/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250219.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, February 19, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 36
Headlines
ABLETO INC: Seeks to Seal Documents in Sessa Class Action
ACME ELECTRIC: Wilson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
ACTAVIS PHARMA: Plaintiff Must File Amended Complaint by Feb. 20
ADA MARK MONACO: Perry Loses Class Certification Bid
ADDSHOPPERS INC: Seeks to File Class Cert Materials Under Seal
AEROVIRONMENT INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With BlueHalo
AGI GROUND INC: Ramos Suit Removed to C.D. California
AJAY GLASS: Louis Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid
ALBERTSONS SAFEWAY: Schofield Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Seeks to File Confidential Docs Under Seal
ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Arellano Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
AMCOR PLC: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Berry Global
APHRIA INC: Settles Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit
APPLE INC: Affinity Credit Suit Seeks to Certify Class
ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit
BELMONT INTERNATIONAL: Mislabels Drink Product, Lascaibar Says
BLUE CROSS: Antitrust Class Settlement Payment Starts Feb 2025
BUCKSKIN MINING: Kistler Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
BYTEDANCE INC: R.W. Sues Over Unlawful Collection of PII
CAMDEN DEVELOPMENT: Hall Suit Removed to D. Maryland
CANADA: Claims for First Nations Child Welfare Suit Open March 10
CAPITAL ONE: Belozerov Sues Over Abusive Practices
CARBON CREEK: Bid to Strike Untimely Expert's Declaration Tossed
CELL SHOP: Faces Locke Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
CENTIMARK CORP: Settlement in Lingle Gets Initial OK
CIGNA CORPORATION: Braddock Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
CIPRIANI USA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Riley Says
COINBASE: Judge Rejects Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Suit
COMFRT LLC: Delacruz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
COOPERSURGICAL INC: J.G. Sues Over Defective Solutions
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Castillo Due May 2
DAZN: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Unjustified Price Increases
DELTA COUNTY MEMORIAL: Carrothers Files Suit in D. Colorado
DEPLOYED SERVICES: Flores Suit Removed to S.D. California
DEVIN FINZER: Ross Suit Removed to S.D. New York
DIGNITY HEALTH: Carroll Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
DITOMMASO INC: Court Narrows Claims in Ortega Suit
DONALD TRUMP: Plaintiffs Seek OK of Provisional Class Cert Bid
DOWNEY HYUNDAI: Saleh Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
ELASTIC NV: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
EMCORE CORP: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Velocity One
EMILY UNKNOWN: Court Strikes Several Plaintiffs in Bowman Suit
ENFUSION INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Clearwater
EQUINIX INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due April 17
ERIC ARMEL: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Pagan Suit Due August 18
EVERGREEN ENVIRONMENTAL: Melgarejo Suit Removed to C.D. California
FANDANGO MEDIA: Agrees to $9MM Ticket Fee Class Action Settlement
FCA US: Federal Judge Issues Mixed-Bag Ruling in Class Action Suit
FIRST CHATHAM BANK: Robertson Files Suit in Ga. Super. Ct.
FOCUS MULTIMEDIA: Discloses Personal Info, Marquis Suit Alleges
GAS EXPRESS: Johnson Alleges Inadequate Data Security Practices
GLANBIA PERFORMANCE: DelaCruz Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website
GOLD MEDAL SERVICE: Good Files TCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
GOODWILL INDUSTRIES: Sullivan Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
GSK PLC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set April 7
HIGH 5 GAMES: Settles Social Casino Class Action for $25-Mil.
HILTON MANAGEMENT: Appeals Denied Bid to Decertify Class
HILTON WORLDWIDE: Faces Class Suit Over Website User Tracking
HSCGP LLC: Agrees to Website Privacy Class Action Settlement
I AM HOME: Anderson Seeks Home Health Staff's Unpaid OT
IL GROWN MEDICINE: Lutchka Sues Over Unlawful Marketing
INTELLIA THERAPEUTICS: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Class Cert Filing in Epperson Due Sept. 22
INTRASYSTEMS LLC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Hochberg Says
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Class Suit Over PFAS in Band-Aids
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sued Over Phenylephrine in Cold, Flu Medicine
KAIVAL BRANDS: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Delta Group
KITCHEN MAMA: Girtley Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Lindsey Suit Removed to C.D. California
KOFFEE KULT CORP: Wilson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
LAMB WESTON: Bonfire Craft Sues Over Conspiracy to Fix Prices
LENDINGTREE INC: Pierce Files Suit in W.D. North Carolina
LIFERX.MD INC: Davis Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Information
LJC APPAREL LLC: Battle Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
LUCKY GOAT: Girtley Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
MAELYS COSMETICS: Meehan Sues Over False Advertisement
MALIBU BOATS: Faces Securities Suit in NY Court
MARYMOUND INC: Court Certifies Class Suit Over Abuse in Children
MERCK & CO: S&P Investigates Potential Securities Claims
META PLATFORMS: Faces Klein Antitrust Suit
META PLATFORMS: Settles Suit over Data Sharing Dispute
MISSOURI: Bedford Appeals Class Suit Dismissal to 8th Circuit
NANCY JACOBY: Puchel Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
NAPCO SECURITY: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: UNC Suit Extended to Cover Tennis Players
NEUMORA THERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set April 7
NEW JERSEY: Sued Over Unconstitutional Unclaimed Property Act
NEW YORK, NY: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due July 31
NEXUS ADMINISTRATORS: Gonzalez Files Suit Over Snail-paced Services
NOW OPTICS: Joint Bid to Stay Marous Proceedings Tossed
NUNA BABY: Faces Class Action Suit Over Defective Rava Car Seats
OHIO NATIONAL: Loses Summary Judgment Bid v. Veritas
ON SEMICONDUCTOR: Continues to Defend Hubacek Class Suit
OSAIC HOLDINGS: Gehring Sues Over Unfair Cash Sweeps Programs
PARSEC INC: Court Tosses Bid for Prelim OK of Settlement
PAUL HESSE: White Seeks to Certify Class of Arrestees
PEARL INTERACTIVE: Bast Sues Over Failure to Compensate Wages
PEEK TRAVEL INC: Montgomery Files Suit in S.D. New York
PENTAGON FEDERAL: Bid to Dismiss Beyard Class Suit Tossed
PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR: Tenner Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Ark.
PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR: Tenner Seeks to Certify Class
PREVEA CLINIC: Class Settlement in Meyer Suit Gets Initial Nod
R.T. FARM: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 28
RAPID PASADENA: Status Conference Continued to March 20
RETREAT BEHAVIORAL: Williams Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Class
REYNOLDS CONSUMER: Mayfield Suit Seeks to Certify Class
REYNOLDS CONSUMER: Suit Seeks to File Confidential Docs Under Seal
ROYALTON ON THE GREENS: Misappropriated Tips, Orgera Says
RYDER SYSTEM: $2.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on April 1
SECURITAS SECURITY: Carrasquillo Seeks Conditional Class Status
SELECTQUOTE INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in N.Y.
SHEVAUN HARRIS: Hall Bid for Class Certification Denied as Moot
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Lanclos Suit Removed to D. Colorado
SPOT PET INSURANCE: Rabsatt Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
STURDY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL: Caine Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
SUPERB CABLE: Foreman Seeks Conditional Cert. of FLSA Collective
SUZUKI MOTOR: Jackson Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Cir.
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Can Seal Portions of Class Cert Opposition
TELEPERFORMANCE SE: $5.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on May 27
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Antitrust Class Suit Discovery Ongoing
TOM'S OF MAINE: Faces Class Suit Over Arsenic on Toothpaste
UNITED STATES: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Bird
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Mistreats Patients, Suit Says
UNIVERSITY DIAGNOSTIC: Chimicles Investigates Data Breach Claims
UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO: Plaintiffs Seeks to Seal Class Docs
UPHOLD HQ: General Pretrial Management Order Entered
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Judge Dismisses Lead Cables Class Suit
W.L. GORE: Faces Class Suit Over Greenwashing PFAS in Outdoor Gear
WALT DISNEY: Faces Class Suit Over Disability Access Service
WASATCH ADVANTAGE: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Nod
WORKDAY INC: Mobley Seeks Conditional Cert of FLSA Collective
WORLDWIDE FLIGHT: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Sorto Due Oct. 17
[] Quebec Class-Action Says Car Dealers Overcharged by $54 Mil.
[^] Class Action Money & Ethics Conference 2024 Attendees
*********
ABLETO INC: Seeks to Seal Documents in Sessa Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL SESSA, v. ABLETO,
INC., Case No. 8:23-cv-02219-TPB-CPT (M.D. Fla.), the Defendant
asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to seal documents
and to file redacted motion.
Accordingly, sealing the exhibits, in full or part, and
corresponding text of AbleTo's Opposition is necessary to protect
confidential information that, if made public, could cause
competitive or personal harm to AbleTo and other non-parties.
AbleTo is a provider of virtual behavioral health care.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1lVFkb at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Carolyn A. DeLone, Esq.
Katherine I. Culora, Esq.
Victoria Glover, Esq.
Allen P. Pegg, Esq.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
555 13th Street NW
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 637-5600
Facsimile: (202) 637-5910
E-mail: carrie.delone@hoganlovells.com
allen.pegg@hoganlovells.com
ACME ELECTRIC: Wilson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------
Howard Wilson, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. ACME ELECTRIC MOTOR, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-01270
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 5, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for its
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website,
www.acmetools.com including all portions thereof or accessed
thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is
not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it
violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures
so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
The Defendant is a company that owns and operates its Website,
offering features which should allow all consumers to access the
goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of
such goods and services throughout the United States, including the
State of Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101.
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
ACTAVIS PHARMA: Plaintiff Must File Amended Complaint by Feb. 20
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE METFORMIN MARKETING AND SALES
PRACTICES LITIGATION, Case No. 2:20-cv-02324-MCA-MAH (D.N.J.), the
Hon. Judge Michael Hammer entered an order as follows:
-- The Plaintiff shall file a fourth amended complaint on or
before Feb. 20, 2025.
-- The Defendant shall file their motion to dismiss the fourth
amended complaint on or before March 7, 2025.
-- The Plaintiff shall file response in opposition to the
Defendant's motion to dismiss on or before April 7, 2025.
The case arises out of the allegedly adulterated, misbranded,
and/or unapproved manufacturing, sale, and distribution of MCDs.
The Manufacturer Defendants are Actavis Pharma, Inc., Actavis, LLC,
Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC, Ascend Laboratories, LLC, Aurobindo
Pharma USA, Inc., Aurobindo Pharma, Ltd., Aurolife Pharma, LLC,
AvKare Inc., Emcure Pharmaceuticals, Granules Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., Granules USA, Inc., Heritage Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Teva
Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries,
Ltd., and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.
The Pharmacy Defendants are CVS Health Corporation, Rite-Aid
Corporation, Walgreens Boot Alliance, Inc., and Walmart Stores,
Inc.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 10, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JJM735 at no extra
charge.[CC]
ADA MARK MONACO: Perry Loses Class Certification Bid
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM PERRY, v. ADA MARK
ANTHONY MONACO; DA ALVIN BRAGG; HON. RUTH PICKHOLZ; HON. CURTIS
FARBER; ADA LISA DEL PIZO; ADA STUART SILBERG; ADA ERIN TIERNEY;
ADA SHIRA ARNOW; ADA ALEXANDRA WYNNE; OFFICER THOMAS MULLINS;
OFFICER DONYA BARDLIVING, Case No. 1:24-cv-08736-LJL (S.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Lewis Liman entered an order dismissing the
Plaintiff's claims against Judge Ruth Pickholz and Judge Curtis
Farber.
-- The motions for class certification, attorneys' fees, and
expedited discovery are also denied.
-- The Clerk of Court is directed to issue a summons for
Defendants New York County District Attorney Alvin Bragg; New
York County Assistant District Attorneys Mark Anthony Monaco,
Lisa Del Pizo, Stuart Silberg, Erin Tierney, Shira Arnow, and
Alexandra Wynne; and New York County District Attorney
Officers Thomas Mullins and Donya Bardliving.
-- The Clerk of Court is further directed to complete the USM-285
form with the address for each Defendant and deliver all
documents necessary to effect service to the U.S. Marshals
Service.
-- The Clerk of Court is directed to mail an information package
to Plaintiff.
The Court dismisses Plaintiff's claims against the named judges
under the doctrine of judicial immunity, because he seeks monetary
relief against Defendants who are immune from such relief, and,
consequently, such claims are frivolous.
Because Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, however, the Court cannot
certify the proposed class, and denies the motion at this stage
without prejudice.
The Plaintiff, an attorney who is appearing pro se, brings this
action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, alleging that Defendants
violated his constitutional rights. By order dated Dec. 20, 2024,
the Court granted Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis,
that is, without prepayment of fees.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 10, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OVoZ8N at no extra
charge.[CC]
ADDSHOPPERS INC: Seeks to File Class Cert Materials Under Seal
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ABBY LINEBERRY, TERRY
MICHAEL COOK and MIGUEL CORDERO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. ADDSHOPPERS, INC. and PEET'S COFFEE,
INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-01996-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Defendants ask the
Court to enter an order granting their administrative motion to
consider whether another Party's material should be sealed.
The Defendants file under seal an unredacted version of Peet's
motion in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
Peet's submits sealed and unsealed copies of its Opposition to
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Peet's takes no
position on the propriety of sealing these documents or redacting
Peet's opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
Peet's files this Administrative Motion because these documents
contain material that Plaintiffs and Defendant AddShoppers, Inc.
have designated as "Confidential" under the Stipulated Protective
Order.
Peet's understands that Plaintiffs and AddShoppers, under Local
Rule 79-5(f)(3), must file a statement under Local Rule 79-5(c)
justifying their designation of the above-referenced excerpts as
"Confidential" within seven days of filing.
AddShoppers is the provider of social media apps and customized
share buttons for ecommerce websites.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 10, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pxndVD at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Megan A. Suehiro, Esq.
Phillip J. Wiese, Esq.
M. Abigail West, Esq.
Alexandra M. Gonsman, Esq.
Ezra D. Church, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
300 South Grand Avenue, Twenty-Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
Telephone: (213) 612-2500
E-mail: megan.suehiro@morganlewis.com
phillip.wiese@morganlewis.com
abigail.west@morganlewis.com
alexandra.gonsman@morganlewis.com
ezra.church@morganlewis.com
AEROVIRONMENT INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With BlueHalo
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating:
-- AeroVironment, Inc. (Nasdaq: AVAV), relating to the proposed
merger with BlueHalo LLC. Under the terms of the agreement,
AeroVironment shareholders will own approximately 60.5% of the
combined company.
Click link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/aerovironment-inc-avav/. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- Liberty TripAdvisor Holdings, Inc. (OTC: LTRPA, LTRPB),
relating to the proposed merger with Tripadvisor, Inc. Under the
terms of the agreement, shares of Liberty TripAdvisor Common Stock
will be converted into the right to receive $0.2567 in cash.
Click link for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/liberty-tripadvisor-holdings-inc-ltrpa-ltrpb/.
It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- NeueHealth, Inc. (NYSE: NEUE), relating to the proposed merger
with New Enterprise Associates. Under the terms of the agreement,
holders of NeueHealth common stock will receive $7.33 per share in
cash.
Click link for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/neuehealth-inc-neue/. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- Stronghold Digital Mining, Inc. (Nasdaq: SDIG), relating to
its proposed merger with Bitfarms Ltd. Under the terms of the
agreement, Stronghold stockholders are expected to receive 2.52
shares of Bitfarms per share of Stronghold they own.
ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for February 27, 2025.
Click link for more information:
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/stronghold-digital-mining-inc/. 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]
AGI GROUND INC: Ramos Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Jasmin Ramos, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. AGI Ground, Inc., Case No. 24STCV33556
was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court, Does 1-50, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Feb.
5, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01018 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
AGI -- https://agi.aero/ -- is one of the fastest growing,
US-owned, ground handling companies in North America, providing
ground, cargo, mail handling, and security services.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
AJAY GLASS: Louis Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Louis, et al., v. Ajay
Glass & Mirror Co., Inc. et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00462-AJB-ML
(N.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
extending the deadlines as follows:
Current Proposed New
Deadline Deadline
Plaintiffs' motion for Feb. 28, 2025 Apr. 14, 2025
conditional certification:
Plaintiffs' expert May 5, 2025 June 19, 2025
disclosure:
Plaintiffs' motion for May 15, 2025 June 30, 2025
class certification:
Defendants' expert June 17, 2025 Aug. 1, 2025
disclosure:
Rebuttal expert disclosure: July 2, 2025 Aug. 18, 2025
All discovery to be Aug. 1, 2025 Sept. 15, 2025
completed by:
Ajay operates as a glass wall system contractors.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 11, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ThsvYq at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jason S. Giaimo, Esq.
MCLAUGHLIN & STERN, LLP
260 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 448-1100
Facsimile: (212) 448–0066
E-mail: jgiaimo@mclaughlinstern.com
ALBERTSONS SAFEWAY: Schofield Sues Over Unsolicited Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Schofield, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ALBERTSONS SAFEWAY LLC, Case No.
4:25-cv-01259-DMR (N.D. Cal., Feb. 5, 2025), is brought against the
Defendant under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") as a
result of the Defendants 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. Defendant also engages
in telemarketing without the required policies and procedures, and
training of its personnel engaged in telemarketing. Through this
action, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's
unlawful conduct, which has resulted in the invasion of privacy,
harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of
Plaintiff and the Class members. 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 personally listed her telephone number on the
National Do-Not-Call Registry.
The Defendant is a limited liability company conducting business
across the country, including in this District.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony I. Paronich, Esq.
PARONICH LAW, P.C.
350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
Hingham, MA 02043
Phone: (617) 738-7080
Facsimile: (617) 830-0327
Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: Seeks to File Confidential Docs Under Seal
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SIMON & SIMON, PC d/b/a
CITY SMILES and VIP DENTAL SPAS, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, v. ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC., Case No.
3:20-cv-03754-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter
an order granting third amended administrative motion for leave to
file under seal confidential material in support of the parties'
class certification and summary judgment briefing:
Throughout the motion, Align endeavors to provide the Court with
detailed information explaining why its new, narrowed proposed
sealings are appropriate and necessary under both the good cause
standard and compelling reason standard.
Align's proposed narrow sealings are appropriate under both the
good cause standard and compelling reason standard because, among
other things, the Confidential Materials contain personally
identifying information ("PII") of non-parties, proprietary trade
secrets and intellectual property, confidential ongoing and future
business strategies, and terms and conditions of agreements with
non-parties that are subject to confidentiality provisions and
non-disclosure agreements.
Moreover, Align's request to seal confidential materials filed with
the ITC is appropriate because such materials are subject to
express statutory confidentiality procedures as well as binding
confidentiality orders.
The very limited sealing that Align now requests is appropriate
because disclosure of this information—which Align regularly
maintains as confidential in the ordinary course of its
business—could cause unfair, competitive harm to Align and
Align's customers.
Align is an American manufacturer of 3D digital scanners and
Invisalign clear aligners used in orthodontics.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NLQk8Z at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joshua P. Davis, Esq.
Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
Michael Kane, Esq.
Daniel J. Walker, Esq.
Hope Brinn, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625
San Francisco, 94111
Telephone: (415) 689-9292
Facsimile: (215) 875-5707
E-mail: jdavis@bm.net
ecramer@bm.net
mkane@bm.net
dwalker@bm.net
hbrinn@bm.net
- and -
John Radice, Esq.
April Lambert, Esq.
Daniel Rubenstein, Esq.
RADICE LAW FIRM, P.C.
475 Wall Street
Princeton, NJ 08540
Telephone: (646) 245-8502
Facsimile: (609) 385-0745
E-mail: jradice@radicelawfirm.com
alambert@radicelawfirm.com
drubenstein@radicelawfirm.com
- and -
Joseph R. Saveri, Esq.
Steven N. Williams, Esq.
Kevin E. Rayhill, Esq.
JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1000
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 500-6800
Facsimile: (415) 395-9940
E-mail: jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com
swilliams@saverilawfirm.com
krayhill@saverilawfirm.com
- and -
Daniel J. Mogin, Esq.
Timothy Z. LaComb, Esq.
MOGINRUBIN LLP
600 West Broadway, Suite 3300
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 687-6611
Facsimile: (619) 687-6610
E-mail: dmogin@moginrubin.com
tlacomb@moginrubin.com
- and -
Kevin Landau, Esq.
Miles Greaves, Esq.
TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
123 William St, Suite 1900A
New York, NY 10038
Telephone: (212) 931-0704
Facsimile: (212) 931-0703
E-mail: klandau@tcllaw.com
mgreaves@tcllaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
James M. Pearl, Esq.
Emma Farrow, Esq.
Thomas A. Counts, Esq.
Michael F. Murray, Esq.
Adam M. Reich , Esq.
PAUL HASTINGS LLP
1999 Avenue of the Stars, 27th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 620-5700
Facsimile: (310) 620-5899
E-mail: jamespearl@paulhastings.com
emmafarrow@paulhastings.com
tomcounts@paulhastings.com
michaelmurray@paulhastings.com
adamreich@paulhastings.com
ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Arellano Files Suit in N.D. Illinois
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Allstate
Corporation, et al. The case is styled as Delia Arellano, Matthew
Baumgartner, Darren Brissett, Danny Carrol, Brianna Clay, Toyette
Flowers, Christopher Freel, Jade Gamble, Kimberly Kelley, Daniel
Kilgo, Sofia Malvar, James McNeill, David Murry, Amanda Quam,
Annette Rastrelli, Nicole Rehfuss, Billy Robinson, Dorian
Rochester, Robert Sanginito, Kayla Smith, Robert Smith, Austin
Topchi, Tracy Tupper, James Williams, Eboni Wright, on behalf of
themself and all others similarly situated v. The Allstate
Corporation, Allstate Insurance Company, Allstate Vehicle and
Property Insurance Company, Arity LLC, Arity 875 LLC, Arity
Services LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01256 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 5, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
The Allstate Corporation -- http://www.allstate.com/-- is an
American insurance company, headquartered in Northfield Township,
Illinois, near Northbrook, since 1967.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN LLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
AMCOR PLC: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Berry Global
-------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating:
-- AMCOR plc (NYSE: AMCR), relating to the proposed merger with
Berry Global Group, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, Berry
shareholders will receive a fixed exchange ratio of 7.25 Amcor
shares for each Berry share held upon closing, resulting in Amcor
and Berry shareholders owning approximately 63% and 37% of the
combined company, respectively.
ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for February 25, 2025.
Click link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/amcor-plc-amcr/. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- H&E Equipment Services, Inc. (Nasdaq: HEES), relating to the
proposed merger with United Rentals, Inc. Under the terms of the
agreement, United Rentals will acquire H&E for $92 per share in
cash.
ACT NOW. The Tender Offer expires on February 25, 2025.
Click link for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/he-equipment-services-inc-hees/. It
is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- Liberty Broadband Corporation (NASDAQ: LBRDA, LBRDK, LBRDP),
relating to the proposed merger with Charter Communications, Inc.
Under the terms of the agreement, Liberty Broadband common
stockholders will receive 0.236 of a share of Charter common stock
per share of Liberty Broadband common stock they own.
ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for February 26, 2025.
Click link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/liberty-broadband-corporation-lbrda-lbrdk-lbrdp/.
It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- Stronghold Digital Mining, Inc. (Nasdaq: SDIG), relating to
its proposed merger with Bitfarms Ltd. Under the terms of the
agreement, Stronghold stockholders are expected to receive 2.52
shares of Bitfarms per share of Stronghold they own.
ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for February 27, 2025.
Click link for more information:
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/stronghold-digital-mining-inc/. 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]
APHRIA INC: Settles Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that Aphria Inc. has agreed to pay $30
million to settle a class-action lawsuit by shareholders alleging
the company made misrepresentations to capital markets in 2018.
The settlement agreement said the deal is not an admission of
liability by Aphria or the individual defendants, who denied all
allegations.
The lawsuit alleged Aphria made misrepresentations in 2018 in
connection with its acquisition of a company called Nuuvera Inc.
and another deal for a company called LATAM Holdings Inc. that
suggested their value was significantly higher than their actual
worth.
It alleged that a substantial drop in Aphria's share price
following certain public disclosures that year amounted to a public
correction of misrepresentations.
Aphria was acquired by Tilray Inc. in 2021.
In a regulatory filing, Tilray noted the payment will be primarily
funded by an Aphria insurance policy and by the individual
defendants. Aphria will fund the remaining unpaid portion estimated
to about $8.5 million.
"Aphria's portion of the settlement amount is fully accrued on its
balance sheet and the settlement amount will not result in a
negative impact to earnings," Tilray said.
The settlement requires court approval. A hearing at the Ontario
Superior Court is set for March 26. [GN]
APPLE INC: Affinity Credit Suit Seeks to Certify Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AFFINITY CREDIT UNION, et
al., v. APPLE INC., Case No. 4:22-cv-04174-JSW (N.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs, on Aug. 8, 2025, will move for class certification
pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Plaintiffs move to certify a class of:
"all U.S. entities that (a) issued any Payment Card enabled
for Apple Pay and (b) paid Apple a fee for Apple Pay
transactions on that Payment Card."
All of the Rule 23(a) prerequisites are easily established. The
Class is readily ascertainable but contains thousands of issuers
who are far too numerous to join. The Plaintiffs' antitrust claims
are entirely typical of the Class and implicate a range of common
questions, all of which predominate this action. This case is well
suited for class treatment.
The Plaintiffs are financial institutions (i.e., banks and credit
unions) that contract with the Defendant Apple to enable their
payment cards (e.g., credit cards) for use on Apple Pay, Apple's
mobile wallet.
The Plaintiffs contend that Apple has stifled competition to secure
an unlawful monopoly for Apple Pay, and charges the Plaintiffs and
other financial institutions supracompetitive transaction fees.
Apple is a manufacturer of personal computers, smartphones, and
tablet computers.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0qinHL at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Ben M. Harrington, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL
SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Ave., Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
benh@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Eamon P. Kelly, Esq.
Joseph M. Vanek, Esq.
Jeffrey H. Bergman, Esq.
Phillip F. Cramer, Esq.
SPERLING KENNY
NACHWALTER, LLC
321 N. Clark St., 25th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 641-3200
Facsimile: (312) 641-6492
E-mail: ekelly@sperlingkenny.com
jvanek@sperlingkenny.com
jbergman@sperlingkenny.com
pcramer@ sperlingkenny.com
- and -
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 623-7292
Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
ASSERTIO HOLDINGS: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed in Lake County Circuit Court,
Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, State of Illinois, on behalf of all
persons and entities who acquired Assertio Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ:
ASRT) ("Assertio" or the "Company") common stock issued in exchange
for Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Spectrum") common stock in
connection with Assertio's July 31, 2023 merger with Spectrum (the
"Merger"), charging the Company and certain of its current and
former senior executives and directors with violations of the
federal securities laws (collectively, "Defendants").
If you acquired Assertio common stock in exchange for your Spectrum
common stock in connection with the Merger and you wish to obtain
additional information, participate in the investigation, or become
involved in this lawsuit, you may submit your information and
contact us here: https://dicellolevitt.com/securities/assertio-2/.
You can also contact DiCello Levitt attorneys Brian O'Mara or Hani
Farah by calling (888) 287-9005 or emailing
investors@dicellolevitt.com.
No Class Has Been Certified. Until a class is certified, you are
not represented by counsel unless you retain one. You may select
counsel of your choice.
Case Allegations
The Assertio lawsuit, currently pending in state court in Lake
County, Illinois, alleges that the Registration Statement for the
Merger contained untrue statements of material fact and omitted to
disclose material facts. Specifically, the Registration Statement
for the Merger: (1) overstated the strength of Indocin to
Assertio's business; (2) downplayed the risk of generic competition
to Indocin, despite multiple companies developing generic
alternatives of the drug; and (3) misrepresented the Merger's
benefits to Assertio shareholders based on the addition of Rolvedon
to the Company's product portfolio.
On July 31, 2023, Assertio and Spectrum closed the Merger, issuing
approximately 38 million shares of common stock at a price of $5.69
per share to shareholders of Spectrum, valued at approximately $248
million.
Shortly after the merger, on August 3, 2023, investors learned that
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") gave another
biopharmaceutical company a 180-day exclusivity period to market
its generic competitor to Indocin. In response, Assertio
"withdr[ew] its 2023 financial outlook to assess to the recent news
of a generic indomethacin suppository."
Then, on November 8, 2023, Assertio announced its financial and
operation results for the third quarter of fiscal year 2023,
revealing that Rolvedon sales were only $7.1 million -- far off
pace from the $46 million that Assertio projected for the second
half of the 2023 fiscal year. In a related earnings call,
Defendants admitted that "[o]ur third quarter results were
disappointing, with the loss of Indocin exclusivity and Rolvedon
results below expectations driving significant charges to our net
income." And further proving the Merger would not confer upon
Assertio the benefits touted in the Registration Statement,
Defendants conceded that "certain aspects of [the Merger] may not
be everything [we] initially expected."
On this news, the price of Assertio stock fell 43.2% to close at
$1.21 per share on November 9, 2023.
On the date the Assertio lawsuit was filed, Assertio stock closed
at $1.00 per share, representing an approximately 82% decline from
Assertio's trading price on the date of the Merger.
About DiCello Levitt
At DiCello Levitt, we are dedicated to achieving justice for our
clients through class action, business-to-business, public client,
whistleblower, personal injury, civil and human rights, and mass
tort litigation. Our lawyers are highly respected for their ability
to litigate and win cases -- whether by trial, settlement, or
otherwise -- for people who have suffered harm, global corporations
that have sustained significant economic losses, and public clients
seeking to protect their citizens' rights and interests. Every day,
we put our reputations -- and our capital -- on the line for our
clients.
DiCello Levitt has achieved top recognition as Plaintiffs Firm of
the Year and Trial Innovation Firm of the Year by the National Law
Journal, in addition to its top-tier Chambers and Benchmark
ratings. The New York Law Journal also recently recognized DiCello
Levitt as a Distinguished Leader in trial innovation. For more
information about the Firm, including recent trial victories and
case resolutions, please visit www.dicellolevitt.com.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Media Contact
Amy Coker
4747 Executive Drive, Suite 240
San Diego, CA 92121
(619) 963-2426
investors@dicellolevitt.com [GN]
BELMONT INTERNATIONAL: Mislabels Drink Product, Lascaibar Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
ROSA LASCAIBAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BELMONT INTERNATIONAL TRADING CORP.,
Defendant, Case No. 216029704 (Fla. Cir., 11th Judicial, Miami-Dade
Cty., February 4, 2025) is a proposed class action on behalf of the
Plaintiff and a nationwide class, and a Florida subclass of
consumers seeking redress for Defendant's deceptive practices
associated with the advertising, labeling, and sale of Belmont's
Chicha Morada Purple Corn Drink pursuant to the Florida's Uniform
Commercial Code and Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
According to the complaint, Belmont marketed and sold the product
using a front label which prominently displayed "No artificial
colors, flavors, or preservatives." However, Belmont's claim that
the product contains "no preservatives" is false, as the product
contains a significant amount of citric acid.
As a result of Belmont's false and misleading labeling, Belmont was
able to sell the product to thousands of unsuspecting consumers
throughout Florida and the United States, and to charge a
price-premium, says the suit.
Belmont International Trading Corp. is a Florida corporation with
its principal place of business in Hialeah.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Bryan J. Geiger, Esq.
SERAPH LEGAL, P. A.
2124 W. Kennedy Blvd., Ste. A
Tampa, FL 33606
Telephone: (813) 567-1230
E-mail: BGeiger@SeraphLegal.com
BLUE CROSS: Antitrust Class Settlement Payment Starts Feb 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) $2.67 billion settlement is one
of the largest class-action settlements in U.S. history, resolving
antitrust allegations against the insurer. If you were covered
under a BCBS health insurance plan during specific periods, you may
be eligible for a payout. Here's everything you need to know about
the settlement, including eligibility, payment amounts, and
timelines.
Overview of the BCBS Settlement
The BCBS settlement stems from a class-action lawsuit alleging that
the insurer violated antitrust laws by engaging in practices that
restricted competition and inflated insurance costs. While BCBS
denied any wrongdoing, the company agreed to a $2.67 billion
settlement to resolve the claims. The settlement benefits
individuals and businesses who were covered under BCBS health
insurance plans during specific periods.
Eligibility Criteria
Fully Insured Plans
-- You are eligible if you were covered under a fully insured
BCBS plan between February 7, 2008, and October 16, 2020.
Self-Funded Plans
-- You are eligible if you were covered under a self-funded BCBS
plan between September 1, 2015, and October 16, 2020.
Exclusions
-- Dependents, non-employees, and minors are not eligible for
payouts.
Settlement Fund Breakdown
Total Settlement Amount
-- The total settlement fund is $2.67 billion.
Allocation to Claimants
-- $1.9billion is allocated for payouts to claimants after
deductions for legal fees (667.5 million) and administrative costs
($100 million).
-- Fully Insured Claimants: 93.5% (~$1.78 billion) of the payout
fund.
-- Self-Funded Claimants: 6.5% (~$120 million) of the payout
fund.
Payout Estimates
Average Payment
-- The average payout is estimated to be $333 per claimant for
approximately 6 million approved claims.
-- Actual amounts vary based on:
-- Premiums paid during the class period.
-- Type of plan (fully insured vs. self-funded).
-- Total number of valid claims.
Minimum Payout Rule
-- Claims under $5 will not receive payment.
Payment Timeline
When Payments Begin
-- Payments are scheduled to begin in February 2025 after all
final appeals were resolved in June 2024.
Claim Deadline
-- The deadline to file claims was November 5, 2021. No new
claims are being accepted.
How Payments Are Distributed
Payments will be distributed through:
-- Venmo
-- PayPal
-- Prepaid card
-- Check
Claimants will receive notifications via email on a rolling basis.
Legal Background of the Settlement
The lawsuit alleged that BCBS engaged in anticompetitive practices,
including:
-- Restricting competition among BCBS affiliates.
-- Inflating insurance costs for policyholders.
While BCBS denied these allegations, the company agreed to the
settlement to avoid the risks and costs of prolonged litigation.
To check the status of your claim:
1. Visit the official settlement website: bcbssettlement.com.
2. Enter your Claim Number or Unique ID.
Important Notes
-- Taxable Income: Settlement payments are considered taxable
income in most cases.
-- Updates: For the latest information, visit the official
settlement website or review court-approved documents. [GN]
BUCKSKIN MINING: Kistler Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------
SHAWN KISTLER, individually and for others similarly situated v.
BUCKSKIN MINING COMPANY, Case No. 8:25-cv-00042 (D. Neb., February
4, 2025) is a collective action to recover Plaintiff's unpaid wages
and other damages from the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The complaint alleges that Buckskin's bonus pay scheme violates the
FLSA by failing to compensate Plaintiff Kistler and the other
hourly employees at one and a half times their regular rates of pay
-- based on all remuneration -- for all hours worked in excess of
40 a workweek.
Plaintiff Kistler was employed by the Defendant as an operator
utility tech 4 from approximately February 2021 through November
2023 in Buckskin coal mine near Gillette, Wyoming.
Buckskin Mining Company is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Omaha, Nebraska.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian E. Jorde, Esq.
Christian T. Williams, Esq.
2425 South 144th Street
Omaha, NE 68144
Telephone: (402) 493-4100
Facsimile: (402) 493-9782
E-mail: bjorde@dominalaw.com
cwilliams@dominalaw.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLC
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
BYTEDANCE INC: R.W. Sues Over Unlawful Collection of PII
--------------------------------------------------------
R.W., a minor by and through their guardian ad litem, Pamela
Hancock, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BYTEDANCE, INC.; BYTEDANCE LTD.; TIKTOK LTD.; TIKTOK
INC.; TIKTOK PTE. LTD.; and TIKTOK U.S. DATA SECURITY, INC., Case
No. 2:25-cv-00948 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 4, 2025), is brought to address
Defendants' unlawful practice of permitting and encouraging
Plaintiff and children under the age of 13 to create user accounts
on the TikTok app for the purpose of collecting Personally
Identifiable Information ("PII"), in violation of the California
Invasion of Privacy Act; Violation of the Unfair Competition Law;
Invasion of Privacy under California's Constitution; Common Law
Invasion of Privacy-Intrusion upon Seclusion; and Unjust
Enrichment.
The Defendants have knowingly collected this PII and other
intrusive data points without the children's parents' knowledge or
consent. Defendants utilize this unlawfully collected PII to
provide personally curated content to keep children engaged with
TikTok for their own profit. Defendants share Plaintiff and other
children's PII with third parties and further curate their For You
Pages with copious amounts of curated advertisements. Defendants
have been on notice that their actions are unlawful since March 27,
20191, when the United States Government issued a permanent
injunction and a Civil Penalty against them, which prohibits
Defendants from their collection and use of the personal
information of children without verifiable parental consent.
Unbeknownst to Plaintiff, the minor children, and their parents,
Defendants were collecting and tracking PII and other sensitive
information without providing direct notice or gaining their
parents' verifiable consent in violation of the Children's Online
Privacy Protection Act of 1998 ("COPPA") and Children's Online
Privacy Protection Rule, a federal statute and regulation that
protect children's privacy and safety online.
The Plaintiff and minor children used the TikTok app and website in
its intended form as a social media platform, collecting data and
PII to curate a For You Page despite being underaged and not
receiving proper notice and consent to collect their data.
Plaintiff and minor children were also being collected and shared
with various third parties to aid Defendants in their marketing and
advertising efforts.
As a result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff and Class members
have suffered numerous injuries, including: invasion of privacy
diminution of value of Privacy Information, statutory damages, and
the continued and ongoing risk to their Private Information, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff R.W., is a natural person under the age of 13 during
the Class period and whose parent and legal guardian is Pamela
Hancock.
TikTok Inc. is a California corporation with its principalplace of
business located in Culver City, California.[BN]
The Plaintiffs represented by:
John J. Nelson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
280 S. Beverly Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Phone: (868) 252-0878
Email: jnelson@milberg.com
CAMDEN DEVELOPMENT: Hall Suit Removed to D. Maryland
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as John Hall and Monica M. Bahena, and others
similarly situated v. CAMDEN DEVELOPMENT, INC., Case No.
C-16-CV-24-005335 was removed from the Circuit Court for Prince
George's County, to the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland on Feb. 5, 2025, and assigned Case No.
8:25-cv-00366-DKC.
In the Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that Camden "has used deceptive
advertising and unfair practices to charge millions of dollars in
application fees and junk fees that have harmed Maryland
residents." Based on those and other allegations, Plaintiffs,
individually and on behalf of a purported class, assert four causes
of action: alleged violations of the Maryland Consumer Protection
Act; alleged violations of the Maryland Consumer Debt Collection
Act; alleged violations of Maryland Real Property Article; and a
claim for declaratory and injunctive relief.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Vaughn Stewart, Esq.
Chelsea Ortega, Esq.
SANTONI, VOCCI & ORTEGA, LLC
201 W. Padonia Road, Suite 101
Lutherville-Timonium, MD 21093
Phone: 443-921-8161
Fax: 410-525-5704
Email: vstewart@svolaw.com
cortega@svolaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Brent R. Gary, Esq.
Justin M. Sizemore, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
1650 Tysons Blvd., Ste. 1700
Tysons, VA 22102
Phone: (703) 720-8038
Email: Brent.Gary@hklaw.com
- and -
Jessica L. Farmer, Esq.
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
800 17th Street N.W., Ste. 1100
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 955-3000 Telephone
Email: Jessica.Farmer@hklaw.com
CANADA: Claims for First Nations Child Welfare Suit Open March 10
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alessia Passafiume of The Canadian Press reports that The Assembly
of First Nations says children and their families who lived under
Canada's First Nations child welfare system from 1991 to 2022 can
apply for a class action settlement starting in March.
National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak says the settlement is an
acknowledgment of the harms First Nations people experienced under
a "racist system that has broken so many lives and families."
In 2023, the Federal Court approved a $23 billion settlement to
compensate some 300,000 First Nations children and their families
for Canada's chronic underfunding of on-reserve child welfare
services.
The settlement agreement followed a 2019 Canadian Human Rights
Tribunal (CHRT) ruling that ordered Ottawa to pay the maximum
penalty for discrimination — $40,000 — to each child
inappropriately removed from their homes, as well as their parents
or grandparents.
Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs Grand Chief Kyra Wilson says the claims
process will be trauma-informed and claimants will not need to
relive their experiences, as was the case with other First
Nations-led class actions.
The first batch of claims will open March 10 and each claim is
expected to take around six to 12 months to process. [GN]
CAPITAL ONE: Belozerov Sues Over Abusive Practices
--------------------------------------------------
Serge Belozerov, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, WIKIBUY LLC, and
WIKIBUY HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00212 (E.D. Va., Feb. 4,
2025), is brought for damages and injunctive relief, seeking an
immediate end to Capital One's abusive practices and for recompense
for the harm that has already been done.
Affiliated marketing is a cornerstone of modern digital
advertising. Content creators, influencers, bloggers, and other
marketers earn referral fees by promoting products and directing
traffic via affiliate links (the "Affiliate Marketers"). Affiliate
links include unique tracking cookies or tags that identify the
Affiliate Marketer as the source of the referral. Online retailers
(the "Merchants") rely on tracking tags and affiliate marketing
cookies to determine who gets credit for and referral fees from
online referrals and product sales. The referral fees earned by the
Affiliate Marketer is often a percentage of the sale value and is
critical to the income of many Affiliate Marketers.
Capital One Shopping's purported ability to quickly price check
before purchases make the browser extension appealing to consumers
looking for a discount on a product they are already interested in
purchasing and have already added to their online shopping cart.
When a consumer uses an affiliate link and subsequently uses
Capital One Shopping to search for coupons, Capital One Shopping
replaces the Affiliate Marketer's cookie with its own, effectively
taking credit for and stealing any resulting referral fee from the
sale. The Plaintiff is an Affiliate Marketer whose referral fees
Capital One has wrongfully misappropriated through its programming
of the Capital One Shopping browser extension, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is an Affiliate Marketer and shared his affiliate
links to products on Habits 365 and Cocoburry on his Facebook.
Capital One Financial Corporation is a Delaware bank holding
corporation, specializing in credit cards, auto loans, banking, and
savings accounts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
1101 Vermont Ave. NW, Suite 800
Washington, D.C. 20005
Phone: (202) 524-4290
Fax: (212) 363-7171
Email: etripodi@zlk.com
- and -
Mark S. Reich, Esq.
Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq.
Colin A. Brown, Esq.
Alyssa Tolentino, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Phone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
Email: mreich@zlk.com
cmaccarone@zlk.com
cbrown@zlk.com
atolentino@zlk.com
CARBON CREEK: Bid to Strike Untimely Expert's Declaration Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREGG B COLTON, on behalf
of himself and a class of similarly situated persons, v. CARBON
CREEK ENERGY, LLC, Case No. 2:22-cv-00150-ABJ (D. Wyo.), the Hon.
Judge Allan Johnson entered an order denying the Defendant's motion
to strike untimely declaration of Royce Porter.
In the motion, the Defendant requested that the Court strike
Plaintiff's expert opinion from the Plaintiff's reply brief
regarding his motion for class certification.
The Court certified the Plaintiff's class on Aug. 15, 2024. The
class certification renders the motion strike moot.
Carbon Creek is a manufacturer of natural gas for commercial and
industrial.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 4, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fCsShG at no extra
charge.[CC]
CELL SHOP: Faces Locke Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices
---------------------------------------------------------
JAYLEND LOCKE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CELL SHOP, INC., an Arizona Stock
Corporation; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No.
25STCV03141 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., February 4, 2025) is a
law enforcement and representative action under the Private
Attorneys General Act of the California Labor Code.
The suit arises from the Defendants' failure to: (i) pay Plaintiff
and other non-exempt employees overtime wages, (ii) pay all wages
and minimum wages; (ii) provide compliant meal periods; (iv)
provide compliant rest periods; (v) pay all wages due at
termination of employment; and (vi) provide compliant wage
statements.
Plaintiff Locke worked as a retail sales associate in one of
Defendant's stores located in Los Angeles, California. He was hired
on April 2, 2024 and resigned from the job on June 26, 2024.
Cell Shop, Inc. operates as an AT&T authorized retailer focusing on
selling AT&T products like cell phone and phone accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
Corey S. Smith, Esq.
Kasra B. Ramez, Esq.
BRADLEY/GROMBACHER, LLP
31365 Oak Crest Drive, Suite 240
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Telephone: (805) 270-7100
Facsimile: (805) 270-7589
E-mail: mbradley@bradleygrombacher.com
kgrombacher@bradleygrombacher.com
csmith@bradleygrombacher.com
kramez@bradleygrombacher.com
CENTIMARK CORP: Settlement in Lingle Gets Initial OK
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Anthony Lingle, v.
Centimark Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01471-KJM-JDP (E.D.
Cal.), the Court entered an order granting the renewed motion for
preliminary approval subject to the concerns identified above,
which the parties must address prior to final approval. The court
approves the schedule and deadlines in the proposed order:
-- The Defendant provides the Class Information to the
Administrator: within 21 calendar days of this order.
-- Settlement Administrator to mail Notice of Class Action
Settlement: within 14 calendar days after receipt of the Class
Information.
-- Settlement Administrator to re-mail Notice of Class Action
Settlement: 5 calendar days after receipt of notice that the
Notice of Class Action Settlement was undeliverable.
-- Plaintiff to file Motion for attorney's fees and costs, Class
Representative Enhancement Award, and Settlement Administrator
Costs: no later than 15 calendar days before the Response
Deadline to the Notice of Class Action Settlement.
-- Response Deadline to the Notice of Class Action Settlement: 45
calendar days after mailing.
-- New Response Deadline to the Notice of Class Action Settlement
for those receiving re-mailed Notices of the Class Action
Settlement: the original Response Deadline or 10 calendar days
from the date of remailing, whichever is later.
-- Settlement Administrator to provide counsel for the Parties a
complete list of all Class Members who timely submitted a
Request for Exclusion and a Declaration regarding the
statistics and responses of settlement administration to date:
14 calendar days after the Response Deadline.
A final approval heaving is set for Aug. 28, 2025 at 10:00 a.m.,
with briefs and supporting documentation to be submitted according
to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this District's Local
Rules.
Participating Class Members who object in a timely manner as set
forth in the settlement agreement may appear and present such
objections at the fairness hearing in person or by counsel.
Lingle alleges Centimark, his former employer, violated the
California Labor Code and the state's Private Attorneys General Act
(PAGA) by withholding wages from him and other
employees, by misreporting wages on pay stubs and by depriving
employees of the full rest and meal breaks required by law, among
other similar claims.
CentiMark is a national roofing contractor company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 6, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MrDIhX at no extra
charge.[CC]
CIGNA CORPORATION: Braddock Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Cigna Corporation.
The case is styled as Cody Braddock, Individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated v. Cigna Corporation, Case No.
8:25-cv-00285 (M.D. Fla., Feb. 4, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
The Cigna Group -- https://www.cigna.com/ -- is an American
multinational for-profit managed healthcare and insurance company
based in Bloomfield, Connecticut.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan Lee McBride, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
2221 Camino Del Rio S., Suite 101
San Diego, CA 92108
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Email: ryan@kazlg.com
CIPRIANI USA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Riley Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
AMANIE RILEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Cipriani USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-00955 (S.D.N.Y., February 3, 2025) is a civil rights action
against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate their website, https://www.cipriani.com, to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights
Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers
that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using
keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive
and include, but are not limited to ambiguous link texts,
inaccurate drop-down menus, inaccessible contact information,
unclear labels for interactive elements, incorrectly formatted
lists, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely
with a mouse.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Cipriani USA's policies, practices, and procedures so that its
website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination.
Cipriani USA, Inc. operates the website which provides consumers
with access to an array of services, including the ability to
explore the Italian cuisine, with a focus on classic Venetian
dishes and refined Italian fare, make a table reservation or
inquire about private event bookings.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Asher Cohen, Esq.
ASHER COHEN PLLC
2377 56th Dr.,
Brooklyn, NY 11234
Telephone: (718) 914-9694
E-mail: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com
COINBASE: Judge Rejects Bid to Dismiss Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Mehron Rokhy, writing for the The Daily Hodl, reports that a
federal judge is reportedly ruling that top US-based crypto
exchange Coinbase must face a class action lawsuit in New York.
According to a new report from Reuters, Paul Engelmayer, a judge
for the Southern District of New York, is rejecting Coinbase's
argument that it did not qualify as a "statutory seller" to dismiss
a lawsuit that alleges the firm illegally sold securities in the
form of digital assets to customers without being registered as a
broker-dealer.
Engelmayer says that Coinbase's claim was invalid because it never
passed title to the 79 crypto assets traded by customers, noting
that "customers on Coinbase transact solely with Coinbase itself."
In a statement, Coinbase says,
"Coinbase does not list, offer, or sell securities on its exchange.
We look forward to vindicating the remaining claims in the district
court."
Engelmayer further rejected to dismiss claims governed by the laws
of California, New Jersey and Florida, noting that the complainants
have sufficient grounds to allege that Coinbase was the direct
seller of the crypto assets.
In February of 2023, Engelmayer dropped the lawsuit but an
appellate court reviewed the case and decided to return some parts
of it to the judge.
In June 2023, Coinbase was sued by the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) for allegedly violating securities laws as well as
operating as an unlicensed broker-dealer.
However, a year later, Coinbase filed its own lawsuit against the
regulatory agency alongside the Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporation (FDIC) claiming that they were out to intentionally
cripple the digital assets industry.
As stated by Coinbase at the time,
"The SEC has waged a scorched-earth enforcement war on
digital-asset firms that, in conjunction with efforts by other
financial regulators to de-bank crypto firms, is designed to
cripple the digital asset industry." [GN]
COMFRT LLC: Delacruz Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------
Emanuel Delacruz, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. COMFRT LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00987 (S.D.N.Y.,
Feb. 4, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA").
Because Defendant's interactive website, website,
https://comfrt.com/, including all portions thereof or accessed
thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is
not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it
violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures
so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers.
By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible
with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and
visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods,
content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled
individuals --thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma
among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
COMFRT LLC, operates the Comfrt online retail store, as well as the
Comfrt interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in
the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
Danalgottlieb@aol.com
COOPERSURGICAL INC: J.G. Sues Over Defective Solutions
------------------------------------------------------
J.G., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. COOPERSURGICAL, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00172 (D. Conn., Feb. 4,
2025), is brought on behalf of a Nationwide Class and a Connecticut
Subclass of fertility patients whose embryos were impacted by the
defective Global Media, seeking to recover for the expense of IVF
wasted when, at the very last stages, CooperSurgical's defective
solution ruined the embryos that were developed, matured, and
fertilized throughout the burdensome process.
CooperSurgical manufactures a medium for culturing embryos, that
is, a solution in which fertilized embryos (starting at just a
single cell) develop sufficiently to be transferred to a patient's
uterus to facilitate pregnancy. The technique used to culture and
grow embryos requires use of a medium, or solution, that provides
the appropriate environment and nutrients for the embryos to grow
and mature. CooperSurgical's medium, which it calls global Media
("Global Media") is one type of medium developed to culture embryos
to the blastocyst stage and prepare them for transfer. It is used
by clinics throughout the country as one of the primary "single
step" media, which uses a single product as opposed to several
products to culture the embryos.
With hope and pregnancy peeking around the corner, however,
hundreds of fertility patients, including Plaintiff and the Class,
learned that their embryos were irrevocably damaged and lost in the
process. On December 5, 2023, those patients learned why.
CooperSurgical's Global Media had been shipped to fertility clinics
throughout the United States with a serious and consequential
defect.
Rather than providing the nutrients and environment required for
embryo growth, CooperSurgical's defective Global Media created an
environment where embryos would, instead, be destroyed. It issued a
notice and, subsequently, a recall of the defective Global Media.
However, for Plaintiff and the Class, those patients whose embryos
had been cultured with the defective Global Media, the recall was
too late. The Global Media had already finally ruined their
embryos, thwarting the immense effort and expense of patients' IVF
treatment and crushing patients' hopes for pregnancy and a child.
CooperSurgical knew or should have known of the significant
economic and emotional toll imposed on fertility patients through
its manufacturing, selling, and shipping of defective Global Media
to fertility clinics. Given that substantial and foreseeable risk,
CooperSurgical had a duty to reasonably manufacture its Global
Media and implement quality control measures to inspect, test, and
ensure that its media met the required specifications.
CooperSurgical, however, breached that duty, failing to inspect the
nearly 1,000 bottles of its defective Global Media that were
manufactured and prepared for use on fertility patients' embryos.
Indeed, CooperSurgical failed to identify the issue on its own at
all, becoming aware that its Global Media was destroying embryos
from its customers. By that point, irreparable damage was done to
likely hundreds of embryos that were impaired, damaged, and lost,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a resident of Middlefield, Connecticut who
obtained fertility treatment, including IVF treatment, from CNY
Fertility-Albany.
CooperSurgical, the manufacturer of various products used in
fertility treatment and women's health.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd S. Garber, Esq.
FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
One North Broadway, Suite 900
White Plains, New York 10601
Phone: (914) 298-3283
Email: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com
tgarber@fbfglaw.com
- and -
Michael J. Laird, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
1100 IDS Center, 80 S. 8th St.
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (612) 341-0400
Fax: (612) 341-0844
Email: Michael.laird@zimmreed.com
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Castillo Due May 2
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JESUS CASTILLO et al., v.
COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Case No. 2:23-cv-01548-JHC (W.D.
Wash.), the Hon. Judge John Chun entered an order as follows:
Deadline to complete discovery on class Apr. 11, 2025
certification (not to be construed as a
bifurcation of discovery):
Deadline for Plaintiffs to file Motion for May 2, 2025
Class Certification (noted for July
11, 2025):
Deadline for Opposition to Motion for Class June 13, 2025
Certification and Daubert motions re expert
opinions offered in support of class
certification:
Deadline for Reply to Motion for Class July 11, 2025
Certification and Daubert motions re expert
opinions offered in opposition to class
certification:
Costco operates membership warehouses that offer a selection of
branded and private label products.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Fv2pcN at no extra
charge.[CC]
DAZN: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Unjustified Price Increases
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Inside World Football reports that The Federation of German
Consumer Organisations (Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband) is
pursuing a class action lawsuit against DAZN, alleging unjustified
price increases.
In a statement on its website, the consumer body wrote: "The
streaming provider DAZN increased its prices in 2021 and 2022 in
ongoing contracts without the consent of customers. The Federal
Association of Consumer Organizations (VZBV) considers the
underlying general terms and conditions clauses to be unreasonably
disadvantageous and the price increases for existing customers at
the time to be illegal."
The claim concerns prices in 2021 and 2022. In August 2021, DAZN
raised prices from EUR11.99 to EUR14.99 per month and from
EUR119.99 to EUR149.99 per year. In August 2022, the streaming
platform increased prices from EUR14.99 to EUR29.99 per month and
from EUR149.99 to EUR274.99 per year. The federation has invited
consumers to register for the class action.
In Germany, DAZN has the rights to, among others, the Bundesliga,
Serie A, the UEFA Women's Euro and the Saudi Pro League.
Last December, the DFL announced a EUR4.48 billion TV deal for the
Bundesliga rights over four years with the rights remaining with
both Sky Deutschland and DAZN.
It did not come without controversy. Last April, DAZN believed it
had secured the rights to Friday night and Saturday afternoon
matches in the Bundesliga with a EUR1.6 billion bid over five
years. However, the DFL demanded financial guarantees and required
payments within a short timeframe.
When DAZN couldn't meet these conditions, the rights were awarded
to Sky. The streaming operator challenged the decision and the
court ruled in its favour, ordering the package to be re-tendered.
DAZN said it did not comment on on-going legal cases. [GN]
DELTA COUNTY MEMORIAL: Carrothers Files Suit in D. Colorado
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Delta County Memorial
Hospital District. The case is styled as Joshua Carrothers,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Delta County Memorial Hospital District, Case No.
1:25-cv-00399-SKC-KAS (D. Colo., Feb. 6, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Breach of
Contract.
Delta County Memorial Hospital District --
https://deltahealthco.org/ -- provide remarkable care and a wide
range of medical services through our 49-bed hospital and multiple
locations throughout Delta County.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Allen Berens, Esq.
JOHNSON FISTEL LLP
2373 Central Park Boulevard, Suite 100
Denver, CO 80238
Phone: (303) 861-1764
Email: jeffb@johnsonfistel.com
DEPLOYED SERVICES: Flores Suit Removed to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Samantha Flores, an individual and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. DEPLOYED SERVICES, LLC, a
Nevada Limited Liability Company; ROZANA SAHAMI, and DOES 1 through
100, inclusive, Case No. 24CU031320C was removed from the Superior
Court of California for the County of San Diego, to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California on
Feb. 7, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00288-AJB-MMP.
The Complaint alleges 11 causes of action against Defendants, for:
Failure to Pay All Overtime Wages; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages;
Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Periods;
Waiting Time Penalties; Wage Statement Violations; Failure to
Timely Pay Wages; Failure to Indemnify; Failure to Pay Interest on
Deposits; Violation of Labor Code Section 227.3; and Unfair
Competition.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Andrew M. Paley, Esq.
Elizabeth M. Levy, Esq.
Ashley D. Stein, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
Phone: (310) 277-7200
Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
Email: apaley@seyfarth.com
elevy@seyfarth.com
astein@seyfarth.com
DEVIN FINZER: Ross Suit Removed to S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Craig Ross, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated v. DEVIN FINZER and ALEX ATALLAH, Case
No. 659374/2024 was removed from the Supreme Court of New York for
the County of New York, to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on Feb. 10, 2025, and assigned Case
No. 1:25-cv-01179.
In the State Court Action, Plaintiff asserts claims for violations
of the New York Deceptive Acts and Practices Unlawful Act;
violations of the New York False Advertising Act; and unjust
enrichment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Phillip Kim, Esq.
Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
Michael Cohen, Esq.
THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Phone: (212) 686-1060
Fax: (212) 202-3827
Email: philkim@rosenlegal.com
lrosen@rosenlegal.com
mcohen@rosenlegal.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Daniel T. Stabile, Esq.
Thania (Athanasia) Charmani, Esq.
WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
200 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10166
Phone: (212) 294-4659
Email: DStabile@winston.com
ACharmani@winston.com
DIGNITY HEALTH: Carroll Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dignity Health. The
case is styled as Londa Carroll, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Dignity Health, Case No. CGC25622039
(Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Feb. 4, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Dignity Health -- https://www.dignityhealth.org/ -- provides
compassionate, high-quality, affordable health care services
throughout Arizona, California and Nevada.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kristen Lake Caradoso, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA
1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 500
Ft. Lauderdale, FL. 33301-1928
Phone: 954-990-2218
Fax: 954-525-4300
Email: Cardoso@kolawyers.com
DITOMMASO INC: Court Narrows Claims in Ortega Suit
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK ORTEGA, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; v. DITOMMASO INC.,
DATA KING OF NEW YORK INC., MERIDIAN SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
5:24-cv-00369-JKP-ESC (W.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Jason Pulliam
entered an order that DiTommaso's Motion to Dismiss is granted in
part and denied in part.
-- Ortega's 47 U.S.C. section 227(b) cause of action is dismissed
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Ortega's
42 U.S.C. section 227(c) and Texas Business and Commerce Code
sections 302.101 and 305.053 causes of action remain for
further litigation.
Generally, the plaintiffs must be "given ample opportunity to plead
their statutory claims," and "district courts often afford
plaintiffs at least one opportunity to cure pleading deficiencies
before dismissing a case."
Here, DiTommaso conferred with Ortega about its intention to file a
Motion to Dismiss. Ortega then advised the Court he intended to
amend his Complaint. The Court provided Ortega the opportunity to
amend the Complaint, but admonished he would not be given another
opportunity should DiTommaso file a meritorious Motion to Dismiss.
Based upon this history, the Court concludes it gave Ortega ample
opportunity to plead his best case.
The Court finds Ortega sufficiently alleges receipt of more than
one call from Meridian, on behalf of DiTomasso. Thus, Ortega has
plausibly alleged a cause of action here as well. Accordingly, in
this regard, DiTommaso's Motion to Dismiss is also denied.
The case arises out of unauthorized telephonic communications
Plaintiff Mark Ortega alleges receiving from the Defendants. Ortega
sues the Defendants on behalf of himself and similarly situated
individuals, seeking class certification. He alleges violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, and the Texas Business and
Commerce Code section 300 et seq.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 6, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2mG4SS at no extra
charge.[CC]
DONALD TRUMP: Plaintiffs Seek OK of Provisional Class Cert Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as State of Washington, et
al., v. Donald Trump, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00127-JCC (W.D.
Wash.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting the
individual Plaintiffs' motion to reconsider and to seek
clarification on request for provisional class certification
The Individual Plaintiffs request that the Court amend its order
issued earlier today to grant provisional class certification and
to order class-wide relief.
In their supplemental motion for a preliminary injunction and
accompanying proposed order, and in the pending motion for class
certification, the Individual Plaintiffs requested provisional
class certification to ensure that the entire class benefits from
the Court’s order concerning preliminary injunctive relief. The
Defendants did not oppose this request. In its decision, the Court
did not directly address provisional class certification.
The Court's preliminary injunctive order today upholds the rule of
law. Modifying that order to certify the class on a provisional
basis will ensure that the merits of this case, and not ancillary
matters, remain the focus of this litigation on any appeal.
Accordingly, the Plaintiffs request that the Court amend footnote 9
in its order, note that the class is provisionally certified, and
issue class-wide relief.
Donald Trump is an American politician, media personality, and
businessman.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 6, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GFUeZd at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matt Adams, Esq.
Glenda M. Aldana Madrid, Esq.
Leila Kang, Esq.
Aaron Korthuis, Esq.
NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT
RIGHTS PROJECT
615 Second Ave., Suite 400
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 957-8611
E-mail: matt@nwirp.org
glenda@nwirp.org
leila@nwirp.org
aaron@nwirp.org
DOWNEY HYUNDAI: Saleh Sues Over Unlawful Labor Practices
--------------------------------------------------------
MUSSA SALEH, individually and on behalf of all other Aggrieved
Employees, Plaintiff v. DOWNEY HYUNDAI, INC., a California
Corporation, COMMERCE HYUNDAI, INC., a California Corporation, and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25NWCV00418
(Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., February 3, 2025) arises from the
Defendants' unlawful labor practices in violation of the California
Labor Code.
The Plaintiff brought this class action for Defendants'
misclassification as exempt employees, failure to provide
employment records, failure to pay overtime and double time,
failure to provide rest and meal periods, failure to pay minimum
wage, failure to keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized
wage statements, failure to pay reporting time wages, failure to
pay split shift wages, failure to pay all wages earned on time,
failure to pay all wages earned upon discharge or resignation,
failure to reimburse necessary, business-related expenses, failure
to provide notice of paid sick time and accrual, and failure to
comply with requirements for commission contracts.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants with the job title of
Finance and Insurance Manager from March 1, 2024 until October 2,
2024.
Downey Hyundai, Inc. is a family-owned Hyundai dealership in
Southern California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq.
Cathy Gonzalez, Esq.
HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC
801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1015
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 696-2306
Facsimile: (818) 696-2307
E-mail: haig@hbklawyers.com
cathy@hbklawyers.com
EDISON INTERNATIONAL: Faces Securities 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
securities of Edison International (NYSE: EIX) between February 25,
2021 and February 6, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Edison investors
under the federal securities laws.
To join the Edison class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=33590 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, defendants throughout the Class Period
made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) Edison's claim that Southern California Edison Company
("SCE") used its Public Safety Power Shutoffs ("PSPS") program to
"proactively de-energize power lines to mitigate the risk of
catastrophic wildfires during extreme weather events", was false;
(2) this resulted in heightened fire risk in California and
heightened legal exposure to the Company; and (3) as a result,
Defendants' statements about Edison's business, operations, and
prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a
reasonable basis at all times. 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 14,
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=33590 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]
ELASTIC NV: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP informs stockholders that a class action was filed on
behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired Elastic N.V. (NYSE: ESTC) securities between May 31, 2024
and August 29, 2024. Elastic describes itself as "the Search AI
[artificial intelligence] Company[.]"
For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas,
Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003.
The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that
Elastic N.V. (ESTC) Misled Investors Regarding the Stability of its
Sales Operations
According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants
failed to disclose that: (i) Elastic had implemented significant
changes to its sales operations, particularly with respect to its
customer segments in the Americas; (ii) the foregoing changes were
likely to, and did, disrupt Elastic's sales operations during the
first quarter of its FY 2025; (iii) accordingly, Defendants had
overstated the stability of Elastic's sales operations; (iv) as a
result of all the foregoing, Elastic was unlikely to meet its own
previously issued revenue guidance for its FY 2025; and (v) as a
result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
The complaint alleges that on August 29, 2024, Elastic announced
financial results for first quarter FY 2025, including that the
Company was slashing its FY 2025 revenue guidance. On this news,
Elastic's ordinary share price fell $27.45 per share, or 26.49%, to
close at $76.19 per share on August 30, 2024.
What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action
against Elastic N.V. Shareholders who want to serve as lead
plaintiff for the class must do so by April 14, 2025. A lead
plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to
participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you
choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member.
For more information, click here.
All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.
About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights
litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been
dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate
governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for
their wrongdoing since 2002.
To be notified if a class action against Elasitc N.V. settles or to
receive free alerts when corporate executives engage in wrongdoing,
sign up for Stock Watch today.
Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome. [GN]
EMCORE CORP: M&A Probes Proposed Merger With Velocity One
---------------------------------------------------------
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:
-- EMCORE Corporation (NASDAQ: EMKR), relating to its proposed
merger with Velocity One Holdings, LP. Under the terms of the
agreement, EMCORE stockholders will receive $3.10 per share of
EMCORE common stock they own.
ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for February 27, 2025.
Click link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/emcore-corporation-emkr/. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- Cross Country Healthcare, Inc. (NASDAQ: CCRN), relating to the
proposed merger with Aya Healthcare. Under the terms of the
agreement, shares of Cross Country will be converted into the right
to receive $18.61 in cash.
ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for February 28, 2025.
Click link for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/cross-country-healthcare-inc-ccrn/.
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 link 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 link 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]
EMILY UNKNOWN: Court Strikes Several Plaintiffs in Bowman Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROBERT M. BOWMAN, v. EMILY
UNKNOWN, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00002-RHH (E.D. Mo.), the Hon.
Judge Rodney Holmes entered an order directing the Clerk to strike
the following plaintiffs from this action:
-- Thomas R. Spurlock, Bryan Smith, Christopher Couch, Reggie
Martin, Darrin Grayer, Logan Fowler, Richard Follin, Jamerick
Beckford, Lorenzo Ruiz Santis, Olubenga Oyesoko, Apolonio
Fernandez, Terry Welch, and Charles St. Clair
Additionally, the Clerk shall edit the style of the case to reflect
that Robert M. Bowman is the only plaintiff.
The Court further entered an order that Robert M. Bowman's motion
to appoint counsel is denied without prejudice.
On Jan. 10, 2025, Grayer, Martin, Welch, and St. Clair filed nearly
identical "supplemental" documents to allege infirmities in their
criminal proceedings, and request help filing a habeas corpus
action.
A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated Feb. 5, 2025, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nIVUY6
at no extra charge.[CC]
ENFUSION INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Clearwater
--------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating:
-- Enfusion, Inc. (NYSE: ENFN), relating to the proposed merger
with Clearwater Analytics. Under the terms of the agreement,
Enfusion shareholders will receive $5.85 per share in cash and
$5.40 per share in Clearwater Class A Common Stock.
Click link for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/enfusion-inc-enfn/. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- Vacasa, Inc. (NASDAQ: VCSA), relating to the proposed merger
with Casago. Under the terms of the agreement, Casago will acquire
all outstanding shares of Vacasa held by public stockholders at a
price of $5.02 per share.
Click link for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/vacasa-inc-vcsa/. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- Accolade, Inc. (Nasdaq: ACCD), relating to the proposed merger
with Transcarent. Under the terms of the agreement, Transcarent
will acquire Accolade for $7.03 per share in cash.
Click link for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/accolade-inc-accd/. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- AeroVironment, Inc. (NASDAQ: AVAV), relating to the proposed
merger with BlueHalo LLC. Under the terms of the agreement,
AeroVironment shareholders will own approximately 60.5% of the
combined company.
ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for April 1, 2025.
Click link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/aerovironment-inc-avav/. It is free
and there is no cost or obligation to you.
NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you
should talk to a lawyer and ask:
1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and
we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a
national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.
No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or
wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit
our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
Tel: (212) 971-1341
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com [GN]
EQUINIX INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due April 17
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SaSANITATIONMEN'S
ASSOCIATION COMPENSATION ACCRUAL FUND, v. EQUINIX, INC., et al.,
Case No. 3:24-cv-02656-VC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Vince
Chhabria entered an order as follows:
Plaintiff's motion for class certification: April 17, 2025
Defendants' response to Plaintiff's motion May 29, 2025
for class certification:
Plaintiff's reply in support of motion for July 10, 2025
class certification:
Hearing on motion for class certification: July 31, 2025
Hearing on summary judgment and Daubert Sept. 3, 2026
Motions:
Pretrial Conference: Nov. 17, 2026
Equinix operates as a real estate investment trust.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 4, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wRSGj4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shawn A. Williams
Daniel J. Pfefferbaum
Hadiya K. Deshmukh
Alaina L. Gilchrist
Hailey S. Zanutto
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
Post Montgomery Center
One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 288-4545
E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com
dpfefferbaum@rgrdlaw.com
hdeshmukh@rgrdlaw.com
hzanutto@rgrdlaw.com
- and –
Vincent F. Pitta
PITTA LLP
120 Broadway, 28th Floor
New York, NY 10271
Telephone: (212) 652-3890
E-mail: vpitta@pittalaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Neal Potischman, Esq.
Jonathan K. Chang, Esq.
Vincent Barredo, Esq.
Michael G. Mills, Esq.
Rory A. Leraris, Esq.
Jaclyn M. Willner, Esq.
Emily Park, Esq.
DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
1600 El Camino Real
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Telephone: (650) 752-2000
Facsimile: (650) 752-2111
Email: neal.potischman@davispolk.com
jonathan.chang@davispolk.com
vincent.barredo@davispolk.com
michael.mills@davispolk.com
rory.leraris@davispolk.com
jaclyn.willner@davispolk.com
emily.park@davispolk.com
ERIC ARMEL: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Pagan Suit Due August 18
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as XAVIAR PAGAN, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; RONNIE E. JOHNSON,
INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; KAREEM
MAZYCK, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED; ANGEL MALDONADO, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED; AND T. MONTANA BELL, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF
OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; v. SUPERINTENDENT ERIC ARMEL,
FORMER SUPERINTENDENT, SCI FAYETTE; et al. Case No.
2:22-cv-01516-MJH-CBB (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Christopher Brown
entered a third amended case management order:
1. The parties shall complete class April 14, 2025
certification discovery by:
2. The Plaintiff's expert reports May 16, 2025.
related to class certification
are due on or before:
3. The Defendant's expert reports June 16, 2025
related to class certification
are due on or before:
4. Depositions of all experts July 17, 2025
related to class certification
shall be on or before:
5. The Plaintiffs' motion for class Aug. 18, 2025
certification is due on or
before:
6. The Defendants' response is due Sept. 18, 2025
on or before:
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 6, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8LiQC4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
EVERGREEN ENVIRONMENTAL: Melgarejo Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Antonio Melgarejo, an individual, on behalf
of themself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v.
EVERGREEN ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES LLC, a Texas limited liability
company; HPC INDUSTRIAL SERVICES LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; and DOES
1-50, Inclusive, Case No. 24STCV34126 was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, to the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
on Feb. 5, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00986.
The Complaint brings putative class claims for the alleged: Unfair
Competition in Violation of Business & Professions Code; Failure to
Pay Minimum Wages in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code; Failure to Pay
Overtime Wages in Violation of Cal. Lab. Code; Failure to Provide
Required Meal Periods in Violation of Labor Code and the Applicable
Wage Order; Failure to Provide Required Rest Periods in Violation
of Labor Code and the Applicable Wage Order; Failure to Provide
Accurate Itemized Statements in Violation of Labor Code; Failure to
Provide Wages When Due in Violation of Labor Code; and Failure to
Reimburse Employees for Required Expenses in Violation of Cal. Lab.
Code.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Alexander M. Chemers, Esq.
Isabella B. Urrea, Esq.
Austin J. Freeman, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: 213-239-9800
Facsimile: 213-239-9045
Email: zander.chemers@ogletree.com
isabella.urrea@ogletree.com
austin.freeman@ogletree.com
FANDANGO MEDIA: Agrees to $9MM Ticket Fee Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Will Fritz, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that Fandango
has agreed to a $9 million class action lawsuit settlement to
resolve claims it failed to disclose convenience fees for New York
movie tickets.
The Fandango settlement benefits consumers who paid a convenience
fee to purchase electronic tickets to any movie in any theater
located in New York state through Fandango's website, mobile app or
any other Fandango online platform between Aug. 29, 2022, and March
11, 2024.
According to allegations made in the class action lawsuit, Fandango
failed to disclose convenience fees for New York movie tickets in
violation of New York's Arts and Cultural Affairs Law. Plaintiffs
in the case say they were misled by Fandango's failure to disclose
Fandango ticket fees and were forced to pay more than they expected
for movie tickets.
Fandango is a ticketing website that allows consumers to purchase
tickets for movies at theaters around the country.
Fandango hasn't admitted any wrongdoing in agreeing to the $9
million class action settlement.
Under the terms of the Fandango settlement, class members can
receive either a $5 cash payment or a $10 voucher for Fandango at
Home. Fandango at Home vouchers can be used to rent or purchase
movies or TV shows on Fandango's website or app.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is Jan. 28, 2025.
The final approval hearing for the Fandango ticket fees settlement
is scheduled for Feb. 27, 2025.
In order to receive settlement benefits, class members must submit
a valid claim form by March 31, 2025.
Who's Eligible
Consumers who paid a convenience fee to purchase electronic tickets
to any movie in any movie theater located within New York state
from Fandango's website, mobile phone application or any other
Fandango-owned or operated online platform from Aug. 29, 2022,
through March 11, 2024.
Potential Award
$5 payment or $10 voucher
Proof of Purchase
N/A
Claim Form
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
03/31/2025
Case Name
Awad v. Fandango Media LLC, et al., Case No. 610563/2024, in the
New York Supreme Court for Nassau County
Final Hearing
02/27/2025
Settlement Website
FandangoTicketFeeSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Fandango Ticket Fee Settlement Administrator
c/o Epiq
PO Box 2833
Portland, OR 97208-2833
info@FandangoTicketFeeSettlement.com
(888) 884-1053
Class Counsel
Philip L Fraietta
Stefan Bogdanovich
BURSOR & FISHER PA
Defense Counsel
Christine M Reilly
MANATT PHELPS & PHILLIPS LLP [GN]
FCA US: Federal Judge Issues Mixed-Bag Ruling in Class Action Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Simons of Courthouse News Service reports that a federal judge
issued a mixed-bag ruling Tuesday, February 11, in a class action
accusing FCA US, formerly known as Chrysler, and their engine
manufacturer Cummins of misrepresenting their products after the
companies installed so-called "defeat devices" in more than 630,000
RAM pickup trucks.
U.S. District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley allowed roughly half of
the plaintiffs' 11 claims to survive a motion to dismiss, largely
upholding claims related to consumer protection laws while tossing
civil RICO claims and those related to breaches of warranty.
"Drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-movant,
plaintiffs have plausibly alleged FCA's and Cummins' knowledge of
the defeat device prior to selling the Class Trucks to consumers,"
the Joe Biden appointee said.
The judge also granted the plaintiff's leave to amend most of the
dismissed claims, save for the civil RICO claims.
FCA US, which changed its name from Chrysler in 2014, is one of the
"Big Three" automobile manufacturers in the U.S. In partnership
with its long-time collaborator Cummins, the company sold 1.3
million vehicles in 2024 alone.
But the two companies have found themselves in massive legal
trouble in recent years. In December 2023, the Department of
Justice reached an agreement with Cummins to settle claims the
company unlawfully altered hundreds of thousands of RAM 2500 and
3500 engines using "defeat devices" to bypass emissions tests in
violation of the Clean Air Act.
A "defeat device" or "'auxiliary emission control devices," is a
component installed on vehicle's engine that can bypass or alter
the operation of the car's emissions control system, allowing the
vehicle to meet rigorous emission standards during certification
testing in the lab, before the car is released and sold to the
public.
The company was ordered to pay $1.675 billion, the largest civil
penalty ever secured under the Clean Air Act, and what Attorney
General Merrick Garland at the time called "the second largest
environmental penalty ever secured."
The plaintiffs brought this class action in 2023, shortly after the
DOJ's announcement, claiming they were not informed that their RAM
2500 and 3500 trucks contained the defeat devices and that FCA
materially misrepresented the trucks' performance, since it could
only be achieved by emitting greater pollution levels than a
reasonable consumer would expect for a diesel vehicle.
Many of the consumers claim they never would have purchased the
trucks if they knew of their true specifications.
The plaintiffs are seeking an order preventing the companies from
continuing their unlawful conduct, as well as damages to be decided
at trial.
In her 33-page order, Corley said many of the plaintiffs' claims
were fit to proceed, especially those related to state consumer
protection laws.
The judge also upheld claims that the companies violated the
California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California Unfair
Competition Law and California False Advertising Law. The judge
examined all these related claims in conjunction, saying they "rise
or fall" together, and allowed them to survive.
"Defendants raise five arguments in favor of dismissal—none is
persuasive," Corley said.
In their defense, FCA and Cummins generally countered that the
plaintiffs failed to demonstrate they made their purchases based on
the companies' specific advertisements touting their trucks'
performance, or otherwise that claims they knew about the defeat
devices before sale were inadequate. The judge disagreed.
However, Corley was not so warm to the plaintiffs' "breach of
warranty" claims, striking down several, because they didn't meet
certain requirements under the California Commercial Code and
Song-Beverly Act, one of which being that they try to repair their
trucks multiple times through FCA. She similarly didn't buy the
argument that FCA's repair attempts would be "futile," noting that
some plaintiffs didn't even bring their vehicles in for repair.
"But even if there were an exception, plaintiffs have not plausibly
alleged futility," she said.
The plaintiffs will have 30 days to file an amended complaint, if
they choose to do so.
FCA US and Cummins moved to dismiss the lawsuit in early October
2024. Oral arguments took place at a hearing on Jan. 16.
Representatives for the plaintiffs and defendants could not
immediately be reached for comment Tuesday evening, February 11.
[GN]
FIRST CHATHAM BANK: Robertson Files Suit in Ga. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against First Chatham Bank.
The case is styled as Ricky Robertson, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. First Chatham Bank, Case No.
SPCV25-00142-MI (Ga. Super. Ct., Chatham Cty., Feb. 3, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Damages.
The First Chatham Family of Banks -- https://www.firstchatham.com/
-- is a local community bank focused on building customer
relationships with integrity and trust.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ra Olusegun Amen, Esq.
FOCUS MULTIMEDIA: Discloses Personal Info, Marquis Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rudolph Marquis III, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Focus Multimedia Ltd., Defendant,
Case No. 1:25-cv-01011 (S.D.N.Y., February 4, 2025) alleges that
Defendant knowingly and intentionally discloses its users'
personally identifiable information -- including a record of every
video viewed by the user or audiovisual content purchased -- to
unauthorized third parties without first complying with the Video
Privacy Protection Act, without the Plaintiff's and the Class
Members' consent.
The Plaintiff purchased a game containing cinematic cutscenes from
Defendant's website, fanatical.com, within the last two years of
filing of this complaint. Throughout Plaintiff's interactions with
Defendant's website, the Plaintiff has maintained and used his
Facebook account from the same browser he used to purchase the
video game from the website, which contained cinematic cutscenes.
The complaint alleges that the Defendant caused Plaintiff's video
game purchase to be sent along with his personally identifiable
information to Facebook and upon information and belief, other
third parties, without his knowledge or consent each time he
requested and viewed video content and video games sold through the
website.
The Plaintiff never consented, agreed, nor permitted the Defendant
to disclose his PII and viewing information to Facebook or other
third parties and certainly did not do so for purposes violative of
the VPPA, asserts the suit.
Focus Multimedia Ltd. owns and operates its online and mobile
applications, including fanatical.com. Through its website and
apps, the Company sells and/or delivers audiovisual materials, such
as video games containing cinematic cutscenes.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adrian Gucovschi, Esq.
Nathaniel Haim Sari, Esq.
GUCOVSCHI ROZENSHTEYN, PLLC
140 Broadway, Fl 46
New York, NY 10005
Telephone: (212) 884-4230
E-mail: adrian@gr-firm.com
nsari@gr-firm.com
GAS EXPRESS: Johnson Alleges Inadequate Data Security Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
CLARRISA JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GAS EXPRESS, LLC d/b/a CIRCLE K,
Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00517-ELR (N.D. Ga., February 4, 2025)
is a class action arising out of the Defendant's failure to
implement reasonable and industry standard data security practices
to properly secure, safeguard, and adequately destroy Plaintiff's
and Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable information that
it had acquired and stored for its business purposes.
The complaint asserts that the Defendant's data security failures
allowed a targeted cyberattack on May 20, 2024, which compromised
Defendant's network that contained Plaintiff's and other
individuals' personally identifiable information. The Defendant
began sending notice letters to Class Members on January 13, 2025.
As a result of the data breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members are
now at a current, imminent, and ongoing risk of fraud and identity
theft, asserts the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members must
now and for years into the future closely monitor their financial
accounts to guard against identity theft.
Moreover, as a result of Defendant's unreasonable and inadequate
data security practices, the Plaintiff and Class Members have
suffered numerous actual and concrete injuries and damages, says
the suit.
Through this Complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms
on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals whose
PII was accessed during the data breach. Specifically, the
Plaintiff seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct, and
assert claims for: (i) negligence and negligence per se, (ii)
breach of implied contract, and (iii) unjust enrichment.
Gas Express, LLC, d/b/a Circle K, is a North American chain of
convenience stores headquartered in Tempe, Arizona.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shireen Hormozdi Bowman, Esq.
HORMOZDI LAW FIRM, LLC
1770 Indian Trail Lilburn Road, Suite 350
Norcross, GA 30093
Telephone: (678) 395-7795
Facsimile: (866) 929-2434
E-mail: shireen@norcrosslawfirm.com
www.norcrosslawfirm.com
- and -
David K. Lietz, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
GROSSMAN, PLLC
5335 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 440
Washington, DC 20015
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: dlietz@milberg.com
GLANBIA PERFORMANCE: DelaCruz Balks at Blind-Inaccessible Website
-----------------------------------------------------------------
EMANUEL DELACRUZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GLANBIA PERFORMANCE NUTRITION
(NA), INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00988 (S.D.N.Y., February
4, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive
website, https://www.theisopurecompany.com/en-us, to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York
City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business
Law.
During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on
January 29, 2025, in an attempt to purchase an Isopure Zero/low
Carb from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the
Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied
Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person
and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the
public and made available to the public. The Plaintiff was not able
to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without
alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website,
says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
Glanbia Performance Nutrition (NA), Inc. operates the website which
provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services
including information about Defendant's nutritional
supplements.[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
GOLD MEDAL SERVICE: Good Files TCPA Suit in D. New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gold Medal Service,
LLC. The case is styled as Kyle Good, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Gold Medal Service, LLC, Case No.
2:25-cv-00989 (D.N.J., Feb. 4, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Gold Medal -- https://www.goldmedalservice.com/ -- is proud to
provide top-quality heating, AC, electrical & plumbing services
throughout your area.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
LEMBERG LAW, LLC
43 Danbury Road
Wilton, CT 06897
Phone: (203) 653-2250
Email: slemberg@lemberglaw.com
GOODWILL INDUSTRIES: Sullivan Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Goodwill Industries
of San Joaquin Valley, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Amber
Sullivan, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated v.
Goodwill Industries of San Joaquin Valley, Inc., Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2025-0001663 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., Feb. 3,
2025).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Goodwill -- https://www.goodwill-sjv.org/ -- is not-for-profit
organization that resells donated items to help fund it's Mission
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gregg Lander, Esq.
D.LAW, INC.
1635 Pontius Ave., Fl. 2
Los Angeles, CA 90025-3361
Phone: 424-320-6420
Fax: 424-320-6454
Email: Gregg@d.law
GSK PLC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set April 7
-----------------------------------------------------
The Gross Law Firm issues the following notice to shareholders of
GSK plc (NYSE: GSK): Shareholders who purchased shares of GSK
during the class period listed are encouraged to contact the firm
regarding possible lead plaintiff appointment. Appointment as lead
plaintiff is not required to partake in any recovery.
CLASS PERIOD: February 5, 2020 to August 14, 2022
ALLEGATIONS: According to the filed complaint, defendants
represented to investors that GSK removed Zantac from the market
"[b]ased on information available at the time and correspondence
with regulators." GSK also stated that it 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." These representations were materially
false or misleading. In truth, GSK was fully aware of the source of
NDMA and had been for nearly 40 years before withdrawing Zantac
from the market.
DEADLINE: April 7, 2025 Shareholders should not delay in
registering for this class action. Register your information here:
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/gsk-loss-submission-form/?id=128782&from=3
NEXT STEPS FOR SHAREHOLDERS: Once you register as a shareholder who
purchased shares of GSK during the timeframe listed above, you will
be enrolled in a portfolio monitoring software to provide you with
status updates throughout the lifecycle of the case. The deadline
to seek to be a lead plaintiff is April 7, 2025. There is no cost
or obligation to you to participate in this case.
WHY GROSS LAW FIRM? The Gross Law Firm is a nationally recognized
class action law firm, and our mission is to protect the rights of
all investors who have suffered as a result of deceit, fraud, and
illegal business practices. The Gross Law Firm is committed to
ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices
and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery
on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or
misleading statements or the omission of material information by a
company lead to artificial inflation of the company's stock.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (646) 453-8903 [GN]
HIGH 5 GAMES: Settles Social Casino Class Action for $25-Mil.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Erik Gibbs, writing for NEXT.io, reports that the case, filed under
case number 3:18-cv-05275-TMC, was brought against the company on
allegations that its online casino-style games constituted illegal
gambling under state laws.
The lawsuit specifically targeted the business model of social
casinos, which allow players to purchase virtual chips to continue
playing, even though they cannot cash out real money winnings.
The central argument of the lawsuit was that High 5 Games'
monetisation system effectively constituted gambling.
Plaintiffs contended that even though players could not directly
win money, they were required to spend real money to purchase
additional virtual currency to keep playing.
Under Washington state law and other state regulations, a key
component of gambling is wagering something of value on a game of
chance.
The plaintiffs argued that virtual chips, even though they could
not be converted into cash, still held value because they allowed
players to extend their playtime. The court agreed with this
interpretation, leading to the ruling against High 5 Games.
This case is part of a broader legal trend in which courts are
scrutinising social casinos and other digital gaming platforms that
utilise virtual currencies.
The lawsuit alleged that High 5 Games knowingly profited from
addictive gambling behaviours while skirting traditional gambling
regulations.
The company, like many other social casino operators, argued that
its games were purely for entertainment and that players were not
engaging in actual gambling since there was no way to cash out
winnings.
However, the jury rejected this argument and found High 5 Games
liable for its business practices.
Putting the social casino space in check
The ruling in this case has potential implications for the social
casino industry. Over the past decade, social casinos have
generated billions of dollars in revenue, primarily by selling
virtual currency to players.
These games are popular because they mimic the experience of real
gambling without technically offering cash prizes. However, several
legal challenges have emerged as more plaintiffs argue that these
games are essentially gambling under the law.
Some states, such as Washington, have already established legal
precedents, finding that virtual casino games with in-app purchases
can be classified as gambling.
Similar lawsuits have been filed against other gaming companies,
and this verdict may encourage more legal actions from players who
feel they have been misled or exploited by these platforms.
The decision could prompt social casino operators to change their
business models, although that would most likely occur only through
regulatory orders.
Beyond this specific case, the ruling could impact the broader
gaming industry, including mobile game developers and other
platforms that use in-game currency or micro-transactions.
If more courts begin to classify virtual currency transactions as
gambling, companies may be forced to adjust their monetisation
strategies to avoid legal consequences.
Additionally, regulators and lawmakers may take further action to
clarify laws surrounding digital gambling, potentially introducing
new restrictions or oversight for social casino operators.
High 5 Games now faces a decision on whether to appeal the ruling
or comply with the jury's decision. [GN]
HILTON MANAGEMENT: Appeals Denied Bid to Decertify Class
--------------------------------------------------------
HILTON MANAGEMENT, LLC is taking an appeal from a court order
denying its motion to decertify class in the lawsuit entitled
Eduardo Gonzalez, et al., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Hilton Management, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 4:14-cv-01523-JSW, in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.
The lawsuit, which was removed from the San Francisco County
Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, is brought against the Defendant for violations of
California Labor Code.
On Apr. 6, 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which Judge Jeffrey S. White granted on Jan. 3,
2022.
On Mar. 1, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to decertify class,
which Judge White denied on Jan. 17, 2025. The Court held that
there is a discrete set of documents depicting the banquet service
to customers. Even if Hilton used several different types of
contracts, the Court finds that class certification will still
provide efficiencies because many customers received the same
template documents with identical, or nearly identical, language
regarding the service charge. Based on the post-certification
discovery, the Court still finds that the efficiencies regarding a
limited number of combinations of contractual arrangements dictate
the continued appropriateness of class certification.
The appellate case is captioned Gonzalez, et al. v. Hilton
Management, LLC, Case No. 25-680, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on February 3, 2025. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Respondents EDUARDO GONZALEZ, et al., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
Adelaide Pagano, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Defendant-Petitioner HILTON MANAGEMENT, LLC is represented by:
Kelsey Alissa Israel-Trummel, Esq.
JONES DAY
555 California Street, 26th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
- and -
Elizabeth B. McRee, Esq.
JONES DAY
110 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 4800
Chicago, IL 60606
HILTON WORLDWIDE: Faces Class Suit Over Website User Tracking
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jessy Edwards of Top Class Actions reports that three consumers
filed a class action lawsuit against Hilton Worldwide Holdings
Inc.
Why: The plaintiffs claim Hilton's website tracks users even after
they opt out of cookies.
Where: The lawsuit was filed in a California federal court.
A new class action lawsuit alleges the Hilton hotel chain tracks
users on its website even after they opt out of cookies.
Plaintiffs Vishal Shah, Jonathan Gabrielli and Christine Wiley
filed the class action complaint Jan. 31 against Hilton Worldwide
Holdings Inc. in a California federal court, alleging violations of
California privacy laws.
According to the lawsuit, Hilton's website, Hilton.com, uses
cookies to track user data, but gives users the option to opt out.
However, the plaintiffs allege that even after opting out, Hilton
continues to track users' private communications and browsing
activities.
"Hilton's promises are outright lies, designed to lull users into a
false sense of security," the Hilton class action says.
The plaintiffs claim Hilton's website uses third-party cookies from
companies like Google, Adobe, Microsoft and Snap to track users'
behaviors, interests and demographics; they allege that this data
is then shared with third parties for targeted advertising and
other purposes.
The lawsuit argues Hilton's actions violate California's privacy
laws, including the California Invasion of Privacy Act, which
prohibits the unauthorized interception of electronic
communications. It also claims that Hilton's actions constitute a
breach of contract, as the company's privacy statement explicitly
states that users can opt out of cookies.
Plaintiffs say Hilton's actions were 'highly offensive'
The plaintiffs argue that Hilton's actions constitute a serious
invasion of privacy. They claim that they and other users relied on
Hilton's promise that they could opt out of cookies and would not
have used the website if they had known the truth.
"Defendant's intrusion into Plaintiffs' privacy was also highly
offensive to a reasonable person," the Hilton class action says.
The plaintiffs are looking to represent anyone who browsed Hilton's
website in California after opting out of cookies within the past
four years. They are suing for invasion of privacy, wiretapping,
fraud, unjust enrichment, breach of contract and trespass to
chattels.
They seek certification of the class action, damages, restitution,
disgorgement of profits, injunctive relief and a jury trial.
Meanwhile, a recent data breach at hotel management platform
Otelier has reportedly exposed sensitive customer data from
high-profile hotel chains, including Marriott and Hilton.
What do you think of the allegations in this Hilton class action
lawsuit? Let us know in the comments.
The plaintiffs are represented by Seth A. Safier, Marie A. McCrary,
Todd Kennedy and Kali R. Backer of Gutride Safier LLP.
The Hilton class action lawsuit is Vishal Shah et al. v. Hilton
Worldwide Holdings Inc., Case No. 5:25-cv-01018, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California. [GN]
HSCGP LLC: Agrees to Website Privacy Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
HSCGP agreed to a class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims
it used tracking technologies on patient portal websites that
shared personal health information with third parties.
The HSCGP settlement benefits individuals who accessed the patient
portal of a company whose website HSCGP maintained between Aug. 1,
2021, and June 30, 2023.
According to a HSCGP class action lawsuit, HSCGP violated consumer
privacy laws by using tracking technologies on patient portal
websites that shared patient information with third parties, such
as Facebook and Google, without patient consent. Plaintiffs in the
case claimed HSCGP's actions violated the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act and the Tennessee Consumer
Protection Act.
HSCGP is a LifePoint Health subsidiary and website management
company that provides services to health care providers, such as
hospitals and urgent care centers.
HSCGP hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an
undisclosed sum to resolve the HSCGP website privacy class action
lawsuit.
Under the terms of the HSCGP settlement, class members can receive
a cash payment of $38.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is Feb. 10, 2025.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for
March 19, 2025.
To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid
claim form by May 19, 2025.
Who's Eligible
Individuals who accessed the patient portal of a company whose
website maintained by HSCGP between Aug. 1, 2021, and June 30,
2023
Potential Award
$38
Proof of Purchase
N/A
Claim Form
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
05/19/2025
Case Name
Doe, et al. v. HSCGP LLC, Case No. 23C2513, in the Fifth Circuit
Court for Davidson County, Tennessee
Final Hearing
03/19/2025
Settlement Website
HSCGPSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
HSCGP Settlement
c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC
PO Box 225391
New York, NY 10150-5391
(833) 627-2756
Class Counsel
Gerard Stranch IV
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY PLLC
Lynn Toops
COHEN & MALAD LLP
Gary Klinger
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
Defense Counsel
Robert E Boston
Mark S Melodia
Paul Bond
Sophie L Kletzien
Quynh-Anh D Kibler
HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP [GN]
I AM HOME: Anderson Seeks Home Health Staff's Unpaid OT
-------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER ANDERSON, on behalf of herself and similarly situated
employees, Plaintiff v. I AM HOME CARE, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
5:25-cv-00599 (E.D. Pa., February 4, 2025) seeks all available
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act arising from the Defendant's failure to pay proper
overtime wages.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a home health employee during
the three-year period relevant to this lawsuit. She asserts that
Defendant has violated the federal and state laws by failing to pay
her and other Class members overtime premium pay for hours worked
over 40 per week.
I Am Home Care, LLC owns and operates a business that provides,
inter alia, home health services to clients.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter Winebrake, Esq.
WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
715 Twining Road, Suite 211
Dresher, PA 19025
Telephone: (215) 884-2491
E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com
IL GROWN MEDICINE: Lutchka Sues Over Unlawful Marketing
-------------------------------------------------------
Delayna Lutchka and Christopher Davis, individually and on behalf
of similarly situated individuals v. IL GROWN MEDICINE, LLC, 4FRONT
VENTURES CORP., and 4FRONT HOLDINGS LTD., Case No. 1:25-cv-01278
(N.D. Ill., Feb. 5, 2025), is brought against Defendants for
unlawfully manufacturing, marketing, and selling potent
"cannabis-infused products" ("CIPs") with excessively high
tetrahydrocannabinol ("THC") content--well above the applicable
legal limits imposed under Illinois law for consumers' health and
safety.
The Defendants masquerade their CIPs as legal for purchase and
consumption in Illinois; in actuality, however, the products vastly
exceed the applicable THC limits for CIPs, as well as the personal
possession limits for those products. This subjects purchasers to
risks of adverse effects associated with overconsumption of THC, as
well as legal risks for possession of illegal products.
The CIPs at issue are vapable products like cannabis oil vaporizer
cartridges, disposable oil vaporizers, and others such as resin,
rosin, budder, badder, crumble, and shatter (collectively referred
to as "Vapable Oils"). Consuming Vapable Oils does not utilize
combustion and their consumption is thus not considered smoking for
purposes of the Illinois Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act (the
"CRTA") or the Illinois Compassionate Use of Medical Cannabis
Program Act ("Medicinal Act," collectively with the CRTA, the
"Illinois Cannabis Acts").
Rather, Vapable Oils are a type of CIP, as they are intended to be
consumed by vaporizing the contents and then inhaling them using a
non-combustible heating device. Nevertheless, Defendants
manufacture, market, label, and package their Vapable Oils as
though they were smokeable concentrates, in 500-milligram and
1-gram quantities, including under its own brand names, such as
Crystal Clear and Marma's Bars.
The Plaintiffs and other consumers who purchased Defendants'
Vapable Oils were misled to believe that they were purchasing a
legal cannabis product that complied with statutorily imposed
limits, required labels, and packaging. This deception continues to
this day, affecting and harming consumers throughout Illinois
daily. By deceiving regulators and consumers about the legality and
of their products, Defendants were able to take away market share
from competing products and increase their own sales and profits,
all while subjecting consumers to real risks to their health and
safety. As a result, consumers have been, and continue to be,
overcharged, placed at risk of overconsuming Defendants' illegal
product, and incurring other consequential damages and harm, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiffs purchased the Defendants' Vapable Oils.
The Defendants sell Vapable Oils in 500-milligram and 1-gram sizes
under the brand names Crystal Clear and Marmas Bars.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Laura Luisi, Esq.
Jamie Holz, Esq.
LUISI HOLZ LAW
161 N. Clark St., Suite 1600
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 639-4478
Email: LuisiL@luisiholzlaw.com
HolzJ@luisiholzlaw.com
INTELLIA THERAPEUTICS: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Intellia
Therapeutics, Inc. ("Intellia" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: NTLA).
The lawsuit alleges that Defendants made material
misrepresentations concerning Intellia's Phase 1/2 study evaluating
NTLA-3001 for the treatment of alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency
(AATD)-associated lung disease.
If you bought shares of Intellia between July 30, 2024 and January
8, 2025, and you suffered a significant loss on that investment,
you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey
D. Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at
(888) 508-6832 or you may visit the firm's website at
www.holzerlaw.com/case/intellia-therapeutics/ to learn more.
The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the
case is April 14, 2025.
Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law
firm for 2021, 2022, and 2023, dedicates its practice to vigorous
representation of shareholders and investors in litigation
nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative
litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys
have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of
dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate
misconduct. More information about the firm is available through
its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm.
Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this
promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney
responsible for its content.
CONTACT:
Corey Holzer, Esq.
(888) 508-6832 (toll-free)
cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN]
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Class Cert Filing in Epperson Due Sept. 22
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROSE EPPERSON, V.
INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, ET AL., Case No. 2:20-cv-00053-JDC-CBW
(W.D. La.), the Hon. Judge James Cain, Jr. entered a scheduling
order for class certification hearing:
-- Phase I motions to compel discovery shall July 24, 2025
be filed no later than:
-- The Plaintiff's Motion for Class Sept. 22, 2025
Certification shall be filed no
later than:
-- Motions to amend the pleadings must Sept. 22, 2025
be filed no later than:
-- The Plaintiff shall serve disclosures Sept. 22, 2025
related to class certification on
or before:
International Paper is an American pulp and paper company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RtvcLb at no extra
charge.[CC]
INTRASYSTEMS LLC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Hochberg Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
TYLER HOCHBERG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INTRASYSTEMS, LLC and ALLEGHENY HEALTH
NETWORK, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-10270 (D. Mass., February 4,
2025) is an action against the Defendants for their failure to
properly secure and safeguard individuals' highly valuable
personally identifiable information and protected health
information.
Despite Defendants' duty to safeguard the PII and PHI with which
they were entrusted, and the foreseeability of a data breach,
Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive information stored by the
Defendants was accessed and acquired when IntraSystems experienced
a cyber security incident beginning on October 11, 2024 and that
was not discovered until on or around November 19, 2024. The
intrusion led to unauthorized access to its computer systems that
were used to host, manage, and secure certain computer systems that
support AHN's subsidiary Home Medical Equipment and Home Infusion
companies.
As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' failure to
implement and follow basic, standard security procedures,
Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI have been compromised by
cybercriminals, says the suit.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class, brings claims
for negligence, negligence per se, and declaratory judgment,
seeking damages, with attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, and
appropriate injunctive and declaratory relief.
IntraSystems, LLC is an IT consulting company, managed services
provider, and systems integrator that provides 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:
Jason Leviton, Esq.
Brendan Jarboe, Esq.
BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
260 Franklin Street, Ste 1860
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 398-5600
E-mail: jason@blockleviton.com
brendan@blockleviton.com
- and -
Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
E-mail: gary@lcllp.com
nick@lcllp.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Faces Class Suit Over PFAS in Band-Aids
----------------------------------------------------------
Jackie Roman, writing for NJ Advance Media for NJ.com, reports that
At least half a dozen customers who purchased Band-Aid products
have filed a class-action lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson and
global consumer health company Kenvue for selling bandages that
contain harmful PFAS chemicals.
The lawsuit, filed in federal court in New Jersey, claims that
while Band-Aid products are marketed as having better ingredients
and better processes, PFAS -- or forever chemicals -- are present
in unsafe amounts in Band-Aid brand adhesive bandages.
Moreover, the lawsuit alleges that a disproportionate number of
Band-Aid OURTONE products specifically marketed to people of color
contain PFAS chemicals, raising questions about disparity.
The lead plaintiff in the case, a Georgia resident, "would not have
purchased the bandages, or would have paid less for them, had she
known that they contained and/or had a material risk of containing
dangerous PFAS," the lawsuit claims.
"These companies spent time positioning it as a step toward
empowering people of color, but in reality it puts these
communities at risk," said Seeger Weiss attorney Chris Ayers,
co-lead class counsel in the suit.
"If these communities are being exposed to PFAS, it really adds to
the burden of health inequities that already exist," said Ayers.
Kenvue, which started as a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson but
became fully independent in 2023, defended the safety of Band-Aid
products in a company statement sent Friday, February 7, to NJ
Advance Media.
"We are aware of the filing and will respond further to the claims
as part of the legal process," the statement begins. "BAND-AID
Brand Adhesive Bandages are safe, and consumers can continue to use
the products as directed."
Johnson & Johnson, a leading U.S. drugmaker and one of the world's
largest corporations, did not respond to a request for comment.
Both companies maintain global headquarters in New Jersey. Both
companies stand accused of knowingly concealing the presence of
PFAS in certain Band-Aid brand adhesive bandages.
PFAS are widely-used, long-lasting chemicals which break down very
slowly over time. In regard to bandages, the PFAS chemicals are
used for their waterproof qualities, according to the suit.
However, scientific studies have shown that exposure to some PFAS
in the environment may be linked to harmful health effects in
humans and animals, according to the United States Department of
Environmental Protection.
PFAS have been linked to cancer, immune system issues and other
health effects, according to the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention.
In recent years, consumers have become more concerned about
products containing PFAS chemicals, such as nonstick cookware and
stain resistant fabrics. Now, PFAS contaminants have been found in
bandages, the lawsuit claims.
The class-action lawsuit alleges an independent study conducted by
the watchdog group Mamavation on indications of PFAS in popular
bandages marketed to consumers found 63% of bandages marketed to
people of color with black and brown skin tones had indications of
PFAS.
Of the four bandage products manufactured by Johnson & Johnson and
Kenvue, the three OURTONE products of the Band-Aid brand are
marketed to people of color with black and brown skin tones, the
suit states.
"Millions of Americans have trusted Band-Aid products to help them
heal and they never imagined that they contained these harmful,
toxic chemicals," said Ayers.
Since litigation is just getting underway, Ayers said, there's
still time for eligible customers to contact their attorney or
Seeger Weiss directly to join the class-action lawsuit.
The number of plaintiffs is likely to rise, said Ayers.
This is not the first time Johnson & Johnson has been accused of
marketing a dangerous product as completely safe. In June, the
company agreed to pay $700 million spread across 43 states to
settle allegations it deceptively marketed talcum powder products
as safe for women.
New Jersey was part of the lawsuit that alleged Johnson & Johnson
marketed Baby Powder and Shower to Shower Powder as safe for daily
use, including around the genitals, while knowing that studies and
other information showed that the products were occasionally
tainted with asbestos.
Johnson & Johnson was also part of a landmark $26 billion
nationwide settlement for its role in the opioid addiction crisis.
[GN]
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Sued Over Phenylephrine in Cold, Flu Medicine
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Jancauskas, writing for RNZ, reports that a class action
filed says Kiwis have been deceived for about two decades through
the use of phenylephrine in cold and flu medicine.
The lawsuit against American pharmaceutical manufacturer Johnson &
Johnson claims the ingredient, marketed as a nasal decongestant, is
actually ineffective when taken orally.
Growing evidence has seen Food and Drugs Administration (FDA) in
the US propose an outright ban because it believes the drugs when
taken orally don't work.
The ingredient had been marketed as a substitute for
pseudoephedrine when it was banned for sale between 2011 and 2024
over concerns it was being used in the manufacture of illicit
drugs.
Law firm JGA Saddler is urging the potentially millions of New
Zealanders who have purchased affected products to register their
claim.
Director Rebecca Jancauskas said it could be one of the biggest
class actions in New Zealand history.
"Customers should be able to confidently buy medicines that work as
advertised and when they don't, the company involved should be held
accountable," she said.
"Johnson & Johnson has manufactured and marketed a medication that
decades of evidence have shown doesn't work as claimed, relying on
outdated, fallible studies to sell the New Zealand public products
that don't do what they say on the packet.
"New Zealanders have trusted these products to work as advertised
and wouldn't have bought them if they knew they were ineffective at
treating congestion.
"Johnson & Johnson has misled the public and they need to be held
accountable for their actions. We are asking all New Zealanders who
have purchased any of the 17 affected products to register to be a
part of the class action."
The legal company has launched a similar class action in
Australia.
RNZ has approached Johnson & Johnson for comment.
The products named in the suit are:
-- Sudafed PE Nasal Decongestant Tablet
-- Sudafed PE Sinus + Pain Relief Day & Night Tablet
-- Sudafed PE Sinus + Pain Relief Tablet
-- Sudafed PE Sinus + Allergy & Pain Relief
-- Sudafed PE Sinus + Anti-inflammatory Pain Relief Tablet
-- Codral Cold & Flu + Mucus Cough Capsule
-- Codral Decongestant Tablet
-- Codral Day & Night Tablet
-- Codral Cold & Flu Tablet
-- Codral Night Tablet
-- Codral Mucus Cough + Cold Liquid
-- Codral Cold & Flu + Mucus Cough Powder
-- Codral Cold & Flu Powder
-- Benadryl PE Chesty Cough & Nasal Congestion Syrup
-- Codral Cold & Flu Sore Throat Tablet
-- Day & Night Cold & Flu + Cough Combination Tablet
-- Benadryl Mucus Relief Plus Decongestant Liquid [GN]
KAIVAL BRANDS: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Delta Group
----------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating:
-- Kaival Brands Innovations Group, Inc. (NASDAQ: KAVL), relating
to its proposed merger with Delta Corp Holdings Limited. Under the
terms of the agreement, shareholders of Kaival Brands will receive
1 share of Delta for each share of Kaival Brands common stock they
own, and are anticipated to own approximately 10.30% of the
combined company.
Click link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/kaival-brands-innovations-group-inc-kavl/.
It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- Vacasa, Inc. (NASDAQ: VCSA), relating to the proposed merger
with Casago. Under the terms of the agreement, Casago will acquire
all outstanding shares of Vacasa held by public stockholders at a
price of $5.02 per share.
Click link for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/vacasa-inc-vcsa/. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- Accolade, Inc. (Nasdaq: ACCD), relating to the proposed merger
with Transcarent. Under the terms of the agreement, Transcarent
will acquire Accolade for $7.03 per share in cash.
Click link for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/accolade-inc-accd/. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- AeroVironment, Inc. (NASDAQ: AVAV), relating to the proposed
merger with BlueHalo LLC. Under the terms of the agreement,
AeroVironment shareholders will own approximately 60.5% of the
combined company.
ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for April 1, 2025.
Click link for more information
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/aerovironment-inc-avav/. 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]
KITCHEN MAMA: Girtley Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------
Kalari Jackson Girtley, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. KITCHEN MAMA, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01257
(N.D. Ill., Feb. 5, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a
violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because the Defendant's website,
www.shopkitchenmama.com is not equally accessible to blind and
visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff
seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's
corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's
website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
The Defendant's Website offers products and services for online
sale and general delivery to the public.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION: Lindsey Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Karnette Lindsey, an individual in her
individual and representative capacity v. KNIGHT TRANSPORTATION,
INC. dba Arizona Knight Transportation, Inc.; And Does 1 Through
10, Inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2436433 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. 5, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-00328.
The Plaintiff's putative class claims arise from allegations that
Defendant failed to comply with California's wage and hour laws in
compensating drivers as follows: failure to pay the minimum wage
under Labor Code; failure to reimburse business expenses under
Labor Code; failure to pay wages under Labor Code; failure to pay
wages upon termination under Labor Code; failure to provide
accurate itemized paystubs under Labor Code; unlawful deduction
under Labor Code; and violation of Business and Professions
Code.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Paul S. Cowie, Esq.
John Ellis, Esq.
Luis F. Arias, Esq.
Alexis S. Cherry, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
A Limited Liability Partnership
Including Professional Corporations
Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4109
Phone: 415.434.9100
Facsimile: 415.434.3947
Email pcowie@sheppardmullin.com
jellis@sheppardmullin.com
larias@sheppardmullin.com
acherry@sheppardmullin.com
KOFFEE KULT CORP: Wilson Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------
Howard Wilson, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. KOFFEE KULT, CORP., Case No. 1:25-cv-01272 (S.D.N.Y.,
Feb. 5, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website,
www.koffeekult.com including all portions thereof or accessed
thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is
not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it
violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures
so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
The Defendant's Website offers products and services for online
sale and general delivery to the public.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101.
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
LAMB WESTON: Bonfire Craft Sues Over Conspiracy to Fix Prices
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bonfire Craft Kitchen Surprise LLC; Bonfire Craft Kitchen Tempe
LLC; and Melissa Neuburger, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. LAMB WESTON HOLDINGS, INC.; LAMB
WESTON, INC.; LAMB WESTON BSW, LLC; LAMB WESTON/MIDWEST, INC.; LAMB
WESTON SALES, INC.; MCCAIN FOODS LIMITED; MCCAIN FOODS USA, INC.;
J.R. SIMPLOT CO.; CAVENDISH FARMS LTD; and CAVENDISH FARMS, INC.,
Case No. 1:25-cv-01205 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 4, 2025), is brought under
the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 and the Clayton Antitrust Act as
well as State antitrust and trade regulation statutes, and common
law unjust enrichment make this Complaint for relief against
Defendants for their conspiracy to fix prices of for frozen french
fries, hash browns, tater tots, and other frozen potato products
("Frozen Potato Products") in the United States from at least as
early as January 1, 2021, through the date by which the
anticompetitive effects of their violations of law shall have
ceased, but in any case no earlier than the present (the "Class
Period").
The Defendants are the four dominant processors of Frozen Potato
Products. Together, they control more than 97% or more of the $68
billion per year-Frozen Potato Products market. The Defendants
abused their collective market power by conspiring to and actually
overcharging the End Payer Class for their Frozen Potato Products,
unjustly enriching themselves at the expense of members of the End
Payer Class. Being by definition last in line in the chain of
distribution of Frozen Potato Products, members of the End Payer
Class have suffered the full brunt of the wrongdoing and have paid
these overcharges that would not have been passed on to them but
for Defendants' conspiracy and overt acts in furtherance.
The Defendants were able to successfully implement lockstep price
increases and collusively increase prices because the industry is
structurally susceptible to collusion. The Frozen Potato Products
Market features highly concentrated sellers, high entry barriers,
fragmented buyers, repetitive purchases, inelastic demand, and
opportunities to collude through common co-packing arrangements,
trade association events, and mechanisms to exchange market share
and likely other information enabling Defendants to implement and
monitor their conspiracy. But for their conspiracy and unlawful
acts in furtherance, Plaintiffs and members of the End Payer Class
would have paid less for Frozen Potato Products than they did
during the Class Period.
The Plaintiffs bring this action for redress of the injury and
damages they and members of the End Payer Class have suffered and
continue to suffer by reason of Defendants past and continuing
violations of law, including for damages, injunctive relief, and
disgorgement of Defendants' ill-gotten gains into a common fund
from which it and members of the End Payer Class may obtain
restitution, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs overpaid for Frozen Potato Products by reason of
Defendants' price fixing conspiracy.
Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc. is a leading producer, distributor, and
marketer of value-added Frozen Potato Products.[BN]
The Plaintiffs represented by:
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Phone: (312) 214-7900
Email: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
Alexander E. Barnett, Esq.
Geralyn J. Trujillo, Esq.
Jonathan S. Crevier, Esq.
Noah L. Cozad, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (646) 933-1000
Email: gasciolla@dicellolevitt.com
abarnett@dicellolevitt.com
gtrujillo@dicellolevitt.com
jcrevier@dicellolevitt.com
ncozad@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Vincent Briganti, Esq.
Sitso Bediako, Esq.
Peter A. Barile III (ARDC No. 4364295)
Nicole Veno
LOWEY DANNENBERG P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Phone: (914) 997-0500
Email: vbriganti@lowey.com
sbediako@lowey.com
pbarile@lowey.com
nveno@lowey.com
- and -
Robert J. Bonsignore, Esq.
BONSIGNORE TRIAL LAWYERS PLLC
23 Forest Street
Medford, MA 02155
Phone: (781) 856-7650
Email: rbonsignore@classactions.us
LENDINGTREE INC: Pierce Files Suit in W.D. North Carolina
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LendingTree, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Linda Pierce, Nathan Thomas, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LendingTree,
Inc., LendingTree, LLC, QuoteWizard.com, LLC, Case No.
3:25-cv-00078 (W.D.N.C., Feb. 3, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
LendingTree, Inc. -- https://www.lendingtree.com/ -- is an online
lending marketplace, founded in 1996 and headquartered in
Charlotte, North Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott C. Harris, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Phone: (919) 600-5000
Fax: (919) 600-5035
Email: sharris@milberg.com
LIFERX.MD INC: Davis Sues Over Unlawful Disclosure of Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Martine Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. LIFERX.MD, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00997 (S.D.N.Y., Feb.
4, 2025), is brought on behalf of all persons who have visited the
website liferx.md (the "Website") and booked an appointment for
Glucagon-like peptide-1 ("GLP-1") weight loss medication, against
the Defendants who discloses their personally identifiable
information to third parties.
When consumers visit the Website, they must book an appointment to
determine whether they qualify for Defendant's weight loss
medication. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and members of the putative
class, and contrary to Defendant's own representations, Defendant
discloses their personally identifiable information to third
parties for targeted advertising purposes. Plaintiff therefore
brings this action for legal and equitable remedies resulting from
Defendant's illegal actions, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff booked an appointment for GLP-1 medication through
Defendant's Website in September 2023.
LifeRx.md, Inc. is an online provider of GLP-1 weight loss
medication.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (646) 837-7150
Fax: (212) 989-9163
Email: aleslie@bursor.com
- and -
Stephen A. Beck, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
701 Brickell Ave., Suite 2100
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (305) 330-5512
Fax: (305) 676-9006
Email: sbeck@bursor.com
LJC APPAREL LLC: Battle Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
Andre Battle, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. LJC Apparel, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01222 (N.D. Ill.,
Feb. 5, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to
design, construct,
maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and
services LJC Apparel provides to their non-disabled customers
through https://kimesranch.com (hereinafter "Kimesranch.com" or
"the website"). Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its
website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered,
and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the
"ADA").
Because Defendant's website, Kimesranch.com, is not equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates
the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change
in LJC Apparel's policies, practices, and procedures to that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
LJC Apparel provides to the public a website known as
Kimesranch.com which provides consumers with access to an array of
goods and services, including, the ability to view men's and
women's jeans, jackets, T-shirts, activewear, hoodies, sweatshirts,
dresses, and hats.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: 718.705.8706
Fax: 718.705.8705
Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com
LUCKY GOAT: Girtley Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------
Kalari Jackson Girtley, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. LUCKY GOAT, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01255 (N.D.
Ill., Feb. 5, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure
to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired people.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its goods and services offered thereby, is a
violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because the Defendant's website,
www.luckygoatcoffee.com is not equally accessible to blind and
visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. The Plaintiff
seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's
corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's
website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
The Defendant's Website offers products and services for online
sale and general delivery to the public.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yaakov Saks, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500 ext. 101
Fax: (201) 282-6501
Email: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com
MAELYS COSMETICS: Meehan Sues Over False Advertisement
------------------------------------------------------
Karen Meehan, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. MAELYS COSMETICS USA INC. d/b/a MAELYS, Case
No. 4:25-cv-01232 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 5, 2025), is brought on behalf
of purchasers of the B-FLAT Belly Firming Cream, B-THICC Booty
Enhancing Mask, and B-TIGHT Lift & Firm Buttocks Mask (the
"Products") due to the Defendant's false advertising in violation
of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act; violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law; violation of California's
False Advertising Law; Breach of Express Warranty; Breach of
Implied Warranty; and Unjust Enrichment.
Specifically, Defendant represents and warrants that these cosmetic
skin care Products are "clinically proven" to, among other things,
reduce cellulite, eliminate cellulite (i.e., "no more cellulite"),
deliver results similar to a "tummy tuck" surgical procedure,
flatten out / reduce stretch marks and eliminate flabby skin (the
"Advertised Benefits"). Defendant also utilizes uniform false and
deceptive advertising tactics to promote the Products online and at
retail locations, including the use of photoshopped
"before-and-after" images to lure in vulnerable and unsuspecting
consumers. These outrageous false advertising tactics have worked,
propelling Defendant's sales of the Products as best sellers online
and at national retail stores. Unfortunately for consumers, the
Products are neither "clinically proven" nor capable of providing
the Advertised Benefits, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased the Products from Amazon.com while she was
in California.
The Defendant manufactures, sells, markets, and/or distributes
cosmetic skin care products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
Luke Sironski-White, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: ltfisher@bursor.com
lsironski@bursor.com
- and -
Greg Sinderbrand, Esq.
SINDERBRAND LAW GROUP, P.C.
2829 Townsgate Road, Suite 100
Westlake Village, CA 91361
Phone: (818) 370-3912
Email: greg@sinderbrandlaw.com
MALIBU BOATS: Faces Securities Suit in NY Court
-----------------------------------------------
Malibu Boats, Inc. (MBI) disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal
year ended June 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on August 29, 2024, that on April 29, 2024, a
stockholder, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed a complaint against MBI and Jack Springer, Bruce
Beckman, David Black, and Wayne Wilson as current and former
officers of the company in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York (Case 1:24-cv-03254).
On August 15, 2024, the court appointed the Retiree Benefit Trust
of the City of Baltimore as the Lead Plaintiff in the action. The
amended complaint alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended, in connection with allegedly false and
misleading statements made by MBI related to its business,
operations, and prospects during the period from November 4, 2022
through May 1, 2024. The amended complaint alleges, among other
things, that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 by not disclosing alleged
material adverse facts related to the company's inventory, demand
and relationship with one of its former dealers, "Tommy's Boats,"
and accordingly, that certain statements made during the class
period about its business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading.
Malibu Boats, Inc. is a designer, manufacturer and marketer of a
diverse range of recreational powerboats, including performance
sport boats, sterndrive and outboard boats under eight brands:
Malibu, Axis, Pursuit, Maverick, Cobia, Pathfinder, Hewes and
Cobalt.
MARYMOUND INC: Court Certifies Class Suit Over Abuse in Children
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristin Annable of CBC News reports that children in the care of a
Manitoba non-profit were sexually abused and forced to spend days
in isolation, and one girl killed herself after major gaps in her
care, according to new court documents filed as part of a proposed
class action lawsuit against Marymound Inc.
First filed in 2023, the suit names Marymound, the Manitoba
government and the Reseau Compassion Network. It alleges that for
decades children in care of the social services organization faced
widespread abuse that was ignored by the government and Marymound
staff.
Marymound provides a wide range of services for at-risk youth,
including group housing, foster care and schooling. They operate
multiple Winnipeg sites and run programs in Thompson, Man.
On February 11, a Court of King's Bench judge heard arguments on
whether it should be certified as a class action. Meanwhile, the
new court filings bring to light internal probes into the
organization that have never been made public.
A motion brief filed by the lead plaintiffs -- two unnamed
individuals who attended Marymound in the '90s -- details two
"damning reports" by the government they say shows it was aware of
the "ongoing systemic failures at Marymound."
Internal reviews
A 2013 report was commissioned by the government after a resident
killed herself, according to the brief filed on Jan. 10, 2025.
It reviewed her internal records and found staff failed to record
critical information on the use of physical restraints, assaults
and suicidal ideation. They found no one tried to find her when
during a period she ran away.
"Among the most critical gaps" identified in her treatment was they
"did not consider" her history of suicidal ideation and past
suicide attempts, according to the court document.
The brief details how in 2014 a government employee sent this
report to the senior management and the board of Marymound
outlining her concerns with the organization.
"I am extremely worried that we have been having the same
discussion for nine months now, with no improvement in the child
safety concerns identified," the child and family services employee
wrote, according to the court document.
Meanwhile a separate 2007 review by the Manitoba government looked
at Marymound's use of isolation rooms. It found a "major breach of
standards" and said children were locked in the room on some
occasions for more than four days, according to the motion brief.
Former students come forward
Seven people who attended Marymound between 1974-2008 filed sworn
affidavits detailing their experiences with the organization, which
were summarized in the January motions.
Several of the students said they were sexually assaulted by staff
at Marymound. One former student alleged they lived in constant
fear of being "beaten, tackled and restrained."
Another alleged that when she was 13 years old, she was sexually
assaulted by a man who was visiting another resident.
The court filings documented the "callous" response by staff to the
assault, who wrote in her file the 13-year-old "learned the hard
way what the consequences can be with casual sexual activity."
Marymound, the Government of Manitoba and Reseau Compassion Network
filed their own motion briefs in court last week. All three are
asking that for the certification motion to be dismissed as filed.
They declined to comment as the case is before the courts.
Reseau Compassion Network is a non-profit organization that is the
"sole member" of Marymound and is responsible for appointing its
board. Lawyers for the non-profit argue they have no knowledge or
authority of the day-to-day operations of Marymound.
In their motion brief filed Feb. 3, Marymound's lawyers detailed
"critical variances" with the allegations made by the former
students in their affidavit and what they said under cross
examination by their lawyers.
"These cross-examinations illustrated large discrepancies between
the affiant's recollection and Marymound's documentary records,"
the lawyers wrote.
Lawyers for Manitoba Justice argue they have never owned, operated,
managed, controlled, maintained, or staffed Marymound. Instead they
argue they provide funding to them and licence/inspect their group
homes.
"There is no evidence that Manitoba knew or ought to have known of
the alleged systemic physical, sexual or emotional abuse, as
alleged by the plaintiffs," they wrote in their motion brief filed
Feb. 3.
Court hearing begins
Court of King's Bench Justice Shauna McCarthy heard motions on
Tuesday from lawyers representing the former Marymound residents,
the Government of Manitoba and Marymound Inc.
In order to certify a lawsuit class action it must meet several
specific criteria, including that there are common issues with each
class member.
The proposed class is anyone who attended Marymound or its group
homes from 1951 to present.
Toronto-based lawyer James Sayce, who is bringing forth the motion
of certification for the former Marymound residents, told court
that making it a class action gives vulnerable people better access
to justice. The alternative would be hundreds of separate lawsuits.
He described the stories told by the seven former residents as
"harrowing."
"They describe a facility where children were not protected . . .
where they were vulnerable and abused by staff. . . they describe
common use of isolation, solitary confinement . . . [and] sexual
assaults being commonplace"
The government and Marymound argued against the certification in
court, stating it doesn't meet the criteria for a class action.
The Reseau Compassion Network is expected to present its motion on
Wednesday, February 12. [GN]
MERCK & CO: S&P 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 Merck & Co. Inc. (NYSE: MRK) resulting from
allegations that Merck may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.
So What: If you purchased Merck 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=34975 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 February 4, 2025, before the market opened,
Merck filed a current report on Form 8-K with the SEC. In the
current report, Merck announced their fourth-quarter and full-year
2024 financial results, in which it stated that
“GARDASIL/GARDASIL 9 [s]ales [d]eclined 3% to $8.6 Billion.” In
addition, the current report stated Merck’s “decision to
temporarily pause shipments of GARDASIL/GARDASIL 9 into China
beginning February 2025 through at least mid-year.”
On this news, Merck’s stock price fell $9.05 per share, or 9.1%,
to close at $90.74 per share on February 4, 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 has 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]
META PLATFORMS: Faces Klein Antitrust Suit
------------------------------------------
Meta Platforms, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on January 30, 2025, that a putative class action has
been filed against the company alleging violations of antitrust
laws and other causes of action in connection with its acquisition
of Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014 and by maintaining
conditions on access to its platform. The case is captioned "Klein
et al., v. Meta Platforms, Inc." which alleges anticompetitive
conduct and seeks damages and injunctive relief.
Meta Platforms, Inc. is a technology company based in California.
It operates under the Facebook platform.
META PLATFORMS: Settles Suit over Data Sharing Dispute
------------------------------------------------------
Meta Platforms, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on January 30, 2025, that on December 22, 2022, the
parties in multiple putative class actions filed in state and
federal courts entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the
lawsuit alleging misuse of certain data by developers that shared
such data with third parties in violation of its terms and
policies, which provides for a payment of $725 million by the
company and is subject to court approval. The settlement was
approved by the court on October 10, 2023, and the payment was made
in November 2023.
Two objectors appealed final approval (one of which was voluntarily
dismissed as of June 24, 2024). The objection is fully briefed and
will be heard on February 7, 2025.
Said suits started coming in beginning on March 20, 2018 against
Meta Platforms, Inc. and certain of its directors and officers,
seeking unspecified damages and injunctive relief. Several of the
cases brought on behalf of consumers in the United States were
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California.
On September 9, 2019, the court granted, in part, and denied, in
part, the company's motion to dismiss the consolidated putative
consumer class action.
In addition, the platform and user data practices, as well as the
events surrounding the misuse of certain data by a developer,
became the subject of U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), state
attorneys general, and other government inquiries in the United
States, Europe, and other jurisdictions.
The company entered into a settlement and modified consent order to
resolve the FTC inquiry, which took effect in April 2020. Among
other matters, our settlement with the FTC required to pay a
penalty of $5.0 billion which was paid in April 2020 upon the
effectiveness of the modified consent order. The state attorney
general inquiry and certain government inquiries in other
jurisdictions remain ongoing.
Meta Platforms, Inc. is a technology company based in California.
It operates under the Facebook platform.
MISSOURI: Bedford Appeals Class Suit Dismissal to 8th Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
CAMESE BEDFORD, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing their lawsuit entitled Camese Bedford, et al., on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Missouri Department of Social Services, Family Support Division, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 4:19-cv-00398-RWS, in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
This case arises out of the Missouri Department of Social Services,
Family Support Division's (FSD) suspension of driver's licenses of
parents who fail to pay child support.
On Mar. 4, 2019, the Plaintiffs filed this action on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, alleging that the FSD
violated their procedural due process rights by suspending driver's
licenses of parents who failed to pay child support without any
meaningful pre-suspension notice or opportunity to be heard on the
ability to pay.
On Nov. 8, 2019, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which
Judge Rodney W. Sippel granted on Jan. 29, 2025. The case was
dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction. The Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction was
also denied.
The appellate case is captioned Camese Bedford, et al. v. Missouri
Department of Social Services, Family Support Div., et al., Case
No. 25-1206, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit, filed on February 3, 2025.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Transcript is due on or before March 17, 2025;
-- Appendix is due on March 25, 2025;
-- Appellants' Brief is due on March 25, 2025; and
-- Appellees' Brief is due 30 days from the date the court
issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant.
[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants CAMESE BEDFORD, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Stephanie Michelle Lummus, Esq.
COOK GROUP, PLLC
701 Market Street, Suite 1225
Saint Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (636) 248-0604
- and -
Lily Milwit, Esq.
Phil Telfeyan, Esq.
EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW
400 7th Street, N.W., Suite 602
Washington, DC 20004
Defendants-Appellees MISSOURI DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, FAMILY
SUPPORT DIVISION, et al. are represented by:
Kevin Mark Smith, Esq.
J. Patrick Sullivan, Esq.
ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
615 E. 13th Street, Suite 401
Kansas City, MO 64106
Telephone: (816) 889-5000
NANCY JACOBY: Puchel Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NOEL PUCHEL, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NANCY JACOBY, in
her official capacity as Director of Sex Offender Programs for the
Wisconsin Department of Corrections, Case No. 3:24-cv-03294-MMM
(C.D. Ill.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
certifying class action against Nancy Jacoby on behalf of all
persons who currently are, or in the future will be, sentenced to
serve a sentence in the custody of the Illinois Department of
Corrections that includes a determinate period of Mandatory
Supervised Release ("MSR").
The Plaintiff further requests that the Court enter an order
appointing the undersigned attorneys as class counsel.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Department’s policy violates the
Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause because it
irrationally treats similarly situated individuals differently.
The Plaintiff challenges the constitutionality of the Illinois
Department of Corrections' policy of denying any credit against the
completion of MSR to individuals who, like Plaintiff, spend extra
time in prison due to an error of the sentencing court while
awarding MSR credit to individuals who (a) voluntarily chose to
remain in prison during their MSR periods or (b) have been revoked
for violation of the conditions of the MSR.
The Wisconsin Department of Corrections is an administrative
department in the executive branch of the state of Wisconsin
responsible for corrections in Wisconsin, including state prisons
and community supervision.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 3, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=H2RNQJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adele D. Nicholas, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF ADELE D. NICHOLAS
5707 W. Goodman Street
Chicago, IL 60630
Telephone: (847) 361-3869
E-mail: adele@civilrightschicago.com
- and -
Mark G. Weinberg, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MARK G. WEINBERG
3612 N. Tripp Avenue
Chicago, IL 60641
Telephone: (773) 283-3913
E-mail: mweinberg@sbcglobal.net
NAPCO SECURITY: 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 NAPCO Security Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ: NSSC)
resulting from allegations that NAPCO may have issued materially
misleading business information to the investing public.
So What: If you purchased NAPCO 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=34463 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 February 3, 2025, Investing.com published an
article entitled "NAPCO Security stock tumbles after Q2 sales
decline." The article stated that "[s]hares of NAPCO Security
Technologies,, Inc. [. . .] plummeted 27% following the
announcement of its fiscal 2025 second quarter results, which
revealed a decrease in net sales and diluted earnings per share
(EPS) compared to the same period last year." The article further
stated that "Richard Soloway, Chairman and CEO, attributed the
equipment revenue shortfall to lagging sales in intrusion and
access alarm products and door locking devices. The company cited
specific issues with two of its larger distributors; one reduced
purchases to cut inventory levels, and another underwent a
management restructuring that delayed transaction approvals.
Soloway expressed disappointment in the overall equipment sales but
remains optimistic about future improvements."
On this news, NAPCO shares fell 26.6% on February 3, 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]
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: UNC Suit Extended to Cover Tennis Players
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Carolina Journal reports that the University of North Carolina
tennis player Reese Brantmeier filed paperwork Friday, February 7,
to extend her lawsuit against NCAA prize-money restrictions to
cover all tennis players competing since March 2020.
Brantmeier and a co-plaintiff from the University of Texas
challenge NCAA rules that forced them to give up tennis prize money
to maintain college eligibility.
A federal judge rejected Brantmeier's earlier attempt to seek an
injunction blocking prize-money restrictions for multiple college
sports.
University of North Carolina tennis player Reese Brantmeier hopes
her lawsuit challenging the NCAA's prize-money rules will apply to
any college tennis player who has competed since 2020. Brantmeier's
lawyers filed a motion to turn her suit into a class action.
Brantmeier already has one co-plaintiff: Maya Joint of the
University of Texas. The motion would add as plaintiffs any player
who has competed in NCAA tennis since March 19, 2020. It would also
add any player ruled ineligible to play because of existing
prize-money restrictions.
"Under long-standing amateurism regulations, the NCAA prohibits
Tennis Student-Athletes from accepting cash awards, bonuses, and
other monetary prizes (collectively, 'Prize Money') awarded by
third parties for their performance in non-NCAA competitions, such
as the U.S. Open Tennis Championships," Brantmeier's lawyers
wrote.
With limited exceptions, "the NCAA bylaws provide that a
Student-Athlete forfeits eligibility and is barred from
intercollegiate competition in the sport of tennis if they accept
Prize Money in connection with non-NCAA tennis competitions," the
court filing continued.
"Plaintiffs seek relief on behalf of themselves and proposed
Damages and Injunctive Relief classes from the application and past
effects of the NCAA's Prize Money Rules, to compensate class
members for past forfeited amounts and to allow them to retain
Prize Money for their performances in non-NCAA competitions without
losing their collegiate eligibility," Brantmeier's lawyers added.
"Going back decades, the highest and most prestigious levels of
non-NCAA competition tennis have been open to college
Student-Athletes, including, but not limited to, the Olympics, the
U.S. Open Tennis Championships, Wimbledon, the Australian Open and
the other tennis tournaments," the court filing added. "These
competitions include substantial Prize Money for player
compensation. For example, the 2024 U.S. Open offered $75 million
in total compensation to players, with prize money for reaching the
first round or 'main draw' reaching $100,000."
"Those benefits, however, are all but foreclosed to prospective and
current Student-Athletes. The NCAA's arbitrary rules restrict the
amount of Prize Money that Student-Athletes competing in Tennis may
accept, causing anticompetitive harm to the markets for their labor
and reducing their earning ability," Brantmeier's lawyers argued.
Brantmeier, a UNC junior, was a member of the school's 2023
national championship team. She was "ranked No. 2 in singles and
No. 1 in doubles" in the February 2024 college tennis rankings.
While still in high school, she competed in the 2021 US Open and
won $48,913 in prize money. "However, due to the NCAA's Prize money
restrictions, Brantmeier was forced to forfeit much of that money
to maintain her collegiate eligibility," according to the court
filing.
The NCAA challenged expenses Brantmeier attempted to claim for the
2021 tournament, including the cost of the hotel room the
16-year-old shared with her mother. Only after Brantmeier made a
$5,100 charitable contribution related to the challenge did the
NCAA clear her to play for UNC in 2023.
Brantmeier signaled last November that she was narrowing the focus
of her lawsuit to cover only tennis players affected by NCAA
prize-money restrictions. A federal judge had rejected an
injunction that would have covered athletes in multiple college
sports.
"The NCAA has long instituted a money first, student-athletes
second approach in its operations, rules, and regulations. For over
a century, from its inception until July 1, 2021, the NCAA
prohibited the gifted student-athletes at its member institutions3
from receiving any compensation for their athletic performance and
services beyond an athletic scholarship and certain other
educational-related benefits," Brantmeier's lawyers wrote last
fall.
At the same time, the NCAA "has generated billions of dollars in
income," according to the suit. Brantmeier's lawyers highlight
recent changes that have allowed athletes to benefit from payments
linked to the use of their names, images, and likenesses.
"Plaintiffs seek to lift the veil of hypocrisy on the NCAA's
practice of allowing primarily Division I football and men's
basketball student-athletes, who play profit-generating sports in
the Power Conferences, to receive virtually all of the pay-for-play
money distributed by Collectives while prohibiting student-athletes
who compete in Tennis from accepting Prize Money earned in non-NCAA
competitions, including but not limited to the US Open Tennis
Championships, the Australian Open, Roland Garros a/k/a the French
Open, and the Championships, Wimbledon," the amended complaint
argued.
In a separate document filed in November, NCAA lawyers objected to
Brantmeier's request to have her case cover all NCAA Division I
tennis players after she dropped an earlier class-action request.
US Chief District Judge Catherine Eagles issued an Oct. 7 order
denying Brantmeier's request for an injunction blocking the NCAA
from enforcing rules against other student-athletes accepting prize
money from pro sports competition.
The injunction would have applied to any NCAA athlete competing in
individual sports, defined by the NCAA as women's bowling, cross
country, women's equestrian, fencing, golf, gymnastics, rifle,
skiing, swimming and diving, tennis, indoor and outdoor track and
field, women's triathlon, and wrestling.
"A mandatory preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, and
the Court is not persuaded that Ms. Brantmeier has shown a
likelihood of success on the merits for all of the Individual
Sports," Eagles wrote. [GN]
NEUMORA THERAPEUTICS: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set April 7
------------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that
purchasers or acquirers of Neumora Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ:
NMRA) common stock pursuant and/or traceable to Neumora's
registration statement issued in connection with Neumora's initial
public offering (the "IPO") held on September 15, 2023, have until
April 7, 2025 to seek appointment as lead plaintiff of the Neumora
class action lawsuit. Captioned Chang v. Neumora Therapeutics,
Inc., No. 25-cv-01072 (S.D.N.Y.), the Neumora class action lawsuit
charges Neumora and certain of Neumora's top executives and
directors, as well as certain underwriters of the IPO, with
violations of the Securities Act of 1933.
If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of the Neumora class action lawsuit, please provide your
information here:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-neumora-therapeutics-inc-class-action-lawsuit-nmra.html
You can also contact attorneys J.C. Sanchez or Jennifer N. Caringal
of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at
info@rgrdlaw.com.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: Neumora is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical
company that engages in developing therapeutic treatments for brain
diseases, neuropsychiatric disorders, and neurodegenerative
diseases. According to the complaint, Neumora acquired Navacaprant,
Neumora's flagship therapeutic candidate, in September 2020 through
its acquisition of BlackThorn Therapeutics, Inc. In its IPO,
Neumora sold 14.7 million shares at $17.00 per share.
The Neumora class action lawsuit alleges that the IPO's offering
documents were materially false and/or misleading and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) 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 major depressive disorder
("MDD") to show that Navacaprant offered a statistically
significant improvement in treating MDD; (ii) and to that same end,
Neumora also added a prespecified analysis to the Phase Two
statistical analysis plan, focusing on patients suffering from
moderate to severe MDD; and (iii) 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.
The Neumora class action lawsuit further alleges that on January 2,
2025, Neumora revealed that the KOASTAL-1 study failed to
"demonstrate a statistically significant improvement on the primary
endpoint of change from baseline in the Montgomery-Åsberg
Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) total score at Week 6 or the key
secondary endpoint of a change from baseline in the Snaith-Hamilton
Pleasure Scale (SHAPS) scale."
Since the IPO, the value of Neumora common stock shares has
declined substantially from the IPO price of $17 per share to a
closing price of $1.91 per share on February 5, 2025 (a 88.7%
decline from the IPO price), the complaint alleges.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired
Neumora common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration
statement issued in connection with the IPO to seek appointment as
lead plaintiff in the Neumora class action lawsuit. A lead
plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial
interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also
typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts
on behalf of all other class members in directing the Neumora class
action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its
choice to litigate the Neumora class action lawsuit. An investor's
ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent
upon serving as lead plaintiff of the Neumora class action
lawsuit.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of
the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities
fraud cases. Our Firm has been #1 in the ISS Securities Class
Action Services rankings for six out of the last ten years for
securing the most monetary relief for investors. We recovered $6.6
billion for investors in securities-related class action cases --
over $2.2 billion more than any other law firm in the last four
years. With 200 lawyers in 10 offices, Robbins Geller is one of the
largest plaintiffs' firms in the world and the Firm's attorneys
have obtained many of the largest securities class action
recoveries in history, including the largest securities class
action recovery ever -- $7.2 billion -- in In re Enron Corp. Sec.
Litig. Please visit the following page for more information:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.
Contact:
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
J.C. Sanchez, Jennifer N. Caringal
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101
(800) 449-4900
info@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
NEW JERSEY: Sued Over Unconstitutional Unclaimed Property Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action lawsuit out of New Jersey alleges the state's unclaimed
property law is unconstitutional.
According to the 27-page complaint, the New Jersey Uniform
Unclaimed Property Act (NJUPA) fails to provide constitutionally
required notice to owners before and after supposedly "abandoned"
property is seized by the state. The NJUPA lawsuit argues that the
statute altogether flies in the face of the stated purpose of
unclaimed property laws, which is to return property to its
rightful owner.
Under the NJUPA, property is deemed "abandoned" if it is dormant
for one to five years with no activity by the owner, the suit says.
This may include stock and bond accounts, savings accounts,
uncashed payroll checks, unused gift cards, retirement accounts,
the contents of safe deposit boxes and more, the case explains.
Supposedly "abandoned" property is appropriated by the New Jersey
Unclaimed Property Administration without adequate notice—if any
at all—to the owner before it is auctioned off, sold or
destroyed, the filing claims. Per the lawsuit, the proceeds are
then retained by the state.
The suit alleges that the defendants—State Treasurer Elizabeth
Maher Muoio, unclaimed property administration head Steven Harris
and private state auditor Kelmar Associates, LLC -- have come to
view the NJUPA and property seizure process as a way to fill New
Jersey's coffers.
"The NJUPA, along with unclaimed property laws in other states, has
been trending in the wrong direction for over thirty years because
such laws have been greatly expanded in unconstitutional ways to
generate revenue for states, at the expense of both owners and
putative holders of unclaimed property," the case charges.
The complaint was filed by the legal representative of the estate
of Hernan Correa Borquez, a Chilean lawyer who owned various stocks
in U.S. accounts and died in Chile in 2006. The plaintiff claims to
have received no notice at all before Borquez's securities were
unlawfully seized by the unclaimed property administration under
the NJUPA.
Pursuant to the state law, securities accounts are given a
three-year period before they can be presumed dormant and,
therefore, "abandoned," the filing shares.
"Thus, if an account is inactive for three years—for example, if
a customer is using a buy-and-hold approach to investment, makes no
deposits or withdrawals, receives no dividends (which is not
uncommon for many "blue chip' stocks) for three years—the account
can be listed as "abandoned,'" the lawsuit relays.
Although the NJUPA provides varying degrees of notice to owners,
depending on their location and their property's commercial value,
the law contains "no provision for direct mail notice or
individualized notice whatsoever" to those outside the United
States, such as the plaintiff, to inform them that their property
has been deemed "abandoned" and is subject to seizure, the suit
contends. Likewise, the law provides for no form of notice to
owners whose purportedly "abandoned" property is valued at less
than $50, the case says.
What's more, the NJUPA fails to provide any meaningful notice to
the rightful owner even after their property has been seized by the
unclaimed property administration, the complaint alleges.
Per the filing, after a seizure, the state will list the owner's
name and last known address on UnclaimedFunds.NJ.gov—a website
that many consumers are unaware exists, the lawsuit asserts. The
site shows only limited information about seized properties and
omits crucial identifying data, making it nigh impossible for
owners to determine the nature or value of a listing or when it was
seized, the suit argues.
In any case, the property is often auctioned, sold or destroyed
before this information is posted on the website, the complaint
charges.
The plaintiff contends that after contacting the unclaimed property
administration to recover Borquez's seized securities, the estate
representative was ultimately provided an unjust and "grossly
inadequate" sum that failed to reflect the market value of the lost
stock.
"Currently, [the plaintiff] and the Borquez family members own
other stocks and property, such as bank accounts, that they do not
wish to be subject to [the defendants'] unnoticed property seizure
process," the filing says. "Yet [the plaintiffs] and Class Members
have no way to protect themselves from the NJUPA as it currently
operates to cause irreparable harm to the public."
According to the lawsuit, the NJUPA is regarded as one of the "most
aggressive" unclaimed property statutes nationwide. Per the case,
the unclaimed property administration is estimated to hold more
than $6 billion in ostensibly "abandoned" property owned by
high-profile names such as Taylor Swift, Meryl Streep and Governor
Phil Murphy and by businesses associated with President Donald
Trump.
"The State of New Jersey deems all such persons "unknown' and
purports to be unable to reunite these persons with the "unclaimed'
property it has appropriated from them," the complaint states.
The lawsuit looks to represent any entities owning purportedly
"abandoned" property transferred to the unclaimed property
administration under color of the NJUPA within the applicable
statute of limitations period, which were denied constitutionally
adequate notice under the state law because they did not reside in
the United States, the value of the property at issue was less than
$50 or for any other reason prescribed in the NJUPA as construed by
the defendants. [GN]
NEW YORK, NY: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due July 31
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Z.Q., et al., v. NEW YORK
CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-09866-JAV-RFT (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Robyn Tarnofsky
entered an order extending case schedule as follows:
-- Fact discovery shall be completed by: May 22, 2025
-- The Plaintiffs' expert reports are May 22, 2025
due on:
-- The Defendants' expert reports are June 23, 2025
due on:
-- Expert depositions shall be completed July 10, 2025
by:
-- The Plaintiffs' anticipated motion July 31, 2025
for class certification is due:
-- Daubert motions are due: July 31, 2025
-- Defendants' opposition to the Sept. 5, 2025
anticipated class certification
motion is due:
-- The parties' oppositions to any Sept. 5, 2025
Daubert motions are due on:
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1H4HX9 at no extra
charge.[CC]
NEXUS ADMINISTRATORS: Gonzalez Files Suit Over Snail-paced Services
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MARTHA GUILLEN GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEXUS ADMINISTRATORS, LLC; PCS
RETIREMENT, LLC; SWANSON-FAHRNEY FORD SALES, INC. 401(k) PROFIT
SHARING PLAN; AND SWANSON- FAHRNEY FORD SALES, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 1:25-cv-00141-KES-SAB (E.D. Cal., February 4, 2025) is an
action against the Defendants for injunctive, equitable,
declaratory and monetary relief brought by the Plaintiff pursuant
to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and the Declaratory
Judgment Act.
On August 2, 2024, the Plaintiff's late husband passed, and on
August 22, 2024, NEXUS mailed her a letter instructing her to
contact it for distribution of her survivor 401k benefits. Despite
her emotional crisis, the Plaintiff unsuccessfully tried numerous
times to get her benefits through NEXUS and frustratedly authorized
an agent to, through power of attorney, promptly procure said
benefits for her.
On November 30, 2024, the agent was told to email Plaintiff's
request for benefits and supporting information and he did so that
same day. Hearing nothing for several weeks, the agent went to
NEXUS' place of business a second time only to be told that his
email had "slipped through the cracks" and that Plaintiff would be
getting some required forms in the mail to get her benefits.
Three weeks later, on January 10, 2025, the alleged mailed forms
were never received, the agent went to NEXUS' place of business for
a third time and threatened to sue if nothing was done. A few hours
later NEXUS emailed the agent the required forms which Plaintiff
and the agent completed and submitted to NEXUS that same day.
As of the filing of this lawsuit, NEXUS describes a snail-paced
further process of signatures and authorizations that may further
take weeks or months for Plaintiff to get her benefits, if at all.
With today's Internet, technology, and electronic signatures, all
said process can be done in hours. The Defendants have instead
fabricated barriers and excuses to use Plaintiff's money as long as
possible and to prevent her from getting her undeniably due
survival benefits money, says the suit.
NEXUS Administrators, LLC is a retirement plan administrator based
in California.[BN]
The Plaintiff, of Del Rey, California, appears pro se.
NOW OPTICS: Joint Bid to Stay Marous Proceedings Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Marous v. Now Optics
Holdings, LLC, Case No. 9:24-cv-80702 (S.D. Fla., Filed June 3,
2024), the Hon. Judge Robin L. Rosenberg entered an order denying
joint motion to stay proceedings.
The parties request "an Order staying the case for 45 days,
including all pending deadlines," and state that they will submit a
revised proposed scheduling order if the parties are unable to
reach a settlement. The Court will not stay the case.
If the parties wish to seek a continuance of all remaining pretrial
deadlines, they may file a motion to continue as required by the
Court's Order of Requirements at DE20 section 3 and Local Rule 7.6.
If the parties file a motion to continue, the Court further entered
an order that the parties shall include in that motion a joint
statement indicating whether:
(i) the parties agree that they prefer to have a ruling on
the pending Motion for Class Certification 57 while
engaged in settlement negotiations,
(ii) the parties agree that there should be no ruling until
after settlement negotiations, or
(iii) the parties cannot reach an agreement or the parties have
no position. Signed by Judge Robin L. Rosenberg.
The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA).[CC]
NUNA BABY: Faces Class Action Suit Over Defective Rava Car Seats
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that Nuna Baby Essentials
faces a proposed class action lawsuit after it recalled more than
600,000 Nuna RAVA convertible car seats in December 2024 due to a
harness system defect that can put children at risk in the event of
a crash.
The 56-page lawsuit claims that Nuna Baby Essentials' voluntary
recall is "wholly inadequate" as it fails to provide consumers with
repairs, replacements or reimbursement for the "dangerously
defective" car seats.
According to the case, the recalled RAVA car seats have harnesses
that can fail to securely tighten (or remain tight) and restrain
the occupant. Nuna said in its recall notice that the issue arises
when debris—such as dirt, crumbs or sand—gets lodged in the car
seat's front harness adjuster button and prevents the locking
mechanism from working properly.
The lawsuit argues that Nuna, as a reputable and experienced
manufacturer of purportedly high-end car seats, should have
anticipated the need for its products to be durable enough to
withstand the typical messes that come with car seat use by young
children.
"The Products fail their core mission under this common set of
circumstances, as when light debris falls into the area around the
adjuster strap, the Defect manifests and the harness cannot clamp
securely onto the adjuster strap," the complaint says. "And in the
event of a crash, the infant or child would not be securely
fastened in the seat, significantly increasing the risk of
injury."
Rather than recall the entire car seat, Nuna merely instructed
consumers to request a free "remedy kit" so owners can attempt to
fix the defect themselves, the filing asserts.
"Nuna uses this Recall as a way to shirk its responsibilities of
actually remediating the Defect, potentially as a cost-saving
measure, while claiming that the Car Seats—which contained a
Defect so serious it required a safety recall—can be made safe by
mere cleaning and slight modification," the suit alleges.
Which Nuna car seats are included in the recall?
The Nuna RAVA car seat recall includes the following models
manufactured between July 16, 2016 and October 25, 2023:
-- CS-50-001 Caviar;
-- CS-50-002 Indigo;
-- CS-50-003 Berry;
-- CS-50-004 Blackberry;
-- CS-50-005 Slate;
-- CS05101CHC Charcoal;
-- CS05103CVR Caviar;
-- CS05103FRT Frost;
-- CS05103GRN Granite;
-- CS05103LAK Lake;
-- CS05103OXF Oxford;
-- CS05103ROS ROSE;
-- CS05115DDC Droplet Dot Collection;
-- CS05105BAC Broken Arrow Caviar;
-- CS05106BRS Brushstroke;
-- CS05107RFD Refined;
-- CS05109RVT Riveted;
-- CS05110LGN Lagoon;
-- CS05110EDG Edgehill;
-- CS05111OCN Ocean;
-- CS05114CRD Curated;
-- CS05104THR Threaded; and
-- CS05101HCV Verona.
Model numbers can be found on the label on the underside of the car
seat, Nuna's online recall notice says.
Per the filing, the affected products come equipped with uncovered,
plastic harness adjuster buttons that are prone to collecting
debris. The recall does not cover car seats manufactured after
October 25, 2023, which were redesigned to include a fabric cover
over the front harness adjuster, the case notes.
Inadequate recall process?
The class action suit alleges that Nuna's recall is poorly
designed, ineffective, and inadequate in offering covered
individuals a meaningful remedy.
For one, Nuna's only solution to the defect requires parents and
caregivers to slightly modify parts of the car seat themselves, the
case says. According to Nuna's website, consumers must request to
receive a new seat pad, cleaning kit and care instructions.
"By failing to recall the entire Product, the Recall Notice allows
and encourages consumers to continue to use a product with the risk
of severe injury," the suit contends. "Indeed, the Recall puts the
burden of remediation on consumers—as laypersons with no
knowledge of the design of car seats—to alter the Product in a
manner to make it safe, if that is even possible."
Further, Nuna admitted in its National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration notice that it was still developing the remedy kits,
and that they were not yet available to consumers, the filing
relays. This is especially burdensome to consumers, the lawsuit
claims, given that the company has instructed owners to immediately
stop using the product when the defect becomes apparent.
"Thus, consumers are forced to—based on Nuna's own
warning—obtain another car seat that will (unlike Nuna) provide
safe restraint for their children in the vehicle, thereby incurring
further monetary damages for which Nuna is responsible," the case
asserts.
Nuna states on its website that a car seat is safe to continue to
use if it passes the harness function test, the filing notes.
"Finally, and perhaps worst," the lawsuit claims, Nuna requires
consumers to provide proof that the harness on their car seat
unintentionally loosens due to the defect, reserving the right to
determine whether it will offer further repair or replacement of
the car seat.
The case contends that "many (if not most)" RAVA car seat owners
have not yet received official notice of the recall and that it is
unclear whether Nuna can even ensure all purchasers get a notice.
The plaintiffs, five California residents who say they would not
have bought their Nuna RAVA car seats had they been aware of the
product's inherent dangers, seek compensation from the defendant
and demand that an accurate recall notice be widely distributed to
consumers.
Who does the Nuna RAVA car seat lawsuit look to cover?
The Nuna RAVA car seat lawsuit seeks to cover anyone who purchased
any of the products listed on this page in California for personal
use and not resale.
How do I join the lawsuit?
If you bought one of the RAVA car seats listed above, there's
nothing you need to do right now to join or sign up for the class
action lawsuit. It's usually only in the event of a class action
lawsuit settlement that the people covered by the case, known as
class members, need to act. More often than not, this involves
filling out and filing a claim form online or by mail for
settlement benefits. [GN]
OHIO NATIONAL: Loses Summary Judgment Bid v. Veritas
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VERITAS INDEPENDENT
PARTNERS, LLC, et al., v. THE OHIO NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00769-JPH (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge
Jeffery P. Hopkins entered an order denying Ohio National's motion
for summary judgment.
Ohio National shall be permitted to file a supplemental response to
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification within 21 days.
If that occurs, Plaintiffs may reply to Ohio National's
supplemental response within fourteen (14) days. Based on the
above, the Court need not address all the evidence offered by
Plaintiffs.
The addressed evidence is sufficient to find that Plaintiffs have
shown the existence of a genuine dispute of material fact.
Ohio National is an insurance company that issues various
insurance-related products including, among others, individual
variable annuities3 such as "ONcore Variable Annuities."
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=J71G3U at no extra
charge.[CC]
ON SEMICONDUCTOR: Continues to Defend Hubacek Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
On Semiconductor Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2025, that the
Company continues to defend itself from the Hubacek class suit in
the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
On December 13, 2023, a putative class action captioned Hubacek v.
On Semiconductor Corp., et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-01429 (D. Del.)
("Hubacek"), was filed by an alleged stockholder of the Company in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against the
Company and certain of its officers.
This action was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Arizona in March of 2024. The initial complaint
asserted claims for alleged violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The initial complaint
alleged that the defendants made misleading statements regarding
the Company's SiC business.
An amended complaint was filed on May 31, 2024. The amended
complaint again asserts claims for alleged violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The
plaintiff seeks a ruling that this case may proceed as a class
action, and seeks damages, attorneys' fees and costs.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on July
30, 2024. Upon reviewing the Company's motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, plaintiff deemed it necessary to further amend
their complaint.
On September 6, 2024, plaintiff filed their second amended
complaint. The Company filed its motion to dismiss this second
amended complaint on October 10, 2024.
Full briefing for this motion to dismiss the second amended
complaint was completed on December 20, 2024.
The Company expects the court to make a ruling on this motion to
dismiss in the first half of 2025. The Company believes that it has
strong legal defenses to the claims asserted, and will vigorously
defend them.
ON Semiconductor Corporation provide intelligent power and sensing
solutions with a primary focus towards automotive and industrial
markets.
OSAIC HOLDINGS: Gehring Sues Over Unfair Cash Sweeps Programs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Gehring, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Osaic Holdings, Inc., Osaic, Inc., Osaic
Services, Inc., and Osaic Wealth, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
2:25-cv-00367-KML (D. Ariz., February 4, 2025) is a class action
that arises out of the Defendants' dramatic under-payment of
interest to their own customers, including Plaintiff, in their cash
sweeps programs.
The Cash Sweep Programs operate in this scheme: the Defendants take
money out of their client accounts and give it to a list of
selected banks to loan out, referred here as the Program Banks. The
Defendants and the Program Banks then reap the interest that the
banks earn by loaning their clients' money to third parties. Only a
fraction of that interest gets paid out to the Defendants' actual
clients. Instead, the Defendants and the Program Banks keep the
"spread" or the difference between the market rates of interest the
Program Banks earn on their loans and investments and the rates
paid out to the clients. This rate of interest Defendants keep for
themselves can be as high as five to 21 times the rate paid to
customers, says the suit.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have underpaid their
customers in violation of their fiduciary duties in order to enrich
themselves at their customers' expense. In engineering the Cash
Sweep Programs, the Defendants continue to breach their fiduciary
obligations by putting their own best interests ahead of their
clients.
Osaic Holdings, Inc. operates as a holding company through which
its subsidiaries provide securities and investment advisory
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas A. Gilson, Esq.
Travis P. Roberts, Esq.
BEUS O'CONNOR MCGRODER PLLC
701 N. 44th Street
Phoenix, AZ 85008
Telephone: (480) 429-3000
E-mail: tgilson@BOMlawgroup.com
- and -
Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 214-7900
E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Alexander E. Barnett, Esq.
Jarett N. Sena, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 933-1000
E-mail: abarnett@dicellolevitt.com
jsena@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Brian O. O'Mara, Esq.
Steven M. Jodlowski, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
4747 Executive Drive, Suite 240
San Diego, CA 92121
Telephone: (619) 923-3939
E-mail: briano@dicellolevitt.com
stevej@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Kim D. Stephens, Esq.
Jason T. Dennett, Esq.
TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC
1200 5th Avenue, Suite 1700
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 682-5600
E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com
jdennett@tousley.com
- and -
Leo Kandinov, Esq.
MORRIS KANDINOV LLP
550 West B Street, 4th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 780-3993
E-mail: leo@moka.law
- and -
Aaron Morris, Esq.
Andrew Robertson, Esq.
MORRIS KANDINOV LLP
305 Broadway, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (332) 240-4024
E-mail: aaron@moka.law
andrew@moka.law
- and -
Jonathan R. Chally, Esq.
Stephen D. Councill, Esq.
Joshua P. Gunnemann, Esq.
COUNCILL, GUNNEMANN & CHALLY, LLC
75 14th Street, NE, Suite 2475
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 407-5250
E-mail: jchally@cgclaw.com
scouncill@cgc-law.com
jgunnemann@cgc-law.com
PARSEC INC: Court Tosses Bid for Prelim OK of Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tyrone Johnson et al., v.
Parsec, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-06930-AH-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Anne Hwang entered an order denying motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement and approval of
PAGA settlement:
-- The Court denies Plaintiffs' Motion without prejudice.
-- Any renewed motion for preliminary approval or motion for
class certification is due within sixty (60) days from the
issuance of the Order.
For settlement purposes, the settlement “Class” is defined as:
"All current and former non-exempt or hourly-paid employees
employed by Defendant in the State of California who worked
for Defendant at any time during the Class Period."
The Class Period is the "period from Aug. 8, 2018, through
Sept. 27, 2023."
Pursuant to the Proposed Settlement Agreement, Defendant agrees to
pay $4,476,098.00 as the Gross Settlement Amount.
The parties attain a Net Settlement Amount of $2,304,463.70, by
subtracting from the Gross Settlement Amount the following:
(1) attorneys' fees, not to exceed 35% of the Gross Settlement
Amount ($1,566,634,30);
(2) reimbursement of litigation costs and expenses to Proposed
Class Counsel, not to exceed $50,000;
(3) payments to Proposed Class Representatives of $15,000 to
Tyrone Johnson, $12,500 to Terrence Kennedy, and $7,500 to
James Walker;
(4) settlement administration costs, not to exceed $20,000;
and
(5) penalties under PAGA, totaling $500,000, of which 75% will
be distributed to the Labor and Workforce Development
Agency ("LWDA") and 25% will be distributed to the
Aggrieved Employees.
Parsec is an intermodal transportation company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FHv2qg at no extra
charge.[CC]
PAUL HESSE: White Seeks to Certify Class of Arrestees
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MISTY WHITE, et al., on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. HON.
PAUL HESSE, in his official capacity as Chief Judge of the 26th
Judicial District, and HON. KHRISTIAN STRUBHAR, in her official
capacity as Special Judge in the Canadian County District Court,
Case No. 5:19-cv-01145-JD (W.D. Okla.), the Plaintiffs ask the
Court to enter an order certifying a class of:
"Arrestees who are detained under a bail order issued at first
court appearance in Canadian County District Court," or,
alternatively, a modified definition bringing this action
within the scope of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
The Plaintiffs further request that the Court appoint Misty White,
Janara Musgrave, and Landon Proudfit as class representatives, and
appoint the undersigned as class counsel.
The case challenges the unlawful administration of initial bail
hearings in Canadian County District Court, established under an
administrative order issued by Chief Judge Hesse.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 6, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XdX7xB at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Trisha Trigilio, Esq.
Brandon J. Buskey, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
FOUNDATION, CRIMINAL LAW REFORM
PROJECT
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone:(212) 549-2500
E-mail: trishat@aclu.org
bbuskey@aclu.org
- and -
Aaron Lewis, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
1999 Avenue of the Stars
Los Angeles, CA 90067-4643
Telephone: (424) 332-4800
E-mail: alewis@cov.com
- and –
Weston Watts, Esq.
WATTS & WATTS
1000 W. Wilshire Blvd., Suite 360
Oklahoma City, OK 73116
E-mail: watts.weston@gmail.com
- and –
Megan Lambert, Esq.
Adam Hines, Esq.
Devraat Awasthi, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION OF
OKLAHOMA FOUNDATION
Oklahoma City, OK 73113
Telephone: (405) 525-3831
E-mail: mlambert@acluok.org
ahines@acluok.org
dawasthi@acluok.org
- and –
Blake Johnson, Esq.
Tyler Box, Esq.
Justin Williams, Esq.
Clayburn Curtis, Esq.
OVERMAN LEGAL GROUP, PLLC
809 NW 36th St.
Oklahoma City, OK 73118
Telephone: (405) 605-6718
E-mail: blakejohnson@overmanlegal.com
tylerbox@overmanlegal.com
justinwilliams@overmanlegal.com
claycurtis@overmanlegal.com
PEARL INTERACTIVE: Bast Sues Over Failure to Compensate Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jenny Bast, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,
PEARL INTERACTIVE NETWORK, INC., an Ohio corporation, Case No.
2:25-cv-00104-SDM-CMV (S.D. Ohio, Feb. 6, 2025), is brought arising
from Defendant's willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA'), the Kentucky Wages and Hours Act and Kentucky Revised
Statutes and common law as a result of the Defendant's corporate
policy and practice of failing to compensate its Agents for all
pre- and mid-shift off-the-clock work.
In particular, Defendant required its Agents to begin work prior to
their scheduled shifts and perform a number of off-the-clock tasks
that were integral and indispensable to their jobs, including
booting computers, logging into numerous software programs, and
logging into phones. The Agents only "clocked in" and received
compensation after this preliminary' work was completed, though
they were required to perform this work in order to be "phone
ready" when their scheduled shifts began.
The Agents routinely worked 40 hours or more per week before
accounting for their off-the-clock work. When the off-the-clock
work is included, the Agents, even those Agents who were scheduled
and paid for only 40 hours per week, actually worked over 40 hours
per week without the required overtime premium for hours worked
over 40 per week, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked at the Defendant's brick-and-mortar facility
located in Winchester, Kentucky, as an hourly, non-exempt Agent
from November 2022 through November 2023.
The Defendant's website, Defendant provides "multi-channel contact
center solutions specializing in consultative, compassionate, and
often complex interactions supporting beneficiaries, employees, and
people requiring healthcare, government, and commercial
services."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
Anna R Caplan, Esq.
BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX LLP
4200 Regent Street, Suite 210
Columbus, OH 43219
Phone: 614-221-4221
Email: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
acaplan@barkanmeizlish.com
- and -
Matthew L. Tumer, Esq.
Paulina R. Kennedy, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Phone: 248-355-0300
Email: mturner@sommerspc.com
pkennedy@sommerspc.com
PEEK TRAVEL INC: Montgomery Files Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Peek Travel, Inc. The
case is styled as Kayla Montgomery, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Peek Travel, Inc., Case No.
1:25-cv-01015-AS (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 4, 2025).
The Nature of Suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Peek -- https://www.peek.com/ -- is a one-stop shop to discover and
book amazing activities, tours, and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip Lawrence Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (646) 837-7150
Email: pfraietta@bursor.com
PENTAGON FEDERAL: Bid to Dismiss Beyard Class Suit Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Denise Beyard, et al., v.
Pentagon Federal Credit Union, et al., Case No.
1:21-cv-01063-KJM-SAB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order
denying the motion to dismiss.
All other pretrial scheduling and discovery matters, including the
pending motion, remain under referral to the assigned magistrate
judge.
Pentagon Federal Credit Union, the defendant in this proposed class
action, moves to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
and improper venue. The court denies the motion in both respects.
As explained in this order, there is a live case or controversy, a
substantial part of the disputed transactions occurred within this
District, and a single action in this district will serve the
interests of justice and avoid unnecessary delays and confusion.
Panghnia Vue filed this case in 2021. She alleged the credit union,
on two separate occasions, had wrongly charged her a duplicative
$30 fee for withdrawals exceeding her account balance. She also
alleged the credit union had charged similarly duplicative fees to
several other members, and she proposed litigating on behalf of a
class of those members.
Pentagon Federal is a United States federal credit union
headquartered in McLean, Virginia.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 6, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4hVLF5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR: Tenner Labor Suit Removed to E.D. Ark.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled MARQUITA TENNER and ADAM SWOPES, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PHILLIPS
COUNTY, ARKANSAS, Defendant, Case No. 54CV-24-286, was removed from
the Circuit Court of Phillips County, Arkansas, to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Delta
Division, on February 3, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00023-BSM to the
proceeding.
The Plaintiffs bring claims and seek relief due to Defendant's
unlawful labor practices in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.
Phillips County is a county located in the eastern part of the U.S.
state of Arkansas.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Mary E. Buckley, Esq.
Ross E. Simpson, Esq.
ROSE LAW FIRM, a Professional Association
120 East Fourth Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 375-9131
Facsimile: (501) 375-1309
E-mail: mbuckley@roselawfirm.com
rsimpson@roselawfirm.com
PHILLIPS COUNTY, AR: Tenner Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Marquita Tenner, And Adam
Swopes individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. Phillips County, Arkansas, Case No. 2:25-cv-00023-BSM (Ark.
Cir.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
a. certifying class action under Rule 23 of the Arkansas Rules
of Civil Procedure on behalf of all similarly situated
employees of Phillips County, Arkansas, who were subjected
to Defendant's uniform policies and practices of wage
violations under the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act (AMWA);
b. appointing the Plaintiffs as class representatives;
c. enjoining the Defendant from communicating with putative
class members regarding the claims, defenses, or settlement
of this matter during the pendency of this litigation,
absent prior approval of this Court.
Certification is appropriate because the requirements of Rule 23(a)
and Rule 23(b) are satisfied, the Plaintiffs contend.
The Defendant systematically failed to compensate the Plaintiffs
and other non-exempt employees for overtime hours worked,
miscalculated their overtime pay, improperly altered timesheets,
and failed to pay accrued compensatory time, vacation, and holiday
pay in violation of the AMWA.
Phillips County is a county located in the eastern part of the U.S.
state of Arkansas, in what is known as the Arkansas Delta along the
Mississippi River.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 3, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mv4vZv at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Luther Oneal Sutter, Esq.
SUTTER & GILLHAM, PLLC
1501 N. Pierce Ste 105
Little Rock, Ar 72207
Telephone: (501) 315-1910
Facsimile: (501) 315-1916
E-mail: Luther.sutterlaw@gmail.com
PREVEA CLINIC: Class Settlement in Meyer Suit Gets Initial Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALISON J. MEYER (f/k/a
ALISON J. NOHARA) and PATTI J. SZYDEL, individually, and as
representatives of a Class of Participants and Beneficiaries, on
Behalf of the Prevea Clinic, Inc. 401(k) and Retirement Plan, Case
v. PREVEA CLINIC, INC., et al. Case No. 2:20-cv-01079-WCG (E.D.
Wis.), the Hon. Judge William Griesbach entered an order granting
preliminary approval of class action settlement as follows:
1. The Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary approval of
class action settlement is granted.
2. The court lifts the stay and directs the clerk to reopen the
case.
3. Preliminary Certification of the Settlement Class. In
accordance with the Settlement Agreement, and pursuant to
Rules 23(a) and (b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, this Court conditionally certifies for the
settlement purposes only the following class ("Settlement
Class"):
"All participants and beneficiaries of the Plan, at any time
during the Class Period, including any beneficiary of a
deceased person who was a participant in the Plan at any
time during the Class Period, and any Alternate Payees, in
the case of a person subject to a QDRO who was a participant
in the Plan at any time during the Class Period."
The Defendants are excluded from the Class.
"Class Period" means at any time on or after July 20, 2014,
through the date of judgment.
The class action involves claims for alleged violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), with
respect to the Prevea Clinic, Inc. 401(k) and Retirement Plan.
Prevea provides healthcare services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 3, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vr7L4N at no extra
charge.[CC]
R.T. FARM: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due March 28
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gonzalez Mondragon, et
al., v. R.T. Farm Labor, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01259 (E.D.
Cal., Filed Oct. 3, 2022), the Hon. Judge Jennifer L. Thurston
entered an order continuing the class certification deadlines as
follows:
Class Certification Discovery Cutoff: March 28, 2025
Class Certification Motion Filing March 28, 2025
Deadline:
Opposition to Class Certification May 27, 2025
Motion:
Class Certification Reply Deadline: July 28, 2025
On Feb. 4, 2025, the Court held a mid-discovery status conference,
at which the Plaintiffs' counsel noted that it did not have the
discovery needed for class certification given defaulted Defendant
R T Farm Labor, Inc.'s failure to respond to Plaintiffs' subpoena,
though Defendant T&C Vineyards had provided documents to
Plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs' counsel further requested vacating or continuing
the upcoming class certification discovery and motion deadlines
given the pending contempt order as to defaulted Defendant R T Farm
Labor, Inc.
Counsel for the Defendant T&C Vineyards stated that Defendant T&C
Vineyards had produced all relevant documents they had, that its
discovery responses were sufficient to calculate potential damages
as to Defendant T&C Vineyards regarding the number of employees and
number of workdays, and that Defendant T&C Vineyards was ready to
discuss settlement in this matter.
The Court noted that Plaintiffs could not continue prolonging class
certification as to Defendant T&C Vineyards if it had complied with
discovery requests. Plaintiffs' counsel and counsel for Defendant
T&C Vineyards agreed to discuss settlement on February 12, and
Plaintiffs' counsel indicated his intent to send a settlement
demand as to Defendant T&C Vineyards.
The suit alleges violation of the Agricultural Acts.[CC]
RAPID PASADENA: Status Conference Continued to March 20
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alexis Gomez v. Rapid
Pasadena Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-01053-GW-AJR (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge George Wu entered an order that the Feb. 6,
2025, status conference is continued to March 20, 2025 at 8:30
a.m.
The parties will file another joint status report by March 18. If
the Plaintiff files his expected motions for provisional class
certification and for preliminary approval of class settlement by
March 18, the March 20 status conference will be taken
off-calendar, the Court says.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 4, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=v0pVom at no extra
charge.[CC]
RETREAT BEHAVIORAL: Williams Labor Suit Seeks to Certify Class
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIA WILLIAMS, ET AL., v.
RETREAT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, LLC, ET AL., Case No. 9:24-cv-80787-DMM
(S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order:
(1) certifying this case as a class action for the group of
former employees pursuant to the WARN Act and state wage
laws defined above;
(2) appointing Mia Williams, Brittany Calvert, Dedtra Davis,
and Alisa Leggett as class representatives;
(3) appointing Ryan Barack, Michelle Nadeau, and Michael
Pancier as class counsel; and
(4) approving the proposed class notice.
Specifically, the Plaintiffs seek to certify a class defined as:
"All former employees of Retreat Behavioral Health, or its
related entities, who worked at or reported to Defendant's
facilities in Florida, Pennsylvania, and Connecticut and were
not given a minimum of 60 days' written notice of termination
and whose employment was terminated without cause on June 24,
2024, within 30 days of that date or thereafter, as part of,
or as the reasonably expected consequence of the mass layoffs
or plant closings (as defined by the Workers Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act of 1988)."
The putative Class Members hold identical claims for identical
statutory WARN Act remedies consisting of sixty days’ pay and the
consequent loss of benefits during that period and for unpaid wages
in their final weeks of work. A Rule 23 class action is widely
regarded as the optimal legal process for resolving WARN Act
claims.
Retreat was a provider of behavioral and mental health services in
Florida, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 6, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=g5nEon at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ryan D. Barack, Esq.
Michelle Erin Nadeau, Esq.
KWALL BARACK NADEAU PLLC
304 S. Belcher Rd., Suite C
Clearwater, FL 33765
Telephone: (727) 441-4947
Facsimile: (727) 447-3158
E-mail: rbarack@employeerights.com
mnadeau@employeerights.com
- and -
Michael A. Pancier, Esq.
MICHAEL A. PANCIER, P.A.
9000 Sheridan Street, Suite 93
Pembroke Pines, FL 33024
Telephone: (954) 862-2217
E-mail: mpancier@pancierlaw.com
REYNOLDS CONSUMER: Mayfield Suit Seeks to Certify Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZULAIKA MAYFIELD and
BRIGETTE HOOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. REYNOLDS CONSUMER PRODUCTS LLC, Case No.
4:23-cv-04587-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on June 12, 2025,
will move for class certification before the Honorable Jon S.
Tigar.
The Plaintiffs request that the Court:
(i) certify the Class defined as:
"All persons in California who purchased the Product from
the beginning of the applicable liability period to the
present."
Excluded from the class are (a) Defendant, Defendant's
board members, executivelevel officers, and attorneys, and
immediate family members of any of the foregoing persons;
(b) governmental entities; (c) the Court, the Court's
immediate family, and Court staff; and (d) any person that
timely and properly excludes himself or herself from the
class";
(ii) appoint Plaintiffs Zulaika Mayfield and Brigette Hood as
the class representatives; and
(iii) appoint Reese LLP and Bailey & Glasser LLP as class
counsel.
The Plaintiffs seek class certification pursuant to Rule 23(a),
(b)(2), and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The
Plaintiffs make the motion on the ground that the numerosity,
commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation
requirements of Rule 23(a) are met.
The Plaintiffs also make this motion on the ground that questions
of law and fact common to the Class predominate over any questions
affecting individual members, and a class action is the superior
method for adjudicating the dispute.
Furthermore, the Defendant Reynolds Consumer Products LLC has acted
or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class,
thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding
declaratory relief with respect to the Class as a whole.
The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant violates California's
Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), False Advertising Law ("FAL"), and
Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA").
Reynolds provides household essentials.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 4, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=b154Fl at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
George V. Granade, Esq.
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
REESE LLP
8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 515
Los Angeles, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 393-0070
E-mail: ggranade@reesellp.com
mreese@reesellp.com
- and -
Elizabeth A. Ryan, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
176 Federal Street, 5th Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 439-6730
E-mail: eryan@baileyglasser.com
REYNOLDS CONSUMER: Suit Seeks to File Confidential Docs Under Seal
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZULAIKA MAYFIELD and
BRIGETTE HOOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. REYNOLDS CONSUMER PRODUCTS LLC, Case No.
4:23-cv-04587-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting their administrative motion to consider
whether documents designated by the Defendant as confidential
pursuant to the governing Stipulated Protective Order should be
sealed.
Pursuant to the confidentiality designations by the Defendant, the
Plaintiffs file the following documents under seal:
1. Plaintiffs' unredacted Motion for Class Certification and
supporting Memorandum of Points and Authorities. Plaintiffs'
brief in support of class certification discusses material
that Reynolds produced in discovery and has designated as
confidential. The unredacted brief highlights the proposed
redactions.
2. The unredacted Declaration of George V. Granade in Support of
Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification. The Granade
Declaration discusses material that Reynolds produced in
discovery and has designated as confidential. The unredacted
Granade Declaration highlights the proposed redactions.
3. The unredacted Exhibit 2 to the Granade Declaration. Exhibit
2 to the Granade Declaration is a document that Reynolds
produced in discovery bearing Bates numbers Reynolds_006265
through Reynolds_006266 and designated as confidential in its
entirety.
The unredacted Exhibit 3 to the Granade Declaration. Exhibit 3 to
the Granade Declaration includes Reynolds Wrap aluminum foil labels
that Reynolds produced in discovery and designated as confidential,
as well as Reynolds Wrap aluminum foil labels obtained online. The
Granade Declaration discusses the labels included in Exhibit 3 in
detail at paragraphs 9.a through 9.xxx and identifies which labels
Reynolds produced and designated as confidential. Plaintiffs have
reviewed and complied with the Court’s Standing Order Governing
Administrative Motions to File Materials under Seal.
The Plaintiffs have reviewed and complied with Civil Local Rule
79-5, including the requirement to file separate motions if a party
seeks to file under seal a document containing
"portions that more than one party bears the burden of showing is
sealable."
The Plaintiffs are contemporaneously submitting unredacted versions
of all of the documents listed above, which have been designated as
confidential as set forth in the accompanying
Declaration of George V. Granade in support of this administrative
motion. Plaintiffs are also submitting a Proposed Order.
Reynolds provides household essentials.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 4, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tPpHx0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
George V. Granade, Esq.
Michael R. Reese, Esq.
REESE LLP
8484 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 515
Los Angeles, CA 90211
Telephone: (310) 393-0070
E-mail: ggranade@reesellp.com
mreese@reesellp.com
- and -
Elizabeth A. Ryan, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
176 Federal Street, 5th Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Telephone: (617) 439-6730
E-mail: eryan@baileyglasser.com
ROYALTON ON THE GREENS: Misappropriated Tips, Orgera Says
---------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM ORGERA, on behalf of himself and similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. ROYALTON ON THE GREENS, LLC, M ROYALTON PARTNERS, LLC,
ROYALTON MANAGEMENT INC., MICHAEL EINHORN, MIKHAIL TAKHALOV and
GEORGE DOE, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00590-ERK-ST (E.D.N.Y.,
February 3, 2025) is an action against the Defendants to recover
unlawfully expropriated tips pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a member of the
Royalton Properties' waitstaff from 2018 to around 2023. He alleges
that the Defendants, individually and/or jointly, willfully
expropriated and/or retained money intended as gratuity for him and
the Class Members.
Royalton on the Greens, LLC is a country club wedding venue in
Melville, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zachary Naidich, Esq.
NAIDICH LAW
137 5th Ave., 9th Fl.
New York, NY 10010
Telephone: (646) 661-5694
E-mail: ZNaidich@naidichlaw.com
RYDER SYSTEM: $2.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on April 1
------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
IN RE RYDER SYSTEM, INC. STOCKHOLDER DERIVATIVE ACTION
Lead Case No. 2020-013618-CA-01 (MAN)
This Document Relates To:
ALL Actions.
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY
AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF DERIVATIVE ACTIONS
TO: ALL RECORD HOLDERS AND BENEFICIAL OWNERS OF THE COMMON STOCK OF
RYDER SYSTEM, INC. ("RYDER" OR THE "COMPANY") AS OF DECEMBER 20,
2024 (THE "RECORD DATE")
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the above-captioned consolidated
stockholder derivative action, as well as related derivative
actions captioned Aleman v. Sanchez, et al., Case No.
1:21-cv-20539-BB (S.D. Fla.) and Campbell v. Sanchez, et al., Case
No. 1:21-cv-20203-BB (S.D. Fla.), and a demand made by Linda M.
Youell dated October 8, 2020, seeking to inspect the Company's
books and records pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 607.1602 (together, the
"Settling Matters"), are being settled on the terms set forth in a
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, dated December 20, 2024
(the "Stipulation" or "Settlement").1 Under the terms of the
Stipulation, as part of the proposed Settlement, Ryder will adopt
certain Corporate Governance Reforms. These Corporate Governance
Reforms are intended to address the claims asserted in the Settling
Matters.
The Company and its Board of Directors, including its non-defendant
independent members, have determined that the Settlement is fair,
reasonable, and in the best interests of Ryder and its
stockholders, and that the Settlement confers substantial benefits
upon Ryder and its stockholders. The Company acknowledges and
agrees that the Settling Matters were substantial factors in the
Company's adoption of the Corporate Governance Reforms and that its
agreement to maintain such measures for a period of at least four
(4) years was a direct result of the Settling Matters. The Company
also acknowledges and agrees that the Corporate Governance Reforms
confer substantial benefits on the Company and its stockholders.
In light of the substantial benefits produced for Ryder by the
Settling Stockholders and Settling Stockholders' Counsel, Ryder has
agreed, subject to approval of the Court, that Settling
Stockholders' Counsel are entitled to $2,500,000 million in
attorneys' fees and expenses. Settling Stockholders may seek a
service award not to exceed $3,000 for each such Settling
Stockholder as part of the Fee and Expense Amount. If approved by
the Court, each such service award shall be paid out of the Fee and
Expense Amount.
IF YOU WERE A RECORD OR BENEFICIAL OWNER OF RYDER COMMON STOCK AS
OF DECEMBER 20, 2024, PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY AS YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY PROCEEDINGS IN THE
ABOVE-REFERENCED LITIGATION.
On April 1, 2025, at 8:00 a.m., a hearing (the "Settlement
Hearing") will be held at the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial
Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, Dade County
Courthouse, 73 West Flagler Street, Room 817, Miami, Florida 33130,
before the Honorable Thomas J. Rebull to determine: (i) whether the
terms of the proposed Settlement, including the separately
negotiated attorneys' fees and expenses for Settling Stockholders'
Counsel and the service awards for Settling Stockholders, should be
approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate; and (2) whether the
Consolidated Derivative Action should be dismissed on the merits
and with prejudice on the terms set forth in the Stipulation.
Any Ryder stockholder that objects to the Settlement shall have a
right to appear and to be heard at the Settlement Hearing, provided
that he, she, or it was a stockholder of record or beneficial owner
as of December 20, 2024. Any Ryder stockholder who satisfies this
requirement may enter an appearance through counsel of such
stockholder's own choosing and at such stockholder's own expense,
or may appear on their own. However, no stockholder of Ryder shall
be heard at the Settlement Hearing unless, no later than March 18,
2025, such stockholder has filed with the Court and counsel for the
parties, a written notice of objection containing the following
information:
1. Your name, legal address, and telephone number;
2. The case name and number (In re Ryder System, Inc. Stockholder
Derivative Litigation, Case No. 2020-013618-CA-01 (MAN));
3. Proof of being a Ryder stockholder as of the Record Date,
December 20, 2024;
4. The date(s) you acquired your Ryder shares;
5. A statement of each objection being made;
6. Notice of whether you intend to appear at the Settlement
Hearing. You are not required to appear; and
7. Copies of any papers you intend to submit, along with the names
of any witness(es) you intend to call to testify at the Settlement
Hearing and the subject(s) of their testimony.
Only stockholders who have filed and delivered valid and timely
written notices of objection will be entitled to be heard at the
Settlement Hearing unless the Court orders otherwise.
If you wish to object to the proposed Settlement, you must file the
written objection described above with the Court and counsel for
the parties on or before March 18, 2025.
Any Ryder stockholder who does not make his, her, or its objection
in the manner provided herein shall be deemed to have waived such
objection and shall be forever foreclosed from making any objection
to the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of the Settlement as
incorporated in the Stipulation, and/or to the separately
negotiated attorneys' fees and expenses to Settling Stockholders'
Counsel, and/or to the service awards for the Settling
Stockholders, unless otherwise ordered by the Court, but shall
otherwise be bound by the Judgment to be entered and the releases
to be given.
If you have any questions about matters in this Notice, you may
contact:
Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs in the Consolidated Derivative
Action:
Shane P. Sanders, Esq.
Robbins LLP
5060 Shoreham Place, Ste. 300
San Diego, CA 92122
PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT REGARDING THIS NOTICE.
DATED: January 21, 2025
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 11TH JUDICIAL
CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE
COUNTY, FLORIDA
SECURITAS SECURITY: Carrasquillo Seeks Conditional Class Status
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RASHEED CARRASQUILLO, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. SECURITAS
SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-01008-WO-LPA
(M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order as
follows:
(1) conditional certification of this action and for court-
authorized notice pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA");
(2) approval of the proposed FLSA notice of this action and the
consent form;
(3) a production of names, last known mailing addresses, last-
known cell phone numbers, email addresses, work locations,
and dates of employment of all putative plaintiffs within
15 days of the Order; and
(4) the ability to distribute the Notice and Opt-in Form via
first class mail, email, text message, and a posting at
Defendant's North Carolina facilities to all putative
plaintiffs of the conditionally certified collective, with
a reminder mailing to be sent 45- days after the initial
mailing to all non-responding putative plaintiffs.
Securitas is a provider of custom security & guarding solutions.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vT2OVe at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gilda A. Hernandez, Esq.
Hannah B. Simmons, Esq.
Matthew Marlowe, Esq.
Briahna B. Koegel, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF GILDA A.
HERNANDEZ, PLLC
1020 Southhill Drive, Suite 130
Cary, NC 27513
Telephone: (919) 741-8693
Facsimile: (919) 869-1853
E-mail: ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com
hsimmons@gildahernandezlaw.com
mmarlowe@gildahernandezlaw.com
bkoegel@gildahernandezlaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Stephen D. Dellinger, Esq.
Andrea M. Kirshenbaum, Esq.
Jennifer Nix Capozzola, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
100 N. Tryon Street, Suite 4150
Charlotte, NC 28202
Telephone: (704) 972-7000
Facsimile: (704) 333-4005
E-mail: sdellinger@littler.com
akirshenbaum@littler.com
jcapozzola@littler.com
SELECTQUOTE INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------------
SelectQuote 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 10, 2025, that the Company
continues to defend itself from a consolidated securities class
suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York.
On August 16, 2021, a putative securities class action lawsuit
captioned Hartel v. SelectQuote, Inc., et al., Case No.
1:21-cv-06903 ("the Hartel Action") was filed against the Company
and two of its executive officers in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.
The complaint asserts securities fraud claims on behalf of a
putative class of plaintiffs who purchased or otherwise acquired
shares of the Company's common stock between February 8, 2021 and
May 11, 2021 (the "Hartel Relevant Period").
Specifically, the complaint alleges the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act by
making materially false and misleading statements and failing to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects, allegedly causing the Company's common
stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the Hartel
Relevant Period.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and reimbursement of
attorneys' fees and certain other costs.
On October 7, 2021, a putative securities class action lawsuit
captioned West Palm Beach Police Pension Fund v. SelectQuote, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-08279 ("the WPBPPF Action"), was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company, two of its executive officers, and six current
or former members of the Company's Board of Directors, along with
the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering of common
stock (the "Offering").
The complaint asserts claims for securities law violations on
behalf of a putative class of plaintiffs who purchased shares of
the Company's common stock (i) in or traceable to the Offering or
(ii) between May 20, 2020 and August 25, 2021 (the "WPB Relevant
Period").
Specifically, the complaint alleges the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act by
making materially false and misleading statements and failing to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's financial
well-being and prospects, allegedly causing the Company's common
stock to trade at artificially inflated prices during the WPB
Relevant Period.
The complaint also alleges the defendants violated Sections 11,
12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act by making misstatements and
omissions of material facts in connection with the Offering,
allegedly causing a decline in the value of the Company's common
stock.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, rescission, and
reimbursement of attorneys' fees and certain other costs.
On October 15, 2021, a motion to consolidate the Hartel Action and
the WPBPPF Action was filed.
On September 2, 2022, the court entered an order consolidating the
Hartel and WPBPPF Actions under the caption In re SelectQuote, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:21-cv-06903 (the "Securities
Class Action") and appointing the West Palm Beach Police Pension
Fund and City of Fort Lauderdale Police & Fire Retirement System as
lead plaintiffs.
On November 19, 2022, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
asserting similar allegations to those alleged in the Hartel and
WPBPPF Actions in addition to new allegations regarding certain
defendants' purported violation of Section 20A of the Exchange Act.
The amended complaint also added Brookside Equity Partners LLC, one
of the Company's principal stockholders, as a defendant.
On January 27, 2023, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint on behalf of itself and certain of its current
and former officers and directors.
Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss on April 5,
2023, and the Company filed its reply to plaintiffs' opposition on
May 10, 2023.
On March 28, 2024, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss, with leave to amend.
Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint on May 31, 2024.
On July 31, 2024, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint. Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the
Company's motion to dismiss on October 2, 2024, and the Company
filed its reply to Plaintiffs' opposition on November 1, 2024.
The Company currently believes that these matters will not have a
material adverse effect on its operations, financial condition or
liquidity; however, depending on how the matters progress, they
could be costly to defend and could divert the attention of
management and other resources from operations.
The Company has not concluded that a loss related to these matters
is probable and, therefore, has not accrued a liability related to
these matters.
SelectQuote, Inc. is a technology-enabled, direct-to-consumer
distribution and engagement platform for insurance products and
healthcare services.
SHEVAUN HARRIS: Hall Bid for Class Certification Denied as Moot
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hall, et al., v. Shevaun
Harris, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-01069 (M.D. Fla., Filed Nov. 21,
2024), the Hon. Judge Kyle C. Dudek entered an endorsed order
denying as moot the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
because they have filed an amended motion, which supersedes the
original.
The nature of suit states Prisoner Civil Rights.[CC]
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Lanclos Suit Removed to D. Colorado
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Matthew Lanclos, individually and on behalf
of all other similarly situated v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., Case No.
2024-CV-34014 was removed from the District Court for the State of
Colorado, Denver County, to the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado on Feb. 3, 2025, and assigned Case No.
1:25-cv-00353.
In his Complaint, Lanclos alleges that Southwest's compensation
policies violate a variety of Colorado state wage and hour
regulations including the Colorado Constitution art. XVIII, Section
15, the Colorado Wage Act (CWA), the Colorado Minimum Wage Act
(CMWA), and the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Order
("COMPS Order") (collectively, "Colorado Wage-and-Hour Law").[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
William J. Leone, Esq.
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
1225 Seventeenth Street, Suite 3050
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: (303) 801-2700
Facsimile: (303) 801-2777
Email: william.leone@nortonrosefulbright.com
- and -
Kimberly F. Cheeseman, Esq.
Jesika Silva Blanco, Esq.
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
1550 Lamar Street, Suite 2000
Houston, TX 77010-3095
Phone: (713) 651-5151
Facsimile: (713) 651-5246
Email: kimberly.cheeseman@nortonrosefulbright.com
jesika.blanco@nortonrosefulbright.com
- and -
Josh Owings, Esq.
Pete Curran, Esq.
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 3600
Dallas, TX 75201-7932
Phone: (713) 651-5151
Facsimile: (713) 651-5246
Email: josh.owings@nortonrosefulbright.com
pete.curran@nortonrosefulbright.com
SPOT PET INSURANCE: Rabsatt Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Spot Pet Insurance
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Maleek Rabsatt, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Spot Pet
Insurance Services, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-20561-XXXX (S.D. Fla.,
Feb. 6, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Spot -- https://spotpet.com/ -- offers the best pet insurance plans
for dogs and cats, rated # 1 for puppies and kittens.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
STURDY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL: Caine Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Deborah Caine, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. STURDY MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, INC.,
Case No. 2484CV01953 was removed from the Superior Court of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts for the County of Suffolk, to the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
Feb. 3, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-10261.
The Plaintiff's Amended Complaint includes a federal claim against
Sturdy Memorial Hospital, Inc. for violations of the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act ("ECPA"). The Plaintiff's Complaint
challenged Sturdy Memorial's routine on-line practices as illegal
wiretapping under the Massachusetts Wiretap Act. The Plaintiff also
brought common law claims for negligence, breach of implied
contract, breach of fiduciary duty.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John Roddy, Esq.
Elizabeth Ryan, Esq.
BAILEY GLASSER LLP
176 Federal Street, 5th Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Email: jroddy@baileyglasser.com
eryan@baileyglasser.com
- and -
Lawrence J. Lederer, Esq.
Bart D. Cohen, Esq.
BAILEY GLASSER LLP
1622 Locust St.
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Email: llederer@baileyglasser.com
bcohen@baileyglasser.com
The Defendant is represented by:
James H. Rollinson, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
127 Public Street, Suite 2000
Cleveland, OH 44116
Phone: (216) 621-0200
Fax: (216) 626-0740
Email: jrollinson@bakerlaw.com
- and -
Paul G. Karlsgodt, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
1801 California Street, Suite 4400
Denver, CO 80202-2662
Phone: (303) 764-4013
Fax: (303) 861-7805
Email: pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com
- and -
Elizabeth A. Scully, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
Washington Square, Suite 1100
1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036-5304
Phone: (202) 861-1500
Fax: (202) 861-1783
Email: escully@bakerlaw.com
SUPERB CABLE: Foreman Seeks Conditional Cert. of FLSA Collective
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHAD FOREMAN, on his own
behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. SUPERB CABLE
CONNECTIONS, LLC and ROSHAUN CUNNINGHAM, Case No. 9:24-cv-81410-WM
(S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order
granting the Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) collective and send notice to collective
members and memorandum of law in support thereof.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff requests that the Court enter an Order:
(a) conditionally certifying the FLSA Collective defined as:
"All Groundmen and/or Linemen who worked for the Defendants
within the last three years through the date of judgment,
who were/are paid a day rate";
(b) requiring the Defendants to produce in electronic or
computer-readable format the full name, address(es),
telephone number(s), and email address(es) for each class
member;
(c) authorizing distribution of Notice and a reminder postcard,
substantially in the forms attached as Exhs. C and D;
(d) approving Plaintiff's plan for dissemination and return of
Consent to Join forms, substantially in the form attached
as Exh. E; and
(e) any additional relief that this Court deems just and
proper.
The Plaintiff Foreman worked for the Defendants as a day-rate only
Groundman from July 15, 2023, through Aug. 12, 2024.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CYNUel at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
Corey L. Seldin, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000
Plantation, FL 33324
Telephone: (954) 807-7765
Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com
cseldin@forthepeople.com
SUZUKI MOTOR: Jackson Appeals Case Dismissal to 9th Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------
DVAUGHN JACKSON, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
denying their motion for reconsideration in the lawsuit entitled
Dvaughn Jackson, et al., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Suzuki Motor of America, Inc.,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 8:23-cv-02189-FWS-JDE, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit seeks
to address Suzuki's failure to disclose the existence of the
material safety defects and to remedy those defects in Suzuki's
sport motorcycles.
According to the complaint, Suzuki manufactured and sold defective
sport motorcycles known as Hayabusa, GSX-R1000R, GSX-R1000RZ,
GSX-R1000, GSX-R750, GSX-R750Z, GSX-R600, GSX-R600Z, GSX250R ABS
(collectively "Sport Motorcycles"). Specifically, Suzuki failed to
disclose that these sport motorcycles contained defective front
brake master cylinders.
On Aug. 13, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint,
which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Sept. 12, 2024.
On Nov. 21, 2024, Judge Fred W. Slaughter entered an Order granting
the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' third amended
complaint.
On Nov. 26, 2024, judgment was entered in favor of the Defendants.
On Dec. 5, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration
of the Nov. 21 Order, which Judge Slaughter denied on Jan. 22,
2025.
The appellate case is captioned Jackson, et al. v. Suzuki Motor of
America, Inc., et al., Case No. 25-723, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on February 4, 2025.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on February 10,
2025;
-- Appellant's Transcript Order is due on February 18, 2025;
-- Appellant's Transcript is due on March 19, 2025;
-- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on April 28, 2025;
and
-- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due on May 28, 2025.
[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants DVAUGHN JACKSON, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Ryan Clarkson, Esq.
Glenn A. Danas, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, PC
22525 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90265
- and -
Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
Paula R. Brown, Esq.
BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP
501 West Broadway, Suite 1490
San Diego, CA 92101
Defendants-Appellees SUZUKI MOTOR OF AMERICA, INC., et al. are
represented by:
Adil M. Khan, Esq.
Richard R. Tabura, Esq.
Robert James Herrington, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
1840 Century Park, E Suite 1900
Los Angeles, CA 90067
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Can Seal Portions of Class Cert Opposition
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FWK Holdings, LLC, et al.,
v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd., et al., Case No.
1:21-cv-11057 (D. Mass., Filed June 25, 2021), the court entered an
order granting motion for leave to file under seal portions of the
Defendants' memorandum in opposition to end payor Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.
The suit alleges violation of the antitrust litigation.
Takeda is a Japanese multinational pharmaceutical company.[CC]
TELEPERFORMANCE SE: $5.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on May 27
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP regarding the Teleperformance
Securities Settlement issued the following statement:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 23-24580-CIV-ALTONAGA/REID
CITY OF WARREN GENERAL
EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on
Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly
Situated,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TELEPERFORMANCE SE, et al.,
Defendants.
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION
TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED
TELEPERFORMANCE SE ("TELEPERFORMANCE") AMERICAN DEPOSITARY RECEIPTS
("ADRs") BETWEEN FEBRUARY 20, 2020 AND NOVEMBER 9, 2022, INCLUSIVE
("CLASS" OR "CLASS MEMBERS")
THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT A LAWYER
SOLICITATION. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
PENDING IN THIS COURT.
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on May 27,
2025, at 8:30 a.m., before the Honorable Cecilia M. Altonaga at the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
400 North Miami Avenue, Miami, FL 33128, to determine whether: (1)
the proposed settlement (the "Settlement") of the above-captioned
Litigation1 as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement
("Stipulation")2 for $5,500,000 in cash should be approved by the
Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) the Judgment as
provided under the Stipulation should be entered dismissing the
Litigation with prejudice; (3) to award Plaintiffs' Counsel
attorneys' fees and expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as defined
in the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action
("Notice"), which is discussed below) and, if so, in what amounts;
(4) to grant Plaintiffs awards for their representation of the
Class out of the Settlement Fund and, if so, in what amount; and
(5) the Plan of Allocation should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate.
In order to determine whether the date and time of the Settlement
Hearing have changed, it is important that you monitor the Court's
docket and the Settlement website,
www.TeleperformanceSecuritiesSettlement.com, before making any
plans to attend the Settlement Hearing. Any updates regarding the
Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of
the hearing or updates regarding in-person or telephonic
appearances at the hearing, will also be posted to the Settlement
website, www.TeleperformanceSecuritiesSettlement.com. Also, if the
Court requires or allows Class Members to participate in the
Settlement Hearing by telephone, the telephone number for accessing
the telephonic conference will be posted to the Settlement
website.
IF YOU PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED TELEPERFORMANCE ADRs BETWEEN
FEBRUARY 20, 2020 AND NOVEMBER 9, 2022, INCLUSIVE, YOUR RIGHTS ARE
AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION.
To share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must
establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim and Release
form ("Proof of Claim") by mail (postmarked no later than May 11,
2025) or electronically via the website (no later than 11:59 p.m.
ET on May 11, 2025). Your failure to submit your Proof of Claim by
May 11, 2025, will subject your claim to rejection and preclude you
from receiving any of the recovery in connection with the
Settlement of this Litigation. If you purchased or acquired
Teleperformance ADRs between February 20, 2020 and November 9,
2022, inclusive, and do not request exclusion from the Class, you
will be bound by the Settlement and any judgment and release
entered in the Litigation, including, but not limited to, the
Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim.
If you have not received a copy of the Notice, which more
completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder
(including your right to object to the Settlement), and a Proof of
Claim, you may obtain these documents, as well as a copy of the
Stipulation (which, among other things, contains definitions for
the defined terms used in this Summary Notice) and other settlement
documents, online at www.TeleperformanceSecuritiesSettlement.com,
or by writing to:
Teleperformance Securities Settlement
c/o Rust Consulting, Inc. - 8868
P.O. Box 2599
Faribault, MN 55021-9599
Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the
Clerk of the Court.
Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of
Claim, may be made to Lead Counsel:
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
Theodore J. Pintar
655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: 800/449-4900
settlementinfo@rgrdlaw.com
IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A
REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED OR RECEIVED BY MAY
5, 2025, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. ALL CLASS
MEMBERS WILL BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT EVEN IF THEY DO NOT SUBMIT
A TIMELY PROOF OF CLAIM.
IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE
SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, THE REQUEST BY PLAINTIFFS'
COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES, AND/OR ANY
AWARDS TO PLAINTIFFS PURSUANT TO 15 U.S.C. §78u-4(a)(4) IN
CONNECTION WITH THEIR REPRESENTATION OF THE CLASS. ANY OBJECTIONS
MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND SENT TO LEAD COUNSEL AND
DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL BY MAY 5, 2025, IN THE MANNER AND FORM
EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE.
For more information:
Visit: www.TeleperformanceSecuritiesSettlement.com
Call: 1-888-516-0722
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TEVA PHARMACEUTICAL: Antitrust Class Suit Discovery Ongoing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. 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 antitrust and consumer protection laws class suit discovery is
ongoing in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.
In May 2023, certain end-payor plaintiffs filed putative class
action complaints in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts against Teva and a number of its affiliates, alleging
that Teva engaged in anticompetitive conduct to suppress generic
competition to its branded QVAR asthma inhalers in violation of
state and federal antitrust laws and state consumer protection
laws.
On May 7, 2024, the court granted Teva's motion to dismiss in part
and denied its motion in part. The court dismissed plaintiffs'
claim that Teva had engaged in "sham litigation" and certain of
plaintiffs' state antitrust and consumer protection claims, but
permitted the case to proceed on the remainder of plaintiffs'
allegations.
On June 18, 2024, Teva answered in all cases and simultaneously
moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c).
On June 28, 2024, Teva stipulated to the dismissal of the two
direct purchaser plaintiffs’ claims, with prejudice.
On November 6, 2024, the court granted in part Teva's Rule 12(c)
motion, dismissing plaintiffs' reverse payment claim, while denying
the remainder of Teva's motion.
Discovery in this case is ongoing.
Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Ltd. is an Israeli corporation
which owns subsidiaries, including Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.,
Teva Neuroscience, Inc. and Teva Sales & Marketing, Inc., which do
business in the United States. Teva Ltd. has promoted itself as the
largest seller of generic drugs in the United States with billions
of dollars in revenue.[BN]
TOM'S OF MAINE: Faces Class Suit Over Arsenic on Toothpaste
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Adams, writing for About Lawsuits, reports that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against the makers of Tom's Natural
Kids Toothpaste, raising allegations that the manufacturers
deceptively marketed their products as safe, while failing to
disclose unsafe levels of toxic lead and arsenic.
The complaint was filed by Douglas White in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York on February 6, naming
Colgate-Palmolive Co. and Tom's of Maine, Inc. as defendants.
Toxic heavy metals like lead and arsenic have been linked to
serious health risks, including mental illness, dementia,
hypertension and an increased risk of certain cancers. In children,
exposure to these metals is especially dangerous, as they can
interfere with brain development, leading to cognitive impairments,
behavioral issues and long-term neurological disorders.
Concerns over toxic heavy metals in children's products have been a
major concern in recent years, after a U.S. Congressional report
released in 2021 highlighted internal documents and testing results
regarding the baby food heavy metal contamination, finding some
products contained more than 91 times the maximum level of arsenic
allowed in bottled water, 177 times the allowable levels of lead,
69 times the limits on cadmium and five times the levels of
allowable mercury.
Following the announcement, dozens of families are now pursuing
toxic baby food lawsuits for children diagnosed with autism or
ADHD, each raising similar allegations that manufacturers played on
the parents' trust that products would be safe, while concealing
the levels of toxic elements present for years.
In the recently filed Tom's Natural children's toothpaste class
action lawsuit, White states that the consumer safety group Lead
Safe Mama tested Tom's Natural Kids Toothpaste for heavy metals,
and found lead and arsenic levels that are not only hazardous to
adults, but "staggeringly more dangerous for children."
According to Lead Safe Mama testing results, Tom's Natural Kids
Toothpaste has four times the level of arsenic and 48 times the
level of lead that scientists and medical experts believe action
should be taken on a children's product.
In addition, White contends that the product's packaging and
marketing would lead consumers to believe that the toothpaste is
safe for children to use, despite the alleged presence of high
levels of heavy metals in it.
"Defendants' advertising and marketing campaign is false,
deceptive, and misleading because the Product does contain, or
risks containing, lead and arsenic, which are dangerous to one's
health and well-being," White stated in the complaint.
"Nevertheless, Defendants do not list or mention lead nor arsenic
anywhere on the Product's packaging or labeling."
White's lawsuit alleges violations of New York general business
laws, negligence and unjust enrichment by the defendants. He seeks
monetary, statutory, treble and punitive damages on behalf of
himself and others similarly affected. [GN]
UNITED STATES: Court Certifies Settlement Class in Bird
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAULA BIRD, et al., v.
MERRICK GARLAND, Attorney General of the United States, named in
his official Capacity, as head of the Department of Justice, Case
No. 1:19-cv-01581-JMC (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Jia Cobb entered a
final approval order:
1. The Court affirms its preliminary determinations in the
preliminary approval order, that the Settlement Class meets
the requirements for certification under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3), and finally certifies, for
purposes of settlement only, the Settlement Class as defined
in the Settlement Agreement:
The Settlement Class is comprised of:
"all female New Agent Trainees who received suitability
notations and were dismissed from the FBI's BFTC (previously
New Agent training program) after appearing before a Trainee
Review Board ("TRB") or New Agent Review Board ("NARB")
between April 17, 2015, and Aug. 10, 2024, excluding any
individual whose dismissal was based solely on an Honor Code
violation and any individual who previously signed a
settlement agreement with Defendant waiving any and all
claims arising from her time at the BFTC as of the effective
date of her settlement agreement.
2. The Court re-affirms its determinations in the Preliminary
Approval Order and finally certifies that Paula Bird, Clare
Coetzer, Lauren Rose, Danielle Snider, "D.A.," "S.B.,"
"D.C.," "P.E.," "W.M.," "C.S.," "L.S.," "G.T.," and "T.S."
as the Settlement Class Representatives and Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC and David Shaffer Law PLLC as Class
Counsel for the Settlement Class.
3. The Court finds Class Counsel's hourly rates are reasonable.
This includes Mr. Shaffer's rate of $1,057 per hour; his law
clerk and paralegal's rate of $239 per hour; Cohen Milstein
attorneys' rate of between $550 and $1,240 per hour based on
the experience of the attorney; and Cohen Milstein's
paralegal rate of $380 per hour.
4. The Court finds reasonable Class Counsel's expenses
incurred. This includes $65,373.86 in costs and litigation
expenses for both firms.
5. The Court finds reasonable the total fees and expenses
sought by Class Counsel and awards Class Counsel $2,700,000
in attorneys' fees and costs. The Court reviewed the
supporting declaration from Ossai Miazad regarding the rates
and amounts requested in making its findings. The Court
notes that this amount is about 12% of the $22,600,000 that
the Defendant has agreed to settle these claims and that
this sum compensates Class Counsel for nearly six years of
litigation.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zLMPgR at no extra
charge.[CC]
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Mistreats Patients, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------
JANE DOE, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSAL HEALTH SERVICES, INC., UHS OF
D.C., INC., UHS OF DELAWARE, INC., and WISCONSIN AVENUE PSYCHIATRIC
CENTER, INC. d/b/a PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE OF WASHINGTON, Defendants,
Case No. 1:25-cv-00312 (D.D.C., February 3, 2025) is a class action
brought by the Plaintiff, individually, and on behalf of a class of
persons similarly situated, due to Defendants' patient mistreatment
and corporate malfeasance at the Psychiatric Institute of
Washington, the only private psychiatric hospital in Washington,
D.C.
The Psychiatric Institute of Washington is owned, managed, and
operated by Universal Health Services, Inc. Universal Health
Services has employed and continues to employ a brazen corporate
strategy of involuntarily hospitalizing patients without cause or
indication, prolonging patients' involuntary hospitalizations
unnecessarily, and withholding or otherwise failing to provide
therapy and treatment to those who need it.
These illegal actions have been and continue to be driven by a
singular focus on profit, at the expense of patient care, safety,
and treatment. The Plaintiff and putative Class Members are former
patients at Psychiatric Institute of Washington and are the victims
of the Defendants' misconduct and violations of state and federal
law detailed throughout this Complaint. The Plaintiff now seeks
redress for herself and similarly situated former patients of
Psychiatric Institute of Washington through this legal action.
Due to the highly sensitive nature of these claims and allegations
and concern over potential repercussions arising from the
disclosure of her identity in connection with this lawsuit,
Plaintiff Doe has chosen to file this action under a pseudonym.
Universal Health Services, Inc. owns, operates, manages, and
controls behavioral and psychiatric health facilities throughout
the United States, including the Psychiatric Institute of
Washington, in Washington, D.C.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Veronica Nannis, Esq.
Drew LaFramboise, Esq.
Lacey McMullan, Esq.
JOSEPH, GREENWALD & LAAKE, P.A.
6404 Ivy Lane, Suite 400
Greenbelt, MD 20770-1417
Telephone: (240) 553-1209
Facsimile: (240) 553-1740
E-mail: vnannis@jgllaw.com
dlaframboise@jgllaw.com
lmcmullan@jgllaw.com
- and -
Thomas W. Keilty, Esq.
KEILTY BONADIO
One South Street, Suite 2125
Baltimore, MD 21202
Telephone: (410) 469-9953
E-mail: tkeilty@kblitigation.com
UNIVERSITY DIAGNOSTIC: Chimicles Investigates Data Breach Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith is investigating a
potential class action relating to a data breach incident involving
University Diagnostic Medical Imaging, PC ("UDMI"), a medical
imaging center located in or around the New York City area. The
Company confirmed an estimated 138,000 individuals had their
information taken in a data breach incident according to a filing
with the US Department of Health and Human Services.
What Happened at UDMI?
On or around November 26, 2024, UDMI detected that an unauthorized
user had accessed its system. As result, the Company launched an
internal investigation to ascertain the scope of the breach,
finding that the personally-identifying ("PII") and sensitive
medical information of an estimated 138,000 individuals has their
information exposed.
The PII and medical information compromised as a result of the data
breach includes, but not limited to, the following: name, address,
date of birth, referring physician, medical treatment information,
and diagnosis information.
Why is it Important to you?
The data breach, if confirmed, could have severe implications for
the affected users, leading to potential identity theft, financial
fraud, and further cyberattacks. The hacker group’s bold move to
put this data on sale goes on to show the growing menace of
cybercrime and the increasing sophistication of these cyber
adversaries. [GN]
UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO: Plaintiffs Seeks to Seal Class Docs
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOE 1, JOHN DOE 2,
JOHN DOE 3, JOHN DOE 4, JOHN DOE 5, JOHN DOE 6, JOHN DOE 7, JOHN
DOE 8, JOHN DOE 9, JOHN DOE 10, JOHN DOE 11, JOHN DOE 12, JOHN DOE
13, and JOHN DOE 14 individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. THE UNIVERSITY OF SAN FRANCISCO, ANTHONY N.
(AKA NINO) GIARRATANO, and TROY NAKAMURA, Case No. 3:22-cv-01559-LB
(N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
granting their administrative motion to consider whether the
following should be sealed:
(i) Exhibits 2-12, 14, and 16-19 to the concurrently filed
Declaration of Jonathan D. Selbin in Support of
Plaintiffs' reply in support of the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification,
(ii) portions of Exhibit 20 to the Selbin declaration, the
Supplemental Expert Report of Robert Boland, J.D.,
(iii) Exhibit A to the concurrently filed Declaration of
Elizabeth A. Fegan in support of the Plaintiffs' reply in
support of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification,
(iv) portions of the Plaintiffs' reply brief, and
(v) portions of the Fegan declaration.
These materials are or quote from documents that have been marked
"Confidential" or "Highly Confidential" by Defendant University of
San Francisco, Defendant Anthony N. Giarratano, and/or Defendant
Troy Nakamura, and, therefore, they carry the burden to justify
sealing these materials.
University of San Francisco is a private institution that was
founded in 1855.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 6, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GIU1rR at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonathan Selbin, Esq.
Michelle Lamy, Esq.
Jessica A. Moldovan, Esq.
LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, LLP
275 Battery Street, 29th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 956-1000
Facsimile: (415) 956-1008
E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com
mlamy@lchb.com
jmoldovan@lchb.com
- and -
Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
Michael Von Klemperer, Esq.
Lynn A. Ellenberger, Esq.
FEGAN SCOTT LL
FEGAN SCOTT LLC
150 S. Wacker Drive, 24th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 741-1019
Facsimile: (312) 264-0100
E-mail: mike@feganscott.com
lynn@feganscott.com
beth@feganscott.com
UPHOLD HQ: General Pretrial Management Order Entered
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DIGITAL MONETIZATION, LLC,
v. UPHOLD HQ INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-04382-LTS-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general
pretrial management as follows:
On Jan. 10, 2025, the above-referenced action was referred to me
for general pretrial management, including scheduling, discovery,
non-dispositive pretrial motions, and settlement, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. section 636(b)(1)(A).
All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to
scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for
judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary
judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must
be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's
Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's
website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses.
Since this action is stayed, no case management conference will be
scheduled at this time.
However, within ten days of the lifting of the stay, the parties
must submit a joint letter to the Court proposing a date, within
the next thirty days thereafter, for an initial case management
conference.
Uphold is a digital wallet and trading platform that makes
cryptocurrencies and other assets affordable and accessible for
everyone.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 4, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=b47e75 at no extra
charge.[CC]
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Judge Dismisses Lead Cables Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wireless Estimator reports that on February 10, a federal judge in
Pennsylvania dismissed a proposed class action lawsuit against
Verizon Communications Inc., ruling that the plaintiff, former
utility pole worker Mark Tiger, lacked standing to sue in federal
court. The lawsuit alleged that Verizon's failure to properly
dispose of lead-sheathed telecommunications cables endangered
utility pole workers who were regularly exposed to them. View the
court's opinion.
Verizon filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority in Bostard v.
Verizon, arguing that the dismissal in Tiger v. Verizon should
apply to the New Jersey case as well. Verizon's attorneys
highlighted the identical legal deficiencies in both cases, noting
that the plaintiffs in Bostard also failed to allege elevated lead
levels in their bodies and their claims of economic injury from
medical testing do not meet enforceable standards, stating that the
risk of future exposure is speculative and insufficient to
establish standing.
As reported by Wireless Estimator in September 2023, Greg Bostard,
a former Comcast worker, sued Verizon over lead exposure from
telecommunications cables. His complaint, which was filed by the
same legal team representing Tiger, mirrors the allegations in the
Pennsylvania case.
In the February 7, 2025 decision, Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan of the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania found that Tiger had not sufficiently demonstrated a
concrete and imminent injury, a requirement for Article III
standing under the U.S. Constitution. The judge dismissed all
claims without prejudice, allowing for the possibility that Tiger
could refile his case in state court.
Background of the case
Tiger, who worked as a utility pole worker from 2019 to 2024,
claimed that he regularly came into contact with Verizon's
lead-sheathed cables while employed by Figure 8 Communications and
Duda Cable Construction.
He alleged that he ingested and inhaled lead particles from these
cables, leading to symptoms such as headaches, nausea, fatigue,
irritability, and muscle and joint pain. However, since Tiger never
sought medical attention, he lacked medical documentation to
confirm lead-related illness.
In his 2023 lawsuit, Tiger sought to represent all utility pole
workers in Pennsylvania who were exposed to Verizon's cables. The
complaint asserted claims for negligence, negligence per se, and
public nuisance and requested class certification, a
court-supervised medical monitoring program, and removal of
Verizon's lead-sheathed cables.
Verizon filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that Tiger lacked
standing, failed to demonstrate actual harm, and that his claims
were untimely. The company also noted that since Tiger had left his
job as a utility pole worker, his request for injunctive relief was
moot.
Court's rationale for dismissal
Judge Ranjan's decision focused on whether Tiger had suffered an
actual or imminent injury. The court concluded:
-- Exposure to lead alone does not constitute an injury: Tiger
failed to provide medical evidence showing that he had elevated
lead levels in his body or had developed a lead-related illness.
-- Common symptoms are not sufficient for standing: Tiger's
symptoms, such as fatigue and headaches, could be linked to
numerous other causes and were not necessarily indicative of lead
poisoning.
-- Medical monitoring does not establish standing: The judge
ruled that a need for future medical testing does not qualify as a
present economic injury under Article III.
The ruling said future lead exposure is speculative since Tiger had
left his job and there was no imminent threat of continued exposure
to lead. [GN]
W.L. GORE: Faces Class Suit Over Greenwashing PFAS in Outdoor Gear
------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumers of Gore-Tex outdoor gear filed a class-action lawsuit
against its maker, W.L. Gore & Associates, alleging the company
knowingly concealed its ongoing use of environmentally harmful PFAS
-- otherwise known as "forever chemicals" -- in its waterproof
jackets, shoes, clothing and other water-repellent products,
according to attorneys at Hagens Berman.
The lawsuit filed Feb. 11, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Washington accuses Gore of promising the public
it was "Committed to Sustainability" and "Environmentally Sound"
and that its laminates were "PFC* Free" and reflected "Responsible
Performance" all while continuing to use environmentally harmful
PFAS in its manufacturing process. The complaint alleges Gore also
failed to disclose to consumers that its Gore-Tex fabric leaches
harmful PFAS into the environment and/or water supply during
ordinary consumer use and while it's being manufactured.
Because they do not break down in the environment, PFAS are harmful
to our ecosystem, and under EPA declaration, there is no acceptable
level of PFAS for human drinking water.
If you purchased any items made with Gore-Tex, including clothing,
shoes, jackets, motorcycle gear and more from Jan. 1, 2018, to Dec.
31, 2024, learn more about the lawsuit and your consumer rights.
"Gore's greenwashing campaign misleads the public by purporting to
be highly committed to environmental responsibility and at the
forefront of sustainable manufacturing processes," the lawsuit
states. "But, in truth, Gore continues to produce Gore-Tex Fabric
using PFAS . . ."
Going Green for Greenbacks
The lawsuit offers many examples of Gore's ecologically sound
promises from its website and marketing materials, luring would-be
customers with statements of "environmentally sound" products and
"acting responsibly" regarding nature's sensitive environments.
Gore even touts responsibility as "a top priority for our
business."
Attorneys allege the company's "misleading greenwashing campaign"
masks the truth that PFAS, as used in its Gore-Tex outdoor gear,
bioaccumulates in the environment and sheds toxic chemicals in the
very sensitive habitats Gore plasters onto its website to sell its
products.
"We believe that the nature-loving consumers buying Gore-Tex
products have been hit where it hurts most. They were misled about
the environmental impacts of the outdoor gear they purchased," said
Steve Berman, managing partner at Hagens Berman. "Gore knew that
its customers wouldn't purchase products that could be linked to
contaminated water supplies, and so Gore orchestrated a
greenwashing campaign to cover up the impacts of its products."
Gore's Empty Promises
The lawsuit states that Gore has repeatedly doubled down on its
misinformation, and that in recent years, it has told customers
that its products -- despite containing PFAS -- are "non toxic and
safe for the user" and pose no threat to the environment.
In 2021, Gore announced it had developed a new membrane that uses
expanded polyethylene, which is not a PFAS, and that it intended to
use this to replace existing PFAS in all of its products. Gore also
announced it had developed a new durable PFAS-free waterproof
treatment. But Gore does not disclose to consumers that only its
line of next-generation products will be made in this manner, and
that Gore still includes PFASs in its manufacturing and products.
"We seek to represent anyone who unknowingly purchased Gore-Tex
gear believing Gore's promises of 'performance for the planet,'"
Berman said. "We believe what Gore tells its customers is untrue."
The complaint states, "…instead of coming clean on its use of
PFAS and their environmental consequences, Gore instead opted to
embark on a significant greenwashing campaign full of material
misrepresentations and omissions designed to deceive eco-conscious
consumers and safeguard Gore's profits."
PFAS and the Planet
According to the lawsuit, PFAS sheds during ordinary use in
Gore-Tex products, meaning even when outdoor enthusiasts or anyone
wearing a Gore-Tex jacket to stay dry, they are inadvertently
contaminating the environment.
The complaint breaks down the various ways in which PFAS can leach
into the environment: manufacturing sites pollute local water
sources, washing PFAS-coated clothing releases chemicals into water
sources and wastewater. From this, contaminated water is spread
into land, sent to landfills or otherwise in the water cycle,
impacting water, soil and air.
The lawsuit brings claims of fraudulent concealment, unfair trade
practices, deceptive trade and violations of dozens of state
consumer protection laws. The proposed class seeks injunctive
relief from the court to force Gore to make accurate corrective
disclosures, and also seeks monetary repayment for restitution
and/or loss of value of the products purchased due to Gore's
alleged misleading statements.
Hagens Berman's legal team is well-practiced in consumer-rights
cases and litigation protecting the environment, having tackled
extensive and complex cases including Volkswagen's diesel emissions
cheating ($14.7 billion settlement), dozens of record-breaking
consumer-protection lawsuits totaling in the billions in
recoveries, as well as a lawsuit against Dole Food Company which
culminated in the creation of a water filter project to assist
local communities whose water sources had been contaminated due to
Dole's alleged environmental practices.
Find out more about the lawsuit against W.L. Gore & Associates
related to PFAS in Gore-Tex products and the company's failed
promises of environmental protection.
About Hagens Berman
Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs' rights complex litigation law
firm with a tenacious drive for achieving real results for those
harmed by corporate negligence and fraud. Since its founding in
1993, the firm's determination has earned it numerous national
accolades, awards and titles of "Most Feared Plaintiff's Firm,"
MVPs and Trailblazers of class-action law. More about the law firm
and its successes can be found at hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm for
updates and news at @ClassActionLaw.
Contacts
Media Contact
Ash Klann
pr@hbsslaw.com
(206) 268-9363 [GN]
WALT DISNEY: Faces Class Suit Over Disability Access Service
------------------------------------------------------------
Following many months of controversy, a class action lawsuit has
been filed against the Walt Disney Parks and Resorts and Inspire
Health Alliance in the state of California over changes that were
made to the Disability Access Service (DAS) at the Disneyland and
Walt Disney World Resort.
The class action suit Malone vs. Disney, filed in Orange County,
California, alleges that Disney and Inspire are discriminating
against those with disabilities by instituting these policies and
in their interview processes to determine eligibility. Under the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), those with disabilities are
entitled to equal access, privacy, and dignity. Specifically, the
screening criteria is being challenged for possibly violating the
California Unruh Civil Rights Act, as well as the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) guidelines, and privacy
rights under the California Confidentiality of Medical Information
Act (CMIA).
The DAS changes went into effect at Walt Disney World in May 2024
and Disneyland Resort in June, in an effort to stop overuse of the
service. The update restricts the service to guests who "due to a
developmental disability like autism or similar disorder, are
unable to wait in a conventional queue for an extended period of
time." The wording was recently slightly updated.
Guests with other disabilities have been told to purchase Genie + /
Lightning Lane or practice waiting in line at home. Infamously,
several incidents have been documented where guests with various
types of cancer, including those terminally ill, have been denied
the service.
Disney also stopped offering in-person DAS registration at Walt
Disney World, and limited in-person registration at Disneyland
Resort. Walt Disney World guests are required to sign up for DAS
via a video chat online and Disneyland Resort guests are encouraged
to sign up the same way. They also limited the party that could be
attached to a DAS pass to four -- the individual with a disability
and three party members.
In addition to the wording update, Disney has also made other
slight adjustments to DAS after the initial overhaul. They recently
extended the registration window, which was another point of
contention. The window was previously 30 days before a vacation,
which was after guests could cancel vacation packages. It was
extended to 60 days.
Disney also extended the DAS validity period. Guests could
originally use DAS for 60 days. This was extended to 120 days with
the early 2024 changes, then to 240 days (or the length of of the
guest's ticket, whichever is shorter) in the fall.
A group known as DAS Defenders has vocally protested the changes,
including with an online petition and a mobile billboard at D23:
The Ultimate Disney Fan Event. The lawsuit is not related to DAS
Defenders.
DAS allows individuals with a disability and up to three of their
party members to enter the Lightning Lane of an attraction. Guests
use the respective Disney app to register for a return time to the
attraction. Guests can only hold one DAS return time at a time but
there is no end to the return window. After using a return time,
guests must wait 15 minutes to book another return time. Before
last year's changes, guests could immediately book another return
time. [GN]
WASATCH ADVANTAGE: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Nod
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as United States of America
ex rel. Denika Terry, et al., v. Wasatch Advantage Group, LLC et
al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00799-KJM-SCR (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
entered an order granting the unopposed motions for final approval
of the class action settlement and for attorneys' fees and costs.
The motions for final approval and for fees and costs in the total
amount of $4,500,000 are granted.
The court approves service payments of $5,000 each to Class
Representatives Denika Terry, Roy Huskey III, and Tamera Livingston
pursuant to the terms of the settlement and for their service as
Class Representatives.
The court authorizes distribution of payments to Reimbursement
Class Members as set forth in the settlement.
The court approves the cy pres distribution of any funds remaining
following distribution as set forth in the settlement, to: Bay Area
Legal Aid; Central California Legal Services; Inland County Legal
Services; Legal Services of Northern California; Legal Aid Society
of San Diego; and Legal Aid of Sonoma County.
The court orders payment of $4.5 million in attorneys' fees, costs,
and expenses to Class Counsel consistent with the schedule set
forth in the settlement agreement.
The parties and the settlement administrator shall perform their
respective obligations under the terms of the settlement agreement,
including by meeting all payment and reporting deadlines.
Wasatch offers real estate development and management services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wxMUMP at no extra
charge.[CC]
WORKDAY INC: Mobley Seeks Conditional Cert of FLSA Collective
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEREK L. MOBLEY for and on
behalf of himself and other persons similarly situated, V WORKDAY,
INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00770-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on
April 8, 2025, will move the Court for an order conditionally
certifying the proposed collective pursuant to Section 216(b) of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and Section 626(b) of the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act ("ADEA").
Mr. Mobley requests that the Court conditionally certify the
following class:
"All individuals aged 40 and over who, from Sept. 24, 2020,
through the present who applied for job opportunities using
Workday, Inc.'s job application platform and were denied
employment recommendations."
The Plaintiff brings the suit challenging Workday alleged policy or
practice of discriminatory job screening which disproportionately
disqualifies individuals over the age of 40 from securing gainful
employment
Workday is an American on‑demand (cloud-based) financial
management, human capital management, and student information
system software vendor.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 6, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=D9fzD1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lee D. Winston, Esq.
Roderick T. Cooks, Esq.
WINSTON COOKS, LLC
420 20th Street North, Suite#2200
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 482-5174
Facsimile: (205) 278-5876
E-mail: lwinston@winstoncooks.com
rcooks@winstoncooks.com
- and -
Jay Greene, Esq.
GREENE ESTATE, PROBATE, AND ELDER
LAW FIRM
447 Sutter Street, Suite 435
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 905-0215
E-mail: greeneattorney@gmail.com
- and -
Robert L. Wiggins, Jr., Esq.
WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER & GOLDFARB, LLC
The Kress Building
301 19th Street North
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 314-0500
Facsimile: (205) 254-1500
E-mail: rwiggins@wigginschilds.com
WORLDWIDE FLIGHT: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Sorto Due Oct. 17
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RENE A. SORTO, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. WORLDWIDE FLIGHT
SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No.
2:23-cv-08481-DSF-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dale Fischer
entered an order granting revised joint stipulation to stay
discovery and continue the case:
1. All formal discovery is stayed until: July 9, 2025
2. The class certification hearing date Dec. 8, 2025
is continued to:
3. Based on the new class certification
hearing date, the below corresponding
filing deadlines shall apply
(a) Class Certification Motion: Oct. 17, 2025
(b) Opposition to Class Certification Nov. 14, 2025
Motion:
(c) Reply to Opposition to Class Nov. 24, 2025
Certification Motion:
4. The trial date is continued to: June 30, 2026
Worldwide Flight specializes in the processing and transporting of
goods with air cargo and ground handling services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=E1Xocg at no extra
charge.[CC]
[] Quebec Class-Action Says Car Dealers Overcharged by $54 Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nadine Filion, writing for Driving, asks whether Quebecers overpay
taxes when they bought an extended warranty or protection plan for
their new vehicle? The law firm BGA certainly thinks they did, and
has filed a motion in the province's Superior Court seeking
authorization to bring an action collective (class-action lawsuit)
against the automakers involved. According to the lawsuit, extended
warranties offered to new-car buyers during the "mandatory" visit
to a dealer's F&I office should have been taxed the same as
insurance premiums, which means they should have been exempt from
federal taxes and only subject to Quebec's Tax Insurance Premium
(TIP), which is 9%.
In fact, because such "protection" plans include elements that
cover risks in the same way insurance premiums do -- by offering,
for example, roadside assistance -- BGA says they should not have
been subject to the combined GST-HST levy -- that's 15.56% -- and
therefore many customers were overcharged some 6.56%. So far, the
suit covers new-car purchasers who bought Ford-Protect; Extra Care
Protection (Toyota); Global Protection (Honda); Gold or Platinum
(Nissan); and Diamond Plan (Mitsubishi) products, as well as a few
other optional plans sold by dealers when new vehicles were
purchased or leased.
The class-action lawsuit, filed January 25 by Benoit Gamache in the
Montreal Court District, estimates that "tens, if not hundreds, of
thousands" of Quebec consumers have been wronged by this practice,
each for as much as $50 to $150.
The extended coverage plans we're talking about, which typically
cost between $1,000 and $3,000, are designed primarily to cover
mechanical defects or production defects that may occur after the
manufacturer's basic warranty has expired. However, to boost sales
of these optional programs, automakers have added other benefits
over the years -- benefits "that do not arise solely or at all from
a defect or from the extension of the manufacturer's basic
warranty," according to the class-action lawsuit.
Instead, these benefits include roadside assistance (towing,
boosting, fuel delivery, door-unlocking); replacement of tires and
rims in the event of road damage; replacement of lost keys or
remote controls; cosmetic restoration of the bodywork; and even
repairs in the cabin (stained seats, torn upholstery).
Some plans even offer "payment protection," winching of a vehicle
fallen into a ditch, legal assistance services -- and even a bail
bond ($5,000) in the event of an arrest for a traffic offence. "In
fact, manufacturers are acting like insurers by offering protection
products through their dealers," the court documents say.
Which manufacturers are targeted?
The class-action is broad in scope, naming virtually all Canadian
divisions of manufacturers that commercialize vehicles in Quebec.
The defendants are Mercedes-Benz, Toyota, Ford, General Motors,
Hyundai, Kia, Honda, Nissan, FCA (now Stellantis), Mazda,
Volkswagen, Subaru, Mitsubishi, Audi, BMW, Volvo, and the finance
arms of Toyota, Honda, Ford, and GM.
Note that Jaguar, Land Rover, Lucid, Polestar, Rivian, Tesla, and
VinFast are not mentioned, nor are ultra-luxury brands such as
Aston Martin, Bentley, Ferrari, Lamborghini, Pagani, and
Rolls-Royce.
Who represents the plaintiffs?
The lawsuit is represented by two plaintiffs, Sandra Dalpe-Palerme;
and Richard Gagne. Dalpe-Palerme purchased a Subaru WRX from Subaru
Repentigy in June 2023, along with an extended warranty for $1,893.
The GST and QST were then applied--for $283.48. But according to
the class-action, just $170.37 should have been charged, a
difference of $113.11.
The other plaintiff, Gagne, leased a Mercedes-Benz from Park Avenue
on January 26, 2024. He chose the First Class Protection product
covering excessive wear, for which he paid $1,615, plus $241.85 in
GST and QST. Again, the lawsuit claims the tax on insurance
premiums should have been charged, which would have been $145.35, a
difference of $96.50.
Because such 'protection' plans include elements that cover risks
like insurance premiums do -- by offering, for example, roadside
assistance -- BGA says they should not have been subject to the
combined GST-HST levy, and therefore many customers were
overcharged 6.56%
The BGA law firm bases its claims on a decision by L'Autorite des
marches financiers, which ruled that coverage for damage caused by
risks other than a "defect" or "malfunction" of an asset (in this
case, a vehicle) are insurance products (subject to the TIP) and
not extended warranties (subject to the GST and QST).
Claims of nearly $54 million
According to Benoît Gamache of Cabinet BGA, claims could reach
nearly $54 million. "It appears that almost 50% of new car sales
(and leases) are accompanied by the sale of a protection plan," he
says. "With an average price of $1,500 per unit and 200,000
potential sales per year, that's close to $300 million in sales per
year -- or about $18 million in overcharged taxes."
However, the number of years these alleged offences went on has not
yet been determined. "No decision has been made [on this issue],"
says Gamache. "The principle is usually three years, but
theoretically we could go back much, much further. If we take the
minimum three-year period for the scope of the group and assume
that the practice stops today, that's almost $54 million in damages
that can be claimed by members."
The class-action alleges the vast majority of new-car dealers in
the province use sales contracts designed by the Corporation des
concessionnaires d'automobiles du Quebec (CCAQ). However, Gamache
says, these forms make no mention of the TIP: "The application of
the GST-TVQ to the protection plans in question is widespread and
systemic in the automobile industry," the lawsuit states.
Last year, a record 463,646 new vehicles were sold in Quebec. The
year before, 2023, Quebecers purchased 413,646 new vehicles; and in
2022, they bought 369,982 new vehicles.
Who could benefit from this class-action?
If authorized by a Superior Court Judge, Class Action No.
500-06-001356-258 intends to include the following "members": "All
Quebec residents who paid GST and QST on the price of a protection
plan sold by the on the Defendants when purchasing or leasing a
vehicle".
The class-action seeks to recover for the members the amounts
wrongly paid, as well as damages for false or misleading practices
under section 227.1 of the Consumer Protection Act: No person may,
by any means whatever, make false or misleading representations
concerning the existence, charge, amount, or rate of duties payable
under a federal or provincial statute.
Driving.ca asked Gamache if he believed the overcharged taxes were
improperly kept in the dealers' or manufacturer's pockets, or if
they were remit into government coffers, with the merchants
believing they were doing the right thing. The lawman replied: "We
have no indication or proof that the transfers were not made to the
revenue ministry. [But] whether they kept the excess [taxes] or not
is irrelevant to the obligation to collect the right taxes." [GN]
[^] Class Action Money & Ethics Conference 2024 Attendees
---------------------------------------------------------
Registration is now open for the 9TH ANNUAL CLASS ACTION MONEY &
ETHICS CONFERENCE (CAME 2025), to be held May 7-8, 2025, at The
Harmonie Club, New York City.
Once a year, the top industry experts gather together to discuss
the latest topics and trends in class action. This value-packed
event features special presentations from keynote speakers and live
panel discussions with industry experts, and provides networking
opportunities with other professionals.
The CAME 2024 edition was attended by the industry's Who's Who.
Last year's conference attendees include:
Firm/Organization Firm/Organization
----------------- -----------------
A.B. Data, Ltd. Lake Avenue Capital
Alvarez & Marsal Levi & Korsinsky LLP
Analytics Consulting LLC Levine Law, LLC
Angeion Group Lieff Cabraser Heimann
Atticus Administration LLC & Bernstein, LLP
Avenue 33, LLC Locke Lord LLP
Beasley Allen Law Firm LTIMindtree
Beer Marketer's Insights Lynch Carpenter LLP
Berger Montague PC MarGrady Research
Blank Rome Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC
Bloomberg Law Messing & Spector LLP
Brann & Isaacson Milberg
BRG Miller Kaplan
Broadridge Morgan Lewis
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney New York Law Journal
Butsch Roberts & Associates New York Legal Assistance Group
Cardtable Enterprises New York Times
Certum Group New York University
Citi Law Firm Group O’Melveny & Myers LLP
ClaimScore Orr Taylor
Cohen Milstein Otterbourg P.C.
Cooley LLP PacerMonitor
Cozen O'Connor Parabellum Capital, LLC
CPT Group Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton
Darrow & Garrison LLP
DCirrus Penningtons Manches Cooper LLP
Dealpath PJT Partners
Disability Rights Michigan Pollock Cohen LLP
Duane Morris LLP Public Justice
Dukas Linden Public Relations Red Bridges Advisors LLC
EisnerAmper Riverdale Capital
Esquire Bank Sadaka Law
Farra & Wang PLLC Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law
Flexpoint Ford Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP
Foley & Lardner LLP Simpluris
Foster Yarborough PLLC Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher
George Feldman McDonald, PLLC & Flom LLP
Gernon Law Slarskey LLC
Giftogram Steptoe
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Tremendous
Hausfeld Tristate Capital Bank
Hook Point UConn Law
injuryclaims.com - Verus LLC
Typhon Interactive Wall Street Journal
Integrity Administration Western Alliance Bank
Janove PLLC Wilkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
KCC Winston & Strawn LLP
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check Wollmuth Maher & Deutsch LLP
King & Spalding Working Solutions
Kirkland & Ellis X Ante
Register for CAME 2025 at https://www.classactionconference.com
Breakfast and lunch included.
This year's conference will kick off with an OPENING NIGHT COCKTAIL
RECEPTION on May 7 from 5-7 p.m. also at The Harmonie Club. Enjoy
specialty cocktails and hors d'oeuvres with other professionals
attending the conference. There is no additional cost to attend the
opening reception. The reception is included in the cost of
conference registration so join us!
Missed last year's event? Check the CAME 2024 conference agenda at
https://www.classactionconference.com/agenda.html Videos of the
conference are available on-demand at
https://www.classactionconference.com/2024-video-replays.html
For sponsorship opportunities, contact:
Will Etchison
Tel: 305-707-7493
E-mail: will@beardgroup.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***