/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250211.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, February 11, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 30 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Adamonis Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina 3M COMPANY: Geissler Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama 3M COMPANY: Thomas Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama ACE HARDWARE: Grey Files Suit in Ill. Ct. ACREAGE HOLDINGS: Alsip Balks at Deceptive Cannabis Products' Sale ADDSHOPPER INC: Loses Bid to Compel Deposition in Lineberry Suit ADVANCE AUTO: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Complaint in Suarez Suit AKASH MANAGEMENT: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ALASKA AIRLINES: Correa Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ALEX AND ANI: Hassid Sues Over Unlawful Trap and Trace Software ALEXANDER MCQUEEN: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Murphy Says ALLEGHENY HEALTH: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Dimoff Alleges ALLIED VAN: Faces Plater Class Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages ALLSTATE CORP: Azar Sues Over Privacy Law Breaches ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Streifel Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ALTA RESOURCES: Faces Jungwirth Class Action Suit in E.D. Wis. AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Gillard Sues Over Unlawful Attendance Policy AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Peralta Suit Removed to C.D. California AMAZON.COM: Bid Consolidate Taylor Case with Trevino Tossed AMERGIS HEALTHCARE: Payne Files Suit in D. Maryland AMERICA ULIKE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Young Suit Claims AMERICAN ADDICTION: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Lanagan Says ANDREW MCFARLAND: Latimore Bid to Certify Class Tossed ANTHEM CO: Bid to Seal Class Cert Exhibits OK'd ASSESS HOMECARE: Floyd Seeks to Recover Proper Overtime Wages AUS INC: Agrees to Settle Class Suit Over 2022 Data Breach AUTO PERFECTION: Hernandez Sues Over Improper Pay and Retaliation AVIVA METALS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Konicek Says BARRISTER EXECUTIVE: Romero Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BASSETT FURNITURE: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Action Suit BLACK WOLF: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Young Says BOJANGLES OPCO: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Poor Cybersecurity BSA HEALTH: Taylor Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida BUREAU VERITAS: Walters Sues Over Elevator Inspectors' Unpaid OT C&M BAGELS: Reyes Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation C.C. FILSON: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Delacruz Says CANNON RESIDENTIAL: Turbeville Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages CAPITAL ONE: Steals Commissions from Online Marketers, Suit Says CAPRI HOLDINGS: Faces FNY Class Suit Over Common Stock Drop CARDINAL HEALTH: CMO Deadlines Vacated in Chavez Class Suit CARDINAL LOGISTICS: Herrera Removed from State Ct. to E.D. Cal. CARL'S JR: Bernardo Suit Removed from State Court to C.D. Cal. CARNIVAL CORP: Negligence Raps Over COVID Handling in Ships Pending CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY: Student Settlement Class Gets Certification CENTR LLC: De Suit Removed to C.D. California CHOICEPOINT LLC: Faces Class Suit Over Online Tracking Tools CINTAS CORPORATION: Gutierrez Suit Removed to E.D. California CLUB 1 HOTELS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Wilson Suit Claims COHO FINANCIAL: Hicks Sues Over Illegal Scheme and RICO Violation COLOMBO CONSTRUCTION: Dean Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. COMMUNITY CHOICE: Faces Parejeo-Yepez Discrimination Class Action COMPASS GROUP: Faces Class Action Suit Over Illinois GIPA Violation CRUMBL LLC: Serra Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California DESIGNER BRANDS: Settlement in Laguardia Gets Initial Nod DIDI GLOBAL: Must File Class Cert Responses by March 7 DRUG FREE: Agrees to Settle Class Suit Over 2023 Data Breach E&M PROPERTY: Blose Sues Over Security Deposit Management ELEVANCE HEALTH: Landis Allowed Leave to File Class Cert. Bid ENHANCE HEALTH: Parties Seek to Stay Discovery Deadlines ENTERPRISE RESOURCE: Faces Williams Employment Suit in California ENVOY AIR: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Pietri Suit Due Oct. 31 EUROMARKET DESIGNS: Faces Marsalisi Over Unwanted Text Messages EVERGREEN PACKAGING: Faces Class Actions Over Labor Violations FACTOR75 LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Jackson Alleges FEDEX GROUND: Court OK's Proposed Schedule for Class Cert Briefing FIRST TECH: Class Settlement in Perez Suit Gets Final Nod FMP MORTGAGE: Ontario Court Approves $3-Mil. Class Settlement FOOD52 INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Walker Suit Says FOSTER GARVEY: Bid to Seal Docs OK'd in Cellucci Suit FULTON COUNTY, GA: Bid for More Time to File Response OK'd FULTON COUNTY, GA: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response GEICO GENERAL: Marcelletti Suit Seeks to Certify Class GEICO: Class Cert Bid Filing in Fischer Amended to March 12 GERBER PRODUCTS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Howard Due March 20 GERBER PRODUCTS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Howards Due March 20 GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Class Settlement in Calchi Suit Gets Initial Nod GOOGLE LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Taylor Reset to March 11 GROCERY OUTLET: Faces Investors Class Action Lawsuit GROCERY OUTLET: Liberato Sues Over Drop in Share Price HATTIESBURG, MS: Mallory Files Suit in S.D. Mississippi HEALTH CARE: Rutherford Seeks More Time to File Response HILTON WORLDWIDE: Tracks Users' Website Browsing, Shah Alleges HOBBY LOBBY: Dalton Sues Over Website's Noncompliance of ADA HOSHINO (USA): Thorne Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind HPC INDUSTRIAL: Parties in Longley Must File Discovery Report HPC INDUSTRIAL: Parties Must File Joint Discovery Report HSBC BANK: Court Recommends Denial of Ni Class Cert Bid IESO LLC: Sells Vapable Oil Products with Excess THC, Suit Says INDEPENDENCE PROJECT: Property Violates ADA, Maurer Alleges INDIAN HILL: Court Junks R.L.K. Bid for Class Certification INTEGRAL AD: Bids for Lead Plaintiffs Deadline Set March 31 INTEL CORP: Berkeley Considers Filing Exhibits Under Seal INTEL CORP: Berkeley Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action INTRASYSTEMS LLC: Couchenour Sues Over Private Data Breach INTRASYSTEMS LLC: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Witas Says JAR CIRCLE: Lozano Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL JEWISH VOICE: Face Class Action Suit Over Traffic Jams JUSTPLAY GMBH: Brewer Seeks More Time to Serve Complaint KAUFFMAN SALES: Adams Alleges Labor Law Violations KE HOLDINGS: Chin Suit Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply KENTUCKY: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss Claims in Kennedy v. DJJ KERR MCGEE: Settlement Deal in Epperson Suit Gets Final Nod KRAFT HEINZ: Flexer Sues Over Capri Sun Juice's False Labels LEADPOINT INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Ragsdale Due May 2 LEGOLAND NEW YORK: Settlement Class in Demmerle Gets Initial Cert. LEPRINO FOODS: Dominguez Wins Bid for Class Certification LIFEPOINT HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Adams Alleges LIFEPOINT HEALTH: Schoeppner Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA LIFESTANCE HEALTH: Court Narrows Claims in Strong Suit LOANUNITED.COM LLC: Huff Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages LOCKHART & MORRIS: Karcher Sues Over Consumer Debt Collection LOS ANGELES, CA: Herrera Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Classes LOUISIANA: Must Produce Documents and ESI, Court Says LUAR LLC: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Murphy Suit Says LULU'S FASHION: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website MAGELLAN HEALTH: Deakin's Bid to Dismiss Opt-In Plaintiffs Granted MANDYTODDCO INC: Green Seeks to Certify Collective Action MARRIOTT INT'L: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to April 11 MATTEL INC: Court Consolidates Class Actions MDL 2566: Bid to Seal Doerr Declaration Referred to Mag. Judge MDL 2873: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Glover Class Suit Alleges MDL 2873: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Roate Class Suit Alleges MEDUSIND INC: Faces Delva Class Action Suit Over Data Breach MERIT ENERGY: Settlement in GOP Suit Gets Final Nod META PLATFORMS: Renewed Bid for Class Cert Tossed MICHAEL GROFF: Class Certification Bids Due May 2 MISS MATCH: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Fernandez Says MIZENSIR LLC: Faces Zhang Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website MMS GROUP: Court Recommends Approval of Class Certification MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Must Oppose Ramey Class Cert Bid by Feb. 18 MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE: To Settle Consolidated Shareholder Suit NAHON & SAHAROVICH: Class Settlement in Garbino Gets Initial Nod NANUSHKA US: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Murphy Alleges NAT'L ASSOC. OF REALTORS: Wang Suit Stayed Pending Burnett Appeal NBA PROPERTIES: Discloses App Users' Personal Info, Whalen Says NEW YORK: Bid to Toss NYCHRL Claims in Paulino-Santos v. MTA Denied NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Wins Bid to Exclude Opinion in Derailment Suit P.K. KINDER: Blosser Must File Class Cert Bid by Sept. 8 PACIFICORP: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Wilson Suit Due Oct. 17 PARSEC INC: Mealancon Suit Removed to C.D. California PAUL HESSE: Class Certification Response in White Due Feb. 27 PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Court Tosses Amended Complaint in Securities Suit PIH HEALTH: Fails to Secure Private Info, Elizarraras Alleges PLOTS INC: Faces Jaber Class Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Allen Alleges POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Fails to Secure Info, August Alleges POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Warren Says POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Krutsinger Balks at Unprotected Personal Info PROGRESSIVE TREATMENT: Rodriguez Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois PTT LLC: Court Grants and Denies Motions in Limine in Larsen Suit QUAKER OATS: Hearing on Class Cert Bid Set for March 12 QUALCOMM INC: Perez-Cruet Must File Class Cert Bid by March 10 QUINCY BIOSCIENCE: Beatty Sues Over Dietary Supplements' False Ads QUINCY BIOSCIENCE: Beatty Suit Referred to Magistrate Judge READING INT'L: Bid to Dismiss Berryman Suit Tossed RELIAS LLC: Discloses Customers' Into to Meta, Kieliszewski Says RELIAS LLC: Ware Sues Over Disclosed Personal Info to Facebook RENU COMMERCIAL: Booth Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ROCKET MORTGAGE: 4th Cir. Affirms in Part Class Cert. in Alig Suit SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY: Seeks Dismissal of Amended Complaint SHAKEY'S USA INC: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SIRIUS XM: Balmores Must Amend First Amended Complaint SISKIYOU COUNTY, CA: Chang Bid to Modify Prelim Injunction Tossed SIX FLAGS: Settlement in OFPRS Suit Gets Approval SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Anderson Sues Over Mismanagement of Plan SPORT SQUAD: Class Certification Bids in Matus Suit Due May 8 STATE FARM: Arias Must File Class Cert Bid by July 31 STIIIZY INC: S.D. Illinois Narrows Claims in Byron Consumer Suit SYNTA TECHNOLOGY: Agrees to Settle AntiTrust Class Suit for $32MM TARGET CORP: Court to Grant Sadler Bid for Class Certification TARGET CORP: Faces Police Pension Suit Over Price Stock Drop TARGET CORP: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit TELEXELECTRIC LLLP: Bid to Seal Docs OK'd in Ferguson Suit TELEXELECTRIC LLLP: Bid to Seal Docs OK'd in Murdoch Fraud Suit TELEXELECTRIC: Bid to Seal Docs OK'd in Githere Suit TELEXFREE LLC: Bid to Seal Docs OK'd in Bankruptcy-Withdrawal Suit THREE61 LLC: Briscoe Sues Over Defective Mini Smoke Alarm Product TOP GOLF: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Billingy Suit Alleges TRADER JOE'S: Stephan Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty TRINITY MA INC: Faces Cabrera Suit Over Labor Code Breaches U.S. IMMIGRATION: Breaches Fiduciary Duty, Kong Class Suit Says UMPQUA BANK: Ponzi Scheme Class Action Heads to Trial UNITED STATES: Alarm Concepts Sues For Unlawful Tax Info Disclosure UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Suit Over Diversity Policies VANGUARD GROUP: Faces Class Suit Over $100 Account Closure Fee WALGREENS BOOTS: Klein Sues Over Drop in Share Price WALMART INC: Faces Class Suit Over Mac and Cheese False Claims WALT DISNEY: Torres Suit Removed to C.D. California WAVE ASIAN: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Bawgus Suit Alleges WELLNESS GROUP: Alsip Alleges Unlawful Sale of Cannabis Products WELLSPAN HEALTH: Class Cert Bid Filing in Tomassone Due August 15 WERNER ENTERPRISES: Abarca Compelled to Respond to Interrogatories WILINE NETWORKS: Bid for Class Cert. Due Oct. 24 WOLFORD AMERICA: Removes Atsatt Suit to C.D. Calif. XACTUS LLC: Bid for Class Cert in Cinner Suit Due June 13 YODLEE INC: Plaintiffs Seek to Modify Sept. 25, 2024 Order ********* 3M COMPANY: Adamonis Suit Transferred to D. South Carolina ---------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Joseph E. Adamonis, et al., and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00001 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina on Jan. 28, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00536-RMG to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. 3M -- http://www.3m.com/-- is an American multinational conglomerate operating in the fields of industry, worker safety, healthcare, and consumer goods.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Lawrence Diab, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, PC P.O. Box 4160 Montgomer, AL 36103 Phone: (334) 269-2343 Fax: (334) 954-7555 Email: david.diab@beasleyallen.com 3M COMPANY: Geissler Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Michael K. Geissler, et al., and others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 01-CV 2024-905131.00 was removed from the Circuit Court for the Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Jefferson County, Alabama, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on Jan. 28, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00144-NAD. The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M and certain other Defendants liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, and/or selling aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and/or firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") that Plaintiffs allege were used in firefighting activities, thereby causing injury to Plaintiffs.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: M. Christian King, Esq. Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq. W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq. LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C. The Clark Building 400 North 20th Street Birmingham, AL 35203-3200 Phone: (205) 581-0700 Email: cking@lightfootlaw.com hprater@lightfootlaw.com lradney@lightfootlaw.com 3M COMPANY: Thomas Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama ----------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Joseph Thomas, et al., and others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 01-CV-2024-905135.00 was removed from the Circuit Court for the Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Jefferson County, Alabama, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on Jan. 28, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00143-JHE. The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M and certain other Defendants liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, and/or selling aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") and/or firefighter turnout gear ("TOG") that Plaintiffs allege were used in firefighting activities, thereby causing injury to Plaintiffs.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: M. Christian King, Esq. Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq. W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq. LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C. The Clark Building 400 North 20th Street Birmingham, AL 35203-3200 Phone: (205) 581-0700 Email: cking@lightfootlaw.com hprater@lightfootlaw.com lradney@lightfootlaw.com ACE HARDWARE: Grey Files Suit in Ill. Ct. ----------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ace Hardware Corporation. The case is styled as Kevin Grey, William Bennett Jr., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ace Hardware Corporation, Case No. 2025LA000101 (Ill. Ct., DuPage Cty., Jan. 28, 2025). Ace Hardware Corporation -- https://www.acehardware.com/ -- is an American hardware retailers' cooperative based in Oak Brook, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carl Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 111 W. Jackson St., Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Phone: (312) 984-0000 Fax: (212) 545-4653 Email: malmstrom@whafh.com ACREAGE HOLDINGS: Alsip Balks at Deceptive Cannabis Products' Sale ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHAD ALSIP, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. ACREAGE HOLDINGS, INC., IN GROWN FARM, LLC, NCC, LLC, ACREAGE HOLDINGS AMERICA, INC., and ACREAGE HOLDINGS WC, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00867 (N.D. Ill., January 24, 2025), arises from Defendant's unlawful manufacturing, marketing, and sale of potent "cannabis-infused products" with excessively high tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content. Allegedly, the products' THC content is well above the applicable legal limits imposed under Illinois law for consumers' health and safety. However, Defendants masqueraded their CIPs as legal for purchase and consumption in Illinois. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings this action individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals to seek redress for violations of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices and Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, as well as common law torts of fraud and fraudulent concealment, declaratory judgment, breach of express and implied warranties, and unjust enrichment, among others. Headquartered in New York, NY, Acreage Holdings, Inc. process, manufacture, and/or package CIPs products under one national portfolio of brands, including Botanist, Superflux, and other brand names. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laura Luisi, Esq. Jamie Holz, Esq. LUISI HOLZ LAW 161 N. Clark St., Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 639-4478 E-mail: LuisiL@luisiholzlaw.com HolzJ@luisiholzlaw.com ADDSHOPPER INC: Loses Bid to Compel Deposition in Lineberry Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Peter H. Kang of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division denies without prejudice AddShoppers's request for an order compelling Greg Dessart to sit for a deposition in the lawsuit captioned ABBY LINEBERRY, et al., Plaintiffs v. ADDSHOPPER, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01996-VC (N.D. Cal.). Before the Court is a Joint Discovery Letter Brief between Plaintiffs Abby Lineberry, Terry Michael Cook, and Miguel Cordero and Defendant AddShoppers Inc. Defendant AddShoppers requests that the Court deny the Plaintiffs' request for a protective order and requests that the Court issue an order compelling third party Greg Dessart to sit for a deposition. The Plaintiffs request a protective order to prevent AddShoppers from deposing Mr. Dessart. On April 24, 2023, Plaintiffs Abby Lineberry, Terry Michael Cook, and Greg Dessart filed an initial class action complaint against Defendants AddShoppers, Presidio Brands, Inc., and Peet's Coffee, Inc., on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals. On Jan. 17, 2024, the Court issued an order which granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the initial complaint. On Nov. 4, 2024, the Court granted a joint request for Greg Dessart's claims to be fully dismissed. The Plaintiffs' position is that the Court already allowed Mr. Dessart to withdraw. But because the Court dismissed Mr. Dessart's claims with prejudice, he is not even an absent class member. Sometime before Nov. 4, 2024, Defendant AddShoppers sought Greg Dessart's deposition while he was still a party. After Greg Dessart was dismissed from the case, Defendant AddShoppers properly served Dessart with a subpoena pursuant to Rule 45. On Nov. 22, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint, which removed Greg Dessart as a Plaintiff and added Miguel Cordero as a Plaintiff. On Jan. 13, 2025, the Parties filed the instant Joint Discovery Letter Brief. The Joint Letter Brief is silent if Greg Dessart has logged an objection to the subpoena with the Parties. Greg Dessart has not filed an objection or brief on this dispute with the Court. Defendant AddShoppers requests an order compelling Greg Dessart to sit for a deposition. As a threshold matter, the Parties agree that Greg Dessart is a non-party. The initial complaint asserts that Mr. Dessart has a residence and domicile in Everett, AddShoppers cites the same allegation in the Joint Discovery Letter Brief and does not indicate to the contrary. AddShoppers indicates that it offered to take Mr. Dessart's deposition virtually which AddShoppers presumed he would join from his home. As such, the "place of compliance" for the Dessart deposition would be in Everett, Washington. The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that Everett, Washington, is located within the geographic boundaries of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. Pursuant to legal standards, the Court is not the court from which AddShoppers should properly seek an order compelling third-party Dessart to sit for a deposition sought by subpoena. The "place of compliance" is not within the geographical boundaries of the Northern District of California, because the location from which Mr. Dessart would be deposed is his home in Everett, Washington. Judge Kang explains that discovery disputes involving requests to compel a third-party to attend a deposition pursuant to subpoena must be filed in the first instance in the court where compliance is required. Courts routinely deny motions to compel compliance with a subpoena where such motions are filed in the wrong district. Accordingly, Defendant AddShoppers's motion to compel third party Greg Dessart to attend his deposition pursuant to subpoena is denied without prejudice. In the Joint Discovery Letter Brief, the Plaintiffs move the Court to issue a protective order preventing AddShoppers from deposing third-party Greg Dessart. As such, the Plaintiffs seek to quash AddShoppers's deposition subpoena directed to Mr. Dessart. First, Judge Kang says, the Plaintiffs' motion for a protective order is denied as moot because, as discussed, AddShoppers should have filed their motion to compel the Dessart deposition in the court of the place of compliance (the Western District of Washington). Second, out of an abundance of caution and for completeness of the record, the Court addresses the merits of the Plaintiffs' motion. Here, the Parties agree that Greg Dessart is a non-party to the action. The amended complaint withdraws Mr. Dessart as a named plaintiff, and the Parties provide no reason why the Court should treat Mr. Dessart as a party. Because Dessart is undisputedly a non-party to this action, Judge Kang holds the general presumption that parties to the litigation lack standing to move to quash a subpoena directed to a non-party applies here. Based on the arguments and relief sought in Joint Discovery Letter Brief, the Plaintiffs are moving to quash the Dessart subpoena (albeit by styling their "request" as a motion seeking to "prevent" his deposition). As the movants, the Plaintiffs have the burden of persuasion to overcome the presumption that they lack standing to quash a non-party subpoena. Based on the record presented here, Judge Kang finds the Plaintiffs have not met their burden of persuasion and have, thus, failed to establish they have standing to move to quash the subpoena. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' objections and arguments are not sufficient to show they have standing to move to quash the Dessart subpoena. Accordingly, the Court denies without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion to quash the deposition subpoena directed to Mr. Dessart. The Court also denies without prejudice the Plaintiffs' request for a protective order as moot. The Court denies without prejudice Defendant AddShoppers's motion for an order compelling non-party Greg Dessart to attend a deposition pursuant to subpoena. The Court denies without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motion to quash the Dessart subpoena and denies without prejudice the Plaintiffs' request for a protective order as moot. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/bd5wtxra from PacerMonitor.com. ADVANCE AUTO: Court Grants Bid to Dismiss Complaint in Suarez Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge James C. Dever III of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division, grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in the lawsuit entitled MIGUEL SUAREZ, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. ADVANCE AUTO PARTS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:23-cv-00563-D-BM (E.D.N.C.). On Oct. 9, 2023, Miguel Suarez filed a federal securities class action complaint against Advance Auto Parts, Inc., Thomas R. Greco, and Jeffrey W. Shepherd. On Feb. 2, 2024, the Court appointed the City of Southfield General Employees' Retirement System as lead plaintiff. On April 22, 2024, Southfield filed a consolidated complaint. Southfield is a public pension fund based in Southfield, Michigan, with assets over $115 million for the benefit of hundreds of participants. Southfield purchased shares of Advance common stock at allegedly artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged thereby. Southfield defines the class period as between Nov. 15, 2022, and Nov. 20, 2023. At its core, Southfield alleges: (1) the Defendants knowingly or recklessly misrepresented Advance's financial results and forecasts both before and during the class period; and (2) the Defendants' disclosed accounting errors and internal structure support finding scienter. Southfield alleges accounting errors caused Advance to significantly understate its reported expenses and overstate its operating profit during the class periods. Southfield adds, among other things, that the Defendants' accounting errors and misstated results violated generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP") and that these GAAP violations were material. Southfield alleges the Defendants overstated Advance's fourth quarter of 2022 and full year 2022 financial results by improperly accounting for vendor incentives. Southfield alleges these misrepresentations mislead investors and concealed that Advance's so-called transformation initiatives had not positioned Advance to achieve its stated FY23 financial guidance. On June 21, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, and a memorandum and exhibits in support. On Aug. 13, 2024, Southfield responded in opposition and filed exhibits in support. On Sept. 13, 2024, the Defendants replied and filed exhibits in support. The Defendants move to dismiss Southfield's complaint pursuant to the Reform Act and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) and 12(b)(6). The Defendants argue the Court should dismiss Southfield's Forecast allegations because: (i) Advance's 2023 Guidance is forward-looking and protected by the Reform Act's safe harbor; (ii) the statements that the Defendants made around the 2023 Guidance are also protected by the safe harbor or amount to inactionable corporate puffery (or both); and (iii) Southfield does not plead particularized facts giving rise to any inference, let alone the require strong inference, of scienter. The Defendants also argue the Court should dismiss Southfield's Accounting allegations because (a) the accounting errors were not material, and (b) the Complaint does not plead particularized facts giving rise to a strong inference that the Defendants acted with scienter. Having considered Southfield's allegations, the Court concludes that context and common sense suggest that the Defendants acted in good faith and corrected publicly available information each quarter. Judge Dever opines that Southfield's allegations fail to show that the Defendants' actions were so highly unreasonable and such an extreme departure from the standard of ordinary care as to present a danger of misleading the Plaintiff to the extent that the danger was either known to the Defendants or so obvious that the Defendants must have been aware of it. The more compelling inference is that the Defendants acted in good faith throughout the class period. A holistic analysis of Southfield's allegations reveals, at most, the Defendants discovered accounting errors had influenced public estimates and forecasts and issued corrective public statements, Judge Dever notes. Here, Judge Dever points out, Southfield has failed to create a strong inference of scienter as to the Defendants. Because the complaint fails to withstand a Rule 12(b)(6) motion with respect to the predicate violation of section 10(b), it also fails with respect to the [section] 20(a) claims, Judge Dever explains. Accordingly, the Court dismisses without prejudice Southfield's claim under section 20(a). In sum, Judge Dever says, the Plaintiff's allegations fall within the heartland of securities fraud actions that the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act ("PSLRA") intended to curtail. The allegedly false or misleading statements that the Plaintiff cites are not actionable. Judge Dever points out that the Plaintiff has failed to create the required strong inference of scienter against any individual defendant or Advance. A reasonable person would find the cogent, non-culpable explanations for the Defendants' conduct more compelling. Thus, the Court grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint and dismisses without prejudice the complaint. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4aw3ah6w from PacerMonitor.com. AKASH MANAGEMENT: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against AKASH MANAGEMENT LLC, et al. The case is styled as Irma Rodriguez, an individual, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated employed v. AKASH MANAGEMENT LLC, SIDDIQI AMIR, Case No. 25STCV02385 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 28, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Akash Management, LLC is a restaurant company based out of Pomona, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Orion S. Robinson, Esq. ROBINSON DI LANDO 801 S Grand Ave., Ste. 500 Los Angeles, CA 90017-4633 Phone: 213-229-0100 Fax: 213-229-0114 Email: orobinson@rdwlaw.com ALASKA AIRLINES: Correa Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alaska Airlines, et al. The case is styled as Matthew Correa, and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Alaska Airlines, Does 1 to 50, Inclusive, Case No. CGC25621826 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Jan. 28, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Alaska Airlines -- https://www.alaskaair.com/ -- is a major American airline headquartered in SeaTac, Washington, within the Seattle metropolitan area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christina Marie Lucio, Esq. FARNAES & LUCIO, APC 2235 Encinitas Blvd., Ste. 210 Encinitas, CA 92024-4357 Phone: 760-942-9433 Fax: 760-452-4421 Email: clucio@farnaeslaw.com ALEX AND ANI: Hassid Sues Over Unlawful Trap and Trace Software --------------------------------------------------------------- Milan Hassid, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALEX AND ANI, LLC, a Rhode Island corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-00679 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 27, 2025), is brought against the Defendants' violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"), for the installation of trap and trace software without a court order. The Defendant installed on its Website software created by TikTok in order to identify website visitors (the "TikTok Software"). The Plaintiff visited Defendant's website after the TikTok Software was installed and within the limitations period established by statute. The TikTok Software acts via a process known as "fingerprinting." Put simply, the TikTok Software collects as much data as it can about an otherwise anonymous visitor to the Website, such as Plaintiff Milan Hassid, and matches it with existing data TikTok has acquired and accumulated about hundreds of millions of Americans. The TikTok Software gathers device and browser information, geographic information, referral tracking, and URL tracking by running code or "scripts" on the Website to send user details to TikTok. The TikTok Software begins to collect information the moment a user lands on the Website, including Plaintiff's information. The Defendant did not obtain a court order before installing the TikTok Software on its Website. The Defendant did not obtain Class Members' express or implied consent to be subjected to data sharing with TikTok for the purposes of fingerprinting and de-anonymization. The Plaintiff and the Class Members did not give express or implied consent to be subjected to data sharing with TikTok for the purposes of fingerprinting and de-anonymization, says the complaint. The Plaintiff visited Defendant's website on September 16, 2024. Alex and Ani LLC is the proprietor of www.alexandanie.com, an online platform that sells jewelry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Tauler, Esq. Narain Kumar, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 927-9270 Email: rtauler@taulersmith.com nkumar@taulersmith.com ALEXANDER MCQUEEN: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Murphy Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. ALEXANDER MCQUEEN TRADING AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00868 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 29, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. Accordingly, the Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and servicesoffered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because the Defendant's interactive website, https://www.alexandermcqueen.com/en-us, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision. Others have no vision. The Defendant offers the commercial website, https://www.alexandermcqueen.com/en-us, to the public. The Website offers features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services offered by the Defendant and which Defendant ensures delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States including New York State. Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1 million people in the United States are visually-impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000 visually-impaired persons live in the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal ALLEGHENY HEALTH: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Dimoff Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- DOUGLAS DIMOFF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALLEGHENY HEALTH NETWORK, Case No. 2:25-cv-00125 (W.D. Pa., Jan 28, 2025) arises out of the Defendant's failures to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff' and Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. Accordingly, the failure to secure and monitor its network resulted in October 2024 data breach of highly sensitive documents and information stored on the computer network of AHN, an organization that provides medical treatment and/or employment to individuals, including Plaintiff and Class Members. According to a notice on its website, the Defendant confirmed that a "cybersecurity incident" occurred on its network on October 11, 2024. Despite learning of the Data Breach on or about November 19, 2024, and determining that Private Information was involved in the breach on October 11, 2024, the Defendant did not begin sending notices of the Data Breach until Jan. 17, 2025, the lawsuit says. The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included certain personal or protected health information of current and former employees and patients, including Plaintiff. This Private Information included, but is not limited to, names, dates of birth, addresses, Social Security numbers, financial account numbers (but no access codes), health insurance identification numbers and other health insurance information, and treatment information including diagnoses, provider information, treatments/procedures, dates of service, prescription information, and medical device serial numbers. Mr. Dimoff is and at all times mentioned herein was an individual citizen of the State of Pennsylvania, residing in the city of Finleyville (Washington County), and was a patient of AHN. AHN founded in 2013 "is an integrated health system providing care to people in communities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sara J. Watkins, Esq. D. Aaron Rihn, Esq. ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 437 Grant Street, Suite 1100 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: 412-281-7229 E-mail: swatkins@peircelaw.com arihn@peircelaw.com - and - Gary E. Mason, Esquire* Danielle L. Perry, Esquire* Lisa A. White, Esquire* MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com dperry@masonllp.com lwhite@masonllp.com ALLIED VAN: Faces Plater Class Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages --------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW PLATER, individually, and behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALLIED VAN LINES, INC, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 2:25-cv-10304-RJW-DRG (E.D. Mich., Jan. 31, 2025) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Accordingly, on Jan. 27, 2025, Defendant placed no less than seven (7) solicitation calls to Plaintiff's cellular phone number. The Defendant uses pre-recorded messages to contact Plaintiff. Immediately after the calls began, Plaintiff contacted Defendant and requested it cease contacting him. Despite the Plaintiff's request that the Defendant cease its calls, the Defendant continued bombarding Plaintiff’s cellular phone number with solicitation calls. In calls Plaintiff did not answer, Defendant would leave pre-recorded voicemails on the Plaintiff's cellular phone. The Defendant's unlawful telemarketing practices have caused Plaintiff damages, including: invading Plaintiff’s privacy, nuisance, wasting Plaintiff's time, the increased risk of personal injury resulting from the distraction caused by the solicitation calls, decreased productivity, aggravation that accompanies unwanted solicitation calls, frustration, loss of concentration, and the loss of battery charge, the Plaintiff contends. The Plaintiff is a resident of Wixom, Michigan. He was the sole operator, possessor, and subscriber of the cellular telephone number ending in 7479. The Defendant is a long distance moving company offering nationwide service.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alexander J. Taylor, Esq. ANDREW PLATER SULAIMAN LAW GROUP, LTD. 2500 S. Highland Ave, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Telephone: (630) 575-8181 E-mail: ataylor@sulaimanlaw.com ALLSTATE CORP: Azar Sues Over Privacy Law Breaches -------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL AZAR, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE ALLSTATE CORPORATION, ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ARITY, LLC, ARITY 875, LLC, and ARITY SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00866 (N.D. Ill., January 24, 2025) accuses the Defendants of violating federal and state privacy and consumer protection laws. According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly collected, purchased, used, and sold Plaintiff's and class members' driving behavior and location information, without their knowledge or consent. In addition, Defendants also did not inform Plaintiff's and other consumers about the ways that Defendants would analyze, use, and monetize their sensitive data. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and Class members now seek appropriate damages and injunctive relief to prevent Defendants from engaging in such practices in the future. Headquartered in Chicago, IL, the Allstate Corporation provides insurance products, including car insurance, throughout the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott G. Grzenczyk, Esq. Adam E. Polk, Esq. Simon S. Grille, Esq. Patrick T. Johnson, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 E-mail: scottg@girardsharp.com apolk@girardsharp.com sgrille@girardsharp.com pjohnson@girardsharp.com ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Streifel Files Suit in N.D. Illinois ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Allstate Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Rita Streifel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The Allstate Corporation, Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Vehicle and Property Insurance Company, Arity, LLC, Arity 875, LLC, Arity Services, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00940 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 28, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. The Allstate Corporation -- http://www.allstate.com/-- is an American insurance company, headquartered in Northfield Township, Illinois, near Northbrook, since 1967.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew A Girardi, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Email: mgirardi@bursor.com ALTA RESOURCES: Faces Jungwirth Class Action Suit in E.D. Wis. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action has been filed against Alta Resources Corp. The case is captioned as NATHANIEL JUNGWIRTH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALTA RESOURCES CORP., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00003-BBC (E.D. Wis., Jan. 2, 2025). The case was assigned to District Judge Byron B. Conway. Alta Resources Corp. provides business process outsourcing services. The Company offers sales, customer care, e-commerce, and other related services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip J. Krzeski, Esq. CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA 100 Washington Ave S-Ste 1700 Minneapolis, MN 55401 Telephone: (612) 767-3613 Facsimile: (612) 336-2940 Email: pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com The Defendant is represented by: Amanda J. Walsh, Esq. OHAGAN MEYER One E Wacker Dr-Ste 3400 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 422-6100 Email: awalsh@ohaganmeyer.com AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Gillard Sues Over Unlawful Attendance Policy ----------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Gillard, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00914 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 27, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for violating the the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") with its no-fault points-based attendance policy and practices. Amazon has an attendance and time off policy and practice that assesses points against its employees for absences during approved medical leaves, and subsequently takes adverse employment actions against employees, including termination, as a result of the points assessed during their approved medical leaves. After being injured at work, Plaintiff was approved by Amazon under its policies for a medical leave. Plaintiff returned from his approved medical leave with a negative attendance point balance and was almost immediately terminated. Whether Amazon is aware of its discriminatory and retaliatory conduct is no question--it has been sued for this same violation repeatedly across the nation. Nevertheless, Amazon willfully maintains this policy, pattern, and/or practice of discriminating and retaliating against employees who took protected leaves because, on information and belief, the cost of litigating these claims is less than the cost of creating and maintaining a compliant attendance and leave system. Amazon continues to engage in this conduct despite the extreme burden placed on its temporarily and permanently disabled employees and other individuals on protected leave, including our active service members and those grieving the loss of loved ones, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Amazon at its Monee, Will County, Illinois facility from May 2021 through June 2024. Amazon.com Services, LLC is a Washington Limited Liability Company registered to do business in the State of Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laura Luisi, Esq. Jamie Holz, Esq. LUISI HOLZ LAW 161 N. Clark St., Ste. 1600 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 639-4478 LuisiL@luisiholzlaw.com AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Peralta Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Ramona Emilia Peralta, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 2024CUOE033521 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Ventura, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 29, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00791. On January 28, 2025, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint ("FAC") and on January 29, 2025, served the FAC. In the FAC, Plaintiff alleges six causes of action: Disability Discrimination in Violation of the Fair Employment and Housing Act ("FEHA"); Failure to Accommodate in Violation of the FEHA; Failure to Engage in Good Faith Interactive Process in violation of the FEHA; Retaliation in Violation of FEHA; Retaliation for Requesting Accommodation in Violation of FEHA; and Wrongful Termination.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Douglas E. Dexter, Esq. Kevin L. Jones, Esq. Jacqueline M. Gerson, Esq. FARELLA BRAUN + MARTEL LLP One Bush Street, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 954-4400 Facsimile: (415) 954-4480 Email: ddexter@fbm.com kjones@fbm.com jgerson@fbm.com AMAZON.COM: Bid Consolidate Taylor Case with Trevino Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTWOINE TYRONE TAYLOR, CAROLINE DELTORAL, and NATIVIDAD M. QUILLIN individuals, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 1:24-cv-01165-KES-BAM (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order as follows: 1. Plaintiffs' motion to consolidate this case with Trevino is denied; 2. Amazon's motion is granted in part and denied in part as follows: a. Amazon's motion to dismiss this action is denied without prejudice; and b. Amazon's motion to stay this action is granted. 3. This action is stayed pending further developments in Trevino. 4. The parties shall file a joint status report within 30 days of the decision on class certification in Trevino. The Plaintiffs seek to represent the following class and subclasses: "All individuals employed by Defendants at any time during the period of four (4) years prior to the filing of this lawsuit and ending on a date as determined by the Court, and who have been employed as non-exempt, hourly employees by Defendants within the State of California." Subclass 1 Minimum Wages Subclass "All Class members who were not compensated for all hours worked for Defendants at the applicable minimum wage." Subclass 2 Wages and Overtime Subclass "All Class members who were not compensated for all hours worked for Defendants at the required rates of pay, including for all hours worked in excess of eight in a day and/or forty in a week." Subclass 3 Meal Period Subclass "All Class members who were subject to Defendants' policy and/or practice of failing to provide unpaid 30-minute uninterrupted and duty-free meal periods or one hour of pay at the Employee’s regular rate of compensation in lieu thereof." Subclass 4 Rest Break Subclass "All Class members who were subject to Defendants' policy and/or practice of failing to authorize and permit Employees to take uninterrupted, duty-free, 10-minute rest periods for every four hours worked, or major fraction thereof, and failing to pay one hour of pay at the Employee’s regular rate of compensation in lieu thereof. Subclass 5 Sick Pay Subclass "All Class members who were paid non-discretionary wages and sick pay during the same workweek." Subclass 6 Wage Statement Subclass "All Class members who, within the applicable limitations period, were not provided with accurate itemized wage statements." Subclass 7 Unauthorized Deductions from Wages Subclass "All Class members who were subject to Defendants' policy and/or practice of deducting wages earned from their pay, including by requiring off the clock work. Subclass 8 Failure to Timely Pay Wages Twice Monthly Subclass "All Class members who were subject to Defendants’ policy and practice of not timely paying all wages earned when they were due and payable at least twice monthly." Subclass 9 Termination Pay Subclass "All Class members who, within the applicable limitations period, either voluntarily or involuntarily separated from their employment and were subject to Defendants' policy and/or practice of failing to timely pay wages upon termination." Subclass 10 Failure to Maintain Reasonable Temperature Subclass "All Class members who, within the applicable limitations period, were required by Defendants to work in areas with temperatures that were not maintained to provide reasonable comfort consistent with applicable standards. Subclass 11 UCL Subclass "All Class members who are owed restitution as a result of Defendants' business acts and practices, to the extent such acts and practices are found to be unlawful, deceptive, and/or unfair. Amazon.com provides e-commerce services. The Company retails books, diamond jewelry, electronics, appliances, apparels, and accessories. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nAKMbZ at no extra charge.[CC] AMERGIS HEALTHCARE: Payne Files Suit in D. Maryland --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed AMERGIS HEALTHCARE STAFFING, INC. The case is styled as Mary Payne, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. AMERGIS HEALTHCARE STAFFING, INC. f/k/a MAXIM HEALTHCARE STAFFING, Case No. 1:25-cv-00247 (D. Md., Jan. 27, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Non-Motor Vehicle. Amergis -- https://www.amergis.com/ -- is a healthcare staffing agency committed to the recruitment, training, and management of a diverse healthcare workforce for our clients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas Pacheco, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 900 West Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Phone: (212) 946-9305 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: tpacheco@milberg.com AMERICA ULIKE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Young Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- LESHAWN YOUNG, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICA ULIKE INTERNATIONAL INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00754 (S.D.N.Y., January 24, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.ulike.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to make its website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, depriving blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. Headquartered in Spokane, WA, America Ulike International Inc. operates the Ulike online interactive website which offers goods and services including information about its hair removal 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 AMERICAN ADDICTION: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Lanagan Says --------------------------------------------------------------- JASON LANAGAN, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN ADDICTION CENTERS, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00025 (M.D. Tenn., Jan. 6, 2025), alleged that the Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected health information and personally identifiable information stored within Defendant’s information network, including, without limitation, names, dates of birth, addresses, phone numbers, Social Security numbers, medical record numbers and identifiers, and health insurance information. The Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it caused and will continue to cause Plaintiff and, at least, 422,4243 other similarly situated persons in the massive and preventable cyberattack purportedly discovered by Defendant on September 26, 2024, in which cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant’s inadequately protected network servers and accessed highly sensitive PHI/PII that was being kept unprotected ("Data Breach"). The Plaintiff further seeks to hold Defendant responsible for not ensuring that PHI/PII was maintained in a manner consistent with industry, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 ("HIPAA") Privacy Rule (45 CFR, Part 160 and Parts A and E of Part 164), the HIPAA Security Rule (45 CFR Part 160 and Subparts A and C of Part 164), and other relevant standards. While the Defendant claims to have discovered the breach as early as September 26, 2024, Defendant did not inform victims of the Data Breach until December 23, 2024. Indeed, the Plaintiff and Class Members were wholly unaware of the Data Breach until they received letters from Defendant informing them of it, says the suit. American Addiction Centers is a Brentwood, Tennessee–based, publicly traded for-profit addiction treatment chain.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Scott Pietrowski, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: spietrowski@sirillp.com - and - Melissa R. Emert, Esq. Gary S. Graifman, Esq. KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C. 135 Chestnut Ridge Road, Suite 200 Montvale, NJ 07645 Telephone: (201) 391-7000 Facsimile: (201) 307-1086 E-mail: memert@kgglaw.com ggraifman@kgglaw.com ANDREW MCFARLAND: Latimore Bid to Certify Class Tossed ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Roy Latimore, v. Andrew McFarland, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00077-DHB-BKE (S.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge entered an order denying the Plaintiff's most recent motion to certify class and his motion to set aside judgment. Moreover, after a careful, de novo review of the file, the Court concurs with the report and recommendation of Jan. 10, 2025, to which no objections have been field. Accordingly, the Court adopts the report and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge as its opinion and denies the Plaintiff's first motion to certify class and his motion for a retaliatory transfer. The Plaintiff is advised that he has until Monday, Feb, 10, 2025, to file an amended complaint on the standard form provided with the service copy of this order, which does not contain class allegations or the claims of other inmates and which comports with the directives of the Magistrate Judge in his Order of Nov. 20, 2024. Failure to do so will result in dismissal of this action without prejudice. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KehKbD at no extra charge.[CC] ANTHEM CO: Bid to Seal Class Cert Exhibits OK'd ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lazaar, et al., v. The Anthem Companies, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-03075-JGLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke entered an order granting the letter-motion to seal exhibits in support of Plaintiffs' motion for Rule 23 class certification. The documents shall be temporarily sealed. The Court will determine whether the documents shall remain sealed when deciding the motions on class certification. Parties are directed to brief on sealing in accordance with the Court's Individual Rules. The Clerk of Court is directed to seal the aforementioned exhibits of ECF No. 124. Access is restricted to attorneys for the parties and court personnel. Anthem is a health benefits company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DplCV7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michele R. Fisher, Esq. Rachhana T. Srey, Esq. Caitlin L. Opperman, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 80 South 8th Street, Suite 4700 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 E-mail: srey@nka.com copperman@nka.com ASSESS HOMECARE: Floyd Seeks to Recover Proper Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- LAMICAH FLOYD, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASSESS HOMECARE SOLUTIONS, LLC, and AFINITY HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00033-DRC(S.D. Ohio, January 24, 2025) seeks to recover compensation from Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff's combined hours of work for Defendants routinely exceeds 40 hours each week, yet Plaintiff is not paid all overtime wages owed based on the correct calculation. Instead, the Defendants jointly and purposefully underpay Plaintiff, says the suit. Assess Homecare Solutions, LLC is a home health care agency that provides domiciliary care. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew S. Okiishi, Esq. FINNEY LAW FIRM, LLC 4270 Ivy Pointe Blvd., Suite 225 Cincinnati, OH 45245 Telephone: (513) 943-6650 Facsimile: (513) 943-6669 E-mail: matt@finneylawfirm.com AUS INC: Agrees to Settle Class Suit Over 2022 Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that AUS Inc. agreed to a class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it failed to prevent a 2022 data breach that compromised consumer data. The AUS settlement benefits individuals who received a data breach notification informing them their full names and other personal identifying information were potentially accessed during the AUS data breach on Nov. 28, 2022. A class action lawsuit against AUS claims the company failed to prevent the data breach through reasonable cybersecurity measures. AUS is a global company that provides security, investigations and risk-consulting services. AUS hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to resolve the data breach class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the AUS settlement, class members can receive a cash payment for lost time and ordinary losses incurred as a result of the data breach. Class members can claim up to $400 in reimbursement for ordinary losses, such as unreimbursed bank fees, communication charges, credit expenses and other documented losses. Under this $400 cap, class members can also claim up to four hours of lost time at a rate of $30 per hour for a maximum lost-time payment of $120. Class members who experienced extraordinary losses as a result of the data breach can receive additional payments of up to $4,500. Extraordinary losses include identity theft, fraud and other documented monetary losses. In addition to reimbursement payments, the settlement also provides two years of free credit-monitoring services. These services include credit monitoring, dark web monitoring and identity theft insurance of up to $1 million. Class members who did not experience lost time or losses as a result of the data breach can still receive settlement benefits. Instead of receiving credit monitoring, lost time and lost payments, class members can receive a cash payment of $115. The deadline for exclusion and objection was Jan. 27, 2025. The final approval hearing for the AUS data breach settlement is scheduled for March 3, 2025. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Feb. 25, 2025. Who's Eligible Individuals whose full names and other PII were potentially accessed during the AUS data breach in November 2022 Potential Award $4,900 Proof of Purchase Bank statements, receipts, invoices, credit reports, tax forms, financial documents and other documentation of data breach-related losses Claim Form Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 02/25/2025 Case Name Fernandez v. AUS Inc., Case No. BUR-L-000674-24, in the New Jersey Superior Court for Burlington County Final Hearing 03/03/2025 Settlement Website AUSDataSettlement.com Claims Administrator AUS Inc. Data Incident Settlement c/o Atticus Administration PO Box 64053 St. Paul, MN 55164 AUSDataSettlement@atticusadmin.com (888) 816-4525 Class Counsel Vicki J Maniatis Gary M Klinger David K Lietz MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC Terence R Coates MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO LLC Defense Counsel Jill H Fertel CIPRIANI & WERNER PC [GN] AUTO PERFECTION: Hernandez Sues Over Improper Pay and Retaliation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Hernandez on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. AUTO PERFECTION ASSOCIATES INC., DANIEL MAYA, and FABIO ABREU, Case No. 1:25-cv-00767 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 27, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), seeking damages to redress injuries he has suffered as a result of Defendants' failure to pay him properly and retaliation. The Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to the FLSA and the regulations thereto and NYLL and the New York Commissioner of Labor's Wage Order (the "Wage Orders,") based upon the following acts and/or omissions Defendants committed: Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff, who worked in excess of 40 hours per week, proper overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations; Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff the required minimum wage; Defendants' failure to provide Plaintiff with required wage notices and paystubs under NYLL; Defendants' unlawful deductions from Plaintiff's pay under NYLL; Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff on the schedule required by NYLL; and Defendants' failure to provide Plaintiff with spread-of-hours payments under 12 NYCRR 142-2.4. Plaintiff also asserts a claim for unlawful retaliation under the FLSA and NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants in New York City from January 2020 until February 3, 2023, performing manual labor such as washing and polishing cars. The Defendant is a car detailer based in New Jersey and New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Taubenfeld, Esq. FISHER TAUBENFELD LLP 225 Broadway, Suite 1700 New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 571-0700 AVIVA METALS: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Konicek Says ------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM KONICEK, MELVIN JACKSON, and KEVIN JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. AVIVA METALS, INC, JAIRO PEREZ, NORMAN LAZARUS, MICHAEL GREATHEAD, and JOAO SARAIVA, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00147 (N.D. Ohio, January 28, 2025) arises from the failure of the Defendants to pay overtime wages to Plaintiffs and those similarly situated in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act. The complaint asserts that Plaintiffs and those similarly situated regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week without receiving overtime pay at the legally required rate of one-and-one-half times their regular hourly rates. The Plaintiffs and those similarly situated worked for Aviva as foremen at various times during the three-year period covered by this action. Aviva Metals, Inc. is a Texas corporation that operates a manufacturing plant in Lorain County.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Chris Wido, Esq. SPITZ, THE EMPLOYEE'S ATTORNEY 3 Summit Park Drive, Suite 200 Independence, OH 44131 Telephone: (216) 364-1330 Facsimile: (216) 291-5744 E-mail: Chris.Wido@Spitzlawfirm.com BARRISTER EXECUTIVE: Romero Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Barrister Executive Suites Inc. The case is styled as Jose Romero, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Barrister Executive Suites Inc., Case No. 25STCV02590 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 29, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Barrister Executive Suites -- https://barrister-suites.com/ -- has been the leading provider of fully serviced offices in Southern California for over 40 years.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Bibiyan, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: 310-438-5555 Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com BASSETT FURNITURE: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Action Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Bassett Furniture agreed to a class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims a data breach compromised consumer information. The settlement benefits consumers who received a data breach notification letter from Bassett informing them their information may have been compromised in a data breach between July 2021-September 2023. An unauthorized third party allegedly gained access to the retailer's former e-commerce website and compromised names, addresses, financial account information and other sensitive data. Plaintiffs in the Bassett Furniture data breach class action lawsuit argue Bassett could have prevented the breach through reasonable cybersecurity measures. Bassett Furniture is a furniture company with locations across the country. Bassett hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to resolve these allegations. Under the terms of the Bassett Furniture settlement, class members can receive payments for ordinary and extraordinary losses related to the data breach. Class members can receive up to $2,000 for documented ordinary losses, such as unreimbursed fraud and identity theft, professional fees, credit expenses and up to 10 hours of lost time at a rate of $30 per hour. Class members can also receive up to $10,000 for documented extraordinary losses such as unreimbursed identity theft expenses and fraudulent charges. All class members can receive two years of free credit monitoring services through IDX. The opt-out and objection deadline was Jan. 29, 2025. The final approval hearing for the Bassett Furniture data breach settlement is scheduled for Feb. 10, 2025. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Feb. 28, 2025. Who's Eligible Individuals who received a mailed notice letter informing them their private information was potentially compromised in the Bassett Furniture data breach that occurred July 2021-September 2023 Potential Award Up to $12,000 Proof of Purchase Documentation of losses, such as bank statements, credit card statements, invoices, receipts, etc. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 02/28/2025 Case Name Myers v. Bassett Furniture Industries Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-00026-TTC, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia Final Hearing 02/12/2025 Settlement Website BassettDataBreach.com Claims Administrator Bassett Data Breach Settlement c/o Claims Administrator 1650 Arch St., Suite 2210 Philadelphia, PA19103 info@BassettDataBreach.com (877) 515-4051 Class Counsel Nicholas A Migliaccio Jason S Rathod Saran Q Edwards MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP Edward Maginnis Ian Vance MAGINNIS HOWARD Defense Counsel MULLEN COUGHLIN LLC [GN] BLACK WOLF: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Young Says ----------------------------------------------------------- LESHAWN YOUNG, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLACK WOLF NATION USA LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00755 (S.D.N.Y., January 24, 2025), arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://blackwolfnation.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. Due to Defendant's failure and refusal to remove access barriers to its website, the Plaintiff and visually-impaired persons have been and are still being denied equal access to Defendant's numerous goods, services and benefits offered to the public through the website. Accordingly, Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. In addition, Plaintiff also asserts claims for violations of the New York State Human Rights Law, New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. Black Wolf Nation USA LLC operates the Black Wolf Nation online retail store, as well as the Black Wolf Nation interactive website which allows consumers to view information about and purchase grooming essentials and accessories online. [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 BOJANGLES OPCO: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Poor Cybersecurity ------------------------------------------------------------------ Erika Williams, writing for WCNC, reports that a group of former employees filed a lawsuit against Bojangles claiming the Charlotte-based restaurant chain failed to protect their personal and health information. Bojangles' poor cybersecurity allowed hackers to steal sensitive information from thousands of current and former employees, the ex-employees said in a federal lawsuit on Thursday, January 30, 2025. Between Feb. 19, 2024, and March 12, 2024, cybercriminals broke into Bojangles' computer systems and stole employees' personal information. Names, addresses, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, financial details and medical records were exposed to hackers, the lawsuit states. Bojangles announced what it knew about the data breach in a December statement, nine months after the breach happened. "Our investigation and review were recently completed, and at this time, we believe personal and financial information affiliated with certain current and former employees was viewed and downloaded from the company’s systems by an unknown actor," the statement said. The employees who filed the new lawsuit claim Bojangles' failure to protect their data has caused them significant harm, including increased spam and scam phone calls, anxiety, stress and the risk of identity theft. They also claimed Bojangles waited too long to tell them about the data breach. In addition to financial compensation, the lawsuit calls for Bojangles to improve its cybersecurity measures to protect employees' sensitive information. Customer data was not impacted by the breach, according to Bojangles. As of now, Bojangles' has not publicly commented on the lawsuit. [GN] BSA HEALTH: Taylor Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against BSA Health Consulting Inc. The case is styled as Sara Taylor, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. BSA Health Consulting Inc., Case No. 0:24-cv-62450-DSL (S.D. Fla., Dec. 30, 2024). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. BSA Healthcare -- http://bsahealthconsultants.com/-- provides medical revenue cycle management and financial consulting services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN P.A. 31 Samana Drive Miami, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com - and - Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN PA 400 NW 26th Street Miami, FL 33127 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com BUREAU VERITAS: Walters Sues Over Elevator Inspectors' Unpaid OT ---------------------------------------------------------------- SCOTT WALTERS and TYLER WALTERS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BUREAU VERITAS NATIONAL ELEVATOR INSPECTION SERVICES, INC. and BUREAU VERITAS CERTIFICATION NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00193-JPW (M.D. Pa., January 31, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968, and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law. Plaintiffs Scott Walters and Tyler Walters have worked as elevator inspectors for the Defendants from 2013 and 2018, respectively, through the present. Bureau Veritas National Elevator Inspection Services, Inc., is a with its principal place of business in St. Louis County, Missouri. Bureau Veritas Certification North America, Inc. is a with its principal place of business in New York County, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve T. Mahan, Esq. Derrek W. Cummings, Esq. Larry A. Weisberg, Esq. Michael J. Bradley, Esq. WEISBERG CUMMINGS, P.C. 2704 Commerce Drive, Suite B Harrisburg, PA 17110 Telephone: (717) 238-5707 Facsimile: (717) 233-8133 Email: smahan@weisbergcummings.com dcummings@weisbergcummings.com lweisberg@weisbergcummings.com mbradley@weisbergcummings.com C&M BAGELS: Reyes Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation -------------------------------------------------------- Noel Reyes, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. C&M BAGELS, INC. d/b/a PARK PLACE BAG LES #2, BAGEL DELI PLUS, and QUAKER RIDGE BAGELS, CLAUDIO IACCARINO, and ANTHONY JERRY CESARINO, Case No. 1:25-cv-00812 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 28, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") to recover from Defendants: unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated and statutory damages pursuant to the New York Labor Law and the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act, prejudgment and post judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff was not paid proper overtime compensation. During this period, Plaintiff was paid, in cash, at the rate of $1,160 per week straight time for all hours worked and worked 53 compensable hours per week. Work performed in excess of 40 hours per week was not paid at the statutmy rate of time and one-half as required by state and federal law. The Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with weekly wage statements/pay stubs setting forth Plaintiffs gross wages, deductions, and net wages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants to work at the Park Place Restaurant as a non-exempt deli clerk/food preparer and customer attendant. C&M BAGELS, INC., owns and operates a delicatessen and restaurant doing business as "Park Place Bagels".[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter H. Cooper, Esq. CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC 60 East 42nd Street – 40th Floor New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 209-3933 Fax: (212) 209-7102 Email: info@jcpclaw.com C.C. FILSON: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Delacruz Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- EMANUEL DELACRUZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. C.C. FILSON CO., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00841 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 28, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.filson.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. C.C. Filson Company manufactures and distributes apparels and accessories. The Company offers coats and jackets, shirts, sweaters, vests and liners, pants, shorts, skirts, chaps, footwear, hats, gloves and mittens, belts, and luggage products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal CANNON RESIDENTIAL: Turbeville Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Turbeville, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. CANNON RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, INC. d/b/a ABC INSTALLATIONS and ALAN CANNON, Case No. 3:25-cv-00007-TES (M.D. Ga., Jan. 28, 2025), alleges Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and its accompanying regulations willfully and without good faith by failing to pay the Plaintiff at one and a half times their regular hourly rate for all hours over 40 worked per week. The Plaintiffs are entitled to be paid 1.5 times their regular hourly rate for all hours over 40 worked per week. The Plaintiffs routinely worked more than 40 hours per week during their employment with Defendants. The Defendants knowingly failed to pay Plaintiffs 1.5 times for all hours over 40 worked per week. The Defendants willfully misclassified Plaintiffs as alleged independent contractors in an attempt to justify failing to comply with the FLSA's provisions regarding the payment of overtime wages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person who was employed by the Defendants. Cannon Residential Services, Inc. d/b/a ABC Installations is a domestic profit corporation doing business in Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Daniel Cole, Esq. Evan P. Drew, Esq. PARKS, CHESIN & WALBERT, P.C. 1335 Peachtree NE, Suite 2000 Atlanta, GA 30309 Phone: 404-873-8000 Email: dcole@pcwlawfirm.com edrew@pcwlawfirm.com CAPITAL ONE: Steals Commissions from Online Marketers, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jesika Brodiski and Peter Hayward, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Capital One Financial Corporation, Wikibuy LLC, and Wikibuy Holdings LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00023-AJT-WBP (E.D. Va., Jan. 6, 2025) alleges that Capital One's Shopping browser extension is designed to steal commissions from online marketers, including but not limited to website operators, online publications, YouTubers, influencers, and other content creators. Accordingly, online marketers earn money by directing their followers and viewers to specific products and services, which are linked on their respective platforms and social media channels. When their followers and viewers purchase the products and services they are promoting via these affiliate links, they get credit for the referrals and purchases and earn sales commissions. Online retailers work with these online marketers through affiliate marketing programs, which rely on tracking tags and affiliate marketing cookies in order to determine who gets credit for online referrals and product sales. The online marketer is given a specific web link to share with their followers and audience, and if someone clicks on that link, the online marketer's unique affiliate marketing cookie populates and credits the online marketer with the sale. However, the Capital One Shopping browser extension cheats these online marketers out of commissions they are entitled to during the checkout process. An estimated 10 million people in the United States use the Capital One Shopping browser extension. Coupon browser extensions are widely used by online shoppers to identify coupons and discounts on products and services they have already added to their online shopping cart. According to Defendant, the Capital One Shopping browser extension is a free tool that automatically looks for coupons, offers users a price comparison tools, and incorporates a built-in rewards point system wherein points can be redeemed for gift cards. Because of this, the Capital One Shopping browser extension is appealing to consumers looking for a discount on a product or service they're already interested in purchasing and have already added to their online shopping cart, the lawsuit says. Capital One acquired a cashback rewards startup and browser extension called "Wikibuy" for an undisclosed amount in 2018. Since then, the tool has been rebranded and now operates under the name Capital One Shopping, which is controlled by Capital One. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lee A. Floyd, Esq. Justin M. Sheldon, Esq. BREIT BINIAZAN, PC 2100 East Cary Street, Suite 310 Richmond, VA 23223 Telephone: (804) 351-9040 Facsimile: (804) 351-9170 E-mail: Lee@bbtrial.com Justin@bbtrial.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. Alexandra M. Honeycutt, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com ahoneycutt@milberg.com - and - Adam E. Polk, Esq. Simon S. Grille, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 E-mail: apolk@girardsharp.com sgrille@girardsharp.com CAPRI HOLDINGS: Faces FNY Class Suit Over Common Stock Drop ----------------------------------------------------------- FNY PARTNERS FUND LP, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. CAPRI HOLDINGS LIMITED, JOHN D. IDOL, THOMAS J. EDWARDS, JR., TAPESTRY, INC., JOANNE C. CREVOISERAT, and SCOTT A. ROE, Case No. 1:25-cv-00116-UNA (D. Del., Jan 28, 2025) arises out the of Defendants' failed effort to combine Capri and Tapestry in a merger that was announced on August 10, 2023, and valued at approximately $8.5 billion. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants repeatedly touted the purported complimentary nature of the proposed Capri Acquisition and the supposed value it would provide to the shareholders of both Capri and Tapestry. The Defendants also publicly expressed confidence that they would obtain all necessary regulatory approvals for the transaction, including approval from the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") under relevant federal antitrust laws. The Defendants also publicly disputed any suggestion that the Capri Acquisition would have an anticompetitive impact on consumers. Despite these assurances to shareholders, on April 23, 2024, the FTC filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to preliminarily enjoin the Capri Acquisition under Section 13(b) of the Federal Trade Commission Act and Clayton Act. This complaint followed the FTC's April 22, 2023 issuance of an administrative complaint concerning the Capri Acquisition. The complaint in FTC v. Tapestry asserted that the Capri Acquisition would eliminate direct, head-to-head competition between the companies' signature brands in the "accessible luxury" handbag market. Capri vehemently denied the FTC's allegations in a Form 8-K filed with the SEC on April 22, 2024. In its SEC filing, Capri disputed that the Capri Acquisition would create any anticompetitive effects by asserting that "the market realities, which the government’s challenge ignores, overwhelmingly demonstrate that this transaction will not limit, reduce, or constrain competition." Capri repeated this assertion in its fourth quarter and full year fiscal 2024 financial results filed May 29, 2024 on SEC Form 8-K, says the suit. Specifically, and as first revealed by the court’s October 24, 2024 injunction ruling in the FTC v. Tapestry case, Defendants knew, or were reckless in not knowing, that accessible luxury handbags represent a distinct and well-defined market that is separate from the market for "luxury" and "mass market" handbags higher than Defendants represented to Capri shareholders during the Class Period. The price of Capri common stock declined dramatically during the Class Period, from $53.90 per share on the August 10, 2023 announcement date of the Capri Acquisition, to $21.26 per share on October 25, 2024, the day after the court’s decision to preliminarily enjoin the transaction was issued in the FTC v. Tapestry case. All told, this decline represented over a 60% decrease in Capri's stock price and resulted in substantial economic losses for Plaintiff and the Class, the suit further alleges. The Plaintiff is a Delaware limited partnership that invests in equity securities. FNY Partners Fund LP purchased shares of Capri common stock during the Class Period and suffered damages due to Defendants' violations of the alleged federal securities laws. Capri is a global fashion firm. The Individual Defendants are officers of the company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian E. Farnan, Esq. Michael J. Farnan, Esq. FARNAN LLP 919 North Market Street, 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 777-0300 Facsimile: (302) 777-0301 E-mails: bfarnan@farnanlaw.com mfarnan@farnanlaw.com - and - Vincent R. Cappucci, Esq. Robert N. Cappucci, Esq. Jonathan H. Beemer, Esq. Brendan J. Brodeur, Esq. ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP 230 Park Avenue, 3rd Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 894-7200 Facsimile: (212) 894-7272 E-mail: vcappucci@entwistle-law.com CARDINAL HEALTH: CMO Deadlines Vacated in Chavez Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PEDRO CHAVEZ, MATTHEW CORREA, and ANGEL M. CISNEROS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. CARDINAL HEALTH 110, LLC; CARDINAL HEALTH 200, LLC; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-08973-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Rozella Oliver entered an order as follows: 1. The deadlines set in the Case Management Order are vacated; 2. The Parties shall provide the Court with a Joint Status Report by Jan. 31, 2025 to inform the Court of the date of mediation; 3. If the matter is not resolved at mediation, the Parties shall file a Proposed Case Management Order with new discovery and class certification briefing deadlines by Mar. 28, 2025; and 4. The trial date and all trial-related deadlines shall be set after the Court rules on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Cardinal distributes pharmaceutical products. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XrRAFt at no extra charge.[CC] CARDINAL LOGISTICS: Herrera Removed from State Ct. to E.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------------- CESAR HERRERA, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CARDINAL LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, a North Carolina corporation; RYAN ODELL, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2024-0016890 (Filed by Dec. 6, 2024) was removed from the Superior Court of California, San Joaquin County to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on Jan 28, 2025. The Eastern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-at-00145 to the proceedings. The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to pay overtime wages and failed to pay all minimum wages in violation of the California Labor Code. Cardinal is an asset-based logistics provider specializing in truckload and less-than-truckload shipments.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Pavneeet Singh Mac, Esq. Drew R. Hansen, Esq. Madeline G. Hassell, Esq. NOSSAMAN LLP 18101 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 1800 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 833-7800 Facsimile: (949) 833-7878 E-mail: dhansen@nossaman.com mhassell@nossaman.com CARL'S JR: Bernardo Suit Removed from State Court to C.D. Cal. -------------------------------------------------------------- DIANA A. BERNARDO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and on behalf of other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorney General Act v. CARL'S JR RESTAURANTS, LLC, a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-00826 (Filed by Aug. 15, 2024) was removed from Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court Central District of California on Jan. 30, 2025. The Central District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00826 to the proceedings. The Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and unpaid overtime compensation under the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff purports to bring this action on behalf of herself and the following putative class members: "All other persons who have been employed by any the Defendants in California as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee during the statute of limitations period applicable to the claims pleaded here." Carl's Jr. is an American fast-food restaurant chain owned by CKE Restaurant Holdings, Inc.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Matthew C. Kane, Esq. Amy E. Beverlin, Esq. Kerri H. Sakaue, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90067-4508 Telephone: (310) 820-8800 Facsimile: (310) 820-8859 E-mail: mkane@bakerlaw.com abeverlin@bakerlaw.com ksakaue@bakerlaw.com - and - Sylvia J. Kim, Esq. BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP Transamerica Pyramid 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3100 San Francisco, CA 94111-2806 Telephone: (415) 659-2600 Facsimile: (415) 659-2601 E-mail: sjkim@bakerlaw.com CARNIVAL CORP: Negligence Raps Over COVID Handling in Ships Pending ------------------------------------------------------------------- Carnival Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 25, 2025, that as of November 30, 2024, the two purported class actions brought against the company by former guests in the Federal Court in Australia and in Italy remain pending. These actions include claims based on a variety of theories, including negligence, gross negligence and failure to warn, physical injuries and severe emotional distress associated with being exposed to and/or contracting COVID-19 onboard its ships. On October 24, 2023, the court in the Australian matter held that the company was liable for negligence and for breach of consumer protection warranties as it relates to the lead plaintiff. The court ruled that the lead plaintiff was not entitled to any pain and suffering or emotional distress damages on the negligence claim and awarded medical costs. In relation to the consumer protection warranties claim, the court found that distress and disappointment damages amounted to no more than the refund already provided to guests and therefore made no further award. Further proceedings will determine the applicability of this ruling to the remaining class participants. Additionally, on December 6, 2023, the High Court of Australia ruled on appeal that United States and United Kingdom passengers were properly included in the class, regardless of the ticket contract terms applicable to those passengers. All COVID-19 matters seek monetary damages and most seek additional punitive damages in unspecified amounts. Carnival businesses operate the largest global cruise company, and among the largest leisure travel companies, with a portfolio of world-class cruise lines namely AIDA Cruises, Carnival Cruise Line, Costa Cruises, Cunard, Holland America Line, P&O Cruises (Australia), P&O Cruises (UK), Princess Cruises and Seabourn. CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY: Student Settlement Class Gets Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HALEY GUSTAVSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA, Case No. 1:20-cv-01496-DLF (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Dabney Friedrich entered an order as follows: 1. The court certifies, for settlement purposes only, the following Settlement Class: "All students enrolled in the Spring 2020 Semester who did not withdraw by March 18, 2020, for whom any amount of tuition and/or fees was paid to Catholic from any source other than a scholarship, grant or tuition remission from Catholic, and whose tuition and/or fees have not been fully refunded by Catholic." Excluded from the Settlement Class are (i) any students who received full scholarships, grants or tuition remission from Catholic and thus did not pay any tuition or fees for the Spring 2020 Semester; (ii) the University and its officers, trustees and their family members; (iii) Class Counsel; (iv) the Judge presiding over the Action; and (v) all persons who properly execute and file a timely opt- out request to be excluded from the Settlement Class. 2. For the reasons stated in its Preliminary Approval Order, the Court finds that the Settlement Class meets the requirements of Rule 23 for certification for settlement purposes only. 3. The Court appoints the Settlement Class Representative as the Representative of the Settlement Class. The Court appoints the law firms Poulin Willey Anastopoulo, LLC and Douglas Boykin PLLC as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. The Court also adjudges that the reimbursement of attorneys' costs and expenses in the amount of $132,048.14 is reasonable. Such payment shall be made from the Settlement Fund pursuant to and in the manner provided by the terms of the Settlement Agreement. The Court further adjudges that the payment of an incentive award in the amount of $7,500 to Haley Gustavson to compensate her for her efforts and commitment on behalf of the Settlement Class is fair, reasonable, and justified under the circumstances of this case. Catholic University of America is a private institution that was founded in 1887. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MK0mkb at no extra charge.[CC] CENTR LLC: De Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------- The case styled as Monya De, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CENTR, LLC and CH DIGITAL PTY LTD, Case No. 24STCV22945 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 28, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00759. On January 23, 2025, Plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action Complaint for Damages in the Superior Court for the State of California for the County of Los Angeles ("Amended Complaint"). Specifically, the Amended Complaint asserts a claim that is expressly based on, and governed by, a federal statute. The third cause of action purports to assert a claim that Defendants violated the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (the "EFTA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Lacy H. ("Lance") Koonce, III, Esq. KLARIS LAW PLLC 161 Water St., Suite 904 New York, NY 10038 Phone: (917) 612-5861 Email: lance.koonce@klarislaw.com - and - Thomas K. Richards, Esq. Michael A. Trauben, Esq. SINGH, SINGH & TRAUBEN, LLP 400 S. Beverly Drive, Suite 240 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: 310.856.9705 Fax: 888.734.355 Email: trichards@singhtraubenlaw.com mtrauben@singhtraubenlaw.com CHOICEPOINT LLC: Faces Class Suit Over Online Tracking Tools ------------------------------------------------------------ I.T., A.K., S.R., and M.G., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. CHOICEPOINT LLC d/b/a CHOICEPOINT HEALTH, Case No. e 2:25-cv-00193 (W.D. Wash., Jan. 30, 2025) alleges that unbeknownst to the Plaintiffs and other visitors to the Defendant's website, the Defendant does not keep sensitive information about its visitors private. Instead, the Defendant records the fact that its website visitors, like Plaintiffs and Class Members, are seeking help for drug or alcohol addiction, as well as the results of their online addiction evaluation (Sensitive Information), and transmits that information to third parties, including Alphabet, Inc. and Meta Platforms, Inc., through its use of surreptitious online tracking tools, the lawsuit says. The unwanted disclosure of such information can be enormously harmful. It can impact an individual's reputation, livelihood, and personal relationships. And, if people struggling with addiction are unable to trust that the organizations purporting to offer assistance. The Plaintiffs seek, on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated persons, to remedy these harms and asserts the following statutory and common law claims against Defendant: Invasion of Privacy; Breach of Confidence; Breach of Fiduciary Duty; Negligence; Breach of Implied Contract; Unjust Enrichment; and violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act, and Washington Consumer Protection Act. As a result of the Defendant's conduct, Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered numerous injuries, including invasion of privacy; lack of trust in communicating with online service providers; and emotional distress and heightened concerns related to the release of Sensitive Information to third parties, says the suit. The Plaintiffs and Class Members visited the Website and had their personal Sensitive Information tracked by Defendant using the Tracking Tools. However, the Defendant never obtained authorization from Plaintiffs or Class Members to share their Sensitive Information with third parties. ChoicePoint is a medical provider specializing in addiction treatment services, including medication-assisted addiction treatment, psychiatric counseling and in-patient addiction treatment, operating in seventeen states and the District of Columbia. ChoicePoint's website -- www.choicepointhealth.com -- allows potential clients to research its programs, request an appointment, and complete an online assessment of the severity of their addiction.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brendan W. Donckers, Esq. Cynthia J Heidelberg, Esq. BRESKIN JOHNSON TOWNSEND, PLLC 1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3670 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 652-8660 E-mail: bdonckers@bjtlegal.com cheidelberg@bjtlegal.com - and - Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Sonjay C. Singh, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com ssingh@sirillp.com CINTAS CORPORATION: Gutierrez Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Dulce Maria Macias Gutierrez, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. CINTAS CORPORATION NO. 3, a Nevada corporation; CINTAS CORPORATION NO. 2, a Nevada corporation; CINTAS CORPORATE SERVICES, INC., an Ohio corporation; CINTAS CORPORATION, an unknown business entity; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 01-CV 2024-905131.00 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Joaquin, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on Jan. 29, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00405-DJC-CKD. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts failure to: pay all overtime wages; provide meal periods and pay missed meal period premiums; provide rest periods and pay missed rest period premiums; pay all minimum wages; pay final wages timely; pay wages timely during employment; furnish accurate wage statements; keep requisite payroll records; and reimburse business expenses. Plaintiff also alleges unfair competition.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Spencer C. Skeen, Esq. Jesse C. Ferrantella, Esq. Yousaf M. Jafri, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92122 Phone: 858-652-3100 Facsimile: 858-652-3101 Email: spencer.skeen@ogletree.com jesse.ferrantella@ogletree.com yousaf.jafri@ogletree.com CLUB 1 HOTELS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Wilson Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- CHET MICHAEL WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CLUB 1 HOTELS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00003 (N.D. Ill., Jan. 2, 2025) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls. The case is assigned to Honorable Manish S. Shah. Club 1 Hotels, LLC is a global travel technology company providing members-only deals on hotels, car rentals, and more. [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 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com COHO FINANCIAL: Hicks Sues Over Illegal Scheme and RICO Violation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ashley Hicks, individually and as a representative of the class v. COHO FINANCIAL d/b/a PATH LENDING, DENNIS GLEN MILKS, THUNDERBIRD SERVICES, LLC, DONALD DUNCAN, and JOHN DOES Nos. 1-15, Case No. 1:25-cv-00884-RMI (N.D. Cal., Jan. 27, 2025), is brought challenging the legality of Path Lending's high-interest loans by seeking damages and declaratory relief against co-conspirators participating in this illegal scheme, seeking relief under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") and California's usury and licensing laws. Defendants have likely collected tens of millions of dollars on void loans in violation of federal and state usury, licensing, and criminal statutes. Over the past five years, there have been dozens of class actions relating to the tribal lending model. These cases have resulted in the return of hundreds of millions of dollars to consumers, as well as the cancellation of over two billion dollars of usurious loans. Despite these significant recoveries (and federal court decisions admonishing these practices), many companies still use the tribal lending model to originate blatantly illegal loans. In this case, Path Lending holds itself out as a tribal lending entity owned and operated by the Tribe. The Tribe is in turn controlled by the Guidiville Tribal Council, which is vested by the Tribe's Constitution with the power to "administer tribal assets and manage all economic affairs and enterprises of the Tribe," including "creating tribal, federal, and state corporations and/or any other legal form of business entity." Defendant Donald Duncan is the current chairperson of the Tribal Council, which comprises a chairperson, vice-chairperson, secretary, treasurer, and member-at-large. The remaining members of the Tribal Council are not publicly available but can be identified and added to this case through discovery. Pursuant to its authority, the Tribal Council chaired by Duncan directs, controls, and oversees the economic affairs and enterprises of the Tribe, including Path Lending and the other lending entities chartered by the Tribe ("Tribal Lending Entities" or "TLEs"). Although ostensibly owned and operated by the Tribe, in reality, the Tribe has very little involvement in the operation of the lending business and simply offers the shield of tribal sovereign immunity in return for a small portion of the profits from the lending enterprises it sponsors. The masterminds behind the scheme are instead nontribal members and the entities that they control, including the Defendant Dennis Milks, who, through his company Thunderbird and its yet-to-be-identified investors and employees, provides and manages the funding, marketing, loan origination, underwriting, loan servicing, electronic funds transfers, and collections of the high interest loans issued by Path Lending. Nearly all of Path Lending's operations, including the origination and servicing of the loans, are also located off-reservation, on non-tribal land. In return for running the day-to-day operations of Path Lending, Milks and his coconspirators receive the overwhelming percentage of Path Lending's profits. The Defendants have actively participated in the lending enterprise fronted by Path Lending and have conspired with each other and others not yet known to Plaintiff to repeatedly violate state lending statutes resulting in the collection of unlawful debts from Ms. Hicks and members of the classes, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a California consumer who received several of these illegal, high-interest loans over the internet, supposedly made by an online lending company doing business as Path Lending. Coho Financial d/b/a Path Lending is an online lender of small-dollar, triple-digit interest loans that holds itself out as an entity formed under the laws of the Tribe, which is located in California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jessica Garland, Esq. GUPTA WESSLER LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: (415) 573-0336 Email: jessie@guptawessler.com - and - Matthew W.H. Wessler, Esq. GUPTA WESSLER LLP 2001 K Street, NW, Suite 850 North Washington, DC 20006 Phone: (202) 888-1741 Email: matt@guptawessler.com - and - Kristi C. Kelly, Esq. Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq. Matthew G. Rosendahl, Esq. KELLY GUZZO PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Phone: (703) 424-7570 Email: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com matt@kellyguzzo.com COLOMBO CONSTRUCTION: Dean Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Colombo Construction Co., Inc., et al. The case is styled as Alicia Sue Dean, on behalf of others similarly situated v. Colombo Construction Co., Inc., Vincent C. Granberry, Nassir Ebrahimian, Melanie Rodriguez, Case No. BCV-25-100341 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., Jan. 29, 2025). The case type is stated as Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." Colombo Construction Company, Inc. -- https://www.colomboconstruction.com/ -- is a family owned contracting firm providing construction management, design build and general contracting services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com COMMUNITY CHOICE: Faces Parejeo-Yepez Discrimination Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- REBECCA PAREJEO-YEPEZ, an individual, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMMUNITY CHOICE CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-10262-SJM-APP (E.D. Mich., January 28, 2025) is a class action against CCCU for unlawful discrimination on the basis of alienage in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The complaint asserts that Defendant CCCU follows a policy of denying full access to financial products and services, including credit and loan products, to applicants on the basis of their alienage, including those who have conditional permanent residence. The Defendant's violations have inflicted harm on Plaintiff Parejo-Yepez, and the Class she seeks to represent, including but not limited to, emotional distress, says the suit. Community Choice Credit Union is a state-chartered, member-owned credit union that offers consumers a range of financial and credit products, including savings and checking accounts, credit cards, personal loans, auto loans, home equity loans, and mortgages.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Olivia Alden, Esq. MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 100 N. LaSalle St., Suite 1900 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 427-0701 E-mail: oalden@maldef.org COMPASS GROUP: Faces Class Action Suit Over Illinois GIPA Violation ------------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that Compass Group USA, Inc. faces a proposed class action lawsuit that claims the food services company illegally requires prospective employees in Illinois to provide their family medical histories as a standard part of its hiring process. The 13-page lawsuit was filed over Compass Group's alleged violations of the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act (GIPA), a state law that makes it illegal for a company to directly or indirectly request genetic information from an individual as a condition of employment or pre-employment application. Enacted in 1998, the GIPA regulates employers' use of genetic data as a means to protect candidates from discrimination based on such information, the complaint says. "Genetic information, including familial health history, is a uniquely private and sensitive form of personal information," the case says. "This genetic information reveals a trove of intimate information about that person's health, family, and innate characteristics." According to the suit, Compass Group has run afoul of the GIPA on a "massive scale" by systematically requiring job applicants to undergo a physical examination and answer questions about their family medical histories. The lawsuit was brought by a woman who says she applied for a job at a Compass Group location in La Grange, Illinois, around August 2021. Per the complaint, the plaintiff was asked to provide information about whether her family members had a history of diabetes, heart disease, kidney disease and other medical conditions in order to apply for employment with Compass Group. The filing further alleges the defendant failed to inform the plaintiff of her right not to disclose such information. The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in Illinois from whom Compass Group or an agent acting on its behalf solicited, requested, and/or required, during the applicable statute of limitations period, family medical history or other genetic information as a condition of applying for employment. [GN] CRUMBL LLC: Serra Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Crumbl, LLC. The case is styled as Irving Serra, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Crumbl, LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-00245 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 29, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Crumbl Cookies -- https://crumblcookies.com/ -- is a franchise chain of bakeries in the United States and Canada that specializes in cookies.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 1925 Century Park East Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com DESIGNER BRANDS: Settlement in Laguardia Gets Initial Nod --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC LAGUARDIA, et al., v. DESIGNER BRANDS INC., et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-02311-SDM-EPD (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Sarah Morrison entered an order preliminarily approving class action settlement and certifying the settlement class: The Court finds, for settlement purposes, that the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 factors are present, and that certification of the proposed Settlement Class is appropriate under Rule 23. The Court provisionally certifies the following Settlement Class: "All persons in the United States who, between Sept. 1, 2018, and Sept. 1, 2024, 1) were sent a "marketing"* text message from Defendants, 2) thereafter responded with the word "stop" or the equivalent, and 3) thereafter received a marketing text message from Defendants. -- Marketing means offering or advertising the commercial availability or quality of any property, goods, products, or services. The Court appoints Plaintiffs, Eric LaGuardia and Nicole Austin, as Class Representatives. The Court also entered an order: -- Appointing the following people and firms as Class Counsel: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. Garrett O. Berg, Esq. Shamis and Gentile, P.A. Jeffrey Wilens, Esq. Lakeshore Law Center Alex M. Tomasevic, Esq. Nicholas & Tomasevic, LLP Jeffrey P. Spencer, Esq. Spencer Law Firm -- Preliminarily approving the Settlement Agreement, together with all exhibits thereto, as fair, reasonable, and adequate. Designer Brands designs, produces, and retails footwear and accessories. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ClmLSd at no extra charge.[CC] DIDI GLOBAL: Must File Class Cert Responses by March 7 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit RE DIDI GLOBAL INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 1:21-cv-05807-LAK-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Valerie Figueredo entered an order extending the Defendants' time to respond to the plaintiffs' motion for class certification: -- The Defendants must file their responses to the Motion no later than March 7, 2025, and -- The Plaintiffs shall file their reply in further support of their Motion no later than April 9, 2025. On Jan. 6, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SIGcPN at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Ave, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com pkim@rosenlegal.com The Defendants are represented by: Corey Worcester, Esq. Renita Sharma, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 295 5th Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 849-7000 Facsimile: (212) 849-7100 E-mail: coreyworcester@quinnemanuel.com renitasharma@quinnemanuel.com - and - Scott Musoff, Esq. Robert Fumerton, Esq. Michael Griffin, Esq. SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP One Manhattan West New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 735-3902 Facsimile: (212) 777-3902 E-mail: smusoff@skadden.com robert.fumerton@skadden.com michael.griffin@skadden.com - and - Jeffrey T. Scott, Esq. Emily R. Grasso, Esq. SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004-2498 Telephone: (212) 558-3082 Facsimile: (212) 291-9138 E-mail: scottj@sullcrom.com grassoe@sullcrom.com - and - Jonathan Rosenberg, Esq. Abby F. Rudzin, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 326-2000 E-mail: jrosenberg@omm.com arudzin@omm.com - and - Sheryl Shapiro Bassin, Esq. Ignacio E. Salceda, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C. 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 999-5800 Facsimile: (866) 974-7329 E-mail: sbassin@wsgr.com ISalceda@wsgr.com - and - Stephen P. Blake, Esq. Bo Bryan Jin, Esq. SIMPSON THACHER & BARTLETT LLP 2475 Hanover Street Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone: (650) 251-5000 Facsimile: (650) 251-5002 E-mail: sblake@stblaw.com bryan.jin@stblaw.com - and - Matthew S. Kahn, Esq. Michael D. Celio, Esq. Kevin J. White, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 393-8200 Facsimile: (415) 393-8306 E-mail: mkahn@gibsondunn.com mcelio@gibsondunn.com kwhite@gibsondunn.com DRUG FREE: Agrees to Settle Class Suit Over 2023 Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ Top Class Actions reports that Drug Free Workplaces agreed to a class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it failed to prevent a 2023 data breach. The Drug Free Workplaces settlement benefits individuals who received a data breach notification from Drug Free Workplaces USA informing them their information may have been compromised in a data breach that occurred March 29-May 4, 2023. The Drug Free Workplaces data breach reportedly compromised names, Social Security numbers and other sensitive information. Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit argue Drug Free Workplaces should have done more to prevent the data breach, including implementing reasonable cybersecurity measures. Drug Free Workplaces is a company that helps employers develop drug-free policies and procedures. Drug Free Workplaces hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an undisclosed sum to resolve the data breach class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the settlement, class members can receive up to $475 for ordinary losses, such as bank fees, communication charges, travel expenses and up to four hours of lost time compensated at a rate of $17 per hour. Class members who experienced extraordinary losses as a result of identity theft or fraud linked to the data breach can receive higher payments of up to $5,000. In addition to the two forms of expense reimbursement, all class members are eligible for two years of credit monitoring services. The deadline for exclusion and objection was Jan. 27, 2025. The final approval hearing for the Drug Free Workplaces data breach settlement is scheduled for March 12, 2025. To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by Feb. 25, 2025. Who's Eligible Individuals who received a data breach notification from Drug Free Workplaces informing them their information may have been compromised in a data breach that occurred March 29-May 4, 2023 Potential Award Up to $5,000 Proof of Purchase Documentation of losses, such as bank statements, bills, receipts, invoices, etc. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 02/25/2025 Case Name Cohen, et al. v. Drug Free Workplaces USA LLC, et al., Case No. 2024 CA 000955, in the Circuit Court of the 1st Judicial Circuit in and for Escambia County, Florida Final Hearing 03/12/2025 Settlement Website DFSettlement.com Claims Administrator DFW Data Incident Settlement c/o Atticus Administration PO Box 64053 St. Paul, MN 55164 DFSettlement@AtticusAdmin.com (888) 484-4403 Class Counsel Mariya Weekes John J Nelson MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC Kristen Lake Cardoso Steven Sukert KOPELLOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT PA Defense Counsel Christopher Wood LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP [GN] E&M PROPERTY: Blose Sues Over Security Deposit Management --------------------------------------------------------- CEREESE BLOSE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. E&M PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, LLC; 145-153 EDGECOMBE HOLDINGS, LLC; and ARBOR REALTY SR, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00860-JAV (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 29, 2025) alleges violation of the New York General Obligations Law. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants failed to deposit the Plaintiff's security deposits in an interest-bearing account and pay over to the Plaintiff such interest as collected at the date of such lease termination. The Plaintiff and members of the Class were injured as a result because they lost the interest earned on their security deposits. E&M Property Management, LLC is a property management company that provides several services such as real estate management, development companies, and lease. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. Julian C. Diamond, Esq. Victoria X. Zhou, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, Floor 32 New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: pfraietta@bursor.com jdiamond@bursor.com vzhou@bursor.com ELEVANCE HEALTH: Landis Allowed Leave to File Class Cert. Bid ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHY LANDIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. THE ELEVANCE HEALTH COMPANIES, INC. f/k/a THE ANTHEM COMPANIES, INC. and AMERIGROUP CORPORATION, Case No. 4:23-cv-00005-M-KS (E.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting her motion for leave to file motion for Rule 23 Class Certification. The Plaintiff's motion for Rule 23 class certification, along with all supporting documentation, is attached hereto as Exhibits A and B. Anthem provides life, hospital and medical insurance plans. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tVMYUF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachhana T. Srey, Esq. H. Clara Coleman, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP 4700 IDS Center 80 South Eighth Street Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 256-3200 Facsimile: (612) 338-4878 E-mail: srey@nka.com copperman@nka.com - and - William Barrett, Esq. Joshua M. Krasner, Esq. BARRETT LAW OFFICES, PLLC 5 West Hargett St., Suite 910 Raleigh, NC 27601 Telephone: (919) 999-2799 E-mail: wbarrett@barrettlawoffices.com jkrasner@barrettlawoffices.com ENHANCE HEALTH: Parties Seek to Stay Discovery Deadlines -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CONSWALLO TURNER, TIESHA FOREMAN, ANGELINA WELLS, PAULA LANGLEY, VERONICA KING, NAVAQUOTE, LLC and WINN INSURANCE AGENCY, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ENHANCE HEALTH, LLC, TRUECOVERAGE, LLC, SPERIDIAN TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, BENEFITALIGN, LLC, NUMBER ONE PROSPECTING, LLC d/b/a MINERVA MARKETING, BAIN CAPITAL INSURANCE FUND L.P., DIGITAL MEDIA SOLUTIONS LLC, NET HEALTH AFFILIATES, INC., MATTHEW B. HERMAN, BRANDON BOWSKY, GIRISH PANICKER, AND MATTHEW GOLDFUSS, Case No. 0:24-cv-60591-MD (S.D. Fla.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint motion to stay discovery deadlines within the Scheduling Order pending the outcome of the April 9 mediation, or in the alternative, enter a scheduling order that sets dates as triggered by entry of an order on the motions to dismiss. The parties agree that a stay will allow the parties to focus their time, energy, and expenses on preparing for mediation—which could successfully resolve the case—as opposed to using resources to meet the current discovery deadlines. For the same reason, a stay would also promote judicial economy. If mediation is unsuccessful, the parties would agree to submit a proposed Scheduling order by Apr. 23, 2025. This is primarily a fraud and civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act action. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants knowingly used false ads to market and enroll consumers into federally subsidized healthcare plans. Enhance Health is a senior-focused digital insurance agency. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CbKheI at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason K. Kellogg, Esq. Victoria J. Wilson, Esq. Peter Sitaras, Esq. LEVINE KELLOGG LEHMAN SCHNEIDER + GROSSMAN LLP 100 Southeast Second Street Miami Tower, 36th Floor Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 403-8788 Facsimile: (305) 403-8789 E-mail: jk@lklsg.com vjw@lklsg.com pjs@lklsg.com - and - Jason R. Doss, Esq. THE DOSS FIRM, LLC 1827 Powers Ferry Road Southeast Atlanta, GA 30339 Telephone: (770) 578-1314 Facsimile: (770) 578-1302 E-mail: jasondoss@dossfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Samuel G. Williamson, Esq. Olga M. Vieira, Esq. Laura N. Ferguson, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 2601 South Bayshore Dr., Suite 1550 Miami, FL 33133 Telephone: (305) 496-2988 E-mail: samwilliamson@quinnemanuel.com olgavieira@quinnemanuel.com lauraferguson@quinnemanuel.com - and - Guy A. Rasco, Esq. DEVINE GOODMAN & RASCO, LLP 2800 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Suite 1400 Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (305) 374-8200 E-mail: grasco@devinegoodman.com - and - Amy E. Richardson, Esq. Walter E. Anderson, Esq. HWG, LLP 333 Fayetteville Street, Suite 1500 Raleigh, NC 27601 Telephone: (919) 504-9833 E-mail: arichardson@hwglaw.com wanderson@hwglaw.com. - and - Ryan Lehrer, Esq. Seth J. Donahoe, Esq. Jennifer H. Wahba, Esq. TRIPP SCOTT, P.A. 110 S.E. 6th Street, 15th Floor Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-7500 E-mail: rhl@trippscott.com sjd@trippscott.com jmh@trippscott.com - and - Timothy A. Kolaya, Esq. STUMPHAUZER KOLAYA NADLER & SLOMAN, PLLC 2 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 1600 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 614-1400 E-mail: tkolaya@sknlaw.com - and - Ariel Deitchman, Esq. Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq. Josh Greenblatt, Esq. John M. Robinson, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Three Brickell City Centre 98 S.E. 7th Street, Suite 700 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 432-5600 Facsimile: (305) 432-5601 E-mail: ariel.deitchman@kirkland.com lefkowitz@kirkland.com josh.greenblatt@kirkland.com john.robinson@kirkland.com ENTERPRISE RESOURCE: Faces Williams Employment Suit in California ----------------------------------------------------------------- JASMINE WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING INTERNATIONAL, LLC and ERP INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00234-BTM-AHG (S.D. Cal., January 31, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, California Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure to pay sick leave, failure to timely pay wages, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, waiting time penalties, failure to reimburse business expenses, and unfair competition. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a respiratory therapist in California from about October 2024 to December 2024. Enterprise Resource Planning International, LLC is a provider of health, digital, medical research, and business process management solutions in California. ERP International, LLC is a provider of health, digital, medical research, and business process management solutions, doing business in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas J. Ferraro, Esq. Lauren N. Vega, Esq. Elyssa Martinez, Esq. FERRARO VEGA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS, INC. 3333 Camino del Rio South, Suite 300 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 693-7727 Facsimile: (619) 350-6855 Email: nick@ferrarovega.com lauren@ferrarovega.com elyssa@ferrarovega.com ENVOY AIR: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Pietri Suit Due Oct. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIANNA CAMACHO PIETRI, v. ENVOY AIR INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-03564-DJC-SCR (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Daniel Calabretta entered a scheduling order as follows: The named defendant has been served as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5. No further service is permitted without leave of the Court, good cause having been shown under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b). No further joinder of parties or amendments to pleadings is permitted without leave of the Court, good cause having been shown. Discovery matters that do not implicate the schedule of the case or that do not relate to sealing or redaction of documents related to dispositive motions are referred to the assigned United States Magistrate Judge, who will hear all discovery disputes subject to his or her procedures. Rule 26(a) Initial Disclosures If not already completed, all parties appearing shall make initial disclosures pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26(a)(1) within 14 days after the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference. Discovery All discovery, to the extent it applies to class certification, shall be completed1 no later than Aug. 22, 2025. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification, shall be filed on or before Oct. 31, 2025, and shall be noticed for hearing before Judge Calabretta on Dec. 4, 2025 at 1:30 p.m. Envoy Air is a wholly-owned subsidiary of American Airlines Group operating more than 160 aircraft on 800 daily flights. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HqSxhq at no extra charge.[CC] EUROMARKET DESIGNS: Faces Marsalisi Over Unwanted Text Messages --------------------------------------------------------------- HALEY MARSALISI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EUROMARKET DESIGNS, INC. D/B/A CRATE & BARREL, Case No. 1:25-cv-20435-KMM (S.D. Fla., Jan. 29, 2025) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant’s unlawful conduct which has resulted in intrusion into the peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal to Plaintiff and the Class members. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of themselves and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. The Plaintiff contends that on or about Jan. 9, 2025, the Defendant began making telephone solicitations to Plaintiff's cellular telephone. The class that Plaintiff seeks to represent is defined as: "All persons in the United States who from four years prior to the filing of this action through the date of class certification (1) Defendant, or anyone on Defendant’s behalf, (2) placed more than one text message within any 12-month period; (3) where such text messages were initiated before the hour of 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. (local time at the called party’s location)." Euromarket, doing business as Crate & Barrel, provides household consumer products. The Company offers furniture, tabletop, and cabinets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Faaris K. Uddin, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (813) 340-8838 E-mail: zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com faaris@jibraellaw.com EVERGREEN PACKAGING: Faces Class Actions Over Labor Violations -------------------------------------------------------------- www.bamlawca.com reports that in a California class action lawsuit, Evergreen and Pactiv Packaging are facing allegations they didn't pay their employees the complete wages they are owed. The Case: Latosha Dehart vs. Evergreen and Pactiv Packaging The Court: Stanislaus County Superior Court of the State of California The Case No.: CV-24-005982 The Plaintiff: Latosha Dehart vs. Evergreen and Pactiv Packaging The plaintiff, Latosha Dehart, filed a class action complaint against Evergreen and Pactiv Packaging for allegedly failing to provide employees with timely, off-duty meals and rest periods. The Defendant: Latosha Dehart vs. Evergreen and Pactiv Packaging The defendant, Evergreen and Pactiv Packaging, allegedly violated several labor laws, including multiple California Labor Code Sections (Secs. 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.7, 510, 512, 558, 1194, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, and 2802). The business practices and behaviors that constituted labor law violations were: Not paying wages when due -- Failing to meet minimum wage requirements -- Failing to provide accurate overtime pay -- Not reimbursing employees for work expenses -- Failing to provide accurate itemized wage statements -- Failing to offer employees mandatory rest periods and meal breaks What to Do When You Aren't Paid All Your Wages? If you aren't paid your full wages due, take the following steps to ensure you receive fair compensation: Document your hours: Keep accurate records of all your hours, including overtime, as this will serve as essential evidence. Review your wage statements: Regularly check your pay stubs to ensure they accurately reflect the hours worked and the wages owed. Raise the issue internally: Report any discrepancies to your human resources department to allow them to correct any errors. Consider joining the class action: If the issue is systemic, joining the lawsuit can provide a collective avenue for seeking redress. Talk to a lawyer: Consult an employment law attorney and ask about recovering unpaid wages. These proactive steps can help safeguard your rights and ensure you are fully compensated according to labor laws. The Case: Latosha Dehart vs. Evergreen and Pactiv Packaging The lawsuit alleges Evergreen and Pactiv Packaging failed to pay their employees for all the time they worked, an alleged California Labor Code violation. The case is currently pending in the Stanislaus County Superior Court of the State of California. If you have questions about filing a California wage and hour class action lawsuit, please contact Blumenthal Nordrehaug Bhowmik DeBlouw LLP. Knowledgeable employment law attorneys are ready to assist you in various law firm offices in Riverside, San Francisco, Sacramento, San Diego, Los Angeles, and Chicago. [GN] FACTOR75 LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Jackson Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- SYLINIA JACKSON, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. FACTOR75, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00871 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 30, 2025) alleges that Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. Accordingly, the Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because Defendant's interactive website, www.factor75.com, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant’s corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant’s Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services—all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals -- thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision. Others have no vision. Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1 million people in the United States are visually-impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000 visually-impaired persons live in the State of New York. The Defendant offers the commercial website, www.factor75.com, to the public. The Website offers features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services offered by Defendant and which Defendant ensures delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, 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 FEDEX GROUND: Court OK's Proposed Schedule for Class Cert Briefing ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAGGART v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-03655 (D.N.J., Filed July 7, 2023), the Hon. Judge Georgette Castner entered an order approving the Parties' proposed schedule as it relates to Plaintiff's damages analysis. The Court also approves the Parties' proposed schedule for briefing class certification and summary judgment. That said, the Parties shall not file their respective class certification and summary judgment briefing until the motions are fully briefed. Stated differently, the Parties shall (a) serve (not file) their motions on June 6, 2025, (b) serve (not file) their opposition, and (c) serve (not file) their reply papers on September 5, 2025. In addition to the exchange on September 5, 2025, the Parties shall file the completed briefing on the docket. The Court asks that the Parties coordinate the filing to ensure that the briefing is appropriately organized on the docket, with the motion being the first filing, followed by the opposition and reply papers. The nature of suit states Labor Litigation. Fedex Ground provides package delivery services.CC] FIRST TECH: Class Settlement in Perez Suit Gets Final Nod --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ISMAEL ANTONIO RODRIGUEZ PEREZ, v. FIRST TECH FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No. 3:23-cv-06704-TSH (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Thomas Hixson entered an order granting Plaintiff's motion for final approval of the parties' class action settlement. The Court also grants Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees and costs; specifically, the Court awards the following: $35,000 in attorney's fees; $405 in costs; settlement administration costs of $13,000; and a $5,000 service award to Plaintiff Ismael Antonio Rodriguez Perez. The parties shall file a proposed judgment that complies with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(3) by Jan. 30, 2025. The Settlement Class is defined as: (i) the "California Class," consisting of 20 individuals who, according to First Tech's records, were residing in California and applied for a Residential Secured Loan with First Tech from Dec. 29, 2021, through Dec.29, 2023, provided an EAD during the application process, and were denied their application solely because of their immigration or citizenship status at the time they applied; and ( (ii) the "National Class," consisting of 43 individuals who, according to First Tech’s records, were residing in any state of the United States other than California and applied for a Residential Secured Loan with First Tech from Dec. 29, 2021, through Dec. 29, 2023, provided an EAD during the application process, and were denied their application solely because of their immigration or citizenship status at the time they applied. The Plaintiff alleges First Tech has a policy of denying applicants for residential secured loans based on their immigration and/or citizenship status. First Tech is a member-owned financial institution. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NPfS7C at no extra charge.[CC] FMP MORTGAGE: Ontario Court Approves $3-Mil. Class Settlement ------------------------------------------------------------- James Langton of Investment Executive reports that an Ontario court has approved a $3-million class-action settlement on behalf of syndicated mortgage investors who lost much of their money in a failed investment scheme. The Superior Court of Justice granted a motion approving a proposed settlement with several of the defendants in a class action, including FMP Mortgage Investments Inc., involving a syndicated mortgage loan promoted by Fortress Real Developments Inc. and Fortress Real Capital Inc. for the Orchard Calgary Inc. real estate project. When the loan went into default, the investors lost most of their money. According to the court's decision, among other things, investors alleged that they were "misled about the value of the property" underlying the syndicated mortgage, the risks involved with the investment and how the mortgage proceeds would be used by developers and the mortgage administrators. Under the settlement, the defendants will pay $3 million, including $750,000 in legal fees, along with disbursements and other expenses. The court ruled that the proposed settlement is a "fair and reasonable one," and it approved the deal as being in the "best interests" of the investors. This marks the fourth class action involving syndicated mortgage investments connected with Fortress Real, which allegedly raised more than $900 million from retail investors for various projects between 2008 and 2017. Three previous settlements were reached in 2023, totalling $28.7 million. In 2020, the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario entered a settlement with Fortress Real, which included a $250,000 in administrative penalty for contraventions of mortgage rules. Following an investigation by the RCMP's Integrated Market Enforcement Team, in 2022, the company's founders were charged with fraud in connection with a series of failed syndicated mortgage investments. That proceeding remains underway, and the allegations have not been proven. [GN] FOOD52 INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Walker Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- LEAH WALKER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Food52, Inc. dba Schoolhouse, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00829 (N.D. Ill., January 24, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, Schoolhouse.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. Despite readily available accessible technology, the Defendant has chosen to rely on an exclusively visual interface. Among other things, the Defendant also failed and refused to remove access barriers to its website. These barriers prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software, says the suit. Headquartered in New York, NY, Food52 operates the website which provides consumers with the ability to view and purchase furniture, rugs and home decor online. [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 FOSTER GARVEY: Bid to Seal Docs OK'd in Cellucci Suit ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cellucci, et al., v. Foster Garvey, et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-10304 (D, Mass., Filed Feb. 8, 2023), the Hon. Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton entered an order granting the Defendants' motion to seal the documents in question provisionally so as not to delay briefing related to class certification. Any documents filed under seal pursuant to the order must be filed in accordance with the instructions from the Clerk's Office by no later than Feb. 5, 2025. The Defendants have not identified, or provided the court with copies of, the documents they seek to file under seal. To the extent the Defendants -- or the Plaintiffs -- want these documents to remain under seal on the docket, they must "explain, on a document-by-document basis, why sealing is required and how their request satisfies the applicable legal standard." They must make such a filing by no later than Feb. 28, 2025. If they do not make such a filing, the court will unseal the documents. Mag. Judge Katherine A. Robertson entered in Case No. 1:14-cv-12058-NMG provisionally granting motion to seal filed by the Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo Bank. LLC, Mauricio Cardenas, Michael Montalvo, and ProPay, Inc. Counsel will receive an email within 24 hours of the order with instructions for submitting sealed documents for which leave has been granted in accordance with the Local Rules of the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud.[CC] FULTON COUNTY, GA: Bid for More Time to File Response OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NKENGEN HAMBRICK and SHANNON JACKSON, on behalf of themselves and others similarly Situation, v. FULTON COUNTY SHERIFF PATRICK LABAT, in his official capacity, and FULTON COUNTY CHIEF JAILER JOHN JACKSON, in his official capacity, Case No. 1:24-cv-05658-SDG-CCB (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Christopher Bly entered an order granting the parties' joint motion for an enlargement of the time to file a response to the Plaintiffs' amended motion to certify class. The deadline for defendants to file a response to the Plaintiffs' amended motion to certify class shall be extended to and including the later of (1) March 19, 2025, if defendants do not file a Rule 12 motion to dismiss, or (2) if defendants file a Rule 12 motion to dismiss, 30 days after the Court enters an order ruling on the motion. Sheriff Patrick Labat serves as the 28th Sheriff of Fulton County, Georgia overseeing a staff of 875 employees. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Xgydjx at no extra charge.[CC] FULTON COUNTY, GA: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as NKENGEN HAMBRICK and SHANNON JACKSON, on behalf of themselves and others similarly Situation, v. FULTON COUNTY SHERIFF PATRICK LABAT, in his official capacity, and FULTON COUNTY CHIEF JAILER JOHN JACKSON, in his official capacity, Case No. 1:24-cv-05658-SDG-CCB (N.D. Ga.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion and enlarging the time for them to file a response to the Plaintiffs' amended motion to certify class. The Defendants ask the Court to enlarge the time they have to file a response to plaintiffs’ amended motion to certify class to thirty days after they file an answer. If defendants do not file a motion, this will be March 19, 2025. But if defendants file a motion, this will be thirty days after the Court rules on the motion (fourteen days after the Court rules on the motion per Rule 12(a)(4)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure plus an additional sixteen days). The Plaintiffs consent to the enlargement of time for defendants to respond to plaintiffs' amended motion to certify class. The Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint on Dec. 10, 2024. The Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class on Jan. 2, 2025. The Plaintiffs filed an amended motion to certify class on Jan. 9, 2025. The Defendants filed waiver of service documents on Jan. 9, 2025. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Jan. 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=phKh9m at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael D. Harper, Esq. MICHAEL D. HARPER, P.C. Patrick W. Leed, Esq. 3017 Bolling Way, N.E., Suite 150 Atlanta, GA 30305 Telephone: (404) 271-6618 Facsimile: (404) 600-2146 E-mail: Mharper@mharperlaw.com Pleed@mharperlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Sun S. Choy, Esq. Jacob E. Daly, Esq. FREEMAN MATHIS & GARY, LLP 100 Galleria Parkway, Suite 1600 Atlanta, GA 30339-5948 Telephone: (770) 818-0000 Facsimile: (833) 330-3669 E-mail: schoy@fmglaw.com jdaly@fmglaw.com GEICO GENERAL: Marcelletti Suit Seeks to Certify Class ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN MARCELLETTI, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 6:23-cv-06211-EAW-CDH (W.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff moves the Court to certify, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) (or alternatively, under Rule 23(b)(2) or (c)(4)), his breach of contract claim against Defendant Geico General Insurance Company on behalf of the following class: "All persons (1) who insured a vehicle for private-passenger auto physical damage coverage for comprehensive or collision loss under an insurance policy issued in the State of New York by GEICO General Insurance Company ("GEICO"), (2) who made a first-party claim for loss of the vehicle, (3) whose claim was adjusted by GEICO as a total loss between April 17, 2017 and the date of the Court's class certification order, and (4) who were not paid the applicable New York sales tax owed for the total loss claim." Excluded from the Class is the Defendant, its officers, employees, agents and affiliates, their subsidiaries, legal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns, and any of Plaintiff's counsel, their officers, employees, agents, legal representatives, heirs, successors, and assigns. GEICO offers a variety of insurance such as vehicle, property, business, life, umbrella, travel, pet, jewelry and more. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0ZZl1i at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph N. Kravec, Jr., Esq. Kaitlyn M. Burns, Esq. FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC 29 Broadway, 24th Floor New York, NY 10006-3205 Telephone: (212) 952-0014 E-mail: jkravec@fdpklaw.com kburns@fdpklaw.com - and - Antonio Vozzolo, Esq. Andrea Clisura, Esq. VOZZOLO LLC 499 Route 304 New City, NY 10956 Telephone: (201) 630-8820 Facsimile: (201) 604-8400 E-mail: avozzolo@vozzolo.com aclisura@vozzolo.com - and - Edmund A. Normand, Esq. NORMAND PLLC 3165 McCrory Place, Suite 175 Orlando, FL 32803 Telephone: (407) 603-6031 Facsimile: (888) 974-2175 E-mail: ed@normandpllc.com GEICO: Class Cert Bid Filing in Fischer Amended to March 12 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fischer, et al., v. Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO), Case No. 2:23-cv-02848 (E.D.N.Y., Filed April 17, 2023), the Hon. Judge Sanket J. Bulsara entered an order amending the briefing deadlines for the Plaintiffs' anticipated motion for class certification as follows: -- The Plaintiffs motion to be filed by: March 12, 2025 -- The Defendant's opposition by: April 11, 2025 -- The Plaintiffs' reply by: May 2, 2025 -- The deadline for first step in March 26, 2025 dispositive motions, if class certification motion is not filed, by: The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). GEICO is an American auto insurance company headquartered in Chevy Chase, Maryland.[CC] GERBER PRODUCTS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Howard Due March 20 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRACY HOWARD, ERI NOGUCHI, and SCOTT DIAS as a individuals, on behalf of themselves, the general public and those similarly situated, v. GERBER PRODUCTS COMPANY, Case No. 3:22-cv-04779-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order as follows: Event Date Deadline for Plaintiffs to file their March 20, 2025 motion for class certification and any expert report(s) in support thereof: Deadline for Defendant to file its May 12, 2025 opposition to the motion for class certification and any expert report(s) in support thereof: Deadline for Plaintiffs to file their June 5, 2025 reply in support of the motion for class certification and any report(s) in support thereof: Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class June 26, 2025 Certification: On Sept. 5, 2024, the Court reset the deadline for Plaintiffs to file their motion for class certification for 45 days after the Court entered an order on the Defendant’s anticipated motion to dismiss. On Dec. 31, 2024, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s motion to dismiss. ECF 82. On Jan. 24, 2025, the parties attended a case management conference in which the Court directed the parties to submit a new briefing schedule for class certification with a hearing date of June 26, 2025. Gerber is an American purveyor of baby food and baby products. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=g8hcTO at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. Hayley A. Reynolds, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com marie@gutridesafier.com hayley@gutridesafier.com The Defendant is represented by: Bryan A. Merryman, Esq. Katherine Godar, Esq. WHITE & CASE LLP 555 S. Flower Street, Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2433 Telephone: (213) 620-7700 Facsimile: (213) 452-2329 E-mail: bmerryman@whitecase.com katherine.godar@whitecase.com GERBER PRODUCTS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Howards Due March 20 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Howard v. Gerber Products Company, Case No. 3:22-cv-04779-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince Chhabria entered a scheduling order as follows: Event Date Deadline for Plaintiffs to file their March 20, 2025 motion for class certification and any expert report(s) in support thereof: Deadline for Defendant to file its May 12, 2025 opposition to the motion for class certification and any expert report(s) in support thereof: Deadline for Plaintiffs to file their June 5, 2025 reply in support of the motion for class certification and any report(s) in support thereof: Hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion for Class June 26, 2025 Certification: Gerber is an American purveyor of baby food and baby products. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Oexvbf at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. Hayley A. Reynolds, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com marie@gutridesafier.com hayley@gutridesafier.com The Defendant is represented by: Bryan A. Merryman, Esq. Katherine Godar, Esq. WHITE & CASE LLP 555 S. Flower Street, Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2433 Telephone: (213) 620-7700 Facsimile: (213) 452-2329 E-mail: bmerryman@whitecase.com katherine.godar@whitecase.com GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Class Settlement in Calchi Suit Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nancy Calchi, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Healthcare Holdings (US) LLC, GSK Consumer Health, Inc., and Pfizer Inc., Case No. 7:22-cv-01341-KMK (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Kenneth Karas entered an order: -- granting preliminary approval to class action settlement, -- provisionally certifying settlement class, -- directing notice to the settlement class, and -- scheduling final approval hearing. The Court provisionally certifies the following Settlement Class: All purchasers of any flavor Robitussin product with detromethorpan and marketed as non-drowsy, including Robitussin Cough+Chest Congestion DM Maximum Strength Syrups; Robitussin Cough+Chest DM Maximum Strength / Nightimre Cough DM Maximum Strength Day & Night Value Pack Syrups; Robitussin Cough+Chest Congestion DM Maximum Strength Liquif Filled Capusules; Robitussin Cough+Chest Congestion DM Syrups; Children Robitussin Cough+Chest Congestion DM Syrups; and Children Robitussin Cough+Chest Congestion DM / Nightime Cough Long- Acting DM Day & Night value Pack Syrups, for personal or household use, and not for sale in the United States during the Class Period." On Jan. 16,2022, the Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint against Haleon and Pfizer, Inc., based on the alleged false and misleading labeling, packaging, and marketing of the Covered Products. The Plaintiffs have asserted claims on behalf of nationwide class of consumers regarding, among other things, the use of the phrase "Non-Drowsy" on labelling for the Covered Products (which contain decxtromethorphan (DXM)). GlaxoSmithKline is a consumer healthcare company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LrT06j at no extra charge.[CC] GOOGLE LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Taylor Reset to March 11 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH TAYLOR, et al., v. GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-07956-VKD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Virginia DeMarchi entered an order granting most of the new dates requested in the parties' January 24, 2025, stipulated request to modify the case schedule and re-sets those dates as follows: Class certification motion/Daubert motions due: March 11, 2025 Class certification opposition/Daubert oppositions Due: April 17, 2025 Class certification reply/Daubert replies due: May 13, 2025 Hearing on class certification/Daubert motions: July 1, 2025, Deadline to file summary judgment motions: Sept. 9, 2025 Deadline for summary judgment oppositions: Oct. 7, 2025 Deadline for summary judgment replies: Oct. 28, 2025 Hearing on summary judgment motions: Nov. 18, 2025, 10:00 a.m. Google operates as a global technology company specializes in internet related services and products. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Bmoook at no extra charge.[CC] GROCERY OUTLET: Faces Investors Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------- A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Grocery Outlet Holding Corp. ("Grocery Outlet" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: GO). The lawsuit alleges that Defendants "created the false impression that they possessed reliable information pertaining to the completion of Grocery Outlet's System Transition and any potential negative resulting therefrom, while also minimizing the risks associated with potential and perceived setbacks to the Company's finances as a result of implementation errors and other issues surrounding the System Transition." If you bought shares of Grocery Outlet between November 7, 2023 and May 7, 2024 and suffered a significant loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832 or you may visit the firm's website at www.holzerlaw.com/case/grocery-outlet/ to learn more. The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is March 31, 2025. Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law firm for 2021, 2022, and 2023, dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website, -- www.holzerlaw.com, -- and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content.  CONTACT: Corey Holzer, Esq. (888) 508-6832 (toll-free) cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN] GROCERY OUTLET: Liberato Sues Over Drop in Share Price ------------------------------------------------------ RICCIO LIBERATO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GROCERY OUTLET HOLDING CORP.; ROBERT JOSEPH SHEEDY; and CHARLES C. BRACHER, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00957 (N.D. Cal., Jan. 30, 2025) is a federal securities class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Grocery Outlet securities between November 7, 2023, to May 7, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws. According to the complaint, on May 7, 2024, Grocery Outlet announced its financial results for the first quarter of fiscal 2024, published significantly below-expectation guidance for the second quarter, and further reduced its guidance for the full fiscal year 2024. The Company attributed its results and lowered guidance on "unforeseen systems transition costs that surfaced at the end of the quarter" and the resulting "residual expense from our commission support program as we finish store physical inventory counts in the second quarter." Investors and analysts reacted immediately to Grocery Outlet's revelation. The price of Grocery Outlet's common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $25.90 per share on May 7, 2024, Grocery Outlet's stock price fell to $20.88 per share on May 8, 2024, a decline of about 19.38 percent in the span of just a single day, says the suit. Grocery Outlet Holding Corp. retails grocery products. The Company owns and operates grocery stores and offers dairy, meat, vegetables, fruits, and health supplements. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1160 Battery Street East, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 373-1671 Email: aapton@zlk.com HATTIESBURG, MS: Mallory Files Suit in S.D. Mississippi ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against City of Hattiesburg, et al. The case is styled as Gerry Mallory, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. City of Hattiesburg, Intellisafe, INC., Anna Rush, Steven Adamson, Elizabeth Porter, Hardy Sims, Chief, John Does 1-10, ACME Companies 1-10, Case No. 2:25-cv-00010-KS-MTP (S.D. Miss., Jan. 27, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Civil Rights Act. City of Hattiesburg -- https://www.hattiesburgms.com/ -- is the 4th most populous city in the U.S. state of Mississippi, located primarily in Forrest County and extending west into Lamar County..[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald V. Johnson, IV, Esq. DEAKLE-JOHNSON LAW FIRM P.O. Box 2072 Hattiesburg, MS 39403 Phone: (601) 544-0631 Fax: (601) 544-0666 Email: rvjohnson@djlawms.com HEALTH CARE: Rutherford Seeks More Time to File Response -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHNNY C. RUTHERFORD, JR. and MARY RUTHERFORD and JOHNNY RUTHERFORD ON BEHALF OF THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. HEALTH CARE SERVICE CORPORATION, a Mutual Legal Reserve Company, doing business in Montana as Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana, and the STATE OF MONTANA, Case No. 6:24-cv-00081-BMM (D. Mont.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting a one-week extension of time in which to file their response to stay the motion for class certification. The response is currently due January 29th, 2025. The Rutherfords request until and including February 5th, 2025 to file their response. Counsel for the Defendants has been contacted and does not oppose the motion. Health Care Service provides a range of health and life insurance products and related service. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=00ORIt at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John Morrison, Esq. MORRISON, SHERWOOD, WILSON, & DEOLA, PLLP 401 N. Last Chance Gulch St. Helena, MT 59601 Telephone: (406) 442-3261 Facsimile: (406) 443-7294 E-mail: john@mswdlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Daniel J. Auerbach, Esq. Christy S. McCann, Esq. BROWNING, KALECZYC, BERRY & HOVEN, P.C. 201 West Railroad Street, Suite 300 Missoula, MT 59802 E-mail: daniel@bkbh.com christy@bkbh.com - and - Martin J. Bishop, Esq. William J. Sheridan, Esq. Ally P. Allegretto, Esq. REED SMITH LLP 10 South Wacker Drive, 40th Floor Chicago, IL 60606-7507 Telephone: (312) 207-1000 Facsimile: (312) 207-6400 E-mail: MBishop@reedsmith.com wsheridan@reedsmith.com aallegretto@reedsmith.com HILTON WORLDWIDE: Tracks Users' Website Browsing, Shah Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- VISHAL SHAH, JONATHAN GABRIELLI, and CHRISTINE Q. WILEY, as individuals, on behalf of themselves, the general public, and those similarly situated v. HILTON WORLDWIDE HOLDINGS INC., Case No. 5:25-cv-01018-SVK (N.D. Cal., Jan. 31, 2025) concerns a privacy violation and total breach of consumer trust in violation of California law. Accordingly, when consumers visit Defendant's website, www.hilton.com, the Defendant displays to them a popup cookie consent banner. The Defendant's cookie banner discloses that the Website uses cookies but expressly gives users the option to control how they are tracked and how their personal data is used. Like most websites, the Defendant designed the Website to include resources and programming scripts from third parties that enable those parties to place cookies and other similar tracking technologies on visitors' browsers and devices and to transmit cookies along with user data. However, unlike other websites, the Defendant's Website offers consumers a choice to browse without being tracked, followed, and targeted by third party data brokers and advertisers. Allegedly, the Defendant's promises are outright lies, designed to lull users into a false sense of security. Even after users elect to "Opt Out" of cookies, the Defendant surreptitiously enables several third parties -- including Google LLC (DoubleClick), Adobe Inc. (Adobe Marketing Cloud and Adobe Audience Manager), Microsoft, Inc. (Bing), Snap, Inc., and more(the Third Parties) -- to place and/or transmit cookies that track users' website browsing activities and eavesdrop on users' private communications on the Website, the lawsuit says. In March 2023, Plaintiff Shah visited the Website to browse information about Hilton's hotels and resorts. When Plaintiff Shah visited the Website, the Website immediately presented him with Defendant’s popup cookie consent banner, which provided the option to select the "Opt Out" button. Hilton Worldwide is an American multinational hospitality company that manages and franchises a broad portfolio of hotels, resorts, and timeshare properties. Founded by Conrad Hilton in May 1919, the company is now led by Christopher J. Nassetta.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. Todd Kennedy, Esq. Kali R. Backer, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com marie@gutridesafier.com todd@gutridesafier.com kali@gutridesafier.com HOBBY LOBBY: Dalton Sues Over Website's Noncompliance of ADA ------------------------------------------------------------ Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-00290-DSD-JFD (D. Minn., January 24, 2025) alleges that the Defendant has violated 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 Plaintiff found Defendant's website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important website content. Headquartered in Oklahoma City, OK, Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. offers arts and craft supplies for sale including, but not limited to, fabric, jewelry making supplies, home decor, furnishings, home accessories, and more. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Gustafson, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. 80 South 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: jason@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com HOSHINO (USA): Thorne Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- BRAULIO THORNE, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOSHINO (U.S.A.) INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00842 (S.D.N.Y., January 28, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.tama.com/usa, 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 the Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on January 18, 2025, in an attempt to purchase a Drum Set and Transport Case from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied him 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. He 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, 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. Hoshino (U.S.A.) Inc. operates the website which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about its drums, hardware & accessories.[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 HPC INDUSTRIAL: Parties in Longley Must File Discovery Report ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TRAVIS LONGLEY, v. HPC INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00860-KES-CDB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order as follows: 1. The initial scheduling conference currently set for Jan. 29, 2025 is vacated. 2. Within 14 days of issuance of this order, the parties in both actions shall file a joint report: (1) outlining a single joint discovery and class certification motion timeline for both cases or, in the alternative, explaining why such a timeline should be held separately for each action, and (2) addressing their respective positions concerning consolidation. The parties to the Longley Action have represented these actions are related, with significant overlap of discovery and trial proceedings. Additionally, the Court notes that both actions seek certification of a putative class. As such, the Court will direct the parties in both the Longley Action and the Moss Action to meet and confer and file a joint report within 14 days of issuance of this order, outlining a proposed joint discovery and class certification motion timeline. In the alternative, the parties may explain why the two actions should proceed on independent timelines. Additionally, the parties shall address their respective positions concerning consolidation of the actions. Due to the foregoing issues regarding discovery and class certification, and for the parties to comply with the requirements of the joint report addressed above, the initial scheduling conference currently set for January 29, 2025 (Longley Action, Doc. 9) is hereby vacated, to be reset as appropriate upon the Court’s receipt of the parties’ joint report. HPC is a provider of specialty maintenance services and technology solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fsLCNX at no extra charge.[CC] HPC INDUSTRIAL: Parties Must File Joint Discovery Report -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Derek Moss et al v. HPC Industrial Services, LLC et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01479-KES-CDB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order as follows: 1. The initial scheduling conference currently set for Jan. 29, 2025 is vacated. 2. Within 14 days of issuance of this order, the parties in both actions shall file a joint report: (1) outlining a single joint discovery and class certification motion timeline for both cases or, in the alternative, explaining why such a timeline should be held separately for each action, and (2) addressing their respective positions concerning consolidation. The parties to the Longley Action have represented these actions are related, with significant overlap of discovery and trial proceedings. Additionally, the Court notes that both actions seek certification of a putative class. As such, the Court will direct the parties in both the Longley Action and the Moss Action to meet and confer and file a joint report within 14 days of issuance of this order, outlining a proposed joint discovery and class certification motion timeline. In the alternative, the parties may explain why the two actions should proceed on independent timelines. Additionally, the parties shall address their respective positions concerning consolidation of the actions. Due to the foregoing issues regarding discovery and class certification, and for the parties to comply with the requirements of the joint report addressed above, the initial scheduling conference currently set for January 29, 2025 (Longley Action, Doc. 9) is hereby vacated, to be reset as appropriate upon the Court’s receipt of the parties’ joint report. HPC is a provider of specialty maintenance services and technology solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pKctks at no extra charge.[CC] HSBC BANK: Court Recommends Denial of Ni Class Cert Bid ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KELLY NI, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, v. HSBC BANK USA, N.A., Case No. 1:23-cv-00309-JAV-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katharine Parker recommends that class certification be denied. In sum, Plaintiffs' evidence does not demonstrate a common de facto policy of requiring rounding in contravention of written policy – at best individual Plaintiffs may be able to prove they are entitled to additional pay based on their personal circumstances. The myriad individualized issues identified above overwhelm any common issues related to the wage statement class claims as well. Thus, predominance is not met for any of the proposed class claims. Insofar as Plaintiffs cannot satisfy Rule 23(b) predominance for any of the proposed classes, there is no need to address whether class treatment is superior to individual litigation. However, given the size of the putative class and the number of individualized issues, a trial would be unmanageable. The Plaintiff, who worked as a Personal Banker in New York, brought this action for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), in connection with Defendant's alleged failure to pay overtime to Personal Bankers for hours worked during lunch breaks and after regularly scheduled hours, failure to pay for breaks of less than 20 minutes and violations of state wage notice/statement law. On Jan. 29, 2024, this Court granted conditional certification of an FLSA collective of Personal Bankers for the period Jan. 13, 2020 through Feb. 22, 2022 for failure to pay overtime. HSBC is a banking and financial services institution. A copy of the Court's report and recommendation dated Jan. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IcYnM4 at no extra charge.[CC] IESO LLC: Sells Vapable Oil Products with Excess THC, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- CHAD ALSIP and ALAN WARNEKE, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. IESO, LLC, NUMED MANAGERS INC., NUMED, INC., NUMED MANAGEMENT, LLC, NUMED PARTNERS LLC, NUERA HOLDINGS HILLCREST, LLC, NUERA ACQUISITION, INC., and NUERA CAPITAL LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00920 (N.D. Ill., Jan 28, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for unlawfully manufacturing, marketing, and selling potent "cannabis-infused products" (CIPs) with excessively high tetrahydrocannabinol ("THC") content -- well above the applicable legal limits imposed under Illinois law for consumers' health and safety. The Defendants masquerade their CIPs as legal for purchase and consumption in Illinois; in actuality, however, the products vastly exceed the applicable THC limits for CIPs, as well as the personal possession limits for those products. This subjects purchasers to risks of adverse effects associated with overconsumption of THC, as well as legal risks for possession of illegal products. The CIPs at issue are vapable products like cannabis oil vaporizer cartridges, disposable oil vaporizers, and others such as resin, rosin, hash oil, budder, badder, crumble, and shatter (collectively "Vapable Oils"), says the suit. Vapable Oils are used in conjunction with a device to vaporize their contents, which are then consumed via inhalation i.e. "vaping." Consuming Vapable Oils does not utilize combustion and their consumption is thus not considered smoking for purposes of the Illinois Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act (the CRTA) or the Illinois Compassionate Use of Medical Cannabis Program Act ("Medicinal Act," collectively with the CRTA, the "Illinois Cannabis Acts"), the suit contends. Rather, Vapable Oils are a type of CIP, as they are intended to be consumed by vaporizing the contents and then inhaling them using a non-combustible heating device. Nevertheless, the Defendants manufacture, market, label, and package their Vapable Oil products as though they were smokeable concentrates, in 300-milligram, 500-milligram, 1-gram, 2-gram, and 2.5-gram quantities, including under its own brand names, such as nuEra, Alchemy, Cultivate, Middweek Friday, and Interstate 420, the suit further alleges. The Defendants also own and operate an Illinois cannabis retail chain called nuEra, which provides various educational resources to cannabis users.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Laura Luisi,Esq. LUISI HOLZ LAW 161 N. Clark St., Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 639-4478 E-mail: LuisiL@luisiholzlaw.com HolzJ@luisiholzlaw.com INDEPENDENCE PROJECT: Property Violates ADA, Maurer Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- DENNIS MAURER, an individual, & THE INDEPENDENCE PROJECT, INC., a New Jersey Non-Profit Corporation v. HOWELL CHICKEN LLC, a New Jersey Limited Liability Company & 1721 NORTH 46TH STREET, LLC, an Arizona Limited Liability Company, Case No. 3:25-cv-00792 (D.N.J., Jan. 29, 2025) seeks injunctive relief, damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination. Accordingly, Plaintiff Maurer has visited the Defendant's Property on several occasions; his last visit occurred on or about December 5, 2024, during which time he was travelling through the area, conducting inspections at nearby properties, and travelling along US-9. During that trip he visited Popeye's and purchased lunch. Mr. Maurer has found that the Property contains violations of the ADA, both in architecture and in policy. The Defendants' property is known as Popeye's Louisiana Kitchen located at 4270 US 9, Howell, New Jersey. Mr. Maurer has multiple sclerosis and therefore has a physical impairment that substantially limits many of his major life activities including, but not limited to, not being able to walk, stand, reach, or lift. Mr. Maurer, at all times, requires the use of a wheelchair to ambulate, says the suit. The Independence Project is a non-profit organization whose members include disabled individuals residing across the country. The non-profit's mission is to facilitate communication among disabled persons, to empower its members through information and awareness, and, ultimately, to ensure equal enjoyment and unfettered access to all places of public accommodation. Howell operates a place of public accommodation, in this instance a fast-food restaurant, alleged by the Plaintiffs to be operating in violation of Title III of the ADA and the LAD. 1721 North owns the parcel of land upon which this place of public accommodation alleged by the Plaintiffs to be operating in violation of Title III of the ADA and the LAD is situated.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon G. Shadinger Jr., Esq. SHADINGER LAW, LLC 2220 N East Avenue Vineland, NJ 08360 Telephone: (609) 319-5399 E-mail: js@shadingerlaw.com INDIAN HILL: Court Junks R.L.K. Bid for Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as R.L.K., by her next friends, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. INDIAN HILL EXEMPTED VILLAGE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Case No. 1:23-cv-00171-JPH (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Jeffery Hopkins entered an order denying the motion for class certification because the Plaintiff failed to show there are questions of law and fact common to all class members. Indian Hill's Motion for Leave to File Further Memoranda and its Motion to Strike R.L.K.'s Response to that Motion are denied as moot. The outstanding housekeeping motions in this matter made for the purpose of correcting previous filings are granted. R.L.K.'s allegations are not amenable to resolution on a class-wide basis. This should have been apparent to her counsel from the outset, as the vast majority of her complaint relates solely to her own experience at Indian Hill, and it includes only brief references to district-wide policy. The Plaintiff seeks certification of the following class: "Defendant's current and former students within the four years preceding the filing of this Complaint: (a) between the ages of five and twenty-two years old; (b) who suffer[] or suffered from one or more qualifying disability that substantially affects or affected one or more major life activity; (c) who are or were entitled to one or more accommodations; and (d) to whom Defendant has denied accommodations pursuant to a uniformly applied official policy or policies, an unofficial yet well-defined practice or practices, or a common mode of exercising discretion to deny the same. R.L.K. filed her complaint initiating this case in March 2023. The complaint is a class action complaint alleging that Indian Hill has failed to provide accommodations to students with disabilities, and that such failure violates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1973. R.L.K. is a seventh grader enrolled in the Indian Hill public school system. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=V3USC9 at no extra charge.[CC] INTEGRAL AD: Bids for Lead Plaintiffs Deadline Set March 31 ----------------------------------------------------------- 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 for violations of federal securities laws, 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"). 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. If you purchased shares of IAS common stock during the Class Period and sustained significant losses and would like to serve as Lead Plaintiff, please click here or contact us at 800-516-9926 or law@bermantabacco.com. 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." 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. This notice may constitute attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Contacts Jay Eng, Esq. Berman Tabacco One Liberty Square Boston, Massachusetts (800) 516-9926 Email: law@bermantabacco.com [GN] INTEL CORP: Berkeley Considers Filing Exhibits Under Seal --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREGG BERKELEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. INTEL CORPORATION and the ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE INTEL MINIMUM PENSION PLAN, Case No. 5:23-cv-00343-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order to consider whether another party's material should be sealed in connection with Exhibits to the Declaration of Daniel R. Sutter, filed in support of Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Specifically, the Plaintiff moves the Court to consider whether portions of Exhibits 2 and 6 and the entirety of Exhibits 7, 8, 9, and 10 to the Sutter Class Certification Declaration should be sealed. Exhibits 7-10 to the Sutter Class Certification Declaration are documents produced by the Defendants to Plaintiff in fact discovery and were marked as "CONFIDENTIAL" by the Defendants under the terms of the protective order entered by the Court on June 27, 2023. Exhibits 2 and 6 are excerpts of deposition testimony of two Intel witnesses, portions of which reference materials designated as "CONFIDENTIAL" under the Protective Order. Unredacted copies of Exhibits 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 are being lodged concurrently with this Administrative Motion. In addition, the Protective Order encompasses not only material designated as "CONFIDENTIAL," but also "any information copied or extracted" from such material and "copies, excerpts, summaries, or compilations" of such materials. Intel is an American multinational corporation and technology company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FmQ49I at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michelle C. Yau, Esq. Daniel R. Sutter, Esq. Caroline E. Bressman, Esq. Allison C. Pienta, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave. NW, Eighth Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 E-mail: myau@cohenmilstein.com dsutter@cohenmilstein.com cbressman@cohenmilstein.com apienta@cohenmilstein.com - and - Shaun P. Martin, Esq. 5998 Alcala Park, Warren Hall San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: (619) 260-2347 Facsimile: (619) 260-7933 E-mail: smartin@sandiego.edu INTEL CORP: Berkeley Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREGG BERKELEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. INTEL CORPORATION and the ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF THE INTEL MINIMUM PENSION PLAN, Case No. 5:23-cv-00343-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on May 1, 2025, will move for class certification. The Plaintiff seeks an order certifying the following class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: "All Plan participants and beneficiaries who are receiving a joint and survivor annuity (or, for beneficiaries whose spouses died before commencing benefits, a pre-retirement survivor annuity) which is less than the value of the single life annuity converted to a joint and survivor annuity using the interest rates and mortality tables set forth in 26 U.S.C. section 417(e) with an annual stability and August lookback period." The Plaintiff also requests to be appointed as class representative and to have Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and Shaun Martin of the University of San Diego Law School appointed as class counsel for the proposed class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g). The Plaintiff alleges that Intel (the plan sponsor) and the Administrative Committee of the Plan (the plan administrator and named fiduciary) violated ERISA by paying married retirees and other joint and survivor annuity recipients pension benefits that are worth less than those paid to unmarried retirees. The Plaintiff Berkeley seeks to represent the following class: "All Plan participants and beneficiaries who are receiving a joint and survivor annuity (or, for beneficiaries whose spouses died before commencing benefits, a pre-retirement survivor annuity) which is less than the value of the single life annuity converted to a joint and survivor annuity using the interest rates and mortality tables set forth in 26 U.S.C. section 417(e) with an annual stability and August lookback period." Intel is an American multinational corporation and technology company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BtdTiy at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michelle C. Yau, Esq. Daniel R. Sutter, Esq. Caroline E. Bressman, Esq. Allison C. Pienta, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave. NW, Eighth Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 E-mail: myau@cohenmilstein.com dsutter@cohenmilstein.com cbressman@cohenmilstein.com apienta@cohenmilstein.com - and - Shaun P. Martin, Esq. 5998 ALCALA PARK, WARREN HALL San Diego, CA 92110 Telephone: (619) 260-2347 Facsimile: (619) 260-7933 E-mail: smartin@sandiego.edu INTRASYSTEMS LLC: Couchenour Sues Over Private Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------- DAVID COUCHENOUR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTRASYSTEMS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10190 (D. Mass., January 24, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and other similarly situated current and former patients' sensitive information. On or about January 17, 2025, Allegheny Health Network announced that Defendant IntraSystems, LLC, which managed systems for Defendant's Home Medical Equipment and Home Infusion services, had been accessed by an unauthorized third party. The private information of 293,900 of individuals is believed to have been exposed by the data breach. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for negligence, unjust enrichment, and for violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996. Intrasystems, LLC is a Massachusetts-based, third-party IT firm contracted to host, manage, and secure computer systems for its clients. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: H. Luke Mitcheson, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN PA 101 Station Landing, Suite 230 Medford, MA 02155 Telephone: (857) 383-4905 E-mail: lmitcheson@forthepeople.com - and - Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 E-mail: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Kenneth J. Grunfeld, Esq. Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 65 Overhill Road Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: grunfeld@kolawyers.com ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Jean S. Martin, Esq. Francesca Kester Burne, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 E-mail: jeanmartin@forthepeople.com fburne@forthepeople.com INTRASYSTEMS LLC: Fails to Safeguard Personal Info, Witas Says -------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD WITAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTRASYSTEMS, LLC and ALLEGHENY HEALTH NETWORK, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-10221-AK (D. Mass., January 28, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons who entrusted Defendants with sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information that was impacted in a data breach that Defendants publicly disclosed on January 17, 2025. The Plaintiff's claims arise from Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard private information that was entrusted to them, and their accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that information. As a result of Defendants' 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, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a Nationwide Class of similarly situated individuals against Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, and breach of confidence. IntraSystems, LLC is an IT consulting company, a managed services provider and systems integrator that caters the deployment and delivery of IT infrastructure, cybersecurity services and assessments, virtualization services, security and cloud solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary Ishimoto, 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: gishimoto@zlk.com msvensson@zlk.com JAR CIRCLE: Lozano Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL --------------------------------------------------------- JOSE LOZANO and ANYEL RIVERA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. THE JAR CIRCLE INC. d/b/a FRIDA'S MEXICAN GRILL, AAG HOSPITALITY INC. d/b/a FRIDA'S MEXICAN CUISINE, and RODRIGO SEMPERTEGUI, Case No. e 2:25-cv-00500 (E.D.N.Y., Jan. 29, 2025) seeks injunctive and declaratory relief against Defendants' unlawful actions and to recover their unpaid overtime wages, spread-of-hours pay, statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Accordingly, while employed as non-exempt cooks at the Frida Restaurants, the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees worked up to sixty-six hours per workweek. The Defendants paid them a salary instead of paying them an hourly rate as required by the FLSA and NYLL. By doing so, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs their overtime wages and spread-of-hours pay. The Defendants also failed to furnish Plaintiffs with a wage notice upon hire, and wage statements at the end of each pay period reflecting their full wages paid, hourly wage rates, and hours worked, says the suit. The Defendants operate the Restaurant business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Louis Pechman, Esq. Vivianna Morales, Esq. PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC 488 Madison Avenue – 17th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 583-9500 E-mail: Pechman@pechmanlaw.com Pechman@pechmanlaw.com JEWISH VOICE: Face Class Action Suit Over Traffic Jams ------------------------------------------------------ Jessica Costescu, writing for The Washington Free Beacon, reports that several anti-Israel organizations that blocked major roadways in Washington D.C. last year were slapped with a class action lawsuit Friday, January 31, 2025, by a legal group representing a traveler trapped in the traffic jam. Left-wing groups, including Jewish Voice for Peace, the Palestinian Youth Movement and its fiscal sponsor, the Westchester Political Action Committee Foundation, among others, shut down access to several major roadways in D.C. on Feb. 1, 2024, for close to an hour. A total of 23 anti-Israel activists were arrested on charges of "crowding, obstructing or incommoding." Three were also charged with resisting arrest. The keffiyeh-clad activists chained themselves together in the middle of highways while others linked arms with PVC pipes, forming human chains to block roads. Many of the activists held signs that said, "From the River to the Sea, Palestine Must be Free," and chanted slogans including "We Don't Want No Jewish State" and "If We Don't Get It, Shut It Down!" The Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute filed its lawsuit on behalf of Daniel Faoro, who was trapped by the blockade. They called the traffic jam "perhaps the most disruptive action by anti-Israel activists" and said commuters "were trapped in their vehicles with no inkling as to when their freedom of movement would be restored." "Thousands of commuters were late for work or school, or missed critical appointments and important events, some of which may have been scheduled weeks in advance," the complaint said. "Plaintiff Faoro and other innocent class members traveling into and around the District that morning had nothing to do with the conflict thousands of miles away, or the debate within Congress regarding support for Israel; many probably have no opinion at all on the issue." Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute president Anna St. John told the Washington Free Beacon the lawsuit seeks accountability for those "who use intimidation and obstruction to push their agenda." "Blocking roads is not free speech -- it's lawlessness. These activists disrupted daily life for countless individuals. HLLI's lawsuit seeks to ensure that those responsible face consequences and that this kind of behavior is not repeated," St. John said. Other defendants named in the lawsuit include, Harriet's Wildest Dreams, a D.C. activist group, and its president, Dornethia "Nee Nee" Taylor; the Party of Socialism and Liberation and its founder, Brian Becker; Maryland2Palestine and its co-chair Hannah Shraim; and the 23 activists arrested at the illegal protest. "NO BUSINESS AS USUAL FOR WAR CRIMINALS. FIVE major roadways are blocked coming into DC," DMV Dissenters, a local affiliate of another defendant, wrote in a February Instagram post. "We are ensuring those who facilitate and benefit from the ongoing genocide in Gaza are unable to make it to work and carry out those criminal acts." "Another major US-city was shutdown for Palestine -- this time in the capital of American empire," wrote another local group involved, DMV Palestinian Youth Movement. "DC law enforcement was caught off guard and struggled to expel and arrest protestors, causing severe traffic jams all throughout the capital and delaying politicians and bureaucrats complicit in Israel's crimes from arriving to work on time." [GN] JUSTPLAY GMBH: Brewer Seeks More Time to Serve Complaint -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELA BREWER individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. JUSTPLAY GMBH D/B/A JUSTPLAY and GIMICA GMBH D/B/A GIMICA GAMES, Case No. 2:24-cv-02244-CSB-EIL (C.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting an additional six (6) months, to and including July 22, 2025, within which to serve the foreign Defendants with the summons and complaint in this action. The undersigned counsel has commenced efforts to serve the Defendants, all of which are located in Germany, pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Hague Convention. The Plaintiff has diligently investigated the availability of an agent located in the United States that could accept service on behalf of Defendants, but have not been able to locate such an agent in the time since filing the Complaint. The Plaintiff anticipates that international service of process pursuant to the Hague Convention in this case may take up to six months. The Complaint in this action was filed in this Court on Oct. 24, 2024. JustPlay GmbH is an Android developer that has been active since 2020. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Pja7S3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. Alexander E. Wolf, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com awolf@milberg.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Law Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com KAUFFMAN SALES: Adams Alleges Labor Law Violations -------------------------------------------------- JEFFERY ADAMS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KAUFFMAN SALES AND RENTAL, INC., d/b/a Clark Equipment; and MICHAEL KAUFFMAN, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00252-SBP (D. Colo., January 24, 2025) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Order, and the Colorado Wage Act. The Defendants employed Plaintiff as a mechanic and driver from on or about January 2017. The Plaintiff then separated his employment in February 2024. The Plaintiff and other mechanics and drivers are misclassified as exempt workers and are compensated on a salary basis. As a result, they were not paid for hours worked over 40 hours per work week, says the suit. Based in Strasburg, CO, Kauffman Sales and Rental, Inc. sells, rents, and services new and used heavy outdoor equipment for customers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew E. Swan, Esq. Samuel D. Engelson, Esq. LEVENTHAL SWAN TAYLOR TEMMING PC 3773 Cherry Creek N. Drive, Suite 710 Denver, CO 80209 Telephone: (720) 699-3000 Facsimile: (866) 515-8628 E-mail: aswan@ll.law sengelson@ll.law - and - John W. Billhorn, Esq. BILLHORN LAW FIRM 3773 Cherry Creek N. Drive, Suite 710 Denver, CO 80209 Telephone: (312) 853-1450 E-mail: jbillhorn@billhornlaw.com KE HOLDINGS: Chin Suit Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chin v. KE Holdings Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-11196-GHW-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time, to April 26, 2025, of the current Feb. 19, 2025 deadline for Lead Plaintiff's Reply in support of its motion for class certification under the Court's July 1, 2024 Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order. Lead Plaintiff requests this extension because the parties have been exploring alternative ways to resolve this case, and believe it would be in all their interests, and potentially facilitate productive discussions, to direct their resources toward exploring alternative resolutions. KE Holdings is a publicly listed Chinese real estate holding company. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=olmLlr at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Erin W. Boardman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Facsimile: (631) 367-1173 E-mail: eboardman@rgrdlaw.com KENTUCKY: Court Grants Bids to Dismiss Claims in Kennedy v. DJJ --------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled JAMIAHIA KENNEDY, et al., PLAINTIFFS v. KENTUCKY DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE, et al., DEFENDANTS, Case No. 1:24-cv-00016-GNS (W.D. Ky.), Chief Judge Greg N. Stivers of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky, Bowling Green Division, grants some of the Defendants' motions to dismiss claims. The matter is before the Court on the Defendants' Motion to Strike, the Defendants' Motions to Dismiss, and the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave. Plaintiffs Jamiahia Kennedy, Willow Neal, Chanchiz Brown, D.B. (a minor child), and C.C. (a minor child) brought this action to address alleged constitutional and statutory deficiencies within Kentucky's juvenile facilities. The Plaintiffs name the following entities as Defendants: Kentucky Department of Juvenile Justice ("DJJ"), Adair County Youth Detention Center, Campbell Regional Juvenile Detention Center, Fayette Regional Juvenile Detention Center, Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services ("CHFS"), and Kentucky Justice and Public Safety Cabinet ("JPSC"). The Plaintiffs also bring claims against the following Defendants in their individual and official capacities: Kerry Harvey, Keith Jackson, Vicki Reed, Randy White, Boyd, Burgher, George Scott, D. Burton, James Sweatt, II, David Kazee, Tonya Burton, Christopher Rakes, Tom Milburn, and Joe Caskey. Each of these individuals allegedly possessed a supervisory role in one of the government agencies or youth detention centers during the events comprising the Plaintiffs' causes of action. The Plaintiffs are individuals, who allegedly either currently or have previously been placed in DJJ's custody by residing at a Kentucky youth detention center. Additionally, the Plaintiffs seek to assert a class action, representing "all individuals incarcerated by DJJ" who experienced the same types of harms alleged by the Plaintiffs. According to the Plaintiffs, they were subjected to gross and unconscionable violations of the rights, privileges, and immunities guaranteed them by the Fourth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States while they were in custody at the detention centers. These alleged violations include prolonged solitary confinement; exposure to unsanitary conditions; lack of access to education; and withholding of medications. Additionally, the Plaintiffs contend that they are all "persons with a disability that substantially limits one or more of their major life activities." The Plaintiffs assert the following causes of action against all Defendants: constitutional deprivations under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 (Count I); negligence (Count II); and disability discrimination under 42 U.S.C. Section 12132 (i.e., the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA")) (Count III). Additionally, the Plaintiffs bring claims against DJJ, JPSC, and CHFS for violating 29 U.S.C. Section 784 (i.e., the Rehabilitation Act) (Count IV). The Plaintiffs seek both declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as monetary damages. The Plaintiffs move for leave to substitute their First Amended Complaint with a version that includes "three Defendants who were named in paragraphs 45, 46, and 48 [but] were inadvertently omitted from the case caption." These three Defendants are Marshay Boyd, Elzie Burgher, and Dena Burton ("D. Burton"). In the Corrected First Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs included these three names in the case caption but have otherwise made no additional changes. The Defendants state they have no objection with this amendment and agree to accept service for the newly added Defendants. Therefore, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion, and the Corrected First Amended Complaint is the operative pleading. The Individual Defendants moved to dismiss the official and individual capacity claims contained in the initial Complaint. Following the filing of the First Amended Complaint, the Defendants moved to strike the addition of new parties and move to dismiss all claims. Defendants Harvey, Reed, Scott, Sweatt, Kazee, T. Burton, and Rakes move to strike the Plaintiffs' addition of new parties from the Amended Complaint. The Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint as a matter of course, as allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a). In their First Amended Complaint, the Plaintiffs added Brown, D.B., and C.C. as Plaintiffs and Jackson, White, Milburn, Boyd, Burgher, and D. Burton as Defendants. Judge Stivers finds that the Plaintiffs' argument regarding the addition of new plaintiffs as a matter of course is not well-founded. Judge Stivers opines, among other things, that the Plaintiffs have failed to provide any Sixth Circuit authority permitting the addition of new plaintiffs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), and at this time, the Court will not allow the addition of plaintiffs as a matter of course. In their Motions to Dismiss, the Defendants seek dismissal of the claims asserted against them on numerous grounds. The moving Defendants previously moved to dismiss the official and individual capacity claims contained in the initial Complaint. Judge Stivers notes that these first two motions to dismiss are now moot because the Plaintiffs have filed their First Amended Complaint, and the moving Defendants have renewed their motions to dismiss, accordingly. Therefore, the motions seeking dismissal of the claims in the original Complaint are denied as moot. Defendants DJJ, JPSC, Harvey, Jackson, Reed, White, Scott, Kazee, Sweatt, T. Burton, Rakes, Milburn, and Caskey move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' official capacity claims asserted against them and seek dismissal of the claims for declaratory and injunctive relief. The Defendants present three main arguments: (1) any claims for monetary damages are barred by sovereign immunity; (2) the Plaintiffs lack standing to request declaratory and injunctive relief, because Kennedy and Neal were not residents within a DJJ facility when they brought this action; and (3) the action is moot, as there is no longer "a live controversy under Article III. Regarding sovereign immunity, Judge Stivers finds the Defendants correctly point out that "absent waiver by the State or valid congressional override, the Eleventh Amendment bars a damages action against a State in federal court." Judge Stivers also finds that the Plaintiffs lack standing to sue Individual Defendants in their official capacities for declaratory or injunctive relief. Hence, the official capacity claims against the moving Individual Defendants are dismissed. Defendants Harvey, Reed, Scott, Sweatt, Kazee, Burton, and Rakes also move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' individual capacity claims in the First Amended Complaint. In response, the Plaintiffs explicitly concede and do not contest the Defendants' motion regarding the "ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims against public employees in their individual capacities." Hence, the Defendants' motion is granted regarding these claims. With the exception of Burton, Judge Stivers finds the Plaintiffs' allegations fail to overcome the Defendants' affirmative defenses of qualified immunity. The Defendants' motion, therefore, is granted in part and denied in part. The motion is granted as it relates to individual liability under Section 1983 for all moving Defendants, except Burton. The Plaintiffs' claims against Harvey, Reed, Scott, Kazee, Sweatt, and Rakes, for individual liability under Section 1983 are dismissed. The Plaintiffs' claim against Burton for individual liability under Section 1983 survives. CHFS moves to dismiss all claims against it. In the Plaintiffs' response, they explicitly concede and do not contest the Defendants' motion regarding the Section 1983 claim and all state law claims directly against CHFS. Therefore, CHFS's motion is granted regarding these claims. Judge Stivers opines that the Plaintiffs have failed to allege sufficient facts tying the conduct of CHFS to their alleged injuries. For these reasons, the Court rules as follows. The Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave is granted. The Defendants' Motion to Strike is granted in part and denied in part. The Plaintiffs are permitted to add Jackson, White, Milburn, Boyd, Burgher, and D. Burton as Defendants as a matter of course, but not Brown, D.B., and C.C. as Plaintiffs. Brown, D.B., and C.C.'s claims are dismissed without prejudice; The Defendants' First and Second Motions to Dismiss are denied as moot. The Defendants' Third Motion to Dismiss is granted. All claims against the moving Defendants in their official capacities are dismissed. The Defendants' Fourth Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. The ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims against the moving Defendants in their individual capacities are dismissed. The Section 1983 claim against Burton in her individual capacity survives. The Section 1983 claims against all other moving Defendants in their individual capacities are dismissed. The state law negligence claims against all moving Defendants survive; and The Defendants' Fifth Motion to Dismiss is granted. All claims against CHFS are dismissed. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4umam262 from PacerMonitor.com. KERR MCGEE: Settlement Deal in Epperson Suit Gets Final Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROSE L. EPPERSON, v. KERR MCGEE CHEMICAL CORP, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00053-JDC-CBW (W.D. La.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting Plaintiff's motion for final approval of the settlement agreement: -- The Settlement Agreement is finally approved as being, in all respects, fair, reasonable, adequate and in the best interest of Settlement Class Members. -- All persons who have not made their objections to the Settlement Agreement in the manner provided in that agreement are deemed to have waived any objections by appeal, collateral attack, or otherwise. -- By operation of the entry of the final judgment, the Plaintiff and all Settlement Class Members who have not opted out of the Agreement shall be deemed to have forever released, relinquished, and discharged Occidental, Anadarko, and the Released Persons from any and all Released Claims. The Court certifies the following class, for purposes of judgment on the proposed Settlement, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3): "All residents, homeowners, and landowners within the geographical boundaries depicted in Exhibit E to the Settlement Agreement (i.e., residents, homeowners, and landowners within the estimated boundaries of the floodplain and subsurface aquifer that extends from northeast corner of the southeast of boundary of the American Creosote DeRidder Superfund Site to the northeast along the railroad right of way to Louise Street, then south to Rock Street, east to Ronald Regan Highway (U.S. Hwy 190), southeast on Ronald Regan Highway to Carr de Louisiana 26, southeast along Carr de Louisiana 26, then south down Townsley Road, then southwest from the intersection of Townsley Road and Scallon Road to State Route 394, to the west-northwest along State Route 394 to Bobby Stracener Road, before continuing west to Ronald Regan Highway, and then north-northwest to Ball Road, west along Ball Road to immediately before the DeRidder Wastewater Treatment Plant and then north-northwest to the southeast corner of the southeast boundary of the American Creosote DeRidder Superfund Site) and/or other individuals (e.g., former residents) who may have suffered bodily might assert a claim for personal injury (including medical monitoring),and/or property damage and might assert a claim for associated harms, including compensatory damages, medical monitoring, economic damages, and/or injunctive relief based on contamination alleged to emanate from the American Creosote DeRidder Superfund Site." The Settlement Class does not include (i) federal, state, and/or local government agencies; or (ii) any judge, clerk, or officer of the Court, their spouses, and persons within the third degree of relationship to either of them or the spouses of such persons. Kerr-McGee operated a wood-preserving plant. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HnsPbm at no extra charge.[CC] KRAFT HEINZ: Flexer Sues Over Capri Sun Juice's False Labels ------------------------------------------------------------ ALYSSA FLEXER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KRAFT HEINZ FOOD COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00414 (E.D.N.Y., January 24, 2025) arises from Defendant's deceptive marketing and sale of Capri Sun juice pouches. According to the complaint, the Defendant represents to consumers through its packaging that these juice pouches contain "ALL NATURAL INGREDIENTS." Unbeknownst to consumers, however, Defendant's natural claim is false because these products contain citric acid, a synthetic ingredient. As a result of its deceptive conduct, the Defendant violates state consumer protection statutes and has been unjustly enriched at the expense of consumers. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for violations of New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350, and for breach of express warranty. Kraft Heinz Food Company is a food and beverage company headquartered in Pittsburgh, PA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. ARISOHN LLC 513 Eighth Avenue, #2 Brooklyn, NY 11215 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 E-mail: josh@arisohnllc.com LEADPOINT INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Ragsdale Due May 2 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA RAGSDALE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LEADPOINT, INC., et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-04542-MCS-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Mark Scarsi entered an order setting the dates for the Parties' Joint Rule 26(f) Report: Event Date Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off: Sept. 16, 2025 Expert Disclosure (Initial): Mar. 28, 2025 Expert Discovery Cut-Off: May 2, 2025 Deadline to File a Motion for Class May 2, 2025 Certification: Deadline to File an Opposition to the May 23, 2025 Motion for Class Certification: Deadline to File a Reply in Support of June 13, 2025 the Motion for Class Certification: Hearing Date on Motion for Class July 2, 2025 Certification: at 9:00 a.m. Leadpoint was founded in 2005. The company's line of business includes the retail sale of products by television, catalog, and mail-order. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XSgrhi at no extra charge.[CC] LEGOLAND NEW YORK: Settlement Class in Demmerle Gets Initial Cert. ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER DEMMERLE, RONNIERY DE LA CRUZ, and PENG LI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LEGOLAND NEW YORK, LLC and LEGOLAND DISCOVERY CENTERS US LLC, Case No. 7:23-cv-11141-KMK (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Kenneth Karas entered an order 1. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), the Settlement Class, as defined as follows, is preliminarily certified for the purpose of settlement only: "All individuals in the United States who purchased electronic tickets to LEGOLAND New York and/or LEGOLAND Discovery Center US LLC from Defendants' Websites, from Aug. 29, 2022 through Jan. 30, 2024 for LEGOLAND New York and from Aug. 29, 2022 through Jan. 2, 2024 for LEGOLAND Discovery Center US LLC. 2. Excluded from the Settlement Class are (1) any Judge or Magistrate presiding over this Action and members of their families; (2) the Defendants, Defendants' subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendants or their parents have a controlling interest and their current or former officers, directors, agents, attorneys, and employees; (3) persons who properly execute and file a timely request for exclusion from the class; and (4) the legal representatives, successors or assigns of any such excluded persons. 3. The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on May 7,2025, at 11:00 a.m. Eastern Time by telephone. Legoland is a theme park in Goshen, New York owned by Merlin Entertainments. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pFiInHat no extra charge.[CC] LEPRINO FOODS: Dominguez Wins Bid for Class Certification --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER DOMINGUEZ, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY, a Colorado corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-01018-KES-EPG (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order that: -- Defendant's request for leave to file a sur-reply in opposition to Plaintiff's reply to motion for class certification is denied. -- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification be granted. -- These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(l). -- The Court has found that Plaintiff has met his burden in satisfying the requirements of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b) as to the Wage Statement Class. Therefore, the Court recommends that the Wage Statement Class be certified. The Plaintiff seeks certification of the following proposed classes: -- Meal/Rest Period Class: "All current and former non-exempt employees of Defendant who: (i) worked at Defendant's non-union Lemoore West facility in Lemoore, California; and (ii) earned non-discretionary incentive compensation and meal/rest period premiums during the same workweek, at any time from June 28, 2021, to Nov. 7, 2021." -- Sick Pay Class: "All former non-exempt employees of Defendant who: (i) worked at Defendant's non-union Lemoore West facility in Lemoore, California; (ii) received payment of non-discretionary incentive compensation and sick pay during the same workweek during the period of June 28, 2019, to May 2, 2021; and (iii) whose employment ended at any time from June 28, 2019, through the present." -- Wage Statement Class: "All current and former non-exempt employees of Defendant in the State of California who received the payment of overtime and/or shift differential wages, at any time from June 28, 2021, to the present." A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Qz8ncc at no extra charge.[CC] LIFEPOINT HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Adams Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- PAMELA ADAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIFEPOINT HEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00107 (M.D. Tenn., Jan. 29, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Adams was employed by the Defendant as a registered nurse. LifePoint Health, Inc. operates as an health care company. The Company provides healthcare services such as quality care, cancer care, surgical treatment, and medical facilities. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Russ Bryant, Esq. JACKSON SHIELDS HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 Email: rbryant@jsyc.com LIFEPOINT HEALTH: Schoeppner Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- DEMAREST SCHOEPPNER, individually and on behalf of all otherssimilarly situated v. LIFEPOINT HEALTH, INC., A Delaware Corporation, Case No. 3:25-cv-00119 (M.D. Tenn., Jan. 31, 2025) seeks to recover all unpaid wages, liquidated damages, other damages owed to them under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff also seeks to promptly send notice of the action to those similarly situated pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) in order to inform them of their rights and to remedy the sweeping practices which the Defendant has integrated into its time tracking and payroll policies and which have deprived Plaintiff and others similarly situated of their lawfully-earned wages. Plaintiff Schoeppner brings this action on behalf of herself and other similarly situated individuals who have worked for Lifepoint as nursing staff, nurse aides, nurse assistants, and other non-exempt hourly employees who provided patient care and been subject to Defendant's policy and practice of automatically deducting time from recorded hours for meal periods. Throughout the relevant time period, Plaintiff and similarly situated nursing staff were denied payment for all hours worked, including overtime. The case implicates Defendant's longstanding policy and/or practice of failing to properly compensate non-exempt employees for work performed during meal periods, for work performed while "off-the-clock," and for missed rest and meal periods. Lifepoint operates and manages a network of community hospitals, rehabilitation and behavioral health hospitals and other sites of service across 31 states, including Trios, where the Plaintiff works. The Defendant employs hundreds, if not thousands, of hourly non-exempt workers similarly situated to Plaintiff across these facilities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert E. Morelli, III, Esq. Carolyn H. Cottrell, Esq. Ori Edelstein, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 Facsimile: (415) 421-7105 E-mails: rmorelli@schneiderwallace.com ccottrell@schneiderwallace.com oedelstein@schneiderwallace.com LIFESTANCE HEALTH: Court Narrows Claims in Strong Suit ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Montana Strong, et al., v. LifeStance Health Group Incorporated, Case No. 2:23-cv-00682-KML (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Krissa Lanham entered an order that the Plaintiffs' intrusion-upon-seclusion claim is dismissed without leave to amend but all their other claims may proceed. The Court says that because of the age of this case, the parties must immediately prepare and prepare their Rule 26(f) report. In discussing case management dates, the parties must set the deadline for dispositive motions no later than April 2026. Accordingly, the Court entered an order that the motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. The Court further entered an order as follows: -- The parties are directed to meet, confer, and develop a Rule 26(f) Joint Case Management Report, which must be filed within 2 weeks of the date of this order. It is the responsibility of plaintiff(s) to initiate the Rule 26(f) meeting and prepare the Joint Case Management Report. Defendant(s) shall promptly and cooperatively participate in the Rule 26(f) meeting and assist in preparation of the Joint Case Management Report. LifeStance is a mental healthcare company that offers "outpatient care services via in-person locations and telemedicine." A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=io48vn at no extra charge.[CC] LOANUNITED.COM LLC: Huff Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Candi Huff, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LOANUNITED.COM, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00343-AT (N.D. Ga., Jan. 27, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed by the Defendant. The Plaintiff and other underwriters for the Defendant regularly worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. the Defendant did not pay the Plaintiff and the other underwriters overtime when they worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. Instead, the Defendant improperly classified the Plaintiff and the other underwriters as exempt employees and paid them a salary with no overtime compensation. This action seeks to recover the unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed by the Defendant to these workers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a mortgage underwriter. LoanUnited operates financial institutions throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Road Plantation, FL 33324 Phone: (954) WORKERS Fax: (954) 327-3013 Email: AFrisch@forthepeople.com - and - Matthew S. Parmet, Esq. Justin Vineyard, Esq. PARMET PC 2 Greenway Plaza, Suite 250 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 999-5200 Email: matt@parmet.law justin@parmet.law LOCKHART & MORRIS: Karcher Sues Over Consumer Debt Collection ------------------------------------------------------------- LORI KARCHER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. LOCKHART, MORRIS & MONTGOMERY, INC., a Texas corporation, Case No. 5:25-cv-00067 (M.D. Fla., Jan. 30, 2025) is a class action seeking damages based upon the Defendant's alleged unlawful conduct in furtherance of its efforts to collect a consumer debt in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692, et seq.. Accordingly, the Defendant reported three separate delinquent consumer medical debts to one or more of the national credit bureaus (Equifax, Trans Union, Experian) for inclusion on Plaintiff's credit file that did not belong to Plaintiff. The Defendant failed to contact Plaintiff before doing so in violation of the FDCPA. As a result, the Plaintiff was deprived of the opportunity to dispute the derogatory and inaccurate information with the credit bureaus and/or Defendant before it appeared on her credit file(s). The Plaintiff contends that she suffered concrete harm as a result of Defendant’s violations of the FDCPA. The Plaintiff brings this action as a national class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(1) and (b)(3) on behalf of the following class consisting of all similarly situated persons: (a) All persons with an address in the United States for whom the Defendant, within the year preceding the filing of this action through the date of final approval, reported a consumer debt to any consumer reporting agency, as that term is defined by the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. section 1681, et seq., without first communicating with the consumer about the alleged debt either by (i) speaking with the consumer in person or by phone; (ii) delivering a letter to the consumer; or (iii) delivering an electronic message to the consumer, or for whom Defendant, after sending a letter or electronic message to a consumer about an unreported alleged debt, failed to wait at least 14 consecutive days for a notice of undeliverability. Excluded from the Classes are: Defendant's officers, directors, employees, legal representatives, successors, assigns, and any individual who at any time during the class period has had a controlling interest in Defendant; the Judge(s) to whom this case is assigned and any member of the Judge(s)' immediate family and staff; and all persons who may submit timely and proper requests for exclusion from the Classes. The Defendant was a foreign private corporation with a principal address in Texas. Defendant seeks to collect debts from consumers in Florida including in this District and Division.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert W. Murphy, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT W. MURPHY 440 Premier Circle, Suite 240 Charlottesville, VA 22901 Telephone: (434) 328-3100 Facsimile: (434) 328-3101 E-mail: rwmurphy@lawfirmmurphy.com - and - John A. Love, Esq LOVE CONSUMER LAW 2500 Northwinds Parkway, Suite 330 Alpharetta, GA 30009 Telephone: (404) 855-3600 E-mail: tlove@loveconsumerlaw.com LOS ANGELES, CA: Herrera Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Classes --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AGUSTIN HERRERA, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01013-HDV-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on Feb. 27, 2025, will move this Court for an Order certifying classes under F.R.Civ.P Rule 23(b)(3) and/or 23(c)(4). The Plaintiff Herrera contends that Los Angeles County maintained inhumane and unconstitutional conditions of confinement its juvenile detention facilities including its three juvenile halls (Central (CJH), Barry J. Nidorf (BJN), and Los Padrinos (LP)) and several juvenile camps. Given the AG's injunctive relief stipulated judgment, the Plaintiffs seek only certification of a damages class under Rule 23(b)(3) and 23(c)(4) "All persons who were born on or after Feb. 15, 2002, continuing until final approval of the settlement, to whom class notice was sent or attempted to be sent, and who were detained in a Los Angeles County Juvenile Hall or Juvenile Camp." On Aug. 22, 2023, the parties held a mediation with highly regarded mediator Anthony Piazza and agreed to a settlement of $27.5 Million for the juvenile halls, subject to approval by the LA County Board of Supervisors and this Court. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JnZBbV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Barrett S. Litt, Esq. Lindsay Battles, Esq. MCLANE, BEDNARSKI & LITT, LLP 975 E. Green Street Pasadena, CA 91106 Telephone: (626) 844-7660 Facsimile: (626) 844-7670 E-mail: blitt@mbllegal.com lbattles@mbllegal.com - and - Scott B. Rapkin, Esq. Michael S. Rapkin, Esq. RAPKIN & ASSOCIATES, LLP 475 Washington Blvd. Marina del Rey, CA 90292 Telephone: (310) 319-5465 Facsimile: (310) 319-5355 E-mail: scottrapkin@rapkinesq.com msrapkin@gmail.com LOUISIANA: Must Produce Documents and ESI, Court Says ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEX A., by and through his guardian, Molly Smith; BRIAN B.; and CHARLES C., by and through his guardian, Kenione Rogers, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. GOVERNOR JOHN BEL EDWARDS, in his official capacity as Governor of Louisiana; WILLIAM SOMMERS, in his official capacity as Deputy Secretary of the Office of Juvenile Justice, JAMES M. LEBLANC, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections, Case No. 3:22-cv-00573-SDD-RLB (M.D. La.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs' renewed motion to compel. The Defendants must produce to the Plaintiffs documents and ESI, consistent with the terms of this Order, within 14 days of the date of this Order, or as otherwise agreed upon by the parties. The parties shall bear their own costs. The Plaintiffs' lack of compliance with Local Rule 37 has delayed the Court's resolution of the instant motion. That said, Plaintiffs' original Motion to Compel raised issues with respect to Requests for Production Nos. 1-8, 10-12, 14-23, 25-26, which encompasses the requests for production at issue here. Given the record, the Court will proceed with the merits of the instant motion. The Plaintiffs' counsel are directed to comply with Local Rule 37 with respect to any future discovery motion (including renewed motions to compel) filed in this district. This case is a class action lawsuit pertaining to the transfer of certain juveniles in the custody of the Office of Juvenile Justice ("OJJ") to a facility located at the Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola, Louisiana. On Aug. 31, 2023, the district judge granted Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives for the following class: "[A]ll youth who are now or will be in the custody of OJJ who have been, might be, or will be transferred to the OJJ site (the "Transitional Treatment Unit" or "TTU") at Angola or another adult prison (the "Principal Class"), including a subclass of all current and future youth with disabilities within the meaning of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act in the custody of OJJ who have been, might be, or will be transferred to the OJJ site at Angola or another adult prison (the "Disabilities Subclass"). A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xH4k57 at no extra charge.[CC] LUAR LLC: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Murphy Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES MURPHY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LUAR LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00907 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 30, 3035) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://luar.world/, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Luar LLC is an online store selling footwears, and clothing. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Tel: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal LULU'S FASHION: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LULU'S FASHION LOUNGE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00895 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 30, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.lulus.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Lulu's Fashion Lounge, LLC operates as a specialty online retailer. The Company retails dresses, shoes, blouses and shirts, tees, sweaters, jackets and coats, skirts, pants, shorts, jewelry, and accessories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com MAGELLAN HEALTH: Deakin's Bid to Dismiss Opt-In Plaintiffs Granted ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Matthew L. Garcia of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico grants the Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice of Opt-In Plaintiffs in the lawsuit entitled MAUREEN DEAKIN, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAGELLAN HEALTH, INC., and MAGELLAN HSRC, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-00773-MLG-KK (D.N.M.). Between July 19, 2022, and Sept. 12, 2022, seven opt-in plaintiffs ("Opt-Ins") elected to withdraw from the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action in this case. The seven plaintiffs are Alma Ramirez-Gonzales, Leon Vanasse, Lesley Mitchell, Nicole Whitney, Novlett Lee, Shannon Annison, and Traci Medrano. The Court narrowed the FLSA collective action and certified the Plaintiffs' Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) class action in a prior order. The Plaintiffs' instant request only implicates the Opt-Ins as members of the FLSA collective defined in that order. Nearly two years later, class Plaintiffs moved to dismiss the Opt-Ins without prejudice and requested a 120-day tolling of their individual wage claims. Plaintiff Maureen Deakin is the sole remaining class Plaintiff. Because the Motion was filed by the putative class plaintiffs prior to the Court's class certification order, the Court refers to them collectively only for purposes of the current order. The Defendants oppose that motion and request that the Opt-Ins be dismissed with prejudice because they refused to participate in discovery. For the reasons explained in this Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice of Opt-In Plaintiffs ("Motion") to the extent it seeks dismissal of the opt-in plaintiffs without prejudice. The Court denies the Motion's request for a 120-day tolling of the relevant statute of limitations. The Plaintiffs' Motion is not their first request to dismiss opt-in plaintiffs. Following the Court's conditional FLSA collective action certification, two opt-in plaintiffs withdrew from the case, and class Plaintiffs moved to dismiss them without prejudice. Notably, the Defendants did not oppose that motion. Shortly thereafter, the Court dismissed the two opt-in plaintiffs without prejudice and tolled the statute of limitations on their affected claims for 120 days from the entry of the order of dismissal. More dismissals followed as opt-in plaintiffs withdrew; the Court dismissed two more opt-in plaintiffs in October 2022. Even though the class Plaintiffs sought those dismissals with prejudice, the Court dismissed the two opt-in plaintiffs without prejudice in order to protect the rights of the Opt-In Plaintiffs to pursue their claims within the appropriate statutory period, and in accordance with the Court's prior procedures for dismissal of opt-in parties. The Court further ordered the parties to follow the same procedures set forth above with regard to voluntary dismissal of the claims of any Opt-In Plaintiff in the future absent a showing of good cause, and that absent such a showing, any future voluntary dismissals similar to those of previously dismissed Opt-In Plaintiffs will be without prejudice. The Court's prior ruling is controlling per the law of the case doctrine. Accordingly, to prevail in their request that the Opt-Ins be dismissed with prejudice, the Defendants must show that good cause exists to do so. The Defendants argue that good cause exists to dismiss the Opt-Ins with prejudice because they withdrew from the case after their depositions had been noticed, in some instances just hours before the scheduled proceedings. Judge Garcia finds that the Defendants fail to provide any controlling authority stating that an opt-in plaintiff's withdrawal from a case prior to a deposition, absent more, justifies dismissal with prejudice. None of the non-precedential cases the Defendants cite are analogous to the current circumstances. The Defendants remaining cases on this point are similarly inapposite, Judge Garcia says. The Court does not find good cause to dismiss the Opt-Ins with prejudice as contemplated in its prior order. Judge Garcia opines that the Defendants fail to provide any evidence or controlling authority justifying such a dismissal, which is "an extreme sanction appropriate only in cases of willful misconduct," citing Ehrenhaus v. Reynolds, 965 F.2d 916, 920 (10th Cir. 1992). The Court also declines to consider this issue through the lens of a stale Rule 37 dispute that could have been litigated long before the instant motion. Accordingly, the Court will dismiss the Opt-Ins without prejudice. The Opt-Ins' request for a 120-day tolling period fares differently, Judge Garcia says. The Court's prior orders did not state that all voluntary opt-in dismissals would be afforded a 120-day tolling period. The Court also noted in its order narrowing the Plaintiffs' FLSA collective that the statute of limitations is tolled from the day each of the opt-in plaintiffs joins the collective action, and it resumes after the collective action is dismissed. Judge Garcia explains that for time beyond the dismissal of the collective action, opt-in plaintiffs must rely on equitable tolling. In this case, the Opt-Ins do not face extraordinary circumstances justifying the requested 120-day tolling period. The Opt-Ins functionally withdrew from this litigation in 2022, over two years ago. During that time, they could have pursued their individual FLSA claims, or at the very least, requested that class counsel dismiss them from the current action. There is no indication in the record that they exercised either option. Moreover, the Plaintiffs do not identify any controlling authority establishing that the Opt-Ins' current circumstances are extraordinary in any sense of the term. And while the Plaintiffs argue that denying the tolling period would be unfair to the Opt-Ins, the Court finds the Opt-Ins' choice to wait so long to seek dismissal equally questionable. The Court will, therefore, deny the Opt-Ins' request for a 120-day tolling period. Accordingly, the Court grants in part and denies in part the Plaintiffs' Motion. The seven Opt-Ins identified in the Motion are dismissed without prejudice. This dismissal does not affect any relief that may be available to the Opt-Ins to the extent they may be members of the Rule 23(b)(3) class defined in the Court's prior class certification order. The request for a 120-day tolling period for the Opt-Ins' potential individual claims is denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mw99hh94 from PacerMonitor.com. MANDYTODDCO INC: Green Seeks to Certify Collective Action --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mackenzie Green and Victoria Dobbins, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Mandytoddco, Inc, and Todd Rowley, individually,Case No. 4:24-cv-00887-RWS (E.D. Mo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: 1. Authorizing to proceed as a collective action for non- payment of tips earned, under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), on behalf of themselves and similarly-situated past and present employees of defendants MandyToddCo Inc. and Todd Rowley, with the collective to be defined as follows: "all hourly-paid kennel technicians who were employed by Williamsburg Pet Hotel & Suites at some time during the period of June 25, 2021 through Dec. 31, 2023." 2. Directing Defendants to produce to Plaintiffs' counsel within 10 days of the Order granting this Motion a list of the names, the last known addresses, last known email addresses, and phone numbers for putative collective members. 3. Authorizing to send notice, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, and consent to join, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B, as well as a second-notice, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit C, to all individuals whose names appear on the list to be produced by Defendants' counsel pursuant to the above-requested Order, by first-class mail and email so that they may assert their claims as part of this litigation. The notice period should run for 60 days from the date of mailing/emailing of the collective notice with the second notice being mailed/emailed, as a reminder, 30 days after the mailing/emailing of the first notice. The Plaintiffs further move that the opt-in plaintiffs' Consent Forms be deemed "filed" on the date they are postmarked. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zz0Qd3 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip E. Oliphant, Esq. THE ROLWES LAW FIRM, LLC 1951 Mignon Avenue Memphis TN 38107 Telephone: (901) 519-9135 Facsimile: (901) 979-2499 E-mail: poliphant@rolweslaw.com MARRIOTT INT'L: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to April 11 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIEL ESTEBAN CAMAS LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-03308-RMR-KAS (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge entered an order Kathryn Starnella granting the parties' joint motion to amend scheduling order. -- The Phase 1 discovery cut-off is extended to Feb. 28, 2025. -- The deadline to file a class certification motion is extended to Apr. 11, 2025. -- The deadline to file a response to the motion for class certification is extended to May 23, 2025. -- The deadline to file a reply to the motion for class certification is extended to June 20, 2025. Marriott is a hospitality service provider that operates hotels and restaurants. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KJuIBb at no extra charge.[CC] MATTEL INC: Court Consolidates Class Actions -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Destini Bigelow, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Mattel, Inc. and Fisher-Price Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00992-JLS (W.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge John Sinatra, Jr. entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for consolidation pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) and to appoint interim class counsel. The following actions shall be consolidated for all purposes: -- Bigelow v. Mattel, Inc., and Fisher-Price, Inc., Case No. 24- cv-00992; -- Shahbaz v. Mattel, Inc., and Fisher-Price, Inc., Case No. 24- cv-001181; -- Wall v. Mattel, Inc., and Fisher-Price, Inc., Case No. 24- cv-01037; and -- Gates v. Mattel, Inc., and Fisher-Price, Inc., Case No. 24- cv-01233. Mattel is an American multinational toy manufacturing and entertainment company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ppOfHg at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 2566: Bid to Seal Doerr Declaration Referred to Mag. Judge -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Re: Telexfree Securities Litigation, Case No. 4:14-md-02566 (D. Mass., Filed Oct. 22, 2014), the Hon. Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton entered an order referring motion to seal portions of the Declaration of Adam K. Doerr in Support of the Opposition to Class Certification filed by Wells Fargo Bank N.A., Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC to Magistrate Judge Katherine A. Robertson. The nature of suit states securities fraud. TelexFree is a multilevel marketing company that sells telephone service based on "voice over Internet."[CC] MDL 2873: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Glover Class Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- JOHNNA GLOVER, as Personal Representative/Executor/ Administrator of the Estate of OSBOND KINDLE JR. v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), 2:25-cv-00105-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 6, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Osbond Kindle Jr. (Decedent) was, at the time of death, an adult resident and citizen of Flomaton, Alabama. Decedent regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC. 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 MDL 2873: AFFF Contains Toxic PFAS, Roate Class Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ TOM ROATE, v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company), 2:25-cv-00121-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 6, 2025) is a class action seeking for damages for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF or TOG with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio persistent PFAS, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS, the Plaintiff contends. Further, the Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF or TOG which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF or TOG products at various locations during the course of the Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter. 18. Based upon information and belief, the Defendants' fluorochemical products were used in a manner resulting in the contamination of the Plaintiff's drinking water supply. The Defendants include AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.; ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.; INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS & SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MILLIKEN & COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC; SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.; STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCOFIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.; WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC. 3M manufactured, marketed, and sold AFFF from the 1960s to the early 2000s.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory A. Cade, Esq. Gary A. Anderson, Esq. Kevin B. McKie, Esq. ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION GROUP, P.C. 2160 Highland Avenue South Birmingham, AL 35205 Telephone: (205) 328-9200 Facsimile: (205) 328-9456 MEDUSIND INC: Faces Delva Class Action Suit Over Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------ VALENCIA DELVA individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated consumers, v. MEDUSIND, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-20431-PCH (S.D. Fla., Jan 28, 2025) seeks to hold the Defendant responsible for the harms it caused the Plaintiff in a massive and preventable data breach of the Defendant's inadequately protected computer network. On Dec. 29, 2023, the hackers infiltrated and accessed the inadequately protected computer systems of Defendant and stole the sensitive personal information of thousands of individuals. The PII taken by the hackers includes health insurance and billing information, financial information, health information such as medical history, and prescription information, government identification, such as drivers license or passport number, names, date of birth, emails, phone numbers, and addresses, the lawsuit says. As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff has suffered damages. First, Due to the Data Breach, Plaintiff has taken reasonable steps to minimize its impact. These efforts include researching the Data Breach and examining financial account statements for signs of actual or attempted identity theft or fraud. The Plaintiff seeks actual damages, statutory damages, and punitive damages, with attorney fees, costs, and expenses under negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duties, breach of confidence, breach of implied contract, and invasion of privacy. The Plaintiff seeks certification of the class, initially defined as: "All consumers that had their data compromised during the 2023 data breach." Excluded from the Class is Defendant herein, and any person, firm, trust, corporation or other entity related to or affiliated with Defendant, including, without limitation, persons who are officers, directors, employees, associates or partners of the Defendant. The Defendant is a provider of investment advisory services and asset management.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew Fornaro, Esq. MATTHEW FORNARO, P.A. 11555 Heron Bay Boulevard, Ste. 200 Coral Springs, Florida 33076 Telephone: (954) 324-3651 E-mail: mfornaro@fornarolegal.com MERIT ENERGY: Settlement in GOP Suit Gets Final Nod --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GOP, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. Merit Energy Company, LLC, Case No. 6:22-cv-00278-JAR (E.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Jason Robertson entered an order final judgment adopting all defined terms as set forth in the Settlement Agreement: The Settlement Class, which was certified in the Court's preliminary approval order, is defined as follows: "All non-excluded persons or entities who during the Claim Period: (1) received an Untimely Payment from Merit for oil and gas proceeds from Oklahoma wells, or on whose behalf an Untimely Payment was sent as unclaimed property to a government entity by Merit; and (2) whose proceeds did not include the statutory interest required by the PRSA." Excluded from the Class are: (1) Merit, its affiliates, predecessors, and employees, officers, and directors; and (2) agencies, departments, or instrumentalities of the United States of America or the State of Oklahoma; (3) Publicly traded oil and gas companies and their affiliates and subsidiaries; (4) any Indian Tribe as defined at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(4) or Indian allotee as defined at 30 U.S.C. section 1702(2); (5) any officers of the Court; (6) persons previously paid interest by Merit. "Untimely Payment" means a payment of proceeds from the sale of oil or gas production produced from an Oklahoma well after the statutory periods identified in Okla. Stat. tit. 52, section 570.10(B)(1) or (2). Untimely Payments do not include: (a) payments of proceeds equal to or less than $25.00; (b) prior period adjustments; (c) payments made on or before Sept. 29, 2017, or on or after May 1, 2024; and (d) joint interest billing netted amounts. The "Claim Period" means checks or payments made or issued by Merit Energy Company, LLC, dated between Sept. 30, 2017, through April 30, 2024, subject to the terms of the Settlement Agreement regarding Released Claims. The Court finds that Class Representative, Defendant, and their Counsel have complied with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as to all proceedings and filings in this Litigation. The Court further finds that Class Representative and Class Counsel adequately represented the Settlement Class in entering into and implementing the Settlement. Merit is a private oil and gas operator in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BunGnk at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Randy C. Smith, Esq. RANDY C. SMITH AND ASSOCIATES One Leadership Square, Suite 1310 211 North Robinson Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone (405) 212-2786 Facsimile (405) 232-6515 E-mail: randy@rcsmithlaw.com – and – David R. Gleason, Esq. MORICOLI KELLOGG & GLEASON, P.C. One Leadership Square, Suite 1350 211 N. Robinson Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Telephone: (405) 235-3357 Facsimile: (405) 232-6515 E-mail: dgleason@moricoli.com The Defendant is represented by: Daniel M. McClure, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 1550 Lamar Street, Suite 2000 Houston, TX 77010-4106 Telephone: (713) 651-5151 Facsimile: (713) 651-5246 E-mail: Dan.mcclure@nortonrosefulbright.com — and — Mark Banner, Esq. HALL, ESTILL, HARDWICK, GABLE, GOLDEN & NELSON PC 521 East 2nd Street, Suite 1200 Tulsa, OK 74120 Telephone:(918) 594-0400 Facsimile: (918) 594-0505 E-mail: mbanner@hallestill.com META PLATFORMS: Renewed Bid for Class Cert Tossed ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAXIMILIAN KLEIN, et al., v. META PLATFORMS, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-08570-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge James Donato entered an order: -- granting in part Meta's motion to exclude Dr. Economides' expert opinions as to his opinions about antitrust injury; and -- denying the user plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification. The Court will address the associated sealing motions in a separate order. The parties are directed to file by Feb. 10, 2025, a proposed schedule for the remaining pretrial and trial dates. Dr. Economides cannot provide admissible opinions on antitrust injury. Without those opinions, the user plaintiffs cannot establish that they have a class-wide method proving antitrust injury for either of their section 2 claims. In this antitrust action, separate plaintiff groups of users and advertisers sued Meta Platforms, Inc. (Meta), for alleged anticompetitive conduct under the Sherman Act and California state law in connection with the Facebook social-networking app. The user plaintiffs' main allegation is that Meta illegally acquired and maintained a monopoly in the PSNS market by deceiving users into believing that Facebook's data collection and privacy practices were more protective than they actually were. Meta Platforms is a provider of social networking, advertising, and business insight solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KCIPOW at no extra charge.[CC] MICHAEL GROFF: Class Certification Bids Due May 2 ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Michael E. Gumprecht, LLC v. Groff, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01210 (D.P.R., Filed May 8, 2024), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting joint motion to modify case management order. The Court sets the following new deadlines: -- Conclusion of Discovery due: April 4, 2025 -- Filing of Dispositive Motions or May 2, 2025 Class Certification Motions due: -- Responses due by: June 2, 2025 -- Replies due by: June 13, 2025 -- Joint Proposed Pretrial Order due: Dec. 1, 2025 -- Pretrial/Settlement Conference Jan. 30, 2026 set for: -- Jury trial set for: Feb. 9, 2026 The nature of suit states torts -- personal property -- other fraud.[CC] MISS MATCH: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Fernandez Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MISS MATCH GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00894 (S.D.N.Y., Jan. 30, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.missmatchsd.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Miss Match Group, Inc. is an online women's clothing boutique offering the cutest dresses, jumpsuits, and rompers. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com MIZENSIR LLC: Faces Zhang Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- ANDREW ZHANG, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Mizensir, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00790 (S.D.N.Y., January 28, 2025) is a civil rights action against Mizensir for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://mizensirparfums.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. According to the complaint, the 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: inaccurate heading hierarchy, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, unclear labels for interactive elements, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Mizensir'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. Mizensir, LLC operates the website which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a variety of perfumes, scented candles and soaps.[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 MMS GROUP: Court Recommends Approval of Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELEWOOD TORRES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. MMS GROUP LLC, d/b/a MMS GROUP, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-06142-DEH-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Valerie Figueredo recommends that the Plaintiff's motion for class certification be granted as modified. In sum, the Plaintiff has satisfied Rule 23's requirements, and I recommend class certification for Plaintiff's claims in Counts Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Ten, and Eleven. Judge Figueredo further recommend modifying the proposed class definition for the claims in Counts Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, and Eleven to include: (1) the hearing impaired and/or deaf residents and visitors of the 184 Premises on or after July 19, 2019; and (2) the hearing impaired and/or deaf residents and visitors of the 174 Premises on or after July 19, 2019. For the claim in Count Ten, I recommend modifying the class definition to: (1) the hearing impaired and/or deaf residents and visitors of the 184 Premises on or after July 19, 2020; and (2) the hearing impaired and/or deaf residents and visitors of the 174 Premises on or after July 19, 2020 . The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have "failed to design, construct, maintain, operate and manage [the] [B]uildings to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other deaf or hearing-impaired individuals." The Plaintiff's proposed class is defined as follows: "(1) the hearing impaired and/or deaf residents and visitors of the 184 Premises from Jan. 1, 2000, to Jan. 1, 2024; and (2) the hearing impaired and/or deaf residents and visitors of the 174 Premises from Jan. 1, 2000, to Jan. 1, 2024." MMS provides property management and related services. A copy of the Court's report & recommendation dated Jan. 27, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cCXswo at no extra charge.[CC] MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Must Oppose Ramey Class Cert Bid by Feb. 18 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ramey v. Molina Healthcare, Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-05768 (W.D. Wash., Aug. 24, 2023), the Hon. Judge Richard A. Jones entered an order granting the Defendant's unopposed motion to extend deadlines: -- Class certification opposition Feb. 18, 2025 deadline is: -- Class certification reply March 4, 2025 deadline is: -- Motion to certify class is March 4, 2025 re-noted for: The Court will set further case scheduling deadlines after ruling on the motion for class certification. Should the Court deny the class certification motion, any party may request an expedited trial date. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Molina is a managed care company headquartered in Long Beach, California, United States. The company provides health insurance to individuals through government programs such as Medicaid and Medicare.[CC] MULLEN AUTOMOTIVE: To Settle Consolidated Shareholder Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Mullen Automotive Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission in January 24, 2025, that on August 14, 2024, the parties entered a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement to settle a securities class action matter subject to payment of $5.4 million by the company and $1.8 million by the company's insurers. The settlement is subject to the court's final approval. A class action complaint filed on May 5, 2022 by plaintiff Margaret Schaub, a purported stockholder, in the United States District Court Central District of California against Mullen Automotive, Inc., as well as its Chief Executive Officer, David Michery, and the Chief Executive Officer of a predecessor entity, Oleg Firer. This lawsuit was brought by Schaub both individually and on behalf of a putative class of the company's shareholders, claiming false or misleading statements regarding the company's business partnerships, technology, and manufacturing capabilities, and alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The Schaub Lawsuit seeks to certify a putative class of shareholders, and seeks monetary damages, as well as an award of reasonable fees and expenses. On August 4, 2022, the court issued an order consolidating the Schaub Lawsuit with the later-filed suit, and appointing lead plaintiff and lead counsel. On September 23, 2022, Lead Plaintiff filed her Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint against the company, Mr. Michery, and the company's predecessor, Mullen Technologies, Inc., premised on the same purported violations of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, seeking to certify a putative class of shareholders, and seeking an award of monetary damages, as well as reasonable fees and expenses. Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint on November 22, 2022. Mullen Automotive Inc., is a Southern California-based development-stage electric vehicle company that operates in various verticals of businesses focused within the automotive industry. NAHON & SAHAROVICH: Class Settlement in Garbino Gets Initial Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSAN GARBARINO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NAHON, SAHAROVICH, & TROTZ, PLC, Case No. 4:23-cv-01326-JMB (E.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge John Bodenhausen entered an order granting plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement: 1. Class Certification for Settlement Purposes Only. The Settlement Agreement provides for a Settlement Class defined as follows: "All individuals within the United States of America whose Personal Information was potentially exposed to unauthorized third parties as a result of the Data Security Incident." Excluded from the Settlement Class are Defendant and Defendant's parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers and directors and any entity in which Defendant has a controlling interest, all individuals who make a timely election to be excluded from this proceeding using the correct protocol for opting out, any and all federal, state or local governments, including but not limited to its departments, agencies, divisions, bureaus, boards, sections, groups, counsel and/or subdivisions, and all judges assigned to hear any aspect of this litigation, as well as their immediate family members. 2. Settlement Class Representatives and Settlement Class Counsel. Solely for purposes of this settlement, the Court finds Plaintiff Susan Garbarino will likely satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(e)(2)(A) and should be appointed as the Settlement Class Representative. Additionally, and also solely for purposes of this settlement, the Court finds that Laura Van Note of Cole & Van Note satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(e)(2)(A) and should be appointed as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g)(1). 3. Final Approval Hearing. A Final Approval Hearing shall be held on Sept. 4, 2025 at 9:30 a.m. Nahon is a national personal injury law firm with offices in Tennessee, Arkansas, Mississippi, Missouri, and Illinois.1 A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ROpXqP at no extra charge.[CC] NANUSHKA US: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Murphy Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES MURPHY, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. NANUSHKA US, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00869 (S.D.NY., Jan. 29, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. Accordingly, the Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Because the Defendant's interactive website, https://www.nanushka.com, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who meet this definition have limited vision. Others have no vision. The Defendant offers the commercial website, https://www.nanushka.com/, to the public. The Website offers features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services offered by Defendant and which Defendant ensures delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States including New York State. Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1 million people in the United States are visually-impaired, including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American Foundation for the Blind's 2015 report, approximately 400,000 visually-impaired persons live in the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal NAT'L ASSOC. OF REALTORS: Wang Suit Stayed Pending Burnett Appeal ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled HAO ZHE WANG, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-02371-JGLC-RWL (S.D.N.Y.), Magistrate Judge Robert W. Lehrburger of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York issued an order granting the Moving Defendants' request for continuation of stay. This Order resolves the motions of Defendants National Association of Realtors ("NAR"), Halstead Manhattan, LLC ("Halstead"), Brown Harris Stevens Residential Sales, LLC ("BHS"), and Real Estate Board of New York ("REBNY") (collectively, "Moving Defendants") for a continuation of the temporary stay previously imposed in the case pending further developments in Burnett v. NAR, et al., No. 4:23-CV-332 (W.D. Mo.), a nationwide class action of which the Plaintiff is a class member. The Moving Defendants request continuation of the stay pending resolution of the Plaintiff's appeal of the final order and judgment approving the settlement in Burnett v NAR. Judge Lehrburger notes that a significant reason for the stay is the prospect of inefficient and burdensome piecemeal litigation that may occur depending on the outcome of the Eighth Circuit appeal. A continued stay is also consistent with the continuation of stays in other similar cases, including those previously ordered by this Court, incluing March v. REBNY, No. 23-CV-9995 at Dkt. 281 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2025); Friedman v. REBNY, No. 24-CV-405, at Dkt. 155 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2025). The parties have not identified any concerns posed by a stay with respect to non-parties, Judge Lehrburger observes. The only prejudice that the Plaintiff has identified is the delay in prosecution of the instant proceedings. While the Court does not want to see litigation unnecessarily drawn out, and recognizes that the Plaintiff has a valid interest in seeing his case progress in timely fashion, the prejudice to the Plaintiff from the delay is outweighed considerably by the other interests for which the Court must account. Judge Lehrburger finds the Plaintiff's arguments against continuation of the stay are not persuasive. The Plaintiff argues that his claim -- as a direct purchaser of real property -- is distinct from and not covered by the release or other provisions in the Burnett settlement. The Plaintiff ignores, however, that the scope of released claims in the Burnett settlement expressly "extends to transactions where Settlement Class members either sold or purchased a home on any MLS nationwide," Judge Lehrburger explains. The Burnett court enjoined all members of the settlement class who did not opt out "from filing, commencing, prosecuting, intervening in, or pursuing as a plaintiff or class member any Released Claims against any of the Released Parties." While the Plaintiff disputes whether his claim in the instant action is a "Released Claim," the Burnett court expressly retained "continuing and exclusive jurisdiction" over members of the Settlement Class, with respect to, inter alia, interpretation, implementation, and enforcement of the Settlement "including with respect to the membership and scope of the Settlement Class, Released Claims, and Released Parties." Judge Lehrburger points out, among other things, that it is most sensible to stay the instant action pending appellate review and consideration of the judgment incorporating those provisions. Accordingly, this action is stayed pending determination in the Burnett appeal or such other order of the Court. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the letter motions at Dkts. 88 and 89. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc8jzuzx from PacerMonitor.com. NBA PROPERTIES: Discloses App Users' Personal Info, Whalen Says --------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES WHALEN and VICTOR FUENTES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NBA PROPERTIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-01030 (N.D. Cal., January 31, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Video Privacy Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant has disclosed to third parties, including Blaze, Amplitude, and Adobe, the personally identifiable information of its NBA mobile application users without consent. The Defendant incorporates third parties' application programming interfaces into its NBA app, which enables third parties to see everything that customers do. As a result, the Defendant violated the Plaintiffs' and the Class members' statutorily protected privacy rights. NBA Properties, Inc. is the marketing and licensing arm of the National Basketball Association (NBA), with its headquarters in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 N. California Boulevard, Floor 9 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: ltfisher@bursor.com sbogdanovich@bursor.com NEW YORK: Bid to Toss NYCHRL Claims in Paulino-Santos v. MTA Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit titled LUZ PAULINO-SANTOS, MICHAEL RING, BETTY VEGA, and NEW YORK INTEGRATED NETWORK, Plaintiffs v. METROPOLITAN TRANSIT AUTHORITY, NEW YORK CITY TRANSIT, JOHN LIEBER and RICHARD DAVEY, Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-03471-JGLC (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims under the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiffs bring this action to reform New York City's paratransit system, Access-A-Ride ("AAR"). AAR is operated by Defendants Metropolitan Transportation Authority ("MTA") and the New York City Transit Authority (the "NYCTA"). AAR receives a substantial portion of its funding from New York City. The City, however, assumes no operating responsibilities for the program and is not a defendant here. The Defendants now move the Court to add the City as a defendant, claiming that the City is a necessary party or, at a minimum, should be permissively joined. To support this argument, the Defendants rely primarily on a premature contention: that any relief the Plaintiffs may be awarded in this action will require substantial funding, and therefore, additional funding from the City, to implement. The City opposes this request, disclaiming that it is a necessary party or that it would be prejudiced by not being added to this action. The Defendants also argue that the Plaintiff's city law claim should be dismissed because the Plaintiffs failed to provide notice to the City of its claim. The City, however, clearly has notice of this Action, and in any event, courts repeatedly reject this argument as a basis for dismissal. This Court does as well. As such, Defendants' motion is denied in full. Plaintiffs Luz Paulino-Santos, Betty Vega, and New York Integrated Network bring this putative class action against the MTA, the NYCTA, John Lieber, in his official capacity as Chair and Chief Executive Officer of the MTA, and Demetrius Crichlow, in his official capacity as President of NYCTA asserting claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (the "Rehabilitation Act") and Section 8-107 of the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"). The Defendants inform the Court that Defendant Richard Davey resigned his position at the NYCTA effective May 29, 2024, and request to substitute his successor, Demetrius Crichlow, as a party to this action. The Court grants this request. The Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to AAR, which provides service to approximately 173,000 registered users. The Plaintiffs claim that AAR does not provide access to public transit for individuals with disabilities that is "comparable" to the services the MTA provides to individuals without disabilities through its fixed-route transit like subways and buses. The Defendants operate AAR pursuant to a Paratransit Agreement with the City ("Agreement"). Under that agreement, which was entered into in 1993, the City and the MTA agreed that the NYCTA would assume all operating responsibilities for paratransit service, and the City will fund a portion of the costs. The amount the City pays toward AAR, however, has fluctuated and is also subject to acts of the New York State Legislature. The City currently funds 80% of the paratransit budget, but that amount is expected to fall in five years. The action was initiated on April 26, 2023. The Plaintiffs bring claims under the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and NYCHRL. On Aug. 24, 2023, the Defendants moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' complaint pursuant to 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The Court largely denied the Defendants' motion, including with respect to the Plaintiffs' NYCHRL claim. The Defendants again move to dismiss the Plaintiffs' NYCHRL claim for failure to timely comply with the service requirement under New York City Administrative Code Section 8-502(c). The Defendants also seek to join the City as a party to this action. The City was served with the notice under Section 8-502(c) on Aug. 20, 2024. The Plaintiffs opposed the Motion on Aug. 29, 2024. One day later, the Office of the Corporation Counsel, representing the City as a non-party, filed a letter to the Court stating that "[i]t is the City's position that the City is not a necessary party to the Action." The City's letter also offered to submit briefing addressing the joinder issues raised in the Defendants' Motion if the Court requested it. The Court found the letter to be sufficient without the need for additional briefing. The Motion was fully briefed as of Sept. 16, 2024. Applying the relevant legal standards, the Court declines to dismiss the Plaintiffs' NYCHRL claims for failure to provide timely notice, finding that the objective of the notice statute has been met. The Court also declines to join the City as a necessary party, finding that the City of New York is not a required party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19. Judge Clarke opines that complete relief can be accorded without the City's participation and disposing of the action without the City's participation would not impair or impede the City's ability to protect its interest, nor leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations. Indeed, the City has expressly disclaimed any interest in this action. The Court similarly finds permissive joinder under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20 is improper given that neither the Plaintiffs nor the Defendants have asserted claims against the City, and the City is not seeking to be permissively joined in this lawsuit. For the reasons set forth in this Opinion and Order, the Court denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' NYCHRL claims, and the Defendants' motion for joinder of the City of New York as a party. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 97. The Clerk of Court is further directed to: (1) terminate Defendant Richard Davey and add Demetrius Crichlow as a defendant; (2) terminate Plaintiff Michael Ring; and (3) correct Defendant "New York City Transit" to "New York City Transit Authority." A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/36uzdabp from PacerMonitor.com. NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Wins Bid to Exclude Opinion in Derailment Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned IN RE: EAST PALESTINE TRAIN DERAILMENT, Case No. 4:23-cv-00242-BYP (N.D. Ohio), Judge Benita Y. Pearson of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, grants Norfolk Southern's Motion to Exclude. Pending is Third-Party Plaintiffs Norfolk Southern Corporation and Norfolk Southern Railway Company's (collectively "Norfolk Southern") Motion to Exclude the Opinion of Dr. Georges Melhem. Third-Party Defendant OxyVinyls LP ("OxyVinyls") responded in opposition. Norfolk Southern replied. Norfolk Southern Train 32N derailed at on Feb. 3, 2023, in East Palestine, Ohio. At the time of the derailment, Train 32N was traveling east on Main Track 1 along Norfolk Southern's Fort Wayne Line and consisted of two lead locomotives, one distributed power unit, and 149 rail cars. In total, 38 cars derailed. Five of these cars contained Vinyl Chloride Monomer ("VCM"), which is considered hazardous and flammable. OxyVinyls was the shipper of all five cars containing VCM and owned three of them. Norfolk Southern settled with the Plaintiffs represented in the Consolidated Class Action Complaint. Norfolk Southern also lodged a Third-Party Complaint seeking derivative damages under theories of negligence and joint and several liability against certain railcar owners: OxyVinyls LP, GATX Corporation, General American Marks Company, and Trinity Industries Leasing Company. The Court dropped Trinity Industries Leasing Company as a Third-party Defendant with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 for the reasons stated in the Unopposed Motion of Third-party Plaintiffs Norfolk Southern Corporation and Norfolk Southern Railway Company and Trinity. Norfolk Southern alleges that OxyVinyls was negligent in connection with its shipment of the five tank cars containing VCM by, in part, failing to provide accurate information on the hazard VCM could present. OxyVinyls' Safety Data Sheet ("SDS") warned that air, sunlight, excessive heat, oxidizers, catalytic metals, such as copper, aluminum, and their alloys, and certain catalytic impurities could result in explosive or violent polymerization. Norfolk Southern also alleges that OxyVinyls' representatives made conflicting statements on the ability of vinyl chloride to polymerize, offered inconsistent warnings regarding polymerization, and stated that polymerization was not possible under the derailment conditions despite the vinyl chloride having been exposed to extreme conditions. Norfolk Southern further alleges that the tank cars in which OxyVinyls shipped VCM had aluminum components in the pressure release devices and in other components on each of the cars shipping VCM. Norfolk Southern alleges that the vent and burn and release of hazardous vinyl chloride was the direct result of the improper shipping containers and Oxy Vinyls' failure to follow federal regulations and its own SDS. OxyVinyls retained Dr. Georges Melhem, an expert in chemical engineering and pressure relief design. Norfolk Southern seeks to exclude Dr. Melhem's opinion. In further support of its position, Norfolk Southern points to the lack of specific citations throughout his report and Dr. Melhem's continued reference generally to Appendix B, the listing of all the simulations he ran, rather than anything more specific. In response, OxyVinyls asserts that Dr. Melhem's opinion is based on good grounds and supported by many dynamic simulations which test and support Dr. Melhem's hypotheses. OxyVinyls points to the wide acceptance and recognition of Dr. Melhem's simulation software, SuperChems Expert, as well as the fact that Dr. Melhem produced the project files which were used to run his simulations. OxyVinyls also asserts that Dr. Melhem's conclusions are supported by the simulations because the simulations considered flow dynamics, relief dynamics and operation of the pressure relief valves, time histories of flow, time histories of temperatures, time histories of pressure, thermal radiation, and runaway reaction dynamics, as well as an explanation of how the railcars carrying were modeled. Dr. Melhem further identifies the equations used, and that the simulations are based on the "'laws of physics,' which 'don't lie.'" Judge Pearson points out that OxyVinyls' response misses the mark. Even if the reliability of the software were assumed, there is no way for the Court to understand how the data and simulations reliably support Dr. Melhem's opinion. Judge Pearson finds these generalities are insufficient to explain how Dr. Melhem's reached the conclusion that the pressure relief valves operated as designed and functioned properly as intended. At his deposition, Dr. Melhem failed to add clarity, Judge Pearson notes. He testified that each project file of the simulation included a "small database" of "all the inputs, all the outputs, all the simulations, conditions, materials and factual information" but that is not information available to the Court or otherwise explained in Dr. Melhem's report. He also testified that the simulations tested specific hypothesis and specific conditions and tried to assess what the outcome would be, and all of that was considered in forming his opinion. Ultimately, Judge Pearson finds that Dr. Melhem obfuscated rather than answer directly questions about the facts and methodology that led to his opinion. Regardless of his qualifications, Judge Pearson explains, Dr. Melham fails to provide proper explanation of his methodology and facts used to reach his opinion, the Court finds Dr. Melhem's opinion is not reliable and, thus, inadmissible. Accordingly, the Court rules that Norfolk Southern's Motion to Exclude is granted in its entirety. Dr. Melhem and his opinion are excluded. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4x22na7d from PacerMonitor.com. P.K. KINDER: Blosser Must File Class Cert Bid by Sept. 8 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK BLOSSER, v. P.K. KINDER CO., INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-06054-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered a case management and pretrial scheduling order as follows: Last Day to Join Parties or Amend Pleadings: Feb. 19, 2025 Filing of Stipulated Protective Order: Feb. 19, 2025 Deadline for Plaintiff's Class Certification Sept. 8, 2025 Motion: Deadline for Defendant's Opposition to Oct. 24, 2025 Motion for Class Certification: Deadline for Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Dec. 5, 2025 Motion for class certification: Motion for Class Certification Hearing: Jan. 13, 2026, at 2:00 p.m. Non-Expert Discovery Cutoff: March 9, 2026 Disclosure of Expert Reports: All experts, retained and non-retained, must provide written reports compliant with FRCP 26(a)(2)(b): Opening: Aug. 25, 2025 Rebuttal: Oct. 10, 2025 Dispositive Motions/Daubert Motions to be July 15, 2026 Filed/Heard By: The parties must comply with both the Court's Standing Order in Civil Cases and Standing Order for Pretrial Instructions in Civil Cases for additional deadlines and procedures. All Standing Orders are available on the Court's website at http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ygrorders. PK Kinder is a consumer-focused company, offering a range of high-quality products and recipes for barbecue enthusiasts. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Us4Vvz at no extra charge.[CC] PACIFICORP: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Wilson Suit Due Oct. 17 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILSON v. PacifiCorp., Case No. 6:24-cv-01956 (D. Or., Filed Nov. 21, 2024), the Hon. Judge Ann L. Aiken entered a scheduling order as follows: -- Class Certification Fact Discovery Sept. 19, 2025 is to be completed by: -- Class Certification Motion deadline Oct. 17, 2025 and deadline for Plaintiff to Serve Class Certification Expert Reports is: -- Opposition to Class Certification Dec. 19, 2025 Motion deadline, deadline for Defendant to Serve Class Certification Expert Reports, and Daubert /evidentiary motions related to Plaintiff's class certification related experts deadline is: -- Reply in Support of Class Certification Jan. 30, 2026 Motion and Daubert /evidentiary motions related to Defendant's class certification related experts deadline is: The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). PacifiCorp is an electric power company based in the Lloyd Center Tower in Portland, Oregon with operations in the western United States.[CC] PARSEC INC: Mealancon Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case styled as David Mealancon and Dominick Boozer, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. PARSEC, INC., an entity of unknown form; BUDCO GROUP, INC., an Ohio corporation; BUDCO GROUP, an entity of unknown form; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV32785 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 27, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00716. In the Complaint, the Plaintiffs seek to recover waiting time penalties for wages Parsec's alleged failure to pay Plaintiffs all wages. Plaintiffs allege that Parsec failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements as required by California Labor Code section 226 and seek penalties pursuant to Sections 226(e) and 226.3. Plaintiffs allege that Parsec failed to provide them with meal and rest periods during their employment. Plaintiffs allege that Parsec failed to pay them within the time period permissible under California Labor Code section 204. Plaintiffs allege that Parsec "failed to pay Employees minimum wages for all hours worked." Plaintiffs allege that Parsec "had a consistent policy of not paying Employees wages for all hours worked and understating overtime hours when worked." Plaintiffs seek to recover unreimbursed business expenses. Plaintiffs allege that Parsec failed to "maintain accurate time and wage records for Plaintiffs" and seek penalties pursuant to California Labor Code section 1174.5. Plaintiffs also seek to recover attorneys' fees.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Christian J. Keeney, Esq. Alis M. Moon, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 200 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92618 Phone: (949) 885-1360 Fax: (949) 885-1380 Email: Christian.Keeney@jacksonlewis.com Alis.Moon@jacksonlewis.com PAUL HESSE: Class Certification Response in White Due Feb. 27 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MISTY WHITE, JERMAINE BRADFORD, JANARA MUSGRAVE, LANDON PROUDFIT, BRADLEY BARBER, JR., and DAKOTA KAPPUS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. HON. PAUL HESSE, in his official capacity as Chief Judge of the 26th Judicial District; and HON. KHRISTAN STRUBHAR, in her official capacity as Special District Judge in the Canadian County District Court, Case No. 5:19-cv-01145-JD (W.D. Okla.), the Hon. Judge Jodi Dishman entered a specialized scheduling order as follows: Event Schedule Motions to amend pleadings or join Feb. 6, 2025 additional parties: Initial disclosures pursuant to Feb. 6, 2025 Fed. R. Civ. P. 26: Class Certification Motion: Feb. 6, 2025 Class Certification Response: Feb. 27, 2025 Class Certification Reply: March 6, 2025 Class Certification Hearing (if TBD necessary, specific date to be set by the Court): A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WUNzr6 at no extra charge.[CC] PAYPAL HOLDINGS: Court Tosses Amended Complaint in Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Robert Kirsch of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey dismisses without prejudice the Amended Consolidated Complaint filed in the lawsuit captioned IN RE PAYPAL HOLDINGS INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 3:22-cv-05864-RK-JTQ (D.N.J.). The matter comes before the Court upon a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants PayPal Holdings, Inc. ("PayPal" or the "Company"), and Individual Defendants Daniel Schulman, John Rainey and Jonathan Auerbach. The Defendants seek to dismiss Lead Plaintiff Caisse depot et placement du Quebec and additional named Plaintiffs' Public Employee Retirement Association of New Mexico's ("PERA") Amended Consolidated Complaint. The Plaintiffs filed a brief in opposition, and the Defendants filed a reply brief. The Court has considered the parties' submissions and resolves the matter without oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78 and Local Civil Rule 78.1. The matter concerns a purported class action brought by purchasers of PayPal stock between Feb. 3, 2021, and Feb. 1, 2022 ("the Class Period") against PayPal and its key officers asserting claims for securities fraud under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, as well as Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants--PayPal and three of its officers--made material false or misleading statements, or omitted material information, relating to its growth and future prospects and that the Defendants had reason to believe their statements were false. When the truth was revealed to investors, the Plaintiffs contend that the stock plummeted, causing the Plaintiffs to suffer significant losses. The Lead Plaintiff, an investment group, purchased PayPal stock at alleged "artificially inflated prices" during the Class Period, suffering losses when the stock tumbled. PERA manages thirty-one retirement plans for New Mexico public employees, including police and firefighters. It too purchased PayPal stock during the Class Period. PayPal, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in San Jose, California, is a technology company, previously part of eBay, that operates a digital payment platform. The Company's stock trades publicly on the Nasdaq Stock Market under the symbol "PYPL." Defendant Schulman was the Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") of PayPal and a member of the Board of Directors during the Class Period. Also during this time period, Defendant Rainey was the Company's Chief Financial Officer ("CFO"), and Defendant Auerbach was the Executive Vice President, Chief Strategy, Growth and Data Officer. As a "leading technology platform," PayPal facilitates transactions between consumers and merchants--allowing consumers to pay for goods and services or enabling parties to transfer money between PayPal accounts. Among PayPal's numerous product offerings are its "checkout" products, which allow consumers to purchase goods from merchants, as well as "person-to-person" products, such as Venmo and Xoom. PayPal collects fees for, inter alia, completed transactions; therefore, the more transactions that occur on its platform, the more revenue PayPal accrues. PayPal also earns revenue through partnerships with other brands, including Shopify and SalesForce, as well as interest and fees from customer accounts. Accordingly, PayPal tracks and discloses a number of key metrics that track user growth and usage on its platform. One of PayPal's "key performance indicators" is "Total Payment Volume" ("TPV"), or the "total value of payments, net of payment reversals on its payment platforms or enabled by PayPal via a partner payment solution." PayPal also monitors its new users by tracking the "Net New Actives" ("NNA"), or the "net increases to the number of active accounts." PayPal also tracks the total number of payment transactions on its platform. On Oct. 4, 2022, Plaintiff Defined Benefit Plan of the Mid-Jersey Trucking Industry and Teamsters Local 701 Pension and Annuity Fund filed a putative class action complaint. On Jan. 11, 2023, the Honorable Georgette Castner, U.S.D.J., appointed Caisse depot et placement du Quebec as Lead Plaintiff. An Amended Complaint was filed on March 13, 2023. The Amended Complaint asserted one claim for violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against all Defendants (Count One) and two violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Individual Defendants (Counts Two and Three). In lieu of answering, the Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. The Defendants move to dismiss the Amended Complaint in its entirety and with prejudice. The Defendants argue that the Plaintiffs fail to allege a Section 10(b) and 10b-5 claim because the Plaintiffs fail to plead an actionable misstatement or omission or the requisite strong inference of scienter. The Defendants further contend that the Section 20(a) and Section 20A claims must be dismissed based on the failure of the Plaintiffs' Section 10(b) claim. The Defendants also seek the Court to take judicial notice of 36 exhibits that were submitted with their Motion. These exhibits, described in greater detail below, include, inter alia, SEC Filings, Conference Call Transcripts, and Publicly Available Articles. The Plaintiffs concede that the Court may consider certain exhibits for the existence of these documents, but object where the Defendants attempt to offer these exhibits for the truth of the matters contained therein or to support their inferences. The Plaintiffs, however, oppose the Court considering other exhibits, contending that they are attempts by the Defendants to make factual rebuttals to the allegations in the Amended Complaint. The Defendants respond that these exhibits are integral to the Amended Complaint's allegations and are properly considered. In summary, in deciding the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, the Court will consider: (i) SEC Filings and Conference Call Transcripts relied upon in the Amended Complaint: Exhibits 4, 7, 18-23, 25-26, 28-30; (ii) SEC Filings at Issue: Exhibits 2-3, 5, 17; and (iii) SEC Form 4 Filings: Exhibits 31-33, 35. However, the Court will not consider: (i) Compensation Chart: Exhibit 34; (ii) Articles and Analyst Reports: Exhibits 6, 8-16, 27; (iii) Exhibit 2713; and (iv) Exhibit 24. In Count One, the Plaintiffs assert a claim under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. In the case at bar, Judge Kirsch notes, the October 2021 investigation revealed close to one million fraudulent accounts. However, Judge Kirsch finds the Plaintiffs fail to demonstrate that disclosure of the one million NNAs (of the projected 52 to 55 million) from 2021 would have been of such great importance to the Defendants' projections as to render its opinions, such as Rainey's "confidence in where we are," to be misleading. Therefore, the Court finds that the Defendants' statements expressing confidence in the quality of its users or the quality and its strong growth, among other like statements, inactionable as statements of opinion or puffery. The Court grants the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count I of the Amended Complaint. As the Court finds that the Plaintiffs fail to allege with particularity misstatements or omissions of material facts made by the Defendants, the Court does not address the Defendants' arguments regarding the remaining requirements of the Plaintiffs' Section 10(b) claim. In Counts Two and Three, the Plaintiffs asserts claims for control person liability against the Individual Defendants under Section 20(a). Because the Section 10(b) claims are dismissed for the reasons stated, the Court also dismisses Counts Two and Three. Finally, the Court notes that the Defendants seek dismissal with prejudice. Indeed, the Court notes that the operative pleading here is an Amended Complaint. However, until now, the allegations in the original Complaint were never subjected to judicial scrutiny since the Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint following the appointment of a Lead Plaintiff. The Court recognizes that allowing amendments in order to correct deficiencies in pleadings furthers one of the basic objectives of the federal rules--the determination of cases on the merits. The Court finds, in the interest of justice, and in the event they so choose, that the Plaintiffs should be afforded another opportunity to amend their complaint and comport with the particularized pleading standards articulated here. Accordingly, the Court rules that the Amended Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. For these reasons, the Court grants the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint addressing the deficiencies identified by the Court within 45 days. Failure to file an amended pleading within 45 days will result in dismissal with prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/y4sn65fm from PacerMonitor.com. PIH HEALTH: Fails to Secure Private Info, Elizarraras Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- DENIA ELIZARRARAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PIH HEALTH, INC., Case No. 30-2025-01456523-CU-BT-CXC-ROA (Cal. Super., Orange Cty., Jan 28, 2025)is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the protected health information and personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated current and former patients of the Defendant. The Defendant collected and maintained the Private Information of the Putative Class Members, who are the Defendant's current and former patients. The Defendant owed a non-delegable duty to Plaintiff and Class Members to implement reasonable and adequate cybersecurity measures to protect their Private Information. Failing to implement reasonable and adequate cybersecurity measures has significant consequences for the patients whose records are unlawfully accessed by cybercriminals and identity thieves, the suit asserts. On Nov. 30, 2024, the Plaintiff’s and Class Members' Private Information -- which they entrusted to Defendant with the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against Disclosure -- was targeted, compromised and unlawfully accessed due to a ransomware attack (the "Data Breach"). The Data Breach targeted the computer and phone systems across multiple of Defendant's locations, including PIH Health Downey Hospital, PIH Health Good Samaritan Hospital, PIH Health Whittier Hospital, urgent care centers, doctor's offices, and home health and hospice services. PIH Health is a nonprofit, regional healthcare network.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: M. Anderson Berry, Esq. Gregory Haroutunian, Esq. CLAYEO C. ARNOLD A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Telephone: (747) 777-7748 E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com gharoutunian@justice4you.com - and - Lori G. Feldman, Esq. GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC 102 Half Moon Bay Drive Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520 Telephone: (917) 983-9321 E-mail: lfeldman@4-justice.com eservice@4-justice.com PLOTS INC: Faces Jaber Class Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages ------------------------------------------------------------- OTHMAN JABER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PLOTS INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-20056-JEM (Jan. 6, 2025) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct which has resulted in intrusion into the peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal to Plaintiff and the Class members. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of themselves and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. The Plaintiff is the regular user of the telephone number that received solicitations. The Plaintiff utilizes the cellular telephone number that received the Defendant's telephone solicitations for personal purposes and the number is Plaintiff's residential telephone line and primary means of reaching Plaintiff at home. The Defendant maintains and/or has access to outbound transmission reports for all telephone solicitations advertising/promoting its services and goods. The Defendant's unlawful conduct resulted in intrusion into the peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal to Plaintiff and the Class members, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff seeks to represent is defined as: "All persons in the United States who from four years prior to the filing of this action through the date of class certification (1) Defendant, or anyone on Defendant’s behalf, (2) placed more than one text message (3) within any 12-month period; (4) for the purpose of encouraging the purchase or rental of, or investment in, property, goods, or services; and (5) where such text messages were initiated before the hour of 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. (local time at the called party’s location)."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Faaris K. Uddin, Esq. Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (813) 340-8838 E-mail: faaris@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Allen Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- JESSICA ALLEN; JENNA BERRY, on behalf of C.A., a minor, and G.B., a minor, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. POWERSCHOOL GROUP, LLC; and POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-at-00161 (E.D. Cal., Jan. 29, 2025) is an action against the Defendants for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its customers. According to the complaint, on January 7, 2025, the Defendants began announcing to schools across the country that an unauthorized threat actor had accessed personal employee and student information from customers worldwide using the PowerSchool Student Information System ("PowerSchool SIS"). The threat actor accessed and downloaded millions of records from schools worldwide between December 19 and December 24, 2024 (the "Data Breach"). As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's inadequate data security measures, and its breach of its duty to handle PII with reasonable care, Plaintiffs' minor children's and Class Members' PII have been accessed by hackers and exposed to an untold number of unauthorized individuals. Plaintiffs' minor children and Class Members are now at a significantly increased and certainly impending risk of fraud, identity theft, misappropriation of health insurance benefits, intrusion of their privacy, and similar forms of criminal mischief, risk which may last for the rest of their lives. Consequently, Plaintiffs' minor children and Class Members must devote substantially more time, money, and energy to protect themselves, to the extent possible, from these crimes. PowerSchool Group LLC provides K-12 education technology solutions. The Company offers platform that assists schools and districts to manage instruction, learning, grading, attendance, assessment, analytics, state reporting, special education, student registration, talent, finance, and HR. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amber L. Schubert, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2001 Union Street, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 Email: aschubert@sjk.law - and - Edward F. Haber, Esq. Ian J. McLoughlin, Esq. SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP One Boston Place, Suite 2600 Boston, MA 02108 Telephone: (617) 439-3939 Facsimile: (617) 439-0134 Email: ehaber@shulaw.com imcloughlin@shulaw.com POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Fails to Secure Info, August Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- DOBIE JAMES AUGUST, on behalf of his minor children, K.J-A. and K.D-A., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00431-CKD (E.D. Cal., Jan. 31, 2025) is a class action against PowerSchool for its failure to secure and safeguard the confidential, personally identifiable information of millions of students, parents, caregivers, school faculty and staff. The highly sensitive personal information the hackers were able to access included certain Personally Identifiable Information, reportedly including without limitation: e.g., names, home addresses, Social Security numbers, phone numbers, email addresses, grades and grade point averages, bus stops for students, passwords for student portals, notes and alerts concerning students, student IDs, in addition to other medical or protected health information, and also PII of parents or guardians of student. Due to inadequate security, on December 28, 2024, the Defendant allowed the sensitive PII/PHI of millions of individuals, the majority of which belong to students under the age of 18, to be stolen by hackers who accessed the PII/PHI through compromised login credentials and negligent security policies and practices ("Data Breach"). Indeed, the Defendant did not have sufficient security policies or practices in place to detect or stop this Data Breach from occurring. The Data Breach occurred because PowerSchool failed to implement reasonable security procedures and practices, failed to provide its employees with appropriate cybersecurity training designed to prevent and respond to data breaches, failed to take adequate steps to monitor for and detect unusual activity on its servers, and failed to disclose material facts surrounding its deficient data security protocols. PowerSchool is a pioneer and the leading provider of cloud-based software to the K-12 education market, providing a comprehensive platform of cloud solutions that delivers a broad range of mission-critical capabilities to K-12 organizations, including the core system of record used by districts and schools, student and teacher assessment tools, learning management systems, teacher hiring and retention solutions, and insights and analytics that leverage rich data to improve education outcomes.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David S. Casey, Jr., Esq. Gayle M. Blatt, Esq. P. Camille Guerra , Esq. Jennifer L. Connor, Esq. CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD LLP 110 Laurel Street San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 238-1811 Facsimile: (619) 544-9232 E-mail: dcasey@cglaw.com gmb@cglaw.com camille@cglaw.com jconnor@cglaw.com POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Warren Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- KRISTEN WARREN, CHRISTOPHER NEAL, and C.N., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC. and POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00427-SCR (E.D. Cal., January 31, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, and breach of implied contract. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals stored within their network systems following a data breach between December 19 and December 28, 2024. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiffs and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc. is a software company with its principal place of business located in Folsom, California. PowerSchool Group LLC is a software company with its principal place of business located in Folsom, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam E. Polk, Esq. Patrick T. Johnson, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 Facsimile: (415) 981-4846 Email: apolk@girardsharp.com pjohnson@girardsharp.com - and - Joseph G. Sauder, Esq. Joseph B. Kenney, Esq. Juliette T. Mogenson, Esq. SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC 1109 Lancaster Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (888) 711-9975 Facsimile: (610) 421-1326 Email: jgs@sstriallawyers.com jbk@sstriallawyers.com jtm@sstriallawyers.com POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Krutsinger Balks at Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- ALYSSA KRUTSINGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC. and POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-00057-DGK (W.D. Mo., January 28, 2025) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated against PowerSchool for its failure to secure and safeguard the student educational records, and personally identifiable information of millions of its users, including students, teachers, and their families. On January 7, 2025, PowerSchool notified its customers of a cybersecurity incident that exposed the personal data of students, teachers, and their families. PowerSchool admitted it discovered the breach on December 28, 2024, which involved unauthorized access and exfiltration of private information from specific PowerSchool Student Information System environments via its PowerSource customer support portal. The hackers responsible for the breach claimed that they stole the personal information of 62.4 million students and 9.5 million teachers. PowerSchool reportedly paid a ransom hoping to prevent the public release of the stolen data, which dates back to 2005. As a direct and proximate result of PowerSchool's failure to protect the sensitive information it was entrusted to safeguard, the Plaintiff and class members have already suffered harm and have been exposed to a significant and continuing risk of identity theft, financial fraud, and other identity-related fraud from now and into the indefinite future. Plaintiff Krutsinger is a former student of the Liberty School District in Missouri who provided her private information to PowerSchool. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc. provides cloud-based software for K-12 education.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Norman E. Siegel, Esq. J. Austin Moore, Esq. Brandi S. Spates, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com moore@stuevesiegel.com spates@stuevesiegel.com PROGRESSIVE TREATMENT: Rodriguez Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Felix Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PROGRESSIVE TREATMENT SOLUTIONS, LLC; and PTS CORP., Case No. 2024CH10467 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County Department, Chancery Division, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Jan. 29, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-01019. The Complaint alleges that the purported class was "harmed in the full amount of the moneys paid for the RSO products purchased." Further, the Complaint alleges that "total sales of RSO Products during the applicable statutory period is in the millions."[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Casey T. Grabenstein, Esq. SAUL EWING LLP 161 North Clark Street, Suite 4200 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 876-7100 Fax: (312) 876-0288 Email: Casey.grabenstein@saul.com - and - Jonathan A. Singer, Esq. SAUL EWING, LLP 1001 Fleet Street, Suite 900 Baltimore, MD 21202 Phone: (410) 332-8690 Email: Jon.singer@saul.com PTT LLC: Court Grants and Denies Motions in Limine in Larsen Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Tiffany M. Cartwright of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Tacoma, grants some and denies some of the parties' motions in limine in the lawsuit styled RICK LARSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PTT, LLC, doing business as High 5 Games, LLC; HIGH 5 ENTERTAINMENT LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:18-cv-05275-TMC (W.D. Wash.). Before the Court are Plaintiff Rick Larsen's and Defendant High 5 Games's (H5G) motions in limine. The Court has considered the parties' briefs and heard oral argument at the pretrial conference on Jan. 21, 2025. Plaintiff Rick Larsen brings this class action on behalf of all persons in Washington, who bought and lost virtual coins playing two of H5G's "social casino" games, High 5 Casino and High 5 Vegas. The Court concluded at summary judgment that H5G's games amount to illegal gambling under Washington law, violating the state's Recovery of Money Lost at Gambling Act (RMLGA) and Consumer Protection Act (CPA). Mr. Larsen seeks to recover the class members' actual damages under the RMLGA and CPA and an award of treble damages under the CPA. A damages trial was set to begin on Feb. 3, 2025. The parties each filed motions in limine on Dec. 30, 2024, and responded on Jan. 15, 2025. Plaintiff Larsen brings just one motion to limine: to admit the transaction data produced by third parties Apple, Google, Meta, and Amazon (the "Platforms") in response to subpoenas requesting documents showing all Washington-based transactions for High 5 Casino and High 5 Vegas on those platforms. Larsen argues that these records have been sufficiently authenticated by declarations from records custodians under Federal Rule of Evidence 902(11) and that they are admissible as records of a regularly conducted activity under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6). In its motions in limine, H5G moves to exclude the same documents, arguing they lack proper foundation and that they are inadmissible hearsay. H5G first argues that the Platform spreadsheets should be excluded because they are "summary" evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 1006(a). H5G also argues, among other things, that because the spreadsheets were produced from larger databases maintained by the Platforms, they are "summaries," and they should not be admitted because the entirety of the underlying database was not made available to H5G for examination. Judge Cartwright holds that this argument is unpersuasive. Judge Cartwright explains that spreadsheets produced from computer databases are routinely admitted as business records under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6). Because the spreadsheets are admissible as business records, and are, therefore, evidence in themselves, they are not "summaries" as defined in Rule 1006, Judge Cartwright opines, citing Smith v. Alt. Resources Corp., 128 F. App'x 614, 615 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Hughes v. United States, 953 F.2d 531, 540 (9th Cir. 1992)). If authenticated, Judge Cartwright says the Platform spreadsheets are admissible business records. So long as the requirements of Rule 803(6) are shown by foundational testimony or certification, the Platform spreadsheets are admissible as business records. Judge Cartwright adds that the certifications from the Platforms' record custodians are sufficient for Apple, Amazon, and Google. Because the certifications from Apple, Amazon, and Google meet the requirements of Federal Rules of Evidence 803 and 902 and establish that the spreadsheets produced by those third parties are admissible business records, the Court grants the Plaintiff's motion in limine to admit those spreadsheets. The Court denies the Plaintiff's motion with respect to the spreadsheets produced by Meta. Those spreadsheets may still potentially be admitted at trial, but only through the testimony of a live foundation witness. H5G asks the Court to preclude Larsen from offering testimony, evidence, or other argument to prove his damages based on the calculations contained in the Declarations of Shawn Davis. As H5G acknowledges, the Court has previously indicated that Mr. Davis's testimony will be limited to calculations summarizing the amounts contained in the platform data spreadsheets. While Mr. Davis may explain that the spreadsheets were produced in response to the Plaintiff's subpoenas, and may explain his summary calculation, the Court will not permit Mr. Davis to offer any substantive testimony about the contents of the spreadsheets. This motion in limine is denied. H5G next asks the Court to exclude spreadsheets showing Washington-based transactions for its apps that were prepared by its own corporate designee under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(b)(6), Christopher Bate. H5G argues that the spreadsheets are not business records under FRE 803(6). The Court is satisfied that the Plaintiffs can lay a foundation to show that the spreadsheets created by Mr. Bate reflect High 5's records of regularly conducted activity and are High 5's statements offered by its opponent. High 5's arguments that its own records are untrustworthy go to weight, not admissibility, Judge Cartwright opines. This motion in limine is denied. H5G next asks the Court to exclude any evidence--such as evidence of H5G's marketing or monetization strategies or communications with players--that concerns app users outside of Washington. The Court has already ruled that H5G is precluded from making this argument as a sanction for its severe discovery misconduct. Independent of that ruling, the Court finds that evidence of H5G's marketing and monetization strategies towards its larger customer base is probative of those strategies in Washington state, and that evidence is relevant to treble damages. This motion in limine is denied. H5G asks the Court to exclude communications between its players and the company on the basis that the records contain two layers of hearsay: (1) the substance of the player's underlying communication; and (2) the company's record of the communication or discussion about it amongst employees. But the company's documentation--whether on Slack or Zendesk--can be admissible as a business record, Judge Cartwright says. And the underlying communication from the player is not offered for the truth of the matter asserted. Rather, as the Plaintiff persuasively explains, the communications are offered for their notice to and effect on the listener. Judge Cartwright explains that amessage from a user expressing concern that they are experiencing gambling addiction is not being offered to prove that individual in fact had a gambling addiction--it is being offered to show H5G's knowledge of these complaints from its customers and how the company responded. Judge Cartwright points out that this evidence is relevant to treble damages. This motion in limine is denied. H5G next asks the Court to exclude communications from players that reference addiction, and internal H5G communications referring to high-spending players as "whales," on the grounds that this evidence is improper lay opinion testimony, is irrelevant, and is unfairly prejudicial. As the Court has explained, this evidence is relevant to treble damages, and its probative value is not outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice. Similarly, evidence that H5G employees referred to high-spending players as "whales" is relevant to the Plaintiff's argument that treble damages are warranted to punish H5G for targeting consumers, who showed signs of vulnerability to addiction. Although that evidence may be prejudicial to H5G, Judge Cartwright opines that it has not shown that this prejudice is unfair. This motion in limine is denied. Since the Court has bifurcated the Plaintiff's alter ego and Uniform Voidable Transaction Act claims against H5G and co-defendant H5E, H5G asks the Court to exclude any exhibits, testimony, or argument referencing H5E and the asset transfer that occurred on Oct. 1, 2022. The Court agrees that the asset transfer is not relevant to this damages trial and creates an undue risk of confusing the issues. For now, this motion in limine is granted. Finally, H5G asks the Court to exclude any reference to settlements the Plaintiff's counsel has reached with other gaming companies. The Court agrees that settlements with other companies are not relevant to this damages trial and are inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 408. This motion in limine is granted. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yc3v2uzc from PacerMonitor.com. QUAKER OATS: Hearing on Class Cert Bid Set for March 12 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAYMOND KESSLER, et al., v. THE QUAKER OATS COMPANY, Case No. 7:24-cv-00526-KMK (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Kenneth Karas entered an order that the hearing on Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval and class certification, will be held on March 12, 2025, at 11 a.m. via teleconference at 605-472-5160, access code no. 4653066. Quaker Oats is an American manufacturer of oatmeal and other food and beverage products. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ya3wNA at no extra charge.[CC] QUALCOMM INC: Perez-Cruet Must File Class Cert Bid by March 10 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Perez-Cruet v. Qualcomm Incorporated, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01890 (S.D. Cal., Filed Oct. 16, 2023), the Hon. Judge Andrew G. Schopler entered an order granting the parties' joint stipulation and motion to extend the Plaintiff's deadline to file motion for class certification: -- The Plaintiff shall file a motion March 10, 2025 for class certification on or before: -- The Defendants shall respond to April 10, 2025 the Plaintiff's motion for class certification on or before: -- The Plaintiff shall file a reply on May 1, 2025 or before: The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (E.R.I.S.A.). Qualcomm is an American multinational corporation headquartered in San Diego, California, and incorporated in Delaware. It creates semiconductors, software and services related to wireless technology.[CC] QUINCY BIOSCIENCE: Beatty Sues Over Dietary Supplements' False Ads ------------------------------------------------------------------ DONNA BEATTY, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QUINCY BIOSCIENCE HOLDING CO., INC., QUINCY BIOSCIENCE, LLC, PREVAGEN, INC. d/b/a SUGAR RIVER SUPPLEMENTS, QUINCY BIOSCIENCE MANUFACTURING, LLC, and MARK UNDERWOOD, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00727 (S.D.N.Y., January 24, 2025) arises out of Defendants' alleged unjust enrichment and violations of the New York General Business Law. Before purchasing the products, the Plaintiff reviewed and relied on the dietary supplement product packaging, including the representations that Prevagen provides cognitive benefits like "healthy brain function," a "sharper mind," and "clearer thinking;" and that Prevagen reduces memory problems associated with aging. However, the Defendants have no studies showing that orally administered apoaequorin (the active ingredient in Prevagen) can cross the human blood brain barrier and benefit cognition. To the contrary, the Defendants' own studies show that apoaequorin is rapidly digested in the stomach and broken down into amino acids and small peptides, says the suit. Headquartered in Madison, WI, Quincy Bioscience Holding Company, Inc. is a biotechnological company that develops dietary supplements designed to support brain health. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stacey Ann Van Malden, Esq. GOLDBERGER & DUBIN, PC 5114 Post Road Bronx, NY 10471 Telephone: (718) 601-2652 Facsimile: (212) 966-0588 E-mail: staceyl11@optonline.net - and - Joel D. Smith, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 867 Boylston Street, 5th Floor, Ste. 1520 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 377-7404 E-mail: joel@skclassactions.com - and - Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. 166 Geary Str STE 1500-1507 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 839-7077 Facsimile: (888) 410-0415 E-mail: yeremey@skclassactions.com QUINCY BIOSCIENCE: Beatty Suit Referred to Magistrate Judge ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Donna Beatty, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. Quincy Bioscience Holding Co., Inc. et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00727-DEH-VF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Dale Ho entered an order referring case to the Magistrate Judge for the following purpose(s): -- General Pretrial (includes scheduling, discovery, non- dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement) -- Specific Non-Dispositive Motion/Dispute: Class Certification Quincy was founded in 2005. The company's line of business includes providing commercial physical and biological research and development. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=91DRUw at no extra charge.[CC] READING INT'L: Bid to Dismiss Berryman Suit Tossed -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as HALEY BERRYMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. READING INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00750-PAE (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Paul Engelmayer entered an order: -- denying Reading's motions to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(l) and 12(b)(6), and, except as to the Video Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA") movie screening class which the Court strikes, and -- denying the Rule 12(f) motion to strike. The Clerk of Court is directed to close all pending motions. By separate order, the Court will schedule a case management conference. Berryman's Complaint alleges that the fee she paid to secure her tickets was unlawful insofar as the total purchase price was not disclosed at the outset. Such qualifies as a "pocketbook injury" sufficient to give rise to Article III standing. The Court grants Reading's motion to strike in one respect: the proposed VPPA movie screening class cannot survive because, as reviewed above, Reading's role as an operator of brick-and-mortar movie theaters does not qualify it as a "video tape service provider." The Court denies the balance of the motion as premature. The Court's denial of the motion to strike is without prejudice to Reading's right to pursue the same or similar such relief later in this litigation. The Plaintiff brings this putative class action against Reading for violations of the VPPA. Berryman alleges, inter alia, that Reading disclosed private data about her online viewing consumption to Meta Platforms, Inc. ("Face book") without her knowledge or consent. She also claims that Reading failed to disclose to her the total cost of its theater tickets, inclusive of ancillary fees, at the outset of the online purchasing process, in violation of section 25.07(4) of the New York Arts and Cultural Affairs Law ("NY ACAL"). Reading International is a movie theater chain operator. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kOUUw5 at no extra charge.[CC] RELIAS LLC: Discloses Customers' Into to Meta, Kieliszewski Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANGIE KIELISZEWSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RELIAS LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-00043 (E.D.N.C., Jan. 30, 2025) is a class action suit seeking to redress Relias' practices of knowingly disclosing the Plaintiff's and its other customers' identities and their purchases of prerecorded video content or subscriptions to access prerecorded video content to Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc., in violation of the federal Video Privacy Protection Act. Accordingly, over the past two years, the Defendant has systematically transmitted (and continues to transmit today) its customers' personally identifying video viewing information to Meta using a snippet of programming code called the "Meta Pixel," which Defendant chose to install and configure on its family of websites (websites owned by its affiliates, brands, and partners) such as www.nurse.com, www.wcei.net, and www.reliasacademy.com. Each website operates and uses the Meta Pixel in the same or a substantially similar way. The information Defendant disclosed (and continues to disclose) to Meta via the Meta Pixel includes the customer's Facebook ID ("FID"), the title and URL corresponding to the specific prerecorded video or the subscription that each of its customers purchased on any one of its Websites. An FID is a unique sequence of numbers linked to a specific Meta profile. A Meta profile, in turn, identifies by name the specific person to whom the profile belongs (and also contains other personally identifying information about the person). Entering "Facebook.com/[FID]" into a web browser returns the Meta profile of the person to whom the FID corresponds. Thus, the FID identifies a person more precisely than a name, as numerous persons may share the same name, but each person's Facebook profile (and associated FID) uniquely identifies one and only one person. In the simplest terms, the Meta Pixel installed by Defendant captures and discloses to Meta information that reveals a particular person purchased a subscription to access prerecorded video content on Defendant's Websites. The Defendant is a leading online educational provider of educational material, including prerecorded audio visual materials on various topics such as accredited skin & wound care, nursing, physical therapy, social work, diabetic wound care, ostomy management, and more. The Defendant operates and maintains a family of Websites where it sells subscriptions to access prerecorded video content and, on certain websites, individually priced prerecorded video content. The Plaintiff is a consumer of the video products and services offered on Defendant's www.nurse.com website.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elliot O. Jackson, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Ave., Suite 610 Miami, FL 33131-3302 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 Facsimile: (305) 200-8801 E-mail: ejackson@hedinllp.com - and - Alton R. Williams, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALTON R. WILLIAMS 4030 Wake Forest Road, Suite 300 Raleigh, NC 27609 Telephone: (919) 340-0020 RELIAS LLC: Ware Sues Over Disclosed Personal Info to Facebook -------------------------------------------------------------- LYNANNE WARE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RELIAS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-00023-M (E.D.N.C., January 31, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Video Privacy Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant has disclosed to Meta Platforms, Inc., a third party, the personally identifiable information and video information of its website subscribers without consent. The Defendant embedded Facebook Pixel to collect users' data. That pixel tracked the Plaintiff's and the Class members' video viewing history while on the website and reported their viewing history to Facebook. As a result, the Defendant violated the Plaintiff's and the Class members' statutorily protected privacy rights. Relias, LLC is a provider of education, training, and workforce enablement solutions, headquartered in Morrisville, North Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Harris, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 900 West Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5003 Email: sharris@milberg.com - and - Allen Carney, Esq. Samuel Randolph Jackson, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC One Allied Drive, Suite 1400 Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 Facsimile: (501) 312-8505 Email: acarney@cbplaw.com sjackson@cbplaw.com RENU COMMERCIAL: Booth Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA --------------------------------------------------------------- SHAYNE BOOTH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RENU COMMERCIAL, LLC and DIRECT BUILDING SUPPLIES LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00177-JKM (M.D. Pa., Jan. 29, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid wages pursuant to the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and the Fair Labor Standards Act The Plaintiff alleges that they are: (1) entitled to unpaid overtime wages from Defendants for hours worked for which Defendants failed to pay them mandated overtime wages for all hours worked over 40 hours per work week, as required by law; and (2) entitled to liquidated damages pursuant to the FLSA. This is a class and collective action brought on behalf of "Misclassified Employees" who work or have worked for Defendants and have been subjected to the detailed unlawful practices. The employment practices complained of occurred at all of Defendants' locations and worksites, as the Defendants had common ownership and utilized common labor policies and practices at each of their locations and worksites. As Service Technicians and/or Solar Consultants, these employees were primarily responsible for installing and replacing solar equipment as assigned by the Defendants. Accordingly, the Defendants’ systematically and willfully deprived Plaintiff and Misclassified Employees of overtime wages in violation of FLSA and PMWA, by misclassifying them as exempt employees and failing to pay Plaintiff and Misclassified Employees mandated overtime wages at the rate of one-and-one-half times their regular rate of pay, taking into account non-discretionary bonuses, for all hours worked over 40 each work week, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this suit on behalf of similarly situated persons: "All current and former Misclassified Employees who have worked for the Defendants in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania within the statutory period covered by this Complaint and elect to opt in to this action pursuant to the FLSA, 29 U.S.C. § 216(b) (the "FLSA Class"). Specifically, the Plaintiff brings this suit on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons composed of: "All current and former Misclassified Employees who have worked for Defendants in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania within the statutory period covered by this Complaint (the "PMWA Class"). The Defendants' main business operations include sales and installation services for solar, roofing, and related services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Salvina, Esq. MARZZACCO NIVEN & ASSOCIATES 945 East Park Drive, Suite 103 Harrisburg, PA 17111 Telephone: (717) 231-1640 Facsimile: (717) 231-1650 E-mail: bsalvina@klnivenlaw.com ROCKET MORTGAGE: 4th Cir. Affirms in Part Class Cert. in Alig Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirms in part, vacates in part and reverses in part the district court's certification of a class and granting of summary judgment in the lawsuit titled PHILLIP ALIG; SARA J. ALIG; ROXANNE SHEA; DANIEL V. SHEA, Plaintiffs - Appellees v. ROCKET MORTGAGE, LLC, f/k/a Quicken Loans Inc.; AMROCK, LLC, f/k/a Title Source, Incorporated, d/b/a Title Source Inc. of West Virginia, Incorporated, Defendants - Appellants, and DEWEY V. GUIDA; APPRAISALS UNLIMITED, INCORPORATED; RICHARD HYETT, Defendants, Case No. 22-2289 (4th Cir.). The Appeal is from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:12-cv-00114-JPB-JPM; 5:12-cv-00115-JPB). The Appeal is affirmed in part, vacated in part, reversed in part, and remanded by published opinion. Judge Paul V. Niemeyer wrote the opinion, in which Judge Bell joined. Judge Floyd wrote a dissenting opinion. Phillip and Sara Alig and Daniel and Roxanne Shea commenced this action on behalf of themselves and purportedly on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons in West Virginia against Quicken Loans, Inc. (now Rocket Mortgage, LLC), and its affiliate, Title Source, Inc. (now Amrock, Inc.). The Plaintiffs alleged that in refinancing their home mortgage loans, they paid for appraisals that turned out not to be "independent" because the Defendants had transmitted to the appraisers the homeowners' estimates of their homes' value, which they had provided to Quicken Loans in their loan applications. Based on this, they claimed that the appraisals they paid for were "worthless." They asserted a statutory claim that their loans had been "induced by unconscionable conduct," in violation of West Virginia Code Section 46A-2-121(a)(1), a common law breach of contract claim, and a conspiracy claim. The district court entered an order certifying a class of "[a]ll West Virginia citizens who refinanced mortgage loans with Quicken, and for whom Quicken obtained appraisals through an appraisal request form that included an estimate of value of the subject property," which amounted to 2,769 loans. The district court, then, granted summary judgment to the Plaintiffs and class members and awarded them more than $10.6 million, consisting of statutory damages of $3,500 per loan for the unconscionable inducement claim and a refund of the fees they had paid for the appraisals for the breach of contract claim. The court also found that the Plaintiffs had conclusively established a conspiracy between the Defendants and, therefore, entered judgment against both of them. On appeal, the Panel affirmed the district court's certification of the class, rejecting the Defendants' argument that a significant number of the class members were uninjured and, therefore, lacked standing, Alig v. Quicken Loans Inc., 990 F.3d 782, 791 (4th Cir. 2021). The Panel also affirmed the district court's summary judgment on the statutory and conspiracy claims but vacated and remanded the judgment on the breach of contract claim. The Supreme Court granted the Defendants' petition for a writ of certiorari, vacated the Panel's judgment, and remanded the case to the Panel "for further consideration in light of TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. [413] (2021)," Rocket Mortg., LLC v. Alig, 142 S. Ct. 748 (2022). In TransUnion, the Court reiterated its standing jurisprudence that "only those plaintiffs who have been concretely harmed by a defendant's statutory violation" have standing to sue in federal court and applied that principle to class actions, holding that "every class member must have Article III standing in order to recover individual damages." On return of the case to Appellate Court, the Panel vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings to allow the district court to "apply TransUnion to the facts of this case in the first instance," Alig v. Rocket Mortg., LLC, 52 F.4th 167, 168 (4th Cir. 2022) (per curiam). On remand, the district court entered a judgment reinstating its original judgment and stating that TransUnion does not impede the class's showing on standing. It explained that each member of the class paid for an independent appraisal that they never received and, thus, suffered a concrete harm, as necessary for Article III standing. Based on TransUnion, the Panel concludes that the Plaintiffs have not established that the class members, as borrowers, suffered a concrete harm as a result of the Defendants' transmission to appraisers of their home-value estimates, and therefore, the Panel reverses the district court's judgment to the extent that it certified the class and awarded its members damages. Otherwise, the Panel adopts and incorporates its earlier judgment on the merits of the individual Plaintiffs' claims, and remands for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/274pnesk from PacerMonitor.com. William M. Jay -- wjay@goodwinlaw.com -- GOODWIN PROCTER LLP, in Washington, D.C., for the Appellants. Deepak Gupta -- deepak@guptawessler.com -- GUPTA WESSLER PLLC, in Washington, D.C., for the Appellees. Helgi C. Walker -- hwalker@gibsondunn.com -- Jesenka Mrdjenovic -- jason.manning@troutmansanders.com -- Andrew G.I. Kilberg -- akilberg@gibsondunn.com -- in Washington, D.C., Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. -- tboutrous@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, in Los Angeles, California; Thomas M. Hefferon -- thefferon@goodwinlaw.com -- Brooks R. Brown -- bbrown@goodwinlaw.com -- Jaime A. Santos -- jsantos@goodwinlaw.com -- Keith Levenberg -- KLevenberg@goodwinlaw.com -- Rohiniyurie Tashima -- RTashima@goodwinlaw.com -- in Washington, D.C., Edwina B. Clarke -- eclarke@goodwinlaw.com -- GOODWIN PROCTER LLP, in Boston, Massachusetts, for the Appellants. Jonathan R. Marshall -- jmarshall@baileyglasser.com -- in Charleston, West Virginia, Patricia M. Kipnis -- pkipnis@baileyglasser.com -- BAILEY & GLASSER LLP, in Cherry Hill, New Jersey; Gregory A. Beck -- greg@guptawessler.com -- Linnet Davis-Stermitz -- ldavisstermitz@earthjustice.org -- GUPTA WESSLER PLLC, in Washington, D.C.; Jason E. Causey -- jcausey@bordaslaw.com -- BORDAS & BORDAS, PLLC, in Wheeling, West Virginia, for the Appellees. SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY: Seeks Dismissal of Amended Complaint -------------------------------------------------------- Seagate Technology Holdings Public Limited Company disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly period ended December 27, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 24, 2023, that it is facing consolidated case captioned "In re Seagate Technology Holdings PLC Securities Litigation." A hearing regarding Seagate's motion to dismiss occurred on March 26, 2024 and on August 8, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted the company's motion to dismiss, with leave to amend. On September 12, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The company, on behalf of all defendants, filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. A hearing on the motion is scheduled for March 4, 2025. A putative class action lawsuit alleging violations of the federal securities laws, "UA Local 38 Defined Contribution Pension Plan, et al. v. Seagate Technology Holdings PLC, et al.," was filed on July 10, 2023, in the Northern District of California against Seagate Technology Holdings plc, Dr. William D. Mosley, and Gianluca Romano. The complaint alleges that it is a securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of Seagate common stock between September 15, 2020 and October 25, 2022, inclusive, and asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b5-1. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. The case was consolidated with another case on September 25, 2023. An amended complaint was filed on October 19, 2023. Seagate Technology Holdings PLC and its subsidiaries is a provider of data storage technology and infrastructure solutions. Its principal products are hard disk drives, commonly referred to as disk drives, hard drives or HDDs. SHAKEY'S USA INC: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Shakey's USA, Inc. The case is styled as Tawnya Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Shakey's USA, Inc., Case No. 25CU004763C (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., Jan. 27, 2025). Shakey's Pizza -- https://www.shakeys.com/ -- is a pizza restaurant chain based in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC 4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 706-6464 Fax: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com SIRIUS XM: Balmores Must Amend First Amended Complaint ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CINDY BALMORES, JUSTIN BRASWELL, DEBORAH GARVIN, and THEA ANDERSON, for themselves, as private attorneys general, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SIRIUS XM RADIO INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00886-KKE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Kymberly Evanson entered an order re proposed litigation schedule: 1. The Plaintiffs shall file their first amended complaint within 30 days after the date of entry of this Order; 2. The Defendant shall file its answer or responsive motion within 30 days after the Plaintiffs' filing of the first amended complaint; 3. The Plaintiffs shall file an opposition or response to the Defendant's responsive motion within 30 days after the Defendant's filing of a responsive motion; 4. The Defendant may file a Reply in support of its responsive motion within 14 days after the Plaintiffs' filing of an opposition or response to the responsive motion; and 5. The parties shall file an amended Joint Rule 26(f) Report And Discovery Plan, if any, within 14 days of a decision on The Defendant's responsive motion. On June 21, 2024, Plaintiffs Cindy Balmores, Justin Braswell, Deborah Garvin and Thea Anderson, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, filed their Complaint against the Defendant On July 18, 2024, this Court entered a Stipulation and Order To Stay Cases Pending Mediation that stayed these proceedings in their entirety for 60 days so that the parties could pursue mediation. On Nov. 4, 2024, this Court entered a Stipulation and Order that once again stayed these proceedings in their entirety until Jan. 3, 2025, so that the parties could continue pursuing mediation. Sirius operates as a satellite radio broadcasting company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=u7j5Xy at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Daniel M. Hattis, Esq. Paul Karl Lukacs, Esq. Che Corrington, Esq. HATTIS & LUKACS 11711 SE 8th Street, Suite 120 Bellevue, WA 98005 Telephone: (425) 233-8650 E-mail: dan@hattislaw.com pkl@hattislaw.com che@hattislaw.com - and - Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq. DENITTIS OSEFCHEN PRINCE, P.C. 5 Greentree Centre, Suite 410 523 Route 73 N. Marlton, NJ 08057 Telephone: (856) 797-9951 E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Eric P. Stephens, Esq. Lee A. Armstrong, Esq. JONES DAY 250 Vesey Street, 34th Floor New York, NY 10281 Telephone: (212) 326-3658 Facsimile: (212) 755-7306 E-mail: epstephens@jonesday.com laarmstrong@jonesday.com - and - Tim D. Wackerbarth, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP Seattle, WA 98111-9402 Telephone: (206) 223-7000 E-mail: wackerbartht@ballardspahr.com SISKIYOU COUNTY, CA: Chang Bid to Modify Prelim Injunction Tossed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ger Chong Ze Chang, et al., v. County of Siskiyou, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01378-KJM-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Court entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion to modify the preliminary injunction. The parties are ordered to show cause why the preliminary injunction should not be limited to the Plaintiffs Russell Mathis and Mai Nou Vang only, as specified at the conclusion of this order. The plaintiffs are ordered to show cause, within fourteen days, why the court should not: -- Modify the preliminary injunction imposed in ECF Nos. 100 and 116 by limiting it to plaintiffs Mathis and Vang only, who would be together required to post total security of $1,000 under Rule 65(c); -- Set a deadline for renewed motions for (1) class certification and (2) a preliminary injunction for the benefit of any certified class; and -- Stay the security requirement imposed in ECF No. 116 pending the court's consideration of the parties' responses to this order. The Defendants are not ordered to show cause, but they may submit a response to the points above, at their election, by the same fourteen-day deadline. All responses to this order to show cause must not exceed ten pages, excluding any attached evidence. Siskiyou is a county located in the northwestern portion of the U.S. state of California. Its county seat is Yreka and its highest point is Mount Shasta. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Y6g06y at no extra charge.[CC] SIX FLAGS: Settlement in OFPRS Suit Gets Approval ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as OKLAHOMA FIREFIGHTERS PENSION AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM, ET AL., v. SIX FLAGS ENTERTAINMENT CORPORATION, ET AL., Case No. 4:20-cv-00201-P (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Mark T. Pittman entered an order approving class action settlement: -- Class Certification for Settlement Purposes – The Court certifies, for the purposes of the Settlement only, the Action as a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of the Settlement Class consisting of: "all persons and entities who purchased the publicly traded common stock of Six Flags between April 24, 2018 and Feb. 19, 2020, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) Defendants; (ii) members of the Immediate Family of any Individual Defendant; (iii) any person who is, or was during the Class Period, an officer or director of Six Flags and any members of their Immediate Family; (iv) any affiliates or subsidiaries of Six Flags; (v) any entity in which any Defendant or any members of their Immediate Family has or had a controlling interest; and (vi) the legal representatives, heirs, agents, affiliates, successors, or assigns of any such excluded persons and entities. Also excluded from the Settlement Class are the persons and entities listed on Exhibit 1 hereto who or which are excluded from the Settlement Class pursuant to request. Six Flags operates regional theme parks. The Company has parks comprised of theme, water, and zoological parks. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=f69cLO at no extra charge.[CC] SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Anderson Sues Over Mismanagement of Plan ------------------------------------------------------------ ARTHUR ANDERSON; and MANUEL RIVERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.; THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.; SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO. RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN COMMITTEE; THE SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO. PROFITSHARING/401(k) COMMITTEE; LORI WINTERS; and DOES 1-40, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00214-S (N.D. Tex., Jan. 28, 2025) alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, as fiduciaries of the Plan, the Defendants are duty-bound to monitor the Plan's investments and protect participants from these flagrant blow-ups by removing them from the Plan's investment lineup. Yet the Defendants repeatedly refused to remove the Harbor Fund despite more than fifteen years of poor performance. A prudent fiduciary would have removed the Fund well before but not later than the start of the Class Period, and certainly during the ensuing years of poor performance throughout the Class Period. The Defendants' conduct has not been prudent, says the suit. Southwest Airlines Co. is a domestic airline that provides primarily short-haul, high-frequency, and point-to-point services. The Company offers flights throughout the United States. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Valerie Mosman, Esq. THE SLOAN FIRM 3500 Maple Avenue, Suite 1200 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 550-3233 Facsimile: (903) 757-7574 Email: vmosman@sloanfirm.com - and - Charles Field, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP MCKNIGHT, LLP 7911 Herschel Avenue, Suite 300 La Jolla, CA 92037 Telephone: (619) 577-4252 Facsimile: (619) 577-4250 Email: cfield@sanfordheisler.com - and - David Tracey, Esq. Sharon Kim, Esq. SANFORD HEISLER SHARP MCKNIGHT, LLP 17 State Street, Suite 3700 New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 402-5650 Facsimile: (646) 402-5651 Email: dtracey@sanfordheisler.com sharonkim@sanfordheisler.com - and - Megan A. Richmond, Esq. MEGAN A. RICHMOND, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 7911 Herschel Avenue, Suite 300 La Jolla, CA, 92037 Telephone: (800) 210-3638 Facsimile: (619) 237-3496 Email: megan@therichmondfirm.com SPORT SQUAD: Class Certification Bids in Matus Suit Due May 8 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREG MATUS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. SPORT SQUAD, INC. d/b/a JOOLA, Case No. 0:24-cv-60954-DSL (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge David Leibowitz entered an order amending jury trial and class certification deadlines: -- Counsel for all parties shall also Jan. 21, 2026 appear at a calendar call at 1:45 p.m. on: -- The parties shall exchange expert March 24, 2025 witness summaries and reports for class certification. -- The parties shall exchange rebuttal: April 7, 2025 expert witness summaries and reports for class certification. -- Class discovery shall be completed: April 24, 2025 -- Class Certification Motions due: May 8, 2025 -- The parties shall exchange expert June 23, 2025: witness summaries and reports: -- The parties shall exchange rebuttal July 7, 2025 expert witness summaries and reports: -- All discovery, including expert Aug. 4, 2025 discovery, shall be completed: -- The parties shall file all pre-trial Aug. 21, 2025 motions, including motions for summary judgment, and Daubert motions: Sport Squad is an emerging game room equipment manufacturer. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CdADQt at no extra charge.[CC] STATE FARM: Arias Must File Class Cert Bid by July 31 ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Genesis Arias, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Company, Case No. 3:24-cv-01517-JFS (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Joseph Saporito Jr. entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. Joinder of Parties Any joinder of parties shall be accomplished by Feb. 25, 2025. 2. Class Certification The Plaintiff will file her motion for class certification by July 31, 2025. 3. Expert Reports Reports of the Plaintiff's retained experts to be used in support of class certification shall be produced by June 1, 2025. Reports of the Defendants' retained experts shall be Produced by July 1, 2025. Supplementations shall be due July 15, 2025. State Farm is a property, casualty and auto insurance provider in the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eAvM4S at no extra charge.[CC] STIIIZY INC: S.D. Illinois Narrows Claims in Byron Consumer Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chief U.S. District Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit entitled TAYLOR BYRON and TAYLOR BERRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. STIIIZY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-01082-NJR (S.D. Ill.). In 2018, the Agricultural Improvement Act legalized certain hemp products, including "Delta-8" THC, provided they comply with strict tetrahydrocannabinol ("THC") content limitations. Plaintiffs Taylor Byron and Taylor Berry allege that Defendant Stiiizy, Inc., sells Delta-8 THC vape pens and edibles ("Delta-8 products") that exceed the THC threshold in violation of federal and state law. Specifically, the Plaintiffs claim Stiiizy intentionally markets and distributes Delta-8 products with THC levels above the legal limit to attract customers and to avoid compliance with stricter, more costly cannabis regulations. Stiiizy is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in California. It manufactures and distributes a range of cannabis and Delta-8 hemp products--vape pens and edibles--under the "Stiiizy" brand. Stiiizy markets these products as compliant with the federal THC threshold, representing in its labeling, advertising, and packaging that the products contain less than 0.3% Delta-9 THC on a dry-weight basis. Plaintiff Byron, a citizen of Illinois, purchased a Delta-8 Stiiizy Starter Pack from a retailer in Swansea, Illinois, relying on product labeling and representations about compliance with federal THC limits. Similarly, Plaintiff Berry, a Missouri citizen, purchased a Stiiizy product from a store in Chesterfield, Missouri, under the same understanding. Both Plaintiffs allege that independent lab testing revealed THC levels exceeding the federal threshold, with one product, the "Skywalker OG Pen D8," containing 3.57% Delta-9 THC—more than 10 times the legal limit. The lawsuit, brought as a putative class action, raises several claims based on sales of Stiiizy Delta-8 products in Illinois and Missouri, including: (1) violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ICFA") (Count I); (2) common law fraud as to an Illinois class (Count II); (3) negligent misrepresentation as to an Illinois class (Count III); (4) violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA") (Count IV); (5) common law fraud as to a Missouri class (Count V); (6) negligent misrepresentation as to a Missouri class (Count VI); and (7) unjust enrichment as to both classes (Count VII). Stiiizy now moves pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss the Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Alternatively, Stiiizy seeks dismissal under Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b) for failure to state a claim. The Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to the motion, and Stiiizy filed a timely reply. The Plaintiffs have conceded that the Court cannot exercise general personal jurisdiction over Stiiizy, as it is not "at home" in Illinois. Thus, the Court focuses its analysis on whether it has specific personal jurisdiction over Stiiizy. The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have met their burden of demonstrating that Stiiizy purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting business in Illinois and directed its activities at Illinois residents. Stiiizy's arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive, and its citation to Matlin is distinguishable, Judge Rosenstengel opines, citing Matlin v. Spin Master Corporation, 921 F.3d 701, 707 (7th Cir. 2019). In that case, two inventors sued their former company in Illinois for royalties from the products they invented. Unlike the extremely limited contacts present in Matlin, in this case the Plaintiffs have produced evidence that Stiiizy sells its products throughout Illinois and directly targets Illinois residents, both online and in brick-and-mortar stores. There is no doubt that Stiiizy has purposely availed itself of the privilege of conducting business in Illinois. The Court finds that there is a sufficient relationship between the forum and Plaintiff Byron's claims. Because Berry's claims are based solely on events that occurred in Missouri--and because the Plaintiffs have provided no argument to the contrary--the Court finds that it lacks personal jurisdiction over Stiiizy with regard to Plaintiff Berry's Missouri claims. Accordingly, Counts IV, V, VI, and VII (as to the Missouri class only) will be dismissed. Finally, exercising jurisdiction over Stiiizy in Illinois comports with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice, Judge Rosenstengel says. Here, the burden on Stiiizy is minimal. Stiiizy is a Delaware corporation with nationwide operations, including substantial business activities in Illinois. Moreover, Stiiizy's sustained and intentional efforts to exploit the Illinois market provide reasonable notice of being haled into an Illinois court. The Court finds that exercising jurisdiction over Stiiizy in Illinois is reasonable and consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. Accordingly, the Court finds that specific jurisdiction is proper with respect to Plaintiff Byron and the putative Illinois class. Stiiizy argues that the Complaint must be dismissed under Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b) because it fails to allege any plausible facts supporting the element of falsity. Instead, the Complaint contains a single allegation that an undated lab test on one Delta-8 product--which Byron did not purchase--contained more than the allowable amount of THC. It further contends that Byron has failed to adequately allege Stiiizy's knowledge of the falsity. Finally, Stiiizy asserts the Complaint fails to allege facts demonstrating its intent to induce consumers to rely on the falsity. The Court finds these arguments unpersuasive. Byron alleges that Stiiizy sells a variety of cannabis and Delta-8 products in stores and online in Illinois. Its products include Delta-8 vape pens and edibles, which must contain less than 0.3% of active THC to qualify as Delta-8 hemp products. Stiiizy even represents through Certificates of Analysis that its Delta-8 products have been independently tested and that those results confirm its Delta-8 products contain less than 0.3% of active THC. In reality, however, the Plaintiffs allege Stiiizy's D8 products contain more than 0.3% of active THC. As a result, Byron alleges that consumers are being placed at increased health, safety, and medical risk by Stiiizy Delta-8 products that are, in fact, a controlled substance. Taking these facts as true, and drawing all inferences in Byron's favor, Judge Rosenstengel finds these allegations are sufficiently particular under Rules 12(b)(6) and 9(b) to support a reasonable inference of falsity. Accepting the Plaintiffs' allegations as true, the Court finds that they are sufficient to support a reasonable inference that Stiiizy knew its Delta-8 products contained false representations and omissions about THC levels, and that Byron has adequately alleged Stiiizy's intent to induce consumers to rely on the falsity for its own financial benefit. Accordingly, Stiiizy's motion to dismiss Byron's common law fraud claim is denied. Stiiizy moves to dismiss Byron's ICFA claim because nothing in the complaint plausibly suggests that Stiiizy committed a deceptive act. Stiiizy argues that Byron does not allege that any product she purchased has been tested or that any test results demonstrate that the product was mislabeled. And Stiiizy again argues Byron has not alleged facts showing Stiiizy knew the THC content of its products exceeded the legal limit. As with the common law fraud claim, Judge Rosenstengel holds Stiiizy's arguments fail. Byron alleges that Stiiizy failed to accurately convey the amount of THC in its Delta-8 products, failed to identify them as cannabis, falsely labeled them as hemp products, and failed to use labels that accurately identified the quantity or proportion of THC in the products. She further claims, among other things, that she relied upon the accuracy of the representations made on the packaging and labeling of the Delta-8 Stiiizy Starter Pack, including representations regarding the percentage of active THC in the product. At this point, Byron does not need to prove that allegation, Judge Rosenstengel holds. Finally, Byron alleges that Stiiizy was aware of the alleged misrepresentations, as it engaged in these deceptive practices to avoid compliance costs and to induce customers to purchase its products. These allegations, taken as true, are sufficient to state a claim for deception under the ICFA, Judge Rosenstengel points out. Ms. Byron concedes that her negligent misrepresentation claim brought under Illinois law is barred by the economic loss doctrine. Accordingly, Count III will be dismissed. Finally, Stiiizy argues that Byron's unjust enrichment claim is an impermissible "freestanding" claim that is not recognized under Illinois law. Stiiizy's argument relies on the dismissal of Byron's fraud and ICFA claims. But since those claims have not been dismissed, Judge Rosenstengel points out that Byron's unjust enrichment claim remains viable. Accordingly, Stiiizy's motion to dismiss Byron's unjust enrichment claim is denied. For these reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part the Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendant Stiiizy. The claims of Plaintiff Taylor Berry in Counts IV, V, VI, and VII are dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff Taylor Byron's negligent misrepresentation claim in Count III is dismissed without prejudice. The case will proceed with discovery on Byron's claims in Counts I, II, and VII. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2924y5m4 from PacerMonitor.com. SYNTA TECHNOLOGY: Agrees to Settle AntiTrust Class Suit for $32MM ----------------------------------------------------------------- Synta Technology Corp. and other telescope manufacturers agreed to a $32 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims they conspired to fix telescope prices. The telescope antitrust settlement benefits consumers who purchased a Celestron, Orion, Skywatcher, Zhumell or Meade telescopes between Jan. 1, 2005, and Sept. 6, 2023, while located in in Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia or Wisconsin. According to the telescope class action lawsuit, Synta Technology Corp. and other telescope manufacturers conspired to fix the price of telescopes. As a result of this alleged scheme, the plaintiffs contend they were forced to pay more for telescopes than they otherwise would have. Synta Technology Corp. is a telescope manufacturer responsible for popular telescope lines, such as Celestron. Synta hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to the $32 million telescope settlement to resolve these allegations. Under the terms of the telescope antitrust settlement, class members can receive a cash payment based on the number of telescopes they purchased. The distribution plan for this settlement has not yet been released to the settlement website so no payment estimates are available at this time. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Feb. 13, 2025. The final approval hearing for the telescope settlement is scheduled for April 3, 2025. To receive a payment from the telescope settlement, class members must submit a valid claim form by May 20, 2025. Who's Eligible Consumers who purchased one or more Celestron, Orion, Skywatcher, Zhumell or Meade telescopes between Jan. 1, 2005, and Sept. 6, 2023, while located in one of the following states: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Washington D.C., Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia or Wisconsin Potential Award TBD Proof of Purchase N/A Claim Form Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 05/20/2025 Case Name In re: Telescopes Antitrust Litigation Indirect Purchaser Actions, Case No. 5:20-cv-03639-EJD, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Final Hearing 04/03/2025 Settlement Website TelescopeSettlement.com Claims Administrator Telescopes Antitrust Litigation Settlement Administrator PO Box 301172 Los Angeles, CA 90030-1172 admin@TelescopeSettlement.com (833) 419-3506 Class Counsel Adam J Zapala COTCHETT PITRE & McCARTHY LLP Lin Y Chan LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP Kalpana Srinivasan SUSMAN GODFREY LLP Defense Counsel Christopher Frost FROST LLP [GN] TARGET CORP: Court to Grant Sadler Bid for Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRYSTAL SADLER on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TARGET CORPORATION et. al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00030-CPO-SAK (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Christine P. O'Hearn will grant Plaintiff's motion to certify class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3). The proposed class sought via Plaintiff's motion includes: "All Progression Team Members who have been employed as hourly, non-exempt workers at any of Target's New Jersey distribution centers at any time from Aug. 6, 2019 through the date of final judgment in this matter." The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant violated the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL"), and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law ("NJWPL"), by failing to pay them for all hours worked, including (1) pre-shift and post-shift time spent traveling to their assigned departments to clock in and out; and (2) time spent undergoing mandatory security screenings. In Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 577 U.S. 442, 453 (2016), the Supreme Court approved of a class certification that included some discrepant liability and damages results between different employees who worked different amounts of time given that there were central questions that predominated. Additionally, like in Davis, which involved a similar proposed class involving walking time, here, the central issue involving Defendant’s policy regarding walking time predominates over any issues of individual damages. For these reasons, class certification is warranted. The Plaintiff worked at Defendant's Logan warehouse as a non-exempt hourly worker from Sept. 8, 2022, to Nov. 22, 2022. Target Corporation is an American retail corporation that operates a chain of discount department stores and hypermarkets. A copy of the Court's opinion dated Jan. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QYKria at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew A. Luber, Esq. Tyler J. Burrell, Esq. Charles Joseph Kocher, Esq. Williams L. Carr, Esq. MCOMBER MCOMBER & LUBER, P.C. 39 E. Main Street Marlton, NJ 08053 The Defendants are represented by: Jacqueline R. Barrett, Esq. OGELTREE DEAKINS 1735 Market Street, Suite 3000 Philadelphia, PA 19103 TARGET CORP: Faces Police Pension Suit Over Price Stock Drop ------------------------------------------------------------ CITY OF RIVIERA BEACH POLICE PENSION FUND, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated v. TARGET CORPORATION, BRIAN C. CORNELL, DAVID P. ABNEY, DOUGLAS M. BAKER, JR., GEORGE S. BARRETT, GAIL K. BOUDREAUX, ROBERT L. EDWARDS, MELANIE L. HEALEY, DONALD R. KNAUSS, CHRISTINE A. LEAHY, MONICA C. LOZANO, GRACE PUMA, DERICA W. RICE, AND DIMITRI L. STOCKTON, Case No. e 2:25-cv-00085 (M.D. Fla., Jan. 31, 2025) is a class action brought on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Target common stock between August 26, 2022, and November 19, 2024, inclusive. The claims asserted herein are alleged against Target and certain of the Company's senior executives, and arise under Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. Target misled investors by making false and misleading statements about Target's Environmental, Social and Governance and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion mandates that led to widespread customer boycotts following Target's 2023 LGBT-Pride campaign. The negative effects of the Campaign on Target's business, including a subsequent campaign in 2024, led to a massive decline in Target's stock price. Specifically, the 2023 LGBT-Pride Campaign offended certain Target customers, provoking consumer backlash and boycotts that caused Target's sales to fall for the first time in six years. Unbeknownst to investors, and contrary to Target’s public statements, Target's Chief Executive Officer Brian C. Cornell and its Board of Directors did not oversee or disclose the known risks of Target's 2023 LGBT-Pride Campaign and the 2024 Campaign. This deceit, through misleading statements in the Company's public filings, including its 10-Ks and proxy statements, caused Target's investors to purchase Target stock at artificially inflated prices and to unknowingly support Target's Board and management in their misuse of investor funds to serve political and social goals, says the suit. Plaintiff City of Riviera Beach Police Pension Fund purchased Target common stock during the Class Period, and suffered damages as a result of Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws. On May 31, 2024, Target issued a press release stating that "we support and celebrate LGBTQIA+ community during Pride Month and year-round." The press release specified the various ways it was "celebrating during Pride Month and throughout the year: Customers never returned to Target following the 2023 and 2024 pride campaigns." Target continued to suffer from declining demand and weak revenues. On Nov. 20, 2024. Target announced that its GAAP-adjusted earnings per share were $1.85, compared with $2.10 in the same quarter of 2023, a decline of 11.9%. The Company also reported disappointing guidance, including "approximately flat comparable sales." This news caused the price of Target's stock to drop precipitously, from a close of $156 on November 19, 2024 to a close of $121.72 on November 20, 2024, a decline of 22%. The Plaintiff purchased Target common stock during the Class Period, and suffered damages as a result of the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws. Target has long cultivated a classic, all-American image, and sells itself as the favorite retailer of middle class American families. But for years, Target's Board and management wasted Target's financial and reputational capital pursuing the Board’s and management's personal ESG/DEI interests, while falsely and misleadingly portraying the risks of this strategy to Target's shareholders in order to artificially inflate Target's stock price and secure the Board's re-election.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua E. Dubin, Esq. JOSH DUBIN, P.A. 201 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1210 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (212) 219-1469 Facsimile: (212) 219-1897 E-mail: josh@jdubinlaw.com - and - Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq. Caitlin M. Moyna, Esq. Vincent J. Pontrello, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 485 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 722-8500 Facsimile: (646) 722-8501 E-mail: jeisenhofer@gelaw.com cmoyna @gelaw.com vpontrello@gelaw.com TARGET CORP: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------- Institutional investor City of Riviera Beach Police Pension Fund filed a class action lawsuit against Target Corporation ("Target" or the "Company"), Target's CEO Brian C. Cornell, and current and former members of Target's Board of Directors, David P. Abney, Douglas M. Baker, Jr., George S. Barrett, Gail K. Boudreaux, Robert L. Edwards, Melanie L. Healey, Donald R. Knauss, Christine A. Leahy, Monica C. Lozano, Grace Puma, Derica W. Rice, and Dmitri L. Stockton. The action alleges that they defrauded investors by issuing false and misleading statements concerning certain conduct undertaken pursuant to Target's Environmental, Social, and Governance ("ESG") and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion ("DEI") mandates. The suit, brought in federal court in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division, was filed by leading investor law firm Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. The action is brought on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or acquired Target common stock from August 26, 2022 through November 19, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The action is captioned City of Riviera Beach Police Pension Fund v. Target, Corp., et al., No. 2:25-cv-00085 (M.D. Fla.). The action has been marked as related to Craig v. Target Corp., et al., No. 2:23-cv-00599-JLB-KCD (M.D. Fla.). The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b), 14(a), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, Target failed to warn investors of risks associated with its mandates regarding its ESG/DEI initiatives. Target's stock price was artificially inflated as a result, and its Board members secured re-election, causing additional damages. In May 2023 these risks materialized as Target faced customer backlash from one of its hallmark ESG/DEI initiatives -- Target's LGBT-Pride Campaign (the "Campaign"). Certain of Target's customers responded to the Campaign by boycotting Target. Over time, the market realized the scope of the consumer backlash and, from May 17, 2023 to June 14, 2023, Target's stock declined from closing prices of $160.96 to $124.12. Widespread consumer boycotts and news related to their growth continued from June 2023 into 2024 causing further stock price declines and additional damages. On August 16, 2023, during Target's Q2 2023 earnings report, Target revealed that the Campaign had harmed the Company's earnings and other financial metrics. From the day prior to the Q2 2023 earnings report release, August 15, 2023, to October 6, 2023, Target's stock fell from closing prices of $125.05 to $105.01 per share. The risks associated with the Campaign further materialized on November 20, 2024 when Target announced that its GAAP-adjusted earnings per share were $1.85, compared with $2.10 in the same quarter of 2023, a decline of 11.9%. This news caused Target's stock to fall from a close of $156 on November 19, 2024 to a close of $121.72 on November 20, 2024, a decline of 22%. Investors who purchased or acquired Target common stock during the Class Period are members of this proposed Class and may be able to seek appointment as lead plaintiff, which is a court-appointed representative of the Class, by complying with the relevant provisions for the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the "PSLRA"). See 15 U.S.C. Section 78u-4(a)(2)(A)(i)-(iv). If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court by no later than April 1, 2025, which is the lead plaintiff deadline that was established by publication of this notice on January 31, 2025. You do not need to seek to become a lead plaintiff in order to share in any possible recovery. You may also retain counsel of your choice to represent you in this action. If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights, please contact Caitlin M. Moyna at Grant & Eisenhofer at 646-722-8513, or via email at cmoyna@gelaw.com. You can also find more information at gelaw.com. Contacts Grant & Eisenhofer Caitlin M. Moyna (646) 722-8513 cmoyna@gelaw.com [GN] TELEXELECTRIC LLLP: Bid to Seal Docs OK'd in Ferguson Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ferguson, et al., v. Telexelectric, LLLP, et al., Case No. 4:14-cv-40138 (D. Mass., Filed Sept. 24, 2014), the Hon. Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton entered an order granting the Defendants' motion to seal the documents in question provisionally so as not to delay briefing related to class certification. Any documents filed under seal pursuant to the order must be filed in accordance with the instructions from the Clerk's Office by no later than Feb. 5, 2025. The Defendants have not identified, or provided the court with copies of, the documents they seek to file under seal. To the extent the Defendants -- or the Plaintiffs -- want these documents to remain under seal on the docket, they must "explain, on a document-by-document basis, why sealing is required and how their request satisfies the applicable legal standard." They must make such a filing by no later than Feb. 28, 2025. If they do not make such a filing, the court will unseal the documents. Mag. Judge Katherine A. Robertson entered in Case No. 1:14-cv-12058-NMG provisionally granting motion to seal filed by the Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo Bank. LLC, Mauricio Cardenas, Michael Montalvo, and ProPay, Inc. Counsel will receive an email within 24 hours of the order with instructions for submitting sealed documents for which leave has been granted in accordance with the Local Rules of the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts. The nature of suit states Securities Fraud. Telexfree, a trade name owned by Telexfree Inc., was a multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme disguised as an internet phone service company.[CC] TELEXELECTRIC LLLP: Bid to Seal Docs OK'd in Murdoch Fraud Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Murdoch, et al., v. TelexElectric, LLLP, et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-40018 (D. Mass.. Filed Feb. 24, 2016), the Hon. Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton entered an order granting the Defendants' motion to seal the documents in question provisionally so as not to delay briefing related to class certification. Any documents filed under seal pursuant to the order must be filed in accordance with the instructions from the Clerk's Office by no later than Feb. 5, 2025. The Defendants have not identified, or provided the court with copies of, the documents they seek to file under seal. To the extent the Defendants -- or the Plaintiffs -- want these documents to remain under seal on the docket, they must "explain, on a document-by-document basis, why sealing is required and how their request satisfies the applicable legal standard." They must make such a filing by no later than Feb. 28, 2025. If they do not make such a filing, the court will unseal the documents. Mag. Judge Katherine A. Robertson entered in Case No. 1:14-cv-12058-NMG provisionally granting motion to seal filed by the Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo Bank. LLC, Mauricio Cardenas, Michael Montalvo, and ProPay, Inc. Counsel will receive an email within 24 hours of the order with instructions for submitting sealed documents for which leave has been granted in accordance with the Local Rules of the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts. The nature of suit states Diversity: Securities Fraud. Telexfree, a trade name owned by Telexfree Inc., was a multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme disguised as an internet phone service company.[CC] TELEXELECTRIC: Bid to Seal Docs OK'd in Githere Suit ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Githere, et al., v. TelexElectric, LLLP, et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-12825 (D. Mass., Filed June 30, 2014), the Hon. Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton entered an order granting the Defendants' motion to seal the documents in question provisionally so as not to delay briefing related to class certification. Any documents filed under seal pursuant to the order must be filed in accordance with the instructions from the Clerk's Office by no later than Feb. 5, 2025. The Defendants have not identified, or provided the court with copies of, the documents they seek to file under seal. To the extent the Defendants -- or the Plaintiffs -- want these documents to remain under seal on the docket, they must "explain, on a document-by-document basis, why sealing is required and how their request satisfies the applicable legal standard." They must make such a filing by no later than Feb. 28, 2025. If they do not make such a filing, the court will unseal the documents. Mag. Judge Katherine A. Robertson entered in Case No. 1:14-cv-12058-NMG provisionally granting motion to seal filed by the Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo Bank. LLC, Mauricio Cardenas, Michael Montalvo, and ProPay, Inc. Counsel will receive an email within 24 hours of the order with instructions for submitting sealed documents for which leave has been granted in accordance with the Local Rules of the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud.[CC] TELEXFREE LLC: Bid to Seal Docs OK'd in Bankruptcy-Withdrawal Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit re Telexfree, LLC, captioned as Case No. 4:14-cv-40144 (D. Mass., Filed Oct. 6, 2014), the Hon. Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton entered an order granting the Defendants' motion to seal the documents in question provisionally so as not to delay briefing related to class certification. Any documents filed under seal pursuant to the order must be filed in accordance with the instructions from the Clerk's Office by no later than Feb. 5, 2025. The Defendants have not identified, or provided the court with copies of, the documents they seek to file under seal. To the extent the Defendants -- or the Plaintiffs -- want these documents to remain under seal on the docket, they must "explain, on a document-by-document basis, why sealing is required and how their request satisfies the applicable legal standard." They must make such a filing by no later than Feb. 28, 2025. If they do not make such a filing, the court will unseal the documents. Mag. Judge Katherine A. Robertson entered in Case No. 1:14-cv-12058-NMG provisionally granting motion to seal filed by the Defendants Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo Bank. LLC, Mauricio Cardenas, Michael Montalvo, and ProPay, Inc. Counsel will receive an email within 24 hours of the order with instructions for submitting sealed documents for which leave has been granted in accordance with the Local Rules of the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts. The nature of suit states Bankruptcy – Withdrawal. Telexfree, a trade name owned by Telexfree Inc., was a multibillion-dollar Ponzi scheme disguised as an internet phone service company.[CC] THREE61 LLC: Briscoe Sues Over Defective Mini Smoke Alarm Product ----------------------------------------------------------------- EDWARD BRISCOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THREE61 LLC, Defendant, Case No. 8:25-cv-00230 (M.D. Fla., Jan. 28, 2025) alleges that the Defendant's sells defective Samurai Mini Smoke Alarm product which malfunction and fail to alert consumers of a fire, posing a risk of smoke inhalation or death. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, at the time of the purchase of the Product, the Defendant didn't notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers, of the Product's risk of malfunction through the product labels, instructions, other packaging, advertising, or in any other manner, in violation of the state and federal law. The Plaintiff purchased the Product while lacking the knowledge that the Product could malfunction and pose a risk of smoke inhalation or death to those who use the product. Because the Plaintiff and all consumers purchased the worthless and dangerous the Product, which they purchased under the presumption that the Product was safe, they have suffered losses, says the suit. Three61 LLC laptop bags, neoprene sleeves, computer transfer kits, and silicone kitchen cookware. [BN] Joshua R. Jacobson, Esq. JACOBSON PHILLIPS PLLC 478 E Altamonte Drive Suite 108-570, Altamonte Springs, FL 32701 Telephone: (407) 720-4057 Email: joshua@jacobsonphillips.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com - and - Kevin Laukaitis, Esq. LAUKAITIS LAW LLC 954 Avenida Ponce De Leon Suite 205, #10518 San Juan, PR 00907 Telephone: (215) 789-4462 Email: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com TOP GOLF: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Billingy Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- MALERY BILLINGY; RICHARD CAMERON MARSHALL; and ZHANIA SIMON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TOP GOLF USA ALPHARETTA, LLC; TOPGOLF PAYROLL SERVICES, LLC; and TOP GOLF USA INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00398-SDG (N.D. Ga., Jan. 29, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as servers. Top Golf USA Alpharetta, LLC operates as a sports entertainment chain. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew Y. Coffman, Esq. Evan P. Drew, Esq. PARKS, CHESIN & WALBERT, P.C. 1335 Peachtree NE, Suite 2000 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 873-8000 Email: acoffman@pcwlawfirm.com edrew@pcwlawfirm.com TRADER JOE'S: Stephan Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty ------------------------------------------------------- BEAU STEPHAN, GEORGE STRAY, LEONARD KIRSCHLING, GEORGE PHIRIPES, RHONDA HABELL, CAMERON BASS and STEPHEN BUBNIAK, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TRADER JOE'S COMPANY, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF TRADER JOE'S COMPANY, THE INVESTMENT COMMITTEE and JOHN DOES 1-30, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-10212 (D. Mass., January 28, 2025) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act against the Defendants for breaches of their fiduciary duties. According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to employ a process to leverage the size of the Trader Joe's Company Retirement Plan to pay reasonable fees for the Plan's recordkeeping and administrative services. The Defendants, as fiduciaries of the Plan, breached the duty of prudence they owed to the Plan by requiring the Plan to pay excessive RKA fees. The Defendants also breached their duty to Plan participants in other respects in regard to failing to defray the expenses of administering the Plan, says the suit. The Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment of participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty, in violation of ERISA, the suit assert. Their actions were contrary to actions of a reasonable fiduciary and cost the Plan and its participants millions of dollars. The Plaintiffs specifically invested in the American Funds American Balanced fund during the Class Period. Trader Joe's is a privately owned American chain of grocery stores established in 19677 that conducts business throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey Hellman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JEFFREY HELLMAN, LLC 195 Church Street, 10th Floor New Haven, CT 06510 Telephone: (203) 691-8762 Facsimile: (203) 823-4401 E-mail: jeff@jeffhellmanlaw.com - and - Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. James A. Maro, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com jamesm@capozziadler.com - and - Peter A. Muhic, Esq. MUHIC LAW LLC 923 Haddonfield Road Suite 300 Cherry Hill, NJ 08002 Telephone: (856) 324-8252 E-mail: peter@muhiclaw.com TRINITY MA INC: Faces Cabrera Suit Over Labor Code Breaches ----------------------------------------------------------- JULIEANNE SACUEZA CABRERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRINITY MA INC. D.B.A. HAPPY LEAF COLLECTIVE; and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants (s), Case No. 25STCV02111 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., January 24, 2025) arises from Defendants' numerous violations of the California Labor Code. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from November 2021 to October 2024. Allegedly, the Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff with compliant meal breaks because meal breaks were regularly missed or interrupted. Despite not being provided with compliant meal breaks, Defendant did not pay premium pay for these missed breaks at Plaintiff's regular rate of pay. The Defendants also failed to provide Plaintiff with accurate wage statements because the wage statements issued to Plaintiff did not accurately list total wages owed and hours worked, among other things. Trinity Ma Inc. is a cannabis dispensary located in Los Angeles County, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manny Starr, Esq. Daniel Ginzburg, Esq. FRONTIER LAW CENTER 23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 1084 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 914-3433 Facsimile: (818) 914-3433 E-mail: manny@frontierlawcenter.com dan@frontierlawcenter.com U.S. IMMIGRATION: Breaches Fiduciary Duty, Kong Class Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- ZHIMAN KONG, on behalf of himself individually and all others similarly situated, and on behalf of VIA MIZNER FUNDING, LP, a Florida limited partnership, v. NICHOLAS A. MASTROIANNI II; U.S. IMMIGRATION FUND GP-MIZNER, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; and CAMINO INVESTMENTS HOLDINGS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a Florida limited partnership, Case No. e 9:25-cv-80121 (S.D. Fla., Jan. 28, 2025) alleges that the Defendants have engaged in breaches of contract and breaches of fiduciary duty. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other Phase II/III Limited Partners pursuant to Rule 23, and on behalf of the Funding Partnership pursuant to Rule 23.2. In the present case, the Funding Partnership used the EB-5 Program to raise between $48,000,000 and $160,000,000 to fund a construction loan to help Defendant Camino Investment Holdings Limited Partnership defray the cost of constructing Via Mizner, a mixed-use real estate project in Boca Raton, Florida. To raise the money to fund the Loan, the Funding Partnership offered prospective EB-5 investors up to 360 units of membership in the Funding Partnership for $545,000 per unit ($500,000 in investment capital and a $45,000 administrative fee) in exchange for becoming Limited Partners in the Funding Partnership and 3.5% annual interest on their capital contributions, which would be repaid when the Loan matured five years after it was distributed to the Developer, subject to two conditions, says the suit. Plaintiff Kong is an individual participant in the EB-5 Program who is a member of the Funding Partnership designated as a Phase II/III Limited Partner. He was born in mainland China, has been employed as a teacher and a corporate financial planner, and now resides in El Monte, California. Defendant U.S. Immigration Fund GP-Mizner, LLC is a Florida Limited Liability Company that serves as the General Partner of Via Mizner Funding, LLC (the Funding Partnership) and whose principal place of business is Tequesta, Florida. The General Partner is managed by Defendant Mastroianni.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan M Stein (Fla. Bar No. 9784) STEINLAW FLORIDA, PLLC 825 Corporate Boulevard Northwest, Suite 110 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: 561-834-2699 E-mail: jon@steinlawflorida.com - and - Jeffrey L. Fazio, Esq. Dina E. Micheletti, Esq. FAZIO | MICHELETTI LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 400 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (925) 543-2555 - and - Yi Yao, Esq. Yumeng Jiang, Esq. DEHENG LAW OFFICES, P.C. Silicon Valley Office 7901 Stoneridge Drive, Suite 208 Pleasanton, CA 94588 Telephone: 925-399-5856 E-mail: yyao@dehengsv.com UMPQUA BANK: Ponzi Scheme Class Action Heads to Trial ----------------------------------------------------- Matthew Kish of The Oregonian/OregonLive reports that hundreds of Northern California investors who allege Umpqua Bank backed a $450 million Ponzi scheme will soon get their days in court. A roughly three-week jury trial is scheduled to begin Monday, February 2, 2025, in a San Jose federal courtroom. The investors allege Umpqua knew one of its clients was operating a Ponzi scheme and instead of stopping the fraud "chose to profit from it." Umpqua has repeatedly said it had "no knowledge" of the scheme. A judge certified the lawsuit as a class action in December 2022. The dispute stems from the collapse of Professional Financial Investors and Professional Investors Security Fund, two Bay Area real estate investment companies that raised hundreds of millions of dollars from more than a thousand investors, many of them "local mom and pop investors," according to the lawsuit. Linda Lam, an Oakland-based attorney for plaintiffs, said the roughly 1,200 investors in the class seek upwards of $360 million in damages. Plaintiffs have already recovered $110 million through bankruptcy proceedings, according to Umpqua's securities filings. Lam said most of her clients are individual investors who heard about Professional Financial Investors through word of mouth. "Many of them are retirees who invested most of their life savings with PFI and were relying on monthly distribution payments from PFI for their normal living expenses," Lam said. The companies collapsed after their founder, Kenneth Casey, died in 2020. A year later, his business partner, Lewis Wallach, was sentenced to 12 years in prison after he pled guilty to fraud and embezzlement and acknowledged the companies used money from new investors to pay existing investors after they fell behind on payments. Professional Financial Investors banked with Northern California's Circle Bank, which was acquired by Umpqua Bank in 2012. Columbia Bank acquired Umpqua in 2023 and retained the Umpqua name. Umpqua called the lawsuit an "overreaching attempt" to recover additional losses. In court papers, it's also noted the high bar needed to hold a bank accountable for the actions of a customer. "We will vigorously defend our bank against claims related to the scheme orchestrated by convicted felon Lewis Wallach and his deceased co-conspirator Ken Casey," the bank said in a statement. "Umpqua Bank should not be held responsible for the criminal acts of Lewis Wallach and Ken Casey, and we look forward to presenting our case to the jury." Umpqua's motion to dismiss the lawsuit was denied in January 2021. In December 2022, U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg certified the lawsuit as a class action. In his order making the lawsuit a class action, Seeborg noted Umpqua's fraud-detection software issued 146 alerts for suspicious activity and possible fraud at PFI between June 2018 and April 2020. The number of alerts should have gotten the attention of the bank's fraud investigators, said Suzanne Lynch, an adjunct professor of financial crime at Utica University. Lynch, who previously worked in fraud-detection for several large financial institutions, said Umpqua's lawyers will need to explain to jurors how its fraud-detection system works and what it did to investigate the alerts. But she also acknowledged some of the alerts might have been meaningless. "The biggest problem with a lot of fraud detection is false positives," Lynch said. In a statement, Umpqua said 146 is a "minute fraction" of PFI's banking transactions. "PFI was a substantial operating business with over 70 buildings, renting thousands of units to tenants, with hundreds of thousands of transactions running through its deposit accounts," the bank said. Umpqua also noted Wallach already testified he and Casey "actively" hid the Ponzi scheme from the bank. "The bank had no knowledge of their scheme," Umpqua said. [GN] UNITED STATES: Alarm Concepts Sues For Unlawful Tax Info Disclosure ------------------------------------------------------------------- ALARM CONCEPTS, INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, and BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON INC., Defendants, Case No. 8:25-cv-00228-DLB (D. Md., January 24, 2025), seeks redress for the unlawful inspections and disclosures of Plaintiff's and other taxpayers' confidential tax returns and return information. According to the complaint, the Defendants have provided inadequate cybersecurity safeguards for protecting confidential taxpayer information. As a result, between 2018 and 2020, Charles Edward Littlejohn--an employee of both Booz Allen and the IRS--was able to steal and leak the confidential tax returns and return information of thousands of taxpayers, including Alarm Concepts and the putative class members. The disclosure of Alarm Concepts' and class members' confidential tax information to news organizations, standing alone, constitutes a massive breach of their privacy, says the suit. Internal Revenue Service collects federal taxes and enforces U.S. federal tax laws. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Veronica Byam Nannis, Esq. JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE, P.A. 6404 Ivy Lane, Ste. 400 Greenbelt, MD 20770 Telephone: (240) 553-1209 E-mail: vnannis@jgllaw.com - and - Norman E. Siegel, Esq. Barrett J. Vahle, Esq. Joy D. Merklen, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com vahle@stuevesiegel.com merklen@stuevesiegel.com - and - Bruce W. Steckler, Esq. STECKLER WAYNE & LOVE, PLLC 12720 Hillcrest, Suite 1045 Dallas, TX 75230 Telephone: (972) 387-4040 E-mail: bruce@swclaw.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION 201 N. Franklin St., 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 275-5272 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Suit Over Diversity Policies -------------------------------------------------------------- ICLG.com reports that a class-action lawsuit involving COVID-19 pandemic unemployment benefits has been settled, leading a New Mexico agency to suspend its efforts to collect overpayments from tens of thousands of residents. The case, Duran v. New Mexico Department of Workforce Solutions, was resolved Jan. 9 when First Judicial District Judge Maria Sanchez-Gagne approved an agreement between the parties. She is expected to issue a written order soon. The settlement means state residents who owed money to the state agency will see their debts forgiven, according to the New Mexico Center on Law and Poverty, an Albuquerque-based nonprofit organization that helped represent the plaintiffs. A class action filed years before this week's fatal air crash in Washington, DC, could shed some light on President Trump's unverified claims. In a press conference following the recent fatal air crash over the Potomac River in Washington, DC, President Trump appeared to pin blame for the disaster on the diversity policies of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), alleging -- without citing any evidence -- that it was those policies which contributed to the tragic collision between an American Airlines jet and a US Army helicopter, resulting in the deaths of 67 people. When asked by a member of the US press corps whether he was really suggesting that diversity programmes caused the crash, the president responded: "They just may have." While the president's comments have been widely reported by media outlets all over the world, less coverage has been given to, certified in February 2022 in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, which takes issue with the FAA for its allegedly racially discriminatory policies. The lawsuit, first filed almost a decade ago, claims that the FAA's policies disadvantaged qualified candidates from the Air Traffic-Collegiate Training Initiative (AT-CTI) programme. THE BACKGROUND The AT-CTI programme, established by the FAA in 1991, partners with educational institutions to prepare students for careers as air traffic control specialists (ATCS). Traditionally, graduates of the programme were given a head start in the FAA's hiring process, provided they met specific criteria, including passing the air traffic selection and training exam. In 2014, the FAA revised its hiring protocols, introducing a biographical questionnaire (BQ) as a preliminary screening tool for all applicants, regardless of their AT-CTI background, a change which, according to the claimants, had the effect of nullifying the preferential status previously afforded to AT-CTI graduates in the name of increasing workforce diversity. In November 2016, Andrew Brigida, who is white, and Native American Matthew Douglas-Cook -- both AT-CTI graduates who were not selected for ATCS positions under the new hiring process -- filed a lawsuit against the FAA, alleging that the 2014 hiring changes constituted intentional race-based discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Following several years of legal twists and turns, including amendments to the original complaint, in February 2022 Judge Dabney Friedrich granted class action certification, a decision which opened the door for approximately 1,000 claimants to join the suit. THE LEGAL ARGUMENTS The claimants contend that the FAA's 2014 hiring modifications were intentionally designed to favour African-American applicants at the expense of qualified non-minority candidates, particularly those from the AT-CTI programme, and that the introduction of the BQ and the concurrent elimination of the AT-CTI hiring preference were motivated by racial considerations, resulting in disparate treatment based on race. The complaint quotes the Civil Rights Act 1964, which provides that it is unlawful "to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual [. . .] with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race. color, religion, sex, or national origin". The claim also cites Adarand Constructors Inc v Peña [1995], a landmark Supreme Court ruling, which held that a government-imposed race-based preference can only be justified in the narrow circumstances of compelling state interest. In a statement published prior to the Potomac crash on the website of the Mountain States Legal Foundation (MSLF), the Colorado firm representing the claimants alongside Arizona's Curry, Pearson & Wooten, MSLG general counsel Zhonette Brown wrote: "Air traffic controllers play a critical role in safe air travel. By introducing questions of ethnicity and cultural background, the FAA was playing politics with public safety." No date has yet been set for the case to be heard -- and a defence has yet to be filed -- but, set against the backdrop of the US administration's ambivalence over diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, a victory for the claimants will not only add more fuel to the already raging anti-DEI fire, it could open the floodgates to an onslaught of claims against federal agencies. [GN] VANGUARD GROUP: Faces Class Suit Over $100 Account Closure Fee -------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges The Vanguard Group unfairly charges customers with less than $5 million in assets a $100 processing fee to close their brokerage account and transfer their funds to another investment firm. The 24-page case says that Vanguard's transfer-out fee, which the defendant began imposing on brokerage accountholders in July 2024 along with a host of other new charges, is supposedly tied to the cost of processing account closures. In reality, there is very little "processing" costs associated with closing an account, the complaint claims. According to the lawsuit, the expense is no more than a profit generator designed to penalize average consumers who wish to take their business elsewhere. The suit claims the $100 exit charge -- formally dubbed by Vanguard as an "account closure and full transfer out fee" -- is an illegal "junk fee." The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau describes junk fees as unavoidable, unexpected and excessive charges that have little or no added value to the consumer, the filing relays. Indeed, the case notes that "because the fee is new, consumers had no way to anticipate the fee at the time they opened their account at Vanguard and had no way to avoid the fee once it had been added." "This is a classic 'unfair' business practice," the suit contends, claiming that Vanguard initially "lured" customers into brokerage contracts with the promises of minimal fees. Per the filing, Vanguard has historically marketed itself as a leader in low-cost investing, attracting low-to-middle-class consumers seeking an affordable opportunity to build wealth. The complaint argues that the defendant has recently walked back on its stated mission through the imposition of "anti-consumer" fees that disproportionately impact ordinary accountholders while expressly exempting multimillionaires. The lawsuit looks to represent any Vanguard brokerage accountholders who, during the applicable statute of limitations period, paid an account closure and full transfer out fee to the investment firm. [GN] WALGREENS BOOTS: Klein Sues Over Drop in Share Price ---------------------------------------------------- STEVE KLEIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC.; STEFANO PESSINA; ROSALIND G. BREWER; GINGER GRAHAM; TIMOTHY C. WENTWORTH; JAMES KEHOE; and MANMOHAN MAHAJAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01058 (D. Ill., Jan. 30, 2025) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Walgreens common stock between April 2, 2020 and January 16, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and failed to disclose that: (i) contrary to the Company's purported commitment to improved regulatory compliance, Walgreens continued to engage in widespread violations of federal law governing the dispensation of prescription medication and reimbursement for the same; (ii) the foregoing conduct, when revealed, would subject Walgreens to a heightened risk of further regulatory scrutiny, civil liability, and reputational harm; (iii) Walgreens' revenues from the sale of prescription medications were unsustainable to the extent that they derived from unlawful conduct; and (iv) as a result, the Company's public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. Walgreens' stock price fell $1.56 per share, or 12.06 percent, over the following two trading sessions, to close at $11.37 per share on January 21, 2025. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common stock, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc., operates retail drugstores. The Company offers a wide variety of prescription and non-prescription drugs, as well as primary and acute care, wellness, pharmacy, and disease management services, and health and fitness. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com - and - Joshua B. Silverman, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 10 S La Salle Street, Suite 3505 Chicago, IL 60603-1049 Telephone: (312) 881-4859 Facsimile: (312) 377-1184 Email: jbsilverman@pomlaw.com WALMART INC: Faces Class Suit Over Mac and Cheese False Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- Jessy Edwards of Top Class Actions reports that consumers Kaitlyn Taylor and Justin Alicea are suing Walmart Inc. Why: The plaintiffs claim that Walmart falsely advertises its Great Value Macaroni & Cheese Original Microwavable Cup product as being free of artificial flavors and preservatives. Where: The Great Value instant macaroni and cheese lawsuit was filed in California federal court. A new class action lawsuit claims Walmart falsely advertises its Great Value Macaroni & Cheese Original Microwavable Cup product as being free of artificial flavors and preservatives. Plaintiffs Kaitlyn Taylor and Justin Alicea filed the class action complaint against Walmart Inc. on Jan. 23 in a California federal court, alleging violations of state and federal consumer laws. The lawsuit alleges that the product actually contains citric acid, an artificial preservative and flavoring agent. Taylor and Alicea claim that Walmart's packaging and advertising are designed to mislead consumers into believing they are purchasing a premium product free from artificial ingredients. Walmart's mac and cheese is made with citric acid, lawsuit says The Great Value instant macaroni and cheese lawsuit claims that citric acid, a common food additive, is artificially manufactured using a type of black mold and chemical solvents. This process, the lawsuit alleges, makes citric acid an artificial ingredient, contrary to Walmart's claims on the product's packaging. The consumers say that they were deceived by Walmart's labeling and would not have purchased the product, or would have paid less for it, had they known it contained artificial ingredients. "Plaintiffs saw and relied on the 'No artificial flavors' and 'No artificial preservatives' claims on the front label of the Product," the Great Value instant macaroni and cheese class action says. "Plaintiffs would not have purchased the Product, or would have paid less for the Product, had they known that the Product contains an artificial flavoring and preserving ingredient in direct contradiction to the 'No artificial flavors' and 'No artificial preservatives' statements on the Product's front label." The lawsuit seeks to represent a nationwide class of consumers who purchased the product. The plaintiffs are suing for violations of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law, as well as breach of express warranty. They are seeking compensatory and statutory damages, disgorgement and restitution, punitive damages and attorneys' fees and costs. Just last year, an Illinois federal judge declined to throw out a class action lawsuit filed against The Kraft Heinz Co. and Kraft Heinz Ingredients Corp. over claims the company falsely marketed a variety of macaroni and cheese products as free of artificial flavors, preservatives and dyes. What do you think of the allegations in this Walmart class action lawsuit? Let us know in the comments. The plaintiffs are represented by Lilach H. Klein, Michael T. Houchin and Zachary M. Crosner of Crosner Legal PC. The Walmart class action lawsuit is Kaitlyn Taylor, et al. v. Walmart Inc., Case No. 5:25-cv-00186, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. [GN] WALT DISNEY: Torres Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Charlie Torres, an individual, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated and on behalf of the General Public as Private Attorneys General v. WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS US, INC., A Florida Corporation; DISNEY WORLDWIDE SERVICES INC., a Florida Corporation; and DOES 1 through 250, Case No. 30-2024-01384390-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 27, 2025, and assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-00148. The original Complaint pled the following seven purported causes of action against Defendants for: Failure to Pay Required Double Minimum Wages in Violation of California Labor Code and Wage Order No. 4-2001 Section 9(B); Failure to Provide Rest Periods Or Compensation In-Lieu in Violation of California Labor Code; Failure to Pay Required Overtime Wages in Violation of California Labor Code; Penalties for Violations of California Labor Code for Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements; Failure to Pay Timely Earned Wages During Employment and Upon Separation of Employment in Violation of California Labor Code; Violation of the Unfair Business Practices Act, California Business and Professions Code ("UCL"); and Violation of the Private Attorney General Act, California Labor Code ("PAGA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Elena R. Baca, Esq. Blake R. Bertagna, Esq. Caitlin H. Falk, Esq. PAUL HASTINGS LLP 1920 Main Street, Suite 400 Irvine, CA 92614 Phone: (714) 668-6200 Facsimile: (714) 979-1921 Email: elenabaca@paulhastings.com blakebertagna@paulhastings.com caitlinfalk@paulhastings.com WAVE ASIAN: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Bawgus Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- ALEXIS BAWGUS, on her own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WAVE ASIAN BISTRO, LLC., a Florida Limited Liability Company and JONATHAN MCKINNEY, Individually, Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-00052 (M.D. Fla., January 24, 2025), alleges that Defendants have violated the overtime provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants employed Plaintiff as a cook from approximately February 10, 2019, through May 26, 2023. Unfortunately, Defendants have a policy of misclassifying their employees as exempt from overtime. Accordingly, the Defendants never paid Plaintiff and their other employees the proper overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek, says the suit. Wave Asian Bistro, LLC owns and operates a restaurant in Mount Dora, FL. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noah E. Storch, Esq. RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A. 7951 SW 6th Street, Suite 316 Plantation, FL 33324 Telephone: (866) 344-9243 Facsimile: (954) 337-2771 E-mail: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com WELLNESS GROUP: Alsip Alleges Unlawful Sale of Cannabis Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHAD ALSIP, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. WELLNESS GROUP PHARMS LLC d/b/a AERIZ, WGP HOLDINGS, LLC, WGP MANAGEMENT, LLC, AERIZ, LLC, AERIZ MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00833 (N.D. Ill., January 24, 2025) arises from Defendants' unlawful manufacturing, marketing, and sale of potent "cannabis-infused products" with excessively high tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) content. The THC content of Defendants' CIP is well above the applicable legal limits imposed under Illinois law for consumers’ health and safety. However, the Defendants masquerade their CIPs as legal for purchase and consumption in Illinois. Moreover, by deceiving regulators and consumers about the legality and of their products, the Defendants were able to take away market share from competing products and increase their own sales and profits, all while subjecting consumers to real risks to their health and safety. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress of Defendants' unlawful conduct and asserts claims for fraudulent concealment, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and unjust enrichment. Wellness Group Pharms, LLC operates as an aeroponic medical cannabis cultivator in Anna, Union County, Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laura Luisi, Esq. Jamie Holz, Esq. LUISI HOLZ LAW 161 N. Clark St., Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 639-4478 E-mail: LuisiL@luisiholzlaw.com HolzJ@luisiholzlaw.com WELLSPAN HEALTH: Class Cert Bid Filing in Tomassone Due August 15 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALBERT DANIEL TOMASSONE, et al., v. WELLSPAN HEALTH, Case No. 5:24-cv-05460-JLS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey L. Schmehl entered an order that: 1. All certification-related discovery will be completed no later than June 13, 2025; 2. The Plaintiffs' expert report(s) are due Aug. 15, 2025; 3. The Plaintiffs shall file a motion for class certification pursuant to Rule 23(b)(3) by Aug. 15, 2025; 4. The Defendant's expert report(s) are due Oct. 14, 2025; 5. The Defendant shall file its response to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification by Oct. 14, 2025; 6. The Plaintiffs' reply expert report(s), if any, are due Nov. 14, 2025; 7. The Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion for class certification, if any, shall be filed by Nov. 14, 2025; 8. A hearing on the motion for class certification will be set by further order of the Court; and 9. A telephone status conference shall be held on May 6, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. The parties shall dial into the call at 1-855- 244-8681 and use access code 2313 201 7627. WellSpan is an American integrated health system located in South-Central Pennsylvania and parts of northern Maryland. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LJxZbH at no extra charge.[CC] WERNER ENTERPRISES: Abarca Compelled to Respond to Interrogatories ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as EZEQUIEL OLIVARES ABARCA, et al, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated; and WILLIAM SMITH, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the general public, and BRIAN VESTER, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WERNER ENTERPRISES, INC., et al., Case No. 8:17-cv-00145-JFB-MDN (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Michael Nelson entered an order that: 1. Defendants' motion to compel response to Second Set of Merits-Phase Interrogatories is granted. 2. Plaintiffs' motion to compel responses to interrogatories and requests for production (Filing No. 453 in the Lead Case, et al.) is granted, in part, and denied in part. 3. The parties shall serve their supplemental answers to interrogatories and supplemental discovery within 30-days of this Order. 4. Per the Court's Text Order (Filing No. 535), counsel shall contact the chambers of the undersigned magistrate judge within 7-days to schedule a status conference. After review, the Court finds Defendants' Interrogatory Nos. 10-12 are not facially overbroad, vague, or otherwise improper, and the Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to show their objections to the Defendants' interrogatories are valid. Accordingly, the Court will grant the Defendants' motion and require the Plaintiffs to fully and completely answer Defendants' merits phase Interrogatory Nos. 1-12. Accordingly, the Court finds Defendants must produce data regarding class members' job history, including hiring and termination dates, California class members’ states of residence throughout the class period, and fields necessary to connect the data to drivers, such as unique employee ID, assigned tractor number, or social security number. (Filing No. 482 at pp. 4-5). However, because Plaintiffs have not explained the relevance of any other data fields contained within the driver information screen, the Court will not order Defendants to produce data outside this scope. The Court agrees with Defendants and will sustain their objections to Interrogatory Nos. 32-33. These interrogatories, as written, are plainly overbroad. These interrogatories are not limited to class members, and Plaintiffs have not adequately demonstrated or otherwise explained how the total number of incidents and dollar value of Werner’s cargo theft over a 13-year period is relevant to any claim or defense, or proportional to the needs of this case. Accordingly, the Court will not order Defendants to answer these interrogatories. On May 21, 2015, Defendants served Plaintiffs with their First Set of Interrogatories, consisting of six numbered interrogatories. On December 22, 2020, Defendants served their "First Set of Merits-Phase Interrogatories" consisting of nine numbered identical interrogatories upon each of the named plaintiffs. On April 3, 2024, Defendants served each named plaintiff with an additional three numbered interrogatories. Werner is a premier transportation and logistics company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xeibOM at no extra charge.[CC] WILINE NETWORKS: Bid for Class Cert. Due Oct. 24 ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as W.A. Call Mfg. Co., Inc. et al., v. WiLine Networks Inc., Case No. 4:24-cv-07141-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered a case management and pretrial scheduling order as follows: Filing of Proposed Protective Order: Feb. 19, 2025 Joint Statement on Agreed Upon Private Feb. 21, 2025 Mediator: Last Day to Join Parties or Amend Pleadings: March 31, 2025 Motion for Class Certification: Opening: Oct. 24, 2025 Opposition: Dec. 5, 2025 Reply: Jan. 16, 2026 Hearing on Motion for Class Certification: Feb. 10, 2026 Non-Expert Discovery Cutoff: March 2, 2026 Expert Discovery Cutoff: May 8, 2026 Dispositive Motions/Daubert Motions May 22, 2026 to be Filed/Heard By: Wiline operates as a telecom service provider. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VUtkKS at no extra charge.[CC] WOLFORD AMERICA: Removes Atsatt Suit to C.D. Calif. --------------------------------------------------- The Defendant in the case of RICHARD ATSATT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WOLFORD AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, Defendants, filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles (Case No. 24STCV30373) to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 29, 2025. The clerk of court for the Central District of California assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00794. The case is assigned to Cynthia Valenzuela and referred to Magistrate Stephanie S Christensen. Wolford America, Inc. operates as a clothing store. The Company provides clothing, leggings, bodysuits, swimwear, lingerie, outlet, and accessories. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: P. Craig Cardon, Esq. Bridget Russell, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90067-6017 Telephone: (310) 228-3700 Facsimile: (310) 228-3701 Email: ccardon@sheppardmullin.com brussell@sheppardmullin.com - and - Dane C. Brody Chanove, Esq. 12275 El Camino Real, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92130-4092 Telephone: (858) 720-8900 Facsimile: (858) 509-3691 Email: dbrodychanove@sheppardmullin.com XACTUS LLC: Bid for Class Cert in Cinner Suit Due June 13 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as YAAKOV CINNER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. XACTUS, LLC and CREDIT PLUS, LLC, individually and as successor in interest to CREDIT PLUS, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-04531-JMY (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge John Milton Younge entered an order granting the parties' joint motion to amend scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline Plaintiff's motion for class certification: June 13, 2025 Defendants' opposition to motion for class July 11, 2025 Certification: Plaintiff's reply in support of motion for Aug. 1, 2025 class certification: Close of fact discovery: Aug. 29, 2025 Expert Deadlines Expert Report(s): Aug. 29, 2025 Rebuttal Report(s): Sept. 29, 2025 Expert Depositions: Oct. 24, 2025 The Court will set a status conference after its decision on Plaintiff's eventual motion for class certification to set the remaining case deadlines, including summary judgment, Daubert motions, the Final Pretrial Conference, and associated deadlines. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=P7uolD at no extra charge.[CC] YODLEE INC: Plaintiffs Seek to Modify Sept. 25, 2024 Order ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARIUS CLARK, JOHN H. COTTRELL, DAVID LUMB, KYLA ROLLIER, AND JENNY SZETO., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. YODLEE, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:20-cv-05991-SK (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on Mar. 10, 2025, will move pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1)(C) to modify the Court's Sept. 25, 2024 Order denying motion for class certification based on its subsequent Order on Yodlee's motion for summary judgement. The Plaintiffs' motion is based on this notice of motion and motion, the memorandum of points and authorities, the pleadings and papers on file in this action, and any other matter that the Court may properly consider. The Classes that the Plaintiffs seek to certify consist of: "individuals who linked financial accounts to Paypal using IAV between Jan. 1, 2014, and Aug. 24, 2020." Yodlee is a technology and applications platform for digital financial services in the cloud. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 28, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aldCwL at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Benjamin Steinberg, Esq. SHINDER CANTOR LERNER LLP 14 Penn Plaza, 19th Floor New York, NY 10122 Telephone: (646) 960-8601 Facsimile: (646) 960-8625 E-mail: benjamin@scl-llp.com - and - Christian Levis, Esq. Margaret MacLean, Esq. Amanda Fiorilla, Esq. Anthony M. Christina, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 E-mail: clevis@lowey.com mmaclean@lowey.com afiorilla@lowey.com achristina@lowey.com - and - John Emerson, Esq. EMERSON FIRM, PLLC 2500 Wilcrest Drive, Suite 300 Houston, TX 77042 Telephone: (800) 551-8649 Facsimile: (501) 286-4659 E-mail: jemerson@emersonfirm.com - and - Robert Kitchenoff, Esq. WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER LLC 150 Monument Road, Suite 107 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 Telephone: (215) 545-7200 E-mail: kitchenoff@wka-law.com - and - Michele Carino, Esq. GREENWICH LEGAL ASSOCIATES LLC 881 Lake Avenue Greenwich, CT 06831 Telephone: (203) 622-6001 E-mail: Mcarino@grwlegal.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***