/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250220.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, February 20, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 37
Headlines
AETNA LIFE: Settles LGBTQ+ Claims Class Action Suit for $2 Mil.
AIRPORT MANAGEMENT: Bid to Extend Class Cert Hearing Deadline Nixed
ALIGN TECH: Seeks to File Confidential Docs in Snow Under Seal
ALLSTATE FIRE: Seeks Leave to File Sur-Reply
ALLSTATE FIRE: Seeks to Seal Class Cert Reply
ALLSTATE PROPERTY: Settlement Class in Cummings Gets Certification
AMAZON WEB: Class Cert Bid Filing in Rovira Modified to June 5
AMERICAN FAMILY: Knox Bid to Move Deadlines Tossed
CROWDVEST LLC: Johnson Seeks Leave to Conduct Class Certification
DANIELLE OUTLAW: Expert Discovery in Flacco Suit Due July 25
FCA US: Wall Seeks to Amend Class Definition
FMC CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
GATEHOUSE MEDIA: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Opposition
GENERATIONAL EQUITY: Settles Data Breach Class Suit for $275,000
GOOGLE LLC: Parties Seek OK of Sealing Stipulation
GREEN BAY PACKERS: Faces Class Suit Over Pro Shop Data Breach
HAIN CELESTIAL: Awaits Ruling on Consolidated Securities Suit
HAIN CELESTIAL: Continues to Defend Baby Food-Related Class Suit
HOFFENMER INC: Pimentel Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
HOME DEPOT: Court Extends Class Cert Deadlines
ICON PLC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
INFINITI OF CLARENDON: Galindo Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
INOTIV INC: Plaintiff Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
INTELLIA THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
JAGUAR RESTAURANT: Andres Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
LEGENDS OWO: Agrees to Settle Undisclosed Fees' Suit for $975,000
MAXI CANADA INC: Desir Files Suit in E.D. New York
MICHAEL HYATT: Crumwell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
MICHIGAN: Files Appeal in Hathon Class Suit
MONTANA UNIVERSITY: Niman Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling
MR. WHEELS INC: Dissanayake Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
NCAA: Brantmeier Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
NORTH RANCH COUNTRY: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
NOW OPTICS: Marous Class Certification Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice
OPENTECH ALLIANCE: Willis Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
OUTSOURCED ASSOCIATES: Curry Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
POM MEDICAL: Manzano Suit Removed to C.D. California
SEATTLE, WA: Employees Sue Over Alleged Widespread Wage Theft
SHEVAUN HARRIS: Hall Seeks OK of Amended Class Cert Bid
SLP TACER OPERATING: Natareno Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SOUTH CAROLINA: Court Moots Bid for Class Cert Discovery
SOUTH CAROLINA: Seeks Leave to File Opposition Sur-Reply
SP DATA: Filing for Class Certification Bid in Verres Due Dec. 9
SSM HEALTH: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid Response
STANLEY BLACK: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Kistler Due Nov. 14
STAR214 LLC: Expert Disclosures on Brown Class Suit Due May 14
STREAMLABS LLC: Settles Subscription Class Suit for $4.4 Million
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Class Certification Bids in Weston Due April 4
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Bid to Preclude Balsamo's Testimony Granted
SUSHI KATSUEI: Chakma Wins Bid for Class Certification
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Can Seal Portions of Class Cert Opposition
TAPESTRY INC: Bid to Seal Judicial Docs Tossed
TEXTRON INC: Moody Suit Removed to C.D. California
TTEC SERVICES: Bid to Certify Class Referred to Magistrate Judge
TTEC SERVICES: Seeks to Stay Briefing on Conditional Cert. Bid
TWITTER INC: Petitioners' Bid to Compel Arbitration Tossed
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Johnson Class Action Preliminarily Certified
VERIZON COMM: Tiger Suit Dismissed w/o Predudice
VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due June 13
VIRGIN GALACTIC: Seeks Leave to File Opposition Sur-Reply in Lavin
VIRGINIA BEACH SHERIFF'S: Hardee Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
WALT DISNEY: Unger Suit Transferred to N.D. California
WARNER MUSIC: Hall Bid for Class Certification Tossed
WELLPOINT WASHINGTON: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due June 30
WELLS FARGO: Henzel Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Under Seal
WESTMED AMBULANCE: Dershem Suit Removed to C.D. California
WILLSCOT MOBILE: Armenta Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
WILSON ELECTRIC: Andrews Suit Seek to Certify Class
WORLD MARKET: Harvey Suit Removed to N.D. California
YETI COOLERS: Parties Seek to Extend Class Certification Deadlines
*********
AETNA LIFE: Settles LGBTQ+ Claims Class Action Suit for $2 Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that Aetna Life
Insurance Company has agreed to pay a $2 million settlement to
resolve a proposed class action lawsuit that alleged the healthcare
giant discriminated against LGBTQ+ policyholders by denying them
equal access to fertility treatments.
The official website for the Aetna class action settlement can be
found at InfertilityInsuranceSettlement.com.
The $2,000,000 settlement agreement covers LGBTQ+ members of
certain New York Aetna insurance plans who were or would have been
denied coverage for artificial insemination, including those in the
following categories:
Category A: Individuals whose Aetna member files contain a
denial of a claim or precertification request for one of an
agreed-upon set of qualifying artificial insemination codes between
September 1, 2017 and May 31, 2024, as well as information
indicating they may be eligible to participate in the settlement;
Category B: Those whose Aetna member files include a claim or
precertification request denial for one of the qualifying codes
during the aforementioned period, but for whom there is
insufficient information to determine whether they may have been in
an eligible LGBTQ+ relationship;
Category C: Individuals whose Aetna member files contain a
claim or precertification request for one of the qualifying in
vitro fertilization (IVF) codes during the same period but whose
artificial insemination history cannot be determined from Aetna's
member files, and for whom there is insufficient data to determine
whether they may have been in an eligible LGBTQ+ relationship, or
those who did not submit precertification or claim requests because
they would be denied and nevertheless underwent artificial
insemination covered by one of the qualifying intra-cervical
insemination or intrauterine insemination codes; and
Category D: Individuals whose member files include a claim or
precertification request denial for one of the qualifying
artificial insemination codes but whose denial was followed by an
approval within 90 days, or was otherwise paid by Aetna, and whose
file does not establish whether the member paid out of pocket for
the artificial insemination services before their claim was
approved.
The settlement website notes that category D class members whose
files contain information indicating they may be eligible to
participate in the settlement are more specifically classified as
category D-A, while those for whom there is insufficient data to
determine whether they were in an eligible LGBTQ+ relationship are
characterized as category D-B.
According to the site, class members are entitled to receive an
approximately $10,000 payment per person from the $2,000,000 common
fund, though the final payout amount may decrease on a pro rata
basis if there are more than 200 class members.
According to the settlement website, class members will also
receive a $2,300 "dollars for benefits" payment if Aetna has not
already reimbursed expenses related to artificial insemination
services that the member's medical plan would have covered but for
the insurance company's definition of "infertility" as of May 31,
2024.
Per the website, category A class members will automatically
receive the $10,000 Aetna settlement payment and the $2,300 payment
(if eligible) without having to file a claim form or any supporting
documentation.
Category B class members will be entitled to receive the $10,000
payment and the $2,300 payment (if eligible) only if they submit a
timely, valid attestation form stating that they were in an
eligible LGBTQ+ relationship at the time they received infertility
services, the site relays.
Category C and category D-B class members will be entitled to
receive the settlement payouts only if they file both a timely
attestation form and claim submission form with supporting
evidence, the website shares.
Category D-A class members must file only a claim submission form
with supporting evidence to be eligible for the settlement rebates,
the site adds.
Additionally, class members may file an out-of-pocket expense
submission form for reimbursement of additional documented costs
incurred as a direct result of Aetna's denial of infertility
treatment coverage, and/or a miscellaneous harm submission form for
other damages experienced that are not covered elsewhere by the
deal, the site says.
Moreover, the website relays that class members who underwent
covered fertility treatment that would have resulted in
reimbursement exceeding the $2,300 "dollars for benefits"
payment—or those who received reimbursement from Aetna of less
than $2,300—can file a "proof of greater covered care" submission
form in order to receive additional compensation equal to the
amount that would have been paid under their plan.
The deadline to file the forms and/or supporting documents is
August 26, 2025.
Attestation forms, claim submission forms and all supporting
documentation can be filed online on this page. Class members may
also download PDF forms or contact the settlement administrator to
request paper copies to return by mail, email or fax.
Consumers will need their unique claimant ID, which can be found on
the settlement notice they received, and Aetna member number to
submit forms online.
As part of the settlement, Aetna has also changed its definition of
"infertility" to align with guidelines established by the American
Society for Reproductive Medicine, which will ensure that all
eligible plan members have equal access to fertility services,
irrespective of sexual orientation, the website shares.
Furthermore, Aetna has introduced a new policy making intrauterine
insemination a standard medical benefit covered for all members,
and it has revised its IVF requirements to ensure the treatment is
more accessible for LGBTQ+ individuals, the site describes.
The deal with Aetna was preliminarily approved by the court on
October 8, 2024. It is now up to the court to decide whether to
grant final approval to the terms of the settlement at a hearing
set for October 10, 2025.
Cash payments will not be issued to eligible class members until
after the deal is ultimately approved and goes into effect, the
settlement website says. [GN]
AIRPORT MANAGEMENT: Bid to Extend Class Cert Hearing Deadline Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHUNDREA HARDY, v. AIRPORT
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-03945-FLA-PD
(C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando Aenlle-Rocha entered an order
denying stipulation and joint request to extend deadline to hear
motion for class certification.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 10, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=no6ktN at no extra
charge.[CC]
ALIGN TECH: Seeks to File Confidential Docs in Snow Under Seal
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MISTY SNOW, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. ALIGN TECHNOLOGY,
INC., Case No. 3:21-cv-03269-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=bA5eao at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Theodore Wojcik, Esq.
Joseph Kingerski, Esq.
Rio S. Pierce, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
tedw@hbsslaw.com
joeyk@hbsslaw.com
riop@hbsslaw.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 FIRE: Seeks Leave to File Sur-Reply
--------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brian Dorazio, on behalf
of his minor daughter, A.D., v. Allstate Fire and Casualty
Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation, Case No.
2:23-cv-00017-KML (D. Ariz.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter
an order granting it leave to file a sur-reply in response to
Plaintiff's reply in support of his motion for class certification.
The Defendant requests an opportunity to respond to and correct
those misstatements.
The Defendant's proposed sur-reply meets each of these criteria.
First, the Henry Declaration raises new facts and arguments, and in
doing so, contains material misstatements of the evidence.
Second, it would be helpful to the Court to be presented with an
accurate and supported record.
Third, there would be no prejudice to Plaintiff, as Plaintiff and
his counsel had the opportunity to review and present the evidence
discussed in Defendant’s proposed sur-reply but failed to do so.
Allstate offers auto, home, renters, condo, motorcycle, life, and
roadside insurance services.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 10, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8qvnJp at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Steven Levy, Esq.
Jacqueline A. Giannini, Esq.
Jeffrey A. Zachman, Esq.
Monica R. Thompson, Esq.
DENTONS US LLP
2398 E Camelback Road, Suite 850
Phoenix, AZ 85016-9007
Telephone: (602) 508-3968
E-mail: steven.levy@dentons.com
jacqui.giannini@dentons.com
jeffrey.zachman@dentons.com
monica.thompson@dentons.com
ALLSTATE FIRE: Seeks to Seal Class Cert Reply
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brian Dorazio, on behalf
of his minor daughter, A.D., v. Allstate Fire and Casualty
Insurance Company, an Illinois Corporation, Case No.
2:23-cv-00017-KML (D. Ariz.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter
an order granting motion to seal in connection with the Plaintiff's
reply in support of his motion for class certification:
The Defendant requests that the Court grant its motion to seal and
order plaintiff to file the Hamblin and Becker transcripts with the
redactions.
Pursuant to Local Rule 5.6(d), Defendant Allstate Fire and Casualty
Insurance Company moves to redact limited material in the exhibits
filed by Plaintiff in connection with his Reply in Support of the
Motion for Class Certification.
The Defendant seeks only to redact limited portions of the Hamblin
and Becker transcripts, which are attached to Plaintiff’s Reply
as Exhibits 1 and 2, respectively.
The Defendant does not seek to seal any portion of Plaintiff’s
Reply brief or the other materials submitted with Plaintiff’s
Reply.
Allstate offers auto, home, renters, condo, motorcycle, life, and
roadside insurance services.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Dnhrgb at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Monica R. Thompson, Esq.
Steven Levy, Esq.
Jacqueline A. Giannini, Esq.
Jeffrey A. Zachman, Esq.
DENTONS US LLP
2398 Camelback Road, Suite 850
Phoenix, AZ 85016-9007
Telephone: (602) 508-3968
E-mail: monica.thompson@dentons.com
steven.levy@dentons.com
jacqui.giannini@dentons.com
jeffrey.zachman@dentons.com
ALLSTATE PROPERTY: Settlement Class in Cummings Gets Certification
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAGGIWA CUMMINGS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
ALLSTATE PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois
Corporation, Case No. 3:22-cv-00247-JWD-EWD (M.D. La.), the Hon.
Judge John deGravelle entered a final order and judgment approving
class settlement as follows:
The Court grants final approval of the certification of the
Settlement Class, for settlement purposes only, and confirms its
previous certification of the following Settlement Class:
"All Insureds, under any Louisiana automobile insurance
policy issued by ALLSTATE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY, ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE FIRE AND
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, and ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY
and their subsidiaries or related insurance companies with
the same operative policy language covering a vehicle with
auto physical damage coverage for comprehensive or collision
loss where such vehicle was declared a total loss, who made
a first-party claim for total loss, and whose claim was
adjusted as a total loss, within the relevant time period
and who are mailed class notice and do not timely opt out
from the settlement class."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are (1) Allstate, its
agents, employees, subsidiaries, parents, and related
entities, all present or former officers and/or directors of
Allstate, the Settlement Administrator, the Mediator, Class
Counsel, and any Judge of this Court and the Judge's staff
and employees; (2) Individuals with claims for which
Allstate received a valid and executed release; (3)
Individuals who are not on the Notice list and who did not
submit a valid Claim Form or Electronic Claim Form for
payment under this Settlement Agreement; (4) Individuals who
request exclusion from the Class; and (5) Individuals with
claims for first-party property damage as to which the
individual process of appraisal or arbitration or a lawsuit
has been completed or initiated at the time this Settlement
Agreement is filed.
The Court awards the following for the Attorneys' Fees and Expenses
Award, to be paid separate from (and which will not reduce) the
Settlement Payments to Class Members: $1,150,000.00, and expenses
in the amount of $25,000.00.
On August 30, 2024, the Court entered the Preliminary Approval
Order.
On Nov. 27, 2024, the Settlement Administrator, Epiq, mailed the
Mailed Notice to all Settlement Class Members after updating the
mailing addresses provided by Allstate, in accordance with the
terms of the Preliminary Approval Order and Settlement Agreement.
Allstate offers auto, home, renters, condo, motorcycle, life, and
roadside insurance services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 10, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=87QXiZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMAZON WEB: Class Cert Bid Filing in Rovira Modified to June 5
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AVELARDO RIVERA and
YASMINE ROMERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-00269-JHC
(W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John Chun entered an order modifying
the current case deadlines in accordance with the stipulated motion
as follows:
Event Current Proposed
Deadline Deadline
Plaintiff's rebuttal expert Feb. 11, 2025 Mar. 4, 2025
disclosures regarding class
certification issues:
Completion of expert discovery Mar. 31, 2025 Apr. 21, 2025
Regarding class certification
Issues:
Plaintiffs' deadline to file May 15, 2025 June 5, 2025
motion for class
certification:
Amazon is a subsidiary of Amazon that provides on-demand cloud
computing platforms and APIs to individuals, companies, and
governments, on a metered, pay-as-you-go basis.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 10, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FERJhV at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Wright A. Noel, Esq.
CARSON NOEL PLLC
20 Sixth Avenue NE
Issaquah, WA 98027
Telephone: (425) 837-4717
Facsimile: (425) 837-5396
E-mail: wright@carsonnoel.com
- and -
J. Eli Wade-Scott, Esq.
Schuyler Ufkes, Esq.
EDELSON PC
350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 589-6370
Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
E-mail: ewadescott@edelson.com
sufkes@edelson.com
- and -
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
Alec M. Leslie, Esq.
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com
aleslie@bursor.com
mroberts@bursor.com
- and -
Randall K. Pulliam, Esq.
Samuel R. Jackson, Esq.
CARNEY BATES AND PULLIAM, PLLC
519 West 7th Street
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (501) 312-8500
Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
E-mail: rpulliam@cbplaw.com
sjackson@cbplaw.com
AMERICAN FAMILY: Knox Bid to Move Deadlines Tossed
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lora Knox, et al., v.
American Family Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00790
(W.D. Wisc., Filed Nov. 15, 2023), the Hon. Judge William M. Conley
entered an order denying the Plaintiffs unopposed motion to move
deadlines, including those associated with class certification.
The parties must plan to take the necessary discovery in the time
given and meet the current deadlines.
The court most recently reset these deadlines in December 2024,
granting the parties the exact schedule that they requested.
These are legitimate issues, but they do not amount to the good
cause required to move the implicated deadlines. The court expects
the parties to take discovery in a manner that preserves the case
schedule, and this expectation is even more acute once the court
has granted extensions of the same deadlines previously.
The nature of suit states Diversity-Contract Dispute.
AmFam is an American private mutual company that focuses on
property, casualty, and auto insurance, and also offers commercial
insurance, life, health, and homeowners coverage as well as
investment and retirement-planning products.[CC]
CROWDVEST LLC: Johnson Seeks Leave to Conduct Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cynthia Johnson, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. Crowdvest LLC,
Case No. 2:24-cv-01293-JPS (E.D. Wis.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order:
1. Granting the Plaintiff leave to conduct class certification
and damages related discovery, including third-party
discovery as necessary;
2. Reserving jurisdiction on the issue of damages and to
otherwise reserve ruling on a final damages determination;
and
3. Permitting Plaintiff to seek a default judgment, both as to
the individual Plaintiff and the putative Class, upon
completion of class certification and damages discovery.\
The Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of similarly situated
consumers who received unsolicited telemarketing messages seeking
their investment in Defendant's various real estate transactions
and enterprises (the "Class"), defined as:
"All persons throughout the United States (1) to whom
Crowdvest LLC delivered, or caused to be delivered, more
than one text message within a 12-month period, promoting
Crowdvest LLC's, or its business partners', goods or
services, (2) where the person's residential or cellular
telephone number had been registered with the National Do
Not Call Registry for at least 30 days before Crowdvest LLC
delivered, or caused to be delivered, at least two of the
text messages within the 12- month period, (3) within four
years preceding the date of this complaint through the date
of class certification."
On Oct. 10, 2024, the Plaintiff filed her complaint in this matter.
On Oct. 17, 2024, the Plaintiff served her complaint and related
summons on Defendant.
On Jan. 16, 2025, the Plaintiff moved for, and received, a clerk's
default.
Crowdvest is a commercial real estate investment firm.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=A1vCr0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alex D. Kruzyk, Esq.
PARDELL, KRUZYK & GIRIBALDO, PLLC
7500 Rialto Blvd., Suite 1-250
Austin, TX 78735
Telephone: (561) 726-8444
E-mail: akruzyk@pkglegal.com
DANIELLE OUTLAW: Expert Discovery in Flacco Suit Due July 25
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER FLACCO, WINTON
SINGLETARY, v. DANIELLE OUTLAW, CHARLES RAMSEY, RICHARD ROSS, JR.,
KEVIN BETHEL, MICHAEL ZACCAGNI, PEDRO RODRIGUEZ, ALBERT D'ATTILIO,
Case No. 2:24-cv-04374-MAK (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Kearney
entered an order as follows:
-- All fact and expert discovery shall be served, noticed, and
completed by July 25, 2025.
-- Motions for class certification shall be filed no later than
May 1, 2025.
-- Responses shall be filed in accord with the Local Rules and
the Court's Policies and no later than May 15, 2025.
-- Final pretrial conference will be held telephonically on
October 6, 2025.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xilAyN at no extra
charge.[CC]
FCA US: Wall Seeks to Amend Class Definition
--------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DERYL WALL, DAVID
GOLDSMITH, and MICHAEL V. NATHAN, JR. individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. FCA US LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, Case No. 5:16-cv-01341-TJH-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs, on April 15, 2025, will move for an order:
a. altering or amending the class definition pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(C);
b. certifying the below proposed California Class pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1)-(4) and (b)(3); and
c. appointing E. Powell Miller of the Miller Law Firm, P.C. and
Steve W. Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, LLP as Co-
lead Counsel and Chairs of the Plaintiffs' Steering
Committee;
d. appointing Joseph Meltzer, Gregory Coleman, Daniel
Gustafson, and Robert Shelquist as members of the
Plaintiffs' Steering Committee; and
e. appointing David Goldsmith and Michael V. Nathan, Jr. as
class representatives pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g).
The Plaintiffs move for certification of the following California
Class:
"All persons or entities who purchased or leased a "Class
Vehicle" between January 1, 2011, through April 22, 2016, in
California."
Excluded from the class would be: (i) FCA; (ii) any entity in
which FCA has a controlling interest; (iii) FCA’s officers,
directors, and employees; (iv) FCA’s legal representatives,
successors, and assigns; (v) governmental entities; (vi) this
Court; and (vii) every person who has brought a claim against
FCA US LLC alleging recovery for bodily injuries caused by the
Class Vehicles under any legal theory.
The Plaintiffs seek certification of the California Class for
claims of:
-- Count I (Violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act);
-- Count II (Violation of California's Unfair Competition Law);
-- Count III (Violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies
Act); and
-- Count VII (Violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act
for Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability).
FCA US designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0U2K4F at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq.
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
301 N. Lake Ave, Suite 920
Pasadena, CA 91101
Telephone: (213) 330-7150
Facsimile: (213) 330-7152
E-mail: christopherp@hbsslaw.com
steve@hbsslaw.com
- and -
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
950 West University Drive, Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (248) 841-2200
Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
dal@millerlawpc.com
- and -
Joseph H. Meltzer, Esq.
Tyler S. Graden, Esq.
KESSLER TOPAZ
MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 667-7706
Facsimile: (610) 667-7056
E-mail: jmeltzer@ktmc.com
tgraden@ktmc.com
- and -
Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
Mark E. Silvey, Esq.
Adam E. Edwards, Esq.
William A. Ladnier, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
GROSSMAN, PLLC
800 South Gay Street, Suite 1100
Knoxville, TN 37929
Telephone: (865) 247-0080
E-mail: gcoleman@milberg.com
msilvey@milberg.com
aedwards@milberg.com
wladnier@milberg.com
- and -
Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
Jason S. Kilene, Esq.
David A. Goodwin, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GULEK PLLC
Canadian Pacific Plaza
120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-8844
E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
jkilene@gustafsongluek.com
dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com
- and -
Robert K. Shelquist, Esq.
LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P.
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 339-6900
E-mail: rkshelquist@loclaw.com
FMC CORP: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM"), announces that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, captioned Mohammed v. FMC
Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00771, on behalf of persons
and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired FMC Corporation
("FMC" or the "Company") (NYSE: FMC) securities between November
16, 2023 and February 4, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Plaintiff pursues claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
Investors are hereby notified that they have 60 days from the date
of this notice to move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff in this
action.
What Happened?
On February 4, 2025, after the market closed, FMC released its
fourth quarter 2024 financial results, revealing that it had missed
its previously announced full fiscal year revenue guidance as well
as consensus estimates. FMC explained "growth was below [the
Company's] expectations as [it] learned during the quarter that
customers in many countries sought to hold significantly less
inventory than they have historically." The Company also provided a
Full Year 2025 outlook, disclosing that it expects revenue to
remain essentially flat due to "weaker demand in the channel as
customers in many countries prioritize holding
lower-than-historical levels of inventory." In an earnings call
held the same day, the Company disclosed it "need[s] to
significantly lower FMC inventory in the channel much beyond what
we were expecting."
On this news, FMC's stock price fell $18.12, or 33.5%, to close at
$35.92 per share on February 5, 2025, on unusually heavy trading
volume.
What Is The Lawsuit About?
The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: (1) the Company's channel management initiatives were
not progressing as represented; (2) that, faced with pricing
pressure, the Company had made the decision not to compete on
prices and instead walk away from sales opportunities; (3) that, as
a result, the Company had inflated inventory in the channels in
"LATAM, including Brazil, Asia, including India, as well as Canada
and Eastern Europe;" and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing,
Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.
If you purchased or otherwise acquired FMC securities during the
Class Period, you may move the Court no later than 60 days from the
date of this notice to ask the Court to appoint you as lead
plaintiff.
Contact Us To Participate or Learn More:
If you wish to learn more about this action, or if you have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests
with respect to these matters, please contact us:
Charles Linehan, Esq.
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, California 90067
Email: shareholders@glancylaw.com
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Toll-Free: (888) 773-9224
Visit our website at www.glancylaw.com.
If you inquire by email, please include your mailing address,
telephone number and number of shares purchased.
To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this
time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and
remain an absent member of the Class.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.[GN]
GATEHOUSE MEDIA: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Opposition
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN EWALT, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, et al., v. GATEHOUSE
MEDIA OHIO HOLDINGS II, INC., d/b/a THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH, Case No.
2:25-cv-00119-SDM-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Defendant asks the Court to
enter an order granting a 45-day first extension of time, until
March 24, 2025, to file its opposition to the Plaintiff Wylie's
motion for class certification, appointment of class
representative, and appointment of class counsel.
On May 11, 2023, the Plaintiffs moved to certify a class. Following
full briefing and oral argument, on March 26, 2024, this Court
issued an opinion and order denying Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction
over the individual state-law claims because there were no pending
class claims.
On May 17, 2024, the Court of Common Pleas for Franklin County
reactivated the remanded case.
Columbus is a daily newspaper based in Columbus, Ohio.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=drmaTk at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Todd H. Neuman, Esq.
Rick L. Ashton, Esq.
Jeffrey R. Corcoran, Esq.
ALLEN STOVALL NEUMAN FISHER & ASHTON LLP
17 South High Street, Suite 1220
Columbus, OH 43215
E-mail: neuman@aksnlaw.com
ashton@asnfa.com
corcoran@asnfa.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael J. Zbiegien, Jr., Esq.
Lynn Rowe Larsen, Esq.
Daniel H. Bryan, Esq.
James D. Abrams, Esq.
TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
200 Public Square, Suite 3500
Cleveland, OH 44114-2302
Telephone: (216) 241-2838
Facsimile: (216) 241-3707
E-mail: mzbiegien@taftlaw.com
llarsen@taftlaw.com
dbryan@taftlaw.com
jabrams@taftlaw.com
GENERATIONAL EQUITY: Settles Data Breach Class Suit for $275,000
----------------------------------------------------------------
Will Fritz of Top Class Actions reports that Generational Equity
agreed to pay $275,000 to resolve claims that it failed to prevent
a 2023 data breach that compromised sensitive consumer
information.
The Generational Equity settlement benefits individuals whose
private information was impacted by a Generational Equity data
breach in February 2023.
The data breach class action lawsuit claimed that Generational
Equity failed to protect sensitive consumer information from a 2023
cyber attack. As a result of this alleged negligence, Social
Security numbers and other identifiers were allegedly compromised.
Generational Equity is a mergers and acquisitions advisory firm
that helps business owners sell their companies.
Generational Equity hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to
pay an undisclosed sum to resolve the data breach class action
lawsuit.
Under the terms of the Generational Equity settlement, class
members can receive up to $300 for ordinary losses such as bank
fees, communication charges, credit expenses and up to three hours
of lost time at a rate of $25 per hour.
Class members can also receive up to $3,500 for extraordinary
losses such as unreimbursed fraudulent charges or identity theft
damages.
All class members can receive two years of free credit monitoring
services and identity theft protection.
The deadline for exclusion and objection was Nov. 3, 2024.
The final approval hearing for the Generational Equity data breach
settlement was scheduled for Dec. 6, 2024.
To receive settlement benefits, class members need to submit a
valid claim form by Dec. 3, 2024.
Who's Eligible
Individuals who reside in the United States whose private
information was impacted by the cybersecurity incident that
affected Generational Equity in February 2023.
Potential Award
$3,800
Proof of Purchase
Bank statements, credit reports, police reports, invoices,
receipts, etc.
Claim Form
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
12/03/2024
Case Name
Glass v. Generational Equity LLC, et al., Case No. DC-23-20315, in
the 298th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas
Final Hearing
12/16/2024
Settlement Website
GenerationalEquitySettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Generational Equity Data Incident Settlement Administrator
1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210
Philadelphia, PA 19103
(877) 447-4017
Class Counsel
Raina C Borrelli
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
Joe Kendall
KENNEDY LAW GROUP
Defense Counsel
Amanda Harvey
MULLEN COUGHLIN LLC [GN]
GOOGLE LLC: Parties Seek OK of Sealing Stipulation
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATRICK CALHOUN, et al.,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 4:20-cv-05146-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask
the Court to enter an order granting omnibus sealing stipulation
regarding Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification and
motions to strike expert reports of Schwartz and Erdem:
1. Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification and
appointment of class representatives and class counsel and
supporting papers;
2. Google's Opposition to Renewed Motion for Class
Certification and supporting papers;
3. Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Renewed Motion for Class
Certification;
4. Plaintiffs' motion to strike report of Tulin Erdem, Ph.D.
and supporting papers;
5. Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Report of Paul Schwartz and
supporting papers; and
6. Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Motion to Strike Report of
Paul Schwartz and supporting papers.
Google operates as a global technology company specializes in
internet related services and products.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vlyXV7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lesley E. Weaver, Esq.
Anne K. Davis, Esq.
Joshua D. Samra, Esq.
BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
1330 Broadway, Suite 630
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (415) 445-4003
Facsimile: (415) 445-4020
E-mail: lweaver@bfalaw.com
adavis@bfalaw.com
jsamra@bfalaw.com
- and -
Jason 'Jay' Barnes, Esq.
An Truong, Esq.
Eric Johnson, Esq.
Jennifer 'Jenny' Paulson, Esq.
SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLP
112 Madison Avenue, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 784-6400
Facsimile: (212) 213-5949
E-mail: jaybarnes@simmonsfirm.com
atruong@simmonsfirm.com
ejohnson@simmonsfirm.com
jpaulson@simmonsfirm.com
- and -
David A. Straite, Esq.
Corban Rhodes, Esq.
Amy E. Keller, Esq.
Julia Veeser, Esq.
Adam Prom, Esq.
DiCELLO LEVITT LLP
485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 933-1000
E-mail: dstraite@dicellolevitt.com
crhodes@dicellolevitt.com
akeller@dicellolevitt.com
aprom@dicellolevitt.com
jveeser@dicellolevitt.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Andrew H. Schapiro, Esq.
Teuta Fani, Esq.
Joseph H. Margolies, Esq.
Stephen A. Broome, Esq.
Viola Trebicka, Esq.
Crystal Nix-Hines, Esq.
Rachael L. McCracken, Esq.
Alyssa G. Olson, Esq.
Xi ("Tracy") Gao, Esq.
Carl Spilly, Esq.
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2700
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 705-7400
Facsimile: (312) 705-7401
E-mail: andrewschapiro@quinnemanuel.com
teutafani@quinnemanuel.com
josephmargolies@quinnemanuel.com
stephenbroome@quinnemanuel.com
violatrebicka@quinnemanuel.com
crystalnixhines@quinnemanuel.com
alyolson@quinnemanuel.com
tracygao@quinnemanuel.com
carlspilly@quinnemanuel.com
rachaelmccracken@quinnemanuel.com
GREEN BAY PACKERS: Faces Class Suit Over Pro Shop Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Bollier of Green Bay Press-Gazette reports that a Texas man
affected by last fall's Packers Pro Shop data breach on Friday,
February 7, sued the Green Bay Packers Inc. for damages related to
the incident.
Brian Garcia, of San Marcos, Texas, seeks damages from the team, a
declaration the team did not properly protect customers' private
data and a determination the case should proceed as a class action
lawsuit, according to the Feb. 7 civil complaint filed in Brown
County Circuit Court.
The case was filed by attorneys from Chicago-based Strauss Borrelli
and New York City-based Levi & Korsinsky, two law firms focused on
class action litigation related to data breaches and other consumer
issues.
A class action lawsuit enables anyone impacted by the same incident
to collectively sue the party they claim is responsible rather than
having to pursue individual legal recourse. In this case, the
complaint proposes a class that includes all United States
residents who were impacted by the Packers Pro Shop data breach,
estimating the class could include thousands of people.
The Packers' legal team has not yet responded to the complaint and
a spokesperson for the team declined to comment. An attorney for
Garcia also declined to comment.
The team on Jan. 7 announced its Packers Pro Shop website had been
hacked in September and October and it impacted a limited number of
people who purchased items with credit cards during the period.
Payments made using gift cards, Pro Shop website accounts, PayPal,
or Amazon Pay were not affected, the team said.
According to the complaint, the Packers notified Garcia via letter
that personal information like his name, address, email address and
credit card information could have been accessed by hackers during
the breach.
Since the breach, Garcia claims he has experienced an increase spam
calls, texts and emails, invested significant time monitoring his
accounts to detect and reduce the consequences of possible identity
fraud, and faces a risk of additional harm.
In the lawsuit, Garcia claims the Packers had an obligation to
protect consumers' personal, private information, but failed to
implement reasonable, adequate security measures to do so. The
complaint claims the organization's conduct amounts to at least
negligence and may have violated state or federal laws regarding
protecting consumers' information.
The complaint argues the potential number of claims, the common
legal issues they all involve and the likelihood Garcia's claim
reflects those of others impacted merits certification as a class
action suit with Garcia as the lead plaintiff.
It will be up to Brown County Circuit Court Judge Tammy Jo Hock to
determine whether to issue an order certifying the class action and
defining who is eligible to participate. The Packers can challenge
the certification request, too. [GN]
HAIN CELESTIAL: Awaits Ruling on Consolidated Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Hain Celestial Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for
the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 10, 2025, that the
Company awaits the court decision on the consolidated securities
class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.
On August 17, 2016, three securities class action complaints were
filed in the Eastern District of New York (the "District Court")
against the Company alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: (1) Flora v. The Hain
Celestial Group, Inc., et al.; (2) Lynn v. The Hain Celestial
Group, Inc., et al.; and (3) Spadola v. The Hain Celestial Group,
Inc., et al. (collectively, the "Securities Complaints").
The Securities Complaints were ultimately consolidated under the
caption In re The Hain Celestial Group, Inc. Securities Litigation
(the "Consolidated Securities Action"), and Rosewood Funeral Home
and Salamon Gimpel were appointed as Co-Lead Plaintiffs.
During the summer of 2017, a Corrected Consolidated Amended
Complaint was filed, which named as defendants the Company and
certain of its former officers (collectively, "Defendants") and
asserted violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegedly materially false or
misleading statements and omissions in public statements, press
releases and Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") filings
regarding the Company's business, prospects, financial results and
internal controls.
After Defendants' initial motion to dismiss was granted without
prejudice to replead in October 2017, the Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed
a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint on May 6, 2019
(the "Second Amended Complaint").
The Second Amended Complaint again named as defendants the Company
and certain of its former officers and asserted violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
based on allegations similar to those in the Corrected Consolidated
Amended Complaint.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint
on June 20, 2019.
On April 6, 2020, the District Court granted Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Second Amended Complaint in its entirety, with
prejudice.
Co-Lead Plaintiffs appealed the District Court's decision
dismissing the Second Amended Complaint to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the "Second Circuit").
By decision dated December 17, 2021, the Second Circuit vacated the
District Court's judgment and remanded the case for further
proceedings.
The parties ultimately submitted supplemental briefing between May
12, 2022 and June 23, 2022, and in June 2022, the District Court
referred Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint
to a United States Magistrate Judge (the "Magistrate Judge") for a
Report and Recommendation.
On November 4, 2022, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and
Recommendation recommending that the District Court grant
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint with
prejudice.
On September 29, 2023, the District Court granted Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint.
Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed notice of appeal on October 26, 2023,
appealing the District Court's decision dismissing the Second
Amended Complaint to the Second Circuit.
Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed their opening brief on February 12, 2024.
Defendants opposed, and the appeal was fully briefed as of June 3,
2024.
The Court held oral argument on Plaintiffs' appeal on December 5,
2024 and the Parties await a decision.
The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(collectively, along with its subsidiaries, is a manufacturer,
marketer and seller of food and beverages through specialty and
natural food distributors, supermarkets, natural food stores,
mass-market and e-commerce retailers, food service channels and
club, drug and convenience stores worldwide.
HAIN CELESTIAL: Continues to Defend Baby Food-Related Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hain Celestial Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q 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 the baby food-related class suit in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
Since February 2021, the Company has been named in numerous
consumer class actions alleging that the Company's Earth's Best
baby food products (the "Products") contain unsafe and undisclosed
levels of various naturally occurring heavy metals, namely lead,
arsenic, cadmium and mercury. Those actions have now been
transferred and consolidated as a single lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York captioned In re
Hain Celestial Heavy Metals Baby Food Litigation, Case No.
2:21-cv-678 (the "Consolidated Proceeding"), which generally
alleges that the Company violated various state consumer protection
laws and asserts other state and common law warranty and unjust
enrichment claims related to the alleged failure to disclose the
presence of these metals, arguing that consumers would have either
not purchased the Products or would have paid less for them had the
Company made adequate disclosures.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Class Action
Complaint on November 7, 2022, which was opposed by the plaintiffs.
On May 9, 2023, upon consent of the parties, the Court stayed the
Consolidated Proceeding pending the Second Circuit's decision on
appeal in In re Beech-Nut Nutrition Co. Baby Food Litigation, 21
Civ. 133 (N.D.N.Y.) (the "Beech-Nut Case").
Accordingly, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss
without prejudice to renew.
By summary order dated January 18, 2024, the Second Circuit vacated
the judgment dismissing the Beech-Nut Case and remanded for further
proceedings.
On February 15, 2024, the Company served a renewed motion to
dismiss the Consolidated Proceeding.
Plaintiffs served their opposition on March 14, 2024, and the
Company served its reply on April 4, 2024.
Following oral argument on August 1, 2024, the Court issued an
order on December 27, 2024 in which it granted the Company's motion
to dismiss with respect to Plaintiffs' claims arising out of the
alleged presence of lead, cadmium, mercury, or other substances, as
well as any claims challenging the use of the "USDA Organic" seal
on the Products' labeling, and denied the Company's motion to
dismiss with respect to Plaintiffs' claims arising out of the
alleged presence of arsenic in the Products.
The Company filed its answer to the Consolidated Class Action
Complaint on January 23, 2025.
The Company denies the allegations in these lawsuits and contends
that its baby foods are safe and properly labeled.
The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation
(collectively, along with its subsidiaries, is a manufacturer,
marketer and seller of food and beverages through specialty and
natural food distributors, supermarkets, natural food stores,
mass-market and e-commerce retailers, food service channels and
club, drug and convenience stores worldwide.
HOFFENMER INC: Pimentel Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hoffenmer Inc. The
case is styled as Jan Carlos Pimentel, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Hoffenmer Inc., Case No.
1:25-cv-20555-BB (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.
Hoffenmer -- https://www.hoffenmer.com/ -- specializes in DOT form
processing and FMCSA compliance services for the transportation
industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Faaris Kamal Uddin, Esq.
Gerald Donald Lane, Jr., Esq.
Zane Charles Hedaya, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1700
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (754) 444-7539
Email: faaris@jibraellaw.com
gerald@jibraellaw.com
zane@jibraellaw.com
HOME DEPOT: Court Extends Class Cert Deadlines
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIKE OLESKI and RUDY
CONDE, on Behalf of Themselves and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. THE HOME DEPOT, INC. and HOME DEPOT U.S.A.,
INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-01964-KM (M.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Karoline
Mehalchick entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' unopposed
motion for extension of the class certification deadline.
Home Depot is a home improvement retailer.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WeHZGq at no extra
charge.[CC]
ICON PLC: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------
Leading securities law firm Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP announces
that a lawsuit has been filed against ICON plc (NASDAQ: ICLR) and
certain of its senior executives for potential violations of the
federal securities laws.
If you invested in ICON, you are encouraged to obtain additional
information by visiting
https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/icon-plc.
Investors have until April 11, 2025, to ask the Court to be
appointed to lead the case. The complaint asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on
behalf of investors who purchased ICON securities. The case is
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York and is captioned Shing v. ICON plc, et al., No. 25-cv-00763.
Why was ICON Sued for Securities Fraud?
ICON is a clinical research organization ("CRO") that provides a
range of services to help its pharmaceutical company customers
bring new drugs to market. In recent years, many large
pharmaceutical companies have implemented drastic cost reduction
programs, including shifting part of their clinical studies
in-house and away from CROs like ICON.
Despite these industry trends, ICON repeatedly represented that
client demand was robust and that the company was benefiting from
the trends. However, in truth, ICON's business had significantly
deteriorated due to customer cost reduction measures and industry
funding limitations.
The Stock Declines as the Truth is Revealed
On October 23, 2024, ICON revealed a quarterly "revenue shortfall"
that missed analyst estimates by more than $100 million. The
company also revealed that indicators of customer demand, such as
net new business, had materially deteriorated, that two of its
large pharmaceutical customers had significantly curtailed upcoming
work, and that numerous other customers had cancelled, delayed, or
reduced the scope of ongoing and planned trials. As a result, ICON
cut its annual revenue guidance for 2024 by $220 million. This news
caused a more than 20% decline in the price of ICON stock over a
two-day trading period, from a closing price of $280.76 per share
on October 23, 2024 to $220.47 per share on October 25, 2024.
Then, on January 14, 2025, ICON issued financial guidance for 2025
that came in well below analysts' expectations which the company
attributed to the downturn in the industry. This news caused the
price of ICON stock to decline more than 8%, from a closing price
of $217.99 per share on January 13, 2025 to $200.24 per share on
January 14, 2025.
Click link for more information:
https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/icon-plc.
What Can You Do?
If you invested in ICON you may have legal options and are
encouraged to submit your information to the firm.
All representation is on a contingency fee basis, there is no cost
to you. Shareholders are not responsible for any court costs or
expenses of litigation. The firm will seek court approval for any
potential fees and expenses.
Submit your information by visiting:
https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/icon-plc
Or contact:
Ross Shikowitz
ross@bfalaw.com
(212) 789-3619
Why Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP?
Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP is a leading international law firm
representing plaintiffs in securities class actions and shareholder
litigation. It was named among the Top 5 plaintiff law firms by ISS
SCAS in 2023 and its attorneys have been named Titans of the
Plaintiffs' Bar by Law360 and SuperLawyers by Thompson Reuters.
Among its recent notable successes, BFA recovered over $900 million
in value from Tesla, Inc.'s Board of Directors, as well as $420
million from Teva Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd.
For more information about BFA and its attorneys, please visit
https://www.bfalaw.com.
https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/icon-plc
Attorney advertising. Past results do not guarantee future
outcomes. [GN]
INFINITI OF CLARENDON: Galindo Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Infiniti of Clarendon
Hills, Inc. The case is styled as Kevin Galindo, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Infiniti of Clarendon
Hills, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-01310 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 6, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Infiniti of Clarendon Hills --
https://www.infinitiofclarendonhills.com/ -- is a new and used car
dealership that features Infinity brand vehicles.[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
INOTIV INC: Plaintiff Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Re Inotiv Inc Securities Litigation,
Case No. 4:22-cv-00045-PPS-JEM (N.D. Ind.), the Plaintiff asks the
Court to enter an order as follows:
(i) certifying the action as a class action pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3);
(ii) appointing the Lead Plaintiff as Class Representative of
the Class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3);
and
(iii) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g), appointing Berman
Tabacco as Class Counsel and CohenMalad, LLP as Class
Liaison Counsel.
Inotiv provides nonclinical and analytical drug discovery and
development services, research models and related products and
services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 10, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tEH0bs at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick T. Egan, Esq.
Steven J. Buttacavoli, Esq.
Justin N. Saif, Esq.
Christina L. G. Fitzgerald, Esq.
BERMAN TABACCO
One Liberty Square
Boston, MA 02109
Telephone: (617) 542-8300
Facsimile: (617) 542-1194
E-mail: pegan@bermantabacco.com
sbuttacavoli@bermantabacco.com
jsaif@bermantabacco.com
cfitzgerald@bermantabacco.com
- and -
Scott D. Gilchrist, Esq.
COHENMALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 214-0321
Facsimile: (317) 636-2593
E-mail: sgilchrist@cohenandmalad.com
INTELLIA THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
If you suffered a loss on your Intellia Therapeutics, Inc.
(NASDAQ:NTLA) investment and want to learn about a potential
recovery under the federal securities laws, follow the link below
for more information:
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/intellia-therapeutics-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=129429&wire=1
or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or call (212) 363-7500 to speak to our team
of experienced shareholder advocates.
THE LAWSUIT: A class action securities lawsuit was filed against
Intellia Therapeutics, Inc. that seeks to recover losses of
shareholders who were adversely affected by alleged securities
fraud between July 30, 2024 and January 8, 2025.
CASE DETAILS: According to the complaint, defendants provided
investors with material information concerning Intellia's Phase 1/2
study evaluating NTLA-3001 for the treatment of alpha-1 antitrypsin
deficiency (AATD)-associated lung disease. Defendants' statements
included, among other things, confidence in the Company's timeline
for the aforementioned study, specifically that Intellia expected
to dose the first patient in the second half of 2024. Defendants
failed to disclose inter alia that the demand for viral-based
editing was rapidly dwindling as non-viral delivery methods became
a main target of the scientific research community due to their
cost-effectiveness and more efficient development, thus making
NTLA-3001 an inefficient program for Intellia to maintain.
The truth emerged on January 9, 2025, when Intellia published a
press release announcing Company reorganization. In pertinent part,
defendants disclosed that Intellia would be halting all NTLA-3001
research and studies and that the Company would be reducing its
workforce by 27% in 2025. Specifically, the Company announced that
management decided to focus Intellia's resources on other
pharmaceutical development and would be implementing cost saving in
the form of a major reduction in force. As a result, defendants
pipeline priority readjustment resulted in the Company's
once-touted NTLA-3001's discontinuation.
Following this news, Intellia's stock price fell from a closing
market price of $12.02 per share on January 8, 2025 to $10.20 per
share on January 10, 2025.
WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Intellia stock during the
relevant time frame - even if you still hold your shares - go to
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/intellia-therapeutics-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=129429&wire=1
to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or
obligation to participate.
WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP
has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities
litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars
for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning
high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing
investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70
employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi &
Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top
50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the
United States. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Ed Korsinsky, Esq.
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
https://zlk.com/ [GN]
JAGUAR RESTAURANT: Andres Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
Yuridia Alberto Andres, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. JAGUAR RESTAURANT INC. (D/B/A JAGUAR
RESTAURANT), ALFONSO ISIDORO, And AUDELIA DOE, Case No.
1:25-cv-01061 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 6, 2025), is brought for unpaid
minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 ("FLSA"), and for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law (the
"NYLL"), and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the
New York Commissioner of Labor (herein the "Spread of Hours Wage
Order"), including applicable liquidated damages, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week,
without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours
compensation for the hours that she worked. Rather, Defendants
failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and
failed to pay the Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked,
either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime
premium. Further, Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff the
required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which she had to work
over 10 hours a day. Furthermore, Defendants repeatedly failed to
pay the Plaintiff wages on a timely basis. The Defendants
maintained a policy and practice of requiring the Plaintiff Yuridia
Alberto and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week
without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation
required by federal and state law and regulations, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed as a waitress at the restaurant.
The Defendants own, operate, or control a Mexican restaurant,
located in New York City under the name "Jaguar Restaurant."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
MICHAEL FAILLACE ESQ.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Phone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
LEGENDS OWO: Agrees to Settle Undisclosed Fees' Suit for $975,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Will Fritz of Top Class Actions reports that Legends OWO agreed to
a $975,000 class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it
failed to disclose fees when consumers purchased electronic tickets
to One World Observatory in New York City.
The One World Observatory settlement benefits consumers who
purchased electronic tickets to the One World Observatory between
Aug. 29, 2022, and Nov. 6, 2024, and paid a fee in connection with
their purchase.
According to the class action lawsuit, Legends OWO failed to
disclose ticket processing fees for electronic tickets to the One
World Observatory before consumers selected tickets for purchase.
Plaintiffs in the case say this practice violated New York law
requiring fees to be disclosed before ticket selection.
Legends OWO is the operator of the One World Observatory, a tourist
attraction at the top of the One World Trade Center in Manhattan.
Legends OWO hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to the
$975,000 settlement to resolve the ticket fee class action
lawsuit.
Under the terms of the One World Observatory settlement, class
members can receive a proportional share of the net settlement fund
based on the amount they paid in ticket processing fees. Exact
payment amounts will vary depending on the number of participating
class members and the amount each class member paid in fees. Class
members who paid a higher amount in fees will receive a larger
share of the settlement fund. No payment estimates are available at
this time.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is Jan. 10, 2025.
The final approval hearing for the One World Observatory ticket fee
settlement is scheduled for March 7, 2025.
In order to receive a settlement payment, class members must submit
a valid claim form by April 21, 2025.
Who's Eligible
Consumers who purchased electronic tickets and paid a processing
fee to gain entrance to One World Observatory from the defendant's
website between Aug. 29, 2022, and Nov. 6, 2024.
Potential Award
Varies
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
04/21/2025
Case Name
Puller v. Legends OWO LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00209-RA, in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York
Final Hearing
03/07/2025
Settlement Website
OneWorldTicketFeeSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
One World Observatory Ticket Fee Settlement
PO Box 2880
Portland, OR 97208-2880
info@oneworldticketfeesettlement.com
(888) 884-6585
Class Counsel
Philip L Fraietta, Esq.
Stefan Bogdanovich, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER PA
Defense Counsel
Matthew M Gurvitz, Esq.
Philip DiSanto, Esq.
WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP [GN]
MAXI CANADA INC: Desir Files Suit in E.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Maxi Canada Inc. The
case is styled as Jessica Desir, Ty-nice Norman-Robinson, Sherine
Parker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. Maxi Canada Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-00631 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 5,
2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Tort Product Liability.
Maxi Canada -- https://www.maxi.com/ -- is an innovative, growing
frozen food company specializing in processed chicken
products.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq.
ARISOHN LLC
513 8th Avenue #2
Brooklyn, NY 11215
Phone: (917) 656-0569
Email: josh@arisohnllc.com
MICHAEL HYATT: Crumwell Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
Denise Crumwell, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated v. MICHAEL HYATT & COMPANY, LLC, Case No.
1:25-cv-01017 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 4, 2025), is brought this civil
rights action against the Defendant for their failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website,
https://fullfocus.co/, 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 her
computer.
MICHAEL HYATT & COMPANY, LLC, operates the Full Focus online retail
store, as well as the Full Focus interactive Website and
advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and
throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
dana@gottlieb.legal
MICHIGAN: Files Appeal in Hathon Class Suit
-------------------------------------------
The STATE OF MICHIGAN is taking an appeal from a court order in the
lawsuit entitled Lynette Hathon, et al., on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. State of
Michigan, Defendant, in the Court of Claims in Michigan.
The Plaintiffs filed this putative class action against the
Defendant seeking relief arising from tax foreclosures in counties
where the Defendant acted as the foreclosing governmental unit.
The appellate case is captioned Lynette Hathon vs. State of
Michigan, Case No. 374332, in the Michigan Court of Appeals, filed
on February 5, 2025. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellees HATHON LYNETTE, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Philip L. Ellison, Esq.
OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL PLC
Post Office Box 107
Hemlock, MI 48626
Telephone: (989) 642-0055
- and -
Matthew E. Gronda, Esq.
4800 Fashion Square Boulevard, Suite 200
Saginaw, MI 48604
Telephone: (989) 233-1639
- and -
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM PC
211 W. Fort St., Suite 705
Detroit, MI 48226
Telephone: (248) 963-6452
Defendant-Appellant STATE OF MICHIGAN is represented by:
Matthew B. Hodges, Esq.
525 W. Ottawa St. Fl. 2
Lansing, MI 48933
Telephone: (517) 335-7584
MONTANA UNIVERSITY: Niman Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------
BETHANY NIMAN, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
denying their motion for partial summary judgment in the lawsuit
entitled Bethany Niman, et al., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Montana University
System, et al., Defendants, Case No. 9:23-cv-00079-DWM, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Montana.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs
sued the Montana Commissioner of Higher Education Clayton
Christian, as well as individual members of the Montana Board of
Regents and UM registrars, alleging civil rights violations under
42 U.S.C. sections 1983 and 1988 based on a residency policy that
denies bona fide residents of Montana in-state tuition at its
universities.
On Oct. 4, 2024, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants filed their
motions for summary judgment.
On Jan. 6, 2025, Judge Donald W. Molloy entered summary judgment in
favor of the Defendants. Summary judgment was granted only as to
the Plaintiffs' equal protection claim.
The appellate case is captioned Niman, et al. v. Montana University
System, et al., Case No. 25-769, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on February 5, 2025.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on February 10,
2025;
-- Appellant's Transcript Order was due on February 18, 2025;
-- Appellant's Transcript is due on March 20, 2025;
-- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on April 29, 2025;
and
-- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due on May 29, 2025.
[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants BETHANY NIMAN, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Geoffrey Angel, Esq.
ANGEL LAW FIRM
803 West Babcock
Bozeman, MT 59715
Defendants-Appellees MONTANA UNIVERSITY SYSTEM, et al. are
represented by:
Dale Schowengerdt, Esq.
Timothy Longfield, Esq.
LANDMARK LAW, PLLC
7 W. 6th Avenue, Suite 518
Helena, MT 59601
- and -
Hannah Elizabeth Tokerud, Esq.
MONTANA UNIVERSITY SYSTEM
P.O. Box 203201
Helena, MT 59620
MR. WHEELS INC: Dissanayake Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Mr. Wheels, Inc. The
case is styled as Senarath Dissanayake, an individual and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Mr. Wheels, Inc. doing business
as Autonation, Case No. 25STCV02995 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles
Cty., Feb. 3, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
MrWheels -- https://mrwheels.com/ -- is a full service, one-stop
vehicle customization.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
1460 Westwood Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: 310-438-5555
Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com
- and -
Sarah H. Cohen, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
8484 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 500
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3243
Phone: 310-438-5555
Email: sarah@tomorrowlaw.com
NCAA: Brantmeier Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as REESE BRANTMEIER and MAYA
JOINT, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, v.
NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, Case No.
1:24-cv-00238-CCE-JEP (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order certifying two Classes as follows:
Injunctive Relief Class under Rule 23(b)(2) consisting of:
"all persons who at any time between March 19, 2020 and the
date of judgment in this action, (i) competed in NCAA Division
1 Tennis, or (ii) were ineligible to compete in NCAA Division
I Tennis due to the Prize Money Rules"; and
Damages Class under Rule 23(b)(3) consisting of:
"all persons who at any time between March 19, 2020 and the
date of judgment in this matter, have voluntarily forfeited
Prize Money earned in a tennis tournament, and i) have
competed in NCAA Division 1 Tennis or ii) have submitted
information to the NCAA Eligibility Center."
National Collegiate is a nonprofit organization that regulates
student athletics among about 1,100 schools in the United States,
and 1 in Canada
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6GXdPv at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Arthur M. Stock, Esq.
Daniel K. Bryson, Esq.
Lucy N. Inman, Esq.
Peggy J. Wedgworth, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 W Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Telephone: (919) 600-5000
E-mail: astock@milberg.com
dbryson@milberg.com
linman@milberg.com
pwedgworth@milberg.com
- and -
Jason A. Miller, Esq.
Robert B. Rader III, Esq.
William W. Plyler, Esq.
Joel L. Lulla, Esq.
MILLER MONROE & PLYLER, PLLC
1520 Glenwood Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27608
Telephone: (919) 809-7346
E-mail: jmiller@millermonroe.com
rrader@millermonroe.com
wplyler@millermonroe.com
joel_lulla@yahoo.com
NORTH RANCH COUNTRY: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against North Ranch Country
Club. The case is styled as Saul Arteaga Hernandez, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated v. North Ranch Country Club,
Case No. 25STCV02986 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 3,
2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
North Ranch Country Club -- https://www.northranchcc.org/ -- is a
country club in Thousand Oaks, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Lavi, Esq.
E&L, LLP
8889 W. Olympic Blvd. 2nd Floor
Beverly Hills, CA 90211
Phone: 213-213-0000
Fax: 213-213-0025
Email: dlavi@ebralavi.com
NOW OPTICS: Marous Class Certification Bid Tossed w/o Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD MAROUS, on behalf
of all others similarly situated, v. NOW OPTICS HOLDINGS, LLC, Case
No. 9:24-cv-80702-RLR (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Robin Rosenberg
entered an order:
-- denying motion for class certificaiton without prejudice,
-- denying motion for leave to file surreply as moot, and
-- denying motion for leave to file under seal without prejudice.
The Court further orders that the pretrial deadlines be modified as
follows:
-- Plaintiff shall file any renewed motion for March 21, 2025
class certification:
-- Defendant shall respond to any renewed March 25, 2025
motion for class certification:
-- Plaintiff shall file a reply in March 28, 2025
support of any renewed motion for
class certification:
Now Optics offers health, retail and franchise services in the eye
care industry since 2006.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 10, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OBmMEe at no extra
charge.[CC]
OPENTECH ALLIANCE: Willis Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against OpenTech Alliance
Incorporated. The case is styled as Darrel Willis, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. OpenTech Alliance
Incorporated doing business as: Storage Treasures, Case No.
2:25-cv-00368-KML (D. Ariz., Feb. 4, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
OpenTech Alliance -- https://opentechalliance.com/ -- is
consistently innovating technology products within the self storage
industry.[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
OUTSOURCED ASSOCIATES: Curry Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Curry, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated employees v. OUTSOURCED ASSOCIATES & STAFFING, LLC dba NOW
CFO, LLC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-00076 (D.
Utah, Feb. 4, 2025), is brought for unpaid regular and overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Beginning in mid-September 2024, after not having received multiple
paychecks despite performing compensable work, the Plaintiff raised
concerns about the Defendants' plainly unlawful pay scheme to the
Company's Chief Human Resources Officer, as well as her supervisors
in Atlanta, Georgia.
Yet rather than recognizing that the Company's pay policy is
obviously unlawful and fixing the harm done, the Defendants' Chief
Human Resources Officer first sought to gaslight The Plaintiff that
its refusal to pay for all hours worked was appropriate. When those
unconvincing (and wrong) excuses failed, the Defendants sent in the
Plaintiff's then-supervisor, April Dietmer, to attempt to
sweet-talk the Plaintiff into signing away her rights for pennies
on the dollar by bypassing her counsel and directly attempting to
coerce her into a bargain-bin settlement.
After the Plaintiff rejected the Defendants' ham-fisted attempt to
settle on the cheap, the Defendants predictably fired her in
retaliation for raising concerns about the Company's obviously
unlawful practices. For these reasons, the Plaintiff brings claims
for time worked off the clock on behalf of herself and all those
similarly situated consultants who worked for the Defendants, LLC
over the previous three years, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a former non-exempt consultant who worked for NOW
CFO out of its Atlanta-area office until her employment was
terminated on November 26, 2024.
NOW CFO holds itself out as a provider of top-notch accounting,
controller, consulting, and financial services at bargain-basement
prices.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Galen T. Shimoda, Esq.
Austin D. Sork, Esq.
SHIMODA & RODRIGUEZ LAW, PC
1414 E. Murray Holladay Road
Holladay UT 84117
Phone: (833) 201-0213
Email: attorney@shimodalaw.com
asork@shimodalaw.com
- and -
Cary R. Burke, Esq.
Alexander Meier, Esq.
Jackie Lee, Esq.
LEE MEIER LAW FIRM
695 Pylant Street NE, Suite 105
Atlanta, GA 30306
Phone: (404) 474-7628
Email: cburke@leemeier.law
ameier@leemeier.law
jlee@leemeier.law
POM MEDICAL: Manzano Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Mayra Manzano, an individual, on behalf of
herself, all others similarly situated v. POM MEDICAL, LLC, a
Nevada limited liability company; STRYKER EMPLOYMENT COMPANY, LLC,
a Michigan limited liability company; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Case No. 2024CUOE033924 was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Ventura, to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 5,
2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00993.
The Complaint asserts 12 causes of action for: "Failure to Pay all
Hours Worked, Including Overtime Hours Worked"; "Improper
Calculation of Regular Rate"; "Failure to Pay All Wages Owed Twice
Per Month"; "Failure to Pay Minimum Wage"; "Rest Break Violations";
"Meal Break Violations"; "Failure to Reimburse for Required
Business Expenses"; "Failure to Pay Wages Due Upon Termination";
"Failure to Properly Accrue and Pay for Unpaid Vacation"; "Failure
to Provide Accurate Itemized Wage Statements & Violation of Record
Keeping Requirements"; (11) "Failure to Produce Personnel Records";
and "Unlawful Business Practices Bus & Prof. Code."[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Michele J. Beilke, Esq.
Julia Y. Trankiem, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3300
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5793
Phone: (213) 270-9600
Facsimile: (213) 270-9601
Email: mbeilke@seyfarth.com
jtrankiem@seyfarth.com
- and -
Romtin Parvaresh, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
Phone: (310) 277-7200
Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
Email: rparvaresh@seyfarth.com
SEATTLE, WA: Employees Sue Over Alleged Widespread Wage Theft
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Rantz, writing for 770KTTH, reports that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against the city of Seattle by three
unionized workers on behalf of nearly 14,000 employees, according
to a joint press release by nine unions.
The lawsuit alleges widespread wage theft following the city of
Seattle's implementation of a new payroll system powered by Workday
in September 2024. City of Seattle workers claim they have been
underpaid, not paid at all, or had incorrect deductions and benefit
accruals due to ongoing payroll errors. The three workers are union
members with Professional & Technical Employees Local 17
(PROTEC17), the International Association of Fire Fighters Local 27
(IAFF Local 27) and the Seattle Police Officers Guild (SPOG).
"We've been working with the City to correct these wage issues for
months and too many employees are still left without answers and
without correct pay. PROTEC17 supports the action that these city
of Seattle employees and union members have taken to correct this
injustice and to ensure that everyone -- whether in a union or not
-- is paid correctly for the important work they do," PROTEC17
Executive Director Karen Estevenin said in the press release.
What is alleged in the class action lawsuit against city of
Seattle?
The city of Seattle workers argue that Seattle knew or should have
known about potential problems, as other governments using Workday,
including Maine, Oregon, Baltimore and Los Angeles, have
experienced similar issues. The lawsuit seeks to have the City fix
or replace Workday, conduct an independent audit of wages, and
recover unpaid wages plus damages.
The news of missing wages related to the Seattle Police Department
was first reported by "The Jason Rantz Show" on KTTH. At the time,
SPOG President Officer Mike Solan explained that they were
exploring possible legal options.
According to multiple Seattle Police sources, city staff weren't
properly trained in the new payroll system, and Workday wasn't
equipped to handle the pay complexities of officers working 24-hour
shift cycles.
For the last two years, SPD leadership flagged concerns about
Workday's implementation, warning the Mayor's office that it would
become an inevitable disaster.
The case has been filed in King County Superior Court, with legal
representation from Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC and Bennett
Hartman LLP. [GN]
SHEVAUN HARRIS: Hall Seeks OK of Amended Class Cert Bid
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wendall Hall, Tonnie
Nealy, Curtis Dale, v. Shevaun Harris, Raven Reid, Case No.
2:24-cv-01069-SPC-KCD (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting amended motion for class certification and
motion for appointment of class counsel or counsel.
The Plaintiff define the class as follows:
"All person [civil detainees or civilly committed persons] AT
FLORIDA CIVIL COMMITMENT CENTER who were secluded, confined OR
PLACED ON WING RESTRICTION OR SECURE MANAGEMENT at FLORIDA
CIVIL COMMITMENT CENTER IN AN LOCKED ISOLATED ROOM FOR over 4
hours, 23 HOURS OR MORE."
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 5, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2VIRoT at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs appear pro se.[CC]
SLP TACER OPERATING: Natareno Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SLP TACER OPERATING,
LLC. The case is styled as Gabriela Natareno, an individual and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. SLP TACER OPERATING, LLC
d/b/a TOWN AND COUNTRY EVENT RENTALS, Case No. 25STCV03081 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 4, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
SLP Tacer Operating LLC is a company based in Van Nuys, CA that
specializes in providing operational services to various
industries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
Jason W. Rothman, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
1460 Westwood Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: 310-438-5555
Fax: 310-300-1705
Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com
Jason@tomorrowlaw.com
SOUTH CAROLINA: Court Moots Bid for Class Cert Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Doe, et al., v. South
Carolina, State of, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-06420 (D.S.C., Filed
Nov. 12, 2024), the Hon. Judge Richard M. Gergel entered an order
finding as moot motion for discovery related to the Plaintiffs'
motions for a preliminary injunction and class certification.
The nature of suit states Education discrimination and violation of
Title IX.[CC]
SOUTH CAROLINA: Seeks Leave to File Opposition Sur-Reply
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as John Doe, et al., v. State
of South Carolina, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-06420-RMG (D.S.C.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion
for leave to file a combined sur-reply in opposition to Minor
Plaintiff's motions for preliminary injunction and class
certification.
On Nov. 12, 2024, Minor Plaintiff filed motions for preliminary
injunction and for class certification.
Pursuant to the Amended Scheduling Order entered by this Court, the
Defendants filed their responses to those motions on January 13,
2025.
Pursuant to that same Amended Scheduling Order, Minor Plaintiff
filed replies in support of the two motions on January 31, 2025.
South Carolina is a southeastern U.S. state known for its shoreline
of subtropical beaches and marshlike sea islands.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1CXNL0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Joseph D. Spate, Esq.
SOUTH CAROLINA OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL
1000 Assembly St.
Columbia, SC 29201
Telephone: (803) 734-3371
E-mail: josephspate@scag.gov
- and -
Miles E. Coleman, Esq.
NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH
2 West Washington Street / Suite 400
Greenville, SC29601
Telephone: (864) 373-2300
E-mail: miles.coleman@nelsonmullins.com
- and -
Brandon E. Gaskins, Esq.
MOORE & VAN ALLEN PLLC
78 Wentworth Street
Charleston, SC 29401
Telephone: (843) 579-7038
E-mail: gaskinsb@mvalaw.com
SP DATA: Filing for Class Certification Bid in Verres Due Dec. 9
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Veres v. SP Data Digital
LLC, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01356 (N.D. Ohio, Filed Aug. 8,
2024), the Hon. Judge Bridget Meehan Brennan entered an order
resolving the motion to bifurcate discovery and adopt the parties'
jointly proposed dates as follows:
-- Amended pleadings/joinder of parties: April 3, 2025
-- Non-expert discovery: Nov. 28, 2025
-- Motion for class certification: Dec. 9, 2025
-- Expert reports for party bearing Dec. 16, 2025
the burden of proof:
-- Responsive expert reports: Jan. 23, 2026
-- Expert discovery: March 6, 2026
-- Dispositive motions: March 6. 2026
The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA).[CC]
SSM HEALTH: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid Response
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIA HICKS, individually
and for others similarly situated, v. SSM HEALTH CARE CORPORATION,
Case No. 4:24-cv-01447-CDP (E.D. Mo.), the Defendant asks the Court
to enter an order granting the Defendant's motion for an extension
of time to respond to Plaintiff's motion for conditional
certification until 30 days after resolution of Defendant's
forthcoming motion to compel arbitration or, alternatively,
granting a 30-day extension from the current deadline and any other
relief the Court finds just and proper.
On Oct. 28, 2024, the Plaintiff filed this collective action
against SSM for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
employees.
On Jan. 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed her Motion for Conditional
Certification.
On Jan. 16, 2025, the parties attended a case management
conference.
On Jan. 17, 2025, the Court entered a Preliminary Case Management
Order, directing Defendant to respond to Plaintiff’s Motion for
Conditional Certification by Feb. 13, 2025, and establishing other
case deadlines.
On Jan. 18, 2025, the Defendant discovered Plaintiff and the
opt-ins entered into Independent Contractor Agreements with
CareRev, which contain an agreement to arbitrate and a class and
collective action waiver that likely apply to their claims against
Defendant.
The Defendant is a health care facility.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 6, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UHnEDC at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Patrick F. Hulla, Esq.
Mallory S. Zoia, Esq.
Holly A. Morrison, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK &
STEWART, P.C.
700 W. 47th St., Suite 500
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 471-1301
Facsimile: (816) 471-1303
E-mail: patrick.hulla@ogletree.com
mallory.zoia@ogletree.com
holly.morrison@ogletree.com
STANLEY BLACK: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Kistler Due Nov. 14
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kistler, et al., v.
Stanley Black & Decker Inc., et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00966 (D.
Conn., Filed July 29, 2022), the Hon. Judge Stefan R. Underhill
entered an order setting class certification deadlines:
-- Discovery due by: March 6, 2026
-- Dispositive Motions due by: June 11, 2026
-- The Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Nov. 14, 2025
Certification due by:
-- Defendant's Opposition to Class Dec. 12, 2025
Certification due by:
Stanley manufactures industrial tools and household hardware.[CC]
The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (E.R.I.S.A.)
STAR214 LLC: Expert Disclosures on Brown Class Suit Due May 14
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANIELLE BROWN AND ROY
BROWN, on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated
consumers, v. STAR214 LLC, and STATEBRIDGE COMPANY, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-01964-LMB-WEF (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge William
Fitzpatrick entered an Rule 16(B) scheduling order:
1. The Court declines to adopt paragraph 3 of the Joint
Discovery Plan. All discovery shall be concluded by June 13,
2025.
2. The Joint Discovery Plan filed by the parties is approved,
as amended herein, and shall control discovery to the extent
of its application unless further modified by the court.
3. All Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) disclosures, if not already
completed, shall be completed by Nov. 28, 2024.
4. Expert disclosures required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2)
shall be made in accordance with paragraph 4 of the Joint
Discovery Plan. Specifically, expert disclosures required by
Rule 26(a)(2) are due on or before May 14, 2025. Opposing
expert reports are due on or before May 28, 2025. To the
extent the parties wish to modify expert deadlines, they
must seek leave of court.
5. The Court declines to adopt paragraphs 15 and 16 of the
Joint Discovery Plan. The District Judge will set a timeline
for the filing of summary judgment motions, Daubert, and
motions in limine at the final pretrial conference.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=M3vLz4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
STREAMLABS LLC: Settles Subscription Class Suit for $4.4 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Will Fritz of Top Class Actions reports that Streamlabs has agreed
to a $4.4 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims
it enrolled consumers in an automatically renewing subscription
without their consent.
The Streamlabs settlement benefits consumers who were enrolled in a
Streamlabs Pro automatic renewal subscription after adding a GIF or
effect to their donation and who were then billed a monthly fee for
the subscription between March 3, 2018, and May 17, 2022.
According to a class action lawsuit against the company, Streamlabs
automatically enrolled consumers in a subscription service without
their consent. Plaintiffs in the case say they were charged $5.99
per month for this subscription service despite only intending to
make a one-time payment to add a GIF to their donation.
Streamlabs is a streaming platform that offers advanced functions
to content creators such as overlays and collecting donations from
viewers through third-party payment processors such as PayPal.
The company hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay $4.4
million to resolve these allegations.
Under the terms of the Streamlabs settlement, class members can
receive a cash payment based on the number of monthly subscription
payments they made during the class period. Class members who made
a higher number of payments will receive a larger share of the net
settlement fund. Exact payments will vary. No payment estimates are
available at this time.
In addition to providing cash benefits, Streamlabs agreed to change
its website disclosures to ensure consumers are aware they are
signing up for a Streamlabs Pro automatic renewal subscription in
order to meet the requirements of the California Consumers Legal
Remedies Act.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is Jan. 9, 2025.
The final approval hearing for the settlement is scheduled for Jan.
30, 2025.
In order to receive a settlement payment, class members must submit
a valid claim form by March 31, 2025.
Who's Eligible
Consumers who were enrolled in a Streamlabs Pro automatic renewal
subscription after adding a GIF or effect to their donation and who
were then billed a monthly fee for the subscription between March
3, 2018, and May 17, 2022.
Potential Award
Varies
Proof of Purchase
Streamlabs username or email address used to create the Streamlabs
account.
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
Leventhal v. Streamlabs LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-01330-LB, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California
Final Hearing
01/30/2025
Settlement Website
StreamlabsClassActionSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Streamlabs Class Action Settlement
1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210
Philadelphia, PA 19103
(888) 817-7075
Class Counsel
Patricia I Avery
Philip M Black
WOLF POPPER LLP
Kristin J Moody
Alexander S Vahdat
BERMAN TABACCO
Defense Counsel
Joseph E Addiego III
Jean Fundakowski
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP [GN]
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Class Certification Bids in Weston Due April 4
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DANNY WESTON, INDIVIDUALLY
AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED et al., v. SUBARU OF
AMERICA, INC. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-05876-CPO-SAK (D.N.J.), the
Hon. Judge Sharon King entered an amended scheduling order as
follows:
1. Expert Discovery no later than: Feb. 24, 2025
2. Deposition of Defendants' March 14, 2025
existing sur-rebuttal expert
witness shall be concluded by:
3. Class certification motions are April 4, 2025
extended from Mar. 21, 2025, and
shall be filed with the Clerk of
the Court no later than:
4. Any opposition shall be filed by: June 4, 2025
5. Any reply brief in further support July 7, 2025.
of class certification shall be
filed by shall be filed by:
6. The Defendants' summary judgment April 14, 2025
motion is extended from Mar. 31,
2025, and shall be filed with the
Clerk of the Court no later than:
7. Any opposition shall be filed by: June 13, 2025
8. Any reply brief in further support July 14, 2025
of summary judgment shall be
filed by:
Subaru of America is the United States–based distributor of
Subaru's brand vehicles.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 10, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=J0fC6E at no extra
charge.[CC]
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY: Bid to Preclude Balsamo's Testimony Granted
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MACK BUTLER, DESHAUN SIMS,
CLYDE LOFTON, PAUL ALVER, KEVIN KING, and RICKEY LYNCH, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SUFFOLK COUNTY,
Case No. 2:11-cv-02602-JS-AYS (E.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Joanna
Seybert entered an order as follows:
-- The motion in limine regarding Plaintiffs' witnesses' personal
histories and presentation in court is granted in part and
denied in part.
-- The motion in limine to preclude James Balsamo's Testimony is
granted.
-- The motion in limine on sampling evidence is granted.
Suffolk County is the easternmost county in the U.S. state of New
York, constituting the eastern two-thirds of Long Island.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 5, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JqVVi1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel H.R. LaGuardia, Esq.
John Nathanson, Esq.
Elizabeth J. Stewart, Esq.
Benjamin Klebanoff, Esq.
ALLEN OVERY SHEARMAN & STERLING US LLP
599 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10022
Christopher T. Dunn, Esq.
- and -
Amy Belsher, Esq.
Gabriella Larios, Esq.
Veronica R. Salama, Esq.
NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
125 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004
The Defendant is represented by:
E. Christopher Murray, Esq.
Michelle A. Klein, Esq.
Elizabeth S. Sy, Esq.
Caitlyn M. Gibbons, Esq.
RIVKIN RADLER LLP
926 RXR Plaza
Uniondale, NY 11556
SUSHI KATSUEI: Chakma Wins Bid for Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUPAN CHAKMA, SULOY
TRIPORA, TAPAN KANTI TANCHANGYA, TIYANIT KAEWPAN, and PRAMITA
CHAKMA, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v.
SUSHI KATSUEI, INC. d/b/a SUSHI KATSUEI PARK SLOPE, ROYAL KATSUEI,
INC. d/b/a SUSHI KATSUEI WEST VILLAGE, AYE AYE SWE, and AUNG KO
WIN, Case No. 1:23-cv-07804-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Katherine Polk Failla entered an order granting the motion for
class certification.
Moreover, the Plaintiffs are appointed as the Class and Subclass
Representatives, and Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP is appointed as
Class and Subclass Counsel.
The motion for an order directing Defendants to produce a class
list and for authorization of the proposed notice to class members
is also granted, subject to the modifications outlined in this
Opinion.
The parties are instructed to file submit a joint letter on or
before March 31, 2025, proposing next steps in this case.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate the pending motion at
docket entry 36.
As such, the Court concludes that a class action is the superior
method of resolving this action, and that the requirements of Rule
23(b)(3) have been satisfied.
The Plaintiffs bring this action against the Defendants, alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA") and the New
York Labor Law (the "NYLL").
The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class that includes
"All tipped food-service employees other than sushi chefs
who worked for the Defendants at the Sushi Katsuei restaurants
at any time on or after Sept. 1, 2017."
The Plaintiffs filed the instant motion, seeking class
certification under Rule 23, on August 2, 2024.
The Defendants filed their opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification on Sept. 3, 2024.
Sushi operates the Sushi Katsuei restaurant located in the Park
Slope neighborhood of Brooklyn.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YIffqQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: Can Seal Portions of Class Cert Opposition
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Premera Blue Cross v.
Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, et al., Case No.
1:23-cv-12918 (D. Mass, Filed Nov. 30, 2023) the Hon. Judge Myong
J. Joun 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 nature of suit states Diversity-Contract Dispute.
Takeda is a Japanese multinational pharmaceutical company.[CC]
TAPESTRY INC: Bid to Seal Judicial Docs Tossed
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nguyen-Wilhite v.
Tapestry, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-03339-JLR (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Jennifer Rochon entered an order denying Defendant's request
to seal judicial documents that were submitted and considered for
purposes of the pending motion for class certification.
The Defendant asserts that the sealed Exhibits contain "sensitive"
and "competitive" business information, but "has not alleged any
specific harm it would suffer if the information in the Exhibit[s]
[are] made public," especially since much of the contents of the
documents are described or even quoted in the briefs filed by the
parties.
Moreover, the request is "not narrowly tailored" — "Defendant
requests to seal the entire exhibit[s]" rather than "propose
limited redactions of only the commercially sensitive information."
The parties shall file on the docket publicly available versions of
the sealed exhibits by Feb. 14, 2025. The parties may redact any
personally identifiable information such as phone numbers, email
addresses, and/or physical addresses.
Tapestry is an American multinational fashion holding company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 10, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Zurpip at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Brian D. Murphy, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10112-0015
Telephone: (212) 653-8700
Facsimile: (212) 653-8701
E-mail: bmurphy@sheppardmullin.com
TEXTRON INC: Moody Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Dino Moody, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. TEXTRON INC., a Rhode Island
corporation; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV0091
was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, in
and for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 6, 2025, and
assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01032.
The Complaint asserts a cause of action for Violations of the
California Invasion of Privacy Act under Cal. Penal Code Section
631. The allegations in the Complaint are incorporated into this
Notice of Removal by reference without admitting the truth of any
of them.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Denise Tran-Nguyen, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
501 W. Broadway, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619.232.0441
Facsimile: 619.232.4302
Email: dtrannguyen@littler.com
TTEC SERVICES: Bid to Certify Class Referred to Magistrate Judge
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alvarez v. TTEC Services
Corporation, Case No. 1:24-cv-02847 (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge
Philip A. Brimmer entered an order referring the following
Plaintiff's motions to Magistrate Judge Susan Prose:
-- motion to Certify Class and Judicial Notice and Memorandum in
Support;
-- motion to Compel Arbitration and to Dismiss Complaint; and
-- motion to stay filed by Loren Alvarez.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
TTEC is an American customer experience technology and services
company.[CC]
TTEC SERVICES: Seeks to Stay Briefing on Conditional Cert. Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOREN ALVAREZ, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. TTEC SERVICES
CORPORATION, Case No. 1:24-cv-02847-PAB-SBP (D. Colo.), the
Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting its motion to
stay briefing on Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification.
The Defendant believes there is good cause for staying all briefing
on Plaintiff's motion for conditional collective action
certification and judicial notice and memorandum in support until
this Court has resolved the issue of whether this action should be
compelled to arbitration. Defendant therefore requests that this
Court grant this Motion.
The Defendant contends that denying its motion to stay would create
unnecessary additional work for this Court and the Parties and
confuse potential opt-in plaintiffs should the Conditional
Certification Motion be granted before resolving the issue of
arbitration agreements.
On July 8, 2020, the Plaintiff agreed to arbitrate all
employment-related claims against the Defendant on an individual
basis.
On Jan. 27, 2025 the Parties submitted a proposed briefing schedule
requiring the Defendant to respond to the conditional certification
motion by Feb. 10, 2025, which the Court granted.
TTEC is a digital global customer experience (CX) technology and
services company.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 10, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0yQvaK at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Arthur J. Rooney, Esq.
PERKINS COIE LLP
110 North Wacker, Suite 3400
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 263-5071
Facsimile: (312) 324-9516
E-mail: ARooney@perkinscoie.com
TWITTER INC: Petitioners' Bid to Compel Arbitration Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FABIEN HO CHING MA, et
al., v. TWITTER, INC., et al., Case No. 4:23-cv-03301-JST (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an order denying
Petitioners' motion to compel arbitration.
The Court concludes that arbitration should be compelled as to all
remaining Petitioners. However, the Court will not enter an order
compelling arbitration as to Ma, Crowley, and Treitler because 9
U.S.C. section 4 allows the Court to compel arbitration only in
this district, which would be contrary to the parties' arbitration
agreement.
Instead, this case is stayed as to these three Petitioners so that
they may pursue an order compelling arbitration in the appropriate
venue.
The parties shall meet and confer to attempt to reach agreement on
how to proceed as to Petitioners Amlani, Willis, and Olson. They
shall file a joint statement containing their joint ocompeting
proposals no later than Feb. 21, 2025.
Petitioners Fabien Ho Ching Ma, Laila Amlani, Jonathan Willis,
Melissa Olson, Sasha Solomon, Ryan Crowley, Grae Kindel, Sarah
Rosen, and Adam Treitler filed a petition to compel arbitration
against Respondents Twitter, Inc. and X Corp. "on behalf of all
former Twitter employees throughout the United States who have
filed demands for arbitration against Twitter, but for whom Twitter
has refused to proceed with arbitrating their claims."
The Court previously denied the motion without prejudice to allow
consideration of Petitioners' motion for class certification.
Twitter provides online social networking and microblogging
service.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Qn1T1l at no extra
charge.[CC]
UNITED HEALTHCARE: Johnson Class Action Preliminarily Certified
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELAINE JOHNSON, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, v. UNITED HEALTHCARE
SERVICES, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-00522-GAP-PRL (M.D. Fla.), the
Hon. Judge Gregory Presnell entered an order preliminarily
certifying class action under Rule 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, on behalf of the following settlement class:
"All persons and entities throughout the United States (1) to
whom United HealthCare Services, Inc. placed a call regarding
the Optum (TM) HouseCalls program relating to a
UnitedHealthcare plan, (2) directed to a cellular telephone
number customarily used by a person who is not and was not a
UnitedHealthcare member or plan holder, (3) in connection with
which United HealthCare Services, Inc. used an artificial or
prerecorded voice, (4) from Oct. 12, 2019 through Feb. 10,
2025."
The Court also appoints Plaintiff as the representative for the
settlement class and Aaron D. Radbil of Greenwald Davidson Radbil
PLLC ("GDR") as class counsel for the settlement class.
Finally, the Court sets the following schedule:
-- Order Preliminarily Approving the Feb. 10, 2025
Settlement Entered:
-- Defendant to Fund Settlement Fund: March 10, 2025
-- Notice Sent: March 14, 2025
-- Attorneys' Fees Petition File: March 28, 2025
-- Motion for Final Approval Filed : May 30, 2025
-- Opposition to Motion for Final June 20, 2025
Approval Filed:
United Healthcare provides hospital, medical, and other health
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 10, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=P8xECx at no extra
charge.[CC]
VERIZON COMM: Tiger Suit Dismissed w/o Predudice
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARK TIGER, v. VERIZON
COMMUNICATIONS INC.; and VERIZON PENNSYLVANIA LLC, Case No.
2:23-cv-01618-NR (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Nicholas Ranjan
granting Verizon's motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction
-- The complaint is dismissed without prejudice.
-- As the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the
action, the remaining grounds for dismissal that Verizon
raises in its motion to dismiss are denied without prejudice
as moot.
The Plaintiff Mark Tiger brings a class action against the
Defendants, alleging that Verizon's failure to properly dispose of
its toxic lead-sheathed telecommunications cables has harmed
utility pole workers who were occupationally exposed to them.
In his first amended complaint, Mr. Tiger brings claims for
negligence, negligence per se, and public nuisance. He seeks class
certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 for all
utility pole workers who were occupationally exposed to Verizon's
lead-sheathed cables in Pennsylvania.
Verizon is an American telecommunications company.
A copy of the Court's opinion dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=I2MG4l at no extra
charge.[CC]
VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due June 13
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRANTHI GORLAMARI,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
VERRICA PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., TED WHITE, P. TERENCE KOHLER JR. and
A. BRIAN DAVIS, Case No. 2:22-cv-02226-MSG (E.D. Pa.), the Hon.
Judge Mitchell S. Goldberg entered a scheduling order as follows:
1. The Parties shall complete their first request for the
production of documents no later than Feb. 14, 2025.
2. The Parties shall complete document production relating to
class certification no later than May 14, 2025.
3. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification and opening
brief, supporting papers, and expert report(s), shall be
filed no later than June 13, 2025.
4. The Parties shall complete all other document production
responsive to paragraph one (1) no later than July 11, 2025.
5. Class Representatives and Plaintiff's expert(s) shall be
deposed no later than July 18, 2025.
6. The Defendants shall file their response to the class
certification motion, including supporting papers and expert
report(s), no later than Aug. 1, 2025.
7. The Plaintiff shall complete the depositions of the
Defendants' class certification expert(s) no later than
Aug. 29, 2025.
8. The Plaintiff may file a Reply in support of the class
certification motion, including supporting papers and expert
report(s), no later than Sept. 12, 2025.
9. All other deadlines, including those for Daubert and
dispositive motions, shall be set once the class
certification process is complete.
Verrica is a dermatology therapeutics company developing
medications for skin diseases requiring medical interventions.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YXYy9K at no extra
charge.[CC]
VIRGIN GALACTIC: Seeks Leave to File Opposition Sur-Reply in Lavin
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lavin v. Virgin Galactic
Holdings, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-03070-ARR-TAM (E.D.N.Y.),
the Defendants asks the Court to enter an order granting their
request to leave to file a sur-reply in further opposition to the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
With their reply Brief in support of Plaintiffs' motion, Plaintiffs
raise for the first time new arguments to which Defendants have not
been able to respond.
First, Plaintiffs present new arguments in support of a standalone
class for the 2019 Claim Period, despite failing to include such
arguments or request such relief in their Motion.
Second, Plaintiffs seek to alter their proposed class definition to
include not only purchasers of Virgin Galactic shares, but also
those who “otherwise acquired” Virgin Galactic shares.
Additionally, since Defendants filed their Opposition, Plaintiffs
disclosed that one of their proposed class representatives for the
2021 Claim Period, Mr. Richard O'Keefe-Jones, unfortunately has
passed away. This development significantly affects Plaintiffs’
ability to satisfy Rule 23's adequacy and typicality requirements
for the 2021 Claim Period, particularly given that the remaining
two proposed class representatives for this period—Mses. Ortiz
and Ibrahim—are each subject to unique defenses and fail to meet
the adequacy and typicality requirements under Rule 23.
The Defendants request that the Court exercise its discretion to
permit Defendants to respond to these new arguments and to address
the typicality and adequacy of Plaintiffs' remaining proposed class
representatives for the 2021 Claim Period in light of the change in
circumstances since Defendants filed their Opposition.
Virgin Galactic is a British-American spaceflight company.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 10, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OVUFQn at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Kevin M. McDonough, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
1271 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020-1401
Telephone: (212) 906-1200
Facsimile: (212) 751-4864
E-mail: kevin.mcdonough@lw.com
VIRGINIA BEACH SHERIFF'S: Hardee Files Suit in E.D. Virginia
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Virginia Beach
Sheriff's Office, et al. The case is styled as John T. Hardee, and
other inmates, similarly situated v. Municipal Jail Virginia Beach
Sheriff's Office, In official capacity; Sheriff Rocky Holcomb,
Individual and official capacity; Sgt. J. Wilson, #20-007,
Individual and official capacity; Sgt. A. Edwards #12-017,
Individual and official capacity; GrievanceCoordinator John Doe
#15-014, Individual and official capacity; Sgt. Conti-or-Conte
#98-012, Individual and official capacity; Case No.
3:25-cv-00088-MHL-MRC (E.D. Va., Feb. 5, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Prison Condition for Prisoner Civil
Rights.
The Virginia Beach Sheriff's Office -- https://vbso.net/ -- work
for the public safety & betterment of Virginia Beach under the
leadership of Sheriff Holcomb.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
WALT DISNEY: Unger Suit Transferred to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case styled as Cole Unger, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. THE WALT DISNEY COMPANY, a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-00375 was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on Feb. 5,
2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-01163-DMR to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Anti-Trust.
The Walt Disney Company -- https://thewaltdisneycompany.com/ -- is
an American multinational mass media and entertainment conglomerate
headquartered at the Walt Disney Studios complex in Burbank,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Steven M. Jodlowski, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
4747 Executive Drive, Second Floor
San Diego, CA 92121
Phone: 619-923-3939
Email: stevej@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Alexander E Barnett, Esq.
Charles Francis Dender, Esq.
John Maxwell Shaw, Esq.
Jonathan Scott Crevier, Esq.
Gregory Scott Asciolla, Esq.
DICELLO LEVITT LLP
485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (646) 933-1000
Fax: (646) 494-9648
Email: abarnett@dicellolevitt.com
cdender@dicellolevitt.com
jshaw@dicellolevitt.com
jcrevier@dicellolevitt.com
gasciolla@dicellolevitt.com
- and -
Geralyn Jeanette Trujillo, Esq.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF NEW YORK
120 Broadway, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10271-0332
Phone: (212) 416-6677
Fax: (212) 416-6015
Email: gtrujillo@dicellolevitt.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Joe Wesley Earnhardt, Esq.
CRAVATH, SWAINE & MOORE LLP
375 Ninth Avenue
New York, NY 10001
Phone: (212) 474-1000
Email: wearnhardt@cravath.com
WARNER MUSIC: Hall Bid for Class Certification Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN HALL, an individual;
and LANCE HOPPEN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. WARNER MUSIC GROUP CORP. and ELEKTRA ENTERTAINMENT
GROUP, INC. Case No. 3:22-cv-00457 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge
Aleta Trauger entered an order denying the plaintiff' motion for
class certification.
A telephonic case management conference will be held on Friday,
Feb. 21, 2025 at 4:30 p.m. CST. Judge Trauger's courtroom deputy
will email the conference telephone number to counsel.
Warner is a global music entertainment company across recorded
music, music publishing, and artist services.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 10, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5sRSKh at no extra
charge.[CC]
WELLPOINT WASHINGTON: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADELINA MENDOZA, v.
WELLPOINT WASHINGTON, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00497-LK (W.D. Wash.),
the Hon. Judge Lauren King entered an order modifying case
schedule. This matter comes before the Court on the parties' Joint
Motion to Extend Case Deadlines and Set Class Expert Disclosure
Deadlines. Finding good cause, the Court GRANTS the motion and
modifies case schedule as follows:
Deadline Date
Deadline for Plaintiff's class expert April 11, 2025
Disclosures:
Deadline for Defendant's class expert May 9, 2025
Disclosures:
Deadline for rebuttal class expert May 23, 2025
disclosures:
All motions related to class June 2, 2025
certification discovery must be filed by:
Discovery on class certification issues June 16, 2025
completed by:
Deadline for Plaintiff to file motion June 30, 2025
for class certification in accordance
with LCR 7:
Wellpoint is a coordinator of Medicaid managed healthcare benefits
in Washington.
A copy of the Court's order dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lQ1HUd at no extra
charge.[CC]
WELLS FARGO: Henzel Seeks Leave to File Class Cert Under Seal
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Henzel v. Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A. (re J&J Investment Litigation), Case No.
2:22-cv-00529-GMN-NJK (D. Nev.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting motion for leave to file under seal
portions of their motion for class certification brought against
Wells Fargo.
The Plaintiffs assert that the sealing of the excerpts from the
Motion and above-referenced exhibits, consistent with the foregoing
legal standards and pursuant to a protective order, constitutes
good cause for the document to be sealed. Accordingly, Plaintiffs
submit an unredacted copy of the Motion and above-referenced
exhibits for filing under seal and concurrently file a redacted
copy for the public record.
Wells Fargo offers online and mobile banking, home mortgage, loans
and credit, and investment services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xRpXK7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
Tom Watts, Esq.
Jordan Isern, Esq.
GIRARD SHARP LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 981-4800
Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
E-mail: dgirard@girardsharp.com
tomw@girardsharp.com
jisern@girardsharp.com
- and -
Eric H. Gibbs, Esq.
David K. Stein, Esq.
Emily Beale, Esq.
GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP
1111 Broadway, Suite 2100
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 350-9700
Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com
ds@classlawgroup.com
eb@classlawgroup.com
- and -
Robert L. Brace, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. BRACE
1807 Santa Barbara St.
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (805) 886-8458
E-mail: rlbrace@rusty.lawyer
- and -
Miles N. Clark, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MILES N. CLARK LLC
5510 S. Fort Apache Rd., Suite 30
Las Vegas, NV 89148-7700
Telephone: (702) 856-7430
E-mail: miles@milesclarklaw.com
WESTMED AMBULANCE: Dershem Suit Removed to C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Kyle Dershem, individually, and on behalf of
all persons similarly situated v. WESTMED AMBULANCE, INC., GLOBAL
MEDICAL RESPONSE, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
24STCV32305 was removed from the Superior Court for the State of
California, in and for the County of Los Angeles, to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
Feb. 6, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01050.
The Complaint seeks damages and penalties for a variety of alleged
wage-hour violations for a period commencing on December 6,
2020.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Michael S. Kun, Esq.
Kevin D. Sullivan, Esq.
EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN, P.C.
1925 Century Park East, Suite 500
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 556-8861
Facsimile: (310) 553-2165
Email: mkun@ebglaw.com
ksullivan@ebglaw.com
WILLSCOT MOBILE: Armenta Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ariel Armenta, individually and as a representative of a class of
participants and beneficiaries on behalf of the Willscot Mobile
Mini 401(k) Plan v. WillScot Mobile Mini Holdings Corp; and Does 1
to 10 inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-00407-MTM (D. Ariz., Feb. 6,
2025), is brought under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 ("ERISA") against Defendants each in their capacity as a
Fiduciary to the Plan, for breach of ERISA's fiduciary duties; and
engaging in self-dealing and transactions prohibited by ERISA.
ERISA requires a fiduciary to act "solely in the interest of
participants and beneficiaries," to do so with "the care, skill,
prudence, and diligence" of a prudent person, "in accordance with
the documents and instruments governing the plan," and to refrain
from "dealing with the assets of the plan" in the fiduciary's own
interest.
Instead of loyally and prudently acting in the best interest of
Plan participants, Defendants chose to use Plan assets to benefit
WillScot, to the detriment of the Plan and its participants, by
using millions of dollars of Plan assets to offset WillScot's
obligations to make contributions to the Plan. Defendants took this
action despite knowing that the Plan document explicitly required
them to first use the Plan assets for the benefit of Plan
participants.
To remedy these fiduciary breaches and ERISA violations, the
Plaintiff, individually and as representatives of a class of
participants and beneficiaries of the Plan, bring this action on
behalf of the Plan under the ERISA to enforce the Defendants'
personal liability under the ERISA to make good to the Plan all
losses resulting from each breach of fiduciary duty and to restore
to the Plan any profits made through Defendants' use of the Plan's
assets. In addition, Plaintiff seeks such other equitable or
remedial relief for the Plan as the Court may deem appropriate,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was a participant in the Plan.
WillScot is a Delaware-incorporated company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jamie Mayrose, Esq.
Deanna R. Rader, Esq.
RADER MAYROSE LLP
812 N 2nd Ave
Phoenix, AZ 85003-1404
Maricopa County
Phone: (602)384-2292
Email: jmayrose@radermayrose.com
drader@radermayrose.com
- and -
Tulio D. Chirinos, Esq.
CHIRINOS LAW FIRM PLLC
370 Camino Gardens Blvd., Ste 106
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Phone: (561) 299-6334
Email: tchirinos@chirinoslawfirm.com
- and -
Jenny M. Lewis, Esq.
CHIRINOS LAW FIRM PLLC
1323 North Blvd.
Houston, TX 77006
Phone: (832) 466-5575
Email: jlewis@chirinoslawfirm.com
WILSON ELECTRIC: Andrews Suit Seek to Certify Class
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Daniel Andrews, et al., v.
Wilson Electric Services Corp., et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00995-DJH
(D. Ariz.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
certifying the following proposed class in this action (or such
other class(es) as the Court may deem to be appropriate) under Rule
23(a) and (b)(1), (b)(2), and/or (b)(3):
"All participants and beneficiaries of the Wilson Electric
Services Corp. Employee Stock Ownership Plan since the date
that is six years prior to the filing of this action."
The Plaintiffs further seek to certify a subclass with respect to
Count III which specifically pertains to Defendants' unequal
treatment of ESOP participants who are former Wilson Electric
employees of:
"All participants and beneficiaries of the Wilson Electric
Services Corp. Employee Stock Ownership Plan who, within the
six years prior to the filing of this action, separated from
the company and whose accounts were converted from company
stock to cash or Other Investment Account assets."
In addition, the Plaintiffs move to appoint Plaintiffs as the class
representatives for the class, and Plaintiffs' counsel as class
counsel under Rule 23(g).
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zHRW5z at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark E. Thomson, Esq.
Carl F. Engstrom, Esq.
Charlie C. Gokey, Esq.
ENGSTROM LEE LLC
323 N. Washington Ave., Suite 200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 305-8349
Facsimile: (612) 677-3050
E-mail: mthomson@engstromlee.com
cengstrom@engstromlee.com
cgokey@engstromlee.com
WORLD MARKET: Harvey Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Valerie Harvey, on behalf of herself all
others similarly situated v. WORLD MARKET, LLC, COST PLUS WORLD
MARKET, LLC, and DOES 1-100, of California, Case No. 24CV094533 the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Alameda, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, on Feb. 5, 2025, and assigned Case No.
3:25-cv-01242.
On November 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint
("FAC"). The FAC asserted causes of action for violation of
California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"); California's
Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Bus- & Prof Code SS 17200, et seq.;
and California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"). The FAC asserted
these causes of action on behalf of Plaintiff as well as a class of
similarly situated California consumers.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Daniel T. Rockey, Esq.
Merrit M. Jones, Esq.
Anna V. Donald, Esq.
BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
Three Embarcadero Center, 7th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4070
Phone: +1 415 675 3400
Facsimile: +1 415 675 3434
Email: daniel.rockey@bclplaw.com
merrit.jones@bclplaw.com
anna.donald@bclplaw.com
YETI COOLERS: Parties Seek to Extend Class Certification Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAYLOR SMITH, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. YETI COOLERS,
LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-01703-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the
Court to enter an order extending the current ADR and class
certification deadlines.
The Parties will submit an updated case management report proposing
new ADR and class certification deadlines within 30 days of the
Court's ruling on YETI's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's second
amended complaint.
The Parties are not in a position to engage in productive ADR prior
to the resolution of YETI's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Second
Amended Complaint.
The Plaintiff filed the Complaint in the above-entitled action on
March 19, 2024.
The Parties submitted a Joint Case Management Statement on June 20,
2024.
The Parties attended a Rule 16 conference with the Court on June
26, 2024.
Yeti designs, manufactures, and markets ice chests.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated Jan. 7, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wlHSKt at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sarah N. Westcot, Esq.
Stephen A. Beck, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2100
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 330-5512
E-mail: swestcot@bursor.com
sbeck@bursor.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Randall W. Edwards, Esq.
Matthew D. Powers, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 984-8700
Facsimile: (415) 984-8701
E-mail: redwards@omm.com
mpowers@omm.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 ***