/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250217.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, February 17, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 34 Headlines 26 CAPITAL HOLDINGS: Adar1 Capital Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Seek Denial of Masry Class Cert Bid ACCEPTANCE NOW: Status Conference in McBurnie Set for Feb. 27 ACREAGE HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action in Illinois Over Vapable Oil ALLSTATE FIRE: Dorazio Seeks to File Reply Under Provisional Seal ALLSTATE NORTHBROOK: Chavez Bid to Compel Depositions Tossed ALLY FINANCIAL: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Hamilton Claims ALORICA INC: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Sur-Reply by March 10 AMAZON INC: Judge Dismisses Prime Video Ad Tier Class Action Suit AMFLOW FILTRATION: Tracks Website Visitors, Esparza Suit Alleges AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL: Court Amends Scheduling Order in Schultz AXON ENTERPRISE: Court Narrows Claims in Howell Township Suit BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Distefano Suit Over Unauthorized Withdrawals BANK OF AMERICA: Lu Seeks to Certify Classes BETACOM HOLDINGS: Filing for Conditional Cert. Extended to March 28 BLUEGRASS HOSPITALITY: Peach Seeks Approval of FLSA Settlement BLUEGRASS NATURAL: Snodgrass Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages BOAR'S HEAD: Court Initially Certifies Settlement Class BOEING COMPANY: Dosenbach Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA, MMWL BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Court Denies Meal Breaks Class Action BROOKLYN GRANITE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA CABINETWORKS MICHIGAN: Determination of Conditional Status Stayed CAPITAL ONE: Moran Sues Over Conversion of Content Creators' Pay CHINA SUMMIT: Court Narrows Claims in Yam Suit COLOURPOP COSMETICS: Faces Class Suit Over Marketing Tactics CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Bid to Dismiss Phoenix Complaint Tossed DAVA MARKETING: Cook Bid to Amend Complaint Partly OK'd DAVITA INC: Lightner Seeks Conditional Cert. of Collective Action DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid E & S INTERNATIONAL: General Pretrial Management Entered ESSEX TECHNOLOGY: Boshers Sues Over Layoff Without Proper Notice ESTEE LAUDER: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in S.D.N.Y. FIRST SOURCE: Class Cert. Filing in Sardo Extended to Oct. 24 FORD MOTOR: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Miller Due Feb. 27, 2026 FRANKLIN COUNTY, OH: Plaintiff Must File Class Cert Bid by March 7 FRANKLIN COUNTY, OH: Time Extension to File Class Cert Bid Sought FRED MEYER: Settlement in Woody Suit Gets Initial Approval GOLDEN CORRAL: Settlement in Data Breach Suit Gets Initial Nod GOOGLE LLC: Seeks to Seal Opposition to Renewed Class Cert Bid GRAVY ANALYTICS: Hansen Sues Over Failure to Secure Clients' Info GREYLOCK MCKINNON: Class Settlement in Isaac Gets Initial Nod GRIMMWAY ENTEPRISES: Seeks Denial of Class Cert Bid GSK PLC: Artificially Inflated Prices of ADRs, Roofers Suit Claims GSK PLC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Securities Fraud GUARD-SYSTEMS INC: Underpays Security Officers, Castillo Alleges GUARDIAN CREDIT: Discloses Personal Info to Google, Gassman Says HATS UNLIMITED: Wilson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store HESS BAKKEN: Filing for Class Cert. Bids in Penman Due June 17 HSBC INVESTMENT: Court Certifies Class Action Closet Indexing HYUNDAI MOTOR: Hageman Must File Class Cert Bid by May 2 IMPERIAL SUPPLIES: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Wilson Claims INTRASYSTEMS LLC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Snyder Says IVY LEAGUE: Faces Estabrook Class Suit Over Sex Discrimination JARRO CONTRACTING: Underpays Construction Workers, Minchala Says JOHN ASHCROFT: Filing for Final OK of Settlement Due March 19 JRCIGARS.COM INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cole Alleges JUNIATA COLLEGE: Ortiz Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website JUST AS FAMILY: Hall Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for House Managers K-SWISS INC: Walker Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind KELLERMEYER BERGENSONS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Da Cruz Says KOHLS INC: Menard Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Wisconsin LA DURA FOOD: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ventura Alleges LAUNDRESS LLC: Fact Discovery in Macs Due July 11 LAUNDRESS LLC: Fact Discovery in Product Liability Suit Due July 11 LAYLO INC: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines LENDING LOVE: Class Cert. Filing in Foster Extended to March 10 LENDINGTREE LLC: Seeks to Stay Sapan's Class Certification Bid LICENSED BEHAVIORAL: Efroymson Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA & NYLL LIGHT & WONDER: Seeks to Vacate Class Determination Award in Mohawk LOYAL SOURCE GOVERNMENT: Baxter Suit Removed to C.D. California MARIGOLD MINING: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT Under FLSA MASHABLE INC: Fregosa Suit Removed to N.D. California MCDONALD'S RESTAURANTS: Settles Labor Violations Class Action Suit MCLANE FOODSERVICE: Esparza Suit Removed to C.D. California MICROSOFT CORP: Storm Productions Files Suit in W.D. Washington MIGHTY QUINN'S: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Suit Says MONOLITHIC POWER: Waterford Sues Over Drop in Share Price MONSANTO COMPANY: Schweikert Suit Transferred to N.D. California MUELLER WATER: Continues to Defend Kok Class Suit in Georgia MUGINOHO INTERNATIONAL: Isakov Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website NAGOMI ENTERPRISE: Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind NEBRASKA BOOK: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Degroot Due March 24 NEUMORA THERAPEUTICS: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit NORTHBAY HEALTH: Faces Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit NURTURE INC: Must File Daubert Motions Reply Brief by March 17 NUVIA MSO LLC: Taylor Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia OLD NELSON FOOD: Gomberg Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Properties OMNI FAMILY HEALTH: Cubit Suit Removed to E.D. California ONEBLOOD INC: Stallworth Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info OPORTUN INC: Williams Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages OREGON COMMUNITY: Bid for Class Cert. in Arthur Suit Due Sept. 19 OSAIC WEALTH: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Cash Sweep Practices OXY USA: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Reply PESCIENCE LLC: Melara Sues Over Select Vegan Plant Protein Labels PLURALSIGHT LLC: Settles Securities Class Action Suit for $20M POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Faces Hisserich Class Suit Over Data Breach POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Stringer Says PUMP.FUN: Burwick Law Demands Removal of Memecoin DOGSHIT2 QUALCOMM INC: Continues to Defend Consumer Class Suit in California QUALCOMM INC: Continues to Defend Consumer Class Suit in Canada QUOTEWIZARD.COM LLC: Faces Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit RALPH LAUREN: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Salazar Due Sept. 3 RED CAT: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: RICO Class Suit Transferred to Mass. REGIONAL OBSTETRICAL: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Suit Says REILY FOODS: Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind RICHARD HEETER: Bonds Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action ROSS METALS: Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind RWZ RESTAURANTS: Zarceno Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. RYDETRANS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Johnson Alleges S E PIPE LINE: Faces Moreno Wage-and-Hour Suit in California SCOTT LEE: California Coalition Sues Over Sexual Abuse SD BULLION: Anderson Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages SHAMBAUGH & SON: Lee Suit Removed to C.D. California SHERWIN−WILLIAMS CO: Fact Discovery in Lopez Due August 7 SIEMENS INDUSTRY: Kraebel Suit Removed to C.D. California SIG SAUER: Must Respond to Glasscock Class Cert Bid SIMILASAN CORP: Judge Recommends Initial Approval of Settlement SINGULAR GENOMICS: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Deerfield SLEEP RESET: Sends Unsolicited Marketing Faxes, Prairie Alleges SO ICY: Faces Picon Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Liable to Eaton Fire in Calif., Roche Says SUNRISE CREDIT: Illegally Records Phone Conversation, Suit Says TAKARA SAKE: Tunick Seeks to Seal Portions of Class Cert Reply TAKEDA PHARMA: Seeks Leave to File Premera Opposition Under Seal TESLA INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Securities Suit TESLA INC: Faces Consolidated Suit Over Driver Technology TOKIO MARINE: Console Investigates Data Breach Class Action Suit TRUELI LLC: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Young Says UNILEVER UNITED STATES: Fact Discovery in Jenkins Due July 11 UNILEVER UNITED STATES: Fact Discovery in Murphy Due July 11 UNILEVER UNITED STATES: Fact Discovery in Sites Due July 11 UNISYS CORP: Faces Johnson Wage-and-Hour Suit in Pennsylvania UNITED AIRLINES: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Class Cert. Bid UNITED STATES: Faces Class Suit Over Unfair Review of FBI Personnel US CUSTOMS: Mora Seeks Reconsideration of Claim Dismissal VISION SERVICE: Aids Meta to Gather Users' Data, Kearney Suit Says WICKED TACO: Bid for Conditional Status of Action Partly OK'd WNU LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mendoza Suit Alleges WW INTERNATIONAL: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Suit Says [] Chimicles Investigates Shipping Carriers Import Excess Fees [] CV Manufacturers Face GBP2BB Cartel Class Action From Hauliers ********* 26 CAPITAL HOLDINGS: Adar1 Capital Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against 26 Capital Holdings LLC, et al. The case is styled as Adar1 Capital Management LLC, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 26 Capital Holdings LLC, Jason Ader, Gregory S. Lyss, J. Randall Waterfield, John K. Lewis, Joseph Kaminkow, Rafael Ashkenazi, Case No. 2025-0122-JTL (Del. Chancery Ct., Feb. 3, 2025). The case type is stated as "Breach of Fiduciary Duties." 26 Capital Acquisition Corp. is a Nasdaq-listed blank check company formed for the purpose of creating stockholder value.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William M. Alleman, Esq. MELUNEY ALLEMAN & SPENCE LLC 1143 Savannah Rd Ste 3-A Lewes, DE 19958 Phone: (302) 551-6735 Email: bill.alleman@maslawde.com ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Seek Denial of Masry Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as OMAR MASRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, Case No. 5:23-cv-04348-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant, on March 13, 2025, will move the Court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(d)(1)(D) for an order: -- Denying class certification and "requiring that the pleadings be amended to eliminate allegations about representation of absent persons." The Amended Complaint alleges violations of California statutory and common law on behalf of putative nationwide and statewide classes of consumers. However, at his deposition, the sole remaining Plaintiff, Omar Masry, gave testimony definitively showing that he cannot satisfy Rule 23(a)'s class-certification requirements of typicality and adequate representation. The putative class action concerns Abbott's Glucerna® shakes. Glucerna shakes are nutritious meal or snack replacements meant to help diabetics, who have unique dietary concerns. The shakes' labeling expressly identifies them as "designed for diabetics." The Amended Complaint accuses Abbott of misleading consumers about Glucerna. In particular, it attacks three "Challenged Claims" on Glucerna's label, plus unspecified non-label advertising. It does not dispute that consuming Glucerna elevates blood sugar levels less than consuming high-glycemic carbohydrates. However, it alleges that several of Glucerna's ingredients (chiefly, sucralose) may cause health issues in some people in the long term. Abbott sells a line of "diabetic nutritional drinks and powders" under the brand Glucerna. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ucYrAY at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Matthew D. Powers, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 984-8700 E-mail: mpowers@omm.com - and - William F. Cavanaugh, Jr., Esq. Jonah M. Knobler, Esq. PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP 1133 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 336-2000 E-mail: wfcavanaugh@pbwt.com jknobler@pbwt.com ACCEPTANCE NOW: Status Conference in McBurnie Set for Feb. 27 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as McBurnie, et al., v. Acceptance Now, LLC, Case No. 3:21-cv-01429 (N.D. Cal., Filed Feb. 26, 2021), the Hon. Judge James Donato entered an order setting status conference for Feb. 27, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., with a joint status conference statement to be filed by Feb. 21, 2025. Among other items, the joint statement must address: 1. The status of the class certification briefing which was completed in January 2023, prior to the appellate proceedings and attendant stays of this case. 2. Any discovery disputes the parties would like the Court to resolve. 3. A proposed case schedule for the remainder of the case. All pre-trial and trial dates are vacated pending further order, and the parties' stipulation. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Personal Property Damage. Acceptance offers retail, financial services.[CC] ACREAGE HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action in Illinois Over Vapable Oil ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that two proposed class action lawsuits accuse several cannabis companies of marketing cannabis-infused products that exceed the legal limits of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in Illinois. The class action lawsuits were respectively filed against Acreage Holdings -- the company behind cannabis brands Botanist and Superflux -- and Wellness Group Pharms, which sells products under proprietary brands such as Aeriz, UpNorth, Fig Farms, Daze Off and 93 Boyz, as well as third-party brand Stiiizy. The suits take issue with the companies' vaping products -- including cannabis oil vaporizer cartridges, disposable oil vaporizers and other types of vapable oils -- claiming the items contain THC at levels well above Illinois' 100-milligram limit per product. The cases allege the companies deceptively advertise their vapable oil products as smokable cannabis concentrates rather than cannabis-infused products in a bid to fool state regulators and consumers. The items are marketed as concentrates, extracts or vaping products with no mention or clarification that they are, in truth, cannabis-infused products, the complaints contend. The products are also packaged in amounts in which cannabis-infused products are prohibited from being sold, the filings claim. "All of this serves to deceive and confuse consumers into believing that the Vapable Oils are cannabis concentrates instead of [cannabis-infused products], and, further, that [the defendants'] Vapable Oils are lawfully compliant products," the lawsuits charge. The suits argue the items are misrepresented in an attempt to duck the per-package THC cap and personal possession limits for cannabis-infused products imposed by Illinois law. According to the complaints, cannabis concentrates (which can only be sold to consumers as smokeable products or after being incorporated into cannabis-infused products) are not subject to any per-package maximum under state law and have higher personal possession limits -- 5 grams for Illinois residents and 2.5 grams for out-of-state consumers. With respect to cannabis-infused products, state residents can cumulatively possess no more than 500 milligrams of THC contained in the products, while non-residents can possess no more than 250 milligrams in cannabis-infused products, the filings explain. "Under Illinois law, [cannabis-infused products] are not allowed to contain more than 100 milligrams of THC per package," the lawsuit against Wellness Group Pharms says. "Despite this, [the defendants'] Vapable Oils universally exceed this legal limit by three, five, and a staggering ten times by marketing and presenting their products as smokeable cannabis concentrate when, in fact, the Vapable Oils are [cannabis-infused products]." Per the suits, if the defendants complied with Illinois law, consumers would be limited to buying up to five 100-milligram cartridges at a time, or any combination of cannabis-infused products that contain a cumulative total of 500 milligrams of THC. However, as a result of the companies' allegedly illegal practices, customers can purchase 10 times that amount -- 5 grams -- as purported cannabis concentrate and still buy an additional 500 milligrams of cannabis-infused products, the cases contend. The defendants' deceptive conduct has violated state cannabis product packaging regulations and misled consumers into believing they were buying legally compliant items, the filings claim. In addition to the potential legal ramifications, the alleged misrepresentation exposes users to a risk of overconsumption, the complaints assert. "By selling their Vapable Oils with THC content well above the legally allowed limit, [the defendants] put their customers at risk of adverse physical effects like psychoactive effects, anxiety attacks, or overwhelming intoxication," the Acreage Holdings suit claims. The lawsuits look to represent anyone who, within the applicable statute of limitations period, purchased in Illinois any vapable oils manufactured, processed, labeled and/or packaged by the defendants. [GN] ALLSTATE FIRE: Dorazio Seeks to File Reply Under Provisional Seal ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brian Dorazio, on behalf of his minor daughter, A.D., v. Allstate Fire and Casualty Insurance Company, Case No. 2:23-cv-00017-KML (D. Ariz.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his motion to file under provisional seal the Plaintiff's reply in support of the corrected motion for class certification and all supporting documents so that the Defendant can put forth its position on sealing. The Plaintiff intends to attach to the Reply material the Defendant has designated confidential pursuant to the governing Protective Order. To avoid having to preview Plaintiff's Reply Brief and work product, and to allow Defendant additional time to review the transcripts for designation, the parties propose allowing Plaintiff to file the Reply Brief provisionally under seal in its entirety. The parties further propose allowing the Defendant until Feb. 7, 2025 to review the documents and inform the Court which portions of the Reply Brief and accompanying documents require sealing. This proposal will avoid Plaintiff having to guess, and consequently over-designate, which materials Allstate wishes to be submitted under seal. Additionally, it avoids any risk of Plaintiff publicly filing materials Allstate deems confidential and the process of lodging materials under seal is supported by Local Civil Rule 5.6. The parties agree this proposal will promote judicial economy and will best strike the balance between Allstate's confidentiality concerns and the presumptive right of access to judicial records. On Jan. 30, 2025, the parties conferred regarding Plaintiff’s proposal for sealing materials. Included in the materials that reference confidential information are Plaintiff’s Motion, the Rebuttal Report of Dr. Kaufman, the Declaration of Justin Henry, and two depositions of Allstate employees, Greg Hamblin and Kyle Becker, which are attached to the Declaration of John M. DeStefano in Support of Plaintiff’s Reply. The Allstate employee depositions were taken on January 21 (Hamblin) and January 22 (Becker), meaning that the parties are required to treat the entire deposition as though it were designated confidential until February 20 and 21 respectively Allstate offers auto, home, renters, condo, motorcycle, life, and roadside insurance services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=chjcot at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert B. Carey, Esq. John DeStefano, Esq. Tory Beardsley, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 11 West Jefferson Street, Suite 1000 Phoenix, AZ 85003 Telephone: (602) 840-5900 Facsimile: (602) 840-3012 E-mail: rob@hbsslaw.com johnd@hbsslaw.com toryb@hbsslaw.com - and - Brett L. Slavicek, Esq. James Fucetola, Esq. Justin Henry, Esq. THE SLAVICEK LAW FIRM 5500 North 24th Street Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 285-4435 Facsimile: (602) 287-9184 E-mail: brett@slaviceklaw.com james@slaviceklaw.com justin@slaviceklaw.com ALLSTATE NORTHBROOK: Chavez Bid to Compel Depositions Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MINERVA CHAVEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ALLSTATE NORTHBROOK INDEMNITY COMPANY, Case No. 3:22-cv-00166-AJB-MMP (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Michelle Pettit entered an order denying Plaintiff's motion to compel depositions. In sum, the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff's motion to compel the Rule 45 deposition subpoena to Mr. Zimmerman, as the motion is not properly filed in the Southern District of California. Because the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate she noticed Ms. Colman for deposition notice under Rule 30(b)(1) or issued a Rule 45 subpoena, the Plaintiff has provided insufficient information for the Court to compel Ms. Colman's deposition attendance as either a party or a nonparty. The lass action alleges the Defendant breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by charging excessive auto insurance premiums between March 1, 2020 and June 11, 2021 during the COVID-19 pandemic. Allstate Northbrook provides marine, fire, marine, business, credit, and casualty insurance products and services. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1R1ign at no extra charge.[CC] ALLY FINANCIAL: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Hamilton Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT HAMILTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALLY FINANCIAL INC., ALLY BANK, and FINANCIAL BUSINESS AND CONSUMER SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00629 (E.D. Pa., February 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence and negligence per se, breach of express contract, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within Financial Business and Consumer Solutions' network system following a data breach between February 14 and February 26, 2024. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Ally Financial Inc. is a bank holding company, with its headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. Ally Bank is a subsidiary of Ally Financial based in Sandy, Utah. Financial Business and Consumer Solutions, Inc. is a nationally licensed and bonded collection agency, with its headquarters in Hatboro, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 Email: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Terence R. Coates, Esq. Jonathan T. Deters, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 East Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com jdeters@msdlegal.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 283-3814 Email: gklinger@milberg.com ALORICA INC: Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Sur-Reply by March 10 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON MUNOZ and MELISSA OLEN, individually and as representative of a class of participants and beneficiaries and on behalf of the ALORICA 401(K) RETIREMENT PLAN, v. ALORICA INC.; ALORICA RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN COMMITTEE; LISA ADAMSCHICK; JOYCE TODD-GUERRA; CHRIS HYUN; ELIZABETH LAN PAN; EMILY KILGORE; RICK HAYES; DEON STENNER; MATTHEW VONDETTE; DAN FINNEGAN; JAE CHANEY; MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY, LLC; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 8:22-cv-01856-JWH-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Defendants will move the Court on Feb. 28, 2025, pursuant to Local Rule 7-10 for leave to file on or before March 10, 2025, a sur-reply to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Alorica is a global leader in customer experience solutions. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Jan. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uEvFiT at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Michael J. Prame, Esq. Andrew D. Salek-Raham, Esq. M. Caroline Wood, Esq. GROOM LAW GROUP, CHARTERED 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 1200 Washington, DC 20006-5811 Telephone: (202) 857-0620 E-mail: mjp@groom.com ASalek-Raham@groom.com CWood@groom.com - and - Kenneth D. Sulzer, Esq. CONSTANGY, BROOKS, SMITH & PROPHETE, LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 909-7775 E-mail: ksulzer@constangy.com AMAZON INC: Judge Dismisses Prime Video Ad Tier Class Action Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Winston Cho, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that a lawsuit accusing Amazon of misleading Prime subscribers by charging them an additional fee to stream movies and TV shows without ads has been dismissed. U.S. District Judge Barbara Rothstein on Friday, February 8, found that the e-commerce giant previously disclosed that the bundle of Prime benefits is subject to change. She said that Amazon "never promised subscribers" that its service would remain ad-free. "In contrast, both the Prime Terms and the Video Terms repeatedly reserve to Amazon the right to modify, add, or remove benefits associated with memberships," Rothstein wrote. Amazon last year pivoted to making its ad tier the default for its over 100 million subscribers, which instantly turned the service into a streaming-ad juggernaut and the largest ad-supported subscription streamer. Users were required to pay an additional $2.99 per month to watch without ads. The move sparked a proposed class action from users who had signed up for annual subscriptions. They claimed breach of contract and violations of state consumer protection laws over the alleged "bait and switch." In February 7's order, the court pointed to the company's terms, which state that Amazon "may choose in its sole discretion to add or remove Prime membership benefits" and that it "reserves the right" to discontinue parts of the service "at any time and without notice." Lawyers for the subscribers stressed that Amazon's move to make the ad-tier the default effectively constituted an increase in price outside the scope of the company's terms. The court disagreed, finding that subscribers purchased access to Prime rather than an ad-free version of the service. "It is true that Amazon's introduction of commercials to its streaming service, for those Prime members who chose to pay more to keep their streaming ad-free, ultimately had an effect on those subscribers' wallets tantamount to a ‘price increase,'" the order stated. "The Court, however, is compelled to maintain the distinction between a benefit removal and a price increase." That distinction, Rothstein found, is repeatedly reinforced in Amazon's terms, which allow benefit modifications and removals. She stressed, "the introduction of commercials to Prime Video alone did not result in any out-of-pocket price increase whatsoever. The subscription fee for subscribers who took no action did not change at all." The only subscribers who experienced any price increase were those who voluntarily chose to incur one by opting in to the additional charge to avoid ads, the court said. In the ruling, the court gave an opportunity for the subscribers' lawyers to fix their claims in the lawsuit. It comes after another federal judge last year dismissed a proposed class action accusing Amazon of misleading consumers about the benefits of Prime by making them pay an allegedly hidden $9.95 delivery fee for some purchases from Whole Foods. Those subscribers also claimed to have relied on advertisements for "free" delivery. [GN] AMFLOW FILTRATION: Tracks Website Visitors, Esparza Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- MIGUEL ESPARZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMFLOW FILTRATION GROUP, INC., California corporation, d/b/a WWW.IFILTERS.COM, Case No. 25CU006151C (Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., Feb. 4, 2025) alleges that the Defendant's Website operates as a digital "trojan horse" to help the Chinese government use TikTok to spy on visitors to the Website, track their journey across the web, eavesdrop on their conversations, and bombard them with targeted advertising. Accordingly, by sharing Plaintiff's and class members' personal and de-anonymized data with TikTok, the Defendant effectively "doxed" them to America's most formidable geopolitical adversary. The Plaintiff visited Defendant's Website during the statute of limitations period. The Defendant secretly de-anonymized Plaintiff using electronic impulses generated from Plaintiff's device and helped TikTok track and eavesdrop on Plaintiff's personal life. Defendant violated and continues to violate California's Trap and Trace Law, codified at California Penal Code section 638.51, says the suit. The Defendant operates the Website and has installed on the Website spyware created by TikTok -- known as a "tracking pixel" -- to identify and gather detailed information about website visitors (the "TikTok Software"). 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 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. According to a leading data security firm, the TikTok tracking pixel secretly installed on the Defendant's Website is particularly invasive. The pixel "immediately links to data harvesting platforms that pick off usernames and passwords, credit card and banking information and details about users' personal health." The pixel also collects "names, passwords and authentication codes" and "transfer the data to locations around the globe, including China and Russia", and does so "before users have a chance to accept cookies or otherwise grant consent." Amflow Filtration Group. Inc. sells water filtration products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. David W. Reid, Esq. 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 E-mail: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com dreid@pacifictrialattorneys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL: Court Amends Scheduling Order in Schultz ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER SCHULTZ, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. AVENUE5 RESIDENTIAL, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, Case No. 2:23-cv-00088-SAB (E.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Stanley Bastian entered an order granting stipulated motion to amend scheduling order: 1. The parties' stipulated motion to amend third amended putative class action scheduling order and continue class certification hearing date, is granted. 2. The Plaintiff shall file any reply to the motion for class certification on or before April 8, 2025. 3. The Court resets the hearing date for consideration of the motion to for class Certification, for April 30, 2025, without oral argument. Avenue5 Residential is a property management company serving several markets accross the USA. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wlXZ7k at no extra charge.[CC] AXON ENTERPRISE: Court Narrows Claims in Howell Township Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOWNSHIP OF HOWELL, MONMOUTH COUNTY, NEW JERSEY v. AXON ENTERPRISE, INC., et al. (RE AXON VIEVU ANTITRUST LITIGATION), Case No. 3:23-cv-07182-RK-RLS (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Robert Kirsch grants in part and denies in part Axon's motion to strike; grants in part and denies in part Defendants' motions to Dismiss; and denies the FTC's Motion for leave to file as Amicus Curiae. Accordingly, the Court strikes the class allegations to the extent that they are raised on behalf of state and federal entities. In sum, the Court reserves decision on potential issues related to the representation of local government entities and whether they implicate Rule 23's class action prerequisites until the class certification stage. The Court, therefore, denies Axon's Motion to Strike on these grounds. The Court finds that the FTC action and this case are substantially similar as to Plaintiffs' BWC System claims. Accordingly, the Court tolls, under Section 5(i), Counts I and II to the extent that they rely on the BWC Systems market and Counts III, IV, and V in their entirety and denies Defendants' Motions to dismiss as to the timeliness of these claims. The Court, therefore, denies Safariland's Motion to Dismiss Count III for failure to plead Safariland's specific intent to monopolize. The Plaintiffs Howell, August, and Baltimore pursue claims on behalf of themselves and, under "Rules 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure," on behalf of all persons or entities who have "directly purchased" the following products from Axon in the United States from May 3, 2018 until the effects of Defendants' unlawful conduct cease (the "Class Period"): (1) a BWC System or any component of a BWC System or related semces such as transcription, redaction, and warranties, and/or (2) a long-range CEW or components and related services such as electricity cartridges, battery packs, docks, cameras, signals, training, and warranties. The Plaintiffs are three local government entities that allegedly bought BWC Systems and/or CEWs from Axon after May 2018. They allege that Axon's acquisition of Vie Vu and the non-compete provisions related to it were "anticompetitive," resulting in reduced competition that allowed Axon to substantially increase prices in the BWC Systems and CEW markets and "suppressed output and innovation." Axon develops, manufactures, and sells conducted energy devices (CEDs). A copy of the Court's opinion dated Jan. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=otBve7 at no extra charge.[CC] BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Distefano Suit Over Unauthorized Withdrawals ------------------------------------------------------------------- ORIANA DISTEFANO, RAFFAELLA F. DISTEFANO, in their individual capacity, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BANK OF AMERICA, CORP. EARLY WARNING SERVICES, LLC DBA ZELLEPAY.COM, Case No. 1:25-cv-10272 (D. Mass., Feb. 4, 2025) relates to an individual and potential massive fraud committed by the Defendants who fraudulently and illegally made, caused, and/or allowed unauthorized withdrawals without proper identification in violation of the Electronic Funda Transfer Act and Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A. The action further relates to a secondary fraud committed by the Defendants whereby after monies from individual Plaintiff and proposed class members Bank of America bank accounts using Zelle as well as in-person withdrawals without proper identification; then made an intentional effort to discredit the Plaintiff's by failing to return the money to the Plaintiff and shift blame to the Plaintiff by stating that withdrawals were properly authorized. The Plaintiff brings this case as a class action on behalf of a putative class consisting of: "All Massachusetts residents who had unauthorized Zelle withdrawals from their Bank of America at any time account at any time from four years to the filing of this Complaint (plus any tolling) through trial." Early Warning is the owner and operator of Zelle Network (TM). Zelle is a financial services network which purportedly enables individuals to securely electronically transfer money from their BOA bank account to another registered user’s bank account (within the United States) using a mobile device or the website of a participating banking institution.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert J. LeGrow, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. LEGROW, ESQ 224 Essex St. Salem, MA 01970 BANK OF AMERICA: Lu Seeks to Certify Classes -------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEAN LU, GIOVANNA BOLANOS, and CLAUDE GRANT individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No. 3:23-cv-04027-JCS (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on April 23, 2025 at 9:30 am, will appear by Zoom videoconference before the Honorable Joseph C. Spero, and will move the Court, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, for an order certifying the following classes: 1. The Unpaid Overtime Class, defined as: "All current and former Bank of America employees who worked overtime any workweek while assigned to the PPP loan program and who during that workweek either (1) earned a PPP incentive; or (2) were classified as exempt while working in the state of California. 2. The Unpaid Wages Owed by Agreement Class, defined as: "All current and former Bank of America employees who worked overtime any workweek while assigned to the PPP loan program and who during that workweek earned a PPP incentive while working in the state of California." 3. The Waiting Time Penalties Class, defined as: "All persons separated from employment with Bank of America who worked overtime any workweek while assigned to work on the PPP loan program and who during that workweek either (1) earned a PPP incentive; or (2) were classified as exempt while working in the state of California. The Plaintiffs satisfy the elements of Rule 23(a) because there are thousands of members of the Class; there are common claims of fact and law among the Class; the Plaintiffs' claims are typical of those in the Class; and the Plaintiffs, as class representatives, and their counsel are adequate to represent the interests of the Class. The Plaintiffs also satisfy the elements of Rule 23(b)(3), in that common issues predominate over any individualized issues and because a class action is the superior procedural mechanism for resolving this dispute. The Plaintiffs further moves to designate Jean Lu, Giovanna Bolanos, and Claude Grant as class representatives and appoint George A. Hanson, Alexander T. Ricke, and Caleb J. Wagner of Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP and Jason S. Hartley and Jason M. Lindner of Hartley LLP as class counsel. Bank of America is a financial institution, serving individuals, small- and middle-market businesses and large corporations. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VnL8KU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason S. Hartley, Esq. Jason M. Lindner, Esq. HARTLEY LLP 101 West Broadway, Suite 820 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 400-5822 E-mail: hartley@hartleyllp.com lindner@hartleyllp.com - and - George A. Hanson, Esq. Alexander T. Ricke, Esq. Caleb J. Wagner, Esq. STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP 460 Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 714-7100 Facsimile: (816) 714-7101 E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com ricke@stuevesiegel.com wagner@stuevesiegel.com BETACOM HOLDINGS: Filing for Conditional Cert. Extended to March 28 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LMAR LAY, individually and for other similarly situated, v. BETACOM HOLDINGS INC., Washington for profit corporation; BETACOM INCORPORATED, a Florida for profit corporation, Case No. 2:24-cv-01195-RSM (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Riacardo Martinez entered an order granting stipulation for extension of time for plaintiff to file his motions for conditional and class certification: -- The Plaintiff's deadline to file March 28, 2025 his Motion for Conditional Certification will be extended to: The Plaintiff's deadline to file his Class Certification motion will be extended to May 16, 2025. Counsel for Plaintiff and Defendants have conferred regarding this request. Good cause exists for this request because of the complex nature of the putative class action allegations in Plaintiff's Complaint. Betacom is a telecommunications equipment service provider. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=15rM5e at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael C. Subit, Esq. FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS, LLP 705 Second Ave., Suite 1200 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 682-6711 E-mail: msubit@frankfreed.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Alyssa J. White, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com awhite@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - William C. (Clif) Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: James E. Breitenbucher, Esq. Nikki H. Howell, Esq. Nicholas J. Walker, Esq. FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP 1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4400 Seattle, WA 98154 Telephone: (206) 624-3600 Facsimile: (206) 389-1708 E-mail: jbreitenbucher@foxrothschild.com nhowell@foxrothschild.com nwalker@foxrothschild.com BLUEGRASS HOSPITALITY: Peach Seeks Approval of FLSA Settlement -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ABBEY PEACH, LAUREN BOYER, SABINA ANDERSON, PAUL PRESTARRI, COLE HOWARD, GAUBRIELLE BROWN, ISAAC HOPKINS, ASHLEY LUTZ, SHARNESE WILLIS, BETHANY BAUMANN, and HALEY DEAN, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, v. BLUEGRASS HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC and BLUEGRASS HOSPITALITY MANAGEMENT, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00792 (M.D. Tenn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: -- approving the collective Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) settlement, -- granting Rule 23 class certification for settlement purposes, and -- preliminarily approving the Parties' proposed Rule 23 class settlement. Specifically, the Named Plaintiffs seek an order granting the following relief: First, Named Plaintiffs move for approval of the resolution of their FLSA claims as a fair and reasonable settlement of bona fide disputes under the FLSA, in accordance with 29 U.S.C. § 216(b). Second, Named Plaintiffs move for certification, for settlement purposes only, of settlement classes pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3) of four settlement classes. The settlement classes consist of current and former employees of Defendants who worked in tip credit eligible positions and who earned less than the applicable federal and state minimum wage rates per hour and received customer tips ("Servers") at Defendants' restaurants in Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, North Carolina, and Alabama. Specifically, the Rule 23 Classes include the following individuals: "All current and former workers in tip credit eligible positions employed by Defendants at their Kentucky restaurants at any time from April 22, 2019, to Nov. 7, 2024; (the "Rule 23 Kentucky Class")" "All current and former workers in tip credit eligible positions employed by the Defendants at their Missouri restaurants at any time from April 29, 2021 to Nov. 7, 2024; (the "Rule 23 Missouri Class")"; "All current and former workers in tip credit eligible positions employed by Defendants at their Illinois restaurant at any time from May 2, 2021 to Nov. 7, 2024; (the "Rule 23 Illinois Class")"; and "All current and former workers in tip credit eligible positions employed by the Defendants at their Indiana restaurants at any time from May 10, 2022 to Nov. 7, 2024; (the "Rule 23 Indiana Class")." Third, Named Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court appoint, for settlement purposes only: (a) Named Plaintiffs Sabina Anderson, Paul Prestarri, Cole Howard, and Lauren Boyer as a Class Representatives of the Rule 23 Kentucky Class; (b) Named Plaintiffs Gaubrielle Brown, Isaac Hopkins, and Ashley Lutz as Class Representatives of the Rule 23 Missouri Class; (c) Named Plaintiff Sharnese Willis as Class Representative of the Rule 23 Illinois Class; and (d) Named Plaintiff Bethany Baumann as Class Representative of the Rule 23 Indiana Class. Fourth, Named Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court appoint, for settlement purposes only, the Plaintiffs’ attorneys, David W. Garrison and Joshua A. Frank of Barrett Johnston Martin & Garrison, PLLC; C. Ryan Morgan of Morgan & Morgan, P.A.; and Jordan Richards of USA Employment Lawyers – Jordan Richards PLLC as Class Counsel for the Rule 23 Classes. Defendants do not oppose this requested relief and therefore do not oppose this Motion. A Memorandum in Support of this Motion is filed simultaneously herewith. A proposed Order granting this requested relief has been submitted as Exhibit 3 to the settlement agreement Bluegrass Hospitality operates restaurants such as Malone's prime events & receptions, Harry's, Drake's, Aqua sushi, and OBC Kitchen. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Cmj3Np at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David W. Garrison, Esq. Joshua A. Frank, Esq. Nicole A. Chanin, Esq. BARRETT JOHNSTON MARTIN & GARRISON, PLLC 200 31st Avenue North Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 244-2202 E-mail: dgarrison@barrettjohnston.com jfrank@barrettjohnston.com nchanin@barrettjohnston.com - and - C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Telephone: (407) 420-1414 E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com - and - Jordan Richards, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS – JORDAN RICHARDS PLLC 1800 SE 10th Ave., Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com The Defendants are represented by: J. Christopher Anderson, Esq. David B. Jordan, Esq. Pierre-Joseph Noebes, Esq. Sarah Doty, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 333 Commerce Street, Suite 1450 Nashville, TN 37201 Telephone: (615) 383-3033 Facsimile: (615) 383-3323 E-mail: chrisanderson@littler.com djordan@littler.com pnoebes@littler.com sdoty@littler.com BLUEGRASS NATURAL: Snodgrass Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------- ROBERT SNODGRASS, individually and for others similarly situated v. BLUEGRASS NATURAL RESOURCES LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01113 (N.D. Ill., January 31, 2025) is a class and collective action seeking to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Kentucky Wage and Hour Act. According to the complaint, Snodgrass and the other hourly employees regularly work more than 40 hours a workweek. However, Bluegrass does not pay the Plaintiff and the other hourly employees for all their hours worked, including overtime hours. Rather, Bluegrass requires Plaintiff and the other hourly employees to suit out in protective clothing and safety gear necessary to perform their jobs and gather and prepare tools and equipment necessary to perform their jobs, while on Bluegrass's premises, "off the clock." Additionally, Bluegrass pays the Plaintiff and the other hourly employees non-discretionary bonuses that it fails to include in their regular rates of pay for the purpose of calculating their overtime rates of pay, says the suit. Plaintiff Snodgrass was employed by the Defendant as a continuous miner operator from approximately October 2020 through December 2024. Bluegrass Natural Resources LLC is a coal producer located in Southeastern Kentucky, and currently has 3 underground mines and a contract mine.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Douglas M. Werman, Esq. Maureen A. Salas, Esq. WERMAN SALAS P.C. 77 West Washington St., Suite 1402 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 419-1008 Facsimile: (312) 419-1025 E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com msalas@flsalaw.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com BOAR'S HEAD: Court Initially Certifies Settlement Class ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Frank Pompilio, Rita Torres, Samantha Chuskas, Sherly Gattof, and Robby Harper, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Boar's Head Provisions Co. Inc., Case No. 7:24-cv-08220-PMH (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Philip Halpern entered an order as follows: -- Preliminary Certification of the Settlement Class for Settlement Purposes. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), the Settlement Class, as defined as follows, is preliminarily certified for the purpose of this settlement only: Settlement Class. "All natural persons who, during the Class Period, purchased in the United States any Covered Products for personal, family or household use and not resale." Furthermore, the Settlement Class excludes the following Exclusions. (1) Any judge or magistrate presiding over the Litigation, their staff and their immediate family members; (2) the Defendant; (3) any and all entities in which the Defendant has a controlling interest; (4) any of Defendant's subsidiaries, parents, affiliates and officers, directors and employees, as well as legal representatives, heirs, successors or assigns; (5) any persons who timely exclude themselves from the Settlement Class in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Settlement Agreement. Additionally, the following firms and their counsel are appointed as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class: Jason P. Sultzer and Jeremy Francis of Sultzer & Lipari, PLLC; Michael Reese of Reese LLP; Nick Suciu of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC; Charles Schaffer of Levin Sedran & Berman LLP; Jeffrey K. Brown and Blake Hunter Yagman of Leeds Brown Law, P.C.; and Paul Doolittle of Poulin, Willey, Anastopoulo, LLC. Boar's Head is a supplier of delicatessen meats, cheeses and condiments. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ctVzXO at no extra charge.[CC] BOEING COMPANY: Dosenbach Seeks to Recover OT Pay Under FLSA, MMWL ------------------------------------------------------------------ STEVEN L. DOSENBACH, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. THE BOEING COMPANY, Case No. 1:25-cv-00204 (E.D. Va., Feb. 4, 2025) seeks to recover overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Missouri Minimum Wage Law as well as seeks damages and relief for breach of contract. The Plaintiff's FLSA claims are asserted as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) on behalf of all persons working as system and data analysts for the Defendant who are not being paid time and one-half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over 40 hours during a workweek. The Plaintiff's MMWL and breach of contract claims are asserted as a class action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 on behalf of all similarly situated persons working as system and data analysts for Defendant who are not being paid wages due at one and one-half their regular rate of pay for all hours worked over forty during a workweek for work performed in the state of Missouri. The Plaintiff began his employment with Boeing as a User Experience Specialist (Skills Management Code B93). He worked out of the Defendant’s office location in Hazelwood, Missouri. Under Boeing's internal classification, this position was listed as follows: Occupation: Information Technology (BA); Job Family: Systems and Data Analyst (MA); Skills management Code: B93. On October 7, 2020, the Plaintiff received a lateral move to Systems and Data Analyst. He worked out of the Defendant’s office location in Hazelwood, Missouri and a home office in Osage Beach, Missouri. Under Boeing’s internal classification, this position was listed as follows: Occupation: Information Technology (BA); Job Family: Systems and Data Analyst (MA); Skills management Code: B91. This position was classified by Boeing as salary non-exempt, and Plaintiff was paid on a bi-weekly basis. Under the FLSA and the MMWL, this classification entitled the Plaintiff to overtime compensation at one and one-half of his regular rate of pay for all hours worked over forty per workweek. In turn, Boeing was required to have the Plaintiff and others similarly situated accurately record all hours worked in each workweek, says the suit. The Defendant is doing business in designing, manufacturing and selling airplanes, rotorcraft, rockets, satellites and missiles throughout the United State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig J. Curwood, Esq. Zev H. Antell, Esq. BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 648-4848 Facsimile: (804) 237-0413 E-mail: craig@butlercurwood.com zev@butlercurwood.com - and - Brendan J. Donelon, Esq. Daniel W. Craig, Esq. DONELON, P.C. 4600 Madison, Suite 810 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 221-7100 Facsimile: (816) 709-1044 E-mail: brendan@donelonpc.com dan@donelonpc.com BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Court Denies Meal Breaks Class Action ------------------------------------------------------------ Ronald Miller, J.D., writing for VitalLaw, reports that the employer asserted that its restaurants are not too busy, outside of peak hours, for its employees to take breaks, regardless of staffing level. Restaurant workers were denied a motion for class certification of Rule 23 class action alleging that their employer unlawfully prevented them from taking unpaid 30-minute meal breaks, ruled a federal district court in California. While there was a common question: does the Donohue presumption apply to the class members' meal period claims, it seems clear that the rebuttal portion of the trial will be dominated by individual liability questions that are specific to particular restaurants, particular categories of workers, and particular workers within each category (Hale v. Brinker International, Inc., No. 21-cv-09978-VC (N.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2025)). Meal break violations. The plaintiffs in this action are two former employees of a restaurant employer that operated a number of Chili's Bar and Grills. They sued the owner of the restaurants where they worked, alleging that it violated California labor law by: (1) failing to give employees a reasonable opportunity to take unpaid meal breaks; (2) failing to provide rest periods; and (3) refusing to pay for employees' cell phone operating expenses related to their work. They brought their suit as a proposed class action. According to the employees, the employer created a system that denies employees the opportunity to take meal and rest breaks—the restaurants are busy and leanly staffed, the employees are required to ask managers for meal and rest breaks, and management discourages them from taking those breaks. Both employees submitted declarations in support of class certification. In addition, the plaintiffs' counsel compiled declarations from 15 other proposed class members, all Chili's workers from different restaurant locations. The declarations allege that employees were almost never provided with a 30-minute meal period because the restaurant was busy but too understaffed for employees to take breaks. The employer contended that the missed meal periods simply reflected the realities of the restaurant industry—occasionally workers take their unpaid meal breaks, but typically they prefer not to. To support its position, the employer offered over 50 declarations from Chili's workers. It also submitted declarations from managers. Rest periods. As for the 10-minute rest periods, the employer's employee declarants also consistently asserted that they have the opportunity to take them, and that the reasons for not taking a rest break can vary. Lean staffing. With respect to the issue of lean staffing and busy periods, the employer contended that this did not preclude employees from taking breaks because business fluctuates throughout the day. In support of this contention, the employer's expert analyzed customer volume at different restaurants and explained that, although there were certain peak hours in the day with high volume, the volume fluctuates throughout the day and varies among restaurants. The employer thus asserted that its restaurants are not too busy, outside of those peak hours, for its employees to take breaks, regardless of staffing level. Cell phone expense. Finally, with respect to cell phone usage, the employees contended that proposed class members used their personal cell phones to communicate with management and coworkers about work, without any reimbursement from the employer for expenses related to that cell phone usage. In addition, they asserted that employees were required to buy and use a scheduling app on personal cell phones to review shift schedules and request shift changes. The employer responded that there was no policy requiring employees to download the scheduling app on their personal phones, and any download was a personal choice by that employee. It also stated that employees can use iPads at work to check their schedules. Class certification. The employees moved for class certification of a proposed class consisting of both front-of-house workers and back-of-house workers. They contended that liability can be determined on a classwide basis because of the employer's system of staffing restaurants leanly, requiring employees to ask managers for a break, and creating an atmosphere of discouraging people from taking such breaks, applies to everyone. They seek class certification on all three of their claims—for meal period violations, rest period violations, and cell phone expenses. Meal break claim. Under California law, an employee is entitled to a 30-minute unpaid meal period for any shift longer than five hours, and a second 30-minute unpaid meal period for any shift longer than 10 hours. But employees are not required by law to take unpaid meal periods; if they prefer to keep working (and keep getting paid), they can do that, so long as the employer has provided the opportunity in the first instance, Donohue v. AMN Services, LLC, 11 Cal. 5th 58, 67 (2021). As an initial matter, the court concluded that class certification was not warranted for the meal break claim. There was a common question: does the Donohue presumption apply to the class members' meal period claims, given the percentage of shifts where the time records do not reflect an unpaid meal break (and without any indication that the employee voluntarily chose to skip the break)? But based on the record developed in connection with this class certification motion, it seemed clear to the court that the rebuttal portion of the trial will be dominated by individual liability questions that are specific to particular restaurants, particular categories of workers, and particular workers within each category. Rest period claim. California law also provides employees who work more than a three-and-a-half hour shift a 10-minute rest period for every four-hour block (or a major portion thereof) of that shift. Employers are required to provide a reasonable opportunity for a rest period, but an employee may choose to work through it. Here, the court determined that the employees' rest period class cannot be certified because the plaintiffs have not demonstrated that common questions predominate with respect to the employer's liability. They have not carried their burden of establishing that the employer had a uniform policy that tended to deny its employees the ability to take breaks. Cell phone claims. "[W]hen employees must use their personal cell phones for work-related calls, [California] Labor Code section 2802 requires the employer to reimburse them." "If the use of the personal cell phone is mandatory, then reimbursement is always required, regardless of whether the employee would have incurred cell phone expenses absent the job." In this instance, the employees failed to provide evidence sufficient to conclude that common questions existed as to whether the employer violated section 2802. As to the charges related to the scheduling app, the employees failed to establish that there was an employer policy requiring employees to purchase the app. Accordingly, the employees' motion for class certification was denied. The case is No. 21-cv-09978-VC. Judge: Chhabria, V. Attorneys: Chaim Shaun Setareh (Law Office of Shaun Setareh) for Amanda Hale. Laura Ann Pierson-Scheinberg (Jackson Lewis) for Brinker International, Inc. Companies: Brinker International, Inc. [GN] BROOKLYN GRANITE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------------ ALFREDO FUERTE MARTINEZ and TOMAS FLORES, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. BROOKLYN GRANITE 88 INC., BROOKLYN GRANITE II INC., BROOKLYN GRANITE CABINETS INC., BROOKLYN GRANITE NY INC., and DANNY LEI, Case No. 1:25-cv-00620 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 4, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The Defendants employed the Plaintiff Martinez to work as a non-exempt installer and polisher for Brooklyn Granite from 2014 until July 27, 2024. It also employed Plaintiff Flores, to work as a non-exempt fabricator for Brooklyn Granite from in or about 2014 until on or about January 1, 2025. The Corporate Defendants own and operate a commercial and residential granite/stone fabrication and installation company doing business as "Brooklyn Granite". Danny Lei, is the President, officer, owner, shareholder, director, supervisor, managing agent, and proprietor of each of the Corporate Defendants.[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 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com CABINETWORKS MICHIGAN: Determination of Conditional Status Stayed ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JERRY FULLER, v. CABINETWORKS MICHIGAN, LLC, THE CABINETWORKS GROUP, and CABINETWORKS GROUP, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-01618-MWB (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Matthew Brann grants Defendants' motion to stay determination of Fuller's motion for conditional certification pending resolution of the disputed arbitration agreement and holds the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration in abeyance until it can be resolved. The parties agree that resolving the motion to compel arbitration requires fact discovery on arbitrability, so that motion is held in abeyance. Because Section 4 of the FAA requires resolving the disputed arbitrability of the sole named Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Plaintiff's claims before his motion for conditional certification, Fuller’s motion for conditional certification shall be stayed until the arbitrability issue is resolved. If the arbitrability issue is resolved in Fuller’s favor and the Court considers his motion for conditional certification, the Court will allow Defendants the opportunity to brief on the motion rather than deeming it unopposed. The Court would also entertain a motion for equitable tolling at that point. To expedite the resolution of this arbitrability question, the Court shall schedule a telephonic status conference. An appropriate Order follows. In September 2024, Plaintiff Jerry Fuller filed a one-count complaint against Defendants, Cabinetworks Michigan, LLC, The Cabinetworks Group, and Cabinetworks Group, Inc., alleging a violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). This Memorandum Opinion resolves the three intertwined motions which are currently pending in this case. Cabinetworks is an independently owned manufacturer and distributor of kitchen and bath cabinets. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated Jan. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AwDxVH at no extra charge.[CC] CAPITAL ONE: Moran Sues Over Conversion of Content Creators' Pay ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE MORAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, WIKIBUY, LLC, and WIKIBUY HOLDINGS LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00211 (E.D. Va., February 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for tortious interference with prospective economic advantage, conversion, unjust enrichment, tortious interference with contractual relations, and violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, and the New York General Business Law. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged practice of replacing the affiliate cookie from a content creator's unique information and insert a source code with their own information through Capital One Shopping browser extension. Through this deceptive practice, the Defendants deprive creators of the revenue they depend on to sustain their businesses. The Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals seek to recover damages. Capital One Financial Corporation is a holding company, headquartered in McLean, Virginia. Wikibuy, LLC is a subsidiary of Capital One Financial Corporation. Wikibuy Holdings, LLC is a subsidiary of Capital One Financial Corporation. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven J. Toll, Esq. Douglas J. McNamara, Esq. Karina G. Puttieva, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave. NW, 8th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 Email: dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com kputtieva@cohenmilstein.com - and - Sean A. Petterson, Esq. Jason L. Lichtman, Esq. Danna Z. Elmasry, Esq. LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP 250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor New York, NY 10013 Telephone: (212) 355-9500 Email: spetterson@lchb.com jlichtman@lchb.com delmasry@lchb.com CHINA SUMMIT: Court Narrows Claims in Yam Suit ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WANGLAP YAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. QI XIN, also known as Brandon Qi, and CHINA SUMMIT CAPITAL, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-09793-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katherine Polk Failla entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Defendants' motion to strike the class action allegations and dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint. Specifically, the Court denied the Defendants' motion to: -- strike the Plaintiff's class claims without prejudice to renewal at the class certification stage; -- dismiss Count III (Violation of New York General Business Law section 349); and -- dismiss the breach of contract claim sufficiently alleged in Count V. The Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss Counts I (Violation of Civil RICO), II (Fraud), and IV (Negligent Misrepresentation), and dismissed each of those Counts with leave to amend. The Court also granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss Count VI (unjust enrichment) and the rescission claim in Count V, and dismissed each of those claims with prejudice. The Court granted the Plaintiff's motion to dismiss the Defendants' counterclaims. The Defendants' defamation counterclaim was dismissed with leave to amend, and Defendants' "harassing and insulting" counterclaim was dismissed with prejudice. The Court set a deadline for Plaintiff to submit an amended complaint of on or before Feb. 28, 2025. Theg Defendants' answer, including its amended defamation counterclaim, is due on or before March 21, 2025. China Summit is a private equity firm based in Shanghai, China. The firm focuses on venture opportunities. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NMKbhW at no extra charge.[CC] COLOURPOP COSMETICS: Faces Class Suit Over Marketing Tactics ------------------------------------------------------------ Blake Landis of Troutman Amin, LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, reports that Lip gloss is poppin', lip gloss is cool -- but late-night marketing texts? Those might land them in court. Listen up, beauty lovers and TCPA watchers -- Colourpop Cosmetics is facing a serious touch-up in court over its late-night marketing tactics. A new class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida claims the company violated federal law by blasting promotional text messages well past bedtime. See Trushel v. Colourpop Cosmetics, LLC, No. 8:25-CV-00282 (M.D. Fla. filed Feb. 4, 2025). We all know the thrill of a midnight flash sale -- one second, you're winding down for the night, and the next, you're frantically adding items to your cart before the "FINAL HOURS!" timer runs out. Amazon Prime Day flashbacks, anyone? But there's a fine line between FOMO marketing and federal law violations, and according to this lawsuit, Colourpop might have crossed it. So here is the deal. Plaintiff alleges she received multiple late-night texts from Colourpop, including a "$2 Lips" deal and other Cyber Sale alerts sent around 10 PM. That might seem harmless, but here's the problem -- the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") explicitly bans marketing calls and texts before 8 AM or after 9 PM (local time). See 47 C.F.R. Section 64.1200(c)(1)). And Colourpop didn't just allegedly text Plaintiff -- it may have done this to thousands of customers across the U.S. over the last four years. That's why this lawsuit isn't just about one person's disrupted sleep cycle -- it's a potential nationwide class action covering anyone in the U.S. who received similar late-night texts from Colourpop. If Colourpop loses, the financial impact could be major. The TCPA allows for damages of $500 per text -- which already stings -- but if Colourpop knowingly ignored the law? That jumps to $1,500 per message. The lawsuit alleges this wasn't just an innocent mistake. The Complaint asserts that Colourpop's late-night texts were part of a broader telemarketing strategy -- meaning these weren't one-off messages but part of a deliberate campaign. That distinction matters because it could increase the likelihood that the Court finds Colourpop acted willfully, which raises the potential damages. And here's another issue -- Plaintiff never gave consent to receive messages outside of legal hours. Interestingly, this isn't Plaintiff's first TCPA lawsuit. The same day, Plaintiff sued The Children's Place, Inc. in the same court, alleging nearly identical violations. See Trushel v. The Children's Place, Inc., No. 8:25-CV-00284 (M.D. Fla. filed Feb. 4, 2025). According to that Complaint, Plaintiff received late-night marketing texts from The Children's Place around 10:35 PM and 10:36 PM on separate occasions, and the lawsuit similarly seeks damages under the TCPA's statutory framework. With two lawsuits filed back-to-back, it raises the question -- are these brands engaging in widespread non-compliance, or are plaintiffs becoming increasingly aware of TCPA violations and actively monitoring for missteps? Given the financial penalties, could some consumers opt for promotional texts and wait for a company to slip up with an eye toward litigation? One misstep in your SMS marketing could be more than just a blemish -- it could stain your brand. No pun intended. What makes this case particularly interesting is how Colourpop's Terms of Use comes into play. I did some digging into their website, and their terms contain several provisions: 1) a mandatory arbitration clause requiring disputes to be resolved through JAMS arbitration in Los Angeles County, California; 2) a 60-day notice and informal resolution period before any legal action; 3) a class action waiver requiring all claims to be brought individually; and 4) detailed SMS marketing consent provisions that are notably silent on message timing. But here's where things get even more complicated for Colourpop -- its SMS Terms of Use might work against it. According to its official policy, Colourpop requires users to "affirmatively opt-in" to receive marketing texts and states that "consent is not required to make any purchase." That's standard, but the policy doesn't say anything about notifying users that messages may arrive at prohibited hours. In other words, just because someone opted in doesn't mean they agreed to get texts at 10 PM. What is more, the Terms include a "Class Action Waiver," stating that customers agree to resolve disputes through individual arbitration rather than class actions. However, TCPA cases have successfully challenged these waivers, particularly when courts find them unconscionable or conflicting with consumer protection policies. But let's be clear -- each case has its own legal and factual workup, and enforcing arbitration clauses isn't a one-size-fits-all. Have you ever read Troutman Amin's motions to compel arbitration? They are top-notch, crafted with precision, and built to withstand scrutiny. Whether enforcing a waiver or strategically defending against class certification, our team knows how to keep businesses out of costly courtroom battles and in control of their legal strategy. You don't want to be left covering up legal blemishes -- you want a flawless finish. (And yes, my pun game is getting better.) This lawsuit isn't just about Colourpop -- it's a reminder to every brand using SMS marketing that timing isn't just a courtesy; it's the law. Translation? If your brand hits "send" on promotional texts after 9 PM, you might wake up to a class action lawsuit. The old saying goes, "Nothing good happens after midnight," but for businesses, it's starting to look like "nothing safe happens after 9 PM." As always, Keep it legal, keep it smart, and stay ahead of the game. Talk soon! [GN] CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD: Bid to Dismiss Phoenix Complaint Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM PHOENIX, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. CUSHMAN & WAKEFIELD U.S., INC., Case No. 7:24-cv-00965-PMH (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Philip Halpern entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Complaint, or, alternatively, to strike the class allegations pursuant to Rules 12(f) and 23(d) or administratively close the action without prejudice. The Defendant is directed to file an answer to the Complaint within 14 days of the date of this order. The Court will separately docket a Notice of initial conference. The Defendant has offered no persuasive argument for the Court to abandon the near-unanimous view by courts within this Circuit that have weighed in on the Vega/Grant split. Nor does Defendant meaningfully distinguish any of those cases from this action, the lawsuit says. The Court thus adopts the reasoning of the overwhelming majority of courts in this District finding that manual workers, as defined by the NYLL, have both an expressed and implied private right of action to enforce violations of Section 191(1)(a). Accordingly, Defendant's motion is denied with respect to its argument that the Plaintiff lacks a private right of action. The Plaintiff commenced this putative class action on Feb. 8, 2024 against the Defendant asserting a single claim for violation of the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"). The Plaintiff served his opposition on July 22, 2024, and the Defendant's motion was fully briefed with the filing of its reply and all motion papers on Aug. 5, 2025. Since then, both parties have filed multiple letters alerting the Court to additional legal authority concerning NYLL Section 191. The Plaintiff alleges that he was employed by Defendant as a maintenance technician at multiple WeWork locations in Manhattan from June 2023 to January 2024. Cushman is an American global commercial real estate services firm. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GJIU7h at no extra charge.[CC] DAVA MARKETING: Cook Bid to Amend Complaint Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AUSTIN COOK, individually; and HARRISON FOLLETT, individually, v. DAVA MARKETING, LLC, a Utah Limited Liability Company, Case No. 2:23-cv-00632-DBB-DBP (D. Utah), the Hon. Judge Dustin Pead entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to amend. The Plaintiffs seek leave to add additional Plaintiffs, to name individual Defendants, and to assert a pendent claim for relief under Utah law and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Having considered the motion, the parties' briefing, and case law, the court grants the motion in part. The court finds there will be judicial economy, and cost savings to the parties by not having the FLSA collective action and state-law Rule 23 class action in separate cases. Contrary to Defendant's assertion, there will also be an economic benefit in the overlapping discovery. Efficiency and economy outweigh DAVA's arguments. The Plaintiffs Amended Complaint focuses more on DAVA's alleged misconduct than that of Mr. Diaz and Mr. Ruvalcaba. In weighing the factors, the court finds Plaintiffs have not set forth sufficient plausible claims that raise the issue of employer lability being placed on Mr. Diaz or Mr. Ruvalcaba. As such, the court denies Plaintiffs' motion to amend as to the principals of DAVA. The case is a collective action filed by the Plaintiffs alleging violations of the Fair Labor and Standards Act for failing to pay them proper amounts. On Jan. 29, 2025, the court lifted a stay that was in place to allow the parties to pursue settlement that ultimately proved unfruitful. Dava specializes in post-production media services, focusing on streamlining the content creation process for top creators. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LTJUaR at no extra charge.[CC] DAVITA INC: Lightner Seeks Conditional Cert. of Collective Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDUIN LIGHTNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DaVita, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-03104-NYW-KAS (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (1) conditionally certifying a collective action on behalf of all current and former nurses and technicians, excluding those in Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia (the "Collective Action Members") for the three years prior to the date this case was filed to the date of the entry of said Order; (2) ordering the Defendant to produce to Plaintiff's counsel a list of all Collective Action Members identifying: name, job title, last known mailing address, last known personal email address(es), last known cell phone numbers, dates of employment, location(s) of employment, employee identification number, and last four digits of each Collective Action Member's social security number (the "Class List") within seven (7) days after the entry of said Order; (3) approving notice methods and form (Ex. 21) to issue within 14 days after receipt of the Class List; (4) permitting a 90-day notice period for the Collective Action Members to determine whether to opt-in to this lawsuit; and (5) authorizing Plaintiff's counsel or a third-party administrator to issue notice to the Collective Action Members by mail, email, and text message at the beginning of the notice period, with a reminder 45 days thereafter. On July 6, 2023, the Court conditionally certified a collective action of nurses and technicians who worked at DaVita locations in Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Oklahoma, New York, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia with respect to their allegations that DaVita failed to pay overtime wages due to its failure to compensate employees who did not receive fully relieved meal breaks. DaVita provides healthcare services, in particular kidney dialysis. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KHNCOD at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq. Melinda Arbuckle, Esq. WAGE AND HOUR FIRM 5050 Quorum Drive, Suite 700 Dallas, TX 75254 Telephone: (214) 489-7653 E-mail: rprieto@wageandhourfirm.com marbuckle@wageandhourfirm.com - and - Galvin Kennedy, Esq. KENNEDY LAW FIRM, LLP 2925 Richmond Ave, Ste. 1200 Houston, TX 77098 Telephone: (713) 425-6445 E-mail: galvin@kennedyattorney.com DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Seeks More Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZION SEWARD, et al., v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00086-JEB (D.D.C.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their consent motion for extension of time to oppose Plaintiffs' motion for provisional class certification. On Jan. 15, 2025, the Court granted Defendants' first consent motion for an extension and set Defendants' deadline to oppose Plaintiffs' motions for provisional class certification and preliminary injunction on Jan. 31, 2025 (today). The District now requests a brief extension of two business days, to Feb. 4, 2025, to oppose Plaintiffs’ motion for provisional class certification. The Plaintiffs consent to the extension of the District's deadline, and the District requests a reciprocal extension of two business days for Plaintiffs to reply in support of their motion for provisional class certification. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7FEgga at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Brian L. Schwalb, Esq. Stephanie E. Litos, Esq. Matthew R. Blecher, Esq. Honey Morton, Esq. Marcus D. Ireland, Esq. Gregory Ketcham-colwill, Esq. Marcus D. Ireland, Esq. EQUITY SECTION, CIVIL LITIGATION DIVISION 400 6th Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 702-2910 E-mail: marcus.ireland@dc.gov E & S INTERNATIONAL: General Pretrial Management Entered -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ, v. E & S INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISES, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00593-PAE-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial management as follows: 1. Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery must be initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set by the Court. 2. Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule 37.2 and § 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. It is the Court's practice to decide discovery disputes at the Rule 37.2 conference, based on the parties' letters, unless a party requests or the Court requires more formal briefing. Absent extraordinary circumstances, discovery applications made later than 30 days prior to the close of discovery may be denied as untimely. 3. For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion conferences are not required, but may be requested where counsel believe that an informal conference with the Court may obviate the need for a motion or narrow the issues. 4. Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court proceeding (including a telephonic court conference) or to extend a deadline must be made in writing and in compliance with section 2(a) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. Telephone requests for adjournments or extensions will not be entertained. E & S wholesales and distributes consumer electronic products. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6cG4Fb at no extra charge.[CC] ESSEX TECHNOLOGY: Boshers Sues Over Layoff Without Proper Notice ---------------------------------------------------------------- KRISTOPHER BOSHERS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ESSEX TECHNOLOGY GROUP, LLC d/b/a Bargain Hunt Stores, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-bk-00452 (M.D. Tenn., February 6, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to provide the Plaintiff and other similarly situated former employees at least 60 days' advance written notice of termination as a result of a mass layoff and/or plant closing on or about on January 22, 2025. Essex Technology Group, LLC, doing business as Bargain Hunt Stores, is a retail company with its headquarters located in La Vergne, Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Jan Jennings, Esq. J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Michael C. Iadevaia, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS, & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa Parks Ave., Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 Email: jjennings@stranchlaw.com gstranch@stranchlaw.com miadevaia@stranchlaw.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI, LLP 613 Williamson St., Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 237-1775 Facsimile: (608) 509-4423 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Natalie A. Lyons, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com nlyons@cohenandmalad.com ESTEE LAUDER: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------------- The Estee Lauder Companies Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2025, that the company continues to defend itself from a securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On December 7, 2023 and January 22, 2024, the Company and its Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer were named as defendants in separate purported securities class action complaints filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On February 20, 2024, those two purported securities class actions were consolidated into one action. On March 22, 2024, plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended class action complaint, which alleges that defendants made materially false and misleading statements during the period February 3, 2022 to October 31, 2023 in press releases, the Company's public filings and during conference calls with analysts that artificially inflated the price of the Company's stock in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Defendants intend to defend the action vigorously. The Estee Lauder Companies Inc. is a worldwide manufacturer, marketer and seller of skin care, makeup, fragrance and hair care products. FIRST SOURCE: Class Cert. Filing in Sardo Extended to Oct. 24 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sardo v. First Source Federal Credit Union, Case No. 5:23-cv-00875 (N.D.N.Y., Filed July 19, 2023), the Hon. Judge Elizabeth C. Coombe entered an order extending remaining discovery deadlines as follows: -- Plaintiff's Expert Disclosure May 30, 2025 Deadline is: -- The Defendant's Expert Disclosure July 14, 2025 Deadline is: -- Rebuttal Expert Disclosure July 29, 2025 Deadline is: -- Discovery due by: Sept. 2, 2025 -- Discovery Motions due: Sept. 16, 2025 -- Class Certification Motion due by: Oct. 24, 2025 -- Dispositive Motions to be filed by: Nov. 26, 2025 -- Mandatory Mediation deadline March 31, 2025 Remains: -- The mediation is ordered to be March 14, 2025 completed on: The nature of suit states Diversity-Breach of Contract. First Source operates as a financial cooperative.[CC] FORD MOTOR: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Miller Due Feb. 27, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Miller v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 2:20-cv-01796 (E.D. Cal., Filed Sept. 4, 2020), the Hon. Judge Dale A. Drozd entered an order granting the parties joint stipulation to amend the scheduling order as follows: -- Fact discovery shall be completed by: Oct. 3, 2025 -- Expert disclosures shall be completed Nov. 3, 2025 by: -- Rebuttal expert disclosures shall be Dec. 5, 2025 completed by: -- Expert discovery shall be completed by: Jan. 16, 2026 -- The plaintiffs shall file their motion Feb. 27, 2026 for class certification by no later than: -- All other motions, except for motions June 12, 2026 for continuances, temporary restraining orders, or other emergency applications shall be filed no later than: The nature of suit states Contract Product Liability. Ford is an American multinational automobile manufacturer headquartered in Dearborn, Michigan, United States.[CC] FRANKLIN COUNTY, OH: Plaintiff Must File Class Cert Bid by March 7 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as TREY SMITH-JOURNIGAN, and PAUL E. WILLIAMS, JR., both Individually and on behalf of a class of Others similarly situated, v. FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO, Case No. 2:18-cv-00328-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Chelsey Vascura entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to file a renewed motion for class certification. -- The Plaintiff will file their renewed motion for class certification on or before March 7, 2025. -- The Court will allow no further extensions of the deadline. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0jg5y7 at no extra charge.[CC] FRANKLIN COUNTY, OH: Time Extension to File Class Cert Bid Sought ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TREY SMITH-JOURNIGAN, and PAUL E. WILLIAMS, JR., both Individually and on behalf of a class of Others similarly situated, v. FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO, Case No. 2:18-cv-00328-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for extension of time to file motion for class certification. Pursuant to the Court's last discovery order, the parties completed a supplemental Rule 30(b)(6) of Franklin County on December 16, 2024. The Defendants also produced an additional round of booking records for proposed class members on December 11, 2024. These records, which encompass booking records for all detainees charged with misdemeanor vehicle offenses for one month, are several thousand pages long. The Plaintiffs are in the process of evaluating these records, and placing relevant data into a spreadsheet. This spreadsheet, and that of other data from other months during the class period, will then be utilized for a statistical analysis that will be presented to the District Court in support of a renewed Motion for Class Certification. The Plaintiff seeks to have until March 7, 2025, to file their renewed Motion for Class Certification, in part because of the production of extensive discovery documentation and in part because of the other litigation commitments of counsel in January. The requested extension is for five weeks from today. Counsel acknowledges that this matter has been pending for an extensive period of time, and the Plaintiff will seek no further extensions of this deadline absent unforeseen circumstances. Franklin County is a county in the U.S. state of Ohio. Most of its land area is taken up by its county seat, Columbus, the state capital and most populous city in Ohio. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Fycf4b at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Elmer Robert Keach, III, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ELMER ROBERT KEACH, III, P.C. One Pine West Plaza, Suite 120 Albany, NY 12205 Telephone: (518) 434-1718 E-mail: bobkeach@keachlawfirm.com FRED MEYER: Settlement in Woody Suit Gets Initial Approval ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMANTHA WOODY, APRIL ALLEN, DELIA CRUZ, CANDICE TRENT, and NICOLE URVINA, v. FRED MEYER STORES, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-01800-HZ (D. Or.), the Hon. Judge Marco Hernandez entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed renewed motion for preliminary approval of settlement. The Court concludes Plaintiffs have established that incentive awards are appropriate. The Court, however, declines to decide the final amount of such an award at the preliminary stage. At the final approval stage the Court will closely evaluate any additional evidence in support of individual incentive awards of $9,500 per named Plaintiff. The Court preliminarily approves counsel's right to attorney fees recognizing that the hourly rate is not the sole determiner of fairness. At the final approval stage, however, the Court will closely examine counsel's requested rates and hours to cross-check the amount of fees requested. The Court will also consider whether the guideline of 25 percent should be based on the gross settlement amount or the amount net of items that are not a benefit to the class members such as the fees paid to the settlement administrator On Nov. 17, 2022, Samantha Woody and Nicole Urvina filed a class action Complaint in this Court on behalf of all hourly, non-exempt employees of Defendant who were employed "on or after activation of the new payroll system." On May 15, 2024, the parties had a settlement conference with United States Magistrate Judge John Acosta. On June 25, 2024, the parties informed the Court that they had reached settlement. The settlement agreement contains a proposed service award of $9,500 for each class representative for a total of $47,500. Fred Meyer operates multidepartment stores. The Company offers apparels, shoes, accessories, garden equipment, and home electronics. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vILBwM at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Richard B. Myers, Esq. Kate D. Flanagan, Esq. BENNETT HARTMANN, LLP 210 S.W. Morrison Street, Suite 500 Portland, OR 97204 The Defendant is represented by: Edward Choi, Esq. April Upchurch Fredrickson, Esq. Matthew A. Tripp, Esq. MILLER NASH LLP 1140 S.W. Washington Street, Suite 700 Portland, OR 97205 GOLDEN CORRAL: Settlement in Data Breach Suit Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Re: Golden Corral Data Breach Litigation, Case No. 5:24-cv-00123-M-BM (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Richard Myers II entered an order granting the Plaintiffs unopposed 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 impacted by the Data Breach that occurred between Aug. 11, 2023 and Aug. 15, 2023 who were sent a notice of the Data Breach." Specifically excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) the judges presiding over this Litigation, and members of their direct families; (2) Defendant, its subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which Defendant or its parents have a controlling interest, and its current or former officers and directors; and (3) Settlement Class Members who submit a valid Request for Exclusion prior to the Opt-Out Deadline. 2. Settlement Class Representatives and Settlement Class Counsel. The court finds that Plaintiffs will likely satisfy the requirements of Rule 23( e )(2)(A) and should be appointed as the Class Representatives. Additionally, the court finds that Gary M. Klinger of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC will likely satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(e)(2)(A) and should be appointed as Class Counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g)(l). 3. Final Approval Hearing. A Final Approval Hearing shall be held on Monday, May 19, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=88Vr08 at no extra charge.[CC] GOOGLE LLC: Seeks to Seal Opposition to Renewed Class Cert Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Google RTB Consumer Privacy Litigation, Case No. 4:21-cv-02155-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting temporary sealing motion re opposition to the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification: ECF No. Document Party Claiming Confidentiality 761-1 Google's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Google Renewed Motion for Class Certification 761-3 Ex. 1 to Somvichian Declaration – Google Expert Report of Aaron Striegel 761-5 Ex. 2 to Somvichian Declaration – Google, Expert Report of Konstantinos Psounis Plaintiffs 761-7 Ex. 3 to Somvichian Declaration – Google, Shafiq Deposition Excerpt Plaintiffs Google is an American multinational corporation and technology company focusing on online advertising, search engine technology, and cloud computing. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Mj4sOB at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Whitty Somvichian, Esq. Aarti Reddy, Esq. Kyle C. Wong, Esq. Reece Trevor, Esq. Anupam Dhillon, Esq. COOLEY LLP 3 Embarcadero Center, 20th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4004 Telephone: (415) 693-2000 Facsimile: (415) 693-2222 E-mail: wsomvichian@cooley.com areddy@cooley.com kwong@cooley.com rtrevor@cooley.com adhillon@cooley.com GRAVY ANALYTICS: Hansen Sues Over Failure to Secure Clients' Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- JENNIFER HANSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRAVY ANALYTICS, A SUBSIDIARY OF UNACAST, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-01264 (N.D. Cal., February 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of California Unfair Competition Law, negligence, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its cloud storage system following a data breach detected on January 4, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Gravy Analytics is a subsidiary of Unacast, Inc., headquartered in Cos Cob, Connecticut. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Mona Amini, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 Email: ak@kazlg.com mona@kazlg.com GREYLOCK MCKINNON: Class Settlement in Isaac Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Isaac v. Greylock McKinnon Associates, Inc. (RE GREYLOCK MCKINNON ASSOCIATES DATA SECURITY INCIDENT LITIGAITON), Case No. 1:24-cv-10797-DJC (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge Denise Casper entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement and conditionally certifying settlement class: 1. Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the class action settlement is granted. 2. Having made the findings, the Court conditionally certifies the following Class (comprised of the "Damages Settlement Class" and the "Injunctive Relief Settlement Class,") for settlement purposes only: "The Damages Settlement Class means all individuals residing in the United States whose Social Security number was affected by the Data Incident." "The Injunctive Relief Settlement Class means all individuals residing in the United States whose Private Information was affected by the Data Incident." 3. Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) the judges presiding over this Action, and members of their direct families; (2) the Defendant, its subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which the Defendant or their parents have a controlling interest, and its current or former officers and directors; and (3) Damages Settlement Class Members who submit a valid Request for Exclusion prior to the Opt-Out Deadline. 4. The Court appoints Plaintiffs as Class Representatives for the Settlement Class. 5. The Court appoints Raina C. Borrelli of Strauss Borrelli PLLC and Jeff Ostrow of Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A. as Class Counsel. Greylock provides business consulting services on a contract or fee basis. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FQ2Y64 at no extra charge.[CC] GRIMMWAY ENTEPRISES: Seeks Denial of Class Cert Bid --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CIVIL RIGHTS DEPARTMENT, an agency of the State of California, v. GRIMMWAY ENTERPRISES, INC., d.b.a. GRIMMWAY FARMS, Case No. 2:21-cv-01552-DAD-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Defendant will move the Court on May 5, 2025, to deny class certification, or strike class action or group allegations in accordance with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23 and Rule 12(f). The motion is made on the grounds that the Plaintiff seeks to maintain pattern or practice claims under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") on behalf of a group or class of over 600 individuals, and in order to do so, the CRD is required to comply with the class action requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23; and the CRD is unable to comply with such class action requirements. ADA disability and accommodation claims simply cannot satisfy the requirements of Rule 23. For example, under the ADA, class or group claims alleging a pattern or practice of disability discrimination requires that the Court determine that each individual class or group member is "qualified" under the ADA, and whether each class or group member is a "qualified individual with a disability" under the ADA simply requires too many individualized inquiries, and "the ADA's 'qualified' standard cannot be evaluated on a classwide basis in a manner consistent with Rule 23(a) and (b)(2)." GEI's Motion is based upon this Notice of Motion and Motion, the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, the Declarations of Jazmine Flores, Victoria A. Lipnic, David T. Fractor and Sandra Bloxom filed concurrently herewith, and upon all pleadings, records and papers filed herein, and such other oral or documentary evidence as may be presented at or before the time of the hearing. On July 17, 2018, the CRD filed an administrative complaint against GEI, alleging claims of discrimination, harassment and retaliation based on disability, race, sexual harassmenthostile environment and sex/gender. Grimmway has agricultural operations in several locations in California where it grows, produces and/or ships its organic and conventional vegetables. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oqLilr at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: T. Scott Belden, Esq. Jazmine Flores, Esq. Tyler D. Anthony, Esq. BELDEN BLAINE RAYTIS, LLP 5016 California Avenue, Suite 3 Bakersfield, CA 93309 Telephone: (661) 864-7826 Facsimile: (661) 878-9797 E-mail: scott@bbr.law jazmine@bbr.law tyler@bbr.law GSK PLC: Artificially Inflated Prices of ADRs, Roofers Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ ROOFERS LOCAL NO. 149 PENSION FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GSK PLC, EMMA N. WALMSLEY, VICTORIA WHYTE, and IAIN MACKAY, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00618 (E.D. Pa., February 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding GSK's business, operations, and prospects in order to trade GSK's American Depositary Receipts (ADRs) at artificially inflated prices between February 5, 2020, and August 14, 2022. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants represented to investors that GSK removed Zantac from the market based on information available at the time and correspondence with regulators. GSK also stated that it was continuing with investigations into the potential source of N-nitrosodimethylamine. The Defendants also assured investors that GSK, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the European Medicines Agency have all independently concluded that there is no evidence of a causal association between ranitidine therapy and the development of cancer in patients, findings that were consistent with other ranitidine data published prior to 2019. Finally, the Defendants claimed that they could not quantify or reliably estimate the liability. When the truth emerged, the price of GSK ADRs declined by $4.30 per ADR, or more than 10 percent from a closing price of $40.03 on August 9, 2022, to a closing price of $35.73 on August 11, 2022. The price of GSK ADRs declined further on August 15, 2022, says the suit. GSK plc is a multinational pharmaceutical company, headquartered in London, England. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan T. Degnan, Esq. Naumon A. Amjed, Esq. KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (610) 667-7706 Facsimile: (610) 667-7056 Email: rdegnan@ktmc.com namjed@ktmc.com - and - Hannah Ross, Esq. Avi Josefson, Esq. Scott R. Foglietta, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 Facsimile: (212) 554-1444 Email: hannah@blbglaw.com avi@blbglaw.com scott.foglietta@blbglaw.com - and - Lyndsey K. Bates, Esq. ASHERKELLY, PLLC 25800 Northwestern Highway, Suite 1100 Southfield, MI 48075 Telephone: (248) 746-2710 Email: lbates@asherkelly.com GSK PLC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Securities Fraud --------------------------------------------------------- Prominent investor rights law firm Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP ("BLB&G") filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging violations of the federal securities laws by GSK plc ("GSK" or the "Company") and certain of the Company's current and former executives (collectively, "Defendants"). The action is brought on behalf of all persons or entities that purchased GSK American Depositary Receipts ("ADRs") between February 5, 2020, and August 14, 2022, inclusive (the "Class Period"). BLB&G filed this action on behalf of its client, Roofers Local No. 149 Pension Fund, and the case is captioned Roofers Local No. 149 Pension Fund v. GSK plc, No. 25-cv-618 (E.D. Pa.). The complaint is based on an extensive investigation and a careful evaluation of the merits of this case. A copy of the complaint is available on BLB&G's website by clicking here. GSK's Alleged Fraud GSK is a global pharmaceutical company that develops, manufactures, and markets vaccines and medicines worldwide. In the 1980s, a predecessor company to GSK launched a treatment for heartburn and acid reflux: ranitidine, under the brand name Zantac. Over the next four decades, Zantac was used by millions of patients and generated billions of dollars for GSK. In 2019, independent laboratory Valisure found NDMA, a cancer-causing poison, in "every batch of every [Zantac] medication" that it tested. Valisure reported these results to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") and to the public. In September and October 2019, GSK suspended its distribution of Zantac and initiated a voluntary recall. In April 2020, the FDA requested that manufacturers cease selling Zantac and any generic alternatives. Tens of thousands of cancer-stricken patients filed personal injury and product liability lawsuits against GSK in the years that followed. Many of these were unified into a multidistrict litigation proceeding. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants represented to investors that GSK removed Zantac from the market "[b]ased on information available at the time and correspondence with regulators," and that GSK was "continuing with investigations into the potential source of NDMA." Defendants also assured investors that "GSK, the FDA, and the EMA [European Medicines Agency] have all independently concluded that there is no evidence of a causal association between ranitidine therapy and the development of cancer in patients," findings that were "consistent with other ranitidine data published prior to 2019." Finally, Defendants claimed that they could not "quantify or reliably estimate the liability" GSK could face from Zantac-related legal proceedings. These representations were materially false or misleading and caused GSK ADRs to trade at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. In truth, GSK was fully aware of the source of NDMA and had been for nearly 40 years before withdrawing Zantac from the market. Furthermore, Defendants' representations about their ability to "quantify or reliably estimate the liability" deceived investors, who did not know that GSK had for decades concealed an internal study that implicated the Company's liability to Zantac users. The truth began to emerge on August 10, 2022, when a Deutsche Bank report alerted the market that it seemed "very possible" that GSK and other Zantac distributors "will incur the risk of some degree of shared liability, with the only real questions being what the magnitude of liability may be." While GSK had repeatedly told investors that scientific research did not support a correlation between Zantac and cancer, the Deutsche Bank report forecasted that total liability could be between $5 billion and $10 billion. Then, on August 15, 2022, GSK admitted that it could, in fact, provide guidance and that its liability exposure was between $1 billion and $10 billion. As a result of these disclosures, the price of GSK ADRs declined precipitously. If you wish to serve as Lead Plaintiff for the Class, you must file a motion with the Court no later than April 7, 2025, which is the first business day on which the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania is open that is 60 days after the publication date of February 4, 2025. Any member of the proposed Class may seek 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 wish to discuss this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact Scott R. Foglietta of BLB&G at 212-554-1903, or via e-mail at scott.foglietta@blbglaw.com. About BLB&G BLB&G is widely recognized worldwide as a leading law firm advising institutional investors on issues related to corporate governance, shareholder rights, and securities litigation. Since its founding in 1983, BLB&G has built an international reputation for excellence and integrity and pioneered the use of the litigation process to achieve precedent-setting governance reforms. Unique among its peers, BLB&G has obtained several of the largest and most significant securities recoveries in history, recovering over $40 billion on behalf of defrauded investors. More information about the firm can be found online at www.blbglaw.com. Contacts Scott R. Foglietta Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor New York, New York 10020 (212) 554-1903 scott.foglietta@blbglaw.com [GN] GUARD-SYSTEMS INC: Underpays Security Officers, Castillo Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- JULIO CASTILLO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GUARD-SYSTEMS, INC. and DOES 1 THROUGH 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV03183 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., February 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act including failure to properly pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal breaks or compensation thereof, failure to provide rest breaks or compensation thereof, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to timely pay wages, and failure to keep accurate and complete payroll records. The Plaintiff was employed by Guard-Systems as a security officer from around 2019 until his separation in or around March 2024. Guard-Systems, Inc. is a provider of security services in Los Angeles, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Arthur Sezgin, Esq. Alisa Khousadian, Esq. SEZGIN KHOUSADIAN LLP 500 North Central Avenue, Suite 830 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 696-1330 Facsimile: (818) 696-1331 Email: arthur@sklaw.legal alisa@sklaw.legal GUARDIAN CREDIT: Discloses Personal Info to Google, Gassman Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- DAVID GASSMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. GUARDIAN CREDIT UNION, Case No. 2:25-cv-00176-BHL (E.D. Wisc., Feb. 4, 2025) addresses the Defendant's alleged outrageous, illegal, and widespread practice of disclosing -- without consent -- the Nonpublic Personal Information and Personally Identifiable Financial Information (Personal and Financial Information) of the Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members to third parties, including Google, LLC, Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, LinkedIn, Qualtrics, Adnxs, DoubleClick, and possibly others. Accrodingly Guardian is "one of the largest and most trusted financial resources in the community,” offering the ability to “manage your money anywhere" to customers across the United States, including in Wisconsin. To provide these services, Guardian operates and encourages its customers to use its website, https://www.guardiancu.org/ (the “Website”), on which customers can access their account information, access Guardian's financial services, and apply for financial products like credit cards. Despite its unique position as a trusted credit union, Guardian used its Website to blatantly collect and disclose Consumers’4 and Customers's Personal and Financial Information to Third Parties uninvolved in the provision of financial services -- entirely without their knowledge or authorization. Guardian did so by knowingly and secretly configuring and implementing code-based tracking devices, says the suit. Guardian Credit Union is a federally insured credit union serving members who live or work in seven counties in southeastern Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI, PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IN 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Amina A. Thomas, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com athomas@cohenandmalad.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Emily E. Schiller, Esq.cs STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com HATS UNLIMITED: Wilson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store ---------------------------------------------------------------- HOWARD WILSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HATS UNLIMITED, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01274 (N.D. Ill., February 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.hatsunlimited.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Hats Unlimited, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 HESS BAKKEN: Filing for Class Cert. Bids in Penman Due June 17 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Penman v. Hess Bakken Investments II, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00097 (D.N.D., Filed June 10, 2022), the Hon. Judge Daniel L. Hovland entered an order granting joint motion to amend/correct scheduling order: -- Discovery due by: April 15, 2025 -- Discovery Motions due by: April 29, 2025 -- Plaintiff(s) Expert Witness April 15, 2025 Disclosures and Reports due by: -- Defendant(s) Expert Witness May 27, 2025 Disclosures and Reports due by: -- Plaintiff(s) Rebuttal Expert July 8, 2025 Disclosures due by: -- Class Certification Motions due by: June 17, 2025 The nature of suit states Diversity-Other Contract.[CC] HSBC INVESTMENT: Court Certifies Class Action Closet Indexing ------------------------------------------------------------- James Langton of Investment Executive reports that on appeal, a court in British Columbia has certified a class action against fund manager HSBC Global Asset Management (Canada) Ltd. and HSBC Investment Funds (Canada) Inc. on behalf of investors who alleged that several funds engaged in "closet indexing." The Court of Appeal for British Columbia overturned a lower court decision from February 2024 that refused to certify a proposed class action. The suit alleged that certain actively managed funds were actually passively managed -- and that, as a result, investors were overcharged when they paid fees for active management. Following a series of hearings into whether the proposed class action should be certified, the lower court concluded that the claim failed to disclose viable grounds for a class action and awarded costs to the firms. Now, those decisions have been overturned on appeal. In a unanimous decision, the three-judge panel ruled that the claim from plaintiff, Linnea Gibbs, does disclose possible causes of action -- including allegations of breaches of fiduciary duty and trust, failure to comply with statutory disclosure obligations, and unjust enrichment. Among other things, the appeal court found that the motion judge rejected the plaintiff’s pleadings for failing to allege that "closet indexing" involves fraudulent intent to mislead investors about the fund’s investment strategy. "In his view, it was unclear how a failure to disclose that a closet indexing strategy was being used could be negligent, given that an investment strategy must be intentional," the appeal court noted in its decision. However, the appeal court ruled that it wasn’t necessary to allege fraudulent intent. "In my view, and with respect, the judge erred in concluding that without civil fraud, the [claim] no longer disclosed a cause of action," the appeal court said -- adding that the judge overlooked the other causes of action put forth by the plaintiff that don’t need to allege fraud. "Trustees may breach their obligations under a trust without engaging in fraud . . . Similarly, a fiduciary may fall short of the expected standard of utmost good faith without intending to deceive the person to whom a fiduciary duty is owed," the appeal court said. It added: "a prospectus may fail to disclose material information through oversight rather than deceit." In this case, the plaintiff "alleges that the respondents either intentionally used a closet indexing strategy and kept this information from investors, or through negligence were unaware that their investment choices were not sufficiently different from the benchmark to give unitholders the prospect of outperforming the benchmark," the appeal court said. Ultimately, it concluded that the plaintiffs had met the test for certification as a class action. It also ruled that the motion judge erred in awarding costs to the defendants in the case, saying that, while the plaintiff’s pleadings were complex and flawed, they didn’t rise to the level of "exceptional," which would justify awarding costs against a plaintiff in a proposed class action. "I would allow the appeal, grant the application for certification, and set aside the costs award," it said. [GN] HYUNDAI MOTOR: Hageman Must File Class Cert Bid by May 2 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brenda Hageman, Richard Price, Timothy Sage, Lisa Page, David Kostka, Mark Schofield, Louella Wilson, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Hyundai Motor America, Case No. 8:23-cv-01045-HDV-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Hernan Vera entered an order granting joint stipulation to continue deadline for plaintiffs to file a motion for class certification by 60 days. The Court has considered the parties' stipulation to continue the deadline for the Plaintiffs to file a motion for class certification by 60 Days to May 2, 2025, and orders that the parties' stipulation is granted. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is due on or before May 2, 2025. Hyundai is the operating subsidiary that oversees all operations of Hyundai Motor Company in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xqThZQ at no extra charge.[CC] IMPERIAL SUPPLIES: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Wilson Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ HOWARD WILSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IMPERIAL SUPPLIES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01268 (N.D. Ill., February 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.imperialsupplies.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Imperial Supplies, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 INTRASYSTEMS LLC: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Snyder Says ------------------------------------------------------------- DEENA SNYDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff  v.  INTRASYSTEMS, LLC AND ALLEGHENY HEALTH NETWORK, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-10243 (D. Mass., January 31, 2025) arises out of Defendants' failures to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored for its business purposes. According to the complaint, this failure to secure and monitor its network resulted in the October 2024 data breach of highly sensitive documents and information stored on the computer networks of AHN and IntraSystems. AHN is an organization that provides medical treatment and/or employment to individuals, including Plaintiff and Class Members. 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 Defendants did not begin sending notices of the data breach until January 17, 2025, says the suit. As a result of the data breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. The Plaintiff and Class Members must now and for years into the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft, the suit added. InstraSystems is an IT consulting company, managed services provider, and systems integrator that caters deployment, management, and delivery of IT infrastructure, managed services, help desk services, cybersecurity services and assessments, virtualization services, security, and cloud solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Sean K. Collins, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF SEAN K. COLLINS 184 High Street, Suite 503 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (855) 693-9256 Facsimile: (617) 227-2843 E-mail: skc@seankcollinslaw.com - and - Danielle L. Perry, Esq. Ra O. Amen, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: dperry@masonllp.com ramen@masonllp.com - and - 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 IVY LEAGUE: Faces Estabrook Class Suit Over Sex Discrimination -------------------------------------------------------------- GRACE ESTABROOK, ELLEN HOLMQUIST, and MARGOT KACZOROWSKI v. THE IVY LEAGUE COUNCIL OF PRESIDENTS, PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE, TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA, and NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-10281 (D. Mass., Feb. 4, 2025) is a class action under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, to remedy sex discrimination against the women who participated in or should have participated in the 2022 Ivy League Women's Swimming & Diving Championships ("2022 Ivy League Championships") from February 16 to 19, 2022. The Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College (Harvard) hosted the 2022 Ivy League Championships at Harvard's Blodgett Pool in Cambridge, Massachusetts. For the first time in the history of the Ivy League, The Ivy League Council of Presidents a/k/a Council of Ivy Group Presidents ("Ivy League"), including the Presidents of Harvard, and the University of Pennsylvania ("UPenn"), allowed a trans-identifying male swimmer, Lia Thomas, rostered by the Trustees of UPenn on the UPenn women's swimming team ("UPenn Team") to compete against the female swimmers in Ivy League competitions, including the 2022 Ivy League Championships. Before the 2021-2022 college swimming season UPenn swim coach Mike Schnur bragged that he had a "secret weapon." Plaintiff Grace Estabrook is a former NCAA Division I swimmer who competed at the University of Pennsylvania and in the 2022 Ivy League Championships. Estabrook began swimming competitively at age seven. She grew up swimming for Carmel Swim Club in Carmel, Indiana -- one of the best youth swimming programs in the country -- and was the captain of the Carmel High School Swimming & Diving Team during her senior year of high school in 2018. Defendant Ivy League (i.e., The Ivy League Council of Presidents) is an unincorporated association with its principal place of business in Princeton, New Jersey. The NCAA is an unincorporated association comprised of more than 1,100 member colleges and universities as well as multi-sport membership athletic conferences in which colleges and universities are members.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: William Bock III, Esq. Justin R. Olson, Esq. KROGER GARDIS & REGAS, LLP 111 Monument Circle, Suite 900 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 692-9000 Facsimile: (317) 264-6832 E-mail: wbock@kgrlaw.com jolson@kgrlaw.com - and - Samuel J. Whiting, Esq. MASSACHUSETTS LIBERTY LEGAL CENTER 401 Edgewater Pl., Suite 580 Wakefield, MA 01880 Telephone: (774) 462-7043 E-mail: sam@malibertylegal.org JARRO CONTRACTING: Underpays Construction Workers, Minchala Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN MINCHALA, WILSON MINCHALA, and BYRON DE PAZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JARRO CONTRACTING CO, INC., and FABIAN JARRO, Defendants, Case No. 7:25-cv-01002 (S.D.N.Y., February 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Fair Labor Standard Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, unlawful wage deductions, failure to pay all wages on a timely basis, failure to furnish proper wage statements, failure to furnish wage notice and violations of the Anti-Retaliation Provisions. Plaintiff John Minchala worked for the Defendants as a construction worker and handyman from approximately November 2017 until March 14, 2020, and then again, from approximately June 8, 2023, until August 27, 2024. Plaintiff Wilson Minchala worked for the Defendants as a construction worker, builder, and painter from January 2017 through August 2024. Plaintiff Byron De Paz worked for the Defendants as a construction worker, painter, repairer, and remodeler from approximately 2018 through approximately August 2021. Jarro Contracting Co., Inc. is a construction firm with its principal place of business located in Ossining, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Avraham Y. Scher, Esq. Michael R. Minkoff, Esq. Jon L. Norinsberg, Esq. JOSEPH & NORINSBERG, LLC 110 East 59th Street, Suite 2300 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 227-5700 JOHN ASHCROFT: Filing for Final OK of Settlement Due March 19 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEGAR, et al., v. ASHCROFT, et al., Case No. 1:77-cv-00081 (D.D.C., Filed Jan. 14, 1977), the Hon. Judge Emmet G. Sullivan entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for continuance pursuant to the Provisional Class Certification, Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, and Preliminary Approval of Notice: The Court further entered an order that: (1) The parties and claims administrator (Settlement Services, Inc.) shall adhere to the same notice process previously approved by the Court, except that the deadline for distributing notice to any additional class members shall be thirty days prior the final fairness hearing, and the deadline for class members to submit opt outs or any objections shall be twenty days after the mailing of notice; (2) The deadline for filing the motion for final approval of settlement is extended to March 19, 2025, five days before the final fairness hearing; (3) The parties are directed to give notice of the continuance to timely objectors Richard Holmes and Dennis Maye by or before February 4, 2025. The nature of suit states Civil Rights -- Job Discrimination.[CC] JRCIGARS.COM INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cole Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- HARON COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. JRCigars.com, Inc., Case No1:25-cv-01131 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 3, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services JRCigars.com provides to their non-disabled customers through https://jrcigars.com. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff contends that by failing to make the website accessible to blind persons, Defendant is violating basic equal access requirements under both state and federal law. 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. 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 Illinois. JRCigars.com provides to the public a website known as JR Cigars provides consumers with access to a wide selection of premium cigars and smoking accessories, including the ability to view handmade cigars, machine-made options, flavored varieties, cigar samplers, humidors, cutters, lighters, ashtrays.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Reyes, Esq. ASHER COHEN LAW PLLC 2377 56th Dr, Brooklyn, New York 11234 Telephone: (630)-478-0856 E-mail: dreyes@ashercohenlaw.com JUNIATA COLLEGE: Ortiz Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH ORTIZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUNIATA COLLEGE, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00113 (W.D.N.Y., February 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.juniata.edu, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include, but not limited to: lack of alternative text, empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Juniata College is an educational institution that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal JUST AS FAMILY: Hall Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for House Managers ------------------------------------------------------------------ JOEL HALL, SR., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JUST AS FAMILY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00187-ACA (N.D. Ala., February 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a house manager from about September 2018 through August 2024. Just As Family, Inc. is a health care provider based in Birmingham, Alabama. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David I. Schoen, Esq. CONSUMER ATTORNEYS, PLLC 2800 Zelda Road, Suite 100-6y Montgomery, AL 36106 Telephone: (334) 395-6611 Email: david@schoenlawfirm.com schoenlawfirm@gmail.com - and - Emanuel Kataev, Esq. CONSUMER ATTORNEYS, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY, 11367 Telephone: (718) 412-2421 Facsimile: (718) 489-4155 Email: ekataev@consumerattorneys.com K-SWISS INC: Walker Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------ LEAH WALKER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. K-Swiss, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01072 (N.D. Ill., January 31, 2025) is a civil rights action against K-Swiss for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://palladiumboots.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the 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 inaccessible contact information, inaccurate landmark structure, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, inaccurate alt-text on graphics and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in K-Swiss' 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. K-Swiss, Inc. operates the website which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view boots, heel boots, sneakers, sandals, bags, hats, socks for women, men and kids.[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 KELLERMEYER BERGENSONS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Da Cruz Says --------------------------------------------------------------- ALEX JUNIOR SANTIAGO DA CRUZ, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. KELLERMEYER BERGENSONS SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00255-JLS-SBC (S.D. Cal., Feb. 4, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Da Cruz was employed by the Defendant as a janitor. Kellermeyer Bergensons Services, LLC provides janitorial services. The Company offers maintenance, contract cleaning, floor care, technical, exterior, integrated facility support services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dennis Stewart, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (612) 333-8844 KOHLS INC: Menard Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Wisconsin --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kohls Inc. The case is styled as John Menard, individually, and on behalf of all other individuals similarly situated v. Kohls Inc., John Does 1-10, Case No. 2:25-cv-00165 (E.D. Wis., Jan. 31, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Kohl's -- https://www.kohls.com/ -- (stylized in all caps) is an American department store retail chain, operated by Kohl's Corporation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammed O. Badwan, Esq. SULAIMAN LAW GROUP LTD 2500 South Highland Avenue, Suite 200 Lombard, IL 60148 Phone: (630) 575-8181 Fax: (630) 575-8188 Email: mbadwan@sulaimanlaw.com LA DURA FOOD: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ventura Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- JULIO CESAR VENTURA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LA DURA FOOD CORP (D/B/A LA DURA FOOD CORP); RAMON GOMEZ (AKA GUARIO); JOSE JAVIER ESTEVEZ; and MARCOS GOMEZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01012 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 4, 2025) alleges Defendants' failure to pay proper wages to Plaintiff and similarly situated employees. Plaintiff Ventura was employed by the Defendants as a deli worker. La Dura Food Corp. owns, operates, or controls a deli and restaurant, located at Bronx, NY 10452, under the name "La Dura Food Corp". [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catalina Sojo, Esq. CSM LEGAL, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 LAUNDRESS LLC: Fact Discovery in Macs Due July 11 ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Macs, et al., v. The Laundress, LLC, et al. (re Laundress Marketing and Product Liability Litigation), Case No. 1:24-cv-02108 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jesse Furman entered an amended civil case management plan and scheduling order as follows: -- All fact discovery shall be completed July 11, 2025 no later than: -- The deadline for Ostenfeld Plaintiffs Aug. 29, 2025 to file a motion for class certification and all Plaintiffs to serve expert reports is: -- The deadline to complete depositions Oct. 15, 2025 of Plaintiffs' expert(s) is: -- The deadline for Defendants to file Nov. 17, 2025 opposition to motion for class certification, serve expert reports, and file any Daubert motion (on a consolidated basis as to any/all experts) is: -- The deadline to complete depositions Jan. 5, 2026 of the Defendants' expert(s) is: -- The deadline for Ostenfeld Plaintiffs Jan. 19, 2026 to file any reply in support of motion for class certification and to file any Daubert motion (on a consolidated basis as to any/all experts) is: Laundress provides plant-derived laundry and home cleaning products. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4aPz4T at no extra charge.[CC] LAUNDRESS LLC: Fact Discovery in Product Liability Suit Due July 11 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Re Laundress Marketing and Product Liability Litigation, Case No. 1:24-cv-00814 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jesse Furman entered an amended civil case management plan and scheduling order as follows: -- All fact discovery shall be completed July 11, 2025 no later than: -- The deadline for Ostenfeld Plaintiffs Aug. 29, 2025 to file a motion for class certification and all Plaintiffs to serve expert reports is: -- The deadline to complete depositions Oct. 15, 2025 of Plaintiffs' expert(s) is: -- The deadline for Defendants to file Nov. 17, 2025 opposition to motion for class certification, serve expert reports, and file any Daubert motion (on a consolidated basis as to any/all experts) is: -- The deadline to complete depositions Jan. 5, 2026 of the Defendants' expert(s) is: -- The deadline for Ostenfeld Plaintiffs Jan. 19, 2026 to file any reply in support of motion for class certification and to file any Daubert motion (on a consolidated basis as to any/all experts) is: The Laundress provides plant-derived laundry and home cleaning products. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IoxHbb at no extra charge.[CC] LAYLO INC: Parties Must Confer Class Cert Deadlines --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Blair v. LAYLO INC., Case No. 6:25-cv-00177 (M.D. Fla., Filed Feb. 3, 2025), the Hon. Judge Paul G. Byron entered an order directing the parties to confer regarding deadlines pertinent to a motion for class certification and advise the Court of agreeable deadlines in their case management report. The deadlines should include a deadline for (1) disclosure of expert reports - class action, plaintiff and defendant; (2) discovery - class action; (3) motion for class certification; (4) response to motion for class certification; and (5) reply to motion for class certification. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).[CC] LENDING LOVE: Class Cert. Filing in Foster Extended to March 10 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Foster v. Lending Love LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00445 (S.D. Miss., Filed July 30, 2024), the Hon. Judge Carlton W. Reeves entered an order extending the deadline for class certification motion on or before March 10, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Lending Love is a home care service provider.[CC] LENDINGTREE LLC: Seeks to Stay Sapan's Class Certification Bid -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL SAPAN, individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. LENDINGTREE, LLC, Case No. 8:23-cv-00071-JWH-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Defendant, on Feb. 28, 2025, will move the Court to enter an order to stay Plaintiff Paul Sapan's motion for class certification in this action until the Court has adjudicated its motion for summary judgment. LendingTree states that staying Plaintiff's motion for class certification is proper as: (1) the Plaintiff's motion for class certification will be moot if LendingTree succeeds on its motion for summary judgment; (2) the Plaintiff has failed to timely disclose his expert witness Anya Verkhovskaya, which the Plaintiff disclosed for the first time in his motion for class certification; and (3) the Plaintiff will not be prejudiced if the motion for class certification is stayed. LendingTree provides online tools to aid consumers in their financial decisions. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gcbIik at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Dillon Chen, Esq. Kevin P. Polansky, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP 750 B Street, Suite 2200 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 489-6191 Facsimile: (619) 821-2834 E-mail: dillon.chen@nelsonmullins.com kevin.polansky@nelsonmullins.com LICENSED BEHAVIORAL: Efroymson Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA & NYLL ------------------------------------------------------------- SHAYA EFROYMSON v. LICENSED BEHAVIORAL ANALYSIS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, PLLC and YOCHEVED ADELMAN a/k/a YOCHEVED WASSERMAN, Case No. 7:25-cv-01013 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 4, 2025) is a class action seeking to recover lawful wages and overtime pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff started working for Defendants in the summer, July and August, of the summer of 2021. Plaintiff s salary for that summer was approximately $960 per week. The Plaintiff worked for approximately 9 weeks during the summer of 2021, thus, he should have been paid $8,649 for that summer. However, all that Plaintiff received for those nine weeks of the summer or 2021 was $986. Thus, Plaintiff was underpaid by Defendants for his work for that summer in the amount of approximately $7,663, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants during July and August 2021 and from March 2022 until 2024. The Defendants employed Plaintiff as an ABA para. The job of the employee was to teach and train autistic children how to navigate life by improving such children social skills and other life skills. The Defendants operate a company which provides Applied Behavior Analysis ("ABA") with the goal of teaching autistic children how to lead fulfilling lives and overcome other challenges that autistic individuals face.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bernard Weinreb, Esq. 2 Perlman Drive, Suite 310 Spring Valley, New York 10977 Telephone: (845) 369-1019 E-mail: boruchw@cs.com LIGHT & WONDER: Seeks to Vacate Class Determination Award in Mohawk ------------------------------------------------------------------- Light & Wonder, Inc., and LNW Gaming Inc. (collectively "LNW") seeks to vacate the class determination arbitration award issued in Mohawk Gaming Enterprises LLC, et al., v. Light & Wonder, Inc., and LNW Gaming Inc., American Arbitration Association No. 1-20-0015-6196, which was filed and delivered on December 9, 2024. On November 9, 2020, Mohawk Gaming Enterprises LLC, doing business as Akwesasne Mohawk Casino Resort, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, brought an arbitration demand against LNW, before the American Arbitration Association, alleging that LNW violated the Sherman Act by unlawfully monopolizing an antitrust market that contains automatic shufflers by means of anticompetitive conduct. Mohawk alleges that, as a result, it and other LNW customers overpaid for shufflers. Mohawk also alleges that it "brings this action on its own behalf and as a class arbitration pursuant to Rule 4 of the AAA Supplementary Rules for Class Arbitration." On February 16, 2024, Mohawk filed a memorandum in support of class certification, seeking to certify a class of: All persons and entities that directly purchased or leased automatic card shufflers within the United States, its territories and the District of Columbia from any Respondent or any predecessor, subsidiary or affiliate thereof, at any time between April 1, 2009 and December 31, 2022, and that agreed in writing to arbitrate disputes, arising from such purchases or leases under the rules of the American Arbitration Association (AAA)." On December 9, 2024, the Arbitrator issued the Class Determination Award in which he certified an opt-out class substantially adopting Mohawk's proposed definition. He did not conduct any contractual analysis of the terms of the unnamed class members' contracts to ascertain if the parties intended to permit class-based procedures. Following the decision, the case was "stayed for 30 Days, until January 9, 2025, to permit the parties to move a court of competent jurisdiction to confirm or vacate the Class Determination Award." The Class Determination Award has not been confirmed, modified or corrected. The petition to vacate the class determination arbitration award is captioned Light & Wonder, Inc., and LNW Gaming, Inc., Petitioners v. Mohawk Gaming Enterprises LLC, d/b/a Akwesasne Mohawk Casino Resort, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Respondent, Case No. 650148/2025, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York, filed on January 9, 2025. [BN] Defendants-Petitioners LIGHT & WONDER, INC., et al. are represented by: Keith R. Hummel, Esq. Kevin J. Orsini, Esq. Brittany L. Sukiennik, Esq. CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP Two Manhattan West 375 Ninth Avenue New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 474-1000 Facsimile: (212) 474-3700 Email: khummel@cravath.com korsini@cravath.com bsukiennik@cravath.com LOYAL SOURCE GOVERNMENT: Baxter Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Leslie Westfield Baxter, an individual on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. LOYAL SOURCE GOVERNMENT SERVICES, LLC, a Florida limited liability company; and DOES 1 to 50, Case No. CIVRS2402121 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 3, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-00298. In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges a single cause of action for Penalties Pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 "PAGA" for Violations of California Labor Code Sections 201, 202, 203, 204, 210, 226, 226.3, 226.7, 510, 1174, 1185, 1194, 1194.2, 1197, 1197.1, 1198, 1198.5, 1199, 2802, 2804, and Other Provision of the California Labor Code.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Michael C. Robinson, Jr., Esq. Orion S. Robinson, Esq. ROBINSON DI LANDO A Professional Law Corporation 801 South Grand Avenue, Suite 500 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: (213) 229-0100 Facsimile: (213) 229-0114 Email: mrobinson@rdwlaw.com orobinson@rdwlaw.com MARIGOLD MINING: Fails to Pay Minimum Wages & OT Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL FEWKES, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. MARIGOLD MINING COMPANY, Case No. 2:25-cv-00241-JCM-DJA (D. Nev., Feb. 4, 2025) seeks to recover overtime wages and minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Nevada Law. Defendant Marigold employed the Plaintiff as one of its Hourly Employees (defined below). Marigold pays Fewkes and the other Hourly Employees by the hour. Fewkes and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more than 40 hours a workweek. However, Marigold does not pay Fewkes and the other Hourly Employees for all their hours worked, including overtime hours. Rather, Marigold requires Fewkes and the other Hourly Employees to suit out in protective clothing and safety gear necessary to safely perform their job duties and attend a "turnover" meeting "off the clock" prior the start of their shifts, says the suit. Likewise, Marigold requires Fewkes and the other Hourly Employees to wash-up and change out of their safety gear and protective clothing "off the clock" following the end of their shifts. But Marigold does not pay Fewkes and the other Hourly Employees for this "off the clock" time before and after their shifts, the suit added. Plaintiff Marigold has employed Fewkes in its Nevada mine from approximately November 2014 through July 2024. The FLSA collective of similarly situated employees is defined as: "All hourly Marigold employees during the past 3 years through final resolution of this action ("FLSA Collective Members"). The Nevada Class of similarly situated employees is defined as: "All hourly Marigold employees in Nevada during the past 3 years through final resolution of this action ("Nevada Class Members"). Marigold Mining Company. operates in the gold ore mining industry. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Esther C. Rodriguez, Esq. RODRIGUEZ LAW OFFICES, P.C. 10161 Park Run Drive, Suite 150 Las Vegas, NE 89145 Telephone: (702) 320-8400 Facsimile: (702) 320-8401 E-mail: info@rodriguezlaw.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com MASHABLE INC: Fregosa Suit Removed to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Dawn Fregosa, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MASHABLE, INC., Case No. 24CV103566 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on Feb. 3, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01094. In the Complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that Mashable installed trackers on the Plaintiff's browser and used these trackers to collect her IP address. The Plaintiff brings claims under the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA"). She purports to represent a class of "all California residents who accessed the Website in California and had their IP address collected by the Trackers."[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Sean Sullivan, Esq. Spencer Persson, Esq. Monica Gibbons, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 50 California Street, 23rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4701 Phone: (415) 276-6500 Facsimile: (415) 276-6599 Email: seansullivan@dwt.com spencerpersson@dwt.com monicagibbons@dwt.com MCDONALD'S RESTAURANTS: Settles Labor Violations Class Action Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ William C. Gendron of ClaimDEPOT reports that if you were employed by McDonald's Restaurants of California, Inc. in an hourly, non-exempt position between June 2, 2020, and May 7, 2024, you may be eligible to claim an award from a class action settlement. McDonald's Restaurants of California, Inc. has agreed to pay $6,500,500 to settle a class action lawsuit for alleged violations of California labor laws, including failure to pay wages, provide meal periods and rest breaks, and reimburse business-related expenses. Who is eligible to receive a payout? To be considered eligible for a settlement payment, you: -- were employed by McDonald's Restaurants of California, Inc. -- in California -- in an hourly, non-exempt position -- worked at least one day from June 2, 2020, to May 7, 2024 -- For PAGA claims, you must have worked during the "PAGA period" from December 13, 2021, to May 7, 2024 Class members do not need to file a claim to receive their award. If you do not opt-out, you will automatically be considered a part of the settlement class and eligible for compensation. How much are the McDonalds Settlement payouts? The settlement provides for individual Class Settlement Awards and PAGA Settlement Awards. The exact amount each class member will receive depends on the number of workweeks worked during the class period. The Net Settlement will be distributed based on the total number of workweeks worked by all class members. For example, if the Net Settlement is $4,000,000 and the total workweeks are 100,000, each workweek would be worth $40. If you worked 50 workweeks, your award would be $2,000. -- Class Settlement Award: Based on workweeks worked during the class period. -- PAGA Settlement Award: Based on pay periods worked during the PAGA period. How to get a payout Class members do not need to take any action to receive their compensation. The settlement administrator will automatically send checks to eligible class members at their last known address. $6.5 Million settlement fund The settlement fund of $6,500,500 will cover various costs and payments: -- Settlement administration costs: Up to $76,500 -- Attorneys' fees: Up to $2,166,666.66 (33% of the settlement fund) -- Attorneys' expenses: Up to $25,000 -- Service awards to class representatives: Up to $10,000 -- Payments to class members: The remaining amount after deductions Important dates Final Approval Hearing: March 13, 2025 When is the McDonald's Restaurants settlement payout date? The next steps include attending the final approval hearing on March 13, 2025. If the court grants final approval, the settlement administrator will distribute the awards to eligible class members. Why is there a class action settlement? The lawsuit was filed due to alleged violations of California labor laws by McDonald's Restaurants of California, Inc., including failure to pay wages and provide required breaks. The parties agreed to settle to avoid the costs and uncertainties of continued litigation. [GN] MCLANE FOODSERVICE: Esparza Suit Removed to C.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ricardo Esparza, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. MCLANE FOODSERVICE DISTRIBUTION, INC., a corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 30-2024-01413735-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for Orange County, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 3, 2025, and assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-00200-DOC-DFM. The Plaintiff's FAC alleges 10 purported causes of action for: Violation of California Business & Professions Code and Violations of California Labor Codes for Unpaid Minimum Wages; Unpaid Overtime Wages; Unpaid Meal Period Premiums; Unpaid Rest Period Premiums; Non-Compliant Wage Statements; Unreimbursed Business Expenses; Final Wages Not Timely Paid; Unpaid Sick Pay; the California Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA").[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 Phone: 310.820.8800 Facsimile: 310.820.8859 Email: 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 Phone: 415.659.2600 Facsimile: 415.659.2601 Email: sjkim@bakerlaw.com MICROSOFT CORP: Storm Productions Files Suit in W.D. Washington --------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Microsoft Corporation. The case is styled as Storm Productions LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. Microsoft Corporation, Case No. 2:25-cv-00203 (W.D. Wash., Jan. 31, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Microsoft Corporation -- https://www.microsoft.com/ -- is a leading developer of computer software, operating systems, cloud computing, and artificial intelligence applications.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason T. Dennett, Esq. Joan Maya Pradhan, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Ave., Ste. 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 682-5600 Fax: (206) 682-2992 Email: jdennett@tousley.com jpradhan@tousley.com MIGHTY QUINN'S: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- DEVIN FERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MIGHTY QUINN'S HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00635 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 5, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.mightyquinnsbbq.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. Mighty Quinn's Holdings, LLC is an operator of restaurants. The company's menu includes meats, sides, and drinks for customers. [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 MONOLITHIC POWER: Waterford Sues Over Drop in Share Price --------------------------------------------------------- WATERFORD TOWNSHIP GENERAL EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONOLITHIC POWER SYSTEMS, INC.; MICHAEL HSING; and BERNIE BLEGEN, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00220 (W.D. Wash., Feb. 4, 2025) is a securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of Monolithic common stock between February 8, 2024 and November 8, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"), the Plaintiff seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the reports made by the Defendants with the SEC were materially false and misleading when made because they failed to disclose the following adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business, operations, and financial condition, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them as follows: (a) that Monolithic's voltage regulator modules and power management integrated circuits were suffering from significant performance and quality control issues; (b) that the defects listed in (a), above, had, in turn, negatively impacted the performance of certain products offered by Nvidia in which such products were used; (c) that Monolithic had failed to adequately address and resolve known issues affecting the performance of the power management solutions the Company supplied to Nvidia; (d) that Monolithic's relationship with Nvidia – the Company's most important customer – had been irreparably damaged due to the significant performance and quality control problems affecting the products it supplied to Nvidia and the Company's failure to adequately address such issues, as listed in (a)-(c), above; and (e) that as a result of (a)-(d), above, Monolithic was acutely exposed to material undisclosed risks of significant business, financial, and reputational harm. The price of Monolithic common stock fell $114 per share from $761.30 per share on November 8, 2024 to $647.31 per share on November 11, 2024, a decline of 15 percent on above-average trading volume of more than 4 million shares traded. As a result of these declines in the price of Monolithic stock, plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant financial losses and damages under the federal securities laws, says the suit. Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. provides semiconductor-based power electronic solutions. The Company offers power management IC, isolated gate drivers, power modules, battery and chargers, load switches, inductors, analog input devices, sensors, motor drivers and controllers, and electronic components. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Juli E. Farris, Esq. Derek W. Loeser, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3400 Seattle, WA 98101-3052 Telephone: 206/623-1900 Email: jfarris@kellerrohrback.com dloeser@kellerrohrback.com - and - Samuel H. Rudman, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 58 South Service Road, Suite 200 Melville, NY 11747 Telephone: (631) 367-7100 Email: srudman@rgrdlaw.com - and - Brian E. Cochran, Esq. Francisco J. Mejia, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101-8498 Telephone: (619) 231-1058 Email: bcochran@rgrdlaw.com fmejia@rgrdlaw.com - and - Cynthia J. Billings-Dunn, Esq. ASHERKELLY 25800 Northwestern Highway, Suite 1100 Southfield, MI 48075 Telephone: (248) 746-2710 Email: cbdunn@asherkellylaw.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Schweikert Suit Transferred to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Paul Schweikert, Jr., and others similarly situated v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 4:24-cv-01624 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Jan. 30, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00983-VC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability for Product Liability. The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tara K. King, Esq. THE WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (303) 376-6360 Email: tking@wagstafflawfirm.com MUELLER WATER: Continues to Defend Kok Class Suit in Georgia ------------------------------------------------------------ Mueller Water Products Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the David Kok class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division. On October 28, 2023, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit captioned David Kok v. Mueller Water Products, Inc., filed on August 30, 2024 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, Case No. 1:24-cv-03894-SCJ. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of all Company current and former employees whose personally identifying information was allegedly compromised by the incident. The lawsuit asserts various common law tort, contract and state statutory claims, seeks monetary damages, injunctive and declaratory relief, costs and attorneys' fees and other related relief. The Company believes the allegations are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against the claims. Mueller Water Products, Inc. manufactures and markets products and services for use in the transmission, distribution, and measurement of water in the United States, Canada, and internationally. It operates in two segments, Infrastructure and Technologies. The company is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia. MUGINOHO INTERNATIONAL: Isakov Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------- IMON ISAKOV, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Muginoho International, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-00957 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 3, 2025) alleges that Muginoho failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://www.beardpapas.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. By failing to make the website accessible to blind persons, the Defendant is violating basic equal access requirements under both state and federal law, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. 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. Muginoho provides to the public a website known as Beardpapas.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including the ability to explore Japanese desserts, especially airy puff pastry shells filled with rich, fresh cream in a variety of flavors, as well as make an online order or purchase merchandise.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Asher Cohen, Esq. ASHER COHEN PLLC 2377 56th Dr. Brooklyn, New York 11234 Telephone: (718) 914-9694 E-mail: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com NAGOMI ENTERPRISE: Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ---------------------------------------------------------------- WISLANDE CLAUDE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NAGOMI ENTERPRISE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01017 (D.N.J., Feb. 5, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.ramennagomi.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. Nagomi Enterprise, LLC owns and operates a restaurant, offering Japanese ramen. [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 NEBRASKA BOOK: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Degroot Due March 24 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER DEGROOT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; and STEVEN SHOWALTER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; v. NEBRASKA BOOK COMPANY, INC., NEBRASKA BOOK HOLDINGS, INC., CONCISE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LP, and AB LENDING SPV I LLC, d/b/a Mountain Ridge Capital; Case No. 4:23-cv-03041-JMG-MDN (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Michael Nelson entered a fourth amended case progression order: 1) The deadlines for identifying expert witnesses and completing expert disclosures for all experts expected to testify at trial: For the defendants: March 17, 2025 Plaintiffs' rebuttal: April 10, 2025 2) Motion to Certify a Class Action. a. Any motion to certify this case as a class action shall be filed by March 24, 2025, in the absence of which any claim in the pleadings that this is a class action shall be deemed abandoned, and the case shall proceed, for purposes of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, as if a motion for class certification had been filed and denied by the Court. b. The Defendants shall file their response to Plaintiffs' class certification motion by April 17, 2025. c. The Plaintiff shall file its reply in support of motion for class certification by April 24, 2025. 3) The planning conference set for March 5, 2025, is cancelled. The trial and pretrial conference will not be set at this time. A planning conference to discuss case progression, dispositive motions, the parties' interest in settlement, and the trial and pretrial conference settings will be held with the undersigned magistrate judge on April 4, 2025, at 9:30 a.m. by telephone. Counsel shall use the conferencing instructions assigned to this case to participate in the conference. 4) The deposition deadline, including but not limited to depositions for oral testimony only under Rule 45, is April 18, 2025. The maximum number of depositions that may be taken by the plaintiffs as a group and the defendants as a group (10) each (including the two already taken by Plaintiffs) consistent with Rule 30(a)(2)(A)(i). Nebraska Book Company provides wholesale textbook distribution, retail technology and consulting services to approximately 2,500 bookstores. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IvT1pw at no extra charge.[CC] NEUMORA THERAPEUTICS: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of Neumora Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: NMRA) pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and related prospectus (collectively, the "Offering Documents") issued in connection with Neumora's September 2023 initial public offering (the "IPO"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Neumora investors under the federal securities laws. To join the Neumora class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=34655 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. According to the lawsuit, the Offering Documents contained false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) in order for Neumora to justify conducting its Phase Three Program, Neumora was forced to amend BlackThorn's original Phase Two Trial inclusion criteria to include a patient population with moderate to severe MDD to show that Navacaprant offered a statistically significant improvement in treating MDD; (2) and to that same end, the Company also added a prespecified analysis to the Phase Two statistical analysis plan, focusing on patients suffering from moderate to severe MDD; and (3) the Phase Two Trials lacked adequate data, particularly in regards to the patient population size and the ratio of male to female patients within the patient population, to be able to accurately predict the results of the KOASTAL-1 study. When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered damages. A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than April 7, 2025. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to join the litigation, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=34655 or to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via e-mail at case@rosenlegal.com. NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN ONE. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT THIS POINT. AN INVESTOR'S ABILITY TO SHARE IN ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE RECOVERY IS NOT DEPENDENT UPON SERVING AS LEAD PLAINTIFF. Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm's attorneys are ranked and recognized by numerous independent and respected sources. Rosen Law Firm has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] NORTHBAY HEALTH: Faces Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------- Robin Miller of The Reporter reports that an Oakland-based law firm has filed class action lawsuits against NorthBay Health in connection with a data breach that occurred last spring and affected more than 500,000 people’s personal health and financial data. In an announcement of the lawsuits -- filed Jan. 30 in Solano County Superior Court and the U.S. District Court in Sacramento -- Attorney Scott Cole, of Cole & Van Note, said the "combination of biometric, financial and medical data that were accessed in this data hack makes this situation unique." Noting that hundreds of data breaches happen every year in the country, he added "most do not involve such highly sensitive patient information as was obtained here." As previously published in The Reporter, NorthBay confirmed in a data breach filing last week that some 569,012 people had their details compromised in a ransomware attack in early 2024. The filing said financial, medical, and health insurance details, as well as Social Security numbers and passport and credit or debit card numbers were compromised between Jan. 11 and April 1, 2024. NorthBay reported discovering the breach in February 2024. The class-action lawsuits claim NorthBay Health maintained inadequate security measures for detecting and addressing the cyber-attack, especially given knowledge of such threats that routinely plague the healthcare industry. NorthBay had an obligation to protect the stolen information, according to the lawsuits which accuse NorthBay of negligence, breach of implied contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and seek damages as well as an order for the company to put protections into place so further breaches do not occur. While NorthBay discovered the breach in February 2024, the suit points out, it "did not begin informing victims of the data breach until January 30, 2025 and failed to inform victims when or for how long the data breach occurred." In fact, it alleges, the plaintiffs in the cases were unaware of the breach until they got the letters and remain "in the dark regarding what particular data was stolen, the particular malware used and what steps are being taken, if any, to secure their private information going forward." The suits add that the plaintiffs are "thus left to speculate as to where their private information ended up, who has used it and for what potentially nefarious purposes. Indeed, they are left to further speculate as to the full impact of the data breach and how exactly (NorthBay) intends to enhance its information security systems and monitoring capabilities so as to prevent further breaches" At the time of the breach, NorthBay issued a statement to media saying, "Upon detecting this incident, we launched an investigation and engaged leading external cybersecurity experts to support our response. We are working diligently to restore systems as quickly and safely as possible." The healthcare system was forced to turn patients away and cancel appointments for a short time following the attack. Asked for comment earlier this week, NorthBay issued a statement saying it "initiated an internal investigation, coordinated with law enforcement on identifying any unauthorized activity and engaged a leading forensic security firm to assist in the investigation and confirm the security" of its computer systems. That investigation confirmed that "an unauthorized third party gained access to certain files on NorthBay Health’s computer system," the statement reads. In addition, NorthBay said it sent notification letters to individuals identified as potentially being involved in the attack and for whom it had addresses, and included resources for complimentary identity protection and credit monitoring services in those notices. "NorthBay Health takes our responsibility to safeguard personal information seriously and thanks the community for its continued patience and support as we have worked to address and investigate the issue," the statement concludes. Citing "pending litigation" NorthBay officials have declined further comment. NorthBay Health operates two hospitals in Solano County -- NorthBay Health VacaValley Hospital in Vacaville and NorthBay Health Medical Center in Fairfield -- as well as multiple primary and specialty care offices, Urgent Care locations, a cancer center and other facilities. [GN] NURTURE INC: Must File Daubert Motions Reply Brief by March 17 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA SANCHEZ and BEVERLY CASSEL, on behalf of themselves, the general public and those similarly situated, v. NURTURE, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 5:21-cv-08566-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward Davila entered an order granting the Parties' stipulation setting briefing schedule on Daubert motion and continuing reply deadline for motion for class certification as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs' deadline to oppose Nurture's Daubert motion shall be continued from Jan. 31, 2025 until and including Feb. 28, 2025. 2. The Defendant's deadline to file its reply brief in support of its Daubert motion shall be continued until and including March 14, 2025. 3. The Plaintiffs' deadline to file their reply brief in support of the motion for class certification shall be continued until and including March 14, 2025. On Oct. 25, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification. On Jan. 17, 2025, the Defendant filed a Daubert motion in connection with its Opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Nurture is an organic and baby food company. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vS82Lm at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth Safier, Esq. Marie A. Mccray, Esq. Hayley 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: Angela C. Agrusa, Esq. Shannon E. Dudic, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 2000 Avenue of the Stars Suite 400 North Tower Los Angeles, CA 90067-4704 Telephone: (310) 595-3000 Facsimile: (310) 595-3300 E-mail: angela.agrusa@us.dlapiper.com shannon.dudic@us.dlapiper.com NUVIA MSO LLC: Taylor Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nuvia MSO, LLC. The case is styled as Sara Taylor, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. Nuvia MSO, LLC doing business as: Nuvia Dental Implant Center, Case No. 1:25-cv-00444-TRJ (N.D. Ga., Jan. 30, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Nuvia MSO, LLC doing business as Nuvia -- https://www.nuviasmiles.com/ -- provides dental implants to patients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (617) 485-0018 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com - and - Steven Howard Koval THE KOVAL FIRM, LLC Building 15, Suite 120 3575 Piedmont Rd. Atlanta, GA 30305 Phone: (404) 513-6651 Fax: (404) 549-4654 Email: Steve@KovalFirm.com OLD NELSON FOOD: Gomberg Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Properties ---------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Gomberg, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Old Nelson Food PA Six, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00547 (E.D. Pa., Jan. 31, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to make its digital properties accessible to legally blind individuals, which violates the effective communication and equal access requirements of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's website, https://oldnelsonfood.com, (the "Website" or "Defendant's website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Defendants Website, and its online information, is heavily integrated with its brick-and-mortar location. Upon visiting Defendant's website, https://alpenrosephl.com, Plaintiff quickly became aware of Defendant's failure to maintain and operate its website in a way to make it fully accessible for himself and for other blind or visually-impaired people. The access barriers make it impossible for blind and visually-impaired users to enjoy and learn about the services at https://alpenrosephl.com, prior to entering Defendant's physical location, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired person. The Defendant operates the https://oldnelsonfood.com online store and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of Pennsylvania and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Glanzberg, Esq. Robert Tobia, Esq. GLANZBERG TOBIA LAW, P.C. 123 South Broad Street Suite 1640, Philadelphia, PA 19109 Phone: +1 215-981-5400 Email: DGlanzberg@aol.com robert.tobia@gtlawpc.com OMNI FAMILY HEALTH: Cubit Suit Removed to E.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case is styled as Brandon Cubit, individually, and on behalf of a class similarly situated persons v. Omni Family Health, Case No. BCV-24-104057 was removed from the Superior Court Kern County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California on Jan. 30, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00126-CDB to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Omni Family Health -- https://omnifamilyhealth.org/ -- is a growing network of state-of-the-art health centers located throughout Kern, Kings, Tulare, and Fresno counties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward J. Wynne, Esq. George R. Nemiroff, Esq. WYNNE LAW FIRM 80 E Sir Francis Drake Blvd., Ste. 3G Larkspur, CA 94939-1709 Phone: 415-461-6400 Fax: 415-461-3900 Email: ewynne@wynnelawfirm.com gnemiroff@wynnelawfirm.com - and - James F. Clapp, Esq. Marita Murphy Lauinger CLAPP LEGAL APC 701 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 300 Carlsbad, CA 92011 Phone: (760) 209-6565 ext. 101 Fax: (760) 209-6565 Email: jclapp@clapplegal.com mlauinger@clapplegal.com The Defendant is represented by: Ronald I. Raether, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER 100 Spectrum Center Drive, Suite 1500 Irvine, CA 92614 Phone: (949) 622-2722 Fax: (949) 622-2739 Email: ron.raether@troutman.com - and - Tambry L. Bradford, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER HAMILTON SANDERS LLP 350 S. Grand Ave., Suite 3400 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 928-9805 Email: tambry.bradford@troutman.com ONEBLOOD INC: Stallworth Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------ CANDY STALLWORTH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ONEBLOOD, INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:25-cv-00162 (M.D. Fla., January 31, 2025) seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it caused Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons in a massive and preventable data breach due to Defendant's inadequately protected computer network. OneBlood determined that between July 14, 2024, through July 29, 2024, certain files and folders containing personally identifiable information and protected health information --including names and Social Security numbers -- were copied from its network without authorization. After the data breach, OneBlood inexplicably waited over five months to notify Plaintiff and Class Members that their highly confidential PII and PHI was in the hands of cybercriminals. The Defendant did not begin notifying Class Members of the Breach until in or around January 2025, asserts the complaint. The Defendant breached this duty and betrayed the trust of Plaintiff and Class Members by failing to properly safeguard and protect their private information, enabling cybercriminals to access, acquire, appropriate, compromise, disclose, encumber, exfiltrate, release, steal, misuse, and/or view it. Because the Defendant presented such an easy target to cybercriminals, Plaintiff and Class Members have already been subject to violations of their privacy, fraud, and identity theft, and/or have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of certainly impending fraud and identity theft, says the suit. OneBlood, Inc. collects, processes and distributes blood and blood products to hospitals and patients.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mariya Weekes, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134 Telephone: (786) 879-8200 Facsimile: (786) 879-7520 E-mail: mweekes@milberg.com - and - Tanner R. Hilton, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 Facsimile: (405) 239-2112 E-mail: trh@federmanlaw.com OPORTUN INC: Williams Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages --------------------------------------------------------- April Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OPORTUN, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-00428 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 1, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA") as a result of the Defendant's unsolicited text messages. To promote its goods and services, Defendant engages in unsolicited text messaging and continues to text message consumers after they have opted out of Defendant's solicitations. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person and resident of Montgomery County, Texas. The Defendant is a Delaware Corporation with its principal address located in San Carlos, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO PA 401 E Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954.400.4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com OREGON COMMUNITY: Bid for Class Cert. in Arthur Suit Due Sept. 19 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Arthur v. Oregon Community Credit Union, Case No. 6:24-cv-01700 (D. Or., Filed Oct. 7, 2024), the Hon. Judge Michael J. Mcshane entered an order adopting the discovery plan and deadlines proposed by the parties in Rule 26(f) Report and Discovery Plan: -- Join Parties or Amend Complaint by: April 18, 2025 -- Expert Disclosures are due by: Aug. 15, 2025 -- Motion for Class Certification to Sept. 192025 be filed by: -- Discovery is to be completed by: Nov. 14, 2025 -- Deadline to confer regarding June 13, 2025 dispute resolution is: -- Joint Alternate Dispute Resolution July 11, 2025 Report is due by: -- Deadline for disclosure of final Oct. 17, 2025 expert testimony pursuant to Rule 26(a)(2) due by: -- Dispositive Motions are due by: Dec. 19, 2025 The Rule 16 conference scheduled for Feb. 5, 2025, is vacated. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). OCCU is a credit union based in Eugene, Oregon.[CC] OSAIC WEALTH: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Cash Sweep Practices ----------------------------------------------------------- Patrick Donachie of WealthManagement.com reports that Osaic is the latest firm to face a class action lawsuit targeting its cash sweep practices. In the suit filed in Arizona federal court, plaintiff Robert Gehring argued the firm "underpaid their customers in violation of their fiduciary duties" by undercutting the interest owed to clients. In some cases, Osaic's rate of interest was as high as five to 21 times the customers' paid rate. "While remarkably profitable for Defendants, the Cash Sweep Programs violate common law, federal law and industry regulations, including Defendants' fiduciary obligations," the complaint read. The suit against Osaic is the latest in an ever-growing number of calls for class actions in the past year that have targeted nearly every major financial services firm, from the wirehouses to independent behemoths like LPL and Ameriprise. According to the suit, New Hampshire-based Gehring was originally a customer of American Portfolios before it was acquired by Advisor Group (later rebranded as Osaic). Like many firms, Osaic runs cash sweep programs for discretionary and non-discretionary accounts. In these programs, clients' uninvested cash (including deposits and dividends) is moved from their accounts into a money market mutual fund or bank to "convert idle cash into interest-bearing investment vehicles," according to the complaint. Osaic offered cash sweep programs through Pershing and National Financial Services, which established and ran deposit programs, including Osaic's Bank Deposit Sweep Program and the Insured Cash Account Program. Despite where clients' money went, Osaic had the "sole authority" to set fees and interest rates on the accounts. According to the complaint, the rate was set by the firm's "Cash Review Committee, which set rates based on, among other things, the rates paid by banks, expected changes in interest rates and rates paid by competitors (during the past several years, the Federal Reserve has hiked interest rates in an attempt to combat inflation). But Osaic's rates on these accounts were not "reasonable," according to Gehring. In 2022, American Portfolios' interest rates were as low as 0.01%. According to the complaint, those interest rates rose under Osaic but remained excessively low. In January 2025, clients with deposits up to $99,999 had a rate of 0.15%, with the max for $5 million and above at 1.50%. Gehring considered Osaic's rates unreasonable even in a low interest rate environment. In the complaint, Gehring compared Osaic's rates to competitors, including Webull's rate at 3.75%, Vanguard's at 3.65% and Fidelity's at 2.19%. "Osaic Defendants knew that their customers in the Cash Sweep Program received artificially depressed rates of interest, as low as 0.15%, and yet, purposefully designed the Cash Sweep Programs to maximize the returns they received, at the expense of their clients," the complaint read. Osaic did not respond to questions prior to publication. According to a report from Moody's last year, Osaic may be at more significant risk if it feels forced to change client sweep account rates. In the missive, Moody's analysts wrote that "private-equity owned firms like Aretec, Osaic and Kestra have less diverse revenue flows and aggressive financial policies, including operating with significant debt leverage," which could give them less room to maneuver (PE firm Reverence Capital is Osaic's majority owner). According to Moody's report, larger publicly traded companies like Charles Schwab and Raymond James, as well as wirehouses, may have more latitude to make revisions that affect their cash sweep revenue, as their revenue streams tend to be more diversified. Last month, the SEC charged Wells Fargo and Merrill Lynch's advisor units with failing to supervise their cash sweep programs. The agency claimed the firms' policies didn't consider clients' best interests when selecting cash sweep options. Merrill and Wells Fargo agreed to pay $60 million to settle the charges collectively. Last year, lawsuits calling for broader class actions related to the firms' cash sweep policies were filed against Wells Fargo, Ameriprise, LPL, UBS, Raymond James and J.P. Morgan (among others). Wells Fargo, Bank of America and Morgan Stanley were among the firms that changed their sweep pricing in response to the scrutiny. [GN] OXY USA: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Reply -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHERRY RIDER, trustee of the Cherry Rider Family Trust, and R.W. and CATHY LUCAS, co-trustees of the R.W. Lucas and Cathy Lucas Living Trust, individually and as representative plaintiffs on behalf of persons or concerns similarly situated, v. OXY USA INC., MERIT ENERGY COMPANY, LLC, and MERIT HUGOTON, L.P. Case No. 6:23-cv-01274-KHV-TJJ (D. Kan.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting extensions of time for: (1) Defendants to file replies to the Plaintiffs' responses to the Defendants' motion to strike expert Paul Saas and Daubert motion to exclude expert Paul Saas, and (2) the Plaintiffs to file reply in support of their motion for class certification. The Defendants request an extension to and including March 21, 2025, to file replies to the Responses filed by Plaintiffs to the Defendants' Motion to Strike the Expert of Paul Saas as an Improper Rebuttal Expert and Defendants' Daubert Motion to Exclude the Opinions of Paul Saas. The Plaintiffs request an extension to May 9, 2025 to file their reply to Defendants' anticipated Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The Defendants believe said Saas motions and the Plaintiffs' responses raise issues that are intertwined and overlapping with the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and therefore are more efficiently briefed in tandem with Defendants' response to the Motion for Class Certification, which is currently due on March 21, 2025. The suit was filed on Dec. 29, 2023, as a putative class action for a class of royalty owners claiming underpayment of royalties since 2014 by Merit for taking excessive deductions in alleged breach of a settlement agreement entered into by Oxy in 2008 in prior state-court litigation. The Defendants timely filed the Motion to Strike Saas and Daubert Motion to Exclude Saas on Jan. 9, 2025, and the Plaintiffs responded to both motions on Jan. 30, 2025. OXY USA explores, develops, produces, and markets crude oil and natural gas. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Nh8jWA at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David G. Seely, Esq. Ryan K. Meyer, Esq. Emily K. Arida, Esq. FLEESON, GOOING, COULSON & KITCH, L.L.C. 301 N. Main, Ste. 1900 Wichita, KS 67201 Telephone: (316) 267-7361 Facsimile: (316) 267-1754 E-mail: dseely@fleeson.com rmeyer@fleeson.com earida@fleeson.com - and - Erick E. Nordling KRAMER, NORDLING & NORDLING, LLC 209 E. 6th St. Hugoton, Ks 67951 Telephone: (316) 544-4333 E-mail: erick.nordling@nordlinglaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Daniel M. McClure, Esq. James V. Leito IV, Esq. NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP 1301 McKinney, Suite 5100 Houston, TX 77010-3095 Telephone:(713) 651-5151 Facsimile: (713) 651-5246 E-mail: dan.mcclure@nortonrosefulbright.com James.leito@nortonrosefulbright.com - and - Robert W. Coykendall, Esq. Will B. Wohlford, Esq. Jonathan A. Schlatter, Esq. MORRIS, LAING, EVANS BROCK & KENNEDY, Chtd. 300 N. Mead, Suite 200 Wichita, KS 67202-2745 Telephone: (316) 262-2671 E-mail: rcoykendall@morrislaing.com wwohlford@morrislaing.com jschlatter@morrislaing.com - and - James M. Armstrong, Esq. FOULSTON SIEFKIN LLP 1551 N. Waterfront Parkway, Suite 100 Wichita, KS 67206-4466 Telephone: (316) 291-9576 Facsimile: (316) 267-6345 E-mail: jarmstrong@foulston.com - and - Mark Rodriguez, Esq. Maryam Ghaffar, Esq. BECK REDDEN LLP 1221 McKinney Street, Suite 4500 Houston, TX 77010 Telephone: (713) 951-3700 Facsimile: (713) 951-3720 E-mail: mrodriguez@beckredden.com mghaffar@beckredden.com PESCIENCE LLC: Melara Sues Over Select Vegan Plant Protein Labels ----------------------------------------------------------------- KATIE MELARA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PESCIENCE LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01014 (C.D. Cal., February 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, unjust enrichment, and breach of express warranty. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its Select Vegan Plant Protein powder. According to the complaint, the product is misbranded and falsely advertised because it features deceptive protein claims on the front label and misrepresents the percent of Recommended Daily Value of protein contained in each serving. The protein claim is not clarified and contextualized by the disclosure of the quality-adjusted percent daily value in the Nutrition Facts panel. The Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers would not have purchased the Defendant's product or would have pay a reduced price for it had they known the truth, says the suit. PEScience LLC is a manufacturer of nutritional supplements, with its principal place of business in Largo, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles C. Weller, Esq. CHARLES C. WELLER, APC 11412 Corley Court San Diego, CA 92126 Telephone: (858) 414-7465 Facsimile: (858) 300-5137 Email: legal@cweller.com PLURALSIGHT LLC: Settles Securities Class Action Suit for $20M -------------------------------------------------------------- Collin Leonard, writing for KSL.com, Pluralsight settled a class action lawsuit for $20 million, with no admission of wrongdoing. -- The lawsuit alleged Pluralsight violated the federal securities laws by making a misleading statement about Pluralsight's sales force productivity and future billings growth. -- Settlement money will go to attorneys and a class of investors who bought stock between 2018 and 2019. Draper-based online education company Pluralsight reached a settlement agreement in a class action lawsuit Tuesday, February 4, 2025, agreeing to split $20 million among tens of thousands of investors who purchased stock in 2018 and 2019. The suit was originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in August 2019 and transferred to the District of Utah two months later. A handful of public employee retirement funds alleged that the company and some executives misled investors about the "size and productivity of Pluralsight's sales force," artificially inflating the stock price before and during a secondary public offering, before "disappoint(ing) financial results" and the resignation of an executive caused shares to plummet in value by almost 40%, court documents say. The case was dismissed in March 2021, with all alleged misleading statements found to be "corporate optimism or puffery, accurate statements of historical fact, and/or protected forward-looking statements," according to court documents, or failed to show an intent to defraud investors. The 10th Circuit appeals court, when reviewing the case, found one "actionable statement" from January 16, 2019, where plaintiffs alleged CFO James Budge told analysts and investors at a New York conference during a Q&A session "that Pluralsight's sales force had grown to 'about 250' representatives when, in fact, the company had only 200 representatives," court documents say. The number of representatives, plaintiffs alleged, was a key indicator for investors on the growth and revenue of the business. In March 2019, Pluralsight raised $456 million from investors with a secondary public offering, according to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. CEO Aaron Skonnard sold $22.2 million in shares, Budge sold $15.1 million, and chief revenue officer Joe DiBartolomeo sold $9.7 million "at peak prices," the complaint alleges, before "dismal" financial results for the year's second quarter came out at the end of July 2019, and Di Bartolomeo announced he was resigning. "The stock price fell $12.13 per share in a single day -- a nearly 40% drop -- to close at $18.56 per share on Aug. 1, 2019, causing significant financial damages," according to the complaint. After over four years of litigation, the parties resolved the suit, with Judge David Barlow for the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah granting final approval of the $20 million settlement, a number that the prosecuting attorneys report the class members "reacted extremely positively to," the settlement filed says. "Not a single member of the class objected to any aspect of the settlement," according to the filing, which consists of "at least 25,635 potential class members." The settlement agreement means that the parties -- Pluralsight, the individual defendants, and the plaintiffs -- did not find any claims to be true or false, nor did they admit to any wrongdoing or damages. Attorneys estimated working over 7,585 hours on the case and were awarded over $4,275,000 in fees. The rest of the money will be split between class members, with an estimated average recovery of around $0.28 per affected share, depending on when the stock was purchased and sold, fees, interest and many other factors, according to prosecutors. [GN] POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Faces Hisserich Class Suit Over Data Breach -------------------------------------------------------------- NICHOLAS HISSERICH AND A.H., BY AND THROUGH HER GUARDIAN, NICHOLAS HISSERICH, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC and POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 2:25-at-00178 (E.D. Cal., Feb. 3, 2025) seeks to remedy the harms by the Defendants' failures to adequately and reasonably protect its computer systems and networks, resulting in one of the largest cyberattacks that have impacted K-12 school districts throughout the United States. Accordingly, the preventable cyberattack purportedly discovered by Defendants on Dec. 28, 2024, by which cybercriminals infiltrated Defendants' network, accessed and stole sensitive, personally identifiable information ("PII") of the Plaintiffs and the class, from Defendants. The Plaintiffs' and Class Members' sensitive PII -- which they entrusted to the Defendants on the mutual understanding that Defendants would protect it against disclosure – was targeted, compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the Data Breach. The Defendants acquired, collected, and stored Plaintiffs' and Class Members' PII. The Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiffs and Class Members would use Defendants' services, and for which Defendants would store and/or share sensitive data, including highly confidential PII on their computer systems and networks, says the suit. The Plaintiff is the father and legal guardian of Plaintiff A.H. His daughter attends a school in the City of St. Charles School District in St. Charles, Missouri that uses PowerSchool products. As a result, parent and student PII is submitted through PowerSchool. The Defendants together provide innovative K-12 software and cloud-based software to school districts.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Patrick Carey, Esq. LEXINGTON LAW GROUP, LLP 503 Divisadero St. San Francisco, CA 94117 Telephone: (415) 913-7800 Facsimile: (415) 759-4112 E-mail: pcarey@lexlawgroup.com - and - Joseph P. Guglielmo, Esq. Ethan S. Binder, Esq. Anja Rusi, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Ave., 24th Floor New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 E-mail: jguglielmo@scott-scott.com ebinder@scott-scott.com arusi@scott-scott.com POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Stringer Says --------------------------------------------------------------- BRITTAINY STRINGER, on behalf of G.S., a minor, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff V. POWERSCHOOL GROUP, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00426-DJC-CSK (E.D. Calif., January 31, 2025) arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard highly valuable, protected, personally identifiable information and failure to comply with industry standards to protect information systems that contain personally identifiable information (PII). In order to obtain Defendant's services, PowerSchool's school customers are required to directly or indirectly entrust PowerSchool with students' and educators' PII, which PowerSchool uses in order to perform its regular business services. Despite its duties to safeguard individuals' PII, on December 28, 2024, PowerSchool became aware of a cybersecurity incident involving unauthorized exfiltration of certain personal information from PowerSchool Student Information System environments through one of Defendant's community-focused customer support portals, PowerSource, says the suit. As a direct and proximate result of PowerSchool's negligent failure to implement and follow basic security procedures, Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII is now in the hands of cybercriminals. The Plaintiff and Class Members are now at a significantly increased and certainly impending risk of fraud, identity theft, and other harms caused by the unauthorized disclosure of their PII -- risks which may last for the rest of their lives, the suit alleges. PowerSchool Group, LLC is a cloud-based software solutions provider for K-12 schools and districts that supports over 60 million students and over 18,000 customers worldwide.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jae K. Kim, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 117 E Colorado Blvd, Ste 600 Pasadena, CA 91105-3712 Telephone: (213) 723-0707 Facsimile: (858) 313-1850 E-mail: ekim@lcllp.com - and - Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Nicholas A. Colella, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Ave., 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 E-mail: gary@lcllp.com nickc@lcllp.com PUMP.FUN: Burwick Law Demands Removal of Memecoin DOGSHIT2 ---------------------------------------------------------- Sam Reynolds of CoinDesk reports that Burwick Law is demanding Pump.fun remove tokens impersonating it, including one called DOGSHIT2. Burwick Law recently proposed a class action lawsuit against Pump.fun alleging that it was engaged in widespread securities fraud. Two law firms that are involved in a proposed a class action suit against Pump.fun say they are now victims of tokens that are impersonating the firm's likeness, and are demanding in a cease and desist letter that the memecoin factory immediately remove them. At the center of the controversy is a token called 'DOGSHIT2' a Solana-based memecoin that's up almost 200%, according to CoinGecko data. It might be confusing to those not terminally online why a law firm would claim a canine excrement-themed token would violate its intellectual property, but references to the token being tied to one of the firm's wallets were found in exhibits initially filed by Burwick against Pump.fun which sought to demonstrate how easy it was to launch tokens on the platform. "Our firms have no affiliation, endorsement, or ownership interest in the Dogshit2 token or any related assets," Burwick Law wrote in a post on X. "Simply put, our firms have not launched any memecoins onchain." Burwick Law also wrote on X that PumpFun launched tokens that it claims were designed to "intimidate our clients and interfere with ongoing litigation." "These efforts include the creation of memecoins that impersonate our plaintiffs. These acts represent the use of blockchain technologies as a tool for disrupting justice and due process," Burwick Law wrote. Burwick Law previously represented investors in a lawsuit against the creators of Hawk Tuah ($HAWK), alleging they exploited Hailey Welch's internet fame to promote an unregistered security. [GN] QUALCOMM INC: Continues to Defend Consumer Class Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------------- QUALCOMM Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending December 29, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a consumer class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern and Northern Districts of California. Beginning in January 2017, a number of consumer class action complaints were filed against us in the United States District Courts for the Southern and Northern Districts of California, each on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of cellular phones and other cellular devices. The cases filed in the Southern District of California were subsequently transferred to the Northern District of California. On July 11, 2017, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint alleging that the Company violated California and federal antitrust and unfair competition laws by, among other things, refusing to license standard-essential patents to its competitors, conditioning the supply of certain of its baseband chipsets on the purchaser first agreeing to license its entire patent portfolio, entering into exclusive deals with companies, including Apple Inc., and charging unreasonably high royalties that do not comply with its commitments to standard setting organizations. The complaint sought unspecified damages and disgorgement and/or restitution, as well as an order that the Company be enjoined from further unlawful conduct. On September 27, 2018, the court certified the class. The Company appealed the court’s class certification order to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Ninth Circuit). On September 29, 2021, the Ninth Circuit vacated the class certification order, ruling that the district court had failed to correctly assess the propriety of applying California law to a nationwide class, and remanded the case to the district court. On June 10, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, limiting the proposed class to California residents rather than a nationwide class. It filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, and on January 6, 2023, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part our motion to dismiss. It subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment on the plaintiffs' remaining claims. The court granted its motion in its entirety and, on October 5, 2023, entered final judgment in Qualcomm’s favor. On November 2, 2023, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit, and on October 15, 2024, the court held a hearing on the appeal. The court has not yet issued a ruling. It intends to continue to vigorously defend itself in this matter. Qualcomm Incorporated is an American multinational corporation headquartered in San Diego, California, and incorporated in Delaware. It creates semiconductors, software, and services related to wireless technology. It owns patents critical to the 5G, 4G, CDMA2000, TD-SCDMA and WCDMA mobile communications standard. QUALCOMM INC: Continues to Defend Consumer Class Suit in Canada --------------------------------------------------------------- QUALCOMM Incorporated disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending December 29, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 5, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a consumer class suit in Canada. Beginning in November 2017, several other consumer class action complaints were filed against the Company in Canada (in the Supreme Court of British Columbia and the Quebec Superior Court), Israel (in the Haifa District Court) and the United Kingdom (in the Competition Appeal Tribunal), each on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of cellular phones and other cellular devices, alleging violations of certain of those countries' competition and consumer protection laws and seeking damages. The claims in these complaints are similar to those in the U.S. consumer class action complaints described above. These matters are at various stages of litigation, and it intends to continue to vigorously defend itself. Qualcomm Incorporated is an American multinational corporation headquartered in San Diego, California, and incorporated in Delaware. It creates semiconductors, software, and services related to wireless technology. It owns patents critical to the 5G, 4G, CDMA2000, TD-SCDMA and WCDMA mobile communications standard. QUOTEWIZARD.COM LLC: Faces Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Sellers, writing for Insurance Business, reports that last year, hackers managed to infiltrate a cloud database hosted by cloud data analytics company Snowflake. Shares fell in LendingTree when the lender announced on June 10 that there had been an incident. Although the company initially thought that financial data had not been compromised, it quickly turned out that criminals were auctioning off QuoteWizard customer data on online forums. It now appears that LendingTree and its subsidiary, QuoteWizard, are facing a proposed consumer class action lawsuit following a data breach that allegedly exposed the personal information of "hundreds of millions of consumers." The lawsuit, filed Monday, February 3, 2025, in a North Carolina federal court by plaintiffs Linda Pierce and Nathan Thomas, accuses the online lending platform of negligence. The complaint alleges that the Charlotte-based company and QuoteWizard failed to implement adequate security measures while using cloud storage services provided by Snowflake, ultimately compromising consumer data. According to Pierce and Thomas, the breach was the result of "basic data security failings on the part of defendants", claiming that LendingTree and QuoteWizard "flouted relevant governmental guidance, regulations, statutes" and ignored industry best practices. Pierce, a Texas resident, and Thomas, from Washington state, both reported using LendingTree's services. Pierce recalled applying for a loan through a LendingTree web-based application within the past two years, while Thomas described himself as a "frequent user" of the platform. Both plaintiffs received notification letters from QuoteWizard in July 2024, informing them that they had been affected by the breach. Pierce reported that her compromised data included her name, home address, email, phone number, date of birth, driver's license number, Social Security number, and certain financial information. She also stated that her personal data had since appeared on the dark web and that she had experienced a rise in spam calls and texts. Thomas, meanwhile, said his stolen information included his name, address, email, phone number, and date of birth. He claimed to have noticed "fraudulent charges totaling approximately $400" in his financial accounts and discovered in late 2024 that an unauthorized bank account had been opened in his name. Both plaintiffs emphasized that they are "very careful about sharing [their] personal information" and do not knowingly transmit unencrypted data over unsecured channels. The plaintiffs are requesting that their claims be transferred to the District of Montana, where the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation is overseeing other lawsuits related to the Snowflake breach. The panel is handling cases involving various affected companies, including AT&T, Ticketmaster, and Advance Auto Parts Inc. A newly filed version of the multidistrict litigation (MDL) complaint describes the breach as a "hub-and-spoke" case, with Snowflake serving as the "hub" that provides cloud storage services to multiple "spokes", such as LendingTree, which stored consumer data on its platform. "The 'hub' in this case is defendant Snowflake, which is a company that specializes in cloud-storage technologies to warehouse and secure sensitive data, and in selling data storage and analytics products. Snowflake sells its data storage services to numerous companies, or 'spokes', who store information on Snowflake's data cloud," the MDL complaint states. The breach affected approximately 165 companies, including prominent names such as Ticketmaster, AT&T, Advance Auto Parts, Santander Bank, and LendingTree. The attackers exploited compromised credentials, often obtained through infostealer malware, to access customer accounts lacking multi-factor authentication. This vulnerability allowed them to exfiltrate substantial amounts of sensitive data. [GN] RALPH LAUREN: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Salazar Due Sept. 3 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as VIVIAN SALAZAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RALPH LAUREN CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 4:23-cv-06669-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting joint stipulation regarding class certification motion briefing schedule: Expert Initial Disclosures Related to March 28, 2025 Class Certification: Expert Rebuttal Disclosures Related to May 2, 2025 Class Certification: Close of Fact and Expert Discovery July 1, 2025 Related to Class Cert.: Last day to file Mot. Class Certification: Sept. 3, 2025 Last day to file Opposition to Class Sept. 24, 2025 Certification Motion: Last day to file Reply to Class Oct. 8, 2025 Certification Motion: Ralph Lauren is a global leader in the design, marketing and distribution of premium lifestyle products. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=a9659M at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. Chumahan B. Bowen, Esq. Jennifer M. Leinbach, Esq. Reuben Aguirre, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 9701 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90212 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 E-mail: thiago@wilshirelawfirm.com chumahan.bowen@wilshirelawfirm.com jleinbach@wilshirelawfirm.com reuben.aguirre@wilshirelawfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Michael J. Chilleen, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 650 Town Center Drive, 10th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1993 Telephone: (714) 513-5100 Facsimile: (714) 513-5130 E-mail: mchilleen@sheppardmullin.com RED CAT: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims ----------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of Red Cat Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: RCAT) resulting from allegations that Red Cat may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased Red Cat securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=34624 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On January 16, 2025, Kerrisdale Capital published a report about Red Cat. In this report, Kerrisdale stated that it was "short shares of Red Cat Holdings, a $1 billion drone manufacturer that’s added more than $900 million in market capitalization over the last 9 months mostly in anticipation of an award for the production of the US Army’s short range reconnaissance (SRR) drone and the supposedly massive market opportunity unlocked by such a high-profile endorsement. But expectations for both the SRR contract size and the potential for follow-on sales bear almost no relationship to reality." On this news, the price of Red Cat common stock fell $1.55 per share, or 15%, to close at $8.56 per share on January 17, 2025. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs’ Bar. Many of the firm’s attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] REGENERON PHARMACEUTICALS: RICO Class Suit Transferred to Mass. --------------------------------------------------------------- Regeneron Pharmaceuticals Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the annual period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 4, 2025, that the RICO class suit proceedings were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, pursuant to a stipulation among the parties. On June 24, 2024, a group of plaintiffs purporting to be assignees of claims by various Medicare Advantage plans and related entities filed a putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of Medicare Advantage plans and other payors. The lawsuit relates to the conduct alleged in the June 2020 Civil Complaint, March 2024 Civil Complaint, and June 2024 Civil Complaint discussed under "Department of Justice Matters" above. The lawsuit alleges causes of action under state law and RICO and seeks monetary damages and equitable relief. On October 22, 2024, the Company filed a motion to transfer the proceedings to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts or, in the alternative, to stay the proceedings or dismiss the proceedings. On January 28, 2025, pursuant to a stipulation among the parties, the proceedings were transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals is party to a global, strategic collaboration with Sanofi to research, develop, and commercialize fully human monoclonal antibodies REGIONAL OBSTETRICAL: Fails to Protect Patients' Info, Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- MINDIE HUNT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. REGIONAL OBSTETRICAL CONSULTANTS, P.C., Case No. 1:25-cv-00038-CEA-CHS (E.D. Tenn., Feb. 3, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard the Plaintiff's and other similarly situated current and former patients' sensitive information, including personally identifiable information including names, dates of birth, addresses, phone numbers, and protected health information including medical record number, insurance ID number, diagnosis, medical history, and procedures (Private Information). The Defendant is a medical practice offering "a wide range of services in the areas of Maternal-Fetal Medicine, sonography, ultrasound, and prenatal diagnostics and screenings. The Defendant received Plaintiff and Class Members' Private Information in its provision of medical services to Plaintiff and Class Members. By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the Private Information of the Plaintiff and Class Members, the Defendant assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and intrusion. On May 6, 2024, the Defendant's network had been accessed and acquired by an unauthorized third party ("Data Breach"). The Private Information of thousands of individuals is believed to have been exposed by the Data Breach. The Defendant allegedly failed to adequately protect the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information –– and failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted, unredacted Private Information was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect its patients' sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and continuing risk to victims of the Data Breach will remain for their respective lifetimes. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons whose Private Information was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data Breach and who remain at risk due to Defendant's inadequate data security practices. The Defendant provides medical services including prenatal diagnostics, ultrasounds, genetic counseling, and prenatal screening.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Ken Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. 1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com grunfeld@kolawyers.com REILY FOODS: Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ---------------------------------------------------------- KALARI JACKSON GIRTLEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REILY FOODS COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01267 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 5, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.newenglandcoffee.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. Reily Foods Company provides groceries. The Company manufactures and markets coffees and teas, as well as provides cake flour, sauces, chili seasonings, salad dressings, bean soups, and brownie mixes. Reily Foods operates worldwide. [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 RICHARD HEETER: Bonds Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD N. BONDS, on behalf of the Flat Rock Metal and Bar Processing Employee Stock Ownership Plan, and on behalf of a class of all other persons similarly situated, v. RICHARD A. HEETER, CAPITAL TRUSTEES, LLC, PETER F. SHIELDS, PAUL J. LANZON II, and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. 2:23-cv-12045-MAG-DRG (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (1) certifying this Action as a Class Action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23; (2) appointing Plaintiff’s counsel as Class Counsel; and (3) appointing Plaintiff Richard N. Bonds as Class Representative. The proposed Class is: "All vested participants in the Flat Rock Metal and Bar Processing Employee Stock Ownership Plan and the beneficiaries of such participants as of the date of the Nov. 24, 2020 ESOP Transaction or any time thereafter." Excluded from the Class are the shareholders who sold their SAC Ventures, Inc. ("SAC") stock to the Plan, directly or indirectly, and their immediate families; the directors and officers of SAC, Flat Rock Metal, Inc., Bar Processing Corporation, Steel Dimensions, Inc., and Custom Coating Technologies, Inc., and their immediate families; and legal representatives, successors, and assigns of any such excluded persons. The Plaintiff alleges Richard A. Heeter and his company Capital Trustees, LLC caused the Plan to engage in transactions prohibited by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA"), and breached its fiduciary obligations to the Plan. The Plaintiff is a participant in the Flat Rock Metal and Bar Processing Employee Stock Ownership Plan. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hwit00 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gregory Y. Porter, Esq. Ryan T. Jenny, Esq. Patrick Muench, Esq. Laura Babiak, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1055 Thomas Jefferson Street, NW, Suite 540 Washington, DC 20007 Telephone: (202) 463-2101 Facsimile: (202) 463-2103 E-mail: gporter@baileyglasser.com rjenny@baileyglasser.com pmuench@baileyglasser.com lbabiak@baileyglasser.com - and - Perrin Rynders, Esq. Aaron M. Phelps, Esq. VARNUM LLP 333 Bridge Street NW Suite 1700 Grand Rapids, MI 49504 Telephone: (616) 336-6000 Facsimile: (616) 336-7000 E-mail: prynders@varnumlaw.com amphelps@varnumlaw.com ROSS METALS: Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ---------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ROSS METALS CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00638 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 5, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.rossmetals.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. Ross Metals Corporation designs and manufactures jewelry products. The Company offers mill products, gold, silvers, wire, plate, tubing, solders, spooled chains, finished necklaces, bracelets, bridal, shanks, wedding bands, rings, religious, and other related finished jewelry. [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 RWZ RESTAURANTS: Zarceno Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against West Coast Clips, Inc. The case is styled as Avelina Ayde Fajardo Zarceno, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RWZ Restaurants LLC d/b/a Carl's Jr., Case No. 25STCV02827 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Jan. 31, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." RWZ Restaurants LLC doing business as Carl's Jr. Restaurants LLC -- https://www.carlsjr.com/ -- is an American fast-food restaurant chain owned by CKE Restaurant Holdings, Inc.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Bibiyan, Esq. Jason W. Rothman, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Blvd. Los Angeles, CA 90024 Phone: 310-438-5555 Fax: 310-300-1705 Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com Jason@tomorrowlaw.com RYDETRANS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Johnson Alleges ----------------------------------------------------- CHARLIE JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RYDETRANS doing business as A-PARA TRANSIT CORP; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25CV109374 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., Feb. 4, 2025) is an action against the Defendants for unpaid regular hours, overtime hours, minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest periods. Plaintiff Johnson was employed by the Defendants as a driver. Rydetrans doing business as A-Para Transit Corp. provides transportation services. The Company offers local passenger transportation services to the patients, disabled, elderly persons. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David D. Bibiyan, Esq. Jason W. Rothman, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C. 1460 Westwood Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 438-5555 Facsimile: (310) 300-1705 Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com Jason@ tomorrowlaw.com S E PIPE LINE: Faces Moreno Wage-and-Hour Suit in California ------------------------------------------------------------ FERNANDO MORENO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. S E PIPE LINE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV03150 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., February 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code including failure to pay the statutory minimum wage for all hours worked, failure to pay all required reporting time pay, failure to reimburse for all necessary expenditures, failure to furnish accurate and compliant itemized wage statements, failure to maintain accurate records, failure to pay all final wages, and failure to pay all wages earned at least twice during each calendar month. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt laborer from approximately 2020 until approximately March 27, 2024. S E Pipe Line Construction Company is a construction firm doing business in California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq. Andrew J. Rowbotham, Esq. Aden M. Khachadoorian, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 292-2350 Facsimile: (424) 292-2355 Email: phaines@haineslawgroup.com fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com arowbotham@haineslawgroup.com akhachadoorian@haineslawgroup.com SCOTT LEE: California Coalition Sues Over Sexual Abuse ------------------------------------------------------ California Coalition for Women Prisoners, JANE DOES # 1 – 6, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. SCOTT LEE, M.D.; JAMES ELLIOTT; KENNETH MAXWELL; JEFF MACOMBER; DIANA TOCHE, M.D.; ANTHONY KEVIN; ANGELA KENT; JENNIFER CORE; MONA HOUSTON; RICHARD MONTES; MOLLY HILL; ROB KETTLE; LUIS GONZALEZ; MESVEEN KUMAR; J. CLARK KELSO; and Does 1-20, Case No. 5:25-cv-00283 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 2, 2025), is brought against Dr. Lee's sexual abuse and the ratification of his conduct by the remaining Defendants have caused physical pain and suffering, severe emotional trauma, and the denial of gynecology care to Plaintiffs and the Class. For decades, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") and the California Correctional Health Care Services ("CCHCS") and the individually named defendants (individually named defendants hereafter collectively referred to as "Defendants") have ignored and neglected the gynecological needs of people in women's prison, incarcerated in state prison. Defendants not only deprived prisoners of basic gynecological needs but subjected them to horrific, sadistic, and retaliatory abuse under the guise of gynecology care. The Defendants have long known, or should have known, that the majority of people in women's prisons have suffered sexual abuse prior to their incarceration, ranging from child molestation, sex trafficking or prostitution, and/or rape and sexual assault by husbands, boyfriends, pimps, or strangers. The Defendants have long been obligated to provide safe gynecology care, a basic human need, to a population who were known, or should have been known, to have safety and trauma concerns with any medical staff involved with their gynecology care. Instead, Defendants, deliberately ignored the basic needs of the incarcerated population and for far too long, subjected people incarcerated at the California Institution for Women ("CIW") to sadistic and depraved abuse by physicians who were the subjects of repeated complaints of sexual abuse during gynecology appointments. Gynecology care was known by CIW patients as something to be feared and avoided and many were forced to neglect their gynecological needs to protect themselves from further sexual abuse and trauma, says the complaint. The Plaintiff California Coalition for Women Prisoners ("CCWP") is a grassroots advocacy organization that challenges the prison industrial complex for the institutionalized violence it imposes on women, transgender people, and communities of color. DR. LEE has been licensed with the Medical Board of California since 1984..[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dan Stormer, Esq. Morgan Ricketts, Esq. HASSELL STORMER RENICK & DAI LLP 128 N. Fair Oaks Avenue Pasadena, CA 91103 Phone: 626 585-9600 Email: dstonnerfihadsellstormer.com mrickettsühadsellstonner.com - and - Banett Litt, Esq. Lindsay Battles, Esq. BEDNARSKI & LITT, LLP 975 E. Green Street Pasadena, CA 91106 Phone: (626) 844-7660 Facsimile: (626) 844-7670 Email: blittambllezal.com Ibattres@mbllegal.com - and - Jenny Huang, Esq. Yashna Eswaran (S.B. JUSTICE FIRST 490 43rd Street, # IOS Oakland, CA 94609 Phone: (510) 628-0695 Facsimile: (510) 605-3903 Email: jhuang@justicefirst.net yeswaran@justicefirst.net SD BULLION: Anderson Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages -------------------------------------------------------- Beverly Anderson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SD BULLION, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00119 (W.D. Mich., Feb. 1, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (the "TCPA") as a result of the Defendant's unsolicited text messages. To promote its goods and services, Defendant engages in unsolicited text messaging and continues to text message consumers after they have opted out of Defendant's solicitations. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's illegal conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of thousands of individuals. Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a natural person. The Defendant directs, markets, and provides its business activities throughout the state of Michigan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO PA 401 E Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954.400.4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com SHAMBAUGH & SON: Lee Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as William Lee, an individual on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. SHAMBAUGH & SON, L.P., a Limited Partnership; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 24STCV34198 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 30, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00820. The Complaint lists eight causes of action alleging: Unfair Competition; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Required Rest Periods; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Statements; Failure to Reimburse Required Expenses; and Failure to Pay Sick Pay Wages.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Joshua D. Kienitz, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. Treat Towers 1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 Phone: 925.932.2468 Fax: 925.946.9809 Email: jkienitz@littler.com - and - P. Dustin Bodaghi, Esq. Alejandra Gallegos, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 18565 Jamboree Road, Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92612 Phone: 949.705.3000 Fax: 949.724.1201 Email: dbodaghi@littler.com agallegos@littler.com SHERWIN−WILLIAMS CO: Fact Discovery in Lopez Due August 7 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELVIA LOPEZ, v. THE SHERWIN−WILLIAMS COMPANY, et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-02646-KK-DTB (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Kenly Kiya Kato entered a civil trial scheduling order as follows: Last Day to Stipulate or File Motion to Amend Mar. 20, 2025 Pleadings or Add New Parties: Fact Discovery Cut-Off (including hearing Aug. 7, 2025 of discovery motions): Last Day to Serve Initial Expert Reports: Aug. 21, 2025 Last Day to Serve Rebuttal Expert Reports: Sept. 4, 2025 Expert Discovery Cut-Off (including hearing Sept. 25, 2025 of discovery motions): Motion Hearing Cut-Off: Oct. 30, 2025 Last Day to Conduct Settlement Proceedings: Oct. 30, 2025 Final Pretrial Conference: Nov. 20, 2025 at 10:30 AM Sherwin-Williams Company manufactures, distributes, and sells paints, coatings, and related products. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 30, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9FFsu6 at no extra charge.[CC] SIEMENS INDUSTRY: Kraebel Suit Removed to C.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Stacy Kraebel, an individual, on behalf of herself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. SIEMENS INDUSTRY, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV00036 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on Jan. 31, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00885. The Complaint is a putative class action alleging the following causes of action: unfair competition; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide required meal periods; failure to provide required rest periods; failure to provide accurate wage statements; failure to reimburse business expenses; waiting time penalties; and failure to pay sick pay.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Alex Polishuk, Esq. Armida Derzakarian, Esq. POLSINELLI LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 556-1801 Facsimile: (310) 556-1802 Email: apolishuk@polsinelli.com aderzakarian@polsinelli.com SIG SAUER: Must Respond to Glasscock Class Cert Bid --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Glasscock v. Sig Sauer, Inc., Case No. 6:22-cv-03095 (W.D. Mo., Filed: April 18, 2022), the Hon. Judge M. Douglas Harpool entered an order that the Defendant will have 14 days from the Court's ruling on motion to amend/correct case schedule to respond to Plaintiff's motion for class certification and to submit expert rebuttal reports. The nature of suit states torts - personal property - other fraud. SIG SAUER is doing business in firearm/outdoor industry.[CC] SIMILASAN CORP: Judge Recommends Initial Approval of Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID PLOWDEN, MARIO ORTEGA, and KAMILLE FAYE VINLUAN-JULARBAL, Each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SIMILASAN CORP., Case No. 1:23-cv-02511-DDD-STV (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Scott Varholak recommends that the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of settlement, certification of settlement class and appointment of settlement class counsel be granted. Thus, the Court concludes that all four requirements of Rule 23(a) are satisfied. The Court further concludes that Rule 23(b)(3) is satisfied. Thus, the Court respectfully RECOMMENDS that the Motion be GRANTED to the extent it seeks certification of the Settlement Class On Sept. 26, 2023, the Plaintiff David Plowden initiated this action by filing a class action complaint against the Defendant. On Dec. 22, 2023, the Plaintiffs Plowden, Mario Ortega, and Kamille Faye Vinluan-Jularbal filed the operative consolidated class action complaint. The Complaint alleges that the Defendant's eye care products were marketed as homeopathic drugs yet the Defendant failed to obtain appropriate approvals from the Federal Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") to sell such products. Similasan distributes pharmaceutical products. A copy of the Court's recommendations dated Jan. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LVkAs9 at no extra charge.[CC] SINGULAR GENOMICS: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Deerfield ------------------------------------------------------------------ Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is recognized as a Top 50 Firm by ISS Securities Class Action Services Report. We are headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City and are investigating: -- Singular Genomics Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq: OMIC), relating to the proposed merger with Deerfield Management Company, L.P. Under the terms of the agreement, Deerfield will acquire Singular Genomics in an all-cash transaction for $20.00 per share. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for February 19, 2025. Click here for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/singular-genomics-systems-inc-omic/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Berry Global Group, Inc. (NYSE: BERY), relating to the proposed merger with AMCOR plc. Under the terms of the agreement, Berry shareholders will receive a fixed exchange ratio of 7.25 Amcor shares for each Berry share held upon closing, resulting in Amcor and Berry shareholders owning approximately 63% and 37% of the combined company, respectively. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for February 25, 2025. Click here for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/berry-global-group-inc-bery/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- William Penn Bancorporation (Nasdaq: WMPN), relating to its proposed merger with Mid Penn Bancorp, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, shareholders of William Penn will receive 0.4260 shares of Mid Penn common stock for each share of William Penn common stock. Additionally, all options of William Penn will be rolled into Mid Penn equivalent options. The implied transaction value is approximately $13.58 per William Penn share. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for April 2, 2025. Click here for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/william-penn-bancorporation-wmpn/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- AlloVir, Inc. (Nasdaq: ALVR), relating to its proposed merger with Kalaris Therapeutics. Under the terms of the agreement, AlloVir will acquire 100% of the outstanding equity interest of Kalaris. Upon completion, pre-Merger AlloVir stockholders are expected to own approximately 25.05% of the combined company. ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for March 12, 2025. Click here for more information https://monteverdelaw.com/case/allovir-inc-alvr/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] SLEEP RESET: Sends Unsolicited Marketing Faxes, Prairie Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- PRAIRIE POINTE ORTHODONTICS, P.A., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SLEEP RESET, INC., d/b/a SLEEP RESET, YUNHA KIM, and DR. ARETI VASSILOPOULOS, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-02053 (D. Kan., February 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants created, approved, and sent unsolicited marketing faxes advertising Sleep Reset's services to the Plaintiff and Class members without their prior express consent. The Plaintiff and Class members suffered actual harm as a result of the Defendants' misconduct including but not limited to invasion of privacy, annoyance, the use and depletion of toner and ink on their hard copy fax machines, tying up of the fax line (preventing it temporarily from receiving legitimate fax communications), and the diversion of time and attention to the fax. Prairie Pointe Orthodontics, PA is a provider of dental services in Kansas. Sleep Reset, Inc., doing business as Sleep Reset, is a provider of personalized sleep program based in San Francisco, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard S. Fisk, Esq. BEAM-WARD, KRUSE, WILSON & FLETES, LLC 8645 College Blvd., Suite 250 Overland Park, KS 66210 Telephone: (913) 339-6888 Facsimile: (913) 339-9653 Email: rfisk@bkwflaw.com - and - Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Esq. Anthony Orlandi, Esq. HERZFELD, SUETHOLZ, GASTEL, LENISKI & WALL, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa Parks Avenue, Suite 300 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 800-6225 Email: joey@hsglawgroup.com tony@hsglawgroup.com SO ICY: Faces Picon Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store ------------------------------------------------------------- YELITZA PICON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SO ICY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00990 (S.D.N.Y., February 4, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.soicyjewelry.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of its online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: unclear labels for interactive elements, inaccurate heading hierarchy, ambiguous link texts, inaccessible contact information, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of navigation links, inaccurate labeling of form fields, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. So Icy, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 Email: Glevyfirm@gmail.com SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Liable to Eaton Fire in Calif., Roche Says --------------------------------------------------------------- HAROLD CHRISTIAN ROCHE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON COMPANY, EDISON INTERNATIONAL, and DOES I through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV03334 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., February 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, negligent interference with prospective economic advantage, inverse condemnation, premises liability, trespass, private nuisance, public nuisance, and violations of California Public Utilities Code, California Health and Safety Code, and California Business and Professions Code. The case arises on the Defendants' contributions to the Eaton Fire in Los Angeles, California, damaged several properties and killed 17 civilians on February 5, 2025. The Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals seek damages as a result of the Defendants' negligence and misconduct. Southern California Edison Company is a subsidiary of Edison International in California. Edison International is an electric utility company in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joanna Ghosh, Esq. Edwin Aiwazian, Esq. Melissa Rinehart, Esq. LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC 450 North Brand Blvd., Suite 900 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 265-1020 Facsimile: (818) 265-1021 Email: joanna@calljustice.com edwin@calljustice.com m.rinehart@calljustice.com SUNRISE CREDIT: Illegally Records Phone Conversation, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- RAEANON HARTIGAN, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. SUNRISE CREDIT SERVICES, INC., Case No. (Feb. 3, 2025), seeks damages and injunctive relief against the Defendant for unauthorized recordings of telephone conversations with the Plaintiff and class members without any notification or warning, in violation of the Cal. Pen. Code. Accordingly, the Defendant "spoofed" its number and used a 619-area code to trick Plaintiff into answering. It is a well-known tactic of debt collectors to call from the same area code as the person they are trying to reach. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant did not identify itself, disclose it was an attempt to collect a debt, give any indication it was a debt collector or that the call was recorded. The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of all persons in California whose cellular telephone conversation were recorded without their consent. Sunrise Credit offers consumers a variety of convenient payment options to help ensure that we receive your payment in a timely manner.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by Joshua Swigart, Esq. SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 E-mail: josh@swigartlawgroup.com Telephone: (866) 219 3343 - and - Daniel Shay, Esq. SHAY LEGAL, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 Telephone: (619) 222-7429 E-mail: dan@shylegal.com TAKARA SAKE: Tunick Seeks to Seal Portions of Class Cert Reply -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as COLBY TUNICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TAKARA SAKE USA INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00572-TSH (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order allowing him to file under seal portions of Plaintiff's reply in support of motion for class certification, appointment of class representative, and appointment of class counsel ("Reply ISO Class Certification Motion"). Under Civil L.R. 79-5 and Section 12.3 of the Protective Order, Plaintiff seeks to file the following documents, or portions thereof, under seal: No. Document Provisionally Dkt. No. Provisionally Filed Under Seal Redacted Pages (or Entire Document) 1. Reply ISO Class 70 Page 2; Lines 7, 15 Certification Motion Takara specializes in producing sake, as well as plum, mirin, shochu, and JPOP. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TalqXp at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. Bahar Sodaify, Esq. Benjamin J. Fuchs, Esq. Alan Gudino, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Facsimile: (213) 788-4070 E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com bfuchs@clarksonlawfirm.com agudino@clarksonlawfirm.com - and - Benjamin Heikali, Esq. Joshua Nassir, Esq. Ruhandy Glezakos, Esq. Katherine Phillips, Esq. TREEHOUSE LAW, LLP 3130 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 555 Santa Monica, CA 90403 Telephone: (310) 751-5948 E-mail: bheikali@treehouselaw.com jnassir@treehouselaw.com rglezakos@treehouselaw.com kphillips@treehouselaw.com TAKEDA PHARMA: Seeks Leave to File Premera Opposition Under Seal ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Premera Blue Cross v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, et al. (RE AMITIZA ANTITRUST LITIGATION), Case No. 1:23-cv-12918-MJJ (D. Mass.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for leave to file under seal portions of Defendants' memorandum in opposition to End Payor Plaintiffs' motion for class certification as well as materials submitted therewith. The Class Certification Opposition refers to materials that the producing parties have designated as "Confidential" pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order as conditions for voluntary disclosure by and between the parties and discuss and/or quote such materials. Takeda proposes that the Order sealing the materials be lifted only upon further order of the Court, and that the sealed documents be kept in the Clerk's nonpublic information file during any post-impoundment period. Takeda reserves its right to submit the materials described above at a future date unsealed on the Court's public docket. In accordance with Local Rule 7.1, counsel for Takeda conferred with counsel for EPPs regarding the relief requested herein. Counsel indicated that they assent to this Motion. Takeda is an R&D-driven global biopharmaceutical company. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 29, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IrdmtS at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Fred A. Kelly, Jr., Esq. Joshua S. Barlow, Esq. Andre Geverola, Esq. Laura Shores, Esq. Wallace Wu, Esq. Assad Rajani, Esq. Katie J.L. Scott, Esq. Ada Añon, Esq. Michael Sapiro, Esq. Matthew Wilk, Esq. Sam Sullivan, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 200 Clarendon Street Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 351-8052 E-mail: fkelly@haugpartners.com jbarlow@haugpartners.com andre.geverola@arnoldporter.com laura.shores@arnoldporter.com wallace.wu@arnoldporter.com assad.rajani@arnoldporter.com katie.scott@arnoldporter.com ada.anon@arnoldporter.com michael.saipro@arnoldporter.com matthew.wilk@arnoldporter.com sam.sullivan@arnoldporter.com - and - Michael F. Brockmeyer, Esq. Ralph E. Labaton, Esq. David Shotlander, Esq. Aakruti Vakharia, Esq. HAUG PARTNERS LLP 1667 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 292-1530 Facsimile: (202) 292-1531 E-mail: mbrockmeyer@haugpartners.com rlabaton@haugpartners.com dshotlander@haugpartners.com avakharia@haugpartners.com TESLA INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Securities Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Tesla Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2025, that on November 6, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal order of all claims by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Between August 10, 2018 and September 6, 2018, nine purported stockholder class actions were filed against Tesla and Elon Musk in connection with Mr. Musk's August 7, 2018 Twitter post that he was considering taking Tesla private. On January 16, 2019, Plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and added as defendants the members of Tesla's board of directors. The consolidated complaint asserts claims for violations of the federal securities laws and seeks unspecified damages and other relief. The parties stipulated to certification of a class of stockholders, which the court granted on November 25, 2020. On July 14, 2023, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal as the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied and judgement was entered in favor of defendants on July 11, 2023 where plaintiffs filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law and a motion for new trial. Trials started on January 17, 2023, and on February 3, 2023, a jury rendered a verdict in favor of the defendants on all counts. Tesla is an electric car manufacturer based in Palo Alto, California. TESLA INC: Faces Consolidated Suit Over Driver Technology --------------------------------------------------------- Tesla Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 29, 2025, that on September 14, 2022, a proposed class action was filed against Tesla, Inc. and related entities in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging various claims about the company's driver assistance technology systems under state and federal law. This case was later consolidated with several other proposed class actions, and a Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed on October 28, 2022, which seeks damages and other relief on behalf of all persons who purchased or leased from Tesla between January 1, 2016, to the present. Tesla is an electric car manufacturer based in Palo Alto, California. TOKIO MARINE: Console Investigates Data Breach Class Action Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- At Console & Associates, our data breach lawyers are closely examining the recent Tokio Marine HCC data breach. This data breach was disclosed following a cyber security incident at several companies under the Tokio Marine HCC company, including American Contractors Indemnity Company, Texas Bonding Company, United States Surety Company, and U.S. Specialty Insurance Company ("Tokio Marine"), which potentially exposed sensitive personal identifiable information, including names and Social Security numbers of affected individuals. What Happened? A recent report with the Massachusetts Attorney General's office filing stated that the Tokio Marine HCC data breach occurred due to unauthorized access to the company's websites. Between January 17 and January 20, 2025, unauthorized parties gained access to and extracted files containing confidential consumer information from multiple company websites including American Contractors Indemnity Company, Texas Bonding Company, United States Surety Company, and U.S. Specialty Insurance Company. The company discovered the security incident on January 20, 2025, promptly taking affected websites offline and initiating an investigation with external cybersecurity experts. Law enforcement was notified, and a thorough review of the compromised files was conducted to identify affected individuals. Data breach notification letters were sent out by American Contractors Indemnity Company, Texas Bonding Company, United States Surety Company, and U.S. Specialty Insurance Company on January 31, 2025, informing affected individuals about the nature of the incident and specifically what personal information of theirs was compromised. Steps To Take If You Were Affected By A Data Breach 1. Monitor all accounts and credit reports closely 1. Set up alerts for suspicious activity 2. Review all financial statements thoroughly 3. Request free credit reports and examine them for unauthorized entries 2. Consider freezing your credit 1. Contact all three major credit bureaus to place a freeze 2. Understand this prevents new accounts from being opened in your name 3. Remember to temporarily lift the freeze when applying for legitimate credit 3. Look out for phishing attempts using information from the Tokio Marine HCC data breach 1. Be wary of unexpected emails or messages claiming to be from Tokio Marine HCC 2. Don't click on suspicious links or download unexpected attachments 3. Verify all communications through official channels 4. Change passwords for affected accounts 1. Create strong, unique passwords for each account 2. Use a combination of letters, numbers, and special characters 3. Consider using a password manager for better security 5. Enable two--factor authentication where possible 1. Add this extra layer of security to all important accounts 2. Use authenticator apps rather than SMS when available 3. Keep backup codes in a secure location For more detailed guidance, explore our "Guide for Victims of a Data Breach" to better understand measures you can take to protect yourself after a data breach. Tokio Marine HCC Overview Tokio Marine HCC operates as a subsidiary of Tokio Marine Holdings, including several insurance entities including American Contractors Indemnity Company, Texas Bonding Company, United States Surety Company, and U.S. Specialty Insurance Company. The organization provides property and casualty insurance, professional liability coverage, and accident and health insurance products across global markets. The company functions as part of Tokio Marine Holdings, which maintains a workforce of approximately 43,000 employees and generates annual revenue of approximately $50 billion. Their operations span multiple insurance sectors, serving various industries with specialized insurance products and risk management solutions. Tokio Marine HCC Data Breach Victims Have Rights -- Don't Wait to Act How do you know that you were affected by the Tokio Marine HCC data breach? Usually victims receive a NOTICE OF DATA BREACH in the mail, but the impact of a breach can be felt long before notices are sent to those affected. This can be in the form of fraudulent financial activity and other forms of identity theft. If you believe you were affected, we encourage you to reach out to our data breach law firm for legal assistance through a no--cost consultation about your situation. We will review your eligibility to file a data breach class action lawsuit and discuss your legal rights and any compensation that may be available to you. Complete our confidential contact form below and a member of our legal team will be in touch. [GN] TRUELI LLC: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Young Says ------------------------------------------------------------ LESHAWN YOUNG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRUELI LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00994 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 4, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://bleuetgirl.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. Trueli LLC market and sells via online feminine care and menstrual products, such as menstrual underwear, sanitary napkins, tampons, sanitary pads, and panty liners; cosmetics and skincare for preteens and teenagers, namely, sunscreen cream, skin moisturizer, body wash, deodorant for personal use, shampoo and conditioner, and lip gloss. [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 UNILEVER UNITED STATES: Fact Discovery in Jenkins Due July 11 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENKINS v. UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC. et al. (re Laundress Marketing and Product Liability Litigation), Case No. 1:25-cv-00286 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jesse Furman entered an amended civil case management plan and scheduling order as follows: -- All fact discovery shall be completed July 11, 2025 no later than: -- The deadline for Ostenfeld Plaintiffs Aug. 29, 2025 to file a motion for class certification and all Plaintiffs to serve expert reports is: -- The deadline to complete depositions Oct. 15, 2025 of Plaintiffs' expert(s) is: -- The deadline for Defendants to file Nov. 17, 2025 opposition to motion for class certification, serve expert reports, and file any Daubert motion (on a consolidated basis as to any/all experts) is: -- The deadline to complete depositions Jan. 5, 2026 of the Defendants' expert(s) is: -- The deadline for Ostenfeld Plaintiffs Jan. 19, 2026 to file any reply in support of motion for class certification and to file any Daubert motion (on a consolidated basis as to any/all experts) is: Unilever manufactures personal care products. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JyyzeA at no extra charge.[CC] UNILEVER UNITED STATES: Fact Discovery in Murphy Due July 11 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Murphy v. Unilever United States Inc. (re Laundress Marketing and Product Liability Litigation), Case No. 1:23-cv-02922 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jesse Furman entered an amended civil case management plan and scheduling order as follows: -- All fact discovery shall be completed July 11, 2025 no later than: -- The deadline for Ostenfeld Plaintiffs Aug. 29, 2025 to file a motion for class certification and all Plaintiffs to serve expert reports is: -- The deadline to complete depositions Oct. 15, 2025 of Plaintiffs' expert(s) is: -- The deadline for Defendants to file Nov. 17, 2025 opposition to motion for class certification, serve expert reports, and file any Daubert motion (on a consolidated basis as to any/all experts) is: -- The deadline to complete depositions Jan. 5, 2026 of the Defendants' expert(s) is: -- The deadline for Ostenfeld Plaintiffs Jan. 19, 2026 to file any reply in support of motion for class certification and to file any Daubert motion (on a consolidated basis as to any/all experts) is: Unilever manufactures personal care products. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NASWO7 at no extra charge.[CC] UNILEVER UNITED STATES: Fact Discovery in Sites Due July 11 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SITES, et al., v. UNILEVER UNITED STATES, INC. et al. (re Laundress Marketing and Product Liability Litigation), Case No. 1:23-cv-04920 (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jesse Furman entered an amended civil case management plan and scheduling order as follows: -- All fact discovery shall be completed July 11, 2025 no later than: -- The deadline for Ostenfeld Plaintiffs Aug. 29, 2025 to file a motion for class certification and all Plaintiffs to serve expert reports is: -- The deadline to complete depositions Oct. 15, 2025 of Plaintiffs' expert(s) is: -- The deadline for Defendants to file Nov. 17, 2025 opposition to motion for class certification, serve expert reports, and file any Daubert motion (on a consolidated basis as to any/all experts) is: -- The deadline to complete depositions Jan. 5, 2026 of the Defendants' expert(s) is: -- The deadline for Ostenfeld Plaintiffs Jan. 19, 2026 to file any reply in support of motion for class certification and to file any Daubert motion (on a consolidated basis as to any/all experts) is: Unilever manufactures personal care products. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tw90Di at no extra charge.[CC] UNISYS CORP: Faces Johnson Wage-and-Hour Suit in Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------- BILLY JOHNSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNISYS CORPORATION and REMEDIAL CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, L.P., Defendants, Case No. 250200844 (Pa. Com. Pl., February 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of contract as third-party beneficiaries and failure to pay overtime in violation of the New York Labor Law. The Plaintiff has been directly employed by Remedial Construction Services to work on the Public Worksite as an Operating Engineer from approximately 2018 through the present. Unisys Corporation is a global technology solutions company, headquartered in Blue Bell, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. Remedial Construction Services, L.P. is a construction contractor, headquartered in Houston, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Goodley, Esq. Ryan P. McCarthy, Esq. GOODLEY MCCARTHY LLC 1650 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 394-0541 Email: james@gmlaborlaw.com ryan@gmlaborlaw.com UNITED AIRLINES: Plaintiffs Seek More Time to File Class Cert. Bid ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARRELL HUGHES and ROBIN GOINGS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNITED AIRLINES, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-08967-LB (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order that the Court continue the class certification motion filing deadline, currently set for April 7, 2025, to July 7, 2025 and set the following briefing schedule: Event Current Proposed Deadline Deadline Plaintiffs' motion for class April 7, 2025 July 7, 2025 Certification: Defendant's Opposition Brief: May 6, 2025 Aug. 4, 2025 Plaintiffs' Reply Brief: June 6, 2025 Sept. 1, 2025 The Parties jointly stipulate and request that the Court continue the Interim CMC set for February 13, 2025, to April 10, 2025 or at such time thereafter based on the Court’s availability. Throughout December 2024 and January 2025 and continuing through the present, the Parties have continued settlement discussions and engaged in additional information exchanges through mediator Monique Ngo-Bonnici for the purposes of settlement. United Airlines provides domestic and international airline services. A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mrvhpQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq. Melissa M.Kurata, Esq. Brielle D. Edborg, Esq. Cache Cummings, Esq. LEBE LAW, APLC 777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90021 Telephone: (213) 444-1973 E-mail: Jon@lebelaw.com Melissa@lebelaw.com Brielle@lebelaw.com Cache@lebelaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Donald J. Munro, Esq. Amanda C. Sommerfeld, Esq. Joshua C. Dutton, Esq. JONES DAY 51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20001-2113 Telephone: (202) 879-3939 Facsimile: (202) 626-1700 4655 Executive Drive, Suite 1500 San Diego, CA 92121-3134 Telephone: (858) 314-1200 Facsimile: (844) 345-3178 E-mail: dmunro@jonesday.com asommerfeld@jonesday.com jdutton@jonesday.com UNITED STATES: Faces Class Suit Over Unfair Review of FBI Personnel ------------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-9, Employees/Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigations, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated v. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, James McHenry Acting Attorney General of the United States, Case No. 1:25-cv-00325 (Feb. 4, 2025) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs who are currently employed agents and/or employees of the FBI, who, during the course of their duties worked on, or participated in the investigation of persons suspected of criminal activity related to the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the United States Capitol building at the behest of Donald Trump, and/or the unlawful removal, retention and storage of classified documents by Mr. Trump ("Mar-a-Lago case"). Upon returning to the Presidency, Mr. Trump has ordered the DOJ to conduct a review and purge of FBI personnel involved in these investigations and prosecutions. This directive is unlawful and retaliatory, and violates the Civil Service Reform Act 5 U.S.C. sections 2301 and 2303. Additionally, on Feb. 2, 2025, the Plaintiffs were instructed to fill out a survey that would identify their specific role in the Jan. 6 and Mar-a-Lago cases. Some Plaintiffs were required to fill out the survey themselves, others were told that their supervisors would be filling out the form. The Plaintiffs were informed that the aggregated information is going to be forwarded to upper management. Plaintiffs assert that the purpose for this list is to identify agents to be terminated or to suffer other adverse employment action. The Plaintiffs reasonably fear that all or parts of this list might be published by allies of President Trump, thus placing themselves and their families in immediate danger of retribution by the now pardoned and at-large Jan. 6 convicted felons. The Defendant's gathering, retention, and disclosure of Plaintiffs’ activities related the acts of former President Trump is a violation of the Plaintiffs' rights under the First Amendments to the Constitution. It is also a violation of the Plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment substantive and due process rights, such that the Court has the authority to enjoin the serious harm it is likely to cause. Moreover, the publication or dissemination of the information in these surveys would be a violation of the Privacy Act of 1974, and would place the Plaintiffs in immediate risk of serious harm, the lawsuit says. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the publication or dissemination of these surveys, or any information derived therefrom. The Defendant is the current Acting Attorney General of the United States, and the person authorized and tasked with enacting the political will of President Trump. The Federal Bureau of Investigations is an agency under the control of the Department of Justice, with its headquarters located at 935 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Pamela M. Keith, Esq. Scott M. Lempert, Esq. CENTER FOR EMPLOYMENT JUSTICE 650 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 800-0292 E-mail: pamkeith@centerforemploymentjustice.com slempert@centerforemploymentjustice.com US CUSTOMS: Mora Seeks Reconsideration of Claim Dismissal --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIAN SANCHEZ MORA, et al., v. U.S. CUSTOMS AND BORDER PROTECTION, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-03136-BAH (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for reconsideration of the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California dismissing Plaintiffs' claim under the Freedom of Information Act against Defendant U.S. Department of Homeland Security in this putative class action. US Customs and Border Protection prevents people from entering the country illegally or bringing anything harmful or illegal into the United States. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hQVddd at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Trina Realmuto, Esq. Mary Kenney, Esq. Kristin Macleod-Ball, Esq. Tomas Arango, Esq. NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LITIGATION ALLIANCE 10 Griggs Terrace Brookline, MA, 02446 Telephone: (617) 819-4447 E-mail: trina@immigrationlitigation.org mary@immigrationlitigation.org kristin@immigrationlitigation.org tomas@immigrationlitigation.org - and - Matt Adams, Esq. Leila Kang, Esq. NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT 615 Second Avenue, Suite 400 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 957-8611 E-mail: matt@nwirp.org leila@nwirp.org - and - Marc Van Der Hout, Esq. Johnny Sinodis, Esq. VAN DER HOUT LLP 360 Post St., Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-3000 E-mail: ndca@vblaw.com VISION SERVICE: Aids Meta to Gather Users' Data, Kearney Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ DANIEL KEARNEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VISION SERVICE PLAN d/b/a WWW.CHOOSEVSP.COM, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-00321 (C.D. Cal., February 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of California Invasion of Privacy Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant has disclosed to Meta Systems, Inc., a third party, the personal information of its website subscribers without consent. The Defendant installed Meta Spyware on its website to collect users' data. As a result, the Defendant violated the Plaintiff's and the Class members' statutorily protected privacy rights. Vision Service Plan, doing business as www.choosevsp.com, is a vision insurance plan provider doing business in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 Facsimile: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com WICKED TACO: Bid for Conditional Status of Action Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE R GONZALEZ, on behalf of himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class, v. WICKED TACO LLC, d/b/a BONGO BURRITO, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-09555-NCM-JAM (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Joseph Marutollo entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification as a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b). The Court also grants in part and denies in part Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended Complaint. The Court further orders that: (1) By Feb. 18, 2025, the Defendants shall produce to the Plaintiff a spreadsheet including the names, dates of employment, positions held, last known addresses, and email addresses for all covered employees employed by the Defendants Bongo Burrito and Charred Brick Oven at any time from Dec. 28, 2020 to the present; (2) the Defendants shall produce to Plaintiff all pay and time records for all employees who were employed by Wicked Taco LLC d/b/a Bongo Burrito and NDL Restaurant Corp. d/b/a Charred Brick Oven from Dec. 28, 2020 to the present by Feb. 18, 2025. (3) The Plaintiff shall file the amended Complaint consistent with this Order by Feb. 18, 2025. (4) The parties shall meet and confer in good faith, and, by March 3, 2025, the parties shall file a revised proposed notice that complies with the directives set forth herein; and (5) By April 1, 2025, the Plaintiff or his designated representative shall cause a copy of the proposed notice to be disseminated to the covered employees by first class mail and email. The Plaintiff Jose Gonzalez brings this action on behalf of himself, and others similarly situated, against the Defendants alleging claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the N.Y. Labor Law ("NYLL), and the New York State Earned Safe and Sick Time Act ("ESSTA") On Oct. 16, 2023, the Defendants hired the Plaintiff to work as a cook at Bongo Burrito. The Complaint represents that the Plaintiff was regularly scheduled to work at Bongo Burrito from 11:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.—approximately 11 hours per day—on Mondays through Fridays, totaling 55 hours per week. Bongo is a vibrant Mexican-style restaurant in Seaford. A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 31, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2d27mH at no extra charge.[CC] WNU LLC: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Mendoza Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------- JUAN M. MIRAMONTES MENDOZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WNU, LLC, T/A PAPA JOHN'S PIZZA; and DOES 1 to 50, Defendants, Case No. 25NNCV00786 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 5, 2025) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. Plaintiff Mendoza was employed by the Defendants as a cook and delivery man. WNU, LLC, t/a Papa John's Pizza operates as a restaurant. The Company provides ordering delicious pizza for delivery. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zorik Mooradian, Esq. Andrina G. Hanson, Esq. Nanor C. Kamberian, Esq. MOORADIAN LAW, APC 24007 Ventura Blvd., Suite 210 Calabasas, CA 91302 Telephone: (818) 487-1998 Facsimile: (888) 783-1030 Email: zorik@mooradianlaw.com andrina@mooradianlaw.com nanor@mooradianlaw.com WW INTERNATIONAL: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- EMANUEL DELACRUZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. WW INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-01016 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 4, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.weightwatchers.com/us/, 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, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using 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. 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, https://www.weightwatchers.com/us/, 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. The goods and services offered by Defendant’s Website include information about Defendant's: meal plans, as well as other types of goods, pricing, delivery, terms of service, refund, privacy policies and internet pricing special.[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 [] Chimicles Investigates Shipping Carriers Import Excess Fees -------------------------------------------------------------- Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith is investigating potential class action claims on behalf of consumers who may have been charged inflated import fees by major shipping carriers, including UPS, DHL, and FedEx. With the recent elimination of the $800 de minimis threshold, all packages shipped from China to the United States are now subject to customs duties, regardless of value. This change may have led to unexpected and excessive import fees being charged to consumers who have purchased goods from online retailers such as eBay, TikTok Shop, Temu, Etsy, Shein, AliExpress, Amazon Haul, and other stores that sell items that ship directly from China. Reports indicate that consumers expecting packages shipped from China via UPS, DHL, or FedEx are receiving email notifications from these carriers demanding payment of import fees, often starting at $30 or more and frequently exceeding the value of the purchased items. Some reports suggest these fees appear to include not only the actual tariff and customs duty, but also substantial and brokerage or handling fees imposed by the shipping carriers. If you were required to pay an inflated import fee for a package shipped by UPS, FedEx, or DHL from China, please fill out the form below with details of your experience. [GN] [] CV Manufacturers Face GBP2BB Cartel Class Action From Hauliers ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Road Haulage Association (RHA) is bringing a class action against a number of truck makers accusing then of operating as a cartel and fixing prices of their vehicles sold to end users UK hauliers have until 14 February to register for a class action being brought by the Road Haulage Association (RHA) in the UK's Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT). The CAT authorised the RHA to act on behalf of the industry to seek compensation for losses suffered as a result of the unlawful conduct of the truck manufacturers. The claim is being brought as an opt in class action, which means that anyone who is eligible must opt in, in order to be eligible for compensation if it is awarded. Eligible claimants must register their interests via: www.truckcartellegalaction.com before 14 February 2025 to ensure that the opt in process can be completed by the 28 February 2025 deadline. Those eligible to opt in include companies, firms and individuals who purchased or leased new and used trucks of six tonnes and over, registered in the UK between 17 January 1997 and 31 January 2014 for new trucks and 17 January 1997 and 31 January 2015 for used trucks. Personal representatives of the estate of any person falling within the class who died on or after 17 July 2018 can also opt in. UK truck operators can start the opt in process here: www.truckcartellegalaction.com Richard Smith, managing director of the RHA said: "We urge those who are eligible to opt in to the legal action, so that they can access compensation if it is awarded by the Tribunal. "The RHA is dedicated to the interests of the road haulage sector, and we are proud to be bringing this claim in order to secure compensation for companies and individuals and to deter cartelist behaviour and poor corporate governance in our industry." The claim is being brought against a number of companies within the MAN, DAF and Iveco groups of companies, but the claim covers all makes of trucks, not just those manufactured by these companies. [GN] ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***