/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250205.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, February 5, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 26 Headlines ACREAGE HOLDINGS: Face Class Action Lawsuits Over "THC Overdose" AEHR TEST SYSTEMS: Faces LAF Securities Suit Over SEC Disclosures AIR TRANSPORT: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Stonepeak Nile ALL FUNDS: Scheduling Conference Order Entered ALPHA I MARKETING: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Zhang Says AMAZON INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Geolocation Data Sharing AMERICAN AXLE: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Dowlais Group AMERICAN HONDA: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Morales Due May 8 APPLIED DIGITAL: Court Dismisses Shareholder Suit w/o Prejudice ARCONIC CORP: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit in S.D.N.Y. ATLANTIC PIZZA: Garcia Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA AURORA, CO: Faces Elias Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime B. RILEY FINANCIAL: Faces Coan Shareholder Suit Over Stock Offering B. RILEY FINANCIAL: Faces Gale Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties B. RILEY FINANCIAL: Faces KL Kamholz Shareholder Suit BEBIRD (USA): Fagnani Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind BISCO INDUSTRIES: To Settle Labor Suit Lodged in CA Court CAMPBELL SOUP: Appeals Arbitration Order in Powell Suit to 1st Cir. CAPITAL ONE: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over "Service Disruption" CARDLYTICS INC: Faces Froess Suit Over 57.1% Stock Price Drop CARPENTERS OF WESTERN: Must File Responsive Pleading by Feb. 14 CELSIUS HOLDINGS: Faces Dubreu Suit Over Beverage Inflated Price COMMUNITY ALLIANCE: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Weiher Alleges CULTURAL BROKERAGE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Davis Says DCI DONOR: Parties Must Submit New Stipulation E & S INTERNATIONAL: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website EXAMONE WORLD: Court Certifies Classes in Brauer Lawsuit EXCELSIOR ORTHOPAEDICS: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Suit Says EXP WORLD HOLDINGS: Settles Georgia Class Action for $34MM FEDERAL BUREAU: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Reply by March 17 GARDEN OF LIFE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Flick Says GENE BY GENE: Discloses Genetic Testing Info to Google, Odea Says HAIN CELESTIAL: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Frost Suit Says HATS IN THE BELFRY: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Davis Says HISENSE GROUP: Faces QLED TV Fraud Lawsuit Investigation HOME DEPOT: Carbajal Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit HP INC: Fernandez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind INTEGRAL AD: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit JBS LIVE: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under IMWL, Force Suit Alleges JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Wright Class Suit Over Plan Assets' Misuse KAISER FOUNDATION: Fried Balks at Unsolicited Text Messages KING COUNTY, WA: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Tucker Due Sept. 30 LANDS' END: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Plata Suit to 9th Cir LAZ PARKING: Illegally Uses Drivers' Info, Crostarosa Alleges LEE ENTERPRISES: Faces Genenbacher Suit Over Telemarketing Calls LOVISA HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Labor Practices LUXCLUB INC: Parties Must File Dispositional Docs by Feb. 28 MCMURRY UNIVERSITY: Fails to Secure Students' Info, Fleming Says MEDUSIND INC: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Owens Says METROPOLITAN LIFE: Gaudet Sues Over Insurance Premium Increase MICROSOFT CORP: Faces Coleman Suit Over Shopping Browser Extension MOBILE MEDIC: Bid to Certify Class in Oliver Tossed w/o Prejudice MOTT OPTICAL: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Solis Says NEWREZ LLC: Hodges Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices NIKOLA CORPORATION: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Borteanu Suit NUDIE JEANS: Faces Zhang Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website NYC DENTAL: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Solis Says OLUKAI LLC: Henry Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ORAL CARE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Fagnani Suit Says POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Okoni Says POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Okoni Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Faces Zarif Suit Over Failure to Protect Info POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, J.B. Says POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Gramelspacher Sues Over Unprotected Info PURITAN'S PRIDE: Ludolph-Aliaga Appeals Judgment to 9th Circuit REDDIT INC: Levelfields Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Cir. RRCA ACCOUNTS: Fails to Protect Customers' Data, Higley Claims SAM'S WEST: Sanchez Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial to 9th Circuit SAZERAC COMPANY: Appeals Class Certification Order in Andrews Suit SENIOR LIFESTYLE: Washington Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Faces ERISA Class Action in N.D. Tex. SQUARE PAYROLL: Lopez Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Calif. STANTEC CONSULTING: Eshenour Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA STIIIZY INC: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Wenzel Suit Alleges SUPREME GOLF: Faces Prague Suit Over Non-Delineated Booking Fees TILE INC: Appeals Arbitration Bid Ruling in Gordy Suit to 9th Cir. UDISENSE INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Jackson Says WALGREEN CO: Faces Class Action Over Opioid Prescriptions ********* ACREAGE HOLDINGS: Face Class Action Lawsuits Over "THC Overdose" ---------------------------------------------------------------- Rachelle Gordon, writing for GreenState, reports that as the cannabis market evolves, it will eventually find itself facing the same challenges as other consumer-packaged goods. This includes market fluctuations, supply chain hiccups, and even lawsuits. Weed companies have already seen legal problems brought by consumers, including a recent case brought on by an alleged "THC overdose." Now, several cannabis brands in Illinois are being hit with class action lawsuits centering around potency. Litigant Chad Alsip filed two potential class action lawsuits. One is against Acreage Holdings, and the other is against Wellness Group Pharms LLC (better known as Aeriz). Alsip argues the companies are violating Illinois law by marketing and selling vapes that exceed potency limits. Under the state's adult-use cannabis law, cannabis-infused products (CIPs) cannot exceed 100mg of THC. However, cannabis concentrates, like rosin and shatter, are not subject to these rules. In the lawsuit, Alsip claims that vapes are actually CIPs because of how they're consumed—allegedly making them illegal. "Defendants' improper conduct is misleading in a material way in that it induced Plaintiffs and the Class Members to purchase Defendants' Vapable Oils when they otherwise would not have," the lawsuits state. "This deception continues to this day, affecting and harming consumers throughout Illinois daily." Similar class action lawsuits were recently filed against the Cannabist Company, Verano, Cresco Labs, and Progressive Treatment Solutions. In addition to vapes, those lawsuits also targeted Rick Simpson Oil, an extremely potent form of hash oil typically used by cancer patients. Representatives for Cresco declined to comment on the litigation. Requests for comment to the other defendants were unanswered at the time of publication. The litigants seek an undisclosed sum, alleging fraud, statutory violations, and other complaints. It's unclear if the lawsuits will proceed to trial–or if any actual harm was done. However, if a judge sides with the defendants, it could impact the way products like vape carts are packaged, labeled, and sold in Illinois and beyond. [GN] AEHR TEST SYSTEMS: Faces LAF Securities Suit Over SEC Disclosures ----------------------------------------------------------------- Aehr Test Systems disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended November 29, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 13, 2025, that on December 3, 2024, a shareholder class action lawsuit captioned "Lucid Alternative Fund, LP v. Aehr Test Systems, Inc." was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the company. The lawsuit alleges, in part, that the company and certain of its executives made materially false and misleading statements regarding its earnings guidance and other financial projections for 2024. The lawsuit seeks unspecified monetary damages and purports to represent purchasers of its securities between January 9, 2024 and March 24, 2024. Aehr Test Systems develops and manufactures test and burn-in equipment used in the semiconductor industry. AIR TRANSPORT: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Stonepeak Nile ------------------------------------------------------------- Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: -- Air Transport Services Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: ATSG), relating to a proposed merger with Stonepeak Nile Parent LLC. Under the terms of the agreement, Air Transport Services Group shareholders will receive $22.50 per share of Air Transport Services Group Common Stock they own. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for February 10, 2025. Click link for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/air-transport-services-group-inc-atsg/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Innovid Corp. (NYSE: CTV), relating to the proposed merger with Mediaocean LLC. Under the terms of the agreement, Mediaocean will acquire Innovid at a price of $3.15 per share of common stock. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for February 11, 2025. Click link for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/innovid-corp-ctv/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Discover Financial Services (NYSE: DFS), relating to its proposed merger with Capital One Financial Corp. Under the terms of the agreement, DFS shareholders are expected to receive 1.0192 shares of Capital One per share they own. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for February 18, 2025. Click link for more information: https://www.monteverdelaw.com/case/discover-financial-services. 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. 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] ALL FUNDS: Scheduling Conference Order Entered ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. ALL FUNDS HELD IN ESCROW BY CLYDE AND CO. IN THE UNITED KINGDOM AS DAMAGES OR RESTITUTION IN PETROSAUDI V. PDVSA UNCITRAL ARBITRATION Case No. 2:20-cv-08466-DSF-BFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dale Fischer entered an order setting scheduling conference: -- Joint Rule 26(f) Report The Joint Rule 26(f) Report, which must be filed not later than seven days before the scheduling conference, must be drafted and filed by plaintiff (unless the plaintiff is a non- lawyer pro per or the parties agree otherwise), but must be signed jointly. -- Scheduling Conference The scheduling conferences will be held in the First Street Courthouse, courtroom 7D, 350 West 1st St., Los Angeles, California. -- Notice to be Provided by Counsel The Plaintiff's counsel or, if plaintiff is appearing pro se, the Defendant's counsel, must provide this Order to any parties who first appear after the date of this Order and to parties who are known to exist but have not yet entered appearances. -- Disclosures to Clients Counsel are ordered to deliver to their respective clients a copy of this Order and of the Court's trial order, which will contain the schedule that the Court sets at the scheduling conference. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XZo17k at no extra charge.[CC] ALPHA I MARKETING: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Zhang Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW ZHANG, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Alpha I Marketing Corp., Case No. 1:25-cv-00500 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 17, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed 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, in violation of 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 Alpha I Marketing provides to their non-disabled customers through https://www.ctownsupermarkets.com, the suit contends. On Oct. 30, 2024, the Plaintiff wanted to purchase some groceries, along with dog food and treats. While searching online for neighborhood grocery stores, the Plaintiff discovered the Defendant's website. However, upon attempting to use the website, the Plaintiff encountered significant accessibility barriers, including pop-ups, ambiguous links and buttons. When trying to add products to the cart, he was not notified that the items had been successfully added, leaving him unsure whether he had completed the action correctly. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Alpha I Marketing's policies, practices, and procedures so 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. Alpha I Marketing offers a range of grocery products, including fresh produce, dairy items, bakery goods, and pet supplies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. HOROWITZ LAW PLLC 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com AMAZON INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Geolocation Data Sharing ----------------------------------------------------------------- PYMNTS reports that Amazon reportedly faces a proposed class action lawsuit that alleges the company tracked consumers' movements through their cellphones and sold the data it collected. The complaint alleges that an Amazon Ads SDK embedded in apps by tens of thousands of app developers enabled Amazon to collect timestamped geolocation data about where consumers live, work, shop and visit, Reuters reported Wednesday, January 29. "Amazon has effectively fingerprinted consumers and has correlated a vast amount of personal information about them entirely without consumers' knowledge and consent," the complaint said, per the report. Amazon did not immediately reply to PYMNTS' request for comment. In another, separate case, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) said Jan. 16 that General Motors agreed to a proposed order to resolve the regulator's allegations that the automaker collected, used and sold data from connected cars without drivers' knowledge or consent. The data included drivers' precise geolocation data, which disclosed things like visits to medical facilities and their driving behavior. In another case, it was reported Jan. 8 that a federal judge in California denied a motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit alleging that Google violated the privacy of both Android and non-Android mobile phone services users by continuing to collect location data from users even after they turned the location tracking setting off in their privacy settings. A judge ruled that Google didn't sufficiently disclose how its Web & App Activity setting worked and rejected Google's argument that users consented to the tracking. Google said at the time in a statement: "Privacy controls have long been built into our service and the allegations here are a deliberate attempt to mischaracterize the way our products work. We will continue to make our case in court against these patently false claims." In two other cases, the FTC said in December that it took action against data brokers, alleging that the companies sold sensitive location data. In one action, the agency announced a proposed order that would prohibit Gravy Analytics and its subsidiary Venntel from selling, disclosing or using sensitive location data in any product or service. In another action, the FTC said a proposed settlement order would prohibit Mobilewalla from selling sensitive location data and from collecting consumer data from online advertising auctions for purposes other than participating in those auctions. [GN] AMERICAN AXLE: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Dowlais Group ------------------------------------------------------------------ Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating American Axle & Manufacturing Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: AXL), relating to the proposed merger with Dowlais Group plc. Under the terms of the agreement, Dowlais shareholders will be entitled to receive, per share of Dowlais' common stock, 0.0863 shares of new AAM common stock, 42 pence per share in cash and up to a 2.8 pence of Dowlais FY24 final dividend prior to closing. Click link for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/american-axle-manufacturing-holdings-inc-axl/. 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 the above listed company and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] AMERICAN HONDA: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Morales Due May 8 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE ELIAS MORALES AGUIRRE, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated, v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-06909-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Haywood Gilliam, Jr. entered a scheduling order as follows: Activity Date Non-Expert Discovery Cut Off (including April 22, 2025 hearing of discovery motions): Deadline for motion for Class Certification, May 8, 2025 and for disclosures and reports of any experts Plaintiff intends to rely on at class certification: Deadline for any opposition to a motion Aug. 15, 2025 for class certification; for Defendant's disclosures and reports of any experts Defendant intends to rely on at class certification; and for any motion by AHM to limit or exclude Plaintiff's class certification expert testimony based on Daubert or any other basis: Deadline for Plaintiff's reply in support Nov. 25, 2025 of a motion for class certification; deadline for Plaintiff to challenge AHM's class certification expert testimony based on Daubert or any other basis: Hearing on motion for class certification: Dec. 18, 2025 at 2 p.m. American Honda is the North American subsidiary of Japanese Honda Motor Company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=g1Vu2C at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ari Y. Basser, Esq. Jordan L. Lurie, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 1100 Glendon Avenue 15th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 432-8492 E-mail: jllurie@pomlaw.com abasser@pomlaw.com - and - Robert L. Starr, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT L. STARR 23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 2072 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 225-9040 Facsimile: (818) 225-9042 E-mail: robert@starrlaw.com - and - Manny Starr, Esq. Adam Rose, Esq. FRONTIER LAW CENTER 23901 Calabasas Road, #2074 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 914-3433 E-mail: manny@frontierlawcenter.com adam@frontierlawcenter.com The Defendant is represented by: Amir Nassihi, Esq. Michael L. Mallow, Esq. Frank P. Kelly III, Esq. SHOOK, HARDY, & BACON L.L.P. 555 Mission Street, Suite 2300 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 544-1900 Facsimile: (415) 391-0281 E-mail: anassihi@shb.com mmallow@shb.com fkelly@shb.com APPLIED DIGITAL: Court Dismisses Shareholder Suit w/o Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------------- Applied Digital Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 16, 2025, that on June 5, 2024, the court entered an order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss a February 27, 2024 amended complaint without prejudice. The order dismissed all claims against all defendants, including the company. On June 5, 2024, the court entered an order granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice and dismissing all claims against all defendants, including the company. On September 20, 2024, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On November 20, 2024, Lead Plaintiff filed his opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. In August 2023, the company and several of its executives were named as defendants in a class action lawsuit that was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas captioned "McConnell v. Applied Digital Corporation et al.," Case No. 3:23-cv-1805. Lead plaintiff and lead counsel have been named in the case and have until July 22, 2024 to file an amended complaint. In November 2023, a putative securities complaint (No. A-23-881629-C), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada against certain members of the Board and two of its executive officers, asserting breaches of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment from April 2022 through the present. The complaint also alleged that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's business, operations, and compliance policies. Specifically, the complaint alleged that the company overstated the profitability of the Datacenter Hosting Business and its ability to successfully transition into a low-cost cloud services provider and that the Board was not "independent" within the meaning of Nasdaq listing rules. Applied Digital Corporation is a developer and operator of digital infrastructures based in Texas. ARCONIC CORP: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit in S.D.N.Y. --------------------------------------------------------------- Prominent investor rights law firm Wolf Popper LLP announces that it has filed a securities class action lawsuit on behalf of sellers of Arconic Corporation (NYSE: ARNC) common stock between April 19, 2022 and May 3, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Captioned Charter Township of Shelby Police & Fire Pension & Retirement System v. Arconic Corporation et al., No. 25-cv-00863 (S.D.N.Y.), the Arconic class action lawsuit charges Arconic and certain of its executive officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. A copy of the complaint is available on Wolf Popper's website by clicking here. If you sold Arconic common stock during the Class Period and wish to serve as lead plaintiff of the Arconic class action lawsuit, or have any questions concerning the Arconic class action lawsuit, please contact attorney Adam Savett of Wolf Popper by calling (212) 451-9655, or via e-mail at asavett@wolfpopper.com. Lead plaintiff motions for the Arconic class action lawsuit must be filed with the Court no later than March 31, 2025. CASE ALLEGATIONS: Arconic is a provider of aluminum sheets, plates, and extrusions, as well as architectural products to the ground transportation, aerospace, building and construction, industrial and packaging end markets The Arconic class action lawsuit alleges that Arconic and certain of its senior officers and directors failed to disclose offers to purchase all of the outstanding shares of Arconic common stock at a material premium far above the Company's then-current stock price, while at the same time repurchasing millions of shares of Arconic common stock through stock buyback programs at prices below the offer price. These failures to disclose material non-public information artificially deflated the price of Arconic common stock. Arconic had an obligation to either disclose that it had received a formal acquisition offer from Apollo Global Management, Inc. ("Apollo") or abstain from trading in its own securities. On April 19, 2022, Arconic received an unsolicited non-public offer from Apollo to purchase all of the outstanding shares of Arconic at a price between $34 and $36 per share. On April 29, 2022, Arconic rejected Apollo's offer. However, Apollo continued to demonstrate interest in an acquisition of Arconic. Apollo partnered with Irenic Capital Management LP ("Irenic") concerning the potential acquisition of Arconic starting in May 2022. From May 5, 2022 through June 23, 2022, Apollo, Irenic, and Arconic had discussions concerning a potential acquisition of Arconic. Apollo and Irenic informed Arconic of their interest in exploring a negotiated transaction for Arconic and intent to submit a revised offer to acquire Arconic. Between June 23, 2022 and November 28, 2022, Arconic, Apollo and Irenic kept in contact, but these contacts did not result in the submission of any new proposals for an acquisition of Arconic. During the period June 1, 2022 through August 31, 2022, Arconic repurchased 4,357,690 shares of its common stock on public markets for a total cost of $122,943,904 and at an average price of $28.21 per share, significantly below Apollo's offer of $34 to $36 per share. On November 28, 2022, Apollo informed Arconic that it was considering submitting a new proposal for an acquisition of Arconic at a meaningful premium to Arconic's stock price, which closed at $21.65 per share on November 28, 2022. On December 12, 2022, Apollo submitted a revised proposal for to acquire Arconic in an all-cash transaction at a price of $30.00 per share, a meaningful premium to the price of Arconic's common stock, which closed on December 12, 2022 at $22.57 per share. Arconic thereafter negotiated and engaged with Apollo. Arconic also reached out to three additional parties concerning their interest in a potential acquisition of Arconic. However, Arconic continued to engage in share repurchases at prices materially below Apollo's $30 per share offer. From November 2022 to January 2023, Arconic repurchased an additional 2,107,450 shares of Arconic common stock on the public markets for a total cost of $47,032,891, and at an average price of $22.32 per share. On February 28, 2023, at approximately 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time, The Wall Street Journal reported that Apollo had submitted a bid at an unspecific price to acquire Arconic and that Arconic's advisors had reached out to other potential acquirors. In response, the price of Arconic common stock increased $4.68 per share, or 21.5%, from its price immediately before the WSJ report of $21.76 per share to a closing price on February 28, 2023 of $26.44 per share. On May 4, 2023, during pre-market hours, Arconic announced that it had entered into an agreement to be acquired by Apollo in an all-cash transaction at $30.00 per share. In response, the price of Arconic common stock increased $6.38 per share, or 28.3 %, from a closing price on May 3, 2023 of $22.55 per share to a closing price on May 4, 2023 of $28.93 per share. The merger eventually closed on August 18, 2023, with Apollo acquiring Arconic for $30 per share. THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who sold Arconic common stock during the Class Period to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in the Arconic class action lawsuit. A lead plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the Arconic class action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its choice to litigate the Arconic class action lawsuit. An investor's ability to share in any potential future recovery of the Arconic class action lawsuit is not dependent upon serving as lead plaintiff. ABOUT WOLF POPPER: Wolf Popper has successfully recovered billions of dollars for defrauded investors. Wolf Popper's reputation and expertise have been repeatedly recognized by the courts, which have appointed the firm to major positions in securities litigation. For more information about Wolf Popper, please visit the Firm's website at www.wolfpopper.com. May be considered attorney advertising in certain jurisdictions. Prior Results Do Not Guarantee A Similar Outcome. Contact: Adam T. Savett, Esq. Wolf Popper LLP 845 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Tel.: (212) 451-9655 Tel.: (877) 370-7703 Email: asavett@wolfpopper.com [GN] ATLANTIC PIZZA: Garcia Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ JOSE GARCIA and JUAN MORALES on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. GIUSEPPE MAGNOTTA, VINCENT SORRENTINO, ATLANTIC PIZZA INC., ABC CORP. d/b/a ANGELINA'S PIZZA & RESTAURANT, Case No. 2:25-cv-00390 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 22, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid wages for overtime work performed, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiffs also seek to recover unpaid spread of hours wages for each day Plaintiffs worked ten or more hours, liquidated damages for failure to pay overtime premium and spread of hours pay, liquidated damages for failure to furnish Plaintiff a notice and acknowledgment at the time of hiring, attorneys' fees, interest, and all costs and disbursements associated with this action under FLSA and NYLL. During the work-week of Oct. 18, 2021 to Oct, 24, 2021, Mr. Garcia worked 50 hours, but was only paid $375.00 in cash from the Defendants, he also received tips in cash – which tips cannot be credited against his pay. During that work-week, Mr. Garcia was not paid minimum wage, an overtime premium or spread of hour pay, the suit alleges. In addition, during the work-week of Oct. 18, 2021 to October 24, 2021, Mr. Morales worked 79 hours, but was only paid $520 by check and $300.00 in cash from the Defendants. During that work-week, Mr. Morales was not paid minimum wage, an overtime premium or spread of hour pay. Mr. Garcia was employed by the Defendants as a busboy from October 2017 to October 2022. Mr. Morales was employed by the Defendants as a pizza maker and food preparer from Summer 2017 to October 2023. Atlantic Pizza is a local pizzeria, offering a variety of pizza options and other Italian dishes.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Marcus Monteiro, Esq. MONTEIRO & FISHMAN LLP 91 N. Franklin Street, Suite 108 Hempstead, NY 11550 Telephone: (516) 280-4600 Facsimile: (516) 280-4530 E-mail: mmonteiro@mflawny.com AURORA, CO: Faces Elias Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime --------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH ELIAS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CITY OF AURORA, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00212-PAB (D. Colo., January 21, 2025) is an action to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Since at least January 2022, and continuing through the present, Plaintiff Elias and all other similarly situated current and former employees of the City have not been paid any overtime compensation for hours worked over 40 in a seven-day workweek while training at the Aurora Fire Academy, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiffs seek relief in the form of compensation at one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for all hours worked at the Fire Academy in excess of 40 in each seven-day workweek that fall within the applicable statute of limitations period, liquidated damages under the FLSA, interest, injunctive and declaratory relief, and all reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred in bringing this action. Plaintiff Elias was employed as a firefighter recruit and attended the Fire Academy during the period of July 17, 2023, through August 30, 2023. City of Aurora is a city and public employer located in Colorado, in this judicial district. The City operates Fire Academy, a full-time training program that takes approximately 25 weeks to complete.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matt Pierce, Esq. Alex Behn, Esq. Margaret Angelucci, Esq. ASHER, GITTLER & D'ALBA, LTD. 200 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 720 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 263-1500 Facsimile: (312) 263-1520 E-mail: mjp@ulaw.com ajb@ulaw.com maa@ulaw.com B. RILEY FINANCIAL: Faces Coan Shareholder Suit Over Stock Offering ------------------------------------------------------------------- B. Riley Financial, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 16, 2025, that on January 24, 2024, a putative securities class action complaint was filed by Mike Coan in U.S. Federal District Court, Central District of California, against the company, its Chairman Bryant Riley, Tom Kelleher and Phillip Ahn. The purported class includes persons and entities that purchased shares of the company's common stock between May 10, 2023 and November 9, 2023. The complaint alleges that the company failed to disclose to investors that Freedom VCM Holdings, LLC CEO, Mr. Bryan Kahn, had been implicated in a conspiracy to defraud third party investors, and the company financed Mr. Kahn and others in connection with a going private transaction involving The Francise Group Inc., and as a result, the company engaged in securities fraud in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The company has an equity investment in Freedom VCM. B. Riley Financial, Inc. and its subsidiaries provide investment banking, brokerage, wealth management, asset management, direct lending, business advisory, valuation and asset disposition services to public and private companies, financial sponsors, investors, financial institutions, legal and professional services firms, and individuals. B. RILEY FINANCIAL: Faces Gale Suit Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties ------------------------------------------------------------------- B. Riley Financial, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 16, 2025, that On July 9, 2024, a putative class action was filed by Brian Gale, Mark Noble, Terry Philippas and Lawrence Bass in the Delaware Chancery Court against Freedom VCM, Mr. Kahn, Andrew Laurence, Matthew Avril and the Company. This complaint alleges that former shareholders of The Francise Group Inc. (FRG) suffered damages due to alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by officers, directors and other participants in the August 2023 management-led take private transaction of FRG and that the company aided and abetted those alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The claim seeks an award of unspecified damages, rescissory damages and/or quasi-appraisal damages, disgorgement of profits, attorneys' fees and expenses, and interest thereon. B. Riley Financial, Inc. and its subsidiaries provide investment banking, brokerage, wealth management, asset management, direct lending, business advisory, valuation and asset disposition services to public and private companies, financial sponsors, investors, financial institutions, legal and professional services firms, and individuals. B. RILEY FINANCIAL: Faces KL Kamholz Shareholder Suit ----------------------------------------------------- B. Riley Financial, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 16, 2025, that a putative class action lawsuit was filed on March 15, 2024 by the KL Kamholz Joint Revocable Trust. Suit alleges that the company failed to disclose to investors that Freedom VCM Holdings, LLC CEO, Mr. Bryan Kahn, had been implicated in a conspiracy to defraud third party investors, and the company financed Mr. Kahn and others in connection with a going private transaction involving The Francise Group Inc. (FRG), and as a result, the company engaged in securities fraud in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The company has an equity investment in Freedom VCM. Complaint covers an alleged class period between February 28, 2022 and November 9, 2023. The Kamholz complaint further alleges that defendants knew or should have known that Mr. Kahn was engaged in illegal activities, including a conspiracy to commit fraud, and nonetheless proceeded with the FRG going-private transaction. On August 8, 2024, the Court entered an order consolidating said action. B. Riley Financial, Inc. and its subsidiaries provide investment banking, brokerage, wealth management, asset management, direct lending, business advisory, valuation and asset disposition services to public and private companies, financial sponsors, investors, financial institutions, legal and professional services firms, and individuals. BEBIRD (USA): Fagnani Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- MYKAYLA FAGNANI, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff V. BEBIRD (USA) INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00625 (S.D.N.Y., January 21, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://bebird.com/, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on January 12, 2025, in an attempt to purchase Bebird EarSight Pro from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied her a shopping 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. She was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's Website, which prevented her from doing so, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Bebird (USA) Inc. operates the Bebird online interactive website and retail store across the United States that offers an array of goods and services including information about Defendant's ear-cleaning home-health products.[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 BISCO INDUSTRIES: To Settle Labor Suit Lodged in CA Court --------------------------------------------------------- Eaco Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended November 30, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 13, 2025, that the parties in a labor suit agreed in principle to settle this matter for approximately $7.5 million. The settlement agreement is subject to court approval. In January 2023, a class action lawsuit was filed with the Los Angeles County Superior Court against its wholly-owned subsidiary Bisco Industries, alleging wage and hour violations and related claims. The class action covers a class of former and current employees of Bisco who were employed between January 13, 2019 and the present time. In March 2023, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint that added claims under the California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA). Both parties requested to stay the litigation pending mediation, which mediation commenced in April 2024. As a result of the mediation, EACO Corporation is a holding company, primarily comprised of its wholly-owned subsidiary, Bisco Industries, Inc. Bisco supplies parts used in the manufacture of products in a broad range of industries, including the aerospace, circuit board, communication, computer, fabrication, instrumentation, industrial equipment and marine industries. CAMPBELL SOUP: Appeals Arbitration Order in Powell Suit to 1st Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Gary Powell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Campbell Soup Company, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-12306-WGY, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendants for unpaid overtime wages in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the Massachusetts Minimum Fair Wage Law. On Nov. 15, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings. On Dec. 26, 2024, Judge William G. Young entered an order administratively closing the case, adding that it may be reopened upon the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings or earlier should the Defendants obstruct or fail in their obligations to arbitrate. The appellate case is captioned Powell v. The Campbell's Company, et al., Case No. 25-1052, in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on January 17, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee GARY POWELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Patsy Jordan Belcastro, Esq. Shaun Markley, Esq. Craig M. Nicholas, Esq. Alex M. Tomasevic, Esq. NICHOLAS & TOMASEVIC LLP 225 Broadway, 19th Fl. San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 325-0492 - and - Douglas Gregory Blankinship, Esq. FINKELSTEIN BLANKINSHIP FREI-PEARSON & GARBER LLP 445 Hamilton Ave., Ste. 605 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 298-3290 Defendants-Appellants CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY, et al. are represented by: Joshua M. Adler, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 1 Federal St. Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 341-7700 - and - Sari M. Alamuddin, Esq. Eric Michael Makinen, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 110 N. Wacker Dr., Ste. 2800 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 324-1000 - and - Jeffrey A. Becker, Esq. MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 2222 Market St. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-5000 CAPITAL ONE: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over "Service Disruption" ----------------------------------------------------------------- Capital One faces a proposed class action lawsuit following a three-day service outage earlier January, which allegedly left thousands of customers unable to access the funds in their bank accounts. The 16-page lawsuit against Capital One says the bank began experiencing a "service disruption" on January 15, which, according to an email notice to customers, was caused by a technical issue with one of its service providers. Per the suit, the outage continued through the evening of January 18 and caused delays in processing direct deposits, electronic payments and transfers. The case contends that because the system outage coincided with the mid-month pay period, accountholders were left "in a difficult position" without access to their paychecks. "Many struggled to pay for essential needs such as food, rent, electricity, and gas," the complaint shares. "Additionally, the inability to pay household bills led to the accrual of late fees, further compounding the financial strain." The filing claims that Capital One breached its duties to customers by denying them access to their funds for a prolonged period. In addition, Capital One represents that funds made by electronic direct deposit, cash deposit or wire transfer will be available to consumers on the same business day, the suit states. The bank breached its contract with customers by failing to make good on this promise during the outage, the case alleges. The plaintiff, a California resident, claims he was unable to access the $280 he transferred to his Capital One checking account for the duration of the system outage. The man was apparently left without access to financial resources of any kind because he had transferred all his available funds to his then-inaccessible Capital One account, the complaint says. "[The plaintiff] had no choice but to wait until the outage was resolved to regain access to his funds," the filing relays. The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States who held a Capital One account and was denied access to it or their funds starting January 15, 2025. [GN] CARDLYTICS INC: Faces Froess Suit Over 57.1% Stock Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------------- Darien Froess, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Cardlytics, Inc., Karim Temsamani, and Alexis Desieno, Case caption, Case No. 1:25-cv-00279-MHC (N.D. Ga., Jan. 22, 2025) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Cardlytics securities between March 14, 2024 and Aug. 7, 2024, inclusive, pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The suit says that throughout the class period, the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors: increasing consumer engagement led to an increase in consumer incentives; that the Company could not increase its billings commensurate with the increased consumer engagement; that, as a result, there was a significant risk that its revenue growth would slow or decline; and that the changes to ADE, which led to increased consumer engagement, led to the under-delivery of budgets and customers billing estimates. On May 8, 2024, after the market closed, the Company revealed that its first quarter 2024 revenue only increased 8% year-over-year, despite a 12% increased in billings, due to a 20.2% increase in consumer incentives. On this news, the Company's stock price fell $5.33, or 36.5%, to close at $9.27 per share on May 9, 2024, on unusually heavy trading volume. On Aug. 7, 2024, after the market closed, Cardlytics released its second quarter 2024 financial results, revealing a 9% year-over-year decrease in revenue to $69.6 million, alongside a 3% decline in adjusted contribution to $36.4 million. The press release also disclosed that Karim Temsamani had stepped down as Chief Executive Officer and from the Board of Directors. On this news, the Cardlytics' stock price fell $3.94, or 57.1%, to close at $2.96 per share on Aug. 8, 2024, on unusually heavy trading volume. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class Members have suffered significant losses and damages, the Plaintiff further contends. Cardlytics operates an advertising platform in the United States and the United Kingdom.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Corey D. Holzer, Esq. Marshall P. Dees, Esq. Joshua A. Karr, Esq. HOLZER & HOLZER LLC 211 Perimeter Center Parkway, Suite 1010 Atlanta, GA 30346 Telephone: (770) 392-0090 Facsimile: (770) 392-0029 E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com mdees@holzerlaw.com jkarr@holzerlaw.com - and - Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: rprongay@Glancylaw.com clinehan@Glancylaw.com CARPENTERS OF WESTERN: Must File Responsive Pleading by Feb. 14 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Terrance Johnson, Brent Yahraus, and Jacy Purkiss, individually and as the representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and on behalf of the Carpenters of Western Washington Individual Account Pension Plan and the Carpenters Retirement Plan of Western Washington, v. Carpenters of Western Washington Board of Trustees, Callan LLC, Gerald Auvil, Noe Castillo, Ken Ervin, Jeff Foushee, Kurt Hildebrand, Steve Hoffmann, Martin Holberg, Dan Hutchins, Ryan Hyke, Andrew Ledbetter, Ron Montoya, Jim Osborne, Tim O’Neill, Doug Peterson, Rick Poitras, Danny Robins, Evelyn Shapiro, Bob Susee, Jeff Thorson, Doug Tweedy, and Wilf Wainhouse, Case No. 2:22-cv-01079-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John Chun entered an order establishing the following case deadlines in addition to those set forth in the Court's Jan. 10, 2025, Scheduling Order: Event Deadline Deadline for Defendants to file responsive Feb. 14, 2025 pleading(s): Exchange of Rule 26(a)(1) Initial Feb. 28, 2025 Disclosures: Deadline to amend complaint and/or add May 16, 2025 Parties: On Dec. 6, 2024, the Parties submitted a joint status report proposing various case-related deadlines. The Parties specifically agreed on the deadlines for responsive pleading(s), Rule 26(a)(1) initial disclosures, and amending the complaint and/or adding parties. On Dec. 19, 2024, the Court directed the Parties to propose deadlines corresponding to the completion of discovery on class certification and Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, which the Parties proposed in a joint status report on January 8, 2025. On Jan. 10, 2025, the Court entered its Scheduling Order, setting deadlines for the completion of discovery on class certification and Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 22, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vDfiQN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark E. Thomson, Esq. Carl F. Engstrom, Esq. ENGSTROM LEE LLC 323 N. Washington Ave., Suite 200 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612)305-8349 E-mail: mthomson@engstromlee.com cengstrom@engstromlee.com - and - Paul B. Derby, Esq. Hajir Ardebili, Esq. John J. O'Kane IV, Esq. SKIERMONT DERBY LLP 633 West Fifth Avenue, Suite 5800 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 788-4500 E-mail: pderby@skiermontderby.com hardebili@skiermontderby.com jokane@skiermontderby.com - and - Marie E. Casciari, Esq. DEBOFSKY LAW, LTD. 3101 Western Ave., Suite 350 Seattle, WA 98121 Telephone: (206) 333-2696 E-mail: mcasciari@debofsky.com The Defendants are represented by: Anthony Todaro, Esq. John J. Hamill, Esq. Amanda L. Morgan, Esq. Brian Benjet, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6900 Seattle, WA 98104-7029 Telephone: (206) 839-4800 E-mail: anthony.todaro@us.dlapiper.com john.hamill@dlapiper.com amanda.morgan@dlapiper.com brian.benjet@dlapiper.com - and - Sarah N. Turner, Esq. Michael C. Tracy, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2100 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 695-5115 E-mail: sturner@grsm.com mtracy@grsm.com - and - William J. Delany, Esq. David N. Levine, Esq. Shaun A. Gates, Esq. GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED 1701 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 857-0620 Facsimile: (202) 659-4503 E-mail: wdelany@groom.com dlevine@groom.com sgates@groom.com CELSIUS HOLDINGS: Faces Dubreu Suit Over Beverage Inflated Price ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARIANA DUBREU, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. CELSIUS HOLDINGS INC., a/k/a CELSIUS PRODUCTS HOLDINGS INC., DEVON BARBARA, ERIKA WHEATON, and EMILY TANNER, Case No. 5:25-cv-00180 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 22, 2025) is an action brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendants on behalf of all consumers in California, and in the United States who, within four years of the filing of this lawsuit, have purchased beverages manufactured by CELH and branded as "Celsius." The suit alleges the Influencers misrepresented the material relation they have with the brand by promoting Celsius products without disclosing the fact that they were paid to do it. In order to artificially inflate the prices for the Celsius products, and boost sales, both CELH and the Influencers devised a scheme in which the Influencers will tag or recommend Celsius products, pretending they are disinterested consumers, the Plaintiff avers. Following their increased popularity on social media, especially Instagram, Celsius experienced a boom and quickly became one of the dominant energy drinks on the US market. The boom Celsius experienced could not have been possible without the "sales power" provided by the influencers that claimed that they love Celsius. Relying on the undisclosed and misleading advertising, the Plaintiff and the Class Members purchased products and paid a premium, while the products proved to be of a much lower value than the price paid, the suit asserts. Celsius products are consumed mostly by a young audience, most of their customers being social media users exposed to undisclosed advertising. The Plaintiff filed this action to recover the difference between the price paid and the market value of the products as purchased. Celsius began in Delray Beach, Florida in 2007 by producing and selling a small variety of energy drink products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William M. Aron, Esq. ARON LAW FIRM 15 West Carrillo Street, Suite 217 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 618-1768 E-mail: bill@aronlawfirm.com - and - Keith L. Gibson, Esq. Bogdan Enica, Esq. KEITH GIBSON LAW, P.C. 586 Duane Street, Suite 102 Glen Ellyn, IL 60137 Telephone: (630) 677-6745 E-mail: keith@keithgibsonlaw.com bogdan@keithgibsonlaw.com COMMUNITY ALLIANCE: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Weiher Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ GODRON WEIHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COMMUNITY ALLIANCE, INC.; COMMUNITY ALLIANCE REHABILITATION SERVICES; and COMMUNITY ALLIANCE HEALTH PARTNERS, INC., Case No. 8:25-cv-00020-MDN (D. Neb., Jan. 21, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personally identifiable information and personal health information, which, as a result, has been disclosed to cybercriminals and posted on the dark web. In April 2024, the notorious criminal ransomware group known as Inc Ransom accessed Community Alliance's network systems and stole Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI, including their names, addresses, dates of birth, birth certificates, Social Security numbers, drivers' licenses, taxpayer or other state or federal numbers, employer-assigned identification numbers, financial information, medical treatment and diagnosis information, health insurance information, online account credentials, electronic/digital signatures, and other sensitive data. According to Community Alliance's reporting to the Department of Health and Human Services, approximately 10,750 individuals' Private Information was wrongfully disclosed in the Data Breach. To make matters worse, although the Data Breach took place on or before April 8, 2024, and the compromised Private Information was posted on Inc Ransom's dark web portal by April 11, 2024, Community Alliance waited over eight months before notifying or warning the Plaintiff and Class Members that their Private Information was affected, diminishing their ability to timely and thoroughly mitigate and address harms resulting from the Data Breach, the suit says. As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members, suffered concrete injuries in fact including, financial 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, actual identity theft and fraud, financial costs incurred due to actual identity theft, emotional distress including anxiety and stress in with dealing with the Data Breach, and the continued risk to their sensitive Private Information, the suit asserts. As of condition of receiving services from Community Alliance, the Plaintiff was required to supply Community Alliance with his Private Information. Community Alliance is an "integrated healthcare organization" providing psychiatric treatment, mental health and substance use counseling, primary medical care, addiction rehabilitation, and related services to patients across the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT One West Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com CULTURAL BROKERAGE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Davis Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE DAVIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Cultural Brokerage Agency, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00664 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 21, 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 pursuant to 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 Cultural Brokerage Agency provides to their non-disabled customers through https://brothervellies.com, the suit contends. On Dec. 13, 2024, the Plaintiff was searching for a stylish pair of over-the-knee boots. While browsing online, she discovered the Defendant's website, which specializes in handcrafted shoes and accessories inspired by traditional African designs. After adding a product to her cart, she was unsure whether the item had been successfully added, as the focus did not shift from the 'Add to Cart' button to the cart dialog window. Additionally, several interactive elements on the website were unlabeled, making navigation difficult and inefficient, the suit says. As a result of direct and proximate cause of Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff suffers interference with daily activities, as well as emotional distress, including emotional and mental anguish, loss of sleep, violation of privacy, humiliation, stress, anger, frustration, shock, embarrassment, and anxiety, the Plaintiff avers. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Cultural Brokerage Agency'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. Cultural Brokerage offers a variety of handmade footwear including boots, sandals, heeled shoes, bags and socks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul Camarena, Esq. 1016 W. Jackson, No. 32 Chicago, IL 60607 Telephone: (312) 493-7494 E-mail: northandsedgwicklaw@gmail.com DCI DONOR: Parties Must Submit New Stipulation ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIAH WELLS, v. DCI DONOR SERVICES, INC, Case No. 2:21-cv-00994-CKD (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Carolyn Delaney entered an order that the parties must submit a new stipulation and proposed order within 14 days of the date of this order. The Court reviewed the parties' stipulation and the amended settlement agreement. Based on the Court's review of the amended settlement agreement, the parties are attempting to modify the definition of "Class" and the definition of "PAGA Class." Further, the Court found two other changes to the amended settlement agreement. These changes were not stated in the parties' stipulation or proposed order. The parties are instructed to submit a new stipulation and proposed order specifically outlining each change made to the amended settlement agreement. The parties are also instructed to explain why the new definitions of "Class" and "PAGA Class" comply with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and do not materially change the Court's Oct. 7, 2024, order. On Oct. 7, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff Mariah Wells's unopposed motion for conditional class certification and preliminary approval of settlement. On Nov. 12, 2024, plaintiff and defendant DCI Donor Services, Inc. filed a stipulation and proposed order to amend the Court's October 7, 2024, order. In their stipulation, the parties state that the settlement agreement attached to the original motion for class certification mistakenly defined the class as "non-exempt per diem employees." The parties wish to modify the Court's Oct. 7, 2024, order to define the class as "non-exempt per diem piece rate employees," change the deadlines set within the Oct. 7, 2024, order, and change the date for the fairness hearing that is currently set for March 19, 2025. DCI provides trusted organ, eye, and tissue donation services. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=C04p6k at no extra charge.[CC] E & S INTERNATIONAL: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------- JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. E & S INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00593 (S.D.N.Y., January 21, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website, us.vaio.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff was injured when she attempted multiple times, most recently on June 18, 2024 to access Defendant's website from her home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. E & S International Enterprises, Inc. is a company that owns and operates the website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com EXAMONE WORLD: Court Certifies Classes in Brauer Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LARS F. BRAUER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. EXAMONE WORLD WIDE INC. and QUEST DIAGNOSTICS CLINICAL LABORATORIES, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-07760-MEMF-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong entered an order as follows: 1. The motion to exclude report and testimony of Bruce Strombom is denied; 2. The motion to exclude report and testimony of Jonathan Jaffe is denied; and 3. The motion for class certification is granted; a. The Court certifies the following classes: 1681e(b) Inaccuracy Class: "All persons residing in the United States (including all Territories and other political subdivisions of the United States) about whom, between Oct. 25, 2017 and the date any class is certified, Defendants delivered to any third party a consumer report which contained one or more prescription records which (1) was prescribed 26 or more years after the date of the birth of the individual who is the subject of the report, (2) the provider that wrote the prescription specialized in the treatment of minors according to ExamOne's or CMS's records, and (3) the record included a risk score greater than zero." 1681g(a)(2) File Disclosure Class: "All persons residing in the United States (including all Territories and other political subdivisions of the United States) for whom Defendants have a record of receiving a communication that Defendants treated as a disclosure request, and to whom Defendants treated sent a response between Oct. 25, 2017 and the date any class is certified which does not identify the source(s) from which the Defendants obtained the prescription record information referenced in the response." 4. Lars Brauer is appointed to serve as the class representative; 5. Terrell Marshall Law Group and Francis Mailman & Soumilas are appointed as class counsel; 6. The parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding further proceedings and file a joint submission with the Court within 14 days of this Order. The Court finds Jaffe's analysis narrowing down a set of potential class members to be reliable as it is based on an objective methodology capable of being replicated. As Brauer has not demonstrated that Strombom's Report has actually relied on the Lanzrath Declaration, the Court declines to exclude Strombom's testimony on this basis. The Court finds that the class certification requirements have been met as to both proposed classes. On Oct. 25, 2022, Brauer filed the instant action on behalf of himself and others similarly situated alleging causes of action for violations under the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") and defamation. On May 30, 2024, Brauer filed a motion for class certification. ExamOne provides a service generating and selling "ScriptCheck" reports based on the medical history of consumers, which are sold to third-parties such as life insurance companies in connection with a consumer's application for life insurance. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Vm2EW8 at no extra charge.[CC] EXCELSIOR ORTHOPAEDICS: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE DICIOCCIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EXCELSIOR ORTHOPAEDICS LLP, Case No. 1:25-cv-00066 (W.D.N.Y., Jan. 21, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to properly safeguard the Private Information that Defendant's clients entrusted to it as a condition of receiving services. On June 23, 2024, Excelsior became aware of a data security incident ransomware attack resulting in unauthorized access to certain personal and/or protected health information maintained by Excelsior. This Data Breach resulted in the unauthorized disclosure of the Personally Identifiable Information and Personal Health Information of Plaintiff and the Class Members, including names, social security numbers, driver's license numbers, passport numbers, health insurance numbers, protected health data -- such as medical record numbers and places of treatment and doctors, the Plaintiff says. On Dec. 31, 2024, almost seven months after the Data Breach was discovered– Excelsior finally began notifying Class Members about the Data Breach. As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft, the suit asserts. Indeed, the Plaintiff and Members of the Class have already suffered significant injury and damages -- including lowered credit scores -- due to the Data Breach permitted to occur by RRCA, and the resulting misuse of their Personal Information and fraudulent activity, the suit adds. Plaintiff Nicole Dicioccio is a current client of the Defendant who provided her Private Information to the Defendant as a condition of receiving medical services for a planned hip surgery. Excelsior offers urgent care, in-house physical therapy, imaging, sports performance, nutrition, outpatient surgery.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Linda H. Joseph, Esq. SCHRÖDER, JOSEPH & ASSOCIATES, LLP 394 Franklin Street, Second floor Buffalo, NY 14202 Telephone: (716) 881-4902 Facsimile: (716) 881-4909 E-mail: ljoseph@sjalegal.com - and - T. J. Jesky, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF T. J. JESKY 205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 810 Chicago, IL 60601-5902 Telephone: (312) 894-0130, Ext. 3 Facsimile: (312) 489-8216 E-mail: tj@jeskylaw.com EXP WORLD HOLDINGS: Settles Georgia Class Action for $34MM ---------------------------------------------------------- eXp World Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K for December 9, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 2025, that on December 9, 2024, eXp World Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiaries, eXp Realty, LLC, eXp Realty of California, Inc., eXp Realty of Southern California, Inc., eXp Realty of Greater Los Angeles, Inc., and eXp Realty of Northern California, Inc., entered into a definitive settlement agreement to resolve on a nationwide basis the pending class action lawsuit brought by 1925 Hooper LLC, et al. (United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division Case No. 1:23-cv-05392-SEG). The settlement resolves all claims in the lawsuit and similar claims on a nationwide basis against the company and release eXp, its subsidiaries, related entities and affiliates, and their independent contractor real estate agents in the United States from the claims. As set forth in the Settlement Agreement, eXp has agreed to pay, into a qualified settlement fund, $34 million, which will be paid as follows: 50% of the settlement amount within 30 business days after preliminary court approval, which the company expects to occur in the first or second quarter of 2024, and 50% of the settlement amount on or before the one-year anniversary of initial settlement payment, which amounts will be released from escrow subject to the terms of the settlement agreement. In addition, eXp agreed to make certain changes to its business practices and emphasize certain practices that have been a part of eXp's longstanding policies and practices, including: reminding its agents that eXp has no rule requiring agents to make or accept offers of compensation from buyer representatives; requiring its agents to disclose to clients that commissions are not set by law and are fully negotiable; prohibiting its buyer agents from claiming buyer agent services are free, unless they will receive no financial compensation; requiring its brokerages and agents disclose to the buyer the listing broker's offer of compensation for prospective buyers' agents; prohibiting its agents from using any technology (or manual methods) to sort listings by offers of compensation, unless requested by the client; reminding its brokerages and agents of their obligation to show properties regardless of compensation for buyers' agents for properties that meet the buyer's priorities; and developing training materials for its brokerages and agents that support all the practice changes outlined in the injunctive relief. The settlement remains subject to preliminary and final court approval and will be effective upon final approval by the court. eXp World Holdings, Inc. is the holding company for eXp Realty, a global, cloud-based real estate brokerage. FEDERAL BUREAU: Plaintiffs Must File Class Cert Reply by March 17 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CROWE, et al., v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-03582 (D.D.C., Filed Dec. 20, 2024), the Hon. Judge Amit P. Mehta entered a scheduling order as follows: (1) The Defendants' combined motion to Feb. 12, 2025 dismiss and opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction and for provisional class certification shall be due on or before: (2) The Plaintiffs' Combined Reply in March 3, 2025 Further Support of motion for preliminary injunction and for provisional class certification and opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss shall be due on or before: (3) The Defendants' Opposition to the March 3, 2025 Plaintiffs' motion for class certification shall also be due on or before: (4) The Defendants' reply in support of March 17, 2025 motion to dismiss shall be due on or before: (5) The Plaintiffs' reply in support of March 17, 2025 motion for class certification shall also be due on: The nature of suit states Other Statutory Actions. The Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is an agency of the United States Department of Justice that is responsible for all federal prisons in the country and provides for the care, custody, and control of federal prisoners.[CC] GARDEN OF LIFE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Flick Says ---------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE FLICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GARDEN OF LIFE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 9:25-cv-80090-DMM (S.D. Fla., January 21, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed on January 17, 2025. The complaint relates that the Plaintiff's claims arise from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard private information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The sensitive nature of the data exposed through the data breach signifies that Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered irreparable harm. The Plaintiff and Class Members have lost the ability to control their private information and are subject to an increased risk of identity theft, says the complaint. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a Nationwide Class of similarly situated customers against Defendant for negligence; negligence per se; unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, and breach of confidence. Garden of Life, LLC is a provider of carbon-neutral-certified, whole food-based nutrition, and is headquartered in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan M. Stein, Esq. STEINLAW FLORIDA, PLLC 1825 NW Corporate Blvd., Suite 110 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 834-2699 E-mail: jon@steinlawflorida.com - and - Eduard Korsinsky, 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: ek@zlk.com msvensson@zlk.com GENE BY GENE: Discloses Genetic Testing Info to Google, Odea Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- LUCINDA ODEA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. GENE BY GENE, LTD., d/b/a FAMILY TREE DNA, Case No. 1:25-cv-00572 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 17, 2025) alleges that the Defendant does not keep private, sensitive information about its visitors' genetic testing, in violation of the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act. The suit contends that the Defendant collects and transmits personally identifiable information regarding both the fact that its customers have been subject to genetic testing and the results of that genetic testing to third parties, including Alphabet, Inc. ("Google"), through its use of surreptitious online tracking tools. Each of the Plaintiff and Class Members visited the Website and had their personal Genetic Testing Information disclosed by Defendant using the Tracking Tools. However, the Defendant never obtained authorization from Plaintiff or Class Members to share their Genetic Testing Information with third parties. At all times relevant to this action, the Plaintiff and Class Members gave no informed consent for information about their Genetic Testing Information to be transmitted to the third parties, including the largest advertiser and compiler of consumer data in the world. Accordingly, the Plaintiff seeks on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated in the state, an order: requiring Defendant to cease the unlawful activities; and awarding actual and/or statutory damages to Plaintiff and the members of the proposed Class. In May 2017, Plaintiff Odea purchased a genetic test kit from Defendant's website. The Defendant required the Plaintiff to make an account on its website in order to access the test results. FamilyTree is a direct-to-consumer genetic testing kit provider that uses DNA testing to identify its customers' "autosomal DNA, mtDNA, and Y-DNA."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Langley, Esq. ALMEIDA LAW GROUP LLC 849 W. Webster Ave. Chicago, IL, 60614 Telephone: (708) 529-5418 E-mail: matt@almeidalawgroup.com HAIN CELESTIAL: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Frost Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ Clarence and Tammy Frost, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., Case No. 0:25-cv-00264 (D. Minn., Jan. 22, 2025) contends that the Defendant's Website (www.celestialseasonings.com) is not fully and equally accessible to Plaintiffs and other 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 and its implementing regulations as well as asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. The Plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction requiring a change in the Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities; a civil penalty payable to the state of Minnesota pursuant to Minn. Stat. 363A.33, Subd. 6 and Minn. Stat. section 363A.29, subd. 4 (2023); damages, and a damage multiplier pursuant to Minn. Stat. section 363A.33, subd. 6 (2023), and Minn. Stat. section 363A.29, subd. 4 (2023). The Plaintiffs 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, the lawsuit asserts. The Defendant offers tea for sale in many varieties, including, herbal teas, green teas, wellness teas, black teas and more.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 South 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: chad@throndselaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com HATS IN THE BELFRY: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Davis Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- NICOLE DAVIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. Hats In The Belfry, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00666 (N.D. Ill., January 21, 2025) is a civil rights action against Hats In The Belfry for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://hatsinthebelfry.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant's website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to: changing of content without advance warning, inaccurate focus order, unclear labels for interactive elements, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Hats In The Belfry's policies, practices, and procedures so that its 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. Hats In The Belfry, Inc., operates the website which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a wide selection of high-quality headwear, including caps, baseball caps, berets, bucket hats, boater hats, and fedoras.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul Camarena, Esq. 1016 W. Jackson, No. 32 Chicago, IL 60607 Telephone: (312) 493-7494 E-mail: northandsedgwicklaw@gmail.com HISENSE GROUP: Faces QLED TV Fraud Lawsuit Investigation -------------------------------------------------------- ClassAction.org reports that people who purchased Hisense QLED TVs in the past two years and live in California, New York, Illinois or Florida. What's Going On? Attorneys believe Hisense QLED televisions, which are advertised as using quantum dot technology to produce a wider range of color, may not use quantum crystals at all. They're investigating whether a class action lawsuit can be filed on behalf of buyers. Which Models Are Under Investigation? The QD5, QD6, QD65NF (which is specific to Costco), and U7N. How Could a Lawsuit Help? A class action could help buyers get back some of the money they spent on Hisense QLED TVs and potentially force the company to change how the TVs are advertised. What You Can Do Attorneys believe certain Hisense QLED TVs may have been falsely advertised and are looking into whether a class action lawsuit can be filed. They suspect that the TVs, which were promoted as using color-enhancing quantum dot technology, may not contain any quantum crystals. If so, consumers may have overpaid for TVs that cannot provide the promised benefits. As part of the investigation, the attorneys want to hear from people who live in California, New York, Illinois or Florida and purchased one of the following Hisense QLED TV models within the past two years: -- QD5 Series: 43" to 65" -- QD6 Series: 43" to 75" -- QD65NF Series (Costco-specific model): 43" to 75" -- U7N Series: 55" to 85" What Are Quantum Crystals in QLED TVs? Quantum crystals, or quantum dots as they're also called, are semiconductor nanocrystals with optical and electronic properties that are used across a variety of applications, including enhancing the color in liquid crystal display (LCD) TVs. QLED TVs are essentially LCD TVs with a layer of quantum dots. The quantum dots are typically contained in a film sandwiched among the other layers of an LCD. When hit with light from the TV's light emitting diode (LED) source, each quantum dot emits a specific color depending on its size. Used in combination with LEDs, polarizers, liquid crystals and color filters, a QLED display can produce a more accurate and wider range of colors than a typical LCD. Hisense advertises its quantum dot technology as able to produce “color like you've never seen it before," with “over a billion individual shades." How Could a Class Action Lawsuit Help? A class action lawsuit could help customers get back some of the money they spent on Hisense QLED TVs that may have been falsely advertised as containing quantum dot technology. It could also force the company to change how its TVs are advertised. What You Can Do After you submit the form, an attorney or legal representative may reach out to you directly to ask you some questions and explain how you may be able to help start a class action lawsuit. It doesn't cost anything to fill out the form or speak with someone, and you're not obligated to take legal action if you don't want to. [GN] HOME DEPOT: Carbajal Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit ---------------------------------------------------------- IVONNE CARBAJAL is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing her lawsuit entitled Ivonne Carbajal, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Home Depot USA, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00730-DGC, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The lawsuit is brought against the Defendant for violations of Arizona's Telephone, Utility and Communication Service Records Act (TUCSRA). On July 29, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which Judge David G. Campbell granted on Dec. 16, 2024. The Court held that the Plaintiff's complaint does not state a claim under the TUCSRA. The appellate case is captioned Carbajal v. Home Depot USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 25-354, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on January 17, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on January 22, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on February 26, 2025; and -- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due on March 28, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant IVONNE CARBAJAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Michelle Ray Matheson, Esq. MATHESON & MATHESON, PLC 32531 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 105-148 Scottsdale, AZ 85266 Defendants-Appellees HOME DEPOT USA, INC., et al. are represented by: Joshua Craddock, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 1155 Canyon Boulevard, Suite 400 Boulder, CO 80302 - and - Taylor E. Pfeifer, Esq. NIXON PEABODY, LLP 300 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 4100 Los Angeles, CA 90071 HP INC: Fernandez Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ---------------------------------------------------------- JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00596 (S.D.N.Y., January 21, 2025) is a civil rights action against Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.hp.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff was injured when she attempted multiple times, most recently on June 18, 2024 to access Defendant's website from her home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. The Website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse, says the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. HP, Inc. is a company that owns and operates the website that provides computing, imaging and printing systems, mobile devices, solutions, and services for business and home.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com INTEGRAL AD: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------- Berman Tabacco filed a class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Integral Ad Science Holding Corp. ("IAS" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: IAS) and others on behalf of persons and entities that purchased shares of IAS common stock between March 2, 2023, and February 27, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"), for violations of Section 10(b), 20(a) and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, promulgated thereunder. The case is captioned Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System v. Integral Ad Science Holding Corp., et al., No. 1:25-cv-00847 (S.D.N.Y.). Discuss Your Legal Rights and Options If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must file a motion to serve as Lead Plaintiff with the Court no later than March 31, 2025. Any member of the proposed class may move the Court to serve as Lead Plaintiff through counsel of their choice or may choose to do nothing and remain a member of the proposed class. About the Class Action The complaint alleges, among other things, that during the Class Period, "Defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose (i) that IAS was experiencing a new material trend of increased competitive pricing pressures and that, as a result, IAS had been forced to cut prices to compensate for weakening demand and slowing revenue growth; (ii) that IAS's pricing function was no longer 'favorable' and IAS could not sustain its pricing and drive price increases; (iii) that pricing had become a key differentiator between IAS and its competitor necessary to close major renewals and new deals; (iv) that the risk that competition 'could result in increased pricing pressure' or 'could put pressure on us to change our prices' had in fact transpired; and (v) as a result, the IAS's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times." The complaint further alleges that "[a]s a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's shares, Plaintiff and putative class members have suffered significant losses and damages." About Berman Tabacco Since 1982, our firm has prosecuted hundreds of securities and antitrust complex cases. The firm and its attorneys have been recognized for their work on behalf of plaintiffs, including by Chambers USA, Benchmark Litigation, which has ranked the firm as Highly Recommended and a Top Ten Plaintiffs, The Legal 500, U.S. News & World Report-Best Lawyers, The Daily Journal, Lawdragon, Who's Who Legal, and Super Lawyers. The firm has offices in Boston, Massachusetts and San Francisco, California. For more information, click here or contact us at (800) 516-9926 or law@bermantabacco.com. This notice may constitute attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Jay Eng, Esq. Berman Tabacco One Liberty Square Boston, Massachusetts Email: law@bermantabacco.com [GN] JBS LIVE: Fails to Pay OT Wages Under IMWL, Force Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- DARRIN FORCE, on behalf of himself and other individuals similarly situated, known and unknown v. JBS LIVE PORK, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-03018-SEM-EIL (C.D. Ill., Jan. 22, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to pay overtime wages for time spent on Defendant's premises at the beginning and end of the workday, in violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law. The suit says that the Plaintiff arrived at the Beardstown facility prior to the start of his shift to meet with his supervisor and prepare for the work day. The Plaintiff also arrived at the Beardstown facility prior to the start of his shift so he could don safety clothing and work equipment, including wizard gloves, rubber gloves, arm guards, rubber apron, knives, knives pouch, mesh, frock, hard hat, and rubber boots. The Defendant considers employees to be late to work if they are not at their assigned work locations at the time their shift was scheduled to begin, the suit alleges. The Plaintiff Force and Other Class Members spent a minimum of 30 minutes a day performing pre-shift and post-shift work activities for which they were not compensated. The unpaid overtime hours should have been paid by JBS because it constitutes compensable time worked, added the suit. The Plaintiff was employed by JBS at the Beardstown facility from August 2018 to September 2022. JBS Live is a leading provider and processor of food products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen A. Salas, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 W. Washington St., Ste 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com msalas@flsalaw.com JPMORGAN CHASE: Faces Wright Class Suit Over Plan Assets' Misuse ---------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL J. WRIGHT, individually and as representative of a class of participants and beneficiaries and on behalf of the JPMorgan Chase 401K Savings Plan, V. JPMORGAN CHASE & CO.; JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A.; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-00525 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 21, 2025) is an action arising out of Defendants wrongful use, for their own benefit, of assets in their employees' 401k retirement plan. The suit alleges that the Defendants used forfeited plan assets to reduce its employer contribution obligations, rather than for the benefit of plan participants, in violation of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act and Defendants' fiduciary responsibilities. The Plaintiff seeks damages in connection with Defendants' wrongful conduct in misusing forfeited Plan assets for its own benefit. The Plaintiff bring this action on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated as a Class Action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23. Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(l) and (b)(2), the Plaintiffs seek certification of a class defined as follows: "All participants and beneficiaries of JPMorgan Chase 401K Savings 7 Plan, who participated in the plan at anytime within the longest statute of 8 limitations for each claim pled, excluding the Defendants and members of the Committees." Plaintiff Wright is an individual who resided in Orange County, California. The Plaintiff was at all relevant times 4participating in the Plan at issue. JPMorgan Chase is a financial and banking company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua H. Haffner, Esq. Alfredo Torrijos, Esq. Vahan Mikayelyan, Esq. HAFFNER LAW PC 15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1520 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (213) 514-5681 Facsimile: (213) 514-5682 E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com at@haffnerlawyers.com vh@haffnerlawyers.com - and - Shaun C. Setareh, Esq. Thomas A. Segal, Esq. SETAREH LAW GROUP 9665 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 430 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 888.7771 Facsimile: (310) 888.0109 E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com thomas@setarehlaw.com KAISER FOUNDATION: Fried Balks at Unsolicited Text Messages ----------------------------------------------------------- JONATHAN FRIED, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC. d/b/a KAISER PERMANENTE, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-20312-BB (S.D. Fla., January 21, 2025) is a putative class action pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. To promote its services, the Defendant engages in unsolicited telemarketing, even after consumers request Defendant to stop, harming thousands of consumers in the process, says the suit. The Defendant's text messages constitute telemarketing because they encouraged the future purchase or investment in property, goods, or services, i.e., promoting Defendant's health insurance products and services. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of himself and members of the class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. is one of the largest health care service plans in the United States, with over 12.5 million members in the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. Christopher Berman, Esq SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com gberg@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com KING COUNTY, WA: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Tucker Due Sept. 30 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tucker, et al., v. King County, Case No. 2:24-cv-00002 (W.D. Wash., Filed Jan. 2, 2024), the Hon. Judge Richard A. Jones entered an order granting the parties' second joint motion for extension of time to complete discovery and enters the following revised case schedule: -- Fact Discovery Deadline is: May 31, 2025 -- Expert Report(s) for Party Bearing June 30, 2025 Burden of Proof due: -- Responsive Expert Report(s) due: July 31, 2025 -- Expert Discovery Completed by: Aug. 31. 2025 -- Class Certification Motion to be Sept. 30, 2025 filed by: The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.[CC] LANDS' END: Appeals Arbitration Bid Denial in Plata Suit to 9th Cir ------------------------------------------------------------------- LANDS' END, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order denying its motion to compel arbitration in lawsuit entitled Juan Plata, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Lands' End, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-00723-MEMF-SP, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged practice of advertising false price and purported discounts in violation of California's False Advertising Law. On May 31, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to compel arbitration, which Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong denied without prejudice on Dec. 19, 2024. The appellate case is captioned Plata v. Lands' End, Inc., Case No. 25-328, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on January 17, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on January 22, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on February 26, 2025; and -- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due on March 28, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee JUAN PLATA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Simon Carlo Franzini, Esq. Grace Bennett, Esq. DOVEL AND LUNER LLP 201 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Defendant-Appellant LANDS' END, INC. is represented by: Ryan Lapine, Esq. Caitlin Comstock Blanche, Esq. Ashley Song, Esq. VENABLE, LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90067 LAZ PARKING: Illegally Uses Drivers' Info, Crostarosa Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- LUCAS CROSTAROSA, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated v. LAZ PARKING LTD., PARKING REVENUE RECOVERY SERVICES, INC., and ASURA TECHNOLOGIES USA, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00211 (D. Colo., Jan. 21, 2025) alleges that the Defendants unlawfully obtains and uses personal information of drivers from their Driver Motor Vehicle records ("DMV records") in violation of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act. The suit says that when Defendants capture a vehicle on the cameras that, according to them, has not properly paid for parking, the Defendants, through the use of PRRS's license plate recognition technology, access the motor vehicle records associated with that license plate to obtain the personal information, including the name and address, of the individual to whom the vehicle is registered to. The Defendant PRRS, on behalf of the Defendant LAZ, then sends a Parking Notice in the mail to the registered owner's home address informing them that they are required to pay the Defendant PRRS for the parking. The Defendants mail these Notices to both drivers who never paid for parking, and to drivers who did in fact pay for parking, yet the Defendants allege they still owe payment, the suit adds. The Plaintiff and Class members were never informed that their personal information would be obtained by the Defendants through their DMV records or otherwise. The Defendants obtain drivers' personal information, including their name and address, from their DMV records without the lawful consent of drivers, and without a lawfully permitted reason under the DPPA, the suit asserts. In or around Feb. 25, 2022, Mr. Crostarosa parked at Defendant LAZ Parking's parking facility located at 2000 Larimer St., Denver, Colorado. Mr. Crostarosa entered and exited the Parking Facility at night and parked in the back of the lot. The following month, in or around March 2022, Mr. Crostarosa received a Notice in the mail at his home address from the Defendant. LAZ Parking provides parking management services to businesses nationwide and is currently utilized in forty-two states, including Colorado.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Max S. Roberts, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: mroberts@bursor.com LEE ENTERPRISES: Faces Genenbacher Suit Over Telemarketing Calls ---------------------------------------------------------------- SARAH GENENBACHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LEE ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED D/B/A ST. LOUIS POST DISPATCH, Case No. 4:25-cv-00084-JSD (E.D. Mo., Jan. 22, 2025) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by making telemarketing calls to numbers on the National Do Not Call Registry, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff signed up for a St. Louis Post-Dispatch subscription in or around 2021. In or before 2022, the Plaintiff cancelled that subscription. Shortly after canceling her subscription, the Plaintiff began receiving persistent calls from, or on behalf of, the Defendant. These calls were telemarketing in purpose, designed to solicit the Plaintiff to resubscribe to Defendant's service. The Plaintiff was not interested and informed Defendant's representatives of that. In fact, the Plaintiff specifically requested that she be placed on Defendant's Internal Do Not Call List, the suit says. Despite her repeated requests, the Plaintiff allegedly continued to receive calls from the Defendant to her residential phone. Because telemarketing campaigns generally place calls to thousands or even millions of potential customers en masse, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a proposed nationwide class of other persons who received illegal telemarketing calls from or on behalf of Defendant, as well as those individuals who had previously asked to no longer receive calls. The Plaintiff and other individuals who received these telephone solicitations suffered an invasion of privacy and were harassed by the conduct of the Defendant, the suit contends. Plaintiff Genenbacher's telephone number is 636-578-XXXX. The Plaintiff personally listed her telephone number on the National Do-Not-Call Registry on Oct. 14, 2006, and has not removed it from the Registry since that time. Lee Enterprises operates as a media company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (508) 221-1510 E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com LOVISA HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Labor Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- Jessica Yun, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that Lovisa has been accused of forcing hundreds of young women to work for free before and after their rostered hours and during lunch breaks in a class action lawsuit that more than 300 people have signed up for. The Australian jewellery retailer, which has nearly 200 stores nationwide and about 600 more internationally, was served legal documentation by employment class action law firm Adero Law last week that named three former Lovisa employees -- Olivia Iob, Ayesha Kelso and Finn Wesley (also known as Vivian Wesley) -- as applicants. Other alleged breaches of workers' rights included paying them the wrong base rate and failing to provide rosters on time, according to documents. More than 300 former staff members who worked for Lovisa between 2018 and 2024 are alleging the youth accessories chain asked them to arrive at the store and perform duties 15 to 20 minutes before their rostered shifts and to stay back up to half an hour after their shifts ended to clean up and balance the till. They were not paid overtime, they claim. Staff were also allegedly asked to attend training, but were expected to do so in their own personal time. Proper rest breaks weren't granted, with staff -- some of whom were rostered in stores on their own -- expected to be "on call" and continue working throughout their lunch breaks to deliver "exceptional customer experience". According to court documents, the company occasionally required Iob, Kelso and some other workers to travel to other stores more than 50 kilometres away without compensating them the 82¢ per kilometre travelled they were entitled to. Iob was allegedly paid the wrong base rate of $21.65 an hour instead of the correct $24.25 an hour between mid-January and early February 2020. Other allegations include staff being asked by regional managers to purchase and during their shifts wear a headband, earrings, necklace and bracelet sold by Lovisa, dubbed a "Lovisa High-5", without reimbursing them. The jewellery chain also allegedly enforced a strict policy on footwear; court documents detail that Wesley was told by her regional manager she could not wear laces, zippers, sneakers, boots or sports shoes during her shift, but had to wear "women's shoes" instead. "[Regional manager] Ms Saracho told Ms Wesley that the sneakers were not compliant with [Lovisa's] policies and that she will be given 15 minutes to leave the store and purchase women's shoes in place of the sneakers that she wore," stated Adero Law's statement of claim. Employees who were rostered alone weren't allowed to leave the store to use the bathroom, which has led to illness, infection and psychological distress, and were asked to do ear piercings in the store after just two hours of training, the lawsuit claims. Adero Law managing principal Rory Markham said the law firm had been investigating Lovisa after some former employees, many of whom young women, high school and university students, complained about what they said were appalling and hostile working conditions. The class action is only eligible to Australians, but Adero Law said it has received interest from several individuals from abroad attempting to join from a number of Lovisa stores offshore. "The decision made by Lovisa to exploit their young workforce, many of whom are entering the workforce for the first time, falls far below the standard expected from an international company that prides itself on having a team culture that prioritises respect and dignity," Markham said in a statement. "One former employee has told Adero Law of their view that 'the whole business is built on exploiting young people'." Adero Law attempted to obtain Iob, Kelso and Wesley's rosters from Lovisa but were denied. The $3.2 billion ASX-listed retailer acknowledged the class action in a statement on Thursday, January 30, and said it intended to defend the proceedings. "The company takes its obligations under the Fair Work Act and the Lovisa Enterprise Agreements of 2014 and 2022 very seriously, including obligations to pay overtime, and has processes in place to monitor compliance with employment laws," Lovisa said in the statement. "Lovisa intends to defend the class action proceedings and will provide further updates to the market as and when appropriate." Lovisa is chaired by retail veteran Brett Blundy, who co-founded the fast-fashion jewellery chain in 2010. Blundy also started CD chain Sanity and underwear chains Bras N Things and Honey Birdette, both of which he sold for $500 million and $443 million respectively, and holds an 11 per cent stake in City Chic Collective. He is reportedly working on a new lingerie and sleepwear brand. The long-time retail executive has appointed sacked Smiggle boss John Cheston to lead Lovisa as its next chief executive. Cheston has left Smiggle's parent company Premier Investments, owned by rival retailer Solomon Lew, in acrimonious circumstances: he had been serving out his year-long notice period when Premier Investments suddenly terminated him with immediate effect for engaging in "serious misconduct and a serious breach of his employment terms". Cheston has denied Premier's allegations through his lawyer. He is expected to start at Lovisa on June 4. Lovisa's shares closed 1.1 per cent lower after January 30 session. [GN] LUXCLUB INC: Parties Must File Dispositional Docs by Feb. 28 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Guerrero v. LuxClub, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00721 (E.D. Cal., Filed June 21, 2024), the Hon. Judge Jennifer L. Thurston entered an order granting the parties' stipulated request to continue the deadline for filing dispositional documents. Accordingly, the Court entered an order that the parties are to file dispositional documents no later than Feb. 28, 2025. If the parties are unable to file dispositional documents by the deadline, the Court will enter a scheduling order governing class-based discovery (eight (8) months) and a class certification briefing schedule. The nature of suit states torts -- personal property -- other fraud. Luxclub was founded in 2013. The company's line of business includes the retail sale of radios, televisions, and other consumer electronics.[CC] MCMURRY UNIVERSITY: Fails to Secure Students' Info, Fleming Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Yolanda Fleming, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. McMurry University, Case No. 1:25-cv-00009-H (N.D. Tex., Jan. 22, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of approximately 17,881 individuals. On June 20, 2024, the Defendant became aware that an unknown actor accessed its systems and copied files on Defendant's network between June 18, 2024 and June 20, 2024. The Defendant did not complete its analysis of the Data Breach until November 15, 2024, the Plaintiff says. The PII compromised in the Data Breach was exfiltrated by cyber-criminals and remains in the hands of those cyber-criminals who target PII for its value to identity thieves. As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members, suffered concrete injuries in fact including invasion of privacy; theft of their PII; lost or diminished value of PII; lost time and opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; loss of benefit of the bargain; statutory damages; nominal damages; and the continued and certainly increased risk to their PII, the Plaintiff avers. Ms. Fleming is a former student of the Defendant. The Defendant is a Methodist institution founded in 1923 and currently enrolls more than 1,000 students.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William B. Federman, Esq. Tanner R. Hilton, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 MEDUSIND INC: Fails to Secure Personal, Health Info, Owens Says --------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT OWENS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. MEDUSIND INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-20254 (S.D. Fla., Jan. 17, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard personal identifiable information and protected health information of patients of health care providers for which the Defendant provides revenue cycle management. On Dec. 29, 2023, the Defendant discovered that a cybercriminal may have obtained a copy of certain files containing Plaintiff's and Class Members' personal information. The compromised information includes name, health insurance and billing information (such as insurance policy numbers or claims/benefits information), payment information (such as debit/credit card numbers or bank account information), health information (such as medical history, medical record number, or prescription information), government identification (such as Social Security number, taxpayer ID, driver's license, or passport number), and/or other personal information (such as date of birth, email, address, or phone number). The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered injury as a result of Defendant's conduct. These injuries include: lost or diminished value of Private Information; out-of-pocket expenses associated with the prevention, detection, and recovery from identity theft, tax fraud, and/or unauthorized use of their Private Information; lost opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; and the continued and certainly increased risk to their private information, the suit asserts. Plaintiff Owens suffered lost time, annoyance, interference, and inconvenience as a result of the Data Breach and has anxiety and increased concerns for the loss of his privacy. The Plaintiff Owens has also suffered an increase in spam texts, emails, and telephone calls after the Data Breach. Plaintiff Owens is a patient of a health care provider for which the Defendant provides revenue cycle management. The Plaintiff Owens received Defendant's Notice of Data Breach, dated January 7, 2025. Medusind Inc. provides medical revenue cycle management (RCM) solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan D. Maxey, Esq. MAXEY LAW FIRM, P.A. 107 N. 11th St. #402 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 448-1125 E-mail: ryan@maxeyfirm.com - and - M. Anderson berry, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. Brandon P. Jack, Esq. CLAYEO C. ARNOLD, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 865 Howe Avenue Sacramento, CA 95825 Telephone: (916) 239-4778 Facsimile: (916) 924-1829 E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com gharoutunian@justice4you.com bjack@justice4you.com METROPOLITAN LIFE: Gaudet Sues Over Insurance Premium Increase -------------------------------------------------------------- GERMAINE GAUDET, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-00694-SVK (N.D. Cal., January 21, 2025) alleges that Defendant committed fraud, engaged in unfair competition under California's Unfair Competition Law, and violated its statutory duties of honesty and good faith and fair dealing under California Insurance Code by failing to satisfy its disclosure obligations. The Plaintiff purchased a MetLife long-term care insurance policy that was guaranteed renewable in 2007 and renewed it every year since then. Although MetLife knew that Plaintiff's long-term care insurance policy was underpriced and that it would need to increase her premiums since at least 2008, MetLife failed to tell Plaintiff as much until April 15, 2021, when it notified her that it was increasing her premiums by 123.8%. At all times relevant hereto, MetLife had a duty to notify Plaintiff about future premium increases and benefit reductions when she purchased and/or renewed her policy. Had Plaintiff known that her policy was underpriced and/or that MetLife planned to increase her premiums in the future, she either: (1) would not have purchased her long-term care insurance policy and/or annually renewed it between 2008 and 2021; and/or (2) would have reduced her premiums by decreasing her coverage some time before 2021, says the suit. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company operates as an insurance company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas C. Cronin, Esq. CRONIN & CO., LTD. 120 LaSalle Street, 20th Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 500-2100 - and - Robert R. Duncan, Esq. James Podolny, Esq. DUNCAN LAW GROUP, LLC 161 North Clark St, Suite 2550 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 202-3283 Facsimile: (312) 202-3284 - and - Matthew P. Kelly, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW P. KELLY 4652 Glenalbyn Drive Los Angeles, CA 90065 Telephone: (310) 483-3608 MICROSOFT CORP: Faces Coleman Suit Over Shopping Browser Extension ------------------------------------------------------------------ Shonna Coleman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Microsoft Corporation, Case No. 2:25-cv-00137 (W.D. Wash., Jan. 21, 2025) alleges that the Microsoft Shopping browser extension is designed to misappropriate commissions from online marketers, including website operators, online publications, and content creators, like YouTubers, bloggers, and social media influencers. When a follower clicks on an online marketer's affiliate link and makes a purchase, that online marketer gets credit for the referral and earns a sales commission. However, the Microsoft Shopping browser extension cheats these online marketers out of commissions to which they are entitled by altering the checkout process and removing the online marketers' tracking tags and affiliate marketing cookies, the Plaintiff contends. Microsoft Shopping displaces tracking tags that identify a given online marketer as the source of the referral, substitutes Microsoft's own tracking tags, and holds Microsoft out as the referrer of the specific product and/or service. This misappropriation happens even though the sale in question emanated from an online marketer's specific affiliate marketing link for a specific product or service, the Plaintiff adds. As a result of Microsoft's wrongful conduct, Microsoft has been unjustly enriched at the expense of, and to the detriment of, the Plaintiff and class members. The Plaintiff brings this case on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated to recover the damages she and the class members have sustained, and to enjoin Microsoft's wrongful conduct going forward. Microsoft is a developer of computer software, operating systems, cloud computing, and artificial intelligence applications.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason T. Dennett, Esq. Joan Pradhan, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 E-mail: jdennett@tousley.com jpradhan@tousley.com - and - Joshua P. Davis, Esq. Sophia M. Rios, Esq. E. Michelle Drake, Esq. Marika K. O'Connor Grant, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 215-0962 Facsimile: (215) 875-4604 E-mail: jdavis@bm.net srios@bm.net emdrake@bm.net moconnorgrant@bm.net MOBILE MEDIC: Bid to Certify Class in Oliver Tossed w/o Prejudice ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Oliver v. Mobile Medic Ambulance Service, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00180 (S.D. Miss., Filed June 14, 2024), the Hon. Judge Halil S. Ozerden entered an order denying without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion to certify class and distribute notice, with leave to reassert at the end of class certification-related discovery. On Sept. 11, 2024, the Mag. Judge entered a Text Only Scheduling Order providing that "[the parties will conduct class certification-related discovery which shall end February 10, 2025," and "the deadline for filing any motion to conditionally certify collective action is March 27, 2025, with the response and reply due in accordance with the Local Uniform Civil Rules." The Plaintiff filed an early motion to certify class and distribute notice but has now sought an additional 90 days to file a motion to certify. The Court will deny the Plaintiff's early motion to certify class and distribute notice without prejudice at this time. The parties are directed to contact the Mag. Judge to schedule a status conference. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).[CC] MOTT OPTICAL: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Solis Says ----------------------------------------------------------- ROBERTO SOLIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOTT OPTICAL GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00311 (E.D.N.Y., January 17, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.mottoptical.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff was injured when Plaintiff attempted multiple times, most recently on September 27, 2024 to access Defendant's website from Plaintiff's home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. Allegedly, the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com NEWREZ LLC: Hodges Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection Practices --------------------------------------------------------------- EVA HODGES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEWREZ, LLC d/b/a SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING, and THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-10147-ADB (D. Mass., January 21, 2025) brings claims against the Defendant for failing to send monthly statements and otherwise unlawfully collecting in violation of the Truth in Lending Act; the Massachusetts Consumer Credit Cost Disclosure Act; the Massachusetts consumer protection law, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 93A; and the Massachusetts regulations on debt collection. The suit concerns the pattern and practice of Shellpoint and its predecessor in interest, Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, of inflating borrowers' balances on long-dormant second mortgages through unfair, deceptive, and unconscionable means, and of BNYM to attempt to collect on amounts that were not legally charged, including under threat of foreclosure. In blatant disregard of its obligations under TILA and Massachusetts law, SLS failed to send monthly statements to Ms. Hodges and others who had their debt discharged during bankruptcy while retaining an interest in their property, yet it continued to assess interest and fees to their accounts, causing the balances to increase with no notice to consumers about the ballooning balance. This conduct has significantly damaged Ms. Hodges and numerous other consumers, who have lost significant equity in their homes because of the illegal fees and charges that Shellpoint claims that they owe, says the suit. Newrez, LLC, d/b/a Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing, is a national wholesale mortgage lender that offers agency and non-agency lending solutions to brokers and community banks.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shennan Kavanagh, Esq. Jennifer Wagner, Esq. NATIONAL CONSUMER LAW CENTER 7 Winthrop Square, 4th Floor Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 542-8010 E-mail: skavanagh@nclc.org jwagner@nclc.org - and - Kristi C. Kelly, Esq. KELLY GUZZO, PLC 3925 Chain Bridge, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7572 Facsimile: (703) 591-0167 E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com NIKOLA CORPORATION: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Borteanu Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- NIKOLA CORPORATION, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in lawsuit entitled Daniel Borteanu, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Nikola Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 2:20-cv-01797, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint on Sept. 15, 2020, and subsequently their First Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (FCACAC) on Jan. 24, 2022. On Feb. 2, 2023, this Court dismissed their FCACAC for failure to state a claim. The Plaintiffs then filed a Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint (SCACAC). The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by misrepresenting numerous aspects of Nikola's business and operations. The Plaintiffs alleged that these misrepresentations inflated Nikola's stock value. According to the Plaintiffs, when the falsity of these misrepresentations came to light, Nikola's stock value dropped dramatically, causing significant losses and damages to the Plaintiff's class members. On May 17, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Steven P. Logan granted on Jan. 6, 2025. The Court appointed the offices of Pomerantz LLP and Block & Leviton LLP as class counsel. It also appointed Vincent Chau and George Mersho as class representatives. The appellate case is captioned Nikola Corporation, et al. v. Daniel Borteanu, et al., Case No. 25-417, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on January 22, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents DANIEL BORTEANU, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. Jacob A. Walker, Esq. Michael D. Gaines, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 260 Franklin Street, Suite 1860 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 398-5600 Facsimile: (617) 507-6020 Email: jeff@blockleviton.com jake@blockleviton.com michael@blockleviton.com - and - Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Michael J. Wernke, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (212) 661-8665 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com amjwernke@pomlaw.com - and - Gary Gotto, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK LLP 3101 North Central Avenue, Suite 1400 Phoenix, AZ 85012 Email: ggotto@kellerrohrback.com - and - Michael P. Canty, Esq. Michael H. Rogers, Esq. James T. Christie, Esq. Jacqueline R. Meyers, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Email: mcanty@labaton.com mrogers@labaton.com jchristie@labaton.com jmeyers@labaton.com - and - Brian Schall, Esq. SCHALL LAW FIRM 2049 Century Park East, Ste. 2460 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Email: brian@schallfirm.com - and - Laurence Matthew Rosen, Esq. ROSEN LAW FIRM PA 1 Gateway Ctr., Ste. 2600 Newark, NJ 07102 Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com - and - Phillip Kim, Esq. Brent John LaPointe, Esq. Brian B. Alexander, Esq. ROSEN LAW FIRM 275 Madison Ave., 34th Floor New York, NY 10016 Email: pkim@rosenlegal.com blapointe@rosenlegal.com balexander@rosenlegal.com - and - Richard Glenn Himelrick, Esq. TIFFANY & BOSCO PA Camelback Esplanade II 2525 E. Camelback Rd., 7th Floor Phoenix, AZ Email: rgh@tblaw.com Defendants-Petitioners NIKOLA CORPORATION, et al. are represented by: Brad S. Karp, Esq. Susanna M. Buergel, Esq. Gregory F. Laufer, Esq. Alison R. Benedon, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 373-3000 NUDIE JEANS: Faces Zhang Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW ZHANG, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Nudie Jeans, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00501 (S.D.N.Y., January 17, 2025) is a civil rights action against Nudie Jeans for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://www.nudiejeans.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. On October 28, 2024, the Plaintiff wanted to renew his wardrobe with a new pair of jeans. When he discovered Defendant's website, he decided to explore their offerings. While navigating the website, he encountered numerous accessibility issues, including a sub-menu navigation that could not be skipped due to its inaccessibility and the lack of a "skip to content" option. On the product page for "Tight Terry Blue Inferno," which he selected, the Plaintiff attempted to choose his size. However, due to improperly labeled interactive elements, the sizes were not associated with the waist and length tags, and the "Add to Bag" button remained inaccessible only until the size radio buttons were selected. These accessibility issues made his navigation experience frustrating and ultimately prevented him from completing his purchase. Access barriers have caused Nudiejeans.com to be inaccessible to, and not independently usable by blind and visually-impaired persons, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Nudie Jeans' policies, practices, and procedures so that its 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. Nudie Jeans, Inc. operates the website that offers jeans for men and women, jackets, pants, shorts, skirts, knits, sweatshirts, dresses, belts, beanies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com NYC DENTAL: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Solis Says --------------------------------------------------------- ROBERTO SOLIS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NYC DENTAL ASSOCIATES, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00313 (E.D.N.Y., January 17, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.nycdent.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most recently on October 11, 2024 to access Defendant's website from his home but encountered barriers that denied his full and equal access to Defendant's online content and services, says the suit. The website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. NYC Dental Associates, P.C. operates the website that offers dental care services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Rozenberg, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: mrozenberg@steinsakslegal.com OLUKAI LLC: Henry Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ---------------------------------------------------------- CONSTANCE HENRY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. Olukai, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00571 (N.D. Ill., January 17, 2025) is a civil rights action against Olukai for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://olukai.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. On January 03, 2025, the Plaintiff was searching online for a store offering footwear where she discovered Defendant's website. While browsing the website, she encountered several accessibility issues. Among these were problems with the navigation sub-menu that expanded automatically and could not be skipped, even with the 'Skip to Content' link, which did not function properly. On the product page for the 'Hehi' boots, the images had identical, uninformative alternative text, and the interactive elements used for selecting sizes and colors were not focusable using the 'Tab' key. These issues made her navigation time-consuming and hindered her ability to select her size and add the desired boots to her cart. Access barriers have caused Olukai.com to be inaccessible to, and not independently usable by, blind and visually-impaired persons, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Olukai's policies, practices, and procedures so that its 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. Olukai, LLC operates the website that offers men's and women's footwear including, sneakers, trainers, slippers, boots, sandals, and slip-on shoes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Reyes, Esq. ASHER COHEN LAW PLLC 2377 56th Dr., Brooklyn, NY 11234 Telephone: (630)-478-0856 E-mail: dreyes@ashercohenlaw.com ORAL CARE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Fagnani Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- MYKAYLA FAGNANI, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. ORAL CARE PRODUCTS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00657 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 22, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://smileactives.com/pages/hp-core3, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons under the Americans with Disabilities Act. During Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on Jan. 12, 2025, in an attempt to purchase Ultimate Whitening & Probiotic Kit from the Defendant and to view the information on the Website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied the Plaintiff a shopping 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 the Defendant's Website. These discriminatory conditions continue to contribute to the Plaintiff's sense of isolation and segregation, the suit contends. 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. Plaintiff Fagnani is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. The Defendant offers oral care products, including ultimate whitening & probiotic kit.[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 POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Okoni Says ------------------------------------------------------------ SHANDRELLE OKONI, individually and on behalf of A. H-M. 1, L.M., and A. H-M 2, minors, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. POWERSCHOOL GROUP, LLC, and POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 2:25-at-00099 (E.D. Cal., Jan. 17, 2025) sues the Defendants for their impermissibly inadequate and unlawful data security, which caused the personal information of the Plaintiff and those similarly situated to be exfiltrated by unauthorized access by cybercriminals on Dec. 28, 2024. The Data Breach affected some 60 million teachers and students whose data was kept in cloud software solutions provided by the Defendant. The exfiltrated data included personal identifying information and personal health information including names and social security numbers, medical information and grade information, the suit says. Today, the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members are in jeopardy -- all because of Defendant's negligence. The Plaintiff and Class Members now suffer from a present and continuing risk of fraud and identity theft and must now constantly monitor their financial accounts, the suit asserts. The Plaintiff seeks remedies including compensatory damages, treble damages, punitive damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive relief -- including improvements to the Defendant's data security systems, future annual audits, and the appointment of an independent and qualified cyber auditor to monitor Defendant's cyber hygiene, all of which will be funded by the Defendant. On Jan. 9, 2025, Okoni received an email from her children's school district, informing her of a "cybersecurity incident involving PowerSchool." Powerschool is a provider of cloud-based software to K-12 educational institutions in North America.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael F. Ram, Esq. John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Ryan J. McGee, Esq. Ronald Podolny, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 358-6913 E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com jyanchunis@forthepeople.com rmcgee@forthepeople.com ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Okoni Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------ SHANDRELLE OKONI, individually and on behalf of A. H-M. 1, L.M., and A. H-M 2, minors, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. POWERSCHOOL GROUP, LLC, and POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00231-DJC-AC (E.D. Cal., Jan. 17, 2025) sues the Defendants for their impermissibly inadequate and unlawful data security, which caused the personal information of the Plaintiff and those similarly situated to be exfiltrated by unauthorized access by cybercriminals on Dec. 28, 2024. The Data Breach affected some 60 million teachers and students whose data was kept in cloud software solutions provided by the Defendant. The exfiltrated data included personal identifying information and personal health information including names and social security numbers, medical information and grade information, the lawsuit says. Today, the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members are in jeopardy -- all because of Defendant's negligence. The Plaintiff and Class Members now suffer from a present and continuing risk of fraud and identity theft and must now constantly monitor their financial accounts, the lawsuit asserts. The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered -- and will continue to suffer -- from the loss of the benefit of their bargain, unexpected out-of-pocket expenses, lost or diminished value of their Personal Information, emotional distress, and the value of their time reasonably incurred to mitigate the fallout of the Data Breach, the lawsuit adds. The Plaintiff seeks remedies including compensatory damages, treble damages, punitive damages, reimbursement of out-of-pocket costs, and injunctive relief -- including improvements to the Defendant's data security systems, future annual audits, and the appointment of an independent and qualified cyber auditor to monitor Defendant's cyber hygiene, all of which will be funded by the Defendant. On Jan. 9, 2025, Okoni received an email from her children's school district, informing her of a "cybersecurity incident involving PowerSchool." Powerschool is a provider of cloud-based software to K-12 educational institutions in North America.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael F. Ram, Esq. John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Ryan J. McGee, Esq. Ronald Podolny, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN 711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94102 Telephone: (415) 358-6913 E-mail: mram@forthepeople.com jyanchunis@forthepeople.com rmcgee@forthepeople.com ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Faces Zarif Suit Over Failure to Protect Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- TOWFEQ ZARIF, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC. and POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00259-JDP (E.D. Cal., Jan. 21, 2025) contends that the Defendants failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' personal identifying information. On Jan. 7, 2025, Defendants informed their clients that PowerSchool had been subject to a data breach they discovered on Dec. 28, 2024. In their notice, the Defendants admit that on Dec. 28, PowerSchool became aware of a cybersecurity incident involving unauthorized access to information through one of PowerSchool's user support portals, PowerSource. The Defendants further admit that over the subsequent days, PowerSchool investigated the breach and discovered that the hackers gained access to PowerSchool Student Information System personal data. Power School further admitted that these hackers gained access to the PII of both client school districts and families. As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered concrete damages and are now exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft for a period of years, if not decades, the Plaintiff avers. Furthermore, the Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft, at their own expense. Consequently, the Plaintiff and the other Class Members will incur ongoing out-of-pocket costs for, e.g., purchasing credit monitoring services, credit freezes, credit reports, or other protective measures to deter and detect identity theft. On Jan. 10, 2025, Plaintiff Zarif received a letter from Manassas City Public Schools informing him of the PowerSchool Data Breach, and that student data around the country was subject to unauthorized access. PowerSchool is the largest cloud-based education software provider for K-12 students in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq. Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. Gia Jung, Esq. Thomas E. Loeser, Esq. Karin B. Swope, Esq. Jacob M. Alhadeff, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP 840 Malcolm Road Burlingame, CA 94010 E-mail: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com tloeser@cpmlegal.com gjung@cpmlegal.com tloeser@cpmlegal.com kswope@cpmlegal.com jalhadeff@cpmlegal.com POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, J.B. Says --------------------------------------------------------------- J.B. AND M.B., minors, by and through their legal guardian Patrick Bowler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC. Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00327 (E.D.N.Y., January 17, 2025) alleges that Defendant failed to safeguard highly sensitive personally identifiable information of students, teachers, and other individuals, including minors, using PowerSchool products, including their name, social security number, demographic information, date of birth, phone number, email address, and medical information, and were damaged thereby. According to the complaint, PowerSchool failed to fulfill that responsibility in December 2024 when PowerSchool permitted a serious system vulnerability to arise and be exploited, resulting in the massive data breach. Since exposing thousands of students' and teachers' PII to hackers, PowerSchool has further failed to timely and properly notify Plaintiffs and Class Members, says the suit. The Plaintiffs are minor residents and citizens of the State of New York and students of Lynbrook High School, an institution that relied on Defendant PowerSchool to manage the PII of its students and teachers. PowerSchool is one of the American leading providers of cloud-based education software for school administrators. Headquartered in Folsom, California, PowerSchool has an estimated 18,000 customers worldwide, including schools and school districts ranging from kindergarten to twelfth grade levels.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael P. Canty, Esq. Carol C. Villegas, Esq. Danielle Izzo, Esq. Michael Hotz, Esq. LABATON SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: mcanty@labaton.com cvillegas@labaton.com dizzo@labaton.com mhotz@labaton.com POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Gramelspacher Sues Over Unprotected Info -------------------------------------------------------------- EVAN GRAMELSPACHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC. and POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC, Case No. 2:25-at-00126 (E.D. Cal., Jan. 22, 2025) sues the Defendant for failing to implement reasonable and adequate cybersecurity controls to protect the personally identifying information and/or protected health information entrusted to it from a foreseeable and preventable cyberattack. At some point between Dec. 19 and Dec. 28, 2024, hackers breached the company's vulnerable systems and exfiltrated the valuable Private Information stored within. PowerSchool failed to detect the hackers' actions until the hacker contacted them on Dec. 28, 2024. Beginning on Jan. 8, 2025, PowerSchool began notifying customers that their data was accessed and that they were impacted, the suit says. According to public reports, the hacker claimed to have taken data on 62,488,628 students and 9,506,624 teachers in North America. PowerSchool has neither confirmed nor denied the accuracy of these numbers, nor has it identified the precise number of these victims that reside in the United States, the suit adds. The Private Information stolen in the Data Breach includes dates of birth, addresses, phone numbers, emails, photo identification, and tax information numbers. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class members suffered concrete injuries-in-fact including: invasion of privacy; theft of their Private Information; 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; nominal damages; and the continued and certainly increased risk to their Private Information, the Plaintiff asserts. PowerSchool is a provider of cloud-based education technology software.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Berger, Esq. Jane Farrell, Esq. Sarah E. Hillier, Esq. Jennifer Sun, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 1111 Broadway, Ste. 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 E-mail: dmb@classlawgroup.com jgf@classlawgroup.com seh@classlawgroup.com jsun@classlawgroup.com - and - Mark H. Troutman, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 1554 Polaris Parkway, Suite 325 Columbus, OH 43240 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 E-mail: mht@classlawgroup.com PURITAN'S PRIDE: Ludolph-Aliaga Appeals Judgment to 9th Circuit --------------------------------------------------------------- MARY LUDOLPH-ALIAGA, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Mary Ludolph-Aliaga, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Puritan's Pride, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-06717-JD, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the Superior Court of the County of Mendicino to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, is brought against the Defendants over a buy-one-get-one-free (BOGO) alleged marketing scheme. On Oct. 4, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class, which Judge James Donato granted on Nov. 23, 2021. On Sept. 3, 2024, the Defendants moved to decertify the Rule 23(B)(2) Class, dismiss the Plaintiffs' individual claims for injunctive relief, and enter judgment for the Defendants. On Dec. 19, 2024, Judge Donato entered judgment in favor of the Defendants. The motion to decertify class was denied as moot. The appellate case is captioned Ludolph-Aliaga, et al. v. Puritan's Pride, Inc., et al., Case No. 25-413, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on January 21, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on January 27, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due on January 31, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on March 3, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on April 11, 2025; and -- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due on May 12, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants MARY LUDOLPH-ALIAGA, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Cody Kennedy, Esq. MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP 2945 Townsgate Road, Suite 200 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Defendants-Appellees PURITAN'S PRIDE, INC., et al. are represented by: James Speyer, Esq. Eskandar Alex Beroukhim, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER, LLP 777 S. Figueroa Street, 44th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 REDDIT INC: Levelfields Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Cir. ---------------------------------------------------------- LEVELFIELDS, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing its lawsuit entitled Levelfields, Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Reddit, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-02760-WHO, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit is brought against the Defendant for breach of contract and for violations of California's Unfair Competition Law in connection with its failure to prevent click-through fraud. On Sept. 16, 2024, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which the Defendant moved to dismiss on Oct. 14, 2024. On Dec. 17, 2024, Judge William H. Orrick entered an Order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss with prejudice. The Court held that the amended breach of contract claim still fails given the unambiguous language of the parties' contract, the Reddit Ad Platform Agreement. The appellate case is captioned Levelfields, Inc. v. Reddit, Inc., Case No. 25-394, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on January 21, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on January 27, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on March 3, 2025; and -- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due on April 1, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant LEVELFIELDS, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Trevor W. Weinberg, Esq. Joshua Haffner, Esq. Alfredo Torrijos, Esq. HAFFNER LAW, PC 15260 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1520 Sherman Oaks, CA 91344 Defendant-Appellee REDDIT, INC. is represented by: Dale Bish, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304 RRCA ACCOUNTS: Fails to Protect Customers' Data, Higley Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW HIGLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RRCA ACCOUNTS MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-50024 (N.D. Ill., January 17, 2025) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals whose personally identifying information was stolen by hackers in a major data breach and ransomware attack on RRCA's network. In the course of conducting its regular business, the Defendant stores a large amount of highly-sensitive PII about Plaintiff and Class Members, including identity and services information related to its collection practices. However, due to its negligent conduct in improperly maintaining or otherwise failing to adhere to standard cybersecurity protocols, the Defendant lost control over Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII when cybercriminals infiltrated its computer systems in a data breach and ransomware attack, asserts the complaint. The Defendant breached its duty to Plaintiff and Class Members when it failed to implement and maintain adequate cybersecurity procedures and protocols to safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII, resulting in the unauthorized disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII to cybercriminals, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former individuals against whom Defendant has sought collection. RRCA Accounts Management is a corporation that provides a variety of debt collection services. It primarily works as a vendor for health care providers and related companies, but also works for other types of businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan M. Jagher, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 923 Fayette Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 234-6486 Facsimile: (224) 632-4521 E-mail: jjagher@fklmlaw.com - and - Nicholas R. Lange, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 100 Tri-State International, Suite 128 Lincolnshire, IL 60069 Telephone: (224) 632-4500 Facsimile: (224) 632-4521 E-mail: nlange@fklmlaw.com - and - Amber L. Schubert, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2001 Union St., Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 E-mail: aschubert@sjk.law SAM'S WEST: Sanchez Appeals Class Cert. Bid Denial to 9th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- CARLOS SANCHEZ is taking an appeal from a court order denying his motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled Carlos Sanchez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Sam's West Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:21-cv-05122-SVW-JC, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendant for alleged violations of the California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code. On Jan. 3, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Stephen V. Wilson denied on Sept. 10, 2024. The Court held that the deficiencies in the Plaintiff's putative classes cannot be remedied through further renewed motions. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion was dismissed with prejudice. The appellate case is captioned Sanchez v. Sam's West Inc., Case No. 25-329, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on January 17, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on January 22, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due on January 28, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on February 27, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on April 8, 2025; and -- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due on May 8, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant CARLOS SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Corey Scott Smith, Esq. Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq. BRADLEY GROMBACHER, LLP 31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Defendant-Appellee SAM'S WEST INC. is represented by: Carmen Aguado, Esq. Paloma Peracchio, Esq. OGLETREE DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC 400 S. Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 - and - Mitchell Aaron Wrosch, Esq. Vince M. Verde, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC 695 Town Center Drive, Suite 1500 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 SAZERAC COMPANY: Appeals Class Certification Order in Andrews Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ SAZERAC COMPANY, INC. is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled Wilbert Andrews, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Sazerac Company, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-01060, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Plaintiff Christina Del Rosario brought this putative class action pursuant to New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350 alleging that the labels of 50 ml and 100 ml bottles of Southern Comfort malt beverage led consumers to believe that they were purchasing a whiskey-based product by, among other things, utilizing the "Southern Comfort" brand name and including a federally-required statement of composition that identifies the product as a "malt beverage with natural whiskey flavors." On Mar. 15, 2024, Wilbert Andrews and Steven Kahn, who replaced Ms. Del Rosario as the named Plaintiffs, moved for certification of a class of all New York consumers who had purchased the malt-based version of Southern Comfort since February 8, 2020. On Jan. 2, 2025, Judge Arun Subramanian entered an Order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class. The Court certified a class of all persons who purchased the Southern Comfort malt products in the State of New York at any time during the period February 8, 2020, to the date of judgment. Mr. Khan's lawyers, Charles D. Moore, Neal Jamison Deckant, and Spencer Sheehan, were appointed as class counsel. The appellate case is captioned Sazerac Company, Inc. v. Wilbert Andrews, et al., Case No. 25-127, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on January 17, 2025. [BN] Defendant-Petitioner SAZERAC COMPANY, INC. is represented by: Creighton R. Magid, Esq. Christopher G. Karagheuzoff, Esq. DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP 51 West 52nd Street New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 415-9200 Facsimile: (212) 953-7201 Email: magid.chip@dorsey.com karagheuzoff.christopher@dorsey.com SENIOR LIFESTYLE: Washington Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- SHEILA WASHINGTON, individually and for others similarly situated v. SENIOR LIFESTYLE CORPORATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-00683 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 21, 2025) is a class and collective action to recover unpaid wages and other damages from Senior Lifestyle Corporation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and Illinois Minimum Wage Law. Plaintiff Washington and the other straight time workers regularly work more than 40 hours a workweek for Senior Lifestyle. But the Plaintiff and the other straight time workers are allegedly not paid required overtime wages when they work in excess of 40 hours a workweek for Senior Lifestyle. Instead, Senior Lifestyle misclassifies Washington and the other straight time workers as independent contractors. While working for Senior Lifestyle, Washington and the other straight time workers are paid the same hourly rate, "straight time," for all hours worked each workday and never paid one and a half times their regular rates of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 a workweek, the suit contends. Senior Lifestyle applies its straight time for overtime pay scheme to Washington and the other Straight Time Workers regardless of any allegedly individualized differences, the suit adds. Ms. Washington worked for Senior Lifestyle as a Certified Nursing Assistant at its Sheridan at River Forest facility in River Forest, Illinois. Senior Lifestyle offers a variety of senior living options, including assisted and independent living, memory care and skilled nursing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen A. Salas, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 W. Washington St., Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 Facsimile: (312) 419-1025 E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com msalas@flsalaw.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Faces ERISA Class Action in N.D. Tex. --------------------------------------------------------- Southwest Airlines is facing a class action lawsuit alleging that it failed to properly oversee investment options in its employee retirement plan, leading to millions of dollars in losses for its 401(k) plan participants. The suit, filed by Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight in the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas, claims the airline breached its fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. The law firm is no stranger to high-profile class actions involving company retirement plans. In December, it secured preliminary approval for a $69 million settlement in an ERISA case against UnitedHealth Group, which was among the largest rulings of its kind. Earlier in the year, it helped obtain final approval of a $61 million ERISA settlement against General Electric. According to the complaint shared with InvestmentNews, Southwest began offering the Harbor Capital Appreciation Fund as an investment option in its 401(k) plan in 2010, after which it went through years of underperformance. The fund, an active strategy overseen by the large-cap growth investment team at Jennison Associates, was initially offered in the plan as a mutual fund before being migrated into a collective investment trust. The lawsuit alleges that by December 2018, the Harbor fund had lagged behind its benchmark, the Russell 1000 Growth Index, over the prior three-, five-, and nine-year periods. Despite that, the law firm said Southwest neglected to replace the fund, which remains part of the plan and holds over $2 billion in assets. Charles Field, a partner at Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight and counsel for the plaintiffs, said the fund accounts for approximately 17 percent of the plan's total holdings. "Plan participants have invested over $2 billion in the Harbor Capital Fund. As fiduciaries to the plan, defendants are obligated to monitor the plan to ensure that all investments are prudent," Field said in a statement on Wednesday, January 29. The lawsuit names Southwest Airlines, its board of directors, and multiple committees responsible for overseeing the plan as defendants. Acting on behalf of the proposed class of roughly 60,000 plan participants, the plaintiffs said the airline's failure to act has cost employees millions of dollars in retirement savings. Apart from seeking financial restitution for the plan's losses, the plaintiffs are pushing for Southwest Airlines to remove imprudent investments from the plan and demanding the removal of the fiduciaries who "violated their duties to the Plan's participants and beneficiaries under ERISA." "As fiduciaries of the plan, defendants are duty bound to monitor the plan's investments continuously and remove imprudent ones," said David Tracey, a partner at Sanford Heisler Sharp McKnight. "It is precisely that duty that this complaint alleges the defendants have breached by failing to remove the Harbor Capital Fund." [GN] SQUARE PAYROLL: Lopez Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------- The case styled PHILIP LOPEZ, an individual; on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SQUARE PAYROLL, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24CV102859, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on January 17, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00648 to the proceeding. The Plaintiff alleges that Square Payroll violated the federal Electronic Funds Transfer Act; California Civil Code; California's Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code; and common law negligence by allegedly "delaying and/or withholding and/or failing to provide wages owed to Plaintiff." The Plaintiff further alleges that he represents both a Nationwide Class and a California Class of consumers who were damaged by the alleged violations. Square Payroll, Inc. is an online payroll service.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Justin Owens, Esq. Shawn Collins, Esq. Michael Mosher, Esq. STRADLING YOCCA CARLSON & RAUTH LLP 660 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1600 Newport Beach, CA 92660-6422 Telephone: (949) 725-4000 Facsimile: (949) 725-4100 E-mail: jowens@stradlinglaw.com scollins@stradlinglaw.com mmosher@stradlinglaw.com STANTEC CONSULTING: Eshenour Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------------ ELEANOR ESHENOUR, individually and for others similarly situated v. STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00218 (D. Colo., Jan. 22, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, untimely paid wages, and other damages from Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Eshenour and the other Straight Time Employees regularly work more than 40 hours a workweek. But Stantec allegedly pays Eshenour and the other Straight Time Employees the same hourly rate for all hours worked, including hours in excess of 40 a workweek. Stantec uniformly misclassifies Eshenour and the other Straight Time Employees as exempt from overtime. But Stantec has never paid Eshenour or the other Straight Time Employees on a "salary basis," the lawsuit says. Stantec's straight time for overtime pay scheme violates the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law by depriving Eshenour and the other Straight Time Employees of the "time and a half" overtime pay they are owed for all hours worked in excess of 40 each workweek, the lawsuit asserts. Additionally, despite being manual workers, Stantec fails to pay Eshenour and the other Manual Workers their wages within seven calendar days after the end of the week in which they earned such wages, as required by NYLL section 191. Instead, Stantec pays Eshenour and the other Manual Workers on a bi-weekly basis. Eshenour worked for Stantec as an environmental analyst in New York from January 2020 through December 2023. Stantec provides professional consulting services in planning, engineering, architecture, interior design, landscape architecture, surveying, environmental sciences, project management, and project economics for infrastructure and facilities projects.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com STIIIZY INC: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Wenzel Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- RYAN WENZEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. STIIIZY, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00510 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 21, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard the sensitive personally identifiable information that was entrusted to it, and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. The Data Breach occurred between Oct. 10, 2024 and Nov. 10, 2024. Defendant's investigation concluded that the cybercriminals gained unauthorized access to employees' and customers' Private Information including name, address, date of birth, age, drivers’ license number, passport number, photograph, the signatures appearing on a government ID card, medical cannabis cards, transaction histories, and other personal information, the suit says. On Jan. 9, 2025, the Defendant issued a public disclosure and started sending out notice letters and emails to affected individuals. As a result of Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, 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. Plaintiff Ryan Wenzel is a customer of the Defendant. On Jan. 16, 2025, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a notice email informing him about the Data Breach. The Defendant is a cannabis company headquartered in Los Angeles, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 468 N. Camden Dr., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 Facsimile: (213) 471-4160 E-mail: daniel@slfla.com SUPREME GOLF: Faces Prague Suit Over Non-Delineated Booking Fees ---------------------------------------------------------------- PATRICK PRAGUE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SUPREME GOLF, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00319 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 17, 2025) contends that, for over two years, the Defendant has been collecting users of its platform booking fee times to golf courses in New York in violation of the New York Arts and Cultural Affairs Law. The Defendant Supreme Golf operates the website, https://www.supremegolf.com, and a mobile application, that allows golfers to book tee times at golf courses across the United States, including in New York. Whenever a consumer selects a tee time to book through Supreme Golf, he is quoted a fee-less price, only to be ambushed by non-delineated "booking fee" at checkout, after clicking through the various screens required to book a tee time. Some consumers that pay the fee may never notice it. Others, who do notice the fee, are surprised and frustrated, but nevertheless pay because they are unwilling to start the entire process all over again on another website. This cheap trick—commonly referred to as "drip pricing"-has enabled the Defendant to swindle substantial sums of money from its customers, the Plaintiff alleges. The Plaintiff was harmed by paying these unlawfully applied fees. These fees were also themselves rendered unlawful because the total cost was not disclosed to Plaintiff at the beginning of the purchase process, in violation of New York Arts & Cultural Affairs Law, the suit says. The Plaintiff used Supreme Golf on multiple occasions to book tee times at golf courses in New York, including to book a 5:00 PM tee time on Aug. 7, 2024 at Willow Creek Golf & Country Club in Mount Sinai, New York. Supreme Golf works closely with golf course owners and operators to provide technology, marketing and business solutions to help manage their facilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com sbogdanovich@bursor.com TILE INC: Appeals Arbitration Bid Ruling in Gordy Suit to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ TILE, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting in part and denying in part their motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings in the lawsuit entitled Shannon Ireland-Gordy, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Tile, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-04119-RFL, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendant for alleged violation of California's Invasion of Privacy Act. On April 26, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On June 7, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings, which Judge Rita F. Lin granted in part and denied in part on Dec. 19, 2024. The appellate case is captioned Ireland-Gordy, et al. v. Tile, Inc., et al., Case No. 25-403, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on January 21, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on January 27, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due on January 31, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on March 3, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on April 11, 2025; and -- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due on May 12, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees SHANNON IRELAND-GORDY, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Gillian Leigh Wade, Esq. Marc Alexander Castaneda, Esq. Sara Dawn Avila, Esq. WADE KILPELA SLADE, LLP 2450 Colorado Avenue, Suite 100e Santa Monica, CA 90404 Boulder, CO 80302 - and - David F. Slade, Esq. WADE KILPELA SLADE, LLP 1 Riverfront Place, Suite 745 North Little Rock, AR 72114 Defendants-Appellants TILE, INC., et al. are represented by: Jeffrey M. Gutkin, Esq. Max Bernstein, Esq. COOLEY, LLP 3 Embarcadero Center, 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 - and - Travis LeBlanc, Esq. COOLEY, LLP 1299 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 700 Washington, DC 20004 - and - Amanda Main, Esq. COOLEY, LLP 3175 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304 UDISENSE INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Jackson Says --------------------------------------------------------------- SYLINIA JACKSON, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UDISENSE INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00580 (S.D.N.Y., January 21, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://nanit.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on October 25, 2024, in an attempt to purchase a Nanit Baby Monitor from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied her a shopping 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. She was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, which prevented her from doing so. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. UDISENSE INC. operates the Nanit online interactive website and retail store across the United States that provides an access to an array of goods and services including information about Defendant's baby monitors and baby monitoring tools.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, 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 E-mail: Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal WALGREEN CO: Faces Class Action Over Opioid Prescriptions --------------------------------------------------------- Jessy Edwards of Top Class Actions reports that The United States government is suing Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc. Why: The government alleges Walgreens filled millions of invalid opioid prescriptions in violation of federal law. Where: The Walgreens class action was filed in Illinois federal court. The United States government has filed a class action lawsuit against Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc. alleging the pharmacy chain filled millions of invalid opioid prescriptions in violation of federal law. The lawsuit was filed Jan. 16 in Illinois federal court and alleges Walgreens filled invalid prescriptions for controlled substances since Aug. 10, 2012. The U.S. government alleges Walgreens pharmacists filled millions of prescriptions for opioids and other controlled substances that were not issued for a legitimate medical purpose or by a practitioner acting in the usual course of professional practice. "In some particularly tragic instances, patients died after overdosing on opioids shortly after filling invalid prescriptions at Walgreens," the Walgreens opioid prescriptions class action says. The government also claims Walgreens sought reimbursement from federal healthcare programs for the illegally filled prescriptions, resulting in false claims being submitted to Medicare, Medicaid, TRICARE and other programs. Walgreens pressured pharmacists to fill prescriptions quickly, class action claims The lawsuit alleges the pharmacy chain pressured its pharmacists to fill prescriptions quickly, without taking the time needed to confirm each the validity of each prescription. Walgreens also knowingly deprived pharmacists of crucial information, such as warnings about practitioners known for regularly writing invalid opioid prescriptions, the government alleges. The Walgreens opioid prescriptions class action claims Walgreens violated the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act and the False Claims Act. The government is seeking civil penalties and other relief under the Controlled Substances Act and the False Claims Act, including damages and penalties for each false claim submitted to federal healthcare programs. In 2023, West Virginia's attorney general announced an $83 million deal with Walgreens to resolve claims it exacerbated the opioid epidemic in the state. The United States is represented by Brian M. Boynton, Burden H. Walker, Amanda N. Liskamm, Amy L. Deline, Donald R. Lorenzen, Nicole Frazer, Michael D. Granston, Jamie A. Yavelberg, Natalie A. Waites and Joshua R. Barron of the U.S. Department of Justice; Morris Pasqual and Valerie R. Raedy of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Illinois; Roger B. Handberg, Lacy R. Harwell Jr. and Carolyn B. Tapie of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Florida; Erek L. Barron and Thomas F. Corcoran of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Maryland; Carolyn Pokorny and Elliot M. Schachner of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York; and Maya D. Song and Clare P. Wuerker of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Virginia. The Walgreens class action lawsuit is United States of America v. Walgreen Co. et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-05452, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. [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 ***