, Big Muddy River, Lawrence, and Menard correctional centers during the period April 2014 through July 2014. Now pending before the Court are the Defendants' Motion to Bar Expert Testimony and Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions of Larry Reid. The parties have filed responses. As an initial matter, Judge Yandle notes that the Plaintiffs and the Defendants move generally to prohibit the expert correctional witnesses from offering expert opinions on an individual's mental state. Speculation regarding the Defendants' motives is impermissible. Therefore, Judge Yandle opines, any instances where the experts' phrasing implies their knowledge of a defendant's mental state is inadmissible and cannot be elicited at trial. The parties' respective motions seeking to bar expert opinion on mental state are, therefore, granted. In their Motion to Bar Expert Testimony, the Defendants move to bar Dan Pacholke's testimony entirely and portions of Pat Hurley's testimony. Pacholke has 35 years of experience in correctional practices, where he held positions as a Director of Prisons, Correctional Officer, Lieutenant, Captain, Deputy Superintendent, Superintendent, Chief of Emergency Operations, Deputy Secretary, and Secretary in the Washington State Department of Corrections. He has served as a consultant and expert on correctional practices in 20 states. Hurley has 36 years of experience in corrections. He has worked in five prisons as Institutional Inspector, Commander of the Special Tactics and response team, Deputy Warden for operations and security, and Warden. Mr. Pacholke authored a 77-page written report in which he details why, in his opinion, the Defendants' conduct ran afoul of widely accepted practices within the field of corrections. The Defendants argue that Pacholke is merely a mouthpiece for the Plaintiffs -- that his report includes a lengthy and slanted factual narrative, argumentative conclusions about the Defendants' knowledge and intent, and legal conclusions on the elements of the Plaintiffs' burden of proof. Judge Yandle finds that Pacholke does not merely provide a skewed factual narrative and argumentative conclusions about the Defendants' knowledge and intent as the Defendants contend. In reaching his opinions, Pacholke reviewed case-specific materials, including the five named Plaintiffs' depositions and depositions from 14 other Plaintiff class members, who were at the facilities in 2014. The Defendants also contend, among other things, that the class was certified based on a "top-down" conspiracy theory by which the Defendants designed and carried out a uniform plan that violated the rights of class members, and any opinions suggesting that the Defendants failed to intervene to stop misconduct that originated at the tactical level should be excluded under Daubert as irrelevant and not helpful to the jury. This argument completely ignores the fact that the class was also certified on the question of "whether the Defendants knew of, approved, facilitated and/or turned a blind eye to the alleged unconstitutional shakedowns," Judge Yandle opines. As such, Pacholke's opinions regarding this issue are relevant and will be helpful to the jury. For these reasons, Judge Yandle denies the Defendants' motion to bar Pacholke's expert testimony. The Court finds that based on his extensive experience in corrections, knowledge, skill and training, Hurley is qualified to testify as a correctional expert and that his testimony will assist a jury in understanding the correctional practices at issue in this case. The Court also finds no significant problems with Hurley's methodology. Accordingly, the Court denies the Defendants' motion as to Hurley. In their Motion to Bar Expert Testimony, the Plaintiffs move to exclude portions of the opinions offered by the Defendants' expert, Larry Reid. Reid is the President of Correctional Consulting Services, LLC, a criminal justice consulting service that provides direction and services to clients on established standards and emerging correctional subjects. Reid worked for 27 years as a part-time trainer and consultant with the National Institute of Corrections. The Court finds that Reid is qualified to opine about correctional standards. Reid was retained to evaluate the facility-wide searches, including the policies and practices related to searches of inmate living areas and inmates themselves. Mr. Reid articulates several opinions about constitutional law and whether the Defendants' conduct violated the constitutional rights of class members. But experts may not offer legal conclusions, Judge Yandle holds. Whether the shakedowns at issue were conducted in a legitimate manner or instead conducted in a harassing manner intended to humiliate class members is a question for the jury, Judge Yandle points out. Accordingly, Judge Yandle rules that the Plaintiffs' motion is granted on this point; Reid will be prohibited from offering legal opinions about the ultimate issue in this case. The Plaintiffs also seek to exclude Reid's discussion about the impact of convictions for Class X felonies, his resulting opinions about the characteristics of individuals convicted of Class X crimes, and the justifications that flow from those characteristics. The problem with Reid's discussion of Class X felonies is that it is unreliable and unsupported by any facts or data, Judge Yandle holds. Reid testified that he learned about the Class X system in Illinois by searching on Google, but could not recall what website he looked at. Reid also testified that he had never heard of the Class X classification in his entire career. In other words, Judge Yandle points out, he lacks the proper foundation to make this opinion. Accordingly, Judge Yandle rules that Reid will be prohibited from testifying about the impact of convictions for Class X felonies and opining about the characteristics of individuals convicted of those crimes and the justifications that flow from those characteristics. The Plaintiffs also move to bar Reid's opinion that prisoners would have filed more grievances if the Plaintiffs' allegations were true. Reid reviewed 258 prisoner grievances regarding the facility-wide shakedowns giving rise to this case. Considering the number of grievances filed, Reid speculates that the incidents the prisoners complained of in the grievances could not have been carried out in accordance with a written operational plan or uniform practice. Judge Yandle notes that Reid does not base this opinion on any methodology. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' motion is granted as to this opinion. For these reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part the Defendants' Motion to Bar Expert Testimony, and the Plaintiffs' Motion to Exclude Certain Opinions of Larry Reid. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2p95swsw from PacerMonitor.com. INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiffs Deadline Set Mar 18 ------------------------------------------------------------------- Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, former Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind investors with losses in Excess of $100,000 that they have until March 18, 2025 to file lead plaintiff applications in a securities class action lawsuit against Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. (NYSE: IIPR), if they purchased the Company's securities between February 27, 2024 and December 19, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"). This action is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. What You May Do If you purchased securities of Innovative and would like to discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect you and your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without obligation or cost to you, contact KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or via email (lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com), or visit https://www.ksfcounsel.com/cases/nyse-iipr/ to learn more. If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you must petition the Court by March 18, 2025. About the Lawsuit Innovative and certain of its executives are charged with failing to disclose material information during the Class Period, violating federal securities laws. On December 20, 2024, the Company disclosed that on the previous day, PharmaCann Inc., the Company's tenant for eleven properties "which represented 17% of IIP's total rental revenues for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2024…defaulted on its obligations to pay rent for the month of December under six of the eleven Leases, for properties located in Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania. December rent, including base rent, property management fees and estimated tax and insurance payments, totaled $4.2 million for these six properties." On this news, the price of IIPR's stock fell $21.68 per share, or 22.73%, to close at $73.66 per share on December 20, 2024. The case is Giraudon v. Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc., No. 25-cv-00182. About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC KSF, whose partners include former Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is one of the nation's premier boutique securities litigation law firms. KSF serves a variety of clients -- including public institutional investors, hedge funds, money managers and retail investors -- in seeking recoveries for investment losses emanating from corporate fraud or malfeasance by publicly traded companies. KSF has offices in New York, Delaware, California, Louisiana, Chicago and New Jersey. To learn more about KSF, you may visit www.ksfcounsel.com. Contacts Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC Lewis Kahn, Managing Partner lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com (877) 515-1850 [GN] INTEL MEDIA: M.D. Pennsylvania Allows Jackson to Amend Complaint ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chief District Judge Matthew W. Brann of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania grants the Plaintiff's motion to amend complaint in the lawsuit entitled GERARD JACKSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTEL MEDIA HOUSE INC. and EHEALTH INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 4:24-cv-01181-MWB (M.D. Pa.). On July 16, 2024, Plaintiff Gerard Jackson filed a two-count class action Complaint alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") against Intel Media House Inc. and eHealth Insurance Services, Inc. The Court then received a Notice of Settlement as to Defendant eHealth on Nov. 3, 2024. In that Notice of Settlement, Jackson indicated that a tentative settlement had been reached and that he would file an Amended Complaint. The Plaintiff then filed a Motion to Amend the Complaint on Dec. 12, 2024. In that Motion, Jackson seeks to add Intel Media's principal, Christian Gamarra, based on Gamarra's alleged personal participation in the TCPA violations purportedly committed by Intel Media. Judge Brann holds that Jackson correctly notes that this is his first Motion to Amend the Complaint and that adding Gamarra will not prejudice him. Only the possibility of futility poses an issue for amendment. As to Gamarra, the proposed Amended Complaint relies on the theory of personal participation liability; in support of this proposition, Jackson extensively cites out of Circuit caselaw. But he fails to discuss City Select Auto Sales Inc. v. David Randall Assocs., a decision where the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit appears to question the existence of personal participation liability for corporate officers. Since the Court of Appeals left open this question, Judge Brann opines that it cannot be definitively said that amendment would be futile in this instance. As such, Judge Brann grants the Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint. In accordance with the foregoing, the Court grants Plaintiff Gerard Jackson's Motion to Amend Complaint. The Plaintiff had to file an Amended Complaint no later than Jan. 22, 2025. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yvvsmw3k from PacerMonitor.com. ITC MIDWEST: IECA, et al. Can't Challenge Abandonment Incentive --------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as INDUSTRIAL ENERGY CONSUMERS OF AMERICA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, RESPONDENT ITC MIDWEST LLC, INTERVENOR, No. 23-1334 (D.C.), Judges Judith Rogers and Karen Lecraft Henderson of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the petitioners request for review of an abandonment incentive granted to ITC Midwest, LLC must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Petitioners are the Resale Power Group of Iowa, the Industrial Energy Consumers of America, the Coalition of MISO Transmission Customers, and the Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group. They are a collection of organizations whose members purchase electricity at rates that could be affected by the disputed incentive. Petitioners seek review of the grant of an abandonment incentive to ITC Midwest, LLC. They filed a protest opposing the abandonment incentive on the ground that ITC's ownership of the Project was uncertain and likely void due to ongoing litigation challenging the Iowa ROFR. The Circuit Judges find because petitioners fail to show imminent injury as a result of this action, they lack Article III standing and the petition must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. ITC submitted a request for an abandonment incentive on May 30, 2023, for the Iowa portion of the Skunk River-Ipava 345 kV Long-Range Transmission Plan Project. This is one portion of a transmission project crossing several states that was approved by Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc. Pursuant to its open access tariff and the Iowa Right of First Refusal statute, MISO assigned the Iowa portion of the project to ITC. ITC is to own and construct the Project, which is to become operational in 2029. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approved the first of two stages of the rate incentive in the event a planned transmission project is abandoned for reasons beyond ITC's control. According to Senior Judge Rogers the Petitioners fail to demonstrate that they will ever suffer any injury from ITC's award of an abandonment incentive if the Project is constructed as ITC maintains through counsel that it intends to do. Instead, ITC suggests, petitioners offer a speculative, attenuated chain of events. For their injury to occur, not only would the Iowa Supreme Court need to affirm a permanent and retroactive Iowa ROFR injunction, MISO would need to open competitive bidding for the Project, and ITC would need to lose the bid, invoke the abandonment incentive, and demonstrate to the Commission its costs were prudent and the resulting rates are just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory. She concludes that a 'highly attenuated chain of possibilities' predicated on 'guesswork as to how independent decisionmakers will exercise their judgment' does not establish Article III standing." In her concurring opinion, the case illustrates problems created by associational standing. A group of uninjured trade and lobbying associations sued on behalf of their various members. Those members may themselves suffer no injury in fact. For example, Petitioner Industrial Energy Consumers of America is open to any manufacturer that is a significant consumer of energy. IECA claims that its roster includes over 12,000 facilities nationwide, yet these far-flung members are permitted to sue regarding development of an Iowa transmission project. Petitioner Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group is similarly comprised of Wisconsin-based commercial end users of electricity and asserts it has standing because, like IECA and the other Petitioners, at least one member's electricity rates might be affected by the FERC approved incentive awarded to ITC Midwest. This Court has considered the inclusion of uninjured class members fatal in the class certification context. This defect is overlooked if petitioners come to court as an association rather than as a putative class. Neither law nor logic should allow litigants to construct a work-around to avoid the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Judge Henderson points out that a class action plaintiff must be truly representative of the 'class' it purports to represent. For associational standing, however, courts require no showing that an association adequately represent its members' interests or that the members have any input into the association's decision-making, including its decision to sue. A copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wzZecN from PacerMonitor.com. JMC COMMUNITIES: Griffith, et al. Suit Remanded to State Court -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Donald C. Coggins, Jr. of the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina granted plaintiffs' motion to remand the case captioned as David Griffith and William Coleman, as Trustee of the William Coleman Revocable Trust, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JMC Communities, Inc.; JMC Homes of South Carolina, LLC; Patrick Square, LLC f/k/a Digital Development, LLC; Alpha Omega Construction Group, Inc.; Gorze, Inc.; Cothran Landscapes and Grading, LLC; Gentry Services, LLC a/ka/ Gentry Brothers Services, LLC; Tiny Bill Swaney d/b/a Swaney Masonry; Solid Rock Construction Services LLC; H&H Concrete, LLC; Maria Construction Inc.; F&V Framing, LLC; Five Star Construction, Inc.; Davis Framing, LLC; Ashley Cothran d/b/a/ Cothran Custom Homes, LLC; UFP Mid-Atlantic, LLC; Builders First Source, Inc. a/k/a Builders FirstSource Atlantic Group, LLC a/k/a Builders FirstSource Southeast Group, LLC; RC Johnson, LLC; Gunter Heating and Air Conditioning of SC, LLC; 84 Lumber Company, LP; Dogwood Exteriors, LLC; H&R Drywall, Inc.; Cristobal and Painters, LLC; Willow Tree Landscaping, Inc.; Harbin Lumber Company, Inc.; Soto HVAC, LLC; Riverside Landscaping, LLC; International Construction Services, Inc.; Palmetto Grading and Drainage, Inc.; Jane Does #1–10; and John Does #27–50; Defendants, C/A No. 8:24-cv-06078-DCC (D.S.C.). This matter is remanded to the Pickens County Court of Common Pleas. Plaintiffs David Griffithand William Coleman as trustee of the William Coleman Revocable Trust filed a putative class action in South Carolina state court against a host of defendants, including JMC Communities, Inc.; JMC Homes of South Carolina, LLC; and Patrick Square, LLC. The Developer Defendants removed the case to federal court, invoking jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d)(2). Plaintiffs now move to remand the action to state court, arguing: (1) that removal was untimely, and (2) that CAFA's so-called "local controversy" exception applies. Plaintiffs are homeowners in Patrick Square, a planned community in Clemson, South Carolina comprising over 300 single-family homes, paired homes, and townhomes. The Developer Defendants oversaw the development of Patrick Square: JMC Homes served as the general contractor; Patrick Square, LLC handled home sales; and JMC Communities provided administrative and management support services. In April 2024, Griffith filed a class-action complaint in the Pickens County Court of Common Pleas against the Developer Defendants and unnamed Doe defendants involved in the design, development, construction, marketing, sale, and/or attempted repair of homes in Patrick Square. The complaint alleged that Patrick Square homes are plagued with construction defects that have led to water intrusion and drainage issues. The complaint attributed these problems to substandard site work and drainage infrastructure, defective exterior cladding and framing, and improperly installed bricks and shingles. It also alleged that Defendants were negligent in failing to properly design and construct certain components of the homes, including exterior building envelopes, foundations, exterior cladding systems, windows, doors, roofs, and framing. Griffith proposed a class of "all persons and entities that own, in whole or in part, a home within the Patrick Square development," which he expected to exceed 500 members. And for relief, he sought an unspecified amount of actual, consequential, and punitive damages, as well as attorneys' fees and costs, on behalf of himself and the putative class. On Oct. 24, 2024, the Developer Defendants removed this action to federal court, asserting that all three CAFA requirements are satisfied -- that is, the class has more than 100 members, the parties are minimally diverse, and the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. On Nov. 7, 2024, Plaintiffs moved to remand. Timeliness of Removal In moving for remand, Plaintiffs argue that the 30-day removal clock began upon service of the original complaint, thus rendering the Developer Defendants' October 2024 removal untimely. Alternatively, they argue that, at the latest, the clock started on June 12, 2024, when their counsel emailed inspection reports to the Developer Defendants' counsel. These reports detailed numerous defects in Griffith's and Coleman's homes and outlined the scope of repair required to correct those defects. The Court disagrees. Neither the original complaint nor the June 12 email provided the Developer Defendants with enough information from which they could ascertain removability under CAFA. The Court finds that the documents identified by Plaintiffs did not trigger either of the removal periods in Sec. 1446(b). As a result, the Developer Defendants' removal was not untimely. Local Controversy Exception Plaintiffs have presented evidence showing that 443 of the 604 proposed class members, or 73.3%, own a home in Patrick Square that is taxed at the 4% rate for primary, owner-occupied residences. The Developer Defendants dispute the probative value of this evidence, arguing that residency is not enough to prove citizenship. The Court finds that Plaintiffs' evidence makes it more likely than not that more than two-thirds of the proposed class are South Carolina citizens. Neither side has identified any other class action filed in the last three years asserting the same or similar factual allegations against any of the defendants, and the Court's research has not uncovered one either. The Court concludes that the Plaintiffs have carried their burden of proving that CAFA's local controversy exception applies. Accordingly, it must abstain from exercising jurisdiction. A copy of the Court's Opinion and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TmXvuu from PacerMonitor.com. JOHN WARE: Judge Certifies Class Action Over Sexual Assault ----------------------------------------------------------- Karina Zapata of CBC News reports that a judge with the Court of King's Bench of Alberta has certified a class-action lawsuit that alleges school staff knew and "failed to respond properly to the many disclosures of abuse" made by students against two teachers at John Ware Junior High School. The lawsuit is against the Calgary Board of Education (CBE), the estate of former teacher Michael Gregory and former teacher Fred Archer. Three representative plaintiffs are listed, each of whom is representing different subclasses of plaintiffs: alleged sexual assault victims of Gregory, alleged physical assault victims of Gregory, and alleged sexual and physical assault victims of Archer. There are 30 or more people being represented in the class action, according to lawyers for the plaintiffs. Last week, Justice Michele H. Hollins filed her 11-page decision certifying the class action. After the plaintiffs considered a mass tort action -- which would have allowed for plaintiffs to pursue their cases individually with a judge assessing on a case-by-case basis what compensation a victim is entitled to -- Hollins approved a revised class-action lawsuit. She found the now-adult alleged victims have "not fared particularly well" and would struggle to pursue individual cases. In her decision, Hollins said the different subclasses of plaintiffs would recognize the differences in the teachers' tenure and alleged abusive behaviours. According to the judge's decision, Gregory is accused of sexually abusing female students and physically abusing male students in various locations -- including at school, at his rural acreage and during unofficial "scouting trips." Gregory died by suicide in 2021, five days after he was criminally charged with 17 counts of sexual assault and sexual exploitation involving six girls. They had been students at John Ware, where Gregory taught between 1986 to 2006. Archer is accused of sexually and physically abusing male students at John Ware School, where he was a teacher through the 1990s. He has previously pleaded guilty to sexually abusing students at another school. According to the justice's decision last week, the lawsuit claims the CBE is vicariously liable for the actions of its employees, as well as directly liable for creating an environment that allowed abuse to happen, failing to investigate the teachers and failing to enforce policies to prevent sexual abuse within the school -- despite staff being aware it was happening. The CBE claimed some of the abuse happened off school property, and in some cases, parents gave their children permission to go for rides in the teachers' cars and to go to Gregory's acreage, according to the decision. The CBE opposed the certification of the claim that it is vicariously liable for the actions of the teachers. But Justice Hollins disagreed, allowing that claim to move forward in a common issues trial. A total of 43 affidavits have been filed -- most of which came from former students. Others came from their parents and John Ware staff members. The plaintiffs discontinued legal action against Gregory's widow and the company they co-owned. She has denied any knowledge of his alleged misconduct. In a statement to CBC News, the school board said it's reviewing the decision and is taking the allegations seriously but is unable to comment further as the matter is before the courts. "The CBE strives to create a welcoming, caring, respectful and safe learning environment at all times. Harassment, sexual harassment and discrimination are strictly prohibited and are not tolerated." Archer did not respond to CBC's requests for comment. [GN] JPMORGAN CHASE: Wins Bid to Toss Remaining Claims in Pessin Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled JOSEPH PESSIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JPMORGAN CHASE U.S. BENEFITS EXECUTIVE, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-02436-DLC (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Denise Cote of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an Opinion and Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's remaining claims. Plaintiff Joseph Pessin, a former employee of JPMorgan Chase & Company ("JPMC"), brought this action against the administrator of his pension plan, the JPMC Benefits Executive, for failing to make certain disclosures as required by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). Pessin also alleged that JPMC's Board of Directors ("JPMC Board") violated ERISA by failing to monitor the JPMC Benefits Executive. An Opinion of Dec. 9, 2022, granted a motion to dismiss all of Pessin's claims ("2022 Opinion"). The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the 2022 Opinion in part, remanding two claims for consideration of additional arguments raised by the Defendants for dismissal of these claims (Pessin v. JPMorgan Chase U.S. Benefits Exec., 112 F.4th 129, 132 (2d Cir. 2024) ("2024 Opinion")). On remand, the Defendants have moved to dismiss Pessin's remaining claims on those additional grounds. For reasons set forth in this Opinion and Order, the Court rules that the motion is granted and the claims are dismissed as barred by the release the Plaintiff executed in exchange for receipt of his severance package. Mr. Pessin worked for J.P. Morgan & Co. ("Morgan") and JPMC from 1987 to March 24, 2019. For the first decade of his employment, Pessin was enrolled in Morgan's defined benefit pension plan ("Morgan Plan"). The Morgan Plan provided retirement benefits in amounts based on a formula that factored in the participant's compensation and length of employment ("final average pay formula"). At the end of 1998, the Morgan Plan was amended to use a different benefit formula ("Cash Balance Plan"). Using the Cash Balance Plan formula, participants were presented with an "account balance," which increased over time by accumulating "pay credits" corresponding to the participant's compensation, along with "interest credits." When the Morgan Plan transitioned to the Cash Balance Plan, participants were assigned "opening account balances" based on the annuity benefit they would have received under the Morgan Plan. Until Dec. 30, 2003, former Morgan Plan participants' benefits were calculated using both the final average pay formula and the Cash Balance Plan formula. From that point, benefits accrued only under the Cash Balance Plan. After 2003, former Morgan Plan participants, who left employment would receive the greater of (a) their benefits under the final average pay formula as of Dec. 30, 2003, or (b) their benefits under the Cash Balance Plan formula. As a result, the final average pay formula calculation, frozen at the end of 2003, would serve as a participant's benefit amount until their balance under the Cash Balance Plan exceeded it, if that ever happened. This arrangement is called "wear away," because the older plan's frozen benefit amount acts as a minimum benefit amount until it "wears away" such that the amount calculated under the new formula (here, the Cash Balance Plan formula) accumulates enough to surpass it. During Pessin's employment, the JPMC Benefits Executive and its predecessor made several disclosures to plan participants regarding the plans and their wear-away mechanism. First, Summary Plan Descriptions ("SPDs") were sent to participants on Jan. l, 1999, when the Cash Balance Plan became effective, in September 2000, and in the fall of 2005. Each of these SPDs detailed the transition arrangement. They explained that, after 2003, former Morgan Plan participants would receive the greater of the December 2003 final average pay formula calculation or the benefit calculated under the Cash Balance Plan formula. In 2002, the JPMC Benefits Executive began sending participants annual pension benefit statements ("Benefit Statements"). The Benefit Statements disclosed the amount a participant had accumulated under the Cash Balance Plan formula. Just below that amount, the Benefit Statements noted that the amount "does not reflect any minimum benefit that you might have accrued under a prior plan formula," and directed participants who wanted more information about minimum benefits to call "HR Answers." Contact information for "HR Answers" was provided on the next page of the document. Mr. Pessin left his employment at JPMC on March 24, 2019. Two weeks before leaving, on March 8, Pessin signed a document titled "Release Agreement," stating on its first page that he released JPMC and its affiliates (including "any fiduciaries of any employee benefit plan") from certain claims "in exchange for the severance pay, severance--related benefits and career services" the company had offered him ("Release Agreement"). That five-page document indicated that Pessin released "any claims or potential claims relating to my employment with the Company and/or the termination of my employment." It continued, "I understand that 'claims' includes claims I know about and claims I do not know about." Still on its first page, the Release Agreement provided a non-exhaustive list of released claims, including those brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") including breach of fiduciary duty and equitable claims arising under 1132(a)(3) of ERISA. Three days after leaving JPMC, Pessin received a pension benefit election packet. After requesting and receiving a second packet in 2021, Pessin contacted JPMC for more information about his benefit calculation. The worksheets he received in response showed that his benefit amount under the Cash Balance Plan formula was lower than the final average pay formula amount frozen in December 2003. As a result, his benefit would be the amount calculated under the final average pay formula, which had not increased since 2003. Mr. Pessin filed this action on March 25, 2022, bringing four claims for violations of ERISA. Following the filing of a motion to dismiss, Pessin filed the first amended complaint ("FAC") on July 27. In the FAC, Pessin first alleged that the JPMC Benefits Executive violated ERISA Section 404(a), 29 U.S.C. Section 1104(a), by breaching its fiduciary duty in failing disclose that his benefit amount was effectively frozen and concealing the fact that it was not increasing during his continued employment. Second, he alleged that the JPMC Board violated Section 404(a) by breaching its fiduciary duty to monitor the Executive. Third, he alleged that the Executive violated ERISA Section 105(a), 29 U.S.C. Section 1025(a), by providing Benefit Statements that did not indicate his total benefits accrued, as that section requires. Finally, Pessin claimed that the Executive violated ERISA Section 102, 29 U.S.C. Section 1022, by failing to provide SPDs that complied with requirements of that section and its implementing regulation. The 2022 Opinion granted a renewed motion to dismiss Pessin's claims. On Aug. 13, 2024, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the 2022 Opinion in part, remanding the case for further proceedings. The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Pessin's Sections 404(a) and 102 claims against the JPMC Benefits Executive. It reversed the dismissal of Pessin's Section 105 claim, reasoning that the Benefit Statements failed to indicate Pessin's "total benefits accrued," as required by the statute. The Second Circuit also reversed the dismissal of the Section 404(a) claim against the JPMC Board, as it was partially derived from the Section 105 claim against the Executive. The Court of Appeals withheld decision on two other arguments that the Defendants made because they were not considered in the 2022 Opinion: first, that Pessin's claims were untimely, and second, that he released them in his Release Agreement with JPMC. The Second Circuit's mandate was issued on Sept. 3. Pursuant to a scheduling order, the Defendants filed their renewed motion to dismiss the FAC on Oct. 4. The motion was fully submitted on Nov. 1. In their motion, the Defendants argue that Pessin's claims fail because he agreed not to bring them in his Release Agreement. Pessin responds that the Release Agreement is not properly before the Court, and that, even if it were, the release does not bar his claims. The Defendants' motion to enforce the release is converted to a motion for summary judgment. The Defendants' motion to enforce the release relies on the release itself, which is not integral to the FAC. Accordingly, the Defendants seek to convert their motion to one for summary judgment. Judge Cote grants that application. Because Pessin released his claims in this action, Judge Cote holds that summary judgment is granted in favor of the Defendants. Judge Cote explains that because Pessin released his claims, this Opinion does not address the Defendants' other arguments for dismissing them. Those other arguments are, first, that the Defendants disclosed the information required by Section 105 in the benefit election packets that Pessin received in 2019 and 2021 and, second, that Pessin's claims are time-barred. Accordingly, the Court rules that the Defendants' October 4 motion to dismiss is converted to a motion for summary judgment and is granted. The Clerk of Court will enter judgment for the Defendants. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/ydyssxau from PacerMonitor.com. Jeffrey Lewis -- jlewis@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback LLP, in Oakland, CA 94612; Erin M. Riley -- eriley@kellerrohrback.com -- Chris N. Ryder -- cryder@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback LLP, in Seattle, WA 98101; Teresa S. Renaker -- teresa@renakerscott.com -- Renaker Scott LLP, in San Francisco, CA 94111; David S. Preminger -- dpreminger@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback LLP, in New York, NY 10036, for Plaintiff Joseph Pessin. Jeremy P. Blumenfeld -- jeremy.blumenfeld@morganlewis.com -- Alexis Caris -- alexis.caris@morganlewis.com -- Mary Ann Ferguson McNulty -- mary.mcnulty@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, in Philadelphia, PA 19103; Sari Alamuddin -- salamuddin@morganlewis.com -- Eric Mackie -- eric.mackie@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, in Chicago, IL 60606; Stephanie Reiss -- stephanie.reiss@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, in Pittsburgh, PA 15219, for Defendants JPMorgan U.S. Benefits Executive, et al. KELLYANN LLC: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAREE WALLACH and TIFFANYE YOUNG, on behalf of themselves, the general public, and those similarly situated, v. DR. KELLYANN LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-01339-WHO (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadlines on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and corresponding hearing as follows: Event Current Date Extended Date Deadline for Plaintiffs to file Feb. 7, 2025 Aug. 7, 2025 their motion for class certification: Deadline for Defendant to file Apr. 11, 2025 Oct. 13, 2025 its opposition to the motion for class certification: Deadline for Plaintiffs to May 13, 2025 Nov. 13, 2025 file their reply in support of the motion for class certification: Hearing on Plaintiffs' motion June 4, 2025 Dec. 3, 2025 for Class Certification: Dr. Kellyann is a naturopathic physician. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=o5MOU2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. Hayley A. Reynolds, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com marie@gutridesafier.com hayley@gutridesafier.com The Defendant is represented by: Thomas A. Evans, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP 560 Mission St., Suite 2100 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 243-1000 Facsimile: (415) 243-1001 E-mail: tom.evans@alston.com LA PLAYA GRILL: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property ------------------------------------------------------- Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. HPHH, LLC d/b/a LA PLAYA GRILL, Case No. 1:25-cv-20284-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Jan. 17, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property and restaurant and bar business within the commercial property. Although over 30 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. The Plaintiff found the commercial property and commercial restaurant business located within the commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the commercial property and commercial restaurant business located within the commercial property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The barriers to access have likewise posed a risk of injury(ies), embarrassment, and discomfort to Plaintiff and others similarly situated. The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. HPHH, LLC d/b/a LA PLAYA GRILL, owned and operated a commercial restaurant within the Commercial Property located in Homestead, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beverly Virues, Esq. Armando Mejias, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, Fl 33134 Phone: (305) 553-3464 Primary Email: bvirues@lawgmp.com Secondary Emails: amejias@lawgmp.com jacosta@lawgmp.com - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Phone: (305) 350-3103 Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com LJUBICA CONTRACTORS: Court Narrows Claims in Vicente, et al. Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Vernon S. Broderick of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned as JUAN R. VICENTE, JUAN ZAMORA, and LUIS BENITEZ, on behalf of themselves, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, Plaintiffs, - against - LJUBICA CONTRACTORS LLC and PREDRAG JANKOVIC, Defendants, Case No. 18-cv-00419-VSB (S.D.N.Y.). Before the Court are the parties' cross motions for summary judgment in this action for unpaid overtime and lost wages under federal and state labor laws. Plaintiffs Luis Benitez and Juan Zamora began performing general construction work for Defendant Ljubica Contractors LLC in June 2014 and January 2016, respectively. Defendant Jankovic was Ljubica's owner and managed its day-to-day operations. Ljubica's business included renovating apartments between the apartments being rented, and Jankovic hired Benitez and Zamora to perform painting, touchup, tiling, and carpentry tasks in connection with this work. Plaintiffs Juan Vicente, Juan Zamora, and Luis Benitez initiated this action on Jan. 17, 2018 by filing a complaint. Plaintiffs Vicente, Zamora, and Benitez claimed that federal and state law entitled them to lost wages and liquidated damages. Plaintiffs bring three claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Secs. 206–207, and the New York Labor Law, N.Y. Labor Law Secs. 195 and 652. They claim they are entitled to unpaid overtime in violation of the FLSA and the NYLL because they consistently worked more than 40 hours per week. Plaintiffs claim they are entitled to unpaid wages because neither of them received any compensation during their final four weeks of employment. They also claim they did not receive paystubs or wage-and-hour notices as required by the Wage Theft Prevention provision of the NYLL, N.Y. Labor Law Sec. 195. On April 27, 2022, Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang issued a Report and Recommendation that Vicente be dismissed from this action. Thereafter, Judge Wang oversaw a period of discovery, and on Nov. 4, 2022 set a briefing schedule for the parties' instant motions for summary judgment. On Dec. 2, 2022, Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment. The same day, Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on all of their claims, including that Plaintiffs are entitled to liquidated damages for Defendants' alleged violations, that Defendants Ljubica and Jankovic are jointly and severally liable, and on the threshold question of whether Zamora and Benitez were employees of Defendants as a matter of law. Defendants have also moved for summary judgment, arguing that Vicente and Benitez's claims have already been dismissed, that Zamora and Benitez were not employees of Defendants as a matter of law, that Jankovic is not liable because Plaintiffs have not established that he owned Ljubica, and that Zamora cannot maintain this case as a class action. The Court finds Plaintiffs are not entitled to summary judgment on their unpaid overtime claims. Putting aside the question of whether Plaintiffs' evidence is sufficient to satisfy their burden on the first element of an unpaid-overtime claim, Plaintiffs have mustered no evidence to sustain their burden on the second element -- that Defendants had actual or constructive knowledge of Plaintiffs' work hours. Plaintiffs' unpaid-wages claim is that Benitez and Zamora are entitled under the FLSA and the NYLL to recover wages earned but not paid during the last four weeks of their respective terms of employment. The Court notes outside of the minimum wage context, the FLSA does not support a claim for unpaid wages. Thus, they are not entitled to summary judgment on a FLSA unpaid-wages claim. The NYLL, on the other hand, does support standalone unpaid-wage claims. Summary judgment is therefore inappropriate on this claim. The Court finds Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment on the issue of whether, under the NYLL Defendants failed to provide either wage-and-hour notices or notices with every payment of wages, listing hours worked, rates paid, gross wages, allowances, if any, claimed as part of the minimum wage, deductions and net wages. Because Defendants have failed to identify a genuine dispute of material fact on this issue, Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment that Defendants failed to provide wage-and-hour notices or paystubs, the Court concludes. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is granted as to the issue of whether Defendants failed to provide Plaintiffs with wage-and-hour notices and paystubs under the New York Labor Law but otherwise denied, and Defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted with respect to the dismissal of Plaintiff Vicente but is otherwise denied, the Court holds. Judge Wang's Report & Recommendation dated April 27, 2022 is adopted in full. Judge Broderick will hold a conference in this matter regarding trial dates and settlement on Feb. 25, 2025 at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 518 of the Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007. Prior to the conference, the parties must meet-and-confer, then submit a joint status letter no later than Feb. 18, 2025. A copy of the Court's Opinion & Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=w9QbRJ from PacerMonitor.com. LOANDEPOT INC: Class Settlement in Daroya Suit Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Daroya Isaiah v. loanDepot, Inc. (re loanDepot Data Breach Litigation), Case No. 8:24-cv-00136-DOC-JDE (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge David Carter entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement and approving form and content of class notice. -- Certification for Settlement Purpose Only The approximately 16, 924, 007 individuals in the United States who received notice from loanDepot that their data may have been compromised by the Data Breach and are identified on the Settlement Class List." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) the judges presiding over the action and members of their families; (2) loaDepot, its subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which loanDepot or its parents have a controlling interest and their current or former officers, and directors, and (3) individuals who properly execute and submit a procedurally proper and timely request or exclusion prior to the expiration of the Opt-Out Period. LoanDepot provides mortgage and non-mortgage loan products. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7Bai6J at no extra charge.[CC] LOS ANGELES, CA: Griffin Suit Seeks to Certify Class ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUDY GRIFFIN, et al., v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Case No. 2:24-cv-06312-RGK-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs will move the Court on Feb. 10, 2025, for an order certifying a class of: "All persons with mobility disabilities who claim to have been denied equal access to Defendant City of Los Angeles' public parks and park facilities as a result of Defendant's policies and practices with regard to the City's parks and disability access. First, the putative class is so numerous as to render impractical any joinder of the members of the class. Second, there are numerous factual and legal issues that are common to the members of the proposed class. Third, Plaintiffs' claims are typical of class claims. Fourth, Plaintiffs and their counsel are adequate representatives of the proposed class. Lastly, pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2), the Plaintiffs allege conduct by the Defendant that is generally applicable to the class and seek declaratory and injunctive relief for the class. Los Angeles is a Southern California city and the center of the nation's film and television industry. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xgpgdm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jinny Kim, Esq. Amelia Evard, Esq. Jameelah Najieb, Esq. DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 2001 Center Street, Third Floor Berkeley, CA 94704-1204 Telephone: (510) 665-8644 Facsimile: (510) 665-8511 E-mail: jkim@dralegal.org aevard@dralegal.org jnajieb@dralegal.org - and - Guy B. Wallace, Esq. Mark T. Johnson, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mail: gwallace@schneiderwallace.com mjohnson@schneiderwallace.com - and - Linda M. Dardarian, Esq. Andrew P. Lee, Esq. Ginger L. Grimes, Esq. GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO 155 Grand Avenue, Suite 900 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 763-9800 Facsimile: (510) 835-1417 E-mail: ldardarian@gdbhlegal.com alee@gbdhlegal.com ggrimes@gbdhlegal.com - and - Paula Pearlman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF PAULA PEARLMAN 9610 Beverlywood Street Los Angeles, CA 90034-1825 Telephone: (310)558-4808 E-mail: pauladpearlman@gmail.com The Defendant is represented by: Elizabeth M. Pappy, Esq. Daphne M. Anneet, Esq. Evan L. Miller, Esq. Anna G. Barker, Esq. BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN, LLP 444 South Flower Street, Suite 2400, Los Angeles, CA 90071-2953 Telephone: (213) 236-0600 Facsimile: (213) 236-2700 E-mail: epappy@bwslaw.com danneet@bwslaw.com emiller@bwslaw.com abarker@bwslaw.com - and - Hydee Feldstein Soto, Esq. Denise C. Mills, Esq. Kathleen A. Kenealy, Esq. Gabriel S. Dermer, Esq. 200 North Main Street, Room 675 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (213) 978-7558 Facsimile: (213) 978-7011 E-mail: gabriel.dermer@lacity.org LOVEPOP INC: Website Not Accessible to the Blind, Riley Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- AMANIE RILEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Lovepop, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-00189 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 9, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://www.lovepop.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On December 24, 2024, the Plaintiff was searching for customized greeting cards. Specifically, she wanted to find imaginative and original cards that could surprise and delight her friends. After some research, she came across Lovepop.com. The site promised a wide selection of cards and customization options. However, her shopping experience was hindered by significant accessibility issues on the site. The primary issue was the presence of unfocusable elements within the customization dialog box, which prevented her from completing the personalization process. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Lovepop's policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Ms. Riley is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. Lovepop specializes in beautifully designed, handcrafted 3D pop-up greeting cards for all occasions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Asher Cohen, Esq. ASHER COHEN PLLC 2377 56th Dr, Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (718) 914-9694 E-mail: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com LOWER LLC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Wilson Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------- CHET MICHAEL WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LOWER, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-03665-ELH (D. Md., Dec. 18, 2024) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. The case is assigned to District Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander. Lower, LLC provides mortgage services. The Company offers loans for residential purposes. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Thomas McGowan , Jr., Esq. KINNER & MCGOWAN PLLC 413 E Capitol St SE Washington, DC 20003 Telephone: (901) 351-6776 Email: jtmcgowan@gmail.com - and - Anthony I Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW PC 350 Lincoln St. Ste. 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (615) 485-0018 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com LYTX INC: Settles Illinois BIPA Class Action for $4.25-Mil. ----------------------------------------------------------- John Kingston, writing for Freight Waves, report that Lytx, a provider of telematics and in-cab camera systems, has reached a more than $4 million settlement in a federal lawsuit regarding claims it violated Illinois' biometrics law, considered one of the more problematic in the country for data gatherers. In the settlement of the lawsuit, which has not been formally approved by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois but which the court has suggested is highly likely, Lytx is not making any admissions. According to the preliminary approval document released late last week by the court, Lytx "vigorously denies all of the claims and allegations" raised in the lawsuit, which was first filed three years ago, almost to the day. The settlement in the case is $4.25 million. The precise size of the class involved was not revealed in the document, in part because the parties will now need to seek out the people who fall under the settlement umbrella: anybody who drove a vehicle in Illinois "equipped with a Lytx DriveCam Event Recorder ('DriveCam'), and for whom machine vision and artificial intelligence ('MV+AI') was used to predict distracted driving behaviors." [GN] MAGNA INT'L: Class Settlement in Davis Suit Wins Final Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELVIN DAVIS, et al., v. MAGNA INTERNATIONAL OF AMERICA, INC., et al. Case No. 2:20-cv-11060-NGE-EAS (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Nancy Edmunds entered an order denying the Pro Se Motion to Amend Objection and overruling the Objections to the Settlement. The Court grants Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class action settlement, certification of settlement class, and approval of plan of allocation. The parties are directed to fund and distribute the Settlement Fund in accordance with the Settlement Agreement. Each Settlement Class Member is bound by the Settlement Agreement and the releases set forth therein. The Parties may enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement and their respective obligations pursuant to this Order of the Court. Judgment of dismissal with prejudice shall be entered pursuant to this Order and the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Plaintiffs' motion for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expense and Named Plaintiffs case contribution awards remains under advisement. On April 30, 2020, the Plaintiffs filed a putative class action complaint for damages allegedly caused when the fiduciaries of the Plan breached their duties under sections 409 and 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). The Plaintiffs allege that mismanagement of the Plan cost the Plan and its participants millions of dollars by investing in poorly performing funds and by paying excess fees. The Settlement Class is defined as: "All persons, except Defendants and their immediate family members, who were participants in or beneficiaries of the Plan, at any time between April 30, 2014, through Aug. 28, 2024." The Plaintiffs' claimed damages amount to approximately $9.3 million, inclusive of interest. The Defendants dispute Plaintiffs' calculations, but still agree that 31.2% recovery of the potential damages, as calculated by Plaintiffs, is fair, reasonable, and adequate considering the likely maximum amount of recovery if the case was litigated to its conclusion on the merits. The settlement as proposed by the Parties ensures a total damages amount of $2,900,000.00. The Court finds that the proposed Settlement offers fair and reasonable relief when weighed against the risks of litigation. Magna is a Canadian parts manufacturer for automakers. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hFAYMK at no extra charge.[CC] MASTERCARD INC: Faces Hayman Suit Over Gender Pay Disparity ----------------------------------------------------------- DEBORAH HAYMAN, G.A. Gomes, S. Brown, and L. Kasomo, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MASTERCARD, INC., Case No. 7:25-cv-00340 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 14, 2024) contends that Mastercard maintained uniform compensation, leveling, and promotion policies and practices that resulted in the disproportionate underpayment of female, Black, and Hispanic employees as compared to their similarly-situated male and white counterparts. These policies and practices across all Mastercard divisions, though facially neutral, have an adverse impact on female, Black, and Hispanic employees across the United States, who were paid less than their male and white comparators by Mastercard for the performance of the same or similar work, the suit says. Inequity in compensation based on gender and/or race compounds over time because periodic compensation decisions, such as salary increases and promotions, are based on current job code. Therefore, female, Black, and Hispanic employees are systematically disadvantaged by the common compensation structure, the suit adds. The Plaintiff brings this suit alleging violations of the Federal Equal Pay Act of 1963, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the New York Equal Pay Law, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law, brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of themselves and all other similarly-situated female, Black, and/or Hispanic employees currently or formerly employed by Mastercard in Career Levels 4-10 in the United States. Plaintiff Hayman as employed by the Defendant as an Analyst in its Consumer Marketing department in its San Francisco, California office from October 2019 until July 2021. She was hired at Career Level 8, and she remained at that level through the duration of her employment. Mastercard is a payment card services company offering a range of payment transaction processing.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Cara E. Greene, Esq. Adam T. Klein, Esq. Chauniqua D. Young, Esq. Nantiya Ruan, Esq. Shira Z. Gelfand, Esq. Jennifer Davidson, Esq. OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP 685 Third Ave., 25th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 245-1000 MAXIMUS EDUCATION: E.D. Virginia Dismisses Ackerman Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Michael S. Nachmanoff of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division, grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit titled ASHANI ACKERMAN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MAXIMUS EDUCATION, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00975-MSN-WBP (E.D. Va.). The matter comes before the Court on Defendant Maximus Education LLC's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. For the reasons outlined in this opinion, the Court finds that Plaintiff Ashani Ackerman has not presented facts to indicate that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over her case, and accordingly, the Court grants the Defendant's Motion. The Plaintiff took out several federal student loans between 2013 and 2021. Until Jan. 12, 2023, the Defendant serviced eight such loan accounts for the Plaintiff. As of January 2023, the total balance of those accounts was roughly $25,000. During this time, and up until September 2023, all federal student loans, including the Plaintiff's, were held in forbearance due to the COVID-19 pandemic, meaning that no payments were due or owing, and lenders or servicers could not make any negative credit reporting on those loans. In early 2023, the Plaintiff requested a discharge of her student loans based on total and permanent disability. On Jan. 12, 2023, the Defendant notified her by letter that it had transferred those loans to another loan service provider to manage the discharge, and that she did not owe any further amount to the Defendant. Despite the Defendant's transfer of the Plaintiff's loans, the Defendant continued to report balances on those loans to credit reporting agencies ("CRAs"). Upset that the Defendant was incorrectly reporting balances on her loan accounts, the Plaintiff filed disputes with the CRAs, and the Defendant received notifications of those disputes in the form of Automated Consumer Dispute Verifications ("ACDVs"). Instead of correcting its reporting, the Defendant verified to the CRAs that the non-zero balances on the accounts were correct. The Defendant eventually corrected the reporting to show $0.00 balances on each of the eight accounts, with the Plaintiff's Sept. 1, 2023 credit report showing as much. Between Jan. 23, 2023, and June 6, 2023, ten different entities made inquiries into the Plaintiff's credit with Equifax and TransUnion. The Plaintiff's Experian credit score on Jan. 20, 2023, was 594. The Plaintiff's TransUnion credit score on Sept. 1, 2023, was 514. During the time in which the Plaintiff's loans were incorrectly showing a balance reporting, she received several notices of adverse credit actions. On Jan. 20, 2023, she received an "adverse action notice" from Georgia's Own Credit Union, reporting that they denied her credit based on information received from Equifax, primarily relying on "Delinquent past or present credit obligations" and a "Decline by Chexsystems." The Plaintiff also claims in her interrogatory responses--but does not document--a Jan. 23, 2023 personal loan denial by Excel Federal Credit Union, a March 30, 2023 denial of credit from Security Finance, an April 17, 2023 denial of credit from World Acceptance, a Jan. 19, 2023 denial of credit from the Zip app, and a Jan. 12, 2023 denial of credit from PlanetFi. Further, in an undated letter, an entity called "MAA Lenox" denied the Plaintiff's home rental application, reporting that its decision was based on "consumer report(s) obtained from or through Saferent(R) Solutions LLC." The Plaintiff filed a proposed class action complaint on June 6, 2024, alleging a single violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which in relevant part requires a furnisher of credit information, upon receipt of notice of a dispute through a CRA, to investigate and correct inaccurate information. She seeks to represent a class of individuals, who (1) had federal student loan(s) serviced by the Defendant; (2) which federal student loan(s) were transferred to another servicer; and (3) after which transfer, the Defendant received notice from a consumer reporting agency of the individual's dispute concerning those federal student loan(s); but (4) in responding to the consumer reporting agency's notice of dispute, the Defendant failed to report a $0 balance for those federal student loan(s). The Defendant answered the Complaint on Sept. 30, 2024. Magistrate Judge Porter approved a discovery plan on Oct. 30, 2024. On Nov. 8, 2024, the Defendant moved to bifurcate discovery, seeking to proceed first with limited jurisdictional discovery regarding the Plaintiff's standing to bring her claim. Judge Porter denied bifurcation but provided a briefing schedule for the Defendant to move for dismissal for lack of subject jurisdiction, and for limited discovery while the motion is pending. The Defendant moved for dismissal on Nov. 29, 2024. The Parties appear to agree--though they do not specifically address the issue--that the Court should apply a summary judgment (rather than a preponderance of the evidence) standard in determining whether it possesses jurisdiction. Finding that the jurisdictional facts--which involve the Plaintiff's damages and whether the Defendant caused her harm through statutory violations--are sufficiently intertwined with the merits, the Court agrees that it must determine simply whether the Plaintiff has created a genuine issue of fact as to jurisdiction. The Plaintiff identifies five different types of injury she claims confer standing: lost credit opportunities, a diminished credit score and profile, lost time, emotional distress, and intangible injuries akin to defamation or invasion of privacy. None is ultimately availing, Judge Nachmanoff points out. Judge Nachmanoff finds the Plaintiff has failed to meet her burden in response to a 12(b)(1) motion of pointing to evidence, as opposed to mere inference, that demonstrates a connection between the Defendant's reporting and her injuries. Judge Nachmanoff also finds that the Plaintiff can show neither traceability nor injury in fact. Accordingly, the Plaintiff cannot rely on claims of harm to her credit profile alone to establish standing. The Plaintiff's lost time and emotional distress claim is, like her others, deficient in factual detail, Judge Nachmanoff holds. Her failure to do so means she may not now claim standing on account of her supposed emotional and mental injuries, Judge Nachmanoff opines. For these reasons, the Court finds the Plaintiff has not shown that she has standing to bring her claim that the Defendant violated the FCRA. Therefore, the Court grants the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. The Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to close this civil action. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/bd93pu5v from PacerMonitor.com. MDL 2873: Firefighters Exposed to Toxic Chemicals, Carr Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company. The case is captioned as THOMAS EDWARD CARR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO., INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE ) Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-07253-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 12, 2024). The Carr suit is a member case in the multi-district litigation proceeding, MDL No. 2873, re Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. Master Docket No: 2:18-mn-2873. 3M Company conducts operations in electronics, telecommunications, industrial, consumer and office, health care, safety, and other markets. The Company businesses share technologies, manufacturing operations, marketing channels, and other resources. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Ryan Ziminskas, Esq. THEMIS LAW, PLLC 7718 Wood Hollow Drive Suite 105 Austin, TX 78731 Telephone: (737) 208-1636 Email: rziminskas@themislawpllc.com MDL 2873: Firefighters Exposed to Toxic Chemicals, McLean Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3M Company. The case is captioned as KIMBERLY MCLEAN, as Personal Representative/Executor/ Administrator of the Estate of MARTIN JAMES MCLEAN, deceased), Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES CO., LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING CO., INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS, INC.; STEDFAST USA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE ) Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-07253-RMG (D.S.C., Dec. 12, 2024). The McLean suit is a member case in the multi-district litigation proceeding, MDL No. 2873, re Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. Master Docket No: 2:18-mn-2873. 3M Company conducts operations in electronics, telecommunications, industrial, consumer and office, health care, safety, and other markets. The Company businesses share technologies, manufacturing operations, marketing channels, and other resources. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Ryan Ziminskas, Esq. THEMIS LAW, PLLC 7718 Wood Hollow Drive Suite 105 Austin, TX 78731 Telephone: (737) 208-1636 Email: rziminskas@themislawpllc.com MEDUSIND INC: Faces Miterin Suit Over Patients' Compromised Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- ALEXANDR MITERIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEDUSIND INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-20196 (S.D. Fla., January 14, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence and negligence per se, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of confidence, unjust enrichment, declaratory judgment, and violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the protected health information (PHI) and personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated patients stored within its network systems following a data breach on December 29, 2023. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Medusind Inc. is a healthcare services provider based in Miami, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Steven Sukert, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com sukert@kolawyers.com - and - Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com MEDUSIND INC: Faces Morgan Suit Over Unauthorized Access of Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- THOMAS WINSTON MORGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEDUSIND INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-20186 (S.D. Fla., January 13, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, intrusion upon seclusion/invasion of privacy, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the protected health information and personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated patients stored within its network systems following a data breach on December 29, 2023. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Medusind Inc. is a healthcare services provider based in Miami, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (786) 879-8200 Facsimile: (786) 879-7520 Email: mweekes@milberg.com - and - Marc H. Edelson, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 Email: medelson@edelson-law.com MIB: Motion for Judgment on Pleadings in Michalski Suit Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Denise J. Casper of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts denied MIB Group, Inc. and MIB, LLC's motion for judgment on the pleadings in the case captioned as DANIEL MICHALSKI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MIB GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-10227-DJC (D. Mass.). Fidelity's motion for judgment on the pleadings is allowed. On Jan. 29, 2024, Michalski instituted this putative class action against against Defendants MIB Group, Inc. and MIB, LLC and Fidelity Security Life Insurance Company, asserting claims against MIB for violations of the FCRA pursuant to Sec. 1681(g)(a) for failing to disclose all information. Specifically the "codes" communicated to end users of the report upon consumer request (Count I), Sec. 1681(g)(a)(2) for failing to disclose the original "service provider" source of MIB's information (Count II), Sec. 1681(i) for failing to reinvestigate upon notice of disputed information (Count III) and Sec. 1681(e)(b) for negligent and willful failure to maintain reasonable procedures to ensure accurate information (Count V), and a claim against Fidelity for violation of the FCRA pursuant to Sec. 1681s-2(b) for negligently and willfully failing to reinvestigate upon notice of disputed information, (Count IV). MIB and Fidelity have now moved for judgment on the pleadings as to Michalski's claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(c). Michalski alleges that he has suffered concrete injuries of: (1) loss of insurance opportunity, (2) harm to reputation, (3) emotional distress and (4) denial of statutorily mandated information from Defendants' conduct. Defendants challenge: (1) whether any of the purported harms Michalski alleges are sufficient concrete injuries to confer standing, and (2) whether there is no causal connection between any injury and the conduct Michalski alleges. The parties primarily dispute whether Michalski has Article III standing based upon loss of insurance opportunity and harm to reputation where liability for a furnisher, like Fidelity, is only triggered after notice of a dispute. Fidelity asserts that even if those were cognizable harms, Michalski has failed to plead causation because Fidelity's alleged failure to reinvestigate occurred after those alleged harms. MIB The Court finds Michalski has plausibly alleged standing based upon MIB preparing a consumer report that contained alleged inaccurate information that was sent to Fidelity and Foresters that both denied Michalski life insurance coverage based, at least in part, upon that report. MIB challenges that Michalski's alleged harm concerning denial of allegedly mandated information pursuant to Sec. 1681g, namely the proprietary medical codes used and plaintiff's original medical providers, cannot constitute a concrete harm because it is an abstract procedural violation and Michalski cannot show how that failure caused a concrete injury. MIB challenges Michalski's conclusory assertions of emotional harm, reputational harm, and loss of insurance coverage are insufficient to confer standing. As to reputational harm, although the Court agrees that Michalski's reputational harm allegations are thin, here, alleged inaccurate information that indicates plaintiff underwent cancer treatment could plausibly impact his benefit options (which Michalski has alleged it did), and as this information was published to a third-party by MIB, Michalski has also adequately alleged potential reputational harm by being associated with an illness that he did not have. The Court holds that Michalski has sufficiently established standing for his claims against MIB. Although the Court recognizes that Michalski may not be able to eventually succeed on his claim because the codes would not present a more accurate disclosure, at this stage of the proceedings, the Court cannot determine that, as a matter of law, the "codes" would not provide a clearer and more accurate disclosure. Accordingly, the Court denies MIB's motion as to Count I. As there is a dispute concerning whether MIB disclosed all sources of information, the Court cannot determine as a matter of law whether MIB's interpretation and failure to disclose the service provider was reasonable. Accordingly, the Court denies MIB's motion for judgment as to Count II. The information that MIB received concerning the medical information was admittedly vague and potentially inconsistent because it stated, "specifics unknown," did not report a time period for the alleged diagnosis but claimed that the information was based upon medical records. As the standard is "reasonableness," the Court cannot, as a matter of law, conclude that MIB enacted reasonable procedures for ensuring accurate information. Accordingly, the Court denies MIB's motion as to Count V. Fidelity The Court notes that Michalski does not allege that Fidelity "rereported" inaccurate information but rather alleges that Fidelity communicated that it would not make any changes to the reporting following the notice of dispute. Even assuming arguendo that Fidelity's "re-reporting" to MIB constituted dissemination, Michalski has not alleged that there has been any dissemination of his consumer report that has caused him concrete harm since Fidelity had notice of the dispute. According to the Court, although Michalski argues that there is causation based upon the "re-reporting" of information to MIB, however, liability for harm based upon re-investigation can only occur after notice of dispute, and therefore, any denials before Fidelity's duty was triggered are insufficient to confer standing. The Court dismisses Michalski's claim against Fidelity. A copy of the Court's Memorandum Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DEKiGb from PacerMonitor.com. MICHIGAN: Williams Suit v. MDOC Dismissed Without Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as Semaj Williams, Plaintiff, v. Michigan Department of Corrections, et al., Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-11826 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Judith E. Levy of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted the plaintiff's application for leave to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs and dismissed the complaint without prejudice. Semaj Williams filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Williams is presently incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary Lee in Jonesville, Virginia. He filed this action in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. The case was transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan because the events giving rise to the action occurred at the Thumb Correctional Facility in Lapeer, Michigan, and there is no indication that Williams's claims have any connection to the Western District of Virginia. Williams has been granted leave to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee for this action. Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the Court is required on its own to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint before service on a defendant if it determines that the action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. Williams was incarcerated at the Thumb Correctional Facility in Lapeer, Michigan from 2010 to 2011. While there, he was housed with adult prisoners even though he was under the age of 18. Williams claims that this left him vulnerable to assault by adult prisoners and prison guards and that he was, in fact, assaulted by a tutor. The Michigan Department of Corrections' practice of housing juveniles with adult prisoners exposed them to physical injuries and sexual abuse by fellow inmates and prison staff that was the subject of a class action filed in 2013, and litigated in Washtenaw County Circuit Court. The same Plaintiffs filed a proposed class action in federal court raising the same claims as their state-court proceeding. The parallel federal and state case proceedings continued for seven years. In 2020, the parties reached a settlement in the state-court proceeding which, in addition to equitable relief, provided for payment of $80 million by the MDOC to be distributed to class members. The federal case was subsequently dismissed because the state-court class action had settled and no further involvement of the federal court was necessary given the terms of the settlement agreement. Williams states he was a class member in the state litigation but was not compensated. He appears to seek a portion of the settlement funds. According to the Court, the state court that approved and retained jurisdiction over the terms of the Settlement Agreement is the more appropriate forum for Williams' claims. For these reasons it will dismiss the complaint without prejudice to Plaintiff's right to pursue his claims in Washtenaw County Circuit Court. A copy of the Court's Opinion and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=57RDPV from PacerMonitor.com. MISSISSIPPI: Wins Bid for Entry of Judgment -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENNIS HOPKINS, et al., V. MISSISSIPPI SECRETARY OF STATE MICHAEL WATSON, Case No. 3:18-cv-00188-DPJ-ASH (S.D. Miss.), the Hon. Judge Daniel Jordan III entered an order granting the Defendant's motion for entry of judgment. The Court further entered an order that the Plaintiffs' counsel are officially Plaintiffs' Rule 23(g) class counsel nunc pro tunc to the date of class certification. A separate judgment will be entered under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(c)(3)(A) and 58. In any event, the Plaintiffs have not identified a compelling procedural basis to deny the motion, nor have they identified any prejudice that would result. Judgment will therefore be entered. The Defendant notes that Plaintiffs' counsel have always held themselves out as class counsel and agreed in an earlier status report [90] that they should serve in that capacity. In any event, Plaintiffs now say that if the Court grants Defendant’s motion, they do not object to the substance of his request. And Plaintiffs’ attorneys exceed the factors listed under Rule 23(g)(1)(A). Accordingly, this too will be granted. The Plaintiffs originally challenged the constitutionality of two sections under Article XII of the Mississippi Constitution Michael D. Watson Jr. is an American politician and the incumbent Secretary of State of Mississippi.[2] A Republican, he previously represented the 51st district in the Mississippi State Senate from 2008 to 2020. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=telfQk at no extra charge.[CC] MORGAN STANLEY: Bertonis Sues Over Fraudulent Cash Sweep Programs ----------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES BERTONIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MORGAN STANLEY, MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY LLC, E*TRADE SECURITIES LLC, BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED, THE CHARLES SCHWAB CORPORATION, and CHARLES SCHWAB & CO., INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00115 (S.D.N.Y., January 6, 2025) seeks to recover damages arising out of Defendants' unlawful conduct related to their cash sweep programs. Under the sweep programs, the Defendants swept idle customer cash into interest-bearing accounts at banks selected by and affiliated with Defendants. Allegedly, Defendants used the sweep programs to generate massive revenue for themselves at the expense of their customers. Moreover, the Defendants' use of the Sweep Programs to enrich themselves by paying unreasonably low interest rates to customers breached their fiduciary duties and contractual obligations and violated several state and federal laws including the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, says the suit. Morgan Stanley is a financial services company headquartered in New York, NY. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ralph M. Stone, Esq. JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP 620 Fifth Avenue, 2nd Floor New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 292-5690 Facsimile: (212) 292-5680 E-mail: ralphs@johnsonfistel.com - and - Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq. Mary Ellen Conner, Esq. William W. Stone, Esq. Murray House 40 Power Springs Street Marietta, GA 30064 Telephone: (470) 632-6000 Facsimile: (770) 200-3101 E-mail: michaelf@johnsonfistel.com maryellenc@johnsonfistel.com williams@johnsonfistel.com MYHERITAGE (USA): Podroykin Sues Over Leaked Genetic Testing Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- ARTHUR PODROYKIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MYHERITAGE (USA), INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00402 (N.D. Ill., January 14, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and Illinois Eavesdropping Statute, common law invasion of privacy, breach of confidence, negligence, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. According to the complaint, the Defendant disclosed personally identifiable information regarding its customers who subjected to genetic testing and the results of their genetic testing to third parties, including Google, without consent. Each of the Plaintiff and Class members visited the Defendant's website and had their personal genetic testing information tracked by the Defendant using Google's Tracking Tools. However, the Defendant never obtained authorization from them to share their genetic testing information with third parties. The Defendant's transmission of genetic testing information was not just contrary to its customers' reasonable expectation of privacy and its own Privacy Statement, it was also a violation of Illinois law, says the suit. MyHeritage (USA), Inc. is a direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing kit provider in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Langley, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Ave. Chicago, IL 60614 Telephone: (954) 579-0027 Email: matt@almeidalawgroup.com NATIONWIDE MUTUAL: Blizzard Sues Over Unsolicited Marketing Calls ----------------------------------------------------------------- TARA BLIZZARD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-20052-XXXX (S.D. Fla., January 6, 2025), accuses the Defendant of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act and the and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. Allegedly, the Defendant sent unsolicited prerecorded voice calls to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number. However, the Plaintiff never provided Defendant with express written consent authorizing Defendant to transmit prerecorded sales or marketing calls to Plaintiff's cellular telephone number. Headquartered in Colombus, OH, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company offers insurance, retirement and investing products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 533-4092 E-mail: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com NCH HEALTHCARE: McFalls' Bid for Class Cert Bid Partly OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN MCFALLS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated and the Proposed Rule 23 Class, v. NCH HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, INC. and NAPLES COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-00572-SPC-KCD (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Kyle Dudek recommends that Plaintiff Lauren McFalls' motion for Class Certification be granted in part and denied in part: a. McFalls' request to certify a class under FDUTPA of "[a]ll nurses who are or were subject to NCH's Specialty Fellowship Program Employment Agreement and the training repayment provisions therein at any point from July 31, 2019, through" the date of certification be granted; b. McFalls' request to certify the same class under Florida's Declaratory Judgment Act be denied; c. McFalls be directed to file: (1) a supplemental brief addressing the Court's concerns about the adequacy of her proposed class counsel, and (2) a new notice form that reflects the proposed class as certified; d. McFalls' motion be denied to the extent it seeks any different or further relief. The Court sees no difficulties in managing the class. In fact, a class action is more workable than the alternatives, such as joinder. Accordingly, allowing McFalls to proceed under Rule 23(b)(3) is appropriate. McFalls claims that the Fellowship Program fee violates the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), Florida Minimum Wage Act (FMWA), Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA), and Florida's prohibition of restraints on trade. McFalls is a registered nurse. In May 2021, she accepted a position working for NCH. She also accepted a position in its Specialty Fellowship Program. McFalls left NCH after eleven months. So NCH deducted $477.90 from her final paycheck and refused to pay out "35 hours of accrued paid time off in the amount of $897.91." NCH is an independent, nonprofit multi-facility healthcare system located in Naples, Florida. A copy of the Court's report and recommendation dated Jan. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uwOxZg at no extra charge.[CC] NEWARK GROUP: Ryan Suit Seeks to Certify Four Classes ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS RYAN, SUSAN RYAN, SEAN GALLAGHER, ASHLEY SULTAN GALLAGHER, MICHELE BURT, NANCY DONOVAN, and LAUREN LADUE, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. THE NEWARK GROUP, INC., MASSACHUSETTS NATURAL FERTILIZER CO., INC., OTTER FARM, INC., SEAMAN PAPER COMPANY OF MASSACHUSETTS, INC., and 3M COMPANY, Case No. 4:22-cv-40089-MRG (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying the four classes as follows: (1) Property Damage Class (Groundwater) "All persons who are or were owners of real property on or after Jan. 31, 2022, which property is within the Study Area" (2) Property Damage Class (Compost and Soil) "All persons who are or were owners of real property on or after Jan. 31, 2022, which property contains compost, loam or soil that was purchased from MassNatural and is contaminated with PFAS6." (3) Consumer Subclass: "All persons who have purchased contaminated compost products from MassNatural during the Class Period." (4) Medical Monitoring Class: "All persons who resided at a home within the Study Area between 1987 and present, and ingested water from the well supplying water to that home contaminated by PFAS6, or any natural child born to a resident who meets and/or met these criteria at the time of the child's birth." Newark manufactures paperboard products. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iDh9Iy at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ian W. Sloss, Esq. Sean K. McElligott, Esq. Johnathan Seredynski, Esq. Krystyna D. Gancoss, Esq. Kate Sayed, Esq. SILVER GOLUB & TEITELL LLP One Landmark Square, 15th Floor Stamford, CT 06901 Telephone: (203) 325-4491 Facsimile: (203) 325-3769 E-mail: isloss@sgtlaw.com smcelligott@sgtlaw.com jseredynski@sgtlaw.com kgancoss@sgtlaw.com ksayed@sgtlaw.com - and - David C. Strouss, Esq. Christian Uehlein, Esq. Leah M. McMorris, Esq. THORNTON LAW FIRM, LLP One Lincoln St., 13th Fl. State Street Financial Center Boston, MA 02111 Telephone: (617) 720-1333 E-mail: dstrouss@tenlaw.com cuehlein@tenlaw.com lmcmorris@tenlaw.com J. Tucker Merrigan, Esq. Victoria Santoro Mair, Esq. SWEENEY MERRIGAN LAW LLP 268 Summer Street, LL Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 391-9001 Facsimile: (617) 357-9001 E-mail: tucker@sweeneymerrigan.com victoria@sweeneymerrigan.com NORTHEAST REHABILITATION: Ciaravolo Sues Over Unprotected Info -------------------------------------------------------------- FRANK CIARAVOLO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NORTHEAST REHABILITATION HOSPITAL NETWORK, Case No. 1:25-cv-00025 (D.N.H., Jan. 13, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated current and former patients' sensitive information, including personally identifiable information including names and protected health information including medical record number, patient account number, treatment information, medical billing/claims information. On Jan. 6, 2025, the Defendant announced that its systems had been accessed by an unauthorized third party. The Private Information of 22,514 Massachusetts residents alone (not including residents of New Hampshire or other states) is believed to have been exposed by the Data Breach. The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered injury as a result of Defendant's conduct. These injuries include invasion of privacy, lost or diminished value of private information, lost time and opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach, loss of benefit of the bargain, an increase in spam calls, texts, and/or emails, and the continued and certainly increased risk to their Private Information, the lawsuit asserts. The Plaintiff provided his private information to the Defendant in connection with services he received from the Defendant. The Defendant is a healthcare service provider based in Salem, New Hampshire and has over 25 facilities, including acute rehabilitation hospitals, outpatient and pediatric clinics.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam H. Weintraub, Esq. WEINTRAUB LAW, LLC 170 Commerce Way, Suite 200 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Telephone: (603) 212-1785 E-mail: aweintraub@ahwfirm.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com NOW OPTICS: Marous TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Classes ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD MAROUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NOW OPTICS HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a STANTON OPTICAL, Case No. 9:24-cv-80702-RLR (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3), to: (1) certify a class under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"); (2) appoint Plaintiff as Class Representative; and (3) appoint Plaintiff's counsel as Class Counsel. Accordingly, the Plaintiff moves to certify the following class of individuals who were sent Defendant's text message solicitations in violation of the TCPA's do-not-call provisions: "All persons in the United States who, from four years prior to the filing of this action through the date of class certification, (1) received more than one text message within any 12-month period; (2) where the person's cellular telephone number had been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry for more than thirty days; (3) regarding the conversion and/or transition of My Eyelab to Stanton Optical; and for whom Defendant's records indicate that the person (4) did not opt in to receive text messages; and (5) had not made a purchase from Defendant during the eighteen months immediately preceding the date of the first text message." The Defendant operates approximately 280 optometry stores throughout the country under the Stanton Optical brand name which offers over-the-counter vision supplements, eyeglasses, contact lenses, sunglasses, and eye exams. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ql2sGk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Rachel Dapeer, Esq. DAPEER LAW P.A. 520 S. Dixie Hwy, Suite 240 Hallandale Beach, FL 33009 Telephone: (954) 799-5914 E-mail: rachel@dapeer.com ODEON INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Riley Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- AMANIE RILEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. The Odeon, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-00191 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 9, 2025) sues the Defendant for failing to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services The Odeon provides to their non-disabled customers through https://www.theodeonrestaurant.com, the lawsuit contends. On Dec. 24, 2024, the Plaintiff was browsing the internet in search of a place where she could enjoy delicious American bistro dishes. She came across the website Theodeonrestaurant.com and decided to place an online order. However, when attempting to set up order details, the Plaintiff encountered accessibility issues. Specifically, the radio buttons did not announce their state whether it was checked or unchecked, making it impossible for the Plaintiff to determine if the option had been successfully selected, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in The Odeon's policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Ms. Riley is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. The Odeon, Inc. offers French-American dishes and restaurant services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Asher Cohen, Esq. ASHER COHEN PLLC 2377 56th Dr, Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (718) 914-9694 E-mail: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com OH MEXICO: Ramirez Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages for Buzzers --------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE D. RAMIREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OH MEXICO DR. LLC, A/K/A OH MEXICO DRIVE, EDUARDO ARAOZ, and JAMIL DIB, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-20140-PCH (S.D. Fla., January 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a buzzer from approximately January 3, 2022, to October 4, 2024. Oh Mexico Dr. LLC, also known as Oh Mexico Drive, is a Mexican restaurant owner and operator located in Miami Beach, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com OHM VASUDEVAY: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Cheli Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- CHARLENE CHELI, an Individual, v. OHM VASUDEVAY NAMAH LLC, a New Jersey Limited Liability Company, & MILLVILLE BAKERY INC., a New Jersey Corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-00333 (D.N.J., Jan. 13, 2025) sues the Defendants for injunctive relief, damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. The Defendants allegedly have discriminated against the Plaintiff, and other mobility impaired persons, by denying access to full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of its place of public accommodation or commercial facility in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff has visited the Property on many occasions over the years, her last visit as a patron of the Property occurred on Nov. 4, 2024. She visited the Property as a bone fide patron with the intent to avail herself of the goods and services offered to the public within but found that the Property was rife with violations of the ADA – both in architecture and in policy. Ms. Cheli has personally encountered exposure to architectural barriers and otherwise harmful conditions that have endangered her safety at the Property, the suit says. As a result of the discrimination through repeated exposure to architectural barriers and other harmful conditions, Ms. Cheli has sustained bodily injury in the form of emotional distress, mental anguish, dignitary harm, and humiliation, in violation of the LAD, the Plaintiff asserts. Ms. Cheli has been diagnosed with facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy and therefore has a physical impairment that substantially limits many of her major life activities. Ms. Cheli requires, at all times, the use of a wheelchair to ambulate. OHM is the owner of property/place of public accommodation – known as Dunkin' Donuts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon G. Shadinger Jr., Esq. SHADINGER LAW, LLC 2220 N East Avenue Vineland, NJ 08360 Telephone: (609) 319-5399 E-mail: js@shadingerlaw.com OMNI FAMILY: Court Consolidates, Stays 13 Related Data Breach Cases ------------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California consolidated under Rule 42(a) for all purposes: a. The instant action and lead case, Ellen Pace v. Omni Family Health, Case No. 1:24-cv-01277-JLT-CDB; b. Alfred Aguirre v. Omni Family Health, Case No. 1:24-cv-01361-KES-CDB; c. DeRay Mitchell v. Omni Family Health, Case No. 1:24-cv-01384-JLT-CDB; d. Samantha Abraham, et al. v. Omni Family Health, Case No. 1:24-cv-01456-JLTCDB; e. Scott Stevenson, et al. v. Omni Family Health, Case No. 1:24-cv-01459-JLT-CDB; f. Sheila Sweeten, et al. v. Omni Family Health, Case No. 1:24-cv-01464-CDB; g. Angela Miranda v. Omni Family Health, Case No. 1:24-cv-01473-KES-CDB; h. Lois Snelson v. Omni Family Health, Case No. 1:24-cv-01480-JLT-CDB; i. Salbador Cortez Magana v. Omni Family Health, Case No. 1:24-cv-01488-KESCDB; j. Nina Wall v. Omni Family Health, Case No. 1:24-cv-01490-KES-CDB; k. Gober Villatoro Guerra v. Omni Family Health, Case No. 1:24-cv-01492-JLTCDB; l. Lateisa White v. Omni Family Health, Case No. 1:24-cv-01552-KES-CDB; and m. Karen Bloom v. Omni Family Health, Case No. 1:24-cv-01574-JLT-CDB. On Oct. 20, 2024, Plaintiff Ellen Pace initiated an action with the filing of a complaint on behalf of herself and a putative class against Defendant Omni Family Health. The parties noticed the action as being related to several subsequently filed actions. Pending before the Court are the parties' stipulated requests to consolidate and stay the related actions and vacate the upcoming scheduling conference in the Pace action in anticipation of the parties' filing of various motions. In their pending stipulated request for order consolidating and staying the related actions, the parties represent all cases arise out of the same "security incident" against Defendant, namely a data breach of sensitive information that Defendant allegedly discovered on Aug. 7, 2024. Further, the parties stipulate these cases present common questions of fact and law, and consolidation is appropriate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). Based on the parties' stipulated representations and the Court's review of the pleadings in the Omni actions, the Court finds there are significant and substantial common issues of fact and law that warrant consolidation under Rule 42(a) and Local Rule 123. Moreover, the Court agrees with the parties the benefit of consolidation would reduce the burden on judicial resources, the parties, and any potential witnesses, eliminate the risk of inconsistent adjudications, avoid prejudice, and allow for the orderly and expeditious resolution of all cases. All further filings in this consolidated action shall be made in lead case Ellen Pace v. Omni Family Health, No. 1:24-cv-01277-JLT-CDB. Any order on the motion to remand currently pending in Stevenson shall be applicable to all consolidated actions. The cases are stayed pending both (1) the removal of the remaining Omni actions from state court and (2) the earlier of either a decision on the Plaintiffs' motion to remand or a determination on Omni's forthcoming motion to substitute pursuant to the Federal Tort Claim Act under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 233(a). The scheduling conference in Pace, No. 1:24-cv-01277-JLT-CDB, currently set for Jan. 21, 2025, is vacated. The briefing schedule for the consolidated motion to remand and Defendant's forthcoming motion to substitute is as follows: a. Defendant's motion to substitute: Jan. 24, 2025 b. Defendant's opposition to motion to remand: Feb. 14, 2025 c. Plaintiffs' opposition to motion to substitute: Feb. 14, 2025 d. Plaintiffs' reply in support of remand: Feb. 28, 2025 e. Defendant's reply in support of substitution: Feb. 28, 2025 f. Combined hearing on remand and substitution: April 14, 2025 A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=34XKN3 from PacerMonitor.com. PACIRA BIOSCIENCES: Faces Alvarez Suit Over 47% Stock Price Drop ---------------------------------------------------------------- LEANDRO ALVAREZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PACIRA BIOSCIENCES, INC., DAVID STACK, FRANK D. LEE, AND ANTHONY MOLLOY, Case No. 2:25-cv-00322 (D.N.J., Jan. 13, 2025) is a federal securities class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Pacira securities between Aug. 2, 2023, to Aug. 8, 2024, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws. The suit says that the Defendants provided investors with material information Pacira's '495 patent validity and scope. The Defendants' statements included confidence in the Company's protections of Exparel, additional patent protections covering Exparel, and optimistic claims that the Company would be able to continue the expanded use of Exparel. The Defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of Pacira's Exparel patent scope and protections, the suit adds. On Aug. 9, 2024, Pacira announced that the New Jersey District Court invalidated its '495 patent, holding that eVenus did not infringe on the '495 patent on the basis on obviousness and anticipation. This ruling came shortly after Pacira's submission of additional evidence to the Court, which the Court stated would not have any impact on the basis for the decision. Pacira's announcement that its '495 patent was invalidated surprised investors and analysts alike as they reacted immediately to the revelations. The price of Pacira's common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $22.36 per share on Aug. 8, 2024, Pacira's stock price fell to a low of $11.70 per share on Aug. 9, 2024, a decline of over 47% in a single day, alleges the suit. The Plaintiff purchased Pacira common stock at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation of the Defendants' fraud. Pacira is an American pharmaceutical company that develops and provides non-opioid pan management and regenerative health solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: aapton@zlk.com PARK HAPPY: Simpson Sues Over Illegal Use of Clients' Private Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ NICHOLAS SIMPSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PARK HAPPY, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00049 (M.D. Tenn., January 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act. The case arises from Park Happy's use and disclosure of the Plaintiff's and similarly situated customers' private personal information for the purpose of mailing them violation notices without prior express written consent. As a result, the Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of persons who were mailed such violation notices and whose personal information Park Happy illegally obtained in violation of the DPPA, says the suit. Park Happy, LLC is a company that operates parking lots and garages in Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Scott Pietrowski, Esq. David J. DiSabato, Esq. Lisa R. Considine, Esq. 745 Fifth Ave, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Facsimile: (646) 417-5967 Email: spietrowski@sirillp.com ddisabato@sirillp.com lconsidine@sirillp.com PARKING REVENUE: Issues Illegal Parking Citations, Settimi Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY SETTIMI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PARKING REVENUE RECOVERY SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00093-PAB (D. Colo., January 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged use and disclosure of the Plaintiff's and similarly situated customers' private personal information for the purpose of mailing them violation notices without prior express written consent. As a result, the Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of persons who were mailed such violation notices and whose personal information the Defendant illegally obtained in violation of the DPPA, the suit alleges. Parking Revenue Recovery Services, Inc. is a company that operates parking lots and garages in Greenwood Village, Colorado. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tyler J. Bean, Esq. David J. DiSabato, Esq. Lisa R. Considine, Esq. 745 Fifth Ave, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Facsimile: (646) 417-5967 Email: tbean@sirillp.com ddisabato@sirillp.com lconsidine@sirillp.com PAUL SCHNELL: Magistrate Judge Recommends Dismissal of Jackson Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Douglas L. Micko of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ruled on several motions filed by the parties in the case captioned as Tony Dejuan Jackson, Plaintiff, v. Paul Schnell, Commissioner of Minnesota Department of Corrections; Jo Ann Erickson, Education Director Stillwater Close Custody Level Four Correctional Facility; and William Bolin, Warden Stillwater Close Custody Level Four Correctional Facility, Defendants, Case No. 23-cv-3827 (KMM/DLM) (D. Minn.). This matter is before the Court on Defendants Paul Schell's, Jo Ann Erickson's, and William Bolin's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff Dejuan Jackson's First Amended Complaint. Also before the Court are Mr. Jackson's third Motion to Amend or Supplement Pleadings; Motion for Preliminary Injunction; and Motion Requesting that the Court Refer This Case to the Department of Justice for Criminal Procedures. The case has been referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge for a Report and Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636 and District of Minnesota Local Rule 72.1. Mr. Jackson is incarcerated in Minnesota Correctional Facility-Stillwater and has filed many civil rights cases over the years seeking to address the conditions of his confinement in Minnesota prisons. On Dec. 18, 2023, Mr. Jackson filed a pro se complaint under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, against Defendants Paul Schnell and Jo Ann Erickson. On March 21, 2024, Mr. Jackson filed an Amended Complaint as of right, adding Defendant William Bolin. The allegations in Mr. Jackson's First Amended Complaint fall into four main categories. First, he alleges that his access to the internet has been restricted and limited in Minnesota Department of Corrections facilities and by DOC library policies; second, he takes issue with MCF-STW's inmate grievance process; third, he complains that his access to the courts has been unconstitutionally thwarted; and fourth, he claims that a Minnesota Department of Health water testing report was not properly made available to him. As relief, Mr. Jackson has requested that his case be designated a class action lawsuit, that prospective injunctive relief be granted, and that he be awarded $1.5 million in punitive damages against each Defendant. Defendants moved to dismiss Mr. Jackson's First Amended Complaint on April 29, 2024, for failure to meet pleading requirements under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8; failure to state a cognizable claim for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); and failure to adequately allege Defendants' direct and personal involvement in any unconstitutional conduct. They also argue that Mr. Jackson is not entitled to the relief he seeks. The Court finds Mr. Jackson's 48-page First Amended Complaint fails to allege any actual cause of action that entitles him to relief. He has failed to identify how the named Defendants' alleged misconduct was unlawful, and at the same time has failed to name as defendants multiple DOC staff whom he accuses of misconduct. This sort of scattershot pleading fails to meet Rule 8's requirement to allege a short and plain statement of his claims showing that he is entitled to relief. As a result, Mr. Jackson has failed to plead sufficient factual allegations to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Even considering the claims Mr. Jackson appears to raise based on the allegations in his complaint, the Court finds that Mr. Jackson's First Amended Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety for failure to meet pleading requirements under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8, and failure to state a plausible claim for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Mr. Jackson is a pro se plaintiff who is representing himself without help from a lawyer, and pro se litigants can never represent the rights, claims and interests of other parties in a class action lawsuit. Accordingly, his request for class action designation should be denied. The Court recommends that Mr. Jackson's third Motion to Amend or Supplement Pleadings be denied as futile; Mr. Jackson's Motion for Preliminary Injunction be denied; Defendants' Motion to Dismiss be granted; and Mr. Jackson's First Amended Complaint be dismissed with prejudice. Additionally, the Court denies Mr. Jackson's Motion Requesting that the Court Refer This Case to the Department of Justice for Criminal Procedures. A copy of the Court's Report and Recommendation and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=To4gP1 from PacerMonitor.com. PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Faces Lyon Suit Over Honey Browser Extension ------------------------------------------------------------- LYON FITNESS, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PAYPAL HOLDINGS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, and PAYPAL, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 5:25-cv-00501 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 14, 2024) sues the Defendants for their false promises about the Honey browser extension and their practice of surreptitiously replacing influencers' affiliate marketing cookies with Honey's. The Defendants made numerous misrepresentations on app stores, on the Honey website, and in Honey marketing, that falsely misled consumers into believing that by installing and using the Honey browser extension they were getting the best available discounts when in fact, they were not. Then, Honey allows the Defendants to divert the referral fees to themselves for those consumers who installed the browser extension, the Plaintiff adds. Specifically, when a consumer is on the checkout page of an online retailer, ready to purchase a product or service in their cart, Honey pops up at the last minute with the promise of potential savings to entice consumers to "click" on the pop-up generated by the browser extension. When the consumer clicks on the Honey pop-up box—whether a discount is available or not—Honey replaces the influencer's affiliate marketing cookies with its own, allowing Defendants to take credit for the conversion and the commission that goes along with it, although the commission rightly belongs to the influencer who directed the consumer to the retailer's website to buy the product or service in the first place, the suit contends. The Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, brings statutory claims for violations of the Lanham Act and California's Unfair Competition Law, and common law claims for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage, intentional interference with contractual relations, conversion, and unjust enrichment. Lyon Fitness is a business registered in the state of Texas run by Patrick Lyons, an Austin, Texas-based fitness YouTuber, bodybuilder and coach. PayPal is an American multinational financial technology company operating an online payments system.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric H. Gibbs, Esq. Rosemary M. Rivas, Esq. Joshua J. Bloomfield, Esq. Rosanne L. Mah, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com rmr@classlawgroup.com jjb@classlawgroup.com rlm@classlawgroup.com PENNSYLVANIA: Hammond, Henderson & Walker Suits Moved to M.D. Pa. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Timothy J. Savage of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania grants the Defendants' motions to transfer and transfers three lawsuits to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania: KHALIL HAMMOND, DAVID THOMPSON, ANTOINE WALKER, MUWSA GREEN, TYRONE LEONARD, MALIKA HENDERSON, On Their Own Behalf and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, LAUREL HARRY, Secretary of Corrections, GEORGE LITTLE, Former Secretary of Corrections MICHAEL WENEROWICZ, Executive Deputy Secretary for Institutional Operations, Pennsylvania Department Of Corrections and LUCAS MALISHCHAK, Director of Psychology, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, Case No. 2:24-cv-00922-TJS (E.D. Pa.); MALIKA HENDERSON, KHALIL HAMMOND, DAVID THOMPSON, ANTOINE WALKER, MUWSA GREEN, TYRONE LEONARD, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LAUREL HARRY, Secretary of Corrections, GEORGE M. LITTLE, former Secretary of Corrections, MICHAEL WENEROWICZ, Executive Deputy Secretary for Institutional Operations, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections LUCAS MALISHCHAK, Deputy Secretary For Office of Reentry, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and BRIAN SCHNEIDER, Director of Psychology, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, Case No. 24-2290 (E.D. Pa.); and ANTOINE WALKER and KHALIL HAMMOND, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LAUREL HARRY, Secretary of Corrections and MICHAEL WENEROWICZ, Executive Deputy Secretary for Institutional Operations, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, Case No. 24-2295 (E.D. Pa.). In these three related putative class actions, the Plaintiff Prisoners assert constitutional and statutory claims against the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC) and officials challenging their placement in restricted housing throughout the Commonwealth. They claim they have been or were held in solitary confinement, causing or aggravating mental health conditions. The Defendants move to transfer the cases to the Middle District of Pennsylvania where most of the Defendants and witnesses are located and which is closer to the Plaintiffs and the witnesses. Opposing the motion, the Plaintiffs argue that their forum choice is not outweighed by other factors. Balancing the private and public interest factors of convenience and fairness, the Court finds that they weigh in favor of transfer. Therefore, the Court grants the motions. The three cases are related, but different. All complain of class members being or having been confined long-term in "extremely small cells," for 21-24 hours a day. The differences are the reasons they are or were placed in restricted housing units. The Hammond plaintiffs purport to represent inmates with a designated mental health condition, who are or will be held in restricted housing due to that condition. There are three subclasses: the "Mental Health Class" includes individuals, who have ever had a "C" or "D" mental health rating and who are or will be in the Restricted Housing Unit ("RHU"), the Intensive Management Unit ("IMU"), or any similar unit; the "Disability Class" includes all individuals, who are or will be housed in the RHU, IMU, or similar units and have a mental health condition that substantially limits one or more major life activities; and the "Mental Health Damages Class," which includes all individuals with a "C" or "D" mental health rating who had been in the RHU or IMU at any time since March 4, 2022. The Henderson putative class members are inmates with mental health conditions, who have been confined in the RHU or IMU for prolonged periods of time. Some, not all, are currently in restricted housing. Henderson has two subclasses: the "Prolonged Solitary Confinement class," consisting of all individuals who are or will be in the RHU, IMU, or similar unit three years or longer, cumulatively or continuously; and the "Prolonged Solitary Confinement Damages Class," which consists of all individuals, who have spent three years or longer, cumulatively or continuously, in the RHU or IMU at any time since March 4, 2022. The Walker putative class members are inmates on the RRL and those who are in an IMU. They allege violations of their Fourteenth Amendment right to procedural due process. Walker names two subclasses: the "RRL class" comprised of all individuals, who are or will be on the RRL, and the "IMU class," including all individuals, who are or will be in the IMU. The DOC's Central Office is 115 miles from the United States Courthouse in Philadelphia and 10 miles from the Harrisburg Courthouse in the Middle District. The DOC operates 24 prisons in Pennsylvania. Only two of them are located in the Eastern District. Within those 24 prisons, the DOC operates 23 restrictive housing units with more than 1,500 inmates in them. Two restricted housing units are in the Eastern District at SCI Chester and SCI Phoenix. Those two units house 181 inmates. The parties agree these actions could have been brought in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Three of the five individual Defendants live in the Middle District and the DOC has its main office there. In sum, Judge Savage opines that the DOC would incur expenses for travel and lodging for the witnesses, DOC inmates, medical professionals, and administrative personnel, to testify in Philadelphia. Those costs would be significantly less if the cases are litigated in the Middle District. Further, three of the Defendants live in the Middle District, making the Middle District a more convenient forum. The convenience to the parties and the witnesses factor weighs heavily in favor of transfer. The Court also considers the relative congestion of the dockets in the Middle and the Eastern Districts of Pennsylvania. Although the Eastern District has a higher total number of cases, Judge Savage says it is less congested than the Middle District. Accordingly, the relative congestion of the courts weighs slightly against transfer. After weighing the private and public interests, the Court concludes that the balance tips in favor of transfer to the Middle District. The Plaintiffs' choice of forum, although entitled to deference, is significantly outweighed by the convenience of the parties and the witnesses, including the Plaintiffs. Therefore, the Court grants the motions to transfer. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/s7c69345 from PacerMonitor.com. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/bn3w4kn2 from PacerMonitor.com. PERRIGO COMPANY: Firefly Mouthwash Dangerous for Kids, Gibson Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ ERIN GIBSON, HEATHER GRABOW, & ASHLEY GRANGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PERRIGO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00348 (N.D. Ill., January 13, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of implied warranty of merchantability, deceptive and unlawful business practices in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, the New York General Business Law, and other state deceptive practices statutes. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of kids mouthwash product called Firefly Anticavity Fluoride Rinse. Firefly's toylike appearance, and candy-like nature, conveys the false impression to parents and caregivers that this is a product that is meant for and safe for young children. The reality is that fluoride mouth rinses are not safe for young children and virtually all health authorities agree they should not be used by children under 6 on an over-the-counter basis. Despite this knowledge, the Defendant intentionally targets preschool children with this product. In so doing, the Defendant is putting the health of millions of children at risk, suit says. The Plaintiffs and similarly situated consumers have suffered injury in fact by losing money on their purchase of a product that they would never have purchased or allowed their children to use had they not been deceived, says the suit. Perrigo Company is a manufacturer of consumer products, with its principal place of business in Allegan, Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Connett, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 700 S. Flower St., Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (888) 747-4529 Email: mconnett@sirillp.com - and - Aaron Siri, Esq. Elizabeth A. Brehm, Esq. Lisa Considine, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (888) 747-4529 Email: aaron@sirillp.com ebrehm@sirillp.com lconsidine@sirillp.com PIH HEALTH: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Julian Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- TAMMY JULIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PIH HEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 24-cv-10898-CAS-MAR (C.D. Cal., Dec. 18, 2024) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its customers. According to the complaint, the Data Breach was a direct result of the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect consumers' personally identifiable information or "PII", from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk because of Defendant's negligent conduct because the PII that Defendant collected and maintained has been accessed and acquired by data thieves. PIH Health, Inc. runs several facilities including Hospital, Physicians group, Home health care, Pharmacy etc. in California which provides medical services, transitional care services, home health, and hospice services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John P. Kristensen, Esq. KRISTENSEN LAW GROUP 120 Santa Barbara St., Suite C9 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 837-2000 Email: john@kristensen.law - and - Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq. Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. EKSM, LLP 1105 Milford Street Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Email: lmontgomery@eksm.com POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Mayfeild Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ TORRIE MAYFEILD, on behalf of her minor child, A.M., and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC and POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-at-00080 (E.D. Cal., January 14, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence/negligence per se, invasion of privacy, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within their network systems following a data breach learned on December 28, 2024. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. PowerSchool Group LLC is a software company with its principal place of business located in Folsom, California. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc. is a software company with its principal place of business located in Folsom, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 Email: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Pettinger Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT PETTINGER, on behalf of his minor child, B.P. and KYLIE STOWE, on behalf of her minor child, Z.S., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC and POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-at-00067 (E.D. Cal., January 13, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, and violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, California Customer Records Act, and California Consumer Privacy Act. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals stored within their network systems following a data breach learned on December 28, 2024. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiffs and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. PowerSchool Group LLC is a software company with its principal place of business located in Folsom, California. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc. is a software company with its principal place of business located in Folsom, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew G. Gunem, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: agunem@straussborrelli.com POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- F.C. a minor, by and through their guardian, AMY COUTU, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC and POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-at-00057 (E.D. Cal., January 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, unjust enrichment, and violation of the California Unfair Competition Law. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within their network systems following a data breach learned on December 28, 2024. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. PowerSchool Group LLC is a software company with its principal place of business located in Folsom, California. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc. is a software company with its principal place of business located in Folsom, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 Email: jnelson@milberg.com POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Fails to Protect Info, Mayfeild Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- TORRIE MAYFEILD, on behalf of her minor child, A.M., and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC and POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. (E.D. Cal., Jan. 14, 2024) sues the Defendant for failing to use security practices that would protect the personally identifying information provided to it by the Plaintiff and Class members, thus resulting in unauthorized third-party access to the Plaintiff's and Class members' PII. According to an email notice received by the Plaintiff from one of Defendant's clients, it was "On Dec. 28, 2024 PowerSchool detected unauthorized access to certain customer data." On Jan. 10, 2024, the Plaintiff received the Notice Email from one of Defendants' clients, wherein she was advised that PII that had been provided to said client was compromised during the Data Breach. Since the Data Breach, the Plaintiff has allegedly received an increase in phishing emails and spam texts. In response to the Data Breach, the Plaintiff has spent significantly more time checking her bank and credit card statements than he did prior to the Data Breach, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff and the Class have been placed at a substantial risk of harm in the form of credit fraud or identity theft and have incurred and will likely incur additional damages, including spending substantial amounts of time monitoring accounts and records, in order to prevent and mitigate credit fraud, identity theft, and financial fraud, asserts the lawsuit. Additionally, the Plaintiff and the Class have suffered or are at increased risk of suffering from the loss of the opportunity to control how their PII is used, the diminution in the value and/or use of their PII entrusted to Defendant, and loss of privacy. The Plaintiff is the parent of minor A.M. In connection with A.M.'s educational services, the Plaintiff provided PII to one of Defendant's clients. The Defendants represent that its business "is a leading provider of cloud-based software in K-12 education in North America."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Habbal Sues Over Failure to Secure Clients' Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- RATIB HABBAL, RUSHDA AFZAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC and POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00173-DAD-SCR (E.D. Cal., January 14, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals stored within their network systems following a data breach learned on December 28, 2024. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiffs and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. PowerSchool Group LLC is a software company with its principal place of business located in Folsom, California. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc. is a software company with its principal place of business located in Folsom, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 280 S. Beverly Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 Email: jnelson@milberg.com - and - E. Powell Miller, Esq. Emily E. Hughes, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 West University Drive Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 Email: epm@millerlawpc.com eeh@millerlawpc.com - and - Kassem Dakhlallah, Esq. HAMMOUD, DAKHLALLAH & ASSOCIATES PLLC 6050 Greenfield, Ste. 201 Dearborn, MI 48126 Telephone: (313) 551-3038 Email: kd@hdalawgroup.com POWERSCHOOL: Faces Suit Over Failure to Secure Customers' Info -------------------------------------------------------------- J.I., A.J., and O.S., by and through her Next Friend M.S., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. POWERSCHOOL, Case No. 2:25-cv-04006-WJE (W.D. Mo., Jan. 14, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of over 60 million individuals who are customers of the company. According to an announcement by PowerSchool, it discovered the breach Dec. 28, 2024 after customer data from its PowerSchool Student Information System was stolen through the PowerSource support poral. As a result of Defendant's failure to provide reasonable and adequate data security, Plaintiffs' and the Class Members' unencrypted, non-redacted PII has been exposed to unauthorized third parties, the suit says. The Plaintiffs and the Class will have to incur costs to pay a third-party credit and identity theft monitoring service for the rest of their lives as a direct result of the Data Breach. The Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated to seek redress for the lifetime of harm they will now face, including reimbursement of losses associated with identity theft and fraud, out-of-pocket costs incurred to mitigate the risk of future harm, compensation for time and effort spent responding to the Data Breach, the costs of extending credit monitoring services and identity theft insurance, and injunctive relief requiring Defendant to ensure that they implement and maintain reasonable data security practices going forward. Plaintiff J.I. is a former student of the Liberty School District in Missouri and is a resident of Kansas City, Jackson County, Missouri, whose Personal Information was compromised in the Data Breach. PowerSchool is a school data software company, providing database and data storage goods and services to both current and former schools, students, parents, and teachers worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Maureen M. Brady, Esq. Lucy McShane, Esq. MCSHANE & BRADY, LLC 4006 Central Street Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 888-8010 Facsimile: (816) 332-6295 E-mail: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com lmcshane@mcshanebradylaw.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Class Suit Over Toilet Paper Greenwashing ----------------------------------------------------------------- A proposed class action lawsuit alleges that Procter & Gamble's (P&G) environmental sustainability campaign for Charmin toilet paper is nothing more than greenwashing. The 112-page lawsuit alleges that P&G's sourcing methods for the wood pulp used in Charmin toilet paper do not align with the company's purported commitment to responsible forest management practices and effective replanting efforts in its supply chain. In reality, the case claims, P&G sources its pulp using environmentally devastating logging practices. This includes the clear-cutting and burning of Canada's old-growth boreal forest while doing little to restore it to its original level of biodiversity, the complaint contends. The suit charges that as part of its greenwashing scheme, P&G includes a "Protect-Grow-Restore" logo on Charmin toilet paper packages to disseminate three misleading sustainability promises to consumers. For its "Protect" promise, Charmin claims to use only pulp certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), an international non-profit whose certification ensures that products come from responsibly managed forests, the case relays. "[T]his claim is objectively false," the lawsuit says, alleging that the defendant deceptively uses the FSC logo on its Charmin packaging even though only a small fraction of P&G's pulp is sourced from FSC-certified forests. Similarly, P&G erroneously markets its products alongside the "Rainforest Alliance Certified" seal -- a certification program that was discontinued years ago and does not operate in Canada's boreal forest, the complaint asserts. As the suit tells it, the defendant's "Grow" promise involves replanting at least two trees for every tree used in its products, and its "Restore" promise represents a partnership with the Arbor Day Foundation to plant one million trees in forests affected by natural disasters. Per the filing, these commitments misleadingly suggest that Charmin suppliers are replanting the specific boreal forest areas logged to replicate the highly biodiverse, intact ecosystems that existed before harvesting occurred. "But P&G fails to disclose that, in reality, its suppliers are replanting single species conifers, evenly spaced, and then cover [sic] these trees with chemical herbicides to intentionally eliminate all growth other than just a handful of tree species most valuable for logging," the complaint alleges. The lawsuit stresses that these so-called "Frankenforests" destroy biodiversity and can jeopardize the health of the forest. The case accuses the consumer goods giant of exaggerating its eco-friendly initiatives to trick a growing number of customers who consider the environmental impact of products when making purchasing decisions. The filing claims that consumers would not have bought Charmin toilet paper had they been aware of P&G's broken promises, which the suit argues are "clear violations" of the Federal Trade Commission's Green Guides. Despite P&G's allegedly deceptive claims and apparent Green Guide violations, the company "refuses to act to either conform its environmental practices to be consistent with what it is telling consumers -- or admit to its reliance on environmentally devastating activities," the case asserts. The Procter & Gamble lawsuit looks to represent anyone who purchased Charmin toilet paper between January 16, 2021 and January 16, 2025 in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia and the District of Columbia. [GN] PROCTER & GAMBLE: Gurrola Sues Over Crest Toothpastes' False Labels ------------------------------------------------------------------- PATRICIA GURROLA, ALEJANDRO ARREOLA, BRITINI BROUGHTON, EILEEN AVILES, COURTNEY DESCHAMP, YVONNE LAMENDOLA, SUSHMADAVI LAKERAM, and GERMAINE DOLLISME, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00358 (N.D. Ill., January 13, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of implied warranty of merchantability and deceptive acts and practices in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, the New York General Business Law, and other similar state statutes. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its Crest toothpastes for preschool children. According to the complaint, the Defendant knows its fluoride toothpastes, including its "kids" versions, are not safe for young children to swallow. But it deceptively markets these kids products in ways that lead parents and caregivers to believe they are formulated to be extra safe for children. Consequently, the Plaintiffs and Class members have suffered injury in fact and lost money as a result of the Defendant's wrongful conduct, the suit asserts. The Procter & Gamble Company is a consumer products manufacturer, with its principal place of business in Cincinnati, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Connett, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 700 S. Flower St., Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (888) 747-4529 Email: mconnett@sirillp.com - and - Aaron Siri, Esq. Elizabeth A. Brehm, Esq. Lisa Considine, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (888) 747-4529 Email: aaron@sirillp.com ebrehm@sirillp.com lconsidine@sirillp.com PROCTER & GAMBLE: Singer Sues Over Melatonin Products' False Label ------------------------------------------------------------------ TIMOTHY SINGER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 6:25-cv-00048-JSS-UAM (M.D. Fla., January 12, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of line of "ZzzQuil PURE Zzzs" melatonin products. The Defendant labeled the products with the tagline "HELPS YOU FALL ASLEEP NATURALLY" on the front of the label in all caps and bolded green lettering. However, the Defendant's "naturally" advertising and marketing is false, deceptive, and misleading because the products contain several artificial and synthetic ingredients, including the primary ingredient in the products, melatonin. The Plaintiff and the members of the Class have suffered injury in fact, lost money or property, and suffered economic damages as a result of the Defendant's wrongful conduct, says the suit. The Procter & Gamble Company is a consumer goods manufacturer based in Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Wright, Esq. Kelly Mata, Esq. THE WRIGHT LAW OFFICE 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 350 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Telephone: (561) 514-0904 Email: willwright@wrightlawoffice.com kellymata@wrightlawoffice.com PROFESSIONAL FINANCE: Settles Data Breach Class Suit for $25MM -------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Professional Finance Co. agreed to a $2.5 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it failed to prevent a 2022 data breach that compromised sensitive consumer information. The Professional Finance Co. settlement benefits individuals whose information the Professional Finance data breach compromised in February 2022. The Professional Finance Co. data breach potentially exposed sensitive information, such as Social Security numbers. Affected consumers filed a class action lawsuit against Professional Finance Co., arguing the company failed to protect their information from cybercriminals. Professional Finance Co. is a debt collection agency that partners with other businesses to collect debts. Professional Finance Co. hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $2.5 million to resolve the data breach class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the Professional Finance Co. settlement, all class members can receive a cash payment. Class members whose Social Security numbers were compromised can receive up to $500 in reimbursement for data breach-related expenses, such as unreimbursed fraud and identity theft losses, professional fees, credit expenses and other damages. They can also receive 24 months of free identity monitoring through Identity Defense Plus. California class members can receive a $50 cash payment if their Social Security number was compromised. The deadline for exclusion and objection was Jan. 13, 2025. The final approval hearing for the Professional Finance data breach settlement is scheduled for April 17, 2025. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Feb. 12, 2025. Who's Eligible Individuals whose information the Professional Finance Co. data breach potentially compromised in February 2022 Potential Award $500 Proof of Purchase Documentation of unreimbursed expenses, such as bank statements, credit card statements, receipts, invoices or other third-party 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 02/12/2025 Case Name Rodriguez v. Professional Finance Co. Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-01679-RMR-STV, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado Final Hearing 04/17/2025 Settlement Website ProfessionalFinanceSettlement.com Claims Administrator Rodriguez v. Professional Finance Co. Inc. c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC PO Box 225391 New York, NY 10150-5391 info@ProfessionalFinanceSettlement.com (833) 627-7416 Class Counsel Jean S Martin MORGAN & MORGAN Terence R Coates MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO LLC Joseph M Lyon THE LYON FIRM Defense Counsel Christopher Wood LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP [GN] PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Martinez Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PROGRESS SOFTWARE CORPORATION; FIDELITY NATIONAL INFORMATION SERVICES; and AUTO CLUB TRUST, FSB, Case No. 1:25-cv-10060 (D. Mass., Jan. 9, 2025) sues the Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information. On Sept. 29, 2023, the Plaintiff received a letter from Auto Club informing the Plaintiff of an "issue that affected [Plaintiff's] personal information maintained by [Auto Club's] service provider on [Auto Club's] behalf." According to the letter, this data breach affected personal information including: "names, contact information (e.g., email and postal addresses), dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, and passport numbers." The Defendants negligently chose to utilize Progress' MOVEit Transfer tool to store and transfer Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information despite the fact that MOVEit's Transfer tool contained security vulnerabilities, the Plaintiff avers. As a result of the Defendants' unreasonable and inadequate data security practices, the Plaintiff and Class Members are at a current and ongoing risk of identity theft and have suffered numerous injuries and damages, including invasion of privacy; financial "out-of-pocket" costs incurred mitigating the materialized risk and imminent threat of identity theft; loss of time and loss of productivity incurred mitigating the materialized risk and imminent threat of identity theft risk; lost value of their Private Information; and anxiety, annoyance, and nuisance, the lawsuit asserts. Progress is a software company that offers a wide range of software products and services to corporate and governmental entities throughout the United States and the world, including cloud hosting and secure file transfer services such as MOVEit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kristen A. Johnson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1 Faneuil Hall Square, 5th Floor Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 482-3700 Facsimile: (617) 482-3003 E-mail: kristenj@hbsslaw.com - and - E. Michelle Drake, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE, PC 1229 Tyler Street, NE, Suite 205 Minneapolis, MN 55413 Telephone: (612) 594-5933 Facsimile: (612) 584-4470 E-mail: emdrake@bm.net - and - Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: gary@lcllp.com - and - Douglas J. McNamara, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Avenue NW, 5th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 E-mail: dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com - and - Karen H. Riebel, Esq. LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN PLLP 100 Washington Avenue S., Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 339-6900 Facsimile: (612) 612-339-0981 E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Facsimile: (215) 592-4663 E-mail: cshaffer@lfsblaw.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 Facsimile: (513) 345-8294 E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and - Joseph M. Lyon, Esq. THE LYON FIRM 2754 Erie Avenue Cincinnati, OH 45208 Telephone: (513) 381-2333 Facsimile: (513) 766-9011 E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Motion to Reconsider Ruling in Roche Suit Okayed ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge William J. Martini of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey granted Quest Diagnostics Inc.'s motion for reconsideration of the July 2, 2024 order granting in part and denying in part its motion to dismiss the case captioned as ANGELA COLE and BEATRICE ROCHE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. QUEST DIAGNOSTICS, INC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-20647-WJM (D.N.J.). Defendant requests reconsideration to correct a clear error of law -- namely, that the Court's decision omitted consideration of the Third Circuit's opinion in In re Google Inc. Cookie Placement Consumer Privacy Litigation, 806 F.3d 125 (3d Cir. 2015). Google Cookie was a putative class action brought by web users who alleged that they visited websites from which Google's tracking cookies were deployed to enable tracking of the class members' internet communications without their consent. Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that when they visited websites that included embedded advertisements served by Google, "Google used code to command users' web browsers to automatically submit a hidden form to Google" along with the advertising data Google transmitted in the ordinary course, triggering an exception, to the plaintiffs' cookie blockers. The plaintiffs brought claims under, infer alia, the federal Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2510 ef seg. and the California Invasion of Privacy Act, Cal. Pen. Code Sec. 631(a). In its opinion, the Third Circuit first analyzed the plaintiffs' claims under the federal Wiretap Act, and later turned to the California statute. It held, in relevant part, that the federal wiretapping claim was properly dismissed because Google was an intended recipient of the request sent from plaintiffs' browsers and that under the federal wiretapping statute, it is not unlawful for a private person to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication. Later in its opinion, discussing the CIPA claim, the Court observed that the District Court dismissed the CIPA claim for the same reasons that it dismissed the plaintiff's federal wiretapping claim. Reiterating its earlier finding that Google was a party to the communication, and therefore could not be considered a third-party eavesdropper, the Court affirmed the dismissal of the CIPA claim for the same reasons it affirmed the dismissal of the federal Wiretap Act claim. The core of the Third Circuit's rationale was that the users' browsers were communicating directly with the alleged eavesdropper because the users' browsers were sending GET requests directly to Google's server. As the direct recipient of the communication from plaintiff's browser, Google could not have been liable under CIPA. The same should hold true in this case. Like in Google Cookie, plaintiffs allege that when interacting with the defendant's website, their browsers were instructed to send a second, separate GET request to a third-party website, and allege that the involvement in this third-party website in their internet communications constituted eavesdropping under the CIPA. Judge Martini concludes that the Plaintiffs' argument cannot be squared with this Court's understanding of Google Cookie. The Court's July 2 opinion overlooked that decision, and it corrects that error today. A copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=B9Ab5z from PacerMonitor.com. RDO EQUIPMENT: Initial Scheduling Conference in Munoz Vacated ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Munoz v. RDO Equipment Co., Case No. 1:23-cv-00979 (E.D. Cal., Filed June 29, 2023), the Hon. Judge Dale A. Drozd entered an order that the Initial Scheduling Conference currently scheduled for Jan. 29, 2025, at 10:00 AM before Magistrate Judge Allison is vacated and to be re-set as necessary. The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Employment RDO sells brands, like John Deere, Vermeer, Topcon & Wirtgen.[CC] RENE RUIZ: Tucker Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Online Store ---------------------------------------------------------------- HENRY TUCKER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RENE RUIZ WHOLESALE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00263 (S.D.N.Y., January 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://reneruizcollection.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: lack of alternative text, empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Rene Ruiz Wholesale, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal RENOVATOR'S SUPPLY: Blind Can't Access Website, Walker Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- LEAH WALKER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE RENOVATOR'S SUPPLY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00289 (N.D. Ill., January 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.rensup.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate landmark structure, inadequate focus order, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, the lack of navigation links, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. The Renovator's Supply, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Reyes, Esq. ASHER COHEN LAW PLLC 2377 56th Dr. Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (630) 478-0856 Email: dreyes@ashercohenlaw.com REPUBLIC SERVICES: CIS Communications Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CIS COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, v. REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00359-JAR (E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying class pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3). Republic Services is a North American waste disposal company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ALAJnN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan A. Keane, Esq. Tanner A. Kirksey, Esq. KEANE LAW LLC 7711 Bonhomme Ave, Suite 600 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 391-4700 Facsimile: (314) 244-3778 E-mail: ryan@keanelawllc.com tanner@keanelawllc.com - and - Michael C. Seamands, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL C. SEAMANDS, LLC 1401 S. Brentwood Blvd, Suite 825 St. Louis, MO 63144 Telephone: (314) 802-7730 Facsimile: (314) 260-9645 E-mail: mcs@mcs-legal.com RESULTS CUSTOMER: Warren WARN Suit to Remain in Delaware Court -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Sherry R. Fallon of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware denied Results Customer Solutions, LLC's motion to transfer the case captioned as ALESHA WARREN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RESULTS CUSTOMER SOLUTIONS LLC, d/b/a RESULTS CX, Defendant, Civil Action No. 24-888-JLH-SRF (D. Del.) to the Middle District of Florida, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1404(a). Alesha Warren filed this class action complaint alleging Defendant, Results Customer Solutions, LLC violated the Federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 2101 et seg., when it terminated Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees without sixty days advance written notice. Plaintiff initiated this civil action for violations of the WARN Act on July 29, 2024. Plaintiff was formerly employed by RCS as a customer service representative from October of 2020 until her termination on May 18, 2024. She is a resident of Ohio and worked remotely from there while reporting to RCS's office located in Lakeland, Florida. She worked within a unit which only serviced one RCS client, Humana Medicare. RCS engaged in the business of operating call centers staffed by customer service agents, like the Plaintiff, who provided customer support services to RCS's clients, such as Humana. On May 18, 2024, Plaintiff was notified of her termination, effective immediately, due to the closure of Humana's account with RCS. Plaintiff states that she did not receive any prior written notice that her employment would be terminated until May 17, 2024. Plaintiff alleges that she and an estimated 300 other similarly situated employees of RCS, who also worked remotely on the Humana account, were terminated at the same time without 60 days advance written notice as required by law. Plaintiff does not dispute that this action could have been brought in the Middle District of Florida. Thus, the only issue for decision is whether the Court should exercise its discretion under Section 1404(a) and transfer the case to that district. In determining whether an action should be transferred under Sec. 1404(a), the Third Circuit identified in Jumara twelve non-exclusive public and private interest factors. Plaintiff's Forum Preference Defendant argues that the Court should discount the weight assigned to Plaintiff's forum choice because she lacks a physical connection to Delaware. However, Plaintiff's choice to sue in the District of Delaware is a paramount consideration in the section 1404(a) analysis. Thus, this factor strongly weighs against transfer, the Court finds. Defendant's Forum Preference The Court finds this factor weighs slightly in favor of transfer. Defendant selected Delaware as its place of incorporation although none of its operations are in this district. Defendant's preference to transfer this case to the Middle District of Florida has a reasonable basis because it conducted its business operations relevant to this case in and near that district. In sum, of the twelve Jimara factors, three weigh slightly in favor of transfer, one weighs against transfer (and is to be given paramount importance) and the remaining eight are all neutral. In its discretion, the Court finds that, considered in their totality, the Jamara factors weigh against transfer, and therefore the Defendant's motion to transfer is denied. A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HBtzU4 from PacerMonitor.com. RUBUS MANAGEMENT: Must Face FLSA Sec. 203 Claim in Decollibus Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as DANIELLE DECOLLIBUS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RUBUS MANAGEMENT, LLC; EMPLOYEE(S)/AGENT(S) DOES 1-10; and ROE CORPORATIONS 11-20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:23-cv-01552-ART-EJY (D. Nev.), Judge Anne R. Traum of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted in part plaintiff's motion for default judgment against Rubus Management, LLC under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b). Plaintiff originally filed the instant case in the Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County, Nevada, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 203 et seq., conversion, unjust enrichment, tortious discharge, and FLSA retaliation. It was removed by Defendant to this Court on Sept. 9, 2023. On Feb. 14, 2024, Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah granted Counsel for Defendant's motion to withdraw. Plaintiff's motion for default judgment only seeks damages for her FLSA claims: violation of 29 U.S.C. Sec. 203 and retaliation. As such, the Court analyzes only the sufficiency of these claims. Plaintiff has plead that Defendant is a covered enterprise under the FLSA under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 203(s), that she was an employee of Defendant within the meaning of the FLSA under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 203(e)(1) who regularly received tips for providing services to customers, and that Defendant violated 29 U.S.C. Sec. 203(m)(2)(B) of the FLSA by keeping tips received by her and other Tipped Employees and sharing these with management employees as defined by 29 C.F.R. Sec. 541.100. Plaintiff has therefore plead facts sufficient to establish a claim for a violation of 29 U.S.C. Sec. 203(m)(2)(B), the Court finds. The Court declines to enter judgment as to Plaintiff's other claims for conversion, unjust enrichment, tortious discharge, and retaliation. As the Court finds that default judgment is appropriate as to Plaintiff's claim under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 203, Plaintiff is entitled to damages for this claim. However, as the Court declines to enter default judgment as to Plaintiff's retaliation claim, the Court will not award any damages as to that claim. Judgment is entered for Plaintiff and against Defendant as to Plaintiff's claim under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 203, in the amount of $292.81. Plaintiff requests attorneys' fees in the amount of $3,025.00 and costs in the amount of $616.90, for the hours incurred on Plaintiff's motion for default only. The Court awards Plaintiff attorneys' fees of $2,575 and costs of $616.90, for a total of $3,191.90. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9sfZxE from PacerMonitor.com. RUSH STREET: Brady Sues Over Alleged Private Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Brady, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Rush Street Gaming LLC and Sugarhouse HSP Gaming, L.P. d/b/a Rivers Casino Philadelphia, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00054-JDW (E.D. Pa., January 6, 2025), asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, invasion of privacy, and for unjust enrichment in connection with Defendants' failure to employ reasonable and appropriate measures to protect against unauthorized access to confidential consumer data. On or about December 30, 2024, the Defendants began notifying affected persons about the data breach that occurred on November 18, 2024. The Defendants letter offered free credit monitoring services to those potentially impacted by the breach. However, the Defendants did not state why they were unable to prevent the data breach or which security feature failed, says the suit. Headquartered in Illinois, Rush Street Gaming, LLC owns and operates the Rivers Casino Philadelphia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Facsimile: (215) 592-4663 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and - Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road - Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 874-4505 E-mail: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com S & K SECURITY: Owes Security Guard Unpaid OT Wages, Damages ------------------------------------------------------------ In the case captioned as KATRINA HENDERSON, Plaintiff, v. S & K SECURITY CONSULTANTS, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 21-cv-02484-LKG (D. Md.), Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted the plaintiff's motion for default judgment against S & K Security Consultants, Inc. In this putative class action matter, the Plaintiff, Katrina Henderson, individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals, brings claims against the Defendants, S & K Security Consultants, Inc., Jerry Swanson, and Debra Swanson, for failure to pay overtime compensation, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29. U.S.C. Sec. 201, et seq., Maryland Wage and Hour Law, Md. Labor and Empl. Code Ann. Sec. 3- 401, et seq., Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law, Md. Labor & Empl. Code Ann. Sec. 3-501, et seq., D.C. Minimum Wage Act Revision Act of 1992, D.C. Code Secs. 32-1001, et seq., and the D.C. Wage Payment and Wage Collection Act, D.C. Code Secs. 32-1301, et seq. ECF No. 1. The Plaintiff has filed a motion for default judgment against Defendant S&K. As relief, the Plaintiff seeks to recover: (1) compensation in the amount of $26,539.55 for overtime premium backpay, for the hours she worked in excess of 40 per workweek, including time spent performing work off-the-clock; (2) $79,618.66 in treble damages pursuant to DCWPCA; (3) post-judgment interest thereon, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1961, and (4) attorneys' fees and costs. Defendant S & K is a security services company that employed security guards predominantly in Maryland and Washington, D.C. During the period Oct. 2017 to June 6, 2021, the Plaintiff worked for S & K as a security guard in the position of Sergeant. The Plaintiff alleges that she provided safety monitoring services for Defendant S & K's clients at the clients' place of business throughout Maryland and the District of Columbia. The Plaintiff also alleges that she was compensated by the Defendants on an hourly basis, at a rate of $15.00 per hour. The Plaintiff contends that she performed uncompensated off-the-clock work, as required by S & K, which frequently occurred in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. She alleges that her unpaid off-the-clock time for arriving before her shifts and traveling between locations amount to a total of $5,518.13. The Plaintiff alleges that she typically worked seven days per week, Sunday through Saturday, and that she regularly recorded working 60 hours per workweek and 20 hours of overtime per workweek. Because the Plaintiff worked for the Defendants from October 2017 to June 6, 2021, she contends that she worked 140 work weeks within the period covered by the applicable statutes of limitations, i.e. after Sept. 29, 2018. The Plaintiff also alleges that she is entitled to an overtime premium in the amount of $7.50 and that her unpaid overtime premium backpay amount is $21,021.43. Given this, the Plaintiff contends she is owed approximately $24,962.95 in unpaid overtime compensation, not including liquidated damages, treble damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and any applicable interest. The evidence before the Court shows that the Plaintiff is entitled to the amount of damages that she seeks to recover in this matter. The Court finds pursuant to the FLSA, the Plaintiff is entitled to receive an overtime premium at 1.5 times her regular rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek for each hour over 40 that she worked. The Plaintiff has also shown that she is entitled to relief under the DCMWA and DCWPA for S & K's failure to properly compensate her for overtime worked. The evidence before the Court shows that S & K, hired Plaintiff, set her rate of pay, determined the Plaintiff' work hours, determined the frequency of her pay, assigned Plaintiff work, set her work schedule and maintained the Plaintiff's employment records. The evidence before the Court also makes clear that S & K employed the Plaintiff within the District of Columbia. The facts also show that the Plaintiff satisfies the criteria for an individual employed in the District of Columbia, because she spent more than 50% of her time working for S & K in the District of Columbia. And so, accepting the allegations in the complaint as true, along with the facts provided in the Plaintiff's uncontroverted sworn affidavit, the Court is satisfied that the Plaintiff has also shown that S & K was her employer within the meaning of the DCMWA and DCWPA. In addition to $26,539.55 in unpaid overtime wages owed to the Plaintiff pursuant to the FLSA, the Plaintiff has shown that she is also entitled to recover liquidated damages in the amount of $79,618.66 under the District of Columbia's wage-and-hour laws (i.e., 3 x $26,539.55 in unpaid wages), the Court finds. The Court: (1) grants the Plaintiff's motion for default judgment; (2) enters a default judgment in favor of the Plaintiff against S&K; (3) awards the Plaintiff unpaid wages in the amount of $26, 539.55, pursuant to the FLSA; (4) awards the Plaintiff liquidated damages in the amount of $79,618.66, pursuant to DCWPA; and (5) awards the Plaintiff reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in an amount to be determined by the Court. A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZNc7N7 from PacerMonitor.com. SABER HEALTHCARE: Class Settlement in Kuchar Suit Gets Approval --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as COLLEEN KUCHAR, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. SABER HEALTHCARE GROUP, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-02542-DAR (N.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge David Ruiz entered an order granting approval of class action settlement: The case was brought on Nov. 11, 2020, alleging claims against Defendants for unpaid regular and overtime wages. The class and collective actions were brought on behalf of two groups of healthcare workers at Aurora Manor and facilities affiliated with SHG. The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims were pursued on behalf of: (1) salaried MDS nurses and coordinators who worked more than 40 hours in one or more work weeks at any time but were not paid overtime in the three years preceding the date of the grant of conditional certification at any of the 122 facilities listed on SHG’s website and who had not executed arbitration agreements with Defendants; and (2) hourly nurses at Aurora Manor who worked more than 40 hours in one or more work weeks at any time in the three years preceding the date of the grant of conditional certification and who had not executed arbitration agreements with Defendants. Ohio wage law claims were pursued under FED. R. CIV. P. 23 only with respect to the hourly nurses who worked in one or more workweeks at Aurora Manor any time between November 11, 2018 and the present and had not executed an arbitration agreement with Defendants. The Court approves, pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 23(e), the settlement for the Class Members on the basis that it is "fair, reasonable, and adequate" to all participants. The Court confirms its approval of the parties' FLSA settlement, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). All members of the class and collectives, except those who timely opted out, release their claims against Defendants as set forth in the Settlement Agreement. The case is dismissed with prejudice, with the Court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the Settlement Agreement and address any issues that arise related to its implementation. On July 9, 2021, the Court conditionally certified this action as a collective action under the FLSA, based on two collectives. On Sept. 17, 2024, the Court also preliminarily approved the settlement for the Rule 23 Class pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 23(e). Saber offers rehabilitation, long-term care, skilled nursing, and memory care. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NZwmO5 at no extra charge.[CC] SAINA BP: Underpays Local Delivery Drivers, Rivera Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- DIEGO M. RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAINA BP LLC and NORMA PINILLA, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-20139 (S.D. Fla., January 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Rivera worked for the Defendants as a local delivery driver from approximately September 05, 2024, to October 24, 2024. Saina BP LLC is a logistics and freight transportation company in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A. 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com SELECT PORTFOLIO: Bell Sues Over Unlawful Homeowner Fees -------------------------------------------------------- TERRY BELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SELECT PORTFOLIO SERVICING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00004 (M.D.N.C., January 6, 2025) accuses the Defendant of violating the North Carolina Debt Collection Act and the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. Plaintiff Bell alleges that the Defendant routinely violates North Carolina law and breaches the uniform terms of borrowers' mortgages by charging and collecting illegal processing fees when borrowers pay their monthly mortgage by phone. The Defendant illegally charges homeowners fees up to $15 for each telephone payment, says the suit. Headquartered in Salt Lake, UT, Select Portfolio Service, Inc. provides residential mortgage servicing. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin M. Sheridan, Esq. Jed R Nolan, Esq. KLEIN & SHERIDAN, LC PC 964 High House Rd. PMB 2039 Cary, NC 27513 Telephone: (304)562-7111 E-mail: ben@kleinsheridan.com jed@kleinsheridan.com - and - James L. Kauffman, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202)463-2101 E-mail: jkauffman@baileyglasser.com - and - Bart D. Cohen, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215)274-9420 E-mail: bcohen@baileyglasser.com - and - Katherine M. Aizpuru, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Suite 1010 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202)973-0900 E-mail: kaizpuru@tzlegal.com SHOE DYNASTY: Faces Henry Suit Over Online Store's Access Barriers ------------------------------------------------------------------ CONSTANCE HENRY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHOE DYNASTY HOLDINGS, LLC DBA MIZ MOOZ, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00281 (N.D. Ill., January 10, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, declaratory relief, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://mizmooz.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, inaccurate drop-down menus, the same alternative text for images, inaccurate focus order, and the requirement that some actions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Shoe Dynasty Holdings, LLC, doing business as Miz Mooz, is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Reyes, Esq. ASHER COHEN LAW PLLC 2377 56th Dr. Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (630) 478-0856 Email: dreyes@ashercohenlaw.com SOC LLC: Niffen's Motion to Intervene in Darrough Suit Granted -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Cristina D. Silva of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada granted Gregory Niffen's motion to intervene in the class action lawsuit captioned as Gene Darrough, Plaintiff v. SOC LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01951-CDS-DJA (D. Nev.) e pursuant to Rule 24(b). Niffen alleges claims of: (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) quantum meruit, and (4) unjust enrichment. Defendants do not dispute that Niffen has demonstrated an independent ground for jurisdiction, and common questions of law or fact. Defendants' sole argument in opposition to Niffen's motion is that the motion is untimely. They argue that it has been four years since the start of litigation and there have been many motions and pleadings filed. Niffen argues that his motion is timely because the only substantive action that has occurred in this case is the parties' briefing on the motion to dismiss, which is still pending. Because this case is in its infancy and no discovery has been completed at this stage in litigation, Niffen argues that defendants will not be prejudiced. He also argues that his reason for the delay was because this case was stayed while on appeal before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. When Niffen filed his motion to intervene, there had been no decision made on the motion to dismiss and discovery in this case had not yet commenced. Therefore, while a close call, Judge Silva finds that the stage of proceedings factor weighs in favor of allowing intervention. Further, given the complicated proceedings surrounding this case, Judge Silva agrees that it was not improper for Niffen to wait until the stay had been lifted to file his motion to intervene. The record reflects that after the stay was lifted, Niffen still waited an additional five months to file his motion. She agrees that this period of delay was not so extensive as to warrant denial of Niffen's motion to intervene. Defendants also argue that they will be prejudiced by granting the motion to intervene because Niffen's claims are barred by the statute of limitations. Judge Silva finds that the lack of prejudice to defendants also weighs in favor of allowing intervention. She also finds that Niffen's motion is timely, and therefore Niffen's motion to intervene is granted. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7lamgN from PacerMonitor.com. TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: Discloses User's Info to FB, Luna Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Luna, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-00208 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 9, 2025) alleges that the Defendant knowingly and intentionally discloses its users' personally identifiable information -- including a record of every video game and video viewed, purchased or requested by the user -- to unauthorized third parties without first complying with the Video Privacy Protection Act. The suit contends that the Defendant caused the Plaintiff's video game purchase to be sent along with Plaintiff's personally identifiable information to Facebook and other third parties, without Plaintiff's knowledge or consent each time Plaintiff requested, purchased and viewed video and video games on Defendant's Website. The Plaintiff never consented, agreed, nor permitted the Defendant to disclose Plaintiff's PII and viewing information to Facebook or other third parties, the suit adds. Plaintiff Jose Luna purchased a game containing cinematic cutscenes from Defendant's Website within the last two years of filing of this Complaint. Throughout Plaintiff's interactions with Defendant's Website, Jose Luna has maintained and used Plaintiff's Facebook account from the same browser the Plaintiff used to purchase the video games from the Website. The Defendant sells video games containing cinematic cutscenes and offers a library of prerecorded videos on its Website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. Nathaniel Haim Sari, Esq. GUCOVSCHI ROZENSHTEYN, PLLC 140 Broadway, FL 46 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 884-4230 Facsimile: (212) 884-4230 E-mail: adrian@gr-firm.com nsari@gr-firm.com TRANSOCEAN LTD: Bids for Lead Plaintiffs Deadline Set February 24 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notifies investors in Transocean Ltd. ("Transocean Ltd." or the "Company") (NYSE: RIG) of a class action securities lawsuit. CLASS DEFINITION: The lawsuit seeks to recover losses on behalf of Transocean Ltd. investors who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between October 31, 2023 and September 2, 2024. Follow the link below to get more information and be contacted by a member of our team: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/transocean-ltd-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=124056&wire=3 RIG investors may also contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500. CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made false statements and/or concealed that: (1) the oil rigs Discoverer Inspiration and Development Driller III were considered non-strategic assets; (2) the Company's recorded asset valuations were overstated; (3) as a result, the Company would take nearly twice the vessels' sale price in impairment if sold; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Transocean Ltd. during the relevant time frame, you have until February 24, 2025 to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff. NO COST TO YOU: If you are a class member, you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees. There is no cost or obligation to participate. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, the team at Levi & Korsinsky has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. Our 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. 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 www.zlk.com [GN] TYCON MEDICAL: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Mikell Says ----------------------------------------------------------- ANGELA MIKELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TYCON MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00019 (E.D. Va., Jan. 9, 2025) is a class action lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members on behalf of all persons who entrusted the Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information that was impacted in a data breach that the Defendant publicly disclosed on Dec. 30, 2024. On Oct. 15, 2024, the Defendant became aware of a security incident on its IT Network. Defendant's investigation determined that on Oct. 17, 2024, an unauthorized third-party gained access to certain files and acquired certain information on its IT Network, the suit says. On Dec. 20, 2024, the Defendant completed its review and determined that the Private Information compromised in the Data Breach includes name, date of birth, health insurance information, and medical information. On Dec. 30, 2025, the Defendant issued a public notice of the Data Breach and began sending notice letters to individuals impacted. Individuals affected by the Data Breach are, and remain, at risk that their data will be sold or listed on the dark web and, ultimately, illegally used in the future, the suit says. As a result of the Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information was exposed to criminals. The Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries including: financial losses caused by misuse of their Private Information; the loss or diminished value of their Private Information as a result of the Data Breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information, the suit asserts. The Plaintiff is a customer of the Defendant. On Dec. 30, 2024, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a notice letter informing her that her Private Information was compromised in the Data Breach. Tycon is a medical equipment company located in Norfolk, Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth Tripodi, Esq. Mark Svensson, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: etripodi@zlk.com msvensson@zlk.com U.S. ANESTHESIA: Monopolizes Anesthesia Services, Musharbash Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- BASEL MUSHARBASH v. U.S. ANESTHESIA PARTNERS, INC. ("USAP"), WELSH, CARSON, ANDERSON & STOWE XI, L.P., WCAS ASSOCIATES XI, LLC, WELSH, CARSON, ANDERSON & STOWE XII, L.P., WCAS ASSOCIATES XII, LLC, WCAS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, WCAS MANAGEMENT, L.P., and WCAS MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00116 (S.D. Tex., Jan. 9, 2025) is a class action alleging that the Defendants are engaged in a scheme to monopolize hospital anesthesia services in Texas, drive up prices, and increase their profits. The Plaintiff says that the Defendants pitched USAP to doctor groups as a more efficient anesthesiology firm with money to invest in quality. In reality, USAP's strategy has diminished the quality of anesthesiology services, while also increasing prices. By January 2020, USAP acquired sixteen anesthesia groups, including the dominant providers in Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth, and Austin. As a result, by 2021, USAP had nearly 70% market share of the Houston Metropolitan Statistical Area, 68% of the Dallas-Fort Worth MSA, and greater than 50% of the Austin MSA, by revenue. USAP faces minimal, if any, competition, the suit contends. USAP's dominance in the Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth, and Austin MSAs gives it enormous bargaining power over insurers. USAP's consolidation scheme and agreements with competitors caused Mr. Musharbash and other patients with commercial insurance plans, as well as uninsured individuals, to pay artificially inflated prices for hospital-only anesthesia services in Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth, and Austin, the Plaintiff avers. The Plaintiff seeks to vindicate his rights under the antitrust laws, restore competition for hospital-only anesthesiology services, and recover damages for overcharges. Mr. Musharbash is a citizen of the State of Texas. He paid USAP $637.10 for anesthesiology services provided at Medical City Dallas Hospital. Insurance paid the remaining $135.39 that he was billed. USAP is a physician services organization formed in 2012 by Welsh Carson and two healthcare executives, John Rizzo and Kristen Bratberg.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Barrett H. Reasoner, Esq. Brice Wilkinson, Esq. GIBBS & BRUNS LLP 1100 Louisiana, Suite 5300 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 751-5244 E-mail: breasoner@gibbsbruns.com bwilkinson@gibbsbruns.com - and - Kellie Lerner, Esq. Harrison McAvoy, Esq. Keagan Potts, Esq. SHINDER CANTOR LERNER LLP 14 Penn Plaza, Fl. 19 New York, NY 10122 Telephone: (646) 960-8608 E-mail: kellie@scl-llp.com harrison@scl-llp.com kpotts@scl-llp.com - and - Kimberly A. Justice, Esq. Robert J. Wozniak, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 923 Fayette Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (224) 632-4500 E-mail: kjustice@fklmlaw.com rwozniak@fklmlaw.com - and - Justin S. Nematzadeh, Esq. NEMATZADEH PLLC 101 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 909 New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (646) 799-6729 E-mail: jsn@nematlawyers.com UNITED 1ST: Ownby Must Conduct Class Certification by May 13 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUSTIN OWNBY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNITED 1ST LENDING, LLC, Case No. 8:24-cv-02190-TPB-CPT (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Christopher Tuite entered an order that: 1. Ownby's motion for leave to engage in class certification and damages related discovery is granted. 2. No later than May 13, 2025, Ownby shall (a) conduct class certification and damages related discovery, including third-party discovery, as necessary; and (b) file a motion for default judgment. Ownby's assertions are sufficient to allow him to pursue class and damages related discovery at this juncture. In short, Ownby shows that he requires the designated discovery to establish the grounds for class certification, as well as the level of damages recoverable by the putative class on a motion for default judgment against United. Ownby filed this action against the Defendant in September 2024 on behalf of himself and a putative class comprised of all others similarly situated, asserting claims for violations of both the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act (FTSA). The crux of Ownby's complaint is that United engaged in unsolicited robocalling to members of the putative class in contravention of the TCPA and FTSA. United 1st is a mortgage lending institution. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HLxUJx at no extra charge.[CC] UNITEDHEALTHCARE SERVICES: Settles TCPA Class Suit for $2.5-Mil. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a $2.5 million settlement has been reached to resolve a proposed class action lawsuit that alleged UnitedHealthcare unlawfully placed prerecorded telephone calls to consumers' cell phones without prior consent. The official website for the UnitedHealthcare class action settlement can be found at UnitedTCPAClassAction.com. The $2,500,000 deal covers a class of approximately 12,014 United States residents who, between January 9, 2015 and January 9, 2019, received on their cell phone a non-emergency telephone call placed using either the Avaya Pro Contact or LiveVox IVR dialing systems from the Medicare and Retirement Non-Licensed Retention Team, the Community and State National Retention Team or the Medicare and Retirement Collections Team through the use of an artificial or prerecorded voice, and who were not a UnitedHealthcare member or third party authorized to receive calls on a member's behalf at the time of the call. According to the settlement agreement, only class members who submit a timely, valid claim form online or by mail will be eligible to receive a pro-rated cash payout from the deal with UnitedHealthcare. The deadline to file a claim is specified in the settlement notice that was issued via email or mail, the agreement says. Class members can use the settlement website to submit an electronic claim form or download a PDF copy to print and return by mail. A unique login code and password, which are typically located on the settlement notice issued to consumers, are required to access the website. Individual payout amounts are estimated to range between $350 and $1,000 per person, depending on the total number of valid claims that are filed, the settlement agreement relays. Final payment amounts may be higher or lower than the estimate, the document notes. The UnitedHealthcare settlement was granted preliminary approval by the court on January 15, 2025. According to the nine-page preliminary approval order, the court will determine whether to grant final approval to the terms of the deal at a hearing set for June 20, 2025 in Seattle. If the deal is ultimately approved, and if no appeals are filed, cash payments will be distributed to eligible class members within 30 days of the date the settlement goes into effect, the agreement states. The lawsuit against UnitedHealthcare claimed the insurer violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), a federal law that prohibits companies from using an artificial or prerecorded voice message to place telemarketing calls without a recipient's prior express permission to do so. [GN] UNIVERSAL SCREEN: CFC Appointed Cy Pres Recipient in Burzdak Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Edward M. Chen of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California appoints the Consumer Federation of California as the cy pres recipient in the lawsuit captioned KAREN BURZDAK, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSAL SCREEN ARTS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:21-cv-02148-EMC (N.D. Cal.). The Court appoints the Consumer Federation of California (CFC) as the cy pres recipient in the present case. The Plaintiff filed a supplemental post-distribution accounting statement, noting that following a re-distribution of uncashed settlement funds, as of Dec. 13, 2024, a total of 2,519 checks in the sum of $43,703.18 remain uncashed. The Plaintiff states it is not administratively feasible to redistribute the balance, so the Parties believe it is appropriate to award the balance to a cy pres recipient. The Ninth Circuit requires the Court to consider whether the cy pres bears a substantial nexus to the interests of the class members, citing Lane v. Facebook, Inc., 696 F.3d 811, 821 (9th Cir. 2012). The Northern District of California's Procedural Guidelines for Class Action Settlements also require the parties to explain how a recipient is "related to the subject matter of the lawsuit and the class members' claims," and requires parties to "identify any relationship they or their counsel have with the proposed cy pres recipients." CFC is a nonprofit advocacy organization that was founded in 1960 and campaigns for state and federal laws that place consumer protection ahead of corporate profit, including testifying before the California legislature on dozens of bills each year that affect millions of California consumers and appearing before state agencies in support of consumer regulations. Relevant to this case, a significant focus of CFC's activities has been protecting consumers by ensuring protections from automatically renewing membership fees. CFC has been appointed as a cy pres recipient in numerous consumer protection class actions and will use any awarded money to help advance the rights of California consumers to be free from unwanted subscriptions and recurring fees. CFC's focus is on California consumers, and the proposed Class was limited to California consumers. Judge Chen says awarding CFC the cy pres funds is likely to advance the interests of absent class members by supporting robust protections against automatically renewing fees. Further, Judge Chen points out the parties and their counsel have no relationship with the proposed cy pres recipient. The Defendant has no objection. Accordingly, the Court appoints CFC as cy pres, and distribution of the remaining balance of the Settlement Fund is to occur within 30 days of this Order. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/y38dakvt from PacerMonitor.com. UPMC: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Harrington Due April 4 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HARRINGTON v. UPMC, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00497 (W.D. Pa., Filed April 8, 2020), the Hon. Judge W. Scott Hardy entered a scheduling order as follows: -- The Plaintiff's motion for class April 4, 2025 certification shall be filed on or before: -- The Defendant's Brief in opposition June 23, 2025 to Plaintiff's motion for class certification is due on or before: -- The Plaintiff's Reply is due on or July 23, 2025 before: The nature of suit states Civil Rights. UPMC is an American integrated global nonprofit health enterprise that has 100,000 employees, 40 hospitals with more than 8,000 licensed beds, 800 clinical locations including outpatient sites and doctors' offices, a 3.8 million-member health insurance division, as well as commercial and international ventures.[CC] USAA FEDERAL: Class Counsel Awarded $64,202,833.59 in Fees ---------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Terrence W. Boyle of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees & Costs Award and Payment of Class Representatives Awards in the case captioned PHILIP BULLS, DEAN BRINK, CARMIN NOWLIN, NICHOLAS PADAO, and RAPHAEL RILEY, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. USAA FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK, and USAA SAVINGS BANK, Defendants, CASE NO. 5:21-CV-488-BO (E.D.N.C.). The Court emphasizes that in this case, the 27.5% attorneys' fees requested is significantly less than the one-third amount which has been consistently awarded by other courts in the Fourth Circuit . Class Counsel achieved extraordinary results for the class of over 200,000 military servicemembers, obtaining a gross Settlement Amount of over $64 million. Class Counsel faced a genuine risk of non-recovery in this action. Throughout the course of the litigation, USAA Bank questioned the existence and extent of Plaintiffs' damages. Were this Court or a jury to find that Plaintiffs and other servicemembers were not entitled to damages or were only entitled to minimal damages, there would have been little to no recovery in this case. Public policy considerations weigh strongly in favor of the award requested in this case, the Court finds. Judge Boyle says the Plaintiffs in this matter exemplified the role of the private attorney general, vindicating the rights of over 200,000 military servicemembers and veterans regarding one of the nation's largest banks' alleged failure to provide federally required benefits to the accounts held by these servicemembers. This Action benefitted not just the over 200,000 Class Members with loans or credit card accounts with USAA Bank, but other and future military personnel who will open or maintain accounts with USAA and other banks subject to the Servicemembers' Civil Relief Act and Military Lending Act and their own proprietary military benefit programs." The Court finds the request for attorneys' fees to be fair, adequate, and reasonable. The Court entered an order as follows: 1. Attorneys' fees amounting to twenty-seven and one-half percent (27.5%) of the $64,202,833.59 gross settlement amount shall be awarded to Class Counsel; and 2. Awards to the Class Representatives shall be awarded in the amounts requested by Plaintiffs, that is, awards of $20,000 to each class representative: Philip Bulls, Dean Brink, Carmin Nowlin, Nicholas Padao, and Raphael Riley. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZjXXKa from PacerMonitor.com. VMD SYSTEMS: Loses Bid to Change Venue of Rue, et al. Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Michael J. Roemer of the United States District Court for the Western District of New York denied VMD Systems Integrators, Inc.'s motion to change venue of the case captioned as CASEY RUE, et al., v. VMD SYSTEMS INTEGRATORS INC., Plaintiffs, Defendant, 1 :24-CV-00476 JLS (MJR) (W.D.N.Y.) to the Rochester Division of the Western District of New York. On May 16, 2024, plaintiffs Casey Rue and Lisa Boshnack commenced this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of themselves and more than 100 similarly situated individuals for untimely payment of wages, unlawful wage deductions, failure to provide compliant wage statements, and deficient pay notifications, all in violation of New York Labor Law. Plaintiffs and putative class members are former or current employees of VMD Systems Integrators, Inc. VMD is a security contractor, headquartered in Fairfax, Virginia, that provides privately employed security agents for various airports. Plaintiffs and the putative class members work or worked for VMD as airport security screeners at Fredrick Douglas Greater Rochester International Airport in Rochester New, York. Defendant contends that even if some of the operative facts emanated from Fairfax, Virginia, a transfer to Rochester is still appropriate because: (1) other facts relevant to the action took place in Rochester, and (2) no relevant facts occurred in Buffalo. Locus of Operative Facts Defendant emphasizes that plaintiffs and putative class members all worked exclusively in Rochester, were supervised in Rochester, were primarily trained in Rochester, and received payment in Rochester. It notes that the nature of the work performed in Rochester by the screeners will be relevant as to whether plaintiffs and other putative class members qualify as manual workers under the New York Labor Law. Certainly, some facts of this case have a connection to Rochester since plaintiffs and other potential class members performed their job duties there. However, the gravamen of plaintiffs' claims center on unlawful wage policies and practices, all of which seem to have been determined and implemented at VMD corporate headquarters in Fairfax, Virginia. Defendant correctly notes, and the Court acknowledges, that none of the operative facts of this case occurred in Buffalo. But the Court also notes that defendant is seeking a change of division as opposed to a transfer to another district. Because none of the operative facts in this case have a connection to Buffalo, while some of the relevant facts have a connection to Rochester, this factor weighs in favor of transfer. However, because the main locus of operative facts occurred in Fairfax, Virginia, and not in Rochester, New York, and because defendant seeks a divisional transfer and not a district transfer, this factor weighs only slightly in defendant's favor, the Court finds. Plaintiff's Choice of Forum According to the Court, in this case, plaintiffs' choice of forum is given less deference than it otherwise would because the lawsuit involves a putative class action with little to no connection to the Buffalo Division of the Western District of New York. However, plaintiff Rue resides in the Buffalo Division. Plaintiff Boshnack filed the action here and indicates that this Division is a convenient forum. Thus, some deference should still be paid to the plaintiffs' choice of forum, and this deference weighs against transferring the case to Rochester, the Court finds. Balancing of the Factors Judge Roemer concludes that the locus of operative facts weighs slightly in favor of a transfer. However, both the relative means of the parties and the plaintiffs' choice of forum weigh against a transfer. The remaining factors are neutral. On balance, the factors do not favor transfer and defendant has failed to make a clear-cut showing that transfer is in the best interests of the litigation. A copy of the Court's Decision and Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kUPWZP from PacerMonitor.com. WALDORF=ASTORIA: Court Narrows Claims in Bolos, et al. Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Chief Judge J. Michael Seabright of the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii granted in part and denied in part the defendants' partial motion to dismiss the case captioned as LAURIE BOLOS, an individual, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. WALDORF=ASTORIA MANAGEMENT LLC OPERATING AS GRAND WAILEA, a Waldorf Astoria Resort; ET AL., Defendants, CIV. NO. 23-00104 JMS-KJM (D. Haw.). Defendants Waldorf=Astoria Management LLC, GW Manager LLC, BRE Iconic GW Owner LLC, BRE Hotels & Resorts LLC, John Paul Oliver, Joseph Berger, and Bart Santiago move to dismiss 15 of the 16 Counts of the 83-page Corrected Second Amended Class and Collective Action Complaint in this action arising from allegedly wrongful classification of certain workers at the Grand Wailea, a resort on Maui. This action was originally filed on Feb. 23, 2023, and the Complaint was last amended on July 8, 2024, with the filing of the CSAC. As set forth in the CSAC, this action is a combined individual, class action, and collective action brought on behalf of 122 named Plaintiffs and other Putative Class Members who were massage therapists, nail technicians, estheticians, and hair stylists who worked at the Spa Grande located within the Grand Wailea-Waldorf Astoria Resort, 3850 Wailea Ananui Drive, Wailea, Hawaii, 96753. Plaintiffs allege that the misclassification as independent contractors (done through individual independent contractor agreements) was done willfully and fraudulently for the purpose of depriving Plaintiffs of various benefits and amounts of wages. The CSAC also alleges that, after the initial filing of the action, Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members were retaliated against in violation of Hawaii and federal law. The CSAC alleges the following Counts: Count I: "Willful Misclassification of Employees in Violation of [Hawaii Revised Statutes ("HRS")] Sec. 387-12" Count II: "Failure to Pay All Wages, Minimum Wage and Overtime in Violation of [HRS] Secs. 388-2, 388-3, 388-10 and 387-12" Count III: "Late Payment of Wages/Failure to Reimburse" Count IV: "Failure to Provide Accurate and Specific Commission Agreements in Violation of [HRS] Sec. 388-7" Count V: "Unlawful Withholding of Wages and Paycheck Deductions in Violation of [HRS] Sec. 388-6" Count VI: "Failure to Provide and Maintain Accurate Wages Statements in Violation of [HRS] Sec. 388-10" Count VII: "Failure to Provide Temporary Disability Insurance in Violation of [HRS] Secs. 392-41, 392-47, and 392-92" Count VIII: "Failure to Provide Employment Security Benefits in Violation of [HRS] Secs. 383-73 and 383-142" Count IX: "Failure to Provide Prepaid Group Health Insurance for Employees in Violation of [HRS] Secs. 393-11 and 393-33" Count X: "Failure to Provide Workers’ Compensation Benefits" Count XI: "Failure to Pay Overtime and Minimum Wage in Violation of Fair Labor Standards Act [("FLSA")], 29 U.S.C. 201 et seq." Count XII: "Violation of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) Act, 18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq." Count XIII: "Violation of [HRS] Sec. 842 (Hawaii RICO statute)" Count XIV: "Unjust Enrichment and Restitution Quantum Meruit" Count XV: "Retaliation in Violation of the FLSA (29 U.S.C. Sec. 215(a)(3)) and [HRS] Sec. 378-62" Count XVI: "Detrimental Reliance on a Promise" Counts XI (FLSA), XII (civil RICO), and XV (FLSA retaliation) are based on federal law. The other 13 Counts are Hawaii state-law claims based on alleged loss of particular benefits or rights set forth in various Hawaii employment statutes, or they are state-law claims that parallel the federal claims. Defendants Waldorf=Astoria Management LLC, GW Manager LLC, and BRE Iconic GWR Owner LLC move to dismiss all Counts except Count V. Thus, Count V remains as to those Defendants regardless of the rulings in this Order. The individual Defendants (Oliver, Berger, and Santiago) and Defendant BRE Hotels & Resorts LLC move to dismiss all Counts of the CSAC against them (where Berger is only named as to Counts XII and XIII). That is, Oliver, Santiago, and BRE Hotels & Resorts LLC also move to dismiss Count V. The Court entered an order as follows: (1) Counts I and II are merged, and Count II is dismissed with leave to amend, except for a claim under HRS Sec. 387-3, which dismissal is without leave to amend given relief available under the FLSA. That is, any amendment to Count II may be based on HRS Sec. 387-2. (2) Any amendment must clarify whether relief is also sought for unpaid wages under HRS Sec. 388-11(a), aside from minimum wage and overtime violations under HRS Secs. 387-2. If so, the Sec. 388-11(a) claim must not be made in Count II, but must be made in a separate count (and must also comply with the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standards) (3) Count III is dismissed without leave to amend, but Plaintiffs may seek relief for violations of HRS Sec. 388-6 in Count V. That is, all relief under Sec. 388-6 must be sought in a single Count. (4) Counts IV, VI, VII, VIII, IX, and X are dismissed without leave to amend; (5) Count V remains as to Defendants Waldorf=Astoria Management LLC, GW Manager LLC, BRE Iconic GW Owner LLC, and Oliver, although it is dismissed with leave to amend as to Santiago and BRE Hotels & Resorts LLC. Plaintiffs may also amend Count V to seek additional recovery currently alleged in Count III for alleged violations of HRS Sec. 388-6, so that all violations of Sec. 388-6 are alleged in a single Count. (6) Count XI is dismissed with leave to amend. (7) Counts XII and XIII are DISMISSED without leave to amend (therefore no claims remain against Berger, and he is dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction). (8) Count XIV is dismissed with leave to amend. (9) Count XV is dismissed with leave to amend, except as to Hawaii statutory whistleblower claims against the individual Defendants, which are DISMISSED without leave to amend; and (10) Count XVI remains A Third Amended Complaint that complies with the details set forth in this Order is due by Feb. 14, 2025. Additionally, Plaintiffs are ordered to show cause why Allan Federer should not otherwise be dismissed without prejudice from this action for failure to serve him Plaintiffs must respond as to Federer by Jan. 27, 2025. A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5KACrk from PacerMonitor.com. WALGREENS BOOTS: Securities Suit Over SEC Disclosures Consolidated ------------------------------------------------------------------ Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 10, 2025, that on July 12, 2024, a purported shareholder filed a putative class action lawsuit, that on July 12, 2024, a purported shareholder filed a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois captioned "Westchester Putnam Counties Heavy & Highway Laborers Local 60 Benefits Fund v. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc.," (Case No. 24-cv-08559) against the company and certain of its executives alleging that defendants violated securities laws by disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts relating to its U.S. Healthcare segment. This has been consolidated with another action filed on July 12, 2024. The complaints seek monetary damages for alleged losses caused by decreases in the company's share price following disclosure of the company's performance and business outlook. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. is a retail company based in Illinois. WALMART INC: Parties Seek to Continue Class Cert Bid Briefing ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDIE GOLIKOV, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WALMART INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-08211-RGK-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order: -- granting the ex parte application for continuances of the briefing on Plaintiff's motion for class certification and Defendant's motion to dismiss; -- extending the time for the Plaintiff to file his Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and for Walmart to file its Opposition to the Class Certification Motion to Feb. 21, 2025; -- setting replies on the Motions for Mar. 28, 2025; setting the hearing on the Motions on Apr. 14, 2025; and -- granting such further relief as the Court deems just and proper. The Parties agree that due to the present state of emergency in Los Angeles and Ventura counties, a continuance of the briefing and hearing dates on both the pending Motion for Class Certification and Motion to Dismiss are warranted, pending the Court's approval. Both Parties assert that there is good cause for these continuances given the state of emergency and the impact on counsel, that the Parties are not at fault for their respective needs for additional time, and that the requested relief would prevent the otherwise irreparable prejudice they would suffer absent the requested continuances. Walmart operates discount stores, supercenters, and neighborhood markets. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yJUoUk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard Lyon, Esq. Christin Cho, Esq. Stephen D. Andrews, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 E-mail: rick@dovel.com christin@dovel.com stephen@dovel.com The Defendant is represented by: Jacob M. Harper, Esq. Heather F. Canner, Esq. Joseph Elie-Meyers, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, 27th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 633-6800 Facsimile: (213) 633-6899 E-mail: jacobharper@dwt.com heathercanner@dwt.com josepheliemeyers@dwt.com WALSWORTH PUBLISHING: Faces Bowerman Class Suit in E.D. Mo. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Walsworth Publishing Company, Inc. captioned as ALARIE BOWERMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WALSWORTH PUBLISHING COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00104-NCC (E.D. Mo., Dec. 12, 2024). The case is assigned to Magistrate Judge Noelle C. Collins. Walsworth Publishing Company, Inc. offers printing, mailing and distribution services for catalogs, yearbooks, books, newsletters, brochures, and other print media. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James J. Rosemergy, Esq. CAREY DANIS 8235 Forsyth Boulevard Suite 1100 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 725-7700 Facsimile: (314) 721-0905 Email: jrosemergy@careydanis.com WEXFORD HEALTH: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Spurlock Due March 24 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAUREN SPURLOCK; HEATHER SMITH; and SHAWN ZMUDZINSKI, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, v. WEXFORD HEALTH SOURCES, INCORPORATED, Case No. 3:23-cv-00476 (S.D.W. Va.), the Hon. Judge Robert Chambers entered a sixth amended scheduling order as follows: -- Motions for the Plaintiffs to join other parties or to amend the pleadings shall be filed by Feb. 14, 2025. -- Motions for the Defendant to join other parties or to amend the pleadings shall be filed by Mar. 17, 2025. -- The parties shall complete all discovery depositions by Oct. 22, 2025, or 160 days after class certification. -- A motion seeking class certification shall be filed by March 24, 2025. -- Opposition to the motion for class certification shall be filed by April 23, 2025. -- Any reply to the motion for class certification shall be filed by May 22, 2025. -- The Court schedules, a hearing on the motion for class certification for June 9, 2025. The party bearing the burden of proof on an issue shall make the disclosures of information required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)(A) and (B) for that issue to all other parties or their counsel no later than July 21, 2025, or 60 days after class certification. All dispositive motions, except those filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b), together with depositions, admissions, documents, affidavits or other exhibits, and a memorandum in support of such motions shall be filed by Oct. 22, 2025. Any responses shall be filed by Nov. 21, 2025, with replies due by Dec. 22, 2025. Settlement Meeting and Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3) Disclosures: No later than January 9, 2026, counsel and any unrepresented parties shall meet to conduct settlement negotiations. Wexford is a correctional health care company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KCJa2q at no extra charge.[CC] WK KELLOGG: Faces Class Action Over False Advertising of Cereal --------------------------------------------------------------- Abraham Jewett of Top Class Actions reports that Victoria Reyes filed a class action lawsuit against WK Kellogg Co. Why: Reyes claims Kellogg's falsely advertises that certain of its cereal products contain strawberries. Where: The Kellogg's class action lawsuit was filed in a California federal court. A new class action lawsuit alleges Kellogg's falsely advertised some of its cereal products as containing strawberries. Plaintiff Victoria Reyes' class action lawsuit claims Kellogg's uses deceptive packaging for its cereal products, including Kellogg's Corn Flakes, Rice Krispies and Frosted Flakes, to falsely imply they contain strawberries. Reyes argues the cereal boxes prominently display images of strawberries, leading consumers to incorrectly believe the products contain the fruit. "This is not only disappointing but constitutes a clear case of false advertising, as the images prominently display strawberries, leading consumers to believe that they are purchasing a product with strawberries," the Kellogg's Corn Flakes class action says. Reyes wants to represent a class of consumers who purchased Kellogg's Frosted Flakes, Rice Krispies and/or Corn Flakes brand cereals in California between Jan. 8, 2021, and the date of the final disposition of the action. Kellogg's packaging violates consumer trust, rights, class action claims Reyes claims Kellogg's misleading packaging has caused confusion and dissatisfaction among consumers and violates consumer trust and rights. "Consumers rely on honest and accurate product descriptions to make informed purchasing decisions," the Kellogg's Corn Flakes class action says. Reyes claims Kellogg's is violating California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The plaintiff demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of statutory or compensatory damages for herself and all class members. A consumer filed a similar class action lawsuit against organic and healthy snack retailer Kashi in May 2021 over claims the company was misrepresenting the amount of strawberry in its Ripe Strawberry Soft Baked Breakfast Bars. An Illinois federal judge trimmed the complaint in September 2022 but gave the okay for certain claims to proceed. What do you think of the allegations in this Kellogg class action? Let us know in the comments. The plaintiff is represented by Allen R. Ball and Brett Yorke of the Law Office of Ball & Yorke and James C. Kelly of The Russo Firm. The Kellogg's class action lawsuit is Reyes, et al. v. WK Kellogg Co., Case No. 3:25-cv-00075, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. [GN] WRII CORP: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Bunting Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- RASHETA BUNTING, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. WRII CORP. d/b/a The Well, Case No. 1:25-cv-00191-EK-MMH (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 13, 2025) sues the Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant is denying the blind and visually-impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services WCII provides to their non-disabled customers through http//:www.the-well.com, the suit contends. The Plaintiff has made numerous attempts to complete a purchase on The-well.com, most recently on Dec. 4, 2024, Dec. 6, 2024 and Dec. 17, 2023 but was unable to do so independently because of the many access barriers on Defendant's website. Amongst other access barriers experienced, the Plaintiff was unable to sign up for the Essential Membership and unable to book The Integration Massage and the Signature Facial for herself for Dec. 30, 2024, the suit claims. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in WCII's policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Ms. Bunting is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. WCII offers wellness experiences that include relaxation areas, saunas, facials, steam rooms, and massages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Shaked, Esq. SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C. 14 Harwood Court, Suite 415 Scarsdale, NY 10583 Telephone: (917) 373-9128 E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@Gmail.com ZUORA INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Silver Lake ------------------------------------------------------------ Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: -- Zuora Inc. (NYSE: ZUO), relating to its proposed merger with Silver Lake Group, L.C.C. Under the terms of the agreement, all ZUO shares will be automatically converted into the right to receive $10.00 in cash per share. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for February 13, 2025. Click link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/zuora-inc/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Berry Global Group, Inc. (NYSE: BERY), relating to the proposed merger with AMCOR plc. Under the terms of the agreement, Berry shareholders will receive a fixed exchange ratio of 7.25 Amcor shares for each Berry share held upon closing, resulting in Amcor and Berry shareholders owning approximately 63% and 37% of the combined company, respectively. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for February 25, 2025. Click link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/berry-global-group-inc-bery/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- AMCOR plc (NYSE: AMCR), relating to the proposed merger with Berry Global Group, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, Berry shareholders will receive a fixed exchange ratio of 7.25 Amcor shares for each Berry share held upon closing, resulting in Amcor and Berry shareholders owning approximately 63% and 37% of the combined company, respectively. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for February 25, 2025. Click link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/amcor-plc-amcr/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Atlantic Union Bankshares Corp. (NYSE: AUB), relating to a proposed merger with Sandy Spring Bancorp, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, all Sandy Spring shares will automatically be converted into the right to receive 0.900 shares of AUB, and cash in lieu of fractional shares. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for February 5, 2025. Click link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/atlantic-union-bankshares-corp/. 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 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] [*] B.C. Supreme Court Certifies Opioid Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Brenna Owen of The Canadian Press reports that British Columbia's attorney general says the B.C. Supreme Court has certified the province's class-action lawsuit against opioid manufacturers and distributors. Niki Sharma says B.C. can now proceed as a representative plaintiff on behalf of other Canadian governments with the litigation aimed at recovering the costs of treating opioid-related diseases allegedly caused by the industry's conduct. She said in a statement the top court decision reaffirms B.C.'s commitment to holding pharmaceutical companies accountable for their role in the opioid crisis, which was declared a public health emergency in the province in April 2016. The court had already affirmed the constitutionality of a law allowing B.C. to pursue a class-action lawsuit on behalf of other Canadian governments last November. That's after several opioid companies argued in B.C. Supreme Court that the province was overstepping its authority under the constitution. But a majority of the top court found that B.C.'s law respects the legislative authority of other Canadian governments, which can choose to opt out of the proceeding, and the decision noted that nearly every province and territory as well as the federal government intended to take part in the class-action. Sharma says the class-action's certification marks a "significant milestone" in the proceedings that date back to 2018 when the province first launched the lawsuit. "Our goal was clear: to recover the health-care costs of treating opioid-related harms and to hold manufacturers and distributors accountable for their role in allegedly using deceptive marketing practices to drive sales, contributing to addiction and overdose rates in the country," she said. In an interview with CBC News, Sharma said the pharmaceutical companies being sued were trying "every possible avenue" to impede the lawsuit, and Wednesday's court decision shows they were not working. "I think my role as attorney general is to represent the public and to go after companies that are doing harm to our citizens and meet them in court," she said. The most recent data from the B.C. Coroners Service released in December says in the first 10 months of last year, there were 1,925 overdose deaths, marking a nine per cent decrease from the same time period in 2023. Canadian government statistics say there were more than 49,000 opioid toxicity deaths reported between January 2016 and June 2024 across the country. Federal Mental Health and Addictions Minister Ya'ara Saks expressed support for the lawsuit in a social media post on Wednesday. "Canada remains intent on becoming a class member in this suit," she said. "Our work to end the predatory practices of the pharmaceutical industry continues." [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 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 ***