---

              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, March 5, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 46

                            Headlines

30-02 ASSOCIATES: Tenants Sue Over Illegal Rent Overcharges
ACUPUNCTURE CORP: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Trippett Says
AMERICAN FAMILY: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid
APPLOVIN CORP: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims
ATKORE INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Apr. 23, 2025

ATOM TICKETS: Settles Electronic Tickets Class Suit for $550,000
AUTOMATTIC INC: Faces Keller Class Suit Over WordPress Ecosystem
CAPITOL OFFICE: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Pardo Alleges
CEDARVILLE UNIVERSITY: Herrera Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
CHILANGO ENTERPRISE: Vega Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation

COL. LITTLETON: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Valencia Says
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: Young Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
COMERICA BANK: Faces Marino Class Suit Over Retention of Earnings
DELL INC: Court Approves $2.1-Million Data Breach Class Settlement
DYCK-O'NEAL INC: Loses Summary Judgment Bid vs Saunders

FCA US: Agrees to Settle Class Action Over Ram Trucks ABS Defect
GAME OF SILKS: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
GEORGIA: Swanson Sues for Deprivation of Constitutional Rights
GOYA FOODS: Packaged Goods Unlawfully Labeled, Sepian Alleges
GRID ONE SOLUTIONS: Filing for Conditional Cert Bids Due July 18

H&M TILE: Cedillo Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
HEAVENLY DELICATESSEN: Eslava Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
HERB CHAMBERS: Defends Class Action Lawsuit Over Unpaid Wages
HOLMES STAMP: Duarte Sues Over Text Message Sales Calls
HOME ELEMENTS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Alexandria Says

HONEY SCIENCE: Campbell Sues Over Improper Business Practices
HUMACYTE INC: Plaintiffs Must File Amended Complaint by April 24
ISLE OF PALMS, SC: Smith Balks at City's Parking Mgmt. Deal w/ PCI
JAMO 31 INC: Kim Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
KER GEOTECH: Diaz Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT Under FLSA, NYLL

KINDER MORGAN: Pension Fund Mismanagement Row for Mediation
LA DRIVER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Storms Alleges
LAMB WESTON: Faces Suit Over Frozen Potato Products' Price-Fixing
LIBERTY FIRST: Hall Class Suit Removed to D. Neb.
LOGEE'S GREENHOUSES: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website

LOVING HEARTS: Green Suit Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA
MADHAVA HONEY: Deceptively Labels Avocado Oil Products, Kachur Says
MANHATTAN ASSOCIATES: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
MCCORMICK & CO: Faces Class Suit Over "Made in USA" Claims
MDL 2873: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Chemicals, Mackemull Says

MDL 2873: Exposes Firefighters to Toxic Chemicals, Whitmore Says
MDL 2873: Faces Butler Suit Alleging Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
MDL 2873: Haynes Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure
MDL 2873: Manoli Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure
MDL 2873: Marble Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure

MDL 2873: Robertson Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure
MDL 2873: Shakoor Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure
MDN FAMILY: Banegas Seeks Minimum Wages, OT Under Labor Code
MEMORIAL HOSPITAL: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Straughn Says
MERRILL LYNCH: Settles Unpaid Wages Class Action Suit for $4.9MM

META PLATFORMS: May Face Class Action Suit Over Hiring Policies
MISSION PRODUCE: Faces Kachuck Suit Over Avocados' Misleading Ads
MONEY SOURCE: Court Amends Scheduling Order in Hiller
NAKED AND THRIVING: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Senior Says
NCAA: Bid for Continuance of Class Cert Hearing in Ray Tossed

NEW ERA: Failed to Protect Personal, Health Info, Midcalf Says
NEWREZ LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to June 20
PAL OPERATING: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Nelson Class Suit Alleges
PASSES INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Child Pornography
PEPSICO INC: Faces Class Suit Over Retailer Price Discrimination

PEPSICO INC: Pure Leaf Not "Brewed in USA," Daldalian Alleges
PHILADELPHIA, PA: Faces Jung Suit Over Speed & Red Light Notices
PIH HEALTH: Fails to Secure Private Info, Elizarraras Says
POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Says
POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Greer Says

POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Hauser Says
POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, K.I. Says
RENFROW GROUP: Halterman Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
REYNOLDS CONSUMER: Must Oppose Mayfield Class Cert Bid by April 21
RICHER POORER: Valencia Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind

ROBLOX CORPORATION: Parties Seek to Amend Class Cert. Schedule
ROCKET LAB: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
ROSECRANCE INC: Gallagher Files Class Suit in Ill. Cir.
RYOBI TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Lilly Class Suit Over Defective Mowers
SAKS OFF: Agrees to Settle Class Suit Over Discounting Scheme

SHAMUS & PEABODY: Riley Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
SIGNIFY HEALTH: Faces Jenkins Suit Over Unwanted Phone Calls
SIMONMED IMAGING: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Hamermaster Says
SLEEP NUMBER: Prieto Files Fraud Class Suit in C.D. Calif.
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Maloney Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages

SPRING EDUCATION: Faces Lee Labor Suit in Cal. Super.
STONE ACADEMY: Court Approves Class Settlement Over Abrupt Closure
TESLA INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Self-Driving Claims
TOYOTA MOTOR: Malainy Balks at Vehicles' Defective Braking Systems
TRACY ANDERSON: Valencia Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind

U.S. CITIZENSHIP: Court Sets Scheduling Conference on April 9
U.S. VISION: Secures Dismissal of Data Breach Class Action Suit
UNISWAP LABS: Appeals Court Affirms Class Action Suit Dismissal
UNITED STATES: Court Extends Class-Cert Related Deadlines
UNITED STATES: Nemeth-Greenleaf Balks at Unprotected Personal Info

UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class
VESELKA ENTERPRISES: Zhang Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
WARTERS EDGE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hippi Alleges
WENDY'S INT'L: Bid for Prelim Nod of Class Settlement Partly OK'd
WHITE HOUSE: Oaks Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind

WILSHIRE HM: Benitez Files Labor Suit in Calif. Super.
YODLEE INC: Clark Bid to Modify Class Cert. Order Nixed
[^] Class Action Money & Ethics Conference -- 2024 Attendees

                            *********

30-02 ASSOCIATES: Tenants Sue Over Illegal Rent Overcharges
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ethan Marshall, writing for LicPost, reports that multiple tenants
of an apartment building at 30-02 39th Ave. in Long Island City
have submitted a class action lawsuit against their landlord, 30-02
Associates LLC, accusing them of illegal rent overcharges.

The lawsuit was filed against the landlord of this 428-unit
building, known as the Arc, following an investigation by the
Housing Rights Initiative, a non-profit watchdog that investigates
real estate fraud, connects tenants to legal services and promotes
their rights to fair and affordable housing.

Based on the investigation's findings, tenants of the Arc have been
getting overcharged in rent since it was built in 2017. The Housing
Rights Initiative estimates that the tenants are owed more than $20
million in rent refunds and millions more in rent reductions. The
nonprofit found that in 2021 alone, the landlord received over $3
million in tax credits.

The Arc participates in the 421-a program, meaning the landlord is
required to register the units with the New York State Division of
Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR). These apartments were
supposed to be treated as rent-stabilized. However, the tenants
allege that the landlord has willfully not met the requirements of
the 421-a program and rent stabilization laws.

While the 421-a program states that all rent increases have to be
derived from the initial cost of rent paid by the tenants, the
tenants allege that the landlord registered initial rents at much
higher prices than what they were paying. They also accuse the
landlord of wrongfully registering a lower rent. These preferential
rents were representative of the actual rents that initial tenants
were actually charged.

The Housing Rights Initiative concluded that 30-02 Associates LLC
used early occupancy concessions to inflate the cost of rent.
Initial occupants were referred to as "licensees," allowing them to
occupy their apartments before the purported start date of the
lease.

One such example involved a tenant who paid $3,925 for a two-year
lease but received one month free, resulting in an average rent of
$3,768. However, the landlord registered the initial rent as
$3,925, with all future rent increases taken from that amount.

Consequently, this shows that while temporary rent concessions were
given to initial tenants, the landlord did not reflect these
concessions in Arc's initial registrations with the DHCR, allowing
30-02 Associates LLC to make rent increases higher than what is
permitted. All future rent increases that were permitted stemmed
from the illegal registration, meaning an accurate rent has never
been set for the tenants.

According to the rent stabilization law RSC Section 2521.2,
preferential rent is supposed to be triggered by an agreement being
made by the owner for a payment that is less than the legally
regulated rent of a unit. The Housing Stability and Tenant
Protection Act of 2019 (HSTPA) grants landlords the ability to
increase the preferential rent by an amount permitted by the Rent
Guidelines Board during renewal. Tenants in rent-stabilized units
are required to be given lease options for one or two years.

Tenants accuse the landlord of manipulating the terms of the leases
and the payment amounts, allowing them to get around the
protections provided by the HSTPA. For example, one of the tenants
was offered an 18-month lease with a Legal Regulated Rent of
$4,948.13. However, as a result of the landlord manipulating the
manner in which payments were allocated, this tenant ended up
paying much less on an average monthly basis.

This lease also had concessions for five of the 18 months, making
the preferential rent $3,573.65. But when it came time to renew the
unit, the landlord refused to renew the preferential rent
concession, violating RSC Section 2522.5, which prevents landlords
from changing the terms and conditions of a rent-stabilized tenancy
during its renewal. The landlord wound up increasing the rent by
more than 45%, to $5,195.54, failing to follow the Rent Guidelines
Board's permitted 5% increase.

The class action lawsuit alleges the rent concessions provided by
the landlords were just preferential rents by another name, with
"free rent" being provided for a certain period rather than monthly
discounts. While the tenants were initially charged lower than the
legal registered rent, camouflaging the preferential rent as a
concession enabled the landlord to violate governing law by making
excessive rent increases on renewals. The landlord then allegedly
further used concessions on subsequent tenancies, avoiding setting
preferential rents and allowing themself to make higher rent
increases, which was in violation of the amount permitted by the
Rent Guidelines Board.

The tenants are being represented in this case by real estate
attorney Roger Sachar of the firm Newman Ferrara LLP. According to
Sachar, it is becoming increasingly common for landlords to violate
rent regulations. They have received many calls from tenants of
buildings operated by the Lightstone Group, which operates 30-02
39th Ave., claiming their landlords have done this as well.

"The landlord's cheating and taking tax benefits that require it to
provide tenants with the benefit of rent stabilization, and they
just decided that it's wonderful that they get tax benefits, but
they never register the apartments properly," Sachar said. "The
landlord has to fix the problem and refund the overcharge."

Sachar, along with Newman Ferrara LLP partner and New York Law
School Adjunct Professor Lucas Ferrara, feel a lack of state and
local government enforcement has led to more landlords attempting
to skirt rent regulations.

"The government operates basically like the IRS. They accept
submissions at face value," Ferrara said. "It's only when these
submissions are audited or challenged that the government possibly
wakes up and takes action. I think the DHCR (Division of Housing
and Community Renewal), the state agency that oversees that
regulation, is understaffed. They just don't have the resources to
address this irregularity."

Even when government action is taken against these landlords,
Ferrara feels they get away with a slap on the wrist, as the
monetary fines do not dissuade them from doing this. He believes
punishments for this should be more severe, even floating the idea
of jail time under certain circumstances.

"[The landlords] cry poverty to the regulators, but they feast on
taxpayer gold," Ferrara said.

"We trust the courts to recognize that right is on the tenants'
side here and the landlord is blatantly cheating," Sachar said. "So
far, we've had significant success in the courts recognizing that,
and we anticipate that continuing."

Following the filing of the lawsuit, 30-02 Associates LLC
criticized the legitimacy of the allegations.

"This is another in a series of lawsuits filed by this law firm
against dozens of landlords throughout New York City on this same
issue. We believe we have acted legally and appropriately and this
lawsuit is without merit," 30-02 Associates LLC said in a
statement. [GN]

ACUPUNCTURE CORP: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Trippett Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
ALFRED TRIPPETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Acupuncture Corporation of America, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01199 (S.D.N.Y., February 11, 2025) is
a civil rights action against Acupuncture Corporation of America
for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website, https://acaacupuncture.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New
York City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers
that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using
keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive
and include, but are not limited to inaccurate landmark structure,
incorrectly formatted lists, ambiguous link texts, unclear labels
for interactive elements, the denial of keyboard access for some
interactive elements, inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of
navigation links, and the requirement that transactions be
performed solely with a mouse.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Acupuncture Corporation of America's policies, practices, and
procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks
compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been
subjected to unlawful discrimination.

Acupuncture Corporation of America, Inc. operates the website that
offers traditional Chinese medicinal services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gabriel A. Levy, Esq.
          GABRIEL A. LEVY, P.C.
          1129 Northern Blvd, Suite 404
          Manhasset, NY 11030
          Telephone: (347) 941-4715
          E-mail: Glevyfirm@gmail.com

AMERICAN FAMILY: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHERI VARNEY, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN FAMILY
MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:23-cv-04004-SRB (W.D. Mo.),
the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint
motion to further extend the class certification briefing deadlines
by 30 days.

Specifically, the parties request the following:

              Event                   Current        Proposed  
                                      Deadline       Deadline

  Plaintiff's motion for class
  Certification:                    Feb. 19, 2025    Mar. 19, 2025


  Opposition Brief:                 Mar. 29, 2025    Apr. 29, 2025


  Reply Brief:                      Apr. 21, 2025    May 21, 2025

For several months, the parties have been engaged in settlement
discussions.

On Nov. 4, 2024, the parties engaged in formal in-person mediation
with Michael Ungar of UB Greensfelder, who has successfully
mediated multiple cases that are similar to the present one. During
this mediation, an agreement in principle was reached on certain
material aspects of a settlement. The parties are continuing to
discuss remaining open issues with one another

American Family is an American private mutual company that focuses
on property, casualty, and auto insurance.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 19, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hi2xS3 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Erik D. Peterson, Esq.
          ERIK PETERSON LAW OFFICES PSC
          110 W. Vine Street, Ste. 300
          Lexington, KY 40507
          Telephone: (800) 614-1957
          E-mail: erik@eplo.law

                - and -

          David T. Butsch, Esq.
          Christopher E. Roberts, Esq.
          BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES LLC
          7777 Bonhomme Avenue, Suite 1300
          Clayton, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 863-5700
          Facsimile: (314) 863-5711
          E-mail: Butsch@ButschRoberts.com
                  Roberts@ButschRoberts.com

                - and -

          J. Brandon McWherter, Esq.
          MCWHERTER SCOTT BOBBITT PLC
          109 Westpark Drive, Suite 260
          Brentwood, TN 37027
          Telephone: (615) 354-1144
          Facsimile: (731) 664-1540
          E-mail: brandon@msb.law

                - and -

          T. Joseph Snodgrass, Esq.
          SNODGRASS LAW LLC
          100 South Fifth Street, Suite 800
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 339-1421
          E-mail: jsnodgrass@snodgrass-law.com

                - and -

          Douglas J. Winters, Esq.
          THE WINTERS LAW GROUP, LLC
          7700 Bonhomme, Suite 575
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 499-5200
          Facsimile: (314) 499-5201
          E-mail: dwinters@winterslg.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Leah Bruno, Esq.
          Brian Cohen, Esq.
          Mark Hanover, Esq.
          Kristine M. Schanbacher, Esq.
          Jake Thessen, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          233 South Wacker Drive, Ste 7800
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 876-7456
          E-mail: leah.bruno@dentons.com
                  brian.cohen@dentons.com
                  mark.hanover@dentons.com
                  kristine.schanbacher@dentons.com
                  jake.thessen@dentons.com

APPLOVIN CORP: Rosen Law Probes Potential Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of AppLovin Corporation (NASDAQ: APP) resulting from
allegations that AppLovin may have issued materially misleading
business information to the investing public.

So What: If you purchased AppLovin securities you may be entitled
to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.

What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=35884 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.

What is this about: On February 26, 2025, before the market opened,
Fuzzy Panda Research issued a report called "AppLovin (APP) --
Formers Allege Ad Fraud; Is DTC Hype Actually Stealing Meta's Data;
Illegal Tracking of Children & Serving Sex Ads to Kids." Covering
this report, Investing.com released a report entitled "AppLovin
stock falls on allegations of ad fraud." This article stated that
AppLovin shares had fallen following the report, "which accuses the
mobile ad-tech company of engaging in "Ad Fraud" and other dubious
practices. The report alleges that AppLovin's success, particularly
with its machine-learning algorithm Axon 2.0, may be the result of
unethical and potentially illegal activities, including data theft
from Meta Platforms Inc [. . .] and violations of app store
policies set by [Apple and Google]." Further, this article stated
that according to Fuzzy Panda Research, "AppLovin's expansion into
e-commerce is marred by tactics that include "reverse engineering"
Meta's data and exploiting consumer data in ways that breach the
terms of service of major app stores. The report suggests that
AppLovin's high click-through rates (CTRs) and revenue growth could
be attributed to these deceptive strategies, rather than legitimate
business practices."

On this news, the price of AppLovin stock fell sharply in intraday
trading on February 26, 2025.

Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS
Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class
action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4
each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438
million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was
named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's
attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.

Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

Contacts

     Laurence Rosen, Esq.
     Phillip Kim, Esq.
     The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
     275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Tel: (212) 686-1060
     Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
     Fax: (212) 202-3827
     case@rosenlegal.com
     www.rosenlegal.com [GN]

ATKORE INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set Apr. 23, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Atkore Inc. (NYSE:
ATKR), a prominent manufacturer of electrical products, which
include metal electrical conduit and fittings, plastic pipe conduit
and fittings, electrical cable and flexible conduit, and
international cable management systems. The suit, captioned
Westchester Putnam Counties Heavy & Highway Laborers Local 60
Benefits Fund v. Atkore Inc., et al., No. 1:25-cv-01851 (N.D.
Ill.), represents investors who purchased or acquired Atkore common
stock between February 1, 2024 and February 3, 2025.

Hagens Berman is investigating the alleged claims and urges
investors who purchased Atkore shares and suffered substantial
losses to submit your losses now.

Class Period: Feb. 1, 2024-Feb. 3, 2025
Lead Plaintiff Deadline: Apr. 23, 2025
Visit: www.hbsslaw.com/investor-fraud/atkr
Contact the Firm Now: ATKR@hbsslaw.com
                      844-916-0895

Atkore Inc. (ATKR) Securities Class Action:

In the recent past, Atkore has said that "[t]he principle markets
that we serve are highly competitive[]" and that its internal
control over financial reporting has been sufficient to "provide
reasonable assurance regarding the preparation of financial
reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external
purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles[.]"

The company has recently downplayed accusations of having engaged
in anticompetitive misconduct related to its PVC water pipe and PVC
conduit pricing since approximately 2021, related to pricing of PVC
pipes sold in the United States and, more specifically, downplayed
that "PVC pipe manufacturers improperly shared otherwise
confidential information through their contribution of information
through their contribution of information to; and readership of, a
weekly report called 'PVC & Pipe Weekly' published by [. . . ] Oil
Pipe Information Service, LLP ('OPIS')." While the company has
maintained that "there are defenses, both factual and legal" the
complaint in the suit alleges otherwise.

The complaint alleges that Atkore made false and misleading
statements, while failing to disclose crucial information.
Specifically, the suit contends that Atkore: (1) engaged in an
anticompetitive price-fixing scheme that artificially inflated the
price of its PVC pipes; (2) reaped significant, unsustainable
financial benefits from its anticompetitive conduct; (3) as the
price-fixing scheme was exposed, it and its co-conspirators were no
longer able to artificially inflate the price of PVC pipes,
resulting in a substantial decrease in the price of PVC pipes; and
(4) its business and operations were negatively impacted.

Investors began to learn the truth on July 24, 2024, when the short
seller firm ManBear published a report accusing Atkore and three
other PVC pipe manufacturers of using the commodity pricing service
OPIS to coordinate pricing actions, thereby fixing PVC pipe prices
and "result[ing] in massively inflated" PVC pipe prices that "defy
economic logic." In response, CEO William E. Waltz said shortly
afterward that "I'm going to claim that report is unsubstantiated
from the conclusions it tries to make."

Then, on February 4, 2025, Atkore announced dismal Q1 2025
financial results, including net sales that missed analysts'
estimates by a wide margin, and slashed its adjusted EPS and EBITDA
guidance for the remainder of 2025. The company blamed the poor
performance and guidance reduction on the poor performance by its
PVC business. Following the company's announcement, analysts
factored in their models that the company was and would continue to
have to reduce PVC pipe prices to be competitive after
COVID-related supply chain pressures eased.

The market reacted swiftly that day, sending the price of Atkore
shares down $15.59 (-20%) and wiping out almost $525 million of
shareholder value.

"We are concerned that Atkore may have misled investors about how
it and its potential co-conspirators may have rigged their PVC pipe
market and, thereby, artificially inflated their revenues during
the class period" said Reed Kathrein, the Hagens Berman Partner
leading the firm's probe.

Whistleblowers: Persons with non-public information regarding
Atkore should consider their options to help in the investigation
or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower program. Under the new
program, whistleblowers who provide original information may
receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful
recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Reed Kathrein
at 844-916-0895 or email ATKR@hbsslaw.com.

About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman is a global plaintiffs' rights complex litigation
firm focusing on corporate accountability. The firm is home to a
robust practice and represents investors as well as whistleblowers,
workers, consumers and others in cases achieving real results for
those harmed by corporate negligence and other wrongdoings. Hagens
Berman's team has secured more than $2.9 billion in this area of
law. More about the firm and its successes can be found at
hbsslaw.com. Follow the firm for updates and news at
@ClassActionLaw. [GN]

ATOM TICKETS: Settles Electronic Tickets Class Suit for $550,000
----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Atom Tickets agreed to a $550,000
class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it failed to
disclose service fees when selling electronic tickets to theaters
in New York.

The settlement benefits consumers who paid a service fee to
purchase electronic tickets to any theater in New York through Atom
Tickets' website, mobile app or any other online platform owned and
operated by the company between Aug. 29, 2022, and April 30, 2024.

Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit claim Atom Tickets violated
New York's Arts and Cultural Affairs Law by failing to disclose
service fees when selling electronic tickets to theaters. According
to the class action lawsuit, New York's law requires companies to
disclose all fees before a consumer makes a purchase.

Atom Tickets is a ticketing platform that allows consumers to
purchase tickets to theaters, concerts and other events.

Atom Tickets has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a
$550,000 settlement to resolve the ticketing class action lawsuit.

Under the terms of the Atom Tickets settlement, class members can
receive a proportional share of the net settlement fund based on
the amount they paid in service fees. Exact payments will vary.
Class members who paid a higher amount in service fees will receive
a larger share of the settlement fund.

Class members can receive their settlement payment through PayPal,
Venmo, Zelle or as a check. Class members who received a settlement
notice in the mail can receive their payment as a prepaid debit
card.

Atom Tickets also agreed to change its ticket purchasing flow to
comply with New York's law. The company has already made these
changes.

The deadline for exclusion and objection is April 7, 2025.

The final approval hearing for the Atom Tickets settlement is
scheduled for May 5, 2025.

To receive a settlement payment, class members must submit a valid
claim form by June 23, 2025.

Who's Eligible
Consumers who paid a service fee to purchase electronic tickets to
any theater located within New York state from Aug. 29, 2022, to
April 30, 2024.

Potential Award
Varies

Proof of Purchase
Class members must provide the unique notice ID and confirmation
code on the notice they received by email. Those who did not
receive a notice but believe they are class members can call class
counsel at 646-837-7150 to verify their identity and receive
further information on how to file a claim.

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
06/23/2025

Case Name
Marquis III v. Atom Tickets LLC, Case No. 811720/2024E, in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Bronx

Final Hearing
05/05/2025

Settlement Website
AtomTicketsFeeSettlement.com

Claims Administrator

     Atom Tickets Fee Settlement Administrator
     P.O. Box 4454
     Portland, OR 97208-4454
     info@atomticketsfeesettlement.com
     (855) 701-9945

Class Counsel

     Philip L. Fraietta     
     Stefan Bogdanovich
     BURSOR & FISHER P.A.

Defense Counsel

     Christine M. Reilly
     Justin Jones Rodriguez
     MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS LLP [GN]


AUTOMATTIC INC: Faces Keller Class Suit Over WordPress Ecosystem
----------------------------------------------------------------
RYAN KELLER, individually and on behalf of his business, KELLER
HOLDINGS LLC (DBA SecureSight), and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. AUTOMATTIC INC., a Delaware corporation, and
MATTHEW CHARLES MULLENWEG, an individual, Case No. 3:25-cv-01892
(N.D. Cal., Feb. 21, 2025) involves the Defendants deliberately
abusing their power and control over the WordPress ecosystem to
purposefully, deliberately, and repeatedly disrupt contracts
between Plaintiff and the putative class and the third-party
business WPEngine.

According to the complaint, the Defendants seek to injure WPE and
resolve a purported dispute between them and WPE. The Defendants
intentionally sabotaged WPE's ability to provide its contractual
services to customers, and indeed they have publicly and repeatedly
bragged about how their interference has so degraded WPE's services
that they are causing customers, like Plaintiff, to no longer be
able to use WPE.

The Defendants' interference has sent shockwaves throughout the
global WordPress ecosystem and has harmed hundreds of thousands of
businesses and individuals who use WPEngine services, including
Plaintiff and the Class. WordPress is a free open-source web
content management system, which allows individuals and businesses
to create and build their own websites. WordPress maintains at
least 54,000 plugins, 11,000 themes, and unlimited layout
customization options, which allow website developers and operators
significant freedom of choice and customization when building and
operating a website.

Plaintiff Keller is a citizen and resident of Broadview Heights,
Ohio. His small business uses WPEngine to create, maintain, and
update his business website and it has been impacted by the
WordPress service disruption. His business operates by creating
websites for companies and individuals using WPEngine services.

Defendant Automattic is a Delaware Corporate with its principal
place of business in San Francisco, California. Automattic owns and
operates several for-profit businesses in the WordPress ecosystem
including WordPress.com, WordPress VIP, and Pressble.com, as well
as WooCommerce, Inc. (an ecommerce tool). Defendant Matthew Charles
Mullenweg is also the CEO and President of the Company.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

           Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
           Amber L. Schubert, Esq.
           Daniel L.M. Pulgram, Esq.
           SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
           2001 Union Street, Suite 200
           San Francisco, CA 94123
           Telephone: (415) 788-4220
           E-mail: aschubert@sjk.law
                   dpulgram@sjk.law
                   rschubert@sjk.law

                - and -

           Sabita J. Soneji, Esq.
           David A. Mcgee, Esq.
           TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
           1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
           Oakland, CA 94612
           Telephone: (510) 254-6808
           E-mail: dmcgee@tzlegal.com
                   ssoneji@tzlegal.com

CAPITOL OFFICE: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Pardo Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, Plaintiff v. CAPITOL OFFICE CENTER,
INC. and PARAISO TROPICAL RESTAURANTE & PIZZERIA NO. 2 LLC, Case
No. 1:25-cv-20779 (S.D. Fla., Feb. 19, 2025) is a class action
seeking injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses,
and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Defendant owns, operates and oversees the commercial restaurant
within the subject commercial property, which is open to the public
located within the commercial property. The subject commercial
property and restaurant are open to the public and are located in
Miami, Florida.

The individual Plaintiff visits the commercial property, to include
visits to the commercial property and businesses located within the
commercial property on Dec. 11, 2024, and encountered multiple
violations of the ADA that directly affected his ability to use and
enjoy the commercial property.

He often visits the commercial property and businesses located
within the commercial property in order to avail himself of the
goods and services offered there, and because it is approximately
forty-one (41) miles from his residence (approximately fifty (50)
minutes) and is near other business and restaurant he frequents as
a patron.

He plans to return to the commercial property within two (2) months
from the date of the filing of this Complaint.

The Plaintiff found the commercial property and commercial
restaurant business located within the commercial property to be
rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural
barriers at the commercial property and commercial restaurant
business located within the commercial property and wishes to
continue his patronage and use of the premises, says the suit.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
           ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC
           7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104
           Miami, FL 33144
           Telephone: (786) 361-9909
           Facsimile: (786) 687-0445
           E-mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com
                  jr@ajperezlawgroup.com

CEDARVILLE UNIVERSITY: Herrera Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------------
EDERY HERRERA, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. THE CEDARVILLE UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:25-cv-01431
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 20, 2025) alleges that the Cedarville failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://www.cedarville.edu, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibiting
discrimination against the blind.

Because the Defendant's interactive website, including all portions
thereof or accessed thereon, including, but not limited to,
https://yellowjackets.cedarville.edu/index.aspx, is not equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates
the ADA and the RA. 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 suit.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

The Defendant operates the Cedarville online interactive Website
and retail store across the United States. This online interactive
Website and retail store constitutes a place of public
accommodation because it is a university, place of exhibition,
place of entertainment, service establishment and sales
establishment.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
           Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
           Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
           GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
           150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
           New York, NY 10003
           Telephone: (212) 228-9795
           Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
           E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
                   Dana@Gottlieb.legal
                   Michael@Gottlieb.legal

CHILANGO ENTERPRISE: Vega Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Retaliation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose A. Vega, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. Chilango Enterprise LLC, and Galdino
Gomez, individually, Defendants, Case No. 8:25-cv-00358 (M.D. Fla.,
February 11, 2025) is an action against the Defendants to recover
monetary damages for unpaid overtime wages and retaliation under
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a non-exempt,
full-time employee from approximately August 11, 2022, to December
11, 2024, or 122 weeks, as a handyman, painter, and installing
fences. While employed by the Defendants, the Plaintiff worked more
than 40 hours every week, but he was not paid for overtime hours.

The Plaintiff complained many times about the lack of payment for
overtime hours, but Defendants never fixed the problem. On or
around December 11, 2024, the Plaintiff once again raised concerns
about unpaid overtime. This time, the business owner, Galdino Gomez
verbally assaulted the Plaintiff and fired him, says the suit.

The Plaintiff intends to recover unpaid overtime wages for every
hour in excess of 40 in a week, retaliatory damages, liquidated
damages, and any other relief as allowable by law.

Chilango Enterprise LLC provides construction, repair services, and
painting services.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 446-1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com

COL. LITTLETON: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Valencia Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN VALENCIA, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. COL. LITTLETON PROPERTIES, LLC, Case No.
1:25-cv-01462 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 20, 2025) alleges that the Defendant
failed to to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant’s
website, www.colonellittleton.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

Accordingly, the Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its
website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered
thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans
with Disabilities Act and The Rehabilitation Act of 1973
prohibiting discrimination against the blind.

Because Defendant's Website has never been equally accessible, and
because Defendant lacks a corporate policy that is reasonably
calculated to cause the Website to become and remain accessible,
the Plaintiff invokes 42 U.S.C. section 12188(a)(2) and seeks a
permanent injunction requiring Defendant to retain a qualified
consultant acceptable to Plaintiff to assist Defendant to comply
with WCAG 2.1 guidelines for Defendant’s Website.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website,
offering features which should allow all consumers to access the
goods and services and by which the Defendant ensures the delivery
of such goods throughout the United States, including New York
State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Rami Salim, Esq.
           STEIN SAKS, PLLC
           One University Plaza, Suite 620
           Hackensack, NJ 07601
           Telephone: (201) 282-6500
           Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
           E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com

COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO: Young Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------------
LESHAWN YOUNG, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY, Defendant, Case
No. 1:25-cv-01238 (S.D.N.Y., February 11, 2025) is a civil rights
action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://shop.colgate.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York
State Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business
Law.

During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on
February 6, 2025, in an attempt to purchase a Colgate Kids Fluoride
Toothpaste - Watermelon Burst 4.6oz from Defendant and to view the
information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple
access barriers that denied her a shopping experience similar to
that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and
services offered to the public and made available to the public. He
was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to
the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes
and other barriers on Defendant's website, says the suit.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

Colgate-Palmolive Company operates the Shop Colgate online
interactive website which provides consumers with access to an
array of goods and services including information about Defendant's
oral care products.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
                  Dana@Gottlieb.legal
                  Michael@Gottlieb.legal

COMERICA BANK: Faces Marino Class Suit Over Retention of Earnings
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA MARINO and ALEXANDRIA SEBESTA, individually and on behalf
of a class of similarly situated persons and entities, Case No.
2:25-cv-10504 Hon. Plaintiffs v. COMERICA BANK, Case No.
2:25-cv-10504-RJW-DRG (E.D. Mich., Feb. 20, 2025) is a nationwide
class action brought under Michigan law against Comerica
challenging Comerica's retention of earnings Comerica has realized
on funds owned by Plaintiff and the Class but held as "special
deposits" by Comerica.

The Plaintiff and the Class are recipients of electronic benefit
payments from the United States Government. The Benefits at issue
include Social Security, Supplemental Security Income and Veterans
Benefits.

Comerica has a contractual relationship with Benefit Recipients
which is reflected in a written "Terms of Use." Benefit Recipients
are required to agree to the Terms of Use in order to use their
Direct Express Card and access their funds. Comerica receives
billions of dollars of Benefit Payments each year (the "Funds").
While the Funds are at Comerica and before they are withdrawn by
Benefit Recipients, Comerica earns interest and other investment
income on the Funds, says the suit.

On information and belief, these Earnings exceed $100 million per
year. Comerica promised in the Terms of Use that it would comply
with applicable Michigan law in the performance of its
responsibilities. Comerica's breach of contract, conversion and/or
breach of fiduciary duty have proximately caused the Plaintiffs and
the Class to suffer injury and damage, for which Comerica should be
held responsible. In the alternative, Comerica has been unjustly
enriched by its seizure of the Earnings and should be required to
disgorge those Earnings to Plaintiffs and the Class, the suit
added.

The Plaintiffs are Direct Express account holders and
Representative Payees for Benefit Recipients who had Earnings on
their Funds allegedly seized by Comerica and who seek to act as
class representatives for a nationwide class of all similarly
situated persons and entities.

The Plaintiffs are citizens of the State of Michigan residing in
the Eastern District of Michigan.

Comerica is a bank that is part of the Federal Reserve System and
which is chartered by the State of Texas. Comerica is regularly
present in the Eastern District of Michigan.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gregory D. Hanley, Esq.
          Jamie K. Warrow, Esq.
          Edward F. Kickham III, Esq.
          KICKHAM HANLEY PLLC
          32121 Woodward Avenue, Suite 300
          Royal Oak, MI 48073
          Telephone: (248) 544-1500

               - and -

          Kevin Kijewski, Esq.
          KDK LAW
          950 East Maple Road, Suite 204
          Birmingham, MI 48009
          Telephone: (248) 971-01476

DELL INC: Court Approves $2.1-Million Data Breach Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
Tara Deschamps of The Canadian Press reports that a lawyer
representing Dell customers whose data was compromised in a 2017
breach says a Halifax court approved a $2.1-million settlement in a
class action she filed on the consumers' behalf.

Kate Boyle from the Wagners law firm says an oral decision from
Judge John Keith ruled the settlement was fair, reasonable and in
the best interest of the consumers affected.

The class action it stemmed from was filed against Dell Canada and
parent company Dell USA after thousands of Canadians had their
personal information compromised during a breach of a service
provider the tech firms used. Wagners says the data was then
allegedly used to make targeted tech support scam calls.

The law firm has estimated more than 14,000 people will be eligible
for compensation under the settlement, which was first proposed in
November and does not include an admission of guilt from Dell.

Class action members who received a notice about the data breach
from Dell between April 2, 2018 and Jan. 25, 2019 are expected to
nab $85.

Those who can prove the breach resulted in fraudulent credit card
or banking charges or who needed tech remediation services to
recover from the incident may receive up to $3,000. [GN]

DYCK-O'NEAL INC: Loses Summary Judgment Bid vs Saunders
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KAREN SAUNDERS, v.
DYCK-O'NEAL, INC., Case No. 1:17-cv-00335-RJJ-MV (W.D. Mich.), the
Hon. Judge Robert Jonker entered an order that Dyck O'Neal can be
held liable for initiating the voicemail calls under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), and its embedded motion for summary
judgment to the contrary is denied.

-- It is undisputed that VoApps physically sent out the calls.
    Dyck O'Neal's involvement in the calls, however, was not mere
    clerical work. It did not simply play a minor role in the
    causal chain. Dyck O'Neal maintained complete control and
    total involvement over the calls. Thus, the Court holds that
    Dyck O'Neal can be held directly liable for the calls.

-- As part of its debt collection efforts, Defendant Dyck O'Neal,

    Inc. contracted with a vendor called VoApp to leave
    prerecorded "direct drop" voicemails on debtor's phones. After

    receiving one of these voicemails, the Plaintiff Karen
    Saunders filed this suit under the Telephone Consumer
    Protection Act (TCPA).

Dyck O'Neal is a debt collection agency and mortgage servicer.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 19, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=I2AxOq at no extra
charge.[CC]

FCA US: Agrees to Settle Class Action Over Ram Trucks ABS Defect
----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that FCA US has agreed to a class action
lawsuit settlement to resolve claims that certain Ram trucks are
equipped with defective anti-lock braking systems and brake
hydraulic control units.

The Ram settlement benefits current owners or lessees of 2017-2018
DJ Ram 2500, D2 Ram 3500, DD Ram 3500 cab chassis, DF Ram 3500 10K
LB cab chassis, DX Ram cab chassis and DP Ram 4500-5500 vehicles
built between April 1, 2017, and Dec. 29, 2018.

According to the original class action lawsuit, certain Ram trucks
are equipped with defective anti-lock braking systems and brake
hydraulic control units. Plaintiffs in the case say the ABS defect
can cause full brake lockup and other braking issues, forcing
owners and lessees to suffer financial damages as they are forced
to pay for repairs and experience diminished vehicle value.

FCA US is an automotive company that manufactures vehicles under
the Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram and other brands.

FCA US hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay an
undisclosed sum to resolve these allegations.

Under the terms of the Ram settlement, class members can receive
repair reimbursements, rental vehicle reimbursements and benefits
from a voluntary safety recall.

Class members who paid for repairs related to the replacement of a
brake hydraulic control unit component can receive reimbursement
for these repairs. These reimbursement claims are not capped by the
settlement terms, but will be paid according to FCA's normal recall
processes.

Class members can also receive up to $100 per day and a total of
$1,000 per vehicle for rental vehicle reimbursement. FCA will pay
up to $600,000 to pay all filed rental vehicle reimbursement
claims.

In addition to receiving the settlement benefits listed above,
eligible drivers can also benefit from FCA's voluntary safety
recall, known as NHTSA Recall No. 24V-896. This recall provides for
the installation of a new brake hydraulic control unit component
with a pump motor brush material change.

The deadline for exclusion and objection is March 20, 2025.

The final approval hearing for the ABS defect settlement is
scheduled for April 11, 2025.

Class members must submit a valid claim form to receive expense and
repair reimbursement, but no claim form is listed on the settlement
website.

Who's Eligible
Current owners and lessees of 2017-2018 DJ Ram 2500, D2 Ram 3500,
DD Ram 3500 Cab Chassis, DF Ram 3500 10K LB. Cab Chassis, DX Ram
Cab Chassis, DP Ram 4500 and 5500 vehicles built between April 1,
2017, and Dec. 29, 2018.

Potential Award
Varies

Proof of Purchase
Car rental receipts, repair invoices, etc.

Claim Form

NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.

Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.

Claim Form Deadline
03/20/2025

Case Name
Wilson, et al. v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 4:22-cv-00447, in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas

Final Hearing
04/11/2025

Settlement Website
FCARamBrakeSettlement.com

Claims Administrator

     Wilson, et al. v. FCA US LLC
     c/o Kroll Settlement Administration LLC
     P.O. Box 5324
     New York, NY 10150-5324
     (833) 383-3648

Class Counsel

     Ben Barnow
     Anthony L. Parkhill
     BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES PC

     Bruce Steckler
     STECKLER WAYNE & LOVE PLLC

     Stephen R. Basser
     BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE

     Defense Counsel
     Stephen A. D'Aunoy
     KLEIN THOMAS LEE & FRESARD [GN]

GAME OF SILKS: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Ray Paulick of Paulick Report reports that a class-action lawsuit
has been filed in federal court in Florida against Game of Silks
and several of its principals, alleging the defunct online game
that simulates investment in horse ownership violated securities
laws.

The suit was filed on Feb. 24 by Cary Cantner, a resident of Marion
County in Florida, "on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated," in U.S. District Court in the Southern District of
Florida. Named as defendants are Game of Silks, Inc., a Delaware
corporation based in Boca Raton, Fla., and its two founders, CEO
Dan Nissanoff and vice president Troy Levy. Also named is Tropical
Racing Inc., a racing stable affiliated with Levy, Game of Silks
COO Ron Luniewski, and its CFO, Derek Cribbs.

Game of Silks, which launched in April 2022, forged a strategic
partnership with The Jockey Club and was heavily promoted by the
New York Racing Association on its FOX Sports telecasts. A December
2022 press release from NYRA said its advance deposit wagering
business, NYRA Bets, acquired a minority equity ownership in Game
of Silks. None of these entities were named as defendants in the
suit.

Game of Silks allowed tech-savvy gaming and sports enthusiasts to
purchase non-fungible tokens (NFT) that were in the form of unique
racing silks, which would be displayed on virtual horses, stables
and other digital assets they would subsequently buy. The virtual
horses mirrored actual Thoroughbreds, and the owners of these
digital assets received rewards based on purse monies won by the
real horse.

According to the complaint, "The defendants made it clear that the
investors would see increased returns and profits in a number of
ways: their virtual-world racing rewards would increase as the
real-world purses grew at 4% to 5% each month; as the game became
more popular, the price of their NFTs would increase; they could
earn passive income by 'staking' or renting their assets to other
players; the percentage of the payout would increase from 1% to
100% of the real-world earnings as the game becomes more popular;
and several other ways that the investors would profit from the
work of others.

"The sale of these crypto assets were investment contracts," the
complaint states, "and therefore they were securities under the
requirements of the Securities Act of 1933."

The complaint states, "Based on the promises and promotions of the
defendants, the plaintiff and other members of the class invested
millions of dollars in these NFTs."

Virtual horse owners received financial rewards after the first
year of NFT sales, but, the complaint states, "Unfortunately,
everything fell apart shortly after the Season 2 Horse NFTs failed
to sell as expected. The value of the other NFTs collapsed, the
payouts from the Season 1 Horse NFTs stopped, and the project
stopped development almost immediately. Plaintiffs and other
members of the class are left with nothing for the millions of
dollars that they invested."

The complaint alleges the crypto assets were securities and should
have been registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission. It also alleges that defendants "omitted key
information when they promoted and sold these NFTs." One of the
things omitted, the complaint alleges, is that directors of the
company would later admit they needed more than $20 million in
annual revenue to stay in business. "It had not come anywhere
close," the complaint states.

In addition to the allegations that Game of Silks and the other
defendants violated securities laws, the complaint states they
unjustly enriched themselves in the process.

The plaintiff is seeking a trial by jury.

Defendants have yet to file a response to the complaint, which only
tells one side of the story. [GN]

GEORGIA: Swanson Sues for Deprivation of Constitutional Rights
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARK KENNETH SWANSON, ROBIN HUDSPETH, and TRAVIS HUDSPETH, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
JON BURNS, in his individual capacity as Speaker of the Georgia
House of Representatives, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00701-TRJ
(N.D. Ga., February 11, 2025) is brought before the court pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, and the Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution for the deprivation of Plaintiffs'
constitutional rights under color of law.

On March 14, 2024, former Speaker of the Georgia House of
Representatives, David Ralston, was honored in both the Senate and
House. State Senator Colton Moore stood in the Senate and opposed a
resolution naming a building for Ralston. While doing so, he
referred to Ralston, now deceased, as "one of the most corrupt
Georgia leaders that we are ever going to see in my lifetime."

Defendant Speaker Jon Burns then unilaterally banned Senator Colton
Moore from entering the House floor for an unspecified period of
time, even when official business is being conducted by members of
the Georgia Senate on behalf of their constituents.

At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Speaker Jon Burns acted
under color of State law as contemplated by the law, and he
deprived the citizens of the 53rd Senate District of Georgia of
their right to representation during the time period, asserts the
complaint.

The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, seek a judgment in this action establishing that the
unilateral and perpetual exclusion of Senator Colton Moore from
attending joint sessions violated the equal protection rights of
Plaintiffs and Senator Moore's other constituents.

Jon Burns is an individual residing in the State of Georgia, and he
is the current Speaker of the Georgia House of
Representatives.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kenneth Muhammad, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF KENNETH W. MUHAMMAD
          10 Glenlake Parkway, Suite 130
          Atlanta, GA 30328
          Telephone: (800) 910-5760
          E-mail: kenneth@lawofficekwm.com

GOYA FOODS: Packaged Goods Unlawfully Labeled, Sepian Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
NYREE SEPIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GOYA FOODS, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-01512 (C.D. Cal.,
Feb. 21, 2025) is class action complaint for damages, injunctive
relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies,
resulting from the illegal actions of Goya concerning unlawful
labeling of the Defendant's consumer packaged goods, with the
designation and representation that the products are/were of United
States origin, without clear and adequate qualification of the
foreign ingredients and components contained, as required by the
California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California's Unfair
Competition Law, and California's False Advertising Law.

Accordingly, the unlawfully represented products are sold via third
party merchants' websites and mobile applications (including
through Amazon.com, Walmart.com, and Instacart), in
brick-and-mortar stores, as well as on the Defendant's website,
https://shop.goya.com/. Contrary to the Defendant's express
representations and its failure to clearly and adequately qualify
those representations, the product purchased by Plaintiff is
substantially and materially composed of indispensable foreign
ingredients, says the suit.

The Plaintiff purchased Goya's Yuca Cassava Chips, which is
advertised and sold to consumers as a "Product of [the] USA."
However, the Product contains foreign-made and/or incorporates
foreign-made components and/or ingredients, the Plaintiff
contends.

Goya is a U.S. based food company that specializes in Latino
cuisine. Established in 1936, Goya offers a range of food products
and sells its products on its own website, third party websites
including, but not limited to, Amazon, Amigofoods.com as well as
retail and grocery stores such as Target, Walmart, Vallarta
Supermarkets and elsewhere.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Pamela E. Prescott, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  pamela@kazlg.com

GRID ONE SOLUTIONS: Filing for Conditional Cert Bids Due July 18
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Scott Ruffner, et al., v.
Grid One Solutions, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-01097-ECC-ML (N.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Miroslav Lovric entered an order that:

-- Any motion to join any person as            March 5, 2025
    a party to this action shall be
    made on or before:

-- Any motion to amend any pleading in         March 5, 2025
    this action shall be made on or
    before:

-- The parties are directed to file a          April 30, 2025
    status report on or before:

-- Rule 26(a)(1) Mandatory Disclosures         Feb. 12, 2025
    are to be exchanged by:

-- Initial Written Discovery Demands           March 20, 2025
    must be served by:

-- All discovery in this matter is to          April 30, 2026
    be completed on or before:

-- Conditional Certification Motions           July 18, 2025
    are to be filed on or before:

-- class certification motions are to          Oct. 30, 2025.
    be filed on or before:

Grid One Solutions specializes in AMI deployments for electric, gas
and water utilities.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 19, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=y4t5Fg at no extra
charge.[CC]

H&M TILE: Cedillo Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
------------------------------------------------------------
JOHNNY BRYAN CEDILLO HUANGA, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated V. H&M TILE CORP. and HERNAN CHINCHILIMA
and MARIO CHINCHILIMA, as individuals, Case No. 1:25-cv-00980
(E.D.N.Y., Feb. 21, 2025) seeks to recover overtime pay in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards and the New York Labor Law as
well as seeks compensatory damages and liquidated damages.
Plaintiff also seeks interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all
other legal and equitable remedies this Court deems appropriate.

During the Plaintiff's employment with the Defendants, the
Plaintiff regularly worked a schedule of shifts beginning at
approximately 8:00 a.m. each workday and regularly ending at
approximately 4:00 p.m. or later, six days per week, from in or
around November 2021 until in or around March 2024.

Thus, Plaintiff was regularly required to work approximately 48
hours per week from in or around November 2021 until in or around
March 2024. During Plaintiff's employment with the defendants, he
was paid by Defendants a flat daily rate of approximately $130 per
day from in or around November 2021 until in or around December
2021; approximately $160 per day from in or around January 2022
until in or around December 2022; and approximately $170 per day
from in or around January 2023 until in or around March 2024.

Although Plaintiff regularly worked 48 hours or more hours per week
from in or around November 2021 until in or around March 2024, the
Defendants did not pay Plaintiff at a wage rate of time and a half
for his hours regularly worked over 40 hours in a work week, a
blatant violation of the overtime provisions contained in the FLSA
and NYLL, says the suit.

The Plaintiff was employed by H&M TILE CORP., as a mason and
ceramic installer while performing related miscellaneous duties for
the Defendants.

H&M TILE CORP. engages in installations of bathrooms, kitchens and
all kinds of tile installations. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
          Kew Gardens, NY 11415
          Telephone: (718) 263-9591
          Facsimile: (718) 263-9598

HEAVENLY DELICATESSEN: Eslava Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN MALDONADO ESLAVA, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. HEAVENLY DELICATESSEN MARKET GROUP, INC.
(D/B/A HEAVENLY MARKET AND DELI) and JAMAL MUSLEH, Case No.
1:25-cv-01463 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 20, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid
minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938 and the New York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for the Defendants
in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage
and overtime compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, the
Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours
worked and failed to pay Plaintiff appropriately for any hours
worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional
overtime premium.

Furthermore, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff Maldonado wages
on a timely basis. In this regard, the Defendants have failed to
provide timely wages to the Plaintiff, says the suit.

Mr. Maldonado is a former employee of Defendants Heavenly
Delicatessen.

The Defendants owned, operated, or controlled a deli, located at 77
3rd Ave, New York City.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          CSM LEGAL, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317-1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317-1620

HERB CHAMBERS: Defends Class Action Lawsuit Over Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Beth Treffeisen, writing for Boston.com, reports that the Herb
Chambers Companies is fighting an ongoing class action lawsuit,
alleging that it failed to pay hundreds of its employees thousands
of dollars in overtime and premium wages.

Lawyers representing the plaintiffs say they are puzzled as to why
the company continues to deny these workers compensation. The car
dealership chain recently announced a deal to be acquired by a
Georgia dealership group for $1.34 billion.

"I'm perplexed by them digging in," said Attorney Robert
Richardson, of Richardson & Cumbo, who represents the plaintiff.
"The amount of money at stake here -- likely seven figures -- is a
drop in a bucket for what they just sold all the dealerships for."


In May 2020, Richardson & Cumbo, LLP, a labor and employment law
firm dedicated to protecting workers' rights, filed a class action
lawsuit in Middlesex County Superior Court.

The suit was brought on behalf of former finance manager Phillip
Geller and other finance managers who allege they regularly worked
40 to 60 hours per week, including Sundays and certain holidays.
They claim that owner Herb Chambers and The Herb Chambers Companies
failed to pay them the overtime or premium wages required by state
laws.

If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, hundreds of other
employees could also be eligible for lost compensation.

In court documents, Herb Chambers Companies says it is not the
employer of the finance managers and is thus not required to pay
them the wages owed.

Richardson argues that the recent sales announcement and other
evidence from social media, advertisements, and the press show that
they are indeed their employers.

In addition, the Superior Court upheld a 2019 case in which it
found that a parts advisor was an employee of the individual
dealership and the larger management company, The Herb Chambers
Company. Therefore, Richardson argues, the finance manager in this
case is an employee.

In the sales announcement, Herb Chambers says it owned 33
dealerships, 52 franchises, and three collision centers, and
employed more than 2,000 people.

"The sale drives homes the disingenuous stance that the lawyers are
taking in this case," Richardson said.

The class action lawsuits are among many filed after the
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in Sullivan v. Sleepy's
in 2019 that employers could not deduct overtime and Sunday premium
pay from employees' commissions. The case ended the practice of
using commissions to offset additional pay for hours worked beyond
regular shifts or on Sundays.

The goal, Richardson said, is for The Herb Chambers Companies to
pay all finance managers at all Chambers' dealerships in
Massachusetts the overtime and Blue Law wages they are owed — not
just the named plaintiff.

Richardson argues that denying the payment would seem "highly
inequitable" to the employees who helped increase the company's
value to $1.34 billion. Herb Chambers is an icon in the community
and routinely gives back, Richardson said.

"He seems like someone who would do the right thing and we hope he
does," Richardson said.

Lawyers representing Herb Chambers and The Herb Chambers Companies
did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

According to court documents, the next hearing on this case is
scheduled for mid-April.

"We anticipate being successful going forward and hopefully get
these wages for these employees," Richardson said. [GN]

HOLMES STAMP: Duarte Sues Over Text Message Sales Calls
-------------------------------------------------------
ANAMARIA DUARTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. HOLMES STAMP COMPANY, Case No. 217360405 (Fla. Cir.,
Duval Cty., Feb. 21, 2025) alleges that the Defendant violated the
Florida Telephone Solicitation Acts Caller ID Rules by transmitting
a phone number that was not capable of receiving phone calls when
it made Telephonic Sales Calls by text message.

Specifically, the Defendant made Text Message Sales Calls that
promoted HC Brands (HC Brands Text Message Sales Calls) and
violated the Caller ID Rules when it transmitted to the recipients'
caller identification services a telephone number that was not
capable of receiving telephone calls.

The action seeks for injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages
for violations of the Caller ID Rules, of FTSA. The FTSA's Caller
ID Rules apply to solicited and consented to Telephonic Sales
Calls, and as such, claims for Caller ID Rules violations are not
subject to Fla. Stat. section 501.059(10)(c), which requires notice
and an opportunity to cease sending unwanted text message
solicitations, before claims for "text message solicitations the
called party does not consent to receive" can be brought.

In direct contravention of the Caller ID Rules, however, many
callers, such as Defendant, make Telephonic Sales Calls a central
part of their marketing strategy, and in doing so, intentionally
transmit telephone numbers to recipient's Caller ID services that
are not capable of receiving telephone calls, the suit says.

Plaintiff Duarte is the regular user of a cellular telephone number
that receives Defendant's telephonic sales calls.

Holmes is registered as a Florida Profit Corporation, which sells
various goods to persons throughout the country through its online
store.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
          Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
          SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
          974 Howard Ave.
          Dunedin, FL 34698
          Telephone: (202) 709-5744
          Facsimile: (866) 893-0416
          E-mail: josh@sjlawcollective.com
                  shawn@sjlawcollective.com

HOME ELEMENTS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Alexandria Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ERIKA ALEXANDRIA, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. HOME ELEMENTS, LLC, Case Noe 1:25-cv-01464
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 20, 2025) alleges that the Cedarville failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

Because Defendant's Website has never been equally accessible, and
because Defendant lacks a corporate policy that is reasonably
calculated to cause the Website to become and remain accessible,
the Plaintiff invokes 42 U.S.C. section 12188(a)(2) and seeks a
permanent injunction requiring Defendant to retain a qualified
consultant acceptable to Plaintiff to assist the Defendant to
comply with WCAG 2.1 guidelines for Defendant's Website.

By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible
with computer screen reader programs, the 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
suit.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website,
offering features which should allow all consumers to access the
goods and services and by which the Defendant ensures the delivery
of such goods throughout the United States, including New York
State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Rami Salim, Esq.
           STEIN SAKS, PLLC
           One University Plaza, Suite 620
           Hackensack, NJ 07601
           Telephone: (201) 282-6500
           Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
           E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com

HONEY SCIENCE: Campbell Sues Over Improper Business Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
TOM CAMPBELL; DANIEL JENKS-BERRYMAN; DECLAN LYNN; ADITHYA
NARAYANAN; JAMES POAD; DAN SORAHAN; and ALAN SUTCH; individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HONEY
SCIENCE, LLC; PAYPAL, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, Case
No. 25CV459473 (Cal. Super., Santa Clara Cty., Feb. 20, 2025)
alleges that the Defendant's downloadable free software, Honey,
modifies a user's web browser.

The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants breached
the implied-in-fact contract by giving control to its Partner
vendors so as to enable them to withhold the "best" coupons or
discount codes, and therefore "the biggest savings", from users who
searched for them through the Honey browser extension. Plaintiffs
and Class Members have each sustained actual damages as a direct
and proximate result of the above-described breaches of the
implied- in-fact contract.

If Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class had known that PayPal would
not perform the promises PayPal publishes on the Honey Website,
they would not have downloaded or used the Honey browser extension
– because the only rationale any person could ever have to
download or use the Honey browser extension would be to obtain the
thorough and honest search for the "best" coupons or discount
codes, and therefore "the biggest savings", which was promised by
PayPal, says the suit.

Honey Science LLC operates as an e-commerce company. The Company
offers automatic coupons, promotional codes, and deals for buying
products on website. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David J. Gallo, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID J. GALLO
          12702 Via Cortina, Suite 500
          Del Mar, CA 92014
          Telephone: (858) 509-3652


HUMACYTE INC: Plaintiffs Must File Amended Complaint by April 24
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CUTSHALL v. HUMACYTE, INC.
et al.( RE HUMACYTE, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION), Case No.
1:24-cv-00954-TDS-JEP (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Joi Elizabeth
Peake entered an order granting the Parties' motion to set a
schedule for an amended complaint and response and extend any
deadline for filing a class certification motion.

   1. The Co-Lead Plaintiffs shall file a consolidated amended
      complaint no later than April 24, 2025;

   2. The Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the
      amended complaint on or before June 27, 2025;

   3. If the Defendants move to dismiss the amended complaint, Co-
      Lead Plaintiffs' opposition to the Defendants' motion to
      dismiss the amended complaint shall be filed on or before
      Aug. 28, 2025;

   4. The Defendants' reply in support of their motion to dismiss
      the amended complaint shall be filed on or before Oct. 3,
      2025; and

   5. The class certification motion deadline established by LR
      23.1(b) is excused and is extended until such other time as
      ordered by the Court.

Humacyte engages in the development and manufacture of
off-the-shelf, implantable, and bioengineered human tissues.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 19, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vDWVyG at no extra
charge.[CC]

ISLE OF PALMS, SC: Smith Balks at City's Parking Mgmt. Deal w/ PCI
------------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN SMITH and HUNTER SUMMEY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs vs. CITY OF ISLE OF PALMS,
SC, CITY OF FOLLY BEACH, SC, and PCI MUNICIPAL SERVICES, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 2025CP1000755 (S.C. Com. Pl., 9th Judicial,
Charleston Cty., February 11, 2025) is a class action against the
Defendants for injunctive relief, declaratory judgment, and unjust
enrichment.

On February 21, 2024, Defendant City of Isle of Palms entered into
the Parking Management Services Agreement with Defendant PCI
Municipal Services, LLC to perform certain functions for the City,
including the issuance of parking citations on state roads and
public road rights of way within the jurisdiction of the City.

The Plaintiffs and the Class are entitled to immediate injunctive
relief to enjoin Defendants from continuing to enforce their
parking ordinances and collect fines for parking violations through
the use of a private entity, PCI Municipal Services, as such is in
violation of the Constitution and laws of the State of South
Carolina.

The Plaintiffs are citizens and residents of Charleston County,
South Carolina.

City of Isle of Palms is a political subdivision of the State of
South Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
          POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC
          32 Ann Street
          Charleston, SC 29403
          Telephone: (803) 222-2222
          Facsimile: (843) 494-5536
          E-mail: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com
                  cmad@poulinwilley.com

JAMO 31 INC: Kim Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AJ W. Kim, et al. v. Jamo
31 Inc., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-02062-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order request a Pre-Motion
Conference for anticipated Motion for Rule 23 Class Certification
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 23 simultaneously with their Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment.

The Plaintiffs define the class to consist of

Subclass I:

   "All former and current non-exempt Front of House employees,
   including, but not limited to, bartenders, servers, bussers,
   runners, or other Service/Front of House staff members, in a
   customarily "tipped" position at Osamil, located at 5 West 31st

   Street, Ground Floor, New York, NY 10001, and/or at Osamil
   Upstairs, located at 5 West 31st Street, Second Floor, New
   York, NY 10001, on or after March 19, 2018 to the present."

Subclass 2:

   "All former and current non-exempt Front of House employees,
   including, but not limited to, bartenders, servers, bussers,
   runners, or other service/Front of House staff members, in a
   customarily "tipped" position, who were paid their wages in
   "cash," at Osamil, located at 5 West 31st Street, Ground Floor,

   New York, NY 10001, and/or at Osamil Upstairs, located at 5
   West 31st Street, Second Floor, New York, NY 10001, on or after

   March 19, 2018, to the present."

JAMO 31 is in the Full-Service Restaurants industry.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 19, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=trdVXn at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs is represented by:

          Younghoon Ji, Esq.
          AHNE & JI, LLP
          45 East 34th Street, 5th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 594-1035
          E-mail: www.ahnejilaw.com

KER GEOTECH: Diaz Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages & OT Under FLSA, NYLL
---------------------------------------------------------------
ORLANDO OLAYA DIAZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. KER GEOTECH INC. , GABRIEL CIRCIU, and MIKE STOICA,
Case No. 1:25-cv-01450 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 20, 2025) seeks to recover
unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law.

Accordingly, Plaintiff Olaya worked for the Defendants in excess of
40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage or overtime
compensation for any of the hours that he worked each week. Rather,
the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the
hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff Olaya appropriately for
any hours worked in a week. In addition, the Defendants repeatedly
failed to pay Plaintiff Olaya wages on a timely basis, says the
suit.

Plaintiff Olaya is a former employee of the Defendants.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a construction company,
located at 51 N Dunton Avenue, Medford, New York.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Michael Faillace, Esq.
           60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
           New York, NY 10165
           Telephone: (212) 317-1200
           Facsimile: (212) 317-1620

KINDER MORGAN: Pension Fund Mismanagement Row for Mediation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 13, 2025, that on February 22, 2021, Kinder
Morgan Retirement Plan A participants Curtis Pedersen and Beverly
Leutloff filed a purported class action lawsuit under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

On October 8, 2024, the case was referred to the presiding
Magistrate Judge for mediation and on October 8, 2024, the case was
referred to the presiding Magistrate Judge for mediation that is
scheduled to commence on March 11, 2025.

The named plaintiffs were hired initially by the ANR Pipeline
Company (ANR) in the late 1970s. Following a series of corporate
acquisitions, plaintiffs became participants in pension plans
sponsored by the Coastal Corporation, El Paso Corporation and the
company by virtue of its acquisition of El Paso in 2012 and its
assumption of certain of El Paso's pension plan obligations. The
complaint, which was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Texas (Civil Action No. 4:21-3590) and later
amended to include the Kinder Morgan Retirement Plan B, alleges
that the series of foregoing transactions resulted in changes to
plaintiffs’ retirement benefits which are now contested on a
class-wide basis in the lawsuit.

The complaint asserts six claims that fall within three primary
theories of liability. Claims I, II, and III all challenge plan
provisions which are alleged to constitute impermissible
"backloading" or "cutback" of benefits, and seek the same plan
modification as to how the plans calculate benefits for former
participants in the Coastal plan. Claims IV and V allege that
former participants in the ANR plans should be eligible for
unreduced benefits at younger ages than the plans currently
provide. Claim VI asserts that actuarial assumptions used to
calculate reduced early retirement benefits for current or former
ANR employees are outdated and therefore unreasonable.

On February 8, 2024, the court certified a class defined as any and
all persons who participated in the Kinder Morgan Retirement Plan A
or B who are current or former employees of ANR or Coastal, and
participated in the El Paso pension plan after El Paso acquired
Coastal in 2001, and are members of at least one of three
subclasses of individuals who are allegedly due benefits under one
or more of the six claims asserted in the complaint. Plaintiffs
seek to recover early retirement benefits as well as declaratory
and injunctive relief, but have not pleaded, disclosed or otherwise
specified a calculation of alleged damages.

Kinder Morgan, Inc. is an energy infrastructure company based in
Texas.


LA DRIVER: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Storms Alleges
----------------------------------------------------
LUKE STORMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LA DRIVER LLC; and QUALITY PARTS EXPRESS,
INC. d/b/a NAPA AUTO PARTS, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00190
(M.D. Tenn., Feb. 20, 2025) is an action against the Defendant's
failure to pay the Plaintiff and the class overtime compensation
for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week.

Plaintiff Storms was employed by the Defendants as a delivery
driver.

LA Driver LLC distributes automotive replacement parts,
accessories, and service items. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
          J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
          J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq.
          Joshua Autry, Esq.
          JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT
          OWEN & BRYANT
          262 German Oak Drive
          Memphis, TN 38018
          Telephone: (901) 754-8001
          Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
          Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
                 rbryant@jsyc.com
                 jleatherwood@jsyc.com
                 jautry@jsyc.com

LAMB WESTON: Faces Suit Over Frozen Potato Products' Price-Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LUCKY'S FAMOUS 23 LLC, LUCKY’S FAMOUS LLC, J&D OPERATORS LLC, and
BAYLANDER CAFÉ LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LAMB WESTON HOLDINGS, INC.; LAMB
WESTON, INC.; LAMB WESTON BSW, LLC; LAMB WESTON/MIDWEST, INC.; LAMB
WESTON SALES, INC.; MCCAIN FOODS LIMITED; MCCAIN FOODS USA, INC.;
J.R. SIMPLOT CO.; CAVENDISH FARMS LTD; and CAVENDISH FARMS, INC.,
Case No. 1:25-cv-01765 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 20, 2025) is an antitrust
price-fixing class action brought against the Defendants pursuant
to Section 1 of the Sherman Act, state antitrust laws, state
consumer protection laws, and common law.

The action is brought by the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves
and Classes of persons and entities who indirectly purchased from
any Defendant or current or former subsidiary or affiliate, frozen
potato products, including frozen French fries, hash browns, tater
tots and other variants ("Frozen Potato Products") for their own
business use in commercial food preparation in the United States
from at least January 1, 2021 through such time as the
anticompetitive effects of Defendants' conduct ceases.

The Defendants are the four dominant processors of Frozen Potato
Products sold in the United States. Collectively, they control over
97% of this more than $68 million per year market. Leveraging that
market control, beginning no later than 2021, Defendants conspired
to raise, fix, stabilize or maintain prices above competitive
levels during the Class Period. Rather than competing, this cartel
of massive producers implemented lockstep price increases,
announcing highly similar price raises very close in time to one
another on a multitude of occasions. Notably, they increased the
price of their products even as their own costs significantly
declined, says the suit.

The Plaintiffs are restaurants and other commercial dining
businesses that purchase frozen potato products, such as French
fries and tater tots, and prepare them in their own facilities to
serve to customers as components of meals.

Lamb Weston sells its products in the United States, including, on
information and belief, this district and the states of New York,
New Hampshire, Arizona, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Nevada,
Washington D.C., Florida, Alabama, and Illinois.

J.R. Simplot Company is incorporated in Nevada and has its
principal place of business in Boise, Idaho. Simplot is privately
owned company and describes itself as one of the world's largest
producers of French fries.

Cavendish Farms is a part of the J.D. Irving Group of Companies,
with its headquarters in Dieppe, New Brunswick, Canada. It is one
of North America's processors of Frozen Potato Products.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
          FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
          111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 984-0000
          E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com

               - and -

          Thomas H. Burt, Esq.
          Kate McGuire, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
          FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          E-mail: burt@whafh.com
                  mcguire@whafh.com

               - and -

          Richard B. Brualdi, Esq.
          THE BRUALDI LAW FIRM P.C.
          29 Broadway, Suite 2400
          New York NY 10006
          Telephone: (212) 952-0602
          E-mail: rbrualdi@brualdilawfirm.com

               - and -

          Michele S. Carino, Esq.
          GREENWICH LEGAL ASSOCIATES, LLC
          881 Lake Avenue
          Greenwich, CT 06831
          Telephone: (203) 622-6001
          E-mail: mcarino@grwlegal.com

LIBERTY FIRST: Hall Class Suit Removed to D. Neb.
-------------------------------------------------
The case styled Christie Hall, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Liberty First Credit Union, Case No.
D02C1240004328, was removed from the District Court of Lancaster
County, State of Nebraska, to the United States District Court for
the District of Nebraska on January 14, 2025.

The Clerk of the Court for the District of Nebraska assigned Case
No. 4:25-cv-03012-JMG-RCC to the proceeding.

The case is assigned to Senior Judge John M. Gerrard.

The Plaintiff brings claims for negligence, breach of implied
contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment based on
a data incident involving Liberty First's network on or around
September 17, 2024.

Liberty First Credit Union is a Nebraska state-chartered credit
union.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq.
          ELLZEY & ASSOCIATES LAW FIRM
          4200 Montrose Boulevard, Suite 200
          Houston, TX 77006
          Telephone: (888) 350-3931
          E-mail: lmontgomery@eksm.com

               - and -

          Thomas E. Horgan, Esq.
          HORGAN LAW LLC
          13304 West Center Road, Suite 109
          Omaha, NE 68144
          Telephone: (402) 965-0652
          E-mail: tom@horganlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Alexander D. Boyd, Esq.
          Mark A. Olthoff, Esq.
          POLSINELLI LAW FIRM
          900 West 48th Place, Suite 900
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 572-4470
          Facsimile: (816) 572-5394
          E-mail: aboyd@polsinelli.com
                  molthoff@polsinelli.com

               - and -

          Shundra Crumpton Manning, Esq.
          POLSINELLI LAW FIRM - NASHVILLE
          501 Commerce Street, Suite 1300
          Nashville, TN 37203
          Telephone: (615) 259-1535
          Facsimile: (615) 658-9674
          E-mail: scmanning@polsinelli.com

LOGEE'S GREENHOUSES: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------------
FELIPE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. LOGEE'S GREENHOUSES, LTD, Case No.
1:25-cv-01449 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 20, 2025) alleges that the Logee's
failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant’s
website, www.logees.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired people.

Accordingly, the Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its
website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered
thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans
with Disabilities Act and The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("RA")
prohibiting discrimination against the blind.

Because Defendant's Website has never been equally accessible, and
because Defendant lacks a corporate policy that is reasonably
calculated to cause the Website to become and remain accessible,
the Plaintiff invokes 42 U.S.C. section 12188(a)(2) and seeks a
permanent injunction requiring Defendant to retain a qualified
consultant acceptable to Plaintiff to assist Defendant to comply
with WCAG 2.1 guidelines for Defendant’s Website, says the suit.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website,
offering features which should allow all consumers to access the
goods and services and by which the Defendant ensures the delivery
of such goods throughout the United States, including New York
State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Rami Salim, Esq.
           STEIN SAKS, PLLC
           One University Plaza, Suite 620
           Hackensack, NJ 07601
           Telephone: (201) 282-6500
           Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
           E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com

LOVING HEARTS: Green Suit Seeks to Recover OT Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
TERRA GREEN and ROSEMARY MONROE, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated v. LOVING HEARTS, LLC; LOVING HEARTS
RESPITE S.I.L, AND PCA SERVICES, INC.; and GIAN DURAND, Case No.
2:25-cv-00365-DJP-MBN (E.D. La., Feb. 21, 2025) is class action
complaint on behalf of all other current and former similarly
situated employees who performed any work for either the Defendant
Gian Durand, or Defendant Loving Hearts within three years prior to
the date of filing this lawsuit, and who were not paid overtime
wages for hours worked over 40 in a workweek pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate with a purposeful common practice, policy,
or plan to deny their employees their lawfully earned wages.
Accordingly, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff Monroe and
Plaintiff Green sums earned and owed during employment on or before
the next regular payday, or no later than fifteen days, following
the date of discharge, the lawsuit says.

Plaintiffs Monroe and Green have made amicable demands of payment
of the wages they earned while employed, but were never paid their
owed wages, alleges the lawsuit.

LOVING HEARTS, LLC is a long term care facility.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Kenneth C. Bordes, Esq.
         Amneh Attallah, Esq.
         Abigail Floresca, Esq.
         KENNETH C. BORDES,
         ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC
         4224 Canal St.
         New Orleans, LA 70119
         Telephone: (504) 588-2700
         Facsimile: (504) 708-1717
         E-mail: KCB@KENNETHBORDES.COM

MADHAVA HONEY: Deceptively Labels Avocado Oil Products, Kachur Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MARYANN KACHUR, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MADHAVA HONEY, LTD., Case No. 4:25-cv-01899
(N.D. Cal., Feb. 21, 2025) alleges two separate problems with
Madhava brand avocado oil products including the "Non-GMO Avocado
Oil" and "Contaminated Avocado and Olive Oil."

According to the complaint, the packaging of the Madhava brand
avocado oil prominently displays on the front label that the
Avocado Oil is "non-GMO" and/or "non-GMO Project Verified."

The World Health Organization defines genetically modified
organisms ("GMOs") as "organisms in which the genetic material has
been altered in a way that does not occur naturally." The
Defendant's Non-GMO Claims are misleading because all avocado oil
products are non-GMO—no GMO version of avocado oil is present on
the market today. In fact, no GMO avocado oil has ever been sold.
Defendant is using the Non-GMO Claims as a marketing ploy to
greenwash its Avocado Oil and gain an unfair advantage over its
truthful competitors, says the suit.

Another critical issue is that Defendant advertises its avocado and
olive oils as "clean & simple" and places a "Purity Award," and
"Clean Label Project" logo on the front of the Products. Testing
from an EPA accredited laboratory has found that Defendant's
Madhava Clean & Simple Avocado Oil contains phthalates at a
concentration of 56,808 parts per billion (ppb). The testing also
found that Defendant's Madhava Clean & Simple Organic Extra Virgin
Olive Oil contains phthalates at a concentration of 3,188.9 ppb.
Phthalate contaminated oil is not "Clean & Simple," the suit
further asserts.

The Plaintiff, who purchased the Madhava Clean & Simple Avocado Oil
and Madhava Clean & Simple Organic Extra Virgin Olive Oil in
California, was deceived by Defendant's unlawful conduct and brings
this action individually and on behalf of consumers to remedy
Defendant's unlawful acts.

The Defendant manufactures, distributes, advertises, and sells
Madhava brand avocado and olive oils.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig W. Straub, Esq.
          Kurt D. Kessler, Esq.
          Zachary M. Crosner, Esq.
          CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
          9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (866) 276-7637
          Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
          E-mail: craig@crosnerlegal.com
                  kurt@crosnerlegal.com
                  zach@crosnerlegal.com

MANHATTAN ASSOCIATES: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robbins LLP reminds stockholders that a class action was filed on
behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Manhattan
Associates, Inc. (NASDAQ: MANH) securities between October 22, 2024
and January 28, 2025. Manhattan Associates is a global company that
develops, sells, deploys, services, and maintains software
solutions for the purpose of assisting in the management of supply
chains, inventory, and omnichannel operations for its customers.

For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas,
Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003.

The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that
Manhattan Associates, Inc. (MANH) Misled Investors Regarding its
Growth Potential

According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants
provided investors with material information concerning Manhattan
Associates' expected revenue for the fiscal year 2025. Defendants'
statements included, among other things, confidence in the
Company's ability to forecast guidance despite macroeconomic
fluctuations, the growth potential of their professional services
offerings, and the ability for their cloud revenue to drive revenue
for its professional services.

Notwithstanding these positive statements, defendants purportedly
failed to disclose the true state of Manhattan Associates'
forecasting ability for its professional services; notably, the
Company was either not truly equipped to deliver “responsible
targets” for growth or, otherwise, Manhattan Associates' services
were not equipped to achieve such targets.

The complaint alleges that on January 28, 2024, Manhattan
Associates published its financial results for the fourth quarter
and full fiscal year 2024 and announced reduced revenue guidance
for the full fiscal year 2025. The Company attributed its results
and lowered guidance on the “shift in professional services work
to future periods . . . and to a lesser extent, reduced
customization and higher partner utilization.” On this news, the
price of Manhattan Associates' common stock declined from $295.10
per share on January 28, 2025, $222.84 per share on January 29,
2025, a decline of over 24%.

What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action
against Manhattan Associates, Inc. Shareholders who want to serve
as lead plaintiff for the class must file their papers with the
court by April 28, 2025. A lead plaintiff is a representative party
who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be
eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can
remain an absent class member. For more information, click here.

All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay
no fees or expenses.  

About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights
litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been
dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate
governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for
their wrongdoing since 2002.

To be notified if a class action against Manhattan Associates, Inc.
settles or to receive free alerts when corporate executives engage
in wrongdoing, sign up for Stock Watch today.

Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.

Contact:

     Aaron Dumas, Jr.
     Robbins LLP
     5060 Shoreham Pl., Ste. 300
     San Diego, CA 92122
     adumas@robbinsllp.com
     (800) 350-6003
     www.robbinsllp.com
     https://www.facebook.com/RobbinsLLP/
     https://www.linkedin.com/company/robbins-llp/ [GN}

MCCORMICK & CO: Faces Class Suit Over "Made in USA" Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action lawsuit claims McCormick & Company, Inc. has falsely
advertised that French's mustard products are made in the United
States.

The 34-page lawsuit was filed by a California resident who says the
products he bought -- namely, French's Honey Dijon Mustard, Yellow
Mustard and Dijon Mustard Made with Chardonnay -- were labeled as
"Crafted and Bottled in Springfield, MO, USA." However, the case
alleges that these and other French's mustard products labeled with
similar "Made in USA" claims are misrepresented, given they contain
mustard seeds sourced primarily, if not exclusively, from Canada.

In addition, some of the items -- including French's Yellow Mustard
-- are made with turmeric, another ingredient imported from outside
the U.S., the complaint contends.

The filing charges that McCormick has failed to properly disclose
the use of foreign-sourced ingredients in violation of federal
labeling regulations and California law.

According to the class action suit, some of the products at issue
also feature a prominent front-label claim that they offer
"American Flavor in a Bottle," which the lawsuit argues reinforces
the representation that the items and their ingredients are of U.S.
origin.

As a result of the misrepresentation, consumers have paid a premium
price for items they were tricked into believing are U.S.-made and
of higher quality than comparable products that contain foreign
ingredients, the French's mustard lawsuit alleges.

Per the suit, consumers like the plaintiff would not have purchased
French's mustard products had they known the items were deceptively
advertised and contained significant ingredients sourced from
outside the U.S.

The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in California who, in the
past four years, purchased one or more French's mustard products
whose packaging included "Crafted and Bottled in Springfield, MO,
USA" or similar language and that were made with or contained
ingredients or components that were not grown or manufactured in
the U.S. [GN]

MDL 2873: Aqueous Foams Contain Toxic Chemicals, Mackemull Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
DONALD MACKEMULL and MIRANDA MACKEMULL, his wife, Plaintiffs v. 3M
COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC
CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.;
ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.;
CORTEVA, INC. DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC.
(f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY; KIDDIE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
Successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Defendants, Case
No. 2:25-cv-00262-RMG (D.S.C., January 14, 2025) is an action for
damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that include, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic
acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.

According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of
humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long
periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS
accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately,
caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications, says the suit.

Plaintiff Jay Butler regularly used, and was thereby directly
exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his
working career in the U.S. Navy. He was diagnosed with liver cancer
and/or other medical related conditions as a result of exposure to
Defendants' AFFF products, the suit alleges.

As the direct and proximate result of the previously-pled wrongful
acts and omissions of the Defendants, Plaintiff, Miranda Mackemull,
has lost and will lose the services, society and consortium of her
husband, Donald Mackemull and asserts any and all remedies
available under any statutory or common law causes of action, or
rights against each Defendant.

The Mackemull case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
          John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
          KEEFE LAW FIRM, LLC
          2 Bridge Ave, Bldg 6, 2nd Fl, Suite 623
          Red Bank, NJ 07701
          Telephone: (732) 224-9400

MDL 2873: Exposes Firefighters to Toxic Chemicals, Whitmore Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
BERTIS WHITMORE and NANCY WHITMORE, his wife, Plaintiffs v. 3M
COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC
CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.;
ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.;
CORTEVA, INC. DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC.
(f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY; KIDDIE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL
FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
Successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Defendants, Case
No. 2:25-cv-00255-RMG (D.S.C., January 14, 2025) is an action for
damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that include, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic
acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.

According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of
humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long
periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS
accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately,
caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications, says the suit.

Plaintiff Bertis Whitmore regularly used, and was thereby directly
exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his
working career in the U.S. Navy. He was diagnosed with kidney
cancer and/or other medical related conditions as a result of
exposure to Defendants' AFFF products, the suit alleges.

As the direct and proximate result of the previously-pled wrongful
acts and omissions of the Defendants, Plaintiff, Nancy Whitmore,
has lost and will lose the services, society and consortium of her
husband, Bertis Whitmore and asserts any and all remedies available
under any statutory or common law causes of action, or rights
against each Defendant.

The Whitmore case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
          John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
          KEEFE LAW FIRM, LLC
          2 Bridge Ave, Bldg 6, 2nd Fl, Suite 623
          Red Bank, NJ 07701
          Telephone: (732) 224-9400

MDL 2873: Faces Butler Suit Alleging Exposure to Toxic Chemicals
----------------------------------------------------------------
JAY BUTLER and KIMBERLY BUTLER, his wife, Plaintiffs v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC. DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDIE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM,
INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
Successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Defendants, Case
No. 2:25-cv-00257-RMG (D.S.C., January 14, 2025) is an action for
damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that include, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic
acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.

According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of
humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long
periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS
accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately,
caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications, says the suit.

Plaintiff Jay Butler regularly used, and was thereby directly
exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his
working career in the U.S. Navy. He was diagnosed with kidney
cancer, thyroid disease and/or other medical related conditions as
a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products, the suit
alleges.

As the direct and proximate result of the previously-pled wrongful
acts and omissions of the Defendants, Plaintiff, Kimberly Butler,
has lost and will lose the services, society and consortium of her
husband, Jay Butler and asserts any and all remedies available
under any statutory or common law causes of action, or rights
against each Defendant.

The Butler case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
          John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
          KEEFE LAW FIRM, LLC
          2 Bridge Ave, Bldg 6, 2nd Fl, Suite 623
          Red Bank, NJ 07701
          Telephone: (732) 224-9400

MDL 2873: Haynes Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM HAYNES, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and
Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC. DEEPWATER CHEMICALS
INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX
CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDIE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest to the
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC
CORPORATIONS (1-50), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00261-RMG
(D.S.C., January 14, 2025) is an action for damages for personal
injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances that include, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and
related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or
PFOS.

According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of
humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long
periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS
accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately,
caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications, says the suit.

The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his career as a
firefighter. He was diagnosed with testicular cancer and/or other
medical related conditions as a result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products, says the suit.

The Haynes case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
          John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
          KEEFE LAW FIRM, LLC
          2 Bridge Ave, Bldg 6, 2nd Fl, Suite 623
          Red Bank, NJ 07701
          Telephone: (732) 224-9400

MDL 2873: Manoli Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL MANOLI and JENNIFER MANOLI, his wife, Plaintiffs v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC. DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDIE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM,
INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
Successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a
GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Defendants, Case
No. 2:25-cv-00256-RMG (D.S.C., January 14, 2025) is an action for
damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that include, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic
acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.

According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of
humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long
periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS
accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately,
caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications, says the suit.

Plaintiff, Paul Manoli, regularly used, and was thereby directly
exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his
working career in the U.S. Navy. He was diagnosed with ulcerative
colitis and/or other medical related conditions as a result of
exposure to Defendants' AFFF products, says the suit.

As the direct and proximate result of the previously-pled wrongful
acts and omissions of the Defendants, Plaintiff, Jennifer Manoli,
has lost and will lose the services, society and consortium of her
husband, Paul Manoli and asserts any and all remedies available
under any statutory or common law causes of action, or rights
against each Defendant.

The Manoli case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
          John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
          KEEFE LAW FIRM, LLC
          2 Bridge Ave, Bldg 6, 2nd Fl, Suite 623
          Red Bank, NJ 07701
          Telephone: (732) 224-9400

MDL 2873: Marble Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sidney Edward Marble, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota
Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS, INC.;
ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.;
ARKEMA INC.; BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor in
interest to Ciba, Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER
GLOBAL CORPORATION; CB GARMENT, INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.;
CHEMGUARD INC.; CHEMICALS INCORPORATED; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN
AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.
(f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY; FIRE-DEX, LLC; FIRE SERVICE PLUS, INC.; GLOBE
MANUFACTURING COMPANY LLC; HONEYWELL SAFETY PRODUCTS USA, INC.;
INNOTEX CORP.; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; L.N. CURTIS
& SONS; LION GROUP, INC.; MALLORY SAFETY AND SUPPLY LLC MILLIKEN &
COMPANY; MINE SAFETY APPLIANCES COMPANY, LLC; MUNICIPAL EMERGENCY
SERVICES, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.;
PBI PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; RAYTHEON
TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; RICOCHET MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC;
SAFETY COMPONENTS FABRIC TECHNOLOGIES, INC; SOUTHERN MILLS INC.;
STEDFAST USA INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as
successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORP., INC. (f/k/a GE
Interlogix, Inc.); VERIDIAN LIMITED; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES INC.;
and WITMER PUBLIC SAFETY GROUP, INC., Defendants, Case No.
2:25-cv-00253-RMG (D.S.C., January 14, 2025) is an action for
damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous
film-forming foams containing the toxic chemicals collectively
known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances that include, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic
acid and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.

According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of
humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long
periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS
accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately,
caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications, says the suit.

The Plaintiff was regularly exposed to AFFF and TOG in training and
to extinguish fires during their firefighting career. He was
diagnosed with thyroid disease and high cholesterol as a direct
result of exposure to Defendants' products, says the suit.

The Marble case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Y. Shenkar, Esq.
          MARC J. BERN & PARTNERS, LLP
          101 West Elm St., Suite 520
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (803) 315-3357
          Facsimile: (610) 941-9880
          E-mail: jshenkar@bernllp.com

MDL 2873: Robertson Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM ROBERTSON, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining
and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX
CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE
EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS,
INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC;
CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC. DEEPWATER CHEMICALS
INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX
CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDIE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest to the
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC
CORPORATIONS (1-50), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00261-RMG
(D.S.C., January 14, 2025) is an action for damages for personal
injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances that include, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and
related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or
PFOS.

According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of
humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long
periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS
accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately,
caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications, says the suit.

The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his career in the
U.S. Navy. He was diagnosed with kidney cancer and/or other medical
related conditions as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products, says the suit.

The Robertson case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
          John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
          KEEFE LAW FIRM, LLC
          2 Bridge Ave, Bldg 6, 2nd Fl, Suite 623
          Red Bank, NJ 07701
          Telephone: (732) 224-9400

MDL 2873: Shakoor Alleges Injury Due to Toxic Chemical Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
ANGELA SHAKOOR and JOSHUA SHAKOOR, Plaintiffs v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK
EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC. DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDIE PLC;
NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest to the
Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY
AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC
CORPORATIONS (1-50), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00260-RMG
(D.S.C., January 14, 2025) is an action for damages for personal
injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances that include, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid and
related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or
PFOS.

According to the complaint, PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of
humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long
periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS
accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. The
Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. The Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
The Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products, directly and proximately,
caused him to develop the serious medical conditions and
complications, says the suit.

Plaintiff Angela Shakoor regularly used, and was thereby directly
exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during her
working career in the U.S. Army. She was diagnosed with ulcerative
colitis and/or other medical related conditions as a result of
exposure to Defendants' AFFF products, the suit alleges.

As the direct and proximate result of the previously-pled wrongful
acts and omissions of the Defendants, Plaintiff, Joshua Shakoor,
has lost and will lose the services, society and consortium of his
wife, Angela Shakoor and asserts any and all remedies available
under any statutory or common law causes of action, or rights
against each Defendant.

The Shakoor case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re:
Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case
is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel.

3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a
multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer,
developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment,
including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul,
Minnesota.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq.
          John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
          KEEFE LAW FIRM, LLC
          2 Bridge Ave, Bldg 6, 2nd Fl, Suite 623
          Red Bank, NJ 07701
          Telephone: (732) 224-9400

MDN FAMILY: Banegas Seeks Minimum Wages, OT Under Labor Code
------------------------------------------------------------
NANCY ORTIZ BANEGAS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. MDN FAMILY SERVICES, INC., a Corporation; and
DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 25NWCV00643 (Calif. Super., Los
Angeles Cty., Feb. 21, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage
and overtime wages under the California Labor Code.

Accordingly, the Defendants have engaged in a uniform policy and
systematic scheme of wage abuse against Plaintiff in violation of
applicable California laws, including failing to provide meal and
rest breaks, failing to pay minimum and overtime wages, and failing
to provide accurate wage statements.

MDN specializes in supporting adults and their families to enhance
independence, employment opportunities and overall quality of
life.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher A. Adams, Esq.
          Levon S. Yepremian, Esq.
          Vache A. Thomassian, Esq.
          Caspar Jivalagian, Esq.
          KJT LAW GROUP, LLP
          230 N. Maryland Avenue, Suite 306
          Glendale, CA 91206
          Telephone: 818-507-8525
          E-mail: chris@kjtlawgroup.com
                  levon@kjtlawgroup.com
                  vache@kjtlawgroup.com
                  caspar@kjtlawgroup.com

MEMORIAL HOSPITAL: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Straughn Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
DES STRAUGHN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MEMORIAL HOSPITAL & MANOR, Defendant, Case
No. 1:25-cv-00023-WLS (M.D. Ga., February 11, 2025) seeks
injunctive and declaratory relief arising from Defendant's failure
to safeguard the names, dates of birth and Social Security Number
and medical history and treatment information, and health insurance
information of its patients, including Plaintiff, which resulted in
unauthorized access to its information systems on or around
November 2, 2024.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's failure to safeguard
patients' highly sensitive private information as exposed and
unauthorizedly disclosed in the data breach violates its common law
duty, Georgia law, and Defendant's implied contract with its
patients to safeguard their private information.

As a result of the data breach, which Defendant failed to prevent,
the private information of Defendant's patients, including
Plaintiff and the proposed Class members, were stolen, including
their name, date of birth, Social Security number, medical history
and treatment information, and health insurance information.

On behalf of himself and the Class, the Plaintiff brings causes of
action against Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach
of fiduciary duty, and breach of implied contract, resulting from
Defendant's failure to adequately protect their highly sensitive
private information.

Memorial Hospital & Manor is a Georgia healthcare provider with its
headquarters and principal place of business in Bainbridge.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
          SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
          14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
          Miami, FL 33132
          Telephone: (305) 479-2299
          E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com

MERRILL LYNCH: Settles Unpaid Wages Class Action Suit for $4.9MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports Merrill Lynch has agreed to pay $4.9
million to settle claims that it failed to pay its financial
advisors and other employees proper wages, including overtime
wages.

The Merrill Lynch settlement benefits current and former Merrill
Lynch employees who worked as Financial Solutions Advisor Stage I
-- Registration Candidates or ADRP Trainees, ADRP Financial
Solutions Advisors or Financial Solutions Advisors Stage I between
Dec. 11, 2021, and Dec. 11, 2024.

According to the unpaid wages collective action lawsuit, Merrill
Lynch requires trainees to work off the clock and study for
licensing exams after hours without paying them for this time. In
addition, Merrill Lynch allegedly misclassifies Financial Solutions
Advisors as exempt from overtime wages to deny these workers
overtime pay for hours worked over 40 hours in a week.

Merrill Lynch is a financial services company owned by Bank of
America which offers wealth management, investment and other
services to consumers.

The company hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to the $4.9
million settlement to resolve the unpaid wages allegations.

Under the terms of the Merrill Lynch settlement, class members can
receive a cash payment based on the number of weeks they worked
during the covered period. No payment estimates are available on
the settlement website, though class members should have received
an estimated payment amount in their mailed notice. Actual payments
may be higher or lower than these estimates, based on the number of
consent forms filed.

Half of each payment will be considered wages and result in a W-2
tax form. The other half of each payment will be considered
non-wage compensation and result in a 1099 tax form.

There is no exclusion or objection deadline in this collection
action settlement.

The collection action settlement was approved by the court on Dec.
11, 2024.

In order to receive settlement benefits, class members must submit
a valid consent form by April 1, 2025.

Who's Eligible
Current and former Merrill Lynch employees who worked as a
Financial Solutions Advisor Stage I - Registration Candidate (Job
Code BQ058) or an ADRP Trainee (Job Code BQ249), an ADRP Financial
Solutions Advisor (Job Code BQ250) and/or a Financial Solutions
Advisors Stage I (Job Codes BQ223) between Dec. 11, 2021, and Dec.
11, 2024.

Potential Award
TBD

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
04/01/2025

Case Name
Grosch v. Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith Inc., et al., Case
No. CACE24017277, in the Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial
Circuit in and for Broward County, Florida

Final Hearing
12/11/2024

Settlement Website
ADRP-FLSASettlement.com

Claims Administrator:

     Grosch v. Merrill Lynch
     c/o CPT Group, Inc.
     50 Corporate Park
     Irvine, CA 92606
     ADRP-FLSASettlement@cptgroup.com
     (888) 452-7974

Class Counsel:

     Gregg I. Shavitz
     Paolo Meireles
     SHAVITZ LAW GROUP PA

Defense Counsel:

     Elena D. Marcuss
     Rebecca W. Lineberry
     MCGUIRE WOODS LLP [GN]

META PLATFORMS: May Face Class Action Suit Over Hiring Policies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Ascott, writing for All Work, reports that a federal judge on
Tuesday, February 25, said Meta Platforms must face a lawsuit
claiming that the Facebook and Instagram parent prefers to hire
foreign workers because it can pay them less than American
workers.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler in San Francisco said three
U.S. citizens who accused Meta of refusing to hire them though they
were qualified may pursue a proposed class action.

The plaintiffs -- information technology worker Purushothaman
Rajaram and software engineer Ekta Bhatia, both naturalized U.S.
citizens, and data scientist Qun Wang -- said they each applied for
several Meta jobs between 2020 and 2024, but were turned down
because of Meta's "systematic preference" for visa holders.

Meta, in a statement, said the allegations were baseless and it
would continue to vigorously defend itself against them.

In seeking a dismissal, the Menlo Park, California-based company
said there was no proof it intended to discriminate, or would have
hired the plaintiffs if they were not U.S. citizens.

But the judge cited statistics that 15% of Meta's U.S. workforce
holds H-1B visas, which typically go to foreign professionals,
compared with 0.5% of the overall workforce.

She also cited Meta's October 2021 agreement to pay up to $14.25
million, including a civil fine, to settle federal government
claims it routinely refused to consider American workers for jobs
it reserved for temporary visa holders.

"These allegations support the plaintiffs' overall complaint that
they were not hired because Meta favors H-1B visa holders," Beeler
wrote.

The government had sued Meta in December 2020, seven weeks before
President Donald Trump ended his first White House term.

"We are hopeful that the lawsuit will help remedy the favoritism
towards visa workers that is common in the tech industry," Daniel
Low, a lawyer for the three plaintiffs, said in an email. "Fully
addressing the issue will require additional enforcement or
legislative reform."

Beeler had dismissed an earlier version of the lawsuit, which named
only Rajaram as a plaintiff, in November 2022.

A divided federal appeals court revived the case last June, saying
a Civil War-era law barring discrimination in contracts based on
"alienage" protected U.S. citizens from bias.

Many conservative groups have cited that law, Section 1981 of the
Civil Rights Act of 1866, in challenging diversity initiatives in
the workplace, which Trump also opposes.

The case is Rajaram et al v Meta Platforms Inc, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California, No. 22-02920. [GN]

MISSION PRODUCE: Faces Kachuck Suit Over Avocados' Misleading Ads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KACHUCK ENTERPRISES, BANTLE AVOCADO FARM, MASKELL FAMILY TRUST
D/B/A MASKELL GROWERS and NORTHERN CAPITAL, INC., and, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. MISSION PRODUCE,
INC., CALAVO GROWERS, INC., FRESH DEL MONTE PRODUCE, INC., DEL
MONTE FRESH PRODUCE COMPANY, DEL MONTE FRESH PRODUCE N.A., INC.,
Case No. 2:25-cv-01523 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 21, 2025) is a class action
for violations of California's False Advertising Law, California's
Unfair Competition Law, and unjust enrichment.

The Defendants' alleged misleading online advertising about the
sustainability and responsible sourcing of Mexican avocados also
leads to decreased market share for California-grown avocados,
including those grown by Plaintiffs and the putative class members.
Accordingly in order to increase sales of their imported Mexican
avocados, Mission, Calavo, and Del Monte make representations to
consumers that their avocados are sustainably and responsibly
sourced. These statements are not true, because Defendants all
source their avocados from orchards in Mexico, where the local
environment is being decimated by uncontrolled deforestation,
severe water shortages, soil degradation, and biodiversity and
habitat loss driven by U.S. demand for sustainably sourced
avocados, says the suit.

The Defendants' marketing not only misleads consumers but also
creates unfair competition for California-based avocado growers,
such as Plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent. Plaintiffs
have suffered declining sales, lost profits, loss of goodwill, and
other injuries as a result of Defendants' unlawful conduct.
Consumers, who otherwise would choose to purchase California
avocados, are convinced by the Defendants' deceptive advertising
that Mexican avocados are essentially identical in terms of their
environmental impact as California-grown avocados. This is untrue,
alleges the suit.

Kachuck manages, and its Kachuck Living Trust owns, a 372-acre
avocado grove in Valley Center, California that was originally
purchased by Dr. Norman Kachuck's family in 1968. Over the past 20
years, Kachuck has harvested an average of 3 million pounds of
California avocados annually.

Mission distributes and sells its avocados, or causes its avocados
to be distributed and sold, throughout the United States, including
in California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          P. Renee Wicklund, Esq.
          RICHMAN LAW & POLICY
          535 Mission Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 259-5688
          E-mail: rwicklund@richmanlawpolicy.com

MONEY SOURCE: Court Amends Scheduling Order in Hiller
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Natasha Hiller, v. Money
Source Incorporated, Case No. 2:23-cv-00235-JJT (D. Ariz.), the
Hon. Judge John Tuchi entered an order granting the Parties' joint
stipulation to amend scheduling order dated Sept. 6, 2024 regarding
motion for class certification (Second Request).

The Court further ordered extending the deadline to file class
certification motion to Feb. 27, 2025. All other aspects of the
Court's Sept. 6, 2024 Scheduling Order remain in effect.

Money Source provides financial services.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 19, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=onyk8h at no extra
charge.[CC] 


NAKED AND THRIVING: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Senior Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
FRANK SENIOR, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NAKED AND THRIVING INC., Case No.
1:25-cv-01399 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 19, 2025) alleges that the Defendant
failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive
website, https://www.nakedandthriving.com/, to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons.

Accordingly, the Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its
website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered
thereby, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the
Americans with Disabilities Act. Because the Defendant's
interactive website, including all portions thereof or accessed
thereon, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers, it violates the ADA.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible
with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and
visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods,
content, and services -- all benefits it affords nondisabled
individuals -- thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma
among those persons that Title III was meant to redress.

The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.

The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or "visually-impaired" to
refer to all people with visual impairments who meet the legal
definition of blindness in that they have a visual acuity with
correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200. Some blind people who
meet this definition have limited vision. Others have no vision.

Based on a 2010 U.S. Census Bureau report, approximately 8.1
million people in the United States are visually-impaired,
including 2.0 million who are blind, and according to the American
Foundation for the Blind’s 2015 report, approximately 400,000
visually-impaired persons live in the State of New York.

The Defendant offers the commercial website,
https://www.nakedandthriving.com/, to the public. The Website
offers features which should allow all consumers to access the
goods and services offered by Defendant and which Defendant ensures
delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States
including New York State.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
          Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
          GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
          150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 228-9795
          Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
          E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
                  Dana@Gottlieb.legal
                  Michael@Gottlieb.legal

NCAA: Bid for Continuance of Class Cert Hearing in Ray Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHANNON RAY, KHALA TAYLOR,
PETER ROBINSON, KATHERINE SEBBANE, and RUDY BARAJAS Individually
and on Behalf of All Those Similarly Situated, v. NATIONAL
COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION (NCAA), an unincorporated
association, Case No. 1:23-cv-00425-WBS-CSK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge William Shubb entered an order denying the Defendant's
request for a continuance of the hearing on class certification.

NCAA requests to continue the scheduled March 3, 2025, hearing on
the Plaintiffs' pending motion for class certification.

The NCAA provides no rationale for its requested continuance date
of August 4, 2025, and there is nothing before the court to suggest
that the Supreme Court is likely to issue any decision in
Laboratory Corp. by that date.

NCAA regulates student athletics among about 1,100 schools in the
United States, and 1 in Canada.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 19, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XRfBCY at no extra
charge.[CC]

NEW ERA: Failed to Protect Personal, Health Info, Midcalf Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
EBONY MIDCALF, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. NEW ERA ENTERPRISES, INC., and NEW ERA LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, Case No. 4:25-cv-00775 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 21, 2025) is a
class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted
Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information and
Protected Health Information and that was impacted in a data breach
that Defendant publicly disclosed on Feb. 11, 2025.

The Plaintiff's claims arise from the Defendant's failure to
properly secure and safeguard Private Information that was
entrusted to them, and their accompanying responsibility to store
and transfer that information.

On Dec. 18, 2024, the Defendant became aware of suspicious activity
within its IT Network. Upon detection, Defendant launched an
investigation with the assistance of third-party cyber security
experts to determine the nature and scope of the incident. The
investigation determined that an unauthorized third-party accessed
Defendant's IT Network between Dec. 9, 2024, and December 18, 2024,
and had copied certain files from their systems. 4 7. Defendant
then launched a comprehensive review of the incident to determine
the extent of the compromised information, concluding on Jan. 31,
2025.

Through this review, the Defendant identified files containing data
belonging to certain individuals, including policyholders,
beneficiaries, independent agents, and employees. 5 8. Upon
information and believe, the following types of sensitive
information may have been compromised in the data breach: address,
date of birth, health insurance policy numbers, and data related to
medical treatment and/or diagnosis.

The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a
Nationwide Class of similarly situated individuals against
Defendant for: negligence; negligence per se; unjust enrichment,
breach of implied contract, and breach of confidence. The Plaintiff
seeks to remedy these harms and prevent any future data compromise
on behalf of herself and all similarly situated persons whose
personal data was compromised and stolen as a result of the Data
Breach and who remain at risk due to the Defendant's inadequate
data security practices.

Plaintiff Ebony Midcalf is a resident of Brandon Mississippi.
Plaintiff is a former client of Defendant.

New Era is a life and health insurance provider that includes
Defendant New Era Life Insurance Company, New Era Life Insurance
Company of the Midwest, and Life of America Insurance Company, and
offers a range of insurance products and services to individuals
and businesses.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick Yarborough, Esq.
          Benjamin F. Foster, Esq.
          Luke Ott, Esq.
          FOSTER YARBOROUGH PLLC
          917 Franklin Street, Suite 220
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 331-5254
          Facsimile: (713) 513-5202
          E-mail: patrick@fosteryarborough.com
                  ben@fosteryarborough.com
                  luke@fosteryarborough.com

               - and -

          Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
          Mark Svensson, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
          33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363-7500
          Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
          E-mail: ek@zlk.com
                  msvensson@zlk.com

NEWREZ LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to June 20
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANICE MOODY, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. NEWREZ, LLC d/b/a
SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING, Case No. 1:24-cv-05406-ELR-CMS (N.D.
Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting an
extension of time from Feb. 20, 2025, until and including June 20,
2025, in which to move for class certification under Local Civil
Rule 23.1(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c).

The Plaintiff has conferred with the Defendant regarding the relief
requested in this Motion, and the Defendant consents to the
requested extension.

Newrez is a national wholesale mortgage lender that offers agency
and non-agency lending solutions to brokers and community banks.

A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 19, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jZajPz at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew G. Rosendahl, Esq.
          KELLY GUZZO, PLC
          3925 Chain Bridge, Suite 202
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424-7572
          Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
          E-mail: matt@kellyguzzo.com

PAL OPERATING: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Nelson Class Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
PATRICIA NELSON, et al., v. PAL OPERATING COMPANY, L.L.C., Case No.
5:25-cv-00184 (W.D. Tex., Feb. 19, 2025) is a class action alleging
that the Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by failing
to pay the Plaintiff for all of her overtime hours.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff was not compensated at the rate of time
and one-half her regular rate of pay when she worked outside her
normal work schedule and was misclassified as exempt. Additionally,
the Defendant would improperly deduct hours from Plaintiff's
paychecks and not pay any amount for those hours despite the fact
that Plaintiff worked them.

The Plaintiffs and other potential class members are current and
former employees of Defendant. The Plaintiffs are hourly employee.
They are paid every two weeks and each paycheck lags two weeks
behind the period worked.

The Defendant is doing business in San Antonio, Texas, specializing
in providing essential services to various industries.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adam Poncio, Esq.
          Alan Braun, Esq.
          PONCIO LAW OFFICES
          A Professional Corporation
          5410 Fredericksburg Rd., Suite 310
          San Antonio, TX 78229
          Telephone: (210) 212-7979
          Facsimile: (210) 212-5880
          E-mail: aponcio@ponciolaw.com
                  abraun@ponciolaw.com

PASSES INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Child Pornography
-------------------------------------------------------------
Clark Smith Villazor LLP and Schwartz | Breslin PLLC announced that
a class action lawsuit was filed in the in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida captioned Alice
Rosenblum v. Passes Inc., et al., against Passes Inc. ("Passes"), a
social media platform, Lucy Guo, its founder and principal, WLM
Management LLC, Nofhotos Group LLC and Alec Celestin and Lani
Ginoza, both agents of Passes and the latter its prior "Director of
Talent."

The Complaint, filed by Rosenblum on her own behalf and on behalf
of those similarly situated, sets forth allegations that
demonstrate that Passes, Guo, WLM, Nofhotos, Celestin and Ginoza
violated State and Federal law by producing, possessing, and
distributing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sections
2252, 2252A and related Florida criminal statutes. The Complaint
details a scheme where the named defendants, acting on behalf of
Passes, recruited young women, that they knew were minors, to
create pornography before they reached the age of 18, and to
distribute that child pornography on the Passes platform to paying
subscribers, both before and after the subject became of age.  

The Complaint further details how Passes and the individual
defendants took to disguise their scheme and to cover their tracks
once their sexual exploitation of minor women was revealed,
including changing its public representations about the compliance
policy just two days ago, and also about its relationship with
Celestin.  Our firms are proud to take action on behalf of the
victims of this illegal and immoral scheme.

If you believe that you or someone close to you has been victimized
by Passes, Guo, WLM, Nofhotos, Celestin, Ginoza or anyone working
in concert with them, please contact us at
Passeslawsuit@csvllp.com. [GN]

PEPSICO INC: Faces Class Suit Over Retailer Price Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett of Top Class Actions reports that Alqosh Enterprises
Inc. and NMRM Inc. filed a class action lawsuit against PepsiCo
Inc. and its subsidiary Frito-Lay North America Inc.

Why: The plaintiffs claim Pepsi and Frito-Lay engaged in price
discrimination by charging higher prices to independent convenience
stores than to chain grocery stores for Frito-Lay snack chips.

Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in California federal
court.

PepsiCo Inc. and its subsidiary Frito-Lay North America Inc.
engaged in price discrimination by charging higher prices to
independent convenience stores than to chain grocery stores for
Frito-Lay snack chips, a new class action lawsuit alleges.

Plaintiffs Alqosh Enterprises Inc. and NMRM Inc., a pair of
convenience store operators, claim Pepsi and Frito-Lay are
violating the Robinson-Patman Act (RPA), which prohibits suppliers
from charging different prices to competing customers for the same
products.

The plaintiffs argue PepsiCo and Frito-Lay charged independent
convenience stores far higher net prices for popular snack chip
brands -- including Doritos, Lay's, Cheetos, Fritos and Ruffles --
than they charged to chain grocery stores, such as Albertsons,
Walmart, Target and Safeway.

"For years, Frito-Lay has continuously violated the RPA by charging
independent convenience stores far higher net prices for those
brands of snack chips than it charges to chain grocery stores,”
the Frito-Lay class action says.

Alqosh Enterprises and NMRM seek to represent a class of
independently owned California convenience stores that purchased
Frito-Lay snack chips at higher prices than chain grocery stores at
least throughout the four years prior to the filing of the
complaint.

Pepsi caused independent convenience stores to lose millions of
dollars, class action says
The plaintiffs argue the alleged price discrimination caused
independent convenience stores to lose tens of millions of dollars
in Frito-Lay chip sales over the past four years.

"Frito-Lay engaged in direct and indirect price discrimination
against Plaintiffs and the class by selling snack chips to them at
far higher net prices than Frito-Lay charged to Chain Groceries,”
the Frito-Lay class action states.

In addition to allegedly violating the RPA, the convenience stores
argue Pepsi and Frito-Lay violated California's Unfair Practices
Act and Unfair Competition Law.

The plaintiffs demand a jury trial and request injunctive relief
and an award of compensatory and treble damages for themselves and
all class members.

The Federal Trade Commission filed a complaint against Pepsi on
Jan. 17 over claims the company gave Walmart better terms and
promotional payments than smaller competitors.

Have you purchased a Frito-Lay snack for a higher price at an
independent convenience store? Let us know in the comments.

The plaintiffs are represented by Mark Poe, Randolph Gaw, Victor
Meng and Flora Vigo of Gaw Poe LLP.

The PepsiCo class action lawsuit is Alqosh Enterprises Inc., et al.
v. PepsiCo Inc., et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-01327, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California. [GN]

PEPSICO INC: Pure Leaf Not "Brewed in USA," Daldalian Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
GARO DALDALIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. PEPSICO, INC., CONOPCO, INC. d/b/a UNILEVER, and PEPSI
LIPTON PARTNERSHIP d/b/a PURE LEAF TEA, Case No. 2:25-cv-01491
(C.D. Cal., Feb. 21, 2025) concerns unlawful labeling of the
Defendants' ready to drink beverages, with the designation and
representation that the products are/were made and/or manufactured
in the United States without clear and adequate qualification of
the foreign ingredients and components contained, as required by
federal rules and California laws.

According to the complaint, the unlawfully represented products are
sold via third party merchants online (including through Amazon,
Walmart, Instacart and others) and in brick-and-mortar stores. The
Defendants' conduct of advertising and selling deceptively labeled
products bearing the representation that such products are "Brewed
in USA" violates: (1) California’s Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
(2) California's Unfair Competition Law, (3) California's False
Advertising Law, and constitutes (4) breach of express warranty;
(5) unjust enrichment; (6) negligent misrepresentation; and (7)
intentional misrepresentation.

Pure Leaf's products are labeled with the representation that the
products are "Brewed in USA" (an express U.S. origin
representation), which is printed on each and every product
manufactured, sold or distributed by Defendants, including the
product purchased by the Plaintiff. Contrary to the Defendants'
express representations and their failure to clearly and adequately
qualify those representations, the product purchased by Plaintiff
is substantially and materially composed of indispensable foreign
ingredients, says the suit.

The Plaintiff purchased a six-pack of Pure Leaf's Lemon Real Brewed
Tea, which is labeled, marketed and sold to consumers as "Brewed in
USA". However, the Product is made with tea, among other
ingredients and components, that is not grown, sourced or otherwise
made in the United States.

Pepsi owns, produces, manufactures, and sells products under
numerous brands throughout the United States and globally,
including the Class Products through a joint venture with Unilever
under the label Pure Leaf. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Pamela E. Prescott, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400-6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
                  pamela@kazlg.com

PHILADELPHIA, PA: Faces Jung Suit Over Speed & Red Light Notices
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH JUNG, ROBERT THOMAS, DANIEL SMITH, ALEXANDER SIMPSON, PAUL
KELLY, KYLE WILLIAMS, and TIPHANIE LAWTON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CITY OF
PHILADELPHIA, PHILADELPHIA PARKING AUTHORITY, CHERELLE PARKER,
LYNETTE M. BROWN-SOW, PATRICIA M. FURLONG, BETH C. GROSSMAN, ALFRED
W. TAUBENBERGER, OBRA S. KERNODLE, IV, MARK C. NICASTRE, RICHARD
LAZER, GABE ROBERTS, CORINNE O'CONNOR, KEOLA HARRINGTON, ANTHONY
KUCZYNSKI, and CASEY WECH, Case No. 2:25-cv-00956 (E.D. Pa., Feb.
21, 2025) alleges that Entity Defendants failed to include critical
information on the Speed Notices and Red Light Notices.

The Speeding Notice does not have attached to it the vehicle
registration number, a direct violation of 75 Pa.C.S.A. section
3370(i)(3)(ii). Similarly, the Red Light Notice does not have
attached to it the vehicle registration number, a direct violation
of 75 Pa.C.S.A. section 3116(h)(3). The vehicle registration number
is critical in identifying, among others, the name and address of
the registrant and the name of the owner, if other than the
registrant. See 75 Pa.C.S.A. section 1308(a). 63.

In 2002, the Pennsylvania Legislature created the Automated Red
Light Camera Program (the Red Light Camera Program) to improve
highway safety in Philadelphia and named the PPA the program's
administrator. With the oversight of the City Council and the
Pennsylvania Secretary of Transportation, the PPA recommends
dangerous, high-traffic volume intersections to install the
necessary equipment and operate the enforcement program.

According to the PPA, The Red Light Camera Program has dramatically
reduced red light violations wherever it has been installed,
thereby preventing many "T-Bone" accidents. That success led the
Legislature to expand Automated Red Light Enforcement systems
throughout the Commonwealth in 2012. 30. In 2018, the Pennsylvania
Legislature created the Automated Speed Camera Program (the "Speed
Camera Program") in Philadelphia to address dangerous driving
conditions on Roosevelt Boulevard and named the PPA its
administrator.

The PPA further states that the City of Philadelphia and PPA have
significantly reduced speeding on Roosevelt Boulevard through this
program. In April 2023, the PPA issued the Roosevelt Boulevard
Automated Speed Camera Annual Report (the "Speed Camera Annual
Report").

The Speed Camera Annual Report was prepared by Defendant Casey
Wech, the PPA Director of Automated Enforcement.

The Plaintiffs seek certification of the following classes pursuant
to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

   a. All individuals who received and paid fines for Speeding
      Notices or Red Light Notices as part of the Automated Speed
      Camera Program or Automated Red Light Camera Program in the
      city of Philadelphia, from February 21, 2023 to present
      (Class A).

   b. All individuals who received and paid fines for Speeding
      Notices or Red Light Notices as part of the Automated Speed
      Camera Program or Automated Red Light Camera Program in the
      city of Philadephia, but were not driving at the time of the

      violation, from February 21, 2023 to present (Class B).

The Defendant City of Philadelphia created Defendant Philadelphia
Parking Authority (PPA) pursuant to the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania Parking Authority Law. The PPA constitutes a public
body, exercising public powers of the Commonwealth as an agency of
the Commonwealth.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward T. Kang, Esq.
          Kyle Garabedian, Esq.
          KANG HAGGERTY LLC
          123 South Broad Street, Suite 1950
          Philadelphia, PA 19109
          Telephone: (215) 525-5850
          Facsimile: (215) 525-5860
          E-mail: ekang@kanghaggerty.com
                  kgarabedian@kanghaggerty.com

PIH HEALTH: Fails to Secure Private Info, Elizarraras Says
----------------------------------------------------------
DENIA ELIZARRARAS, STEPHANIE VALLEJO, EMILIO GONZALEZ and DANIELLE
WHARTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. PIH HEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case No.
25STCV03773 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., February 11, 2025) is a
class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly
secure and safeguard the protected health information and
personally identifiable information of Plaintiffs and other
similarly situated current and former patients of Defendant.

On or around November 30, 2024, the Plaintiffs' and Class Members'
private information -- which they entrusted to Defendant with the
mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against
disclosure -- was targeted, compromised and unlawfully accessed due
to a ransomware attack.

The massive and preventable data breach occurred because of
Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable
cyber-security measures to ensure its computer systems were
protected. Because Defendant's data security protocols and
practices were deficient, unauthorized actors were able to access,
acquire, appropriate, encumber, exfiltrate, steal, use, and/or view
Plaintiffs' and Class Members' private information, says the suit.

Through this Complaint, the Plaintiffs seek to remedy these harms
on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals
whose Private Information was accessed and stolen during the data
breach.

PIH Health, Inc. is a California-based healthcare provider that
operates a regional network, including three hospitals, urgent care
centers, doctor's offices, and home health and hospice services,
with a total of 128 locations across the state.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          M. Anderson Berry, Esq.
          Gregory Haroutunian, Esq.
          Brandon P. Jack, Esq.
          CLAYEO C. ARNOLD A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
          12100 Wilshire Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90012
          Telephone: (747) 777-7748
          Facsimile: (916) 924-1829
          E-mail: aberry@justice4you.com
                  gharoutunian@justice4you.com
                  bjack@justice4you.com

               - and -

          Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
          GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC
          102 Half Moon Bay Drive
          Croton-on-Hudson, NY 10520
          Telephone: (917) 983-9321
          E-mail: lfeldman@4-justice.com
                  eservice@4-justice.com

POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
K.W.; and J.I. individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC., Defendant, is
an action alleging the Defendant's failure to secure and safeguard
the confidential, personally identifiable information of millions
of students, parents, school faculty and staff.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to maintain
reasonable security safeguards and protocols to protect its users'
PII. PowerSchool also lacked proper controls to determine which
students, parents, and faculty were impacted by the Data Breach.

PowerSchool's failure to timely detect and report the Data Breach
caused Plaintiffs and Class Members to be vulnerable to identity
theft without any warnings to monitor their financial accounts or
credit reports to prevent unauthorized use of their PII. Even when
PowerSchool finally notified the Plaintiffs and Class Members of
their PII exfiltration, PowerSchool failed to adequately describe
the Data Breach and its effects, as well as the measures it took to
prevent data breaches from occurring in the future, alleges the
suit.

In failing to adequately protect consumers' information, failing to
adequately notify them about the breach, and obfuscating the nature
of the breach, PowerSchool violated state and federal laws and
harmed thousands of its current and former consumers, the suit
added.

PowerSchool Holdings, Inc. provides cloud-based software for K-12
education. The Company offers student information systems,
enrollment, unified classroom, unified administration, unified
talent, unified insights, and more. [BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Maureen M. Brady, Esq.
          MCSHANE & BRADY, LLC
          4006 Central Street
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: (816) 888-8010
          Facsimile: (816) 332-6295
          Email: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com


POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Greer Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
KIM GREER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC. and POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC,
Case No. 1:25-cv-127 (M.D.N.C., Feb. 20, 2025) alleges that the
Defendant failed to properly secure and safeguard personally
identifiable information including, but not limited to full names,
Social Security numbers, grades, email addresses, telephone
numbers, addresses, dates of birth, protected health information
including medical information.

The Defendant is a national education technology firm that provides
cloud-based education software for K-12 students and educators. The
Defendant maintains offices in the state of California. To provide
these services, and in the ordinary course of the Defendant's
business, Defendant acquires, possesses, analyzes, and otherwise
utilizes the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information.

The Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it
caused and will continue to cause Plaintiff and millions of other
similarly situated persons as a result of a massive and preventable
cyberattack of the Defendant's networks and/or systems.

On Dec. 28, 2024, PowerSchool discovered that cybercriminals
infiltrated Defendant’s inadequately protected network servers
and accessed and exfiltrated highly sensitive Private Information
belonging to Plaintiff and Class Members which was unprotected and
unencrypted (the "Data Breach").

The Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant responsible for failing to
ensure that Plaintiff and Class Members Private Information was
maintained in a safe manner and at a minimum consistent with
industry standards.

On Jan. 8, 2025, over two weeks after the Data Breach, Defendant
first notified its customers, including public and private school
districts throughout the United States, about the widespread Data
Breach.

The Defendant did not directly notify Plaintiff or Class Members of
the Data Breach. Defendant's website or social media channels do
not mention the Data Breach, or otherwise provide information for
people who may have been affected. However, some individual schools
and districts, themselves victims of Defendant's Data Breach, made
efforts to notify affected parents, students, and educators.

Plaintiff Greer is a resident and citizen of Forsyth County, North
Carolina. The Plaintiff is a current employee of a North Carolina
Public School which uses the Defendant's software.

The Defendant has operated at various school districts and schools
throughout the state of North Carolina, including schools within
Forsyth County, North Carolina.

On its website, Defendant touts that:

    "With over 90 of the top 100 school districts in the US using
    PowerSchool, we simply have more experience than anyone else
    in implementing educational technology, providing ongoing
    support and training, and releasing innovative features that
    support schools' and districts' evolving needs. Partnering
    with PowerSchool means reducing risk by relying on the
    industry’s most trusted and proven partner."[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David M. Wilkerson, Esq.
          THE VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM
          11 N. Market Street
          Asheville, NC 28801
          Telephone: (828) 258-2991
          E-mail: dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com

               - and -

          James J. Pizzirusso, Esq.
          Nicholas U. Murphy, Esq.
          Amanda V. Boltax, Esq.
          Steven M. Nathan, Esq.
          HAUSFELD LLP
          888 16th Street N.W., Suite 300
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 540-7200
          E-mail: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com
                  mboltax@hausfeld.com
                  snathan@hausfeld.com

POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Hauser Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
John and Amy Hauser, on behalf of themselves and as parents and
guardians of their minor child, Jane Doe, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS,
INC., Case No. 0:25-cv-00665 (D. Minn., Feb. 20, 2025) is class
action complaint brought by the Plaintiffs, on behalf of
themselves, their minor child, and all others similarly situated,
seeking claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied
contract, declaratory judgement, and unjust enrichment.

The Plaintiffs seeks damages and injunctive relief, including the
adoption of reasonable and necessary data security practices to
protect the Private Information in PowerSchool's custody and
prevent future data breaches.

On Jan. 7, 2025, PowerSchool confirmed that it experienced a
cybersecurity incident that allowed cybercriminals to access
personal data of students and teachers in elementary, middle, and
high school districts across the United States

According to PowerSchool, the cybercriminals accessed
PowerSchool’s customers' clients' highly sensitive information
including their names, addresses, Social Security numbers, medical
information, and other unspecified personally identifiable
information. The cybercriminals were able to access this Private
Information by breaking into PowerSchool's internal customer
support portal using a stolen credential (the "Data Breach").
Because of the injuries Plaintiffs, their minor child, and Class
Members have already endured and continue to face, they must
continue to spend money, time, and other resources to protect
themselves from these crimes, the lawsuit says.

Plaintiffs John and Amy Hauser are citizens of the United States
residing in Caledonia, Minnesota. The Plaintiffs' minor child is
also a citizen of the United States residing in Caledonia,
Minnesota.

The Defendant is a national education technology firm that provides
cloud-based education software for K-12 students and educators. The
Defendant maintains offices in the state of California.[BN]

The Plaintiffs area represented by:

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          David A. Goodwin, Esq.
          Gabrielle M. Kolb, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333-8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com
                  gkolb@gustafsongluek.com

               - and -

          Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
          Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
          CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
          100 Washington Avenue S., Suite 1700
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339-7300
          Facsimile: (612) 336-2940
          E-mail: bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com
                  pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com

               - and -

          Nathan D. Prosser, Esq.
          HELLMUTH & JOHNSON PLLC
          8050 West 78th Street
          Edina, MN 55439
          Telephone: 952-941-4005
          E-mail: nprosser@hjlawfirm.com

POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, K.I. Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
K.I. and R.I. individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-00122-DGK
(W.D. Mo., Feb. 20, 2025) alleges that Defendant failed to secure
and safeguard the personally identifiable information of over 60
million individuals who are customers of the company.

PowerSchool headquartered in Folsom, California is one of the
school data software companies, providing database and data storage
goods and services to both current and former schools, students,
parents, and teachers worldwide.

In the regular course of its business, PowerSchool is required to
maintain reasonable and adequate security measures to secure,
protect, and safeguard their customers’ PII against unauthorized
access and disclosure. The Defendant required its customers to
provide it with their sensitive PII and failed to protect it.
Defendant had an obligation to secure their customers’ PII by
implementing reasonable and appropriate data security safeguards.
This was part of the bargain between Plaintiffs and Class Members
and Defendant, says the suit.

The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant could have prevented the
Data Breach by properly monitoring their file software.

Plaintiff K.I. is a parent of a former student of the Liberty
School District in Missouri and is a resident of Kansas City, Clay
County, Missouri, whose Personal Information was compromised in the
Data Breach.

Plaintiff R.I. is a parent of a former student of the Liberty
School District and is a resident of Kansas City, Clay County,
Missouri, whose Personal Information was compromised in the Data
Breach.

The Defendant has operated at various school districts and schools
throughout the state of North Carolina, including schools within
Forsyth County, North Carolina.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Maureen M. Brady, Esq.
           MCSHANE & BRADY, LLC
           4006 Central Street
           Kansas City, MO 64111
           Telephone: (816) 888-8010
           Facsimile: (816) 332-6295
           E-mail: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com

RENFROW GROUP: Halterman Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JACOB HALTERMAN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. THE RENFROW GROUP, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00042-D
(E.D.N.C., Feb. 20, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the North Carolina Wage and
Hour Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant's policies and/or
practices with regard to Plaintiff and similarly situated security
guards violated the FLSA. The Defendant typically required its
security guard employees to perform uncompensated work
"off-the-clock" before and after their scheduled shifts.

The Plaintiff was required to perform "off-the-clock" duties that
were an "integral part of [his] principal activity" pursuant to 29
C.F.R. section 553.221, including continuing to secure a location
while waiting for a relief security guard to appear for work,
completing paperwork, and briefing the relieving security
guard. The Plaintiff is or was an hourly-paid, non-exempt security
guard employee of Defendant who worked at the Defendant's
customers' sites providing security services including patrolling,
monitoring, and reporting suspicious activity.

The Defendant is a security and facilities management company that
provides uniformed security and mobile patrol services, asset
protection management, event security, and electronic
surveillance.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jacob J. Modla, Esq.
          CROMER BABB & PORTER, LLC
          1418 Laurel Street, Suite A
          Post Office Box 11675
          Columbia, SC 29211
          Telephone: (803) 799-9530
          E-mail: jake@cromerbabb.com

               - and -

          Colby Qualls, Esq.
          FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC
          10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (214) 210-2100
          E-mail: cqualls@foresterhaynie.com

REYNOLDS CONSUMER: Must Oppose Mayfield Class Cert Bid by April 21
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZULAIKA MAYFIELD and
BRIGETTE HOOD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. REYNOLDS CONSUMER PRODUCTS LLC, Case No.
4:23-cv-04587-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an
order granting stipulation to amend scheduling order as follows:

     New Date                         Event

  April 21, 2025    Deadline for Class certification opposition
                    and Defendants' class certification expert
                    disclosures

  May 27, 2025      Deadline to complete depositions and document
                    productions for Defendant's experts re: class
                    certification

  June 19, 2025     Deadline for Class certification reply and
                    Plaintiffs' expert rebuttal reports, if any

  July 10, 2025     Hearing on motion
  at 2:00 p.m.
  via Zoom webinar

Reynolds manufactures and distributes household packaging
products.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 19, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KLRx1g at no extra
charge.[CC]

RICHER POORER: Valencia Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
----------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN VALENCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. RICHER POORER, LLC, Defendant, Case
1:25-cv-01459 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 20, 2025) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, www.richer-poorer.com, is not fully or equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in
violation of the ADA.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.

Richer Poorer, LLC retails apparel and accessories. The Company
offers classic, athletics, briefs, and other clothes for men,
women, and kids. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rami Salim, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com

ROBLOX CORPORATION: Parties Seek to Amend Class Cert. Schedule
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARACELY SOUCEK, et al., v.
ROBLOX CORPORATION, SATOZUKI LIMITED B.V., STUDS ENTERTAINMENT
LTD., and RBLXWILD ENTERTAINMENT LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-04146-VC
(N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order amending
the schedule in response to a request from the Parties for the
following reasons:

          Pretrial Event             Current            New
                                     Deadline           Deadline

  Deadline for Plaintiffs to          None           Apr. 21, 2025
  file a further amended
  complaint with no new
  plaintiffs or claims, or to
  move for leave to file an
  amended complaint:

  Close of Class Certification     June 23, 2025    Jan. 23, 2026
  Expert Discovery:

  Motion for Class Certification:  June 30, 2025     Jan. 30, 2026


  Opposition to Motion for         July 30, 2025     Mar. 2, 2026
  Class Certification:

  Class Certification Hearing:     Sept. 4, 2025     Apr. 9, 2026

  Case Management Statement:       Sept. 22, 2025    Apr. 27, 2026

Roblox is an American video game developer based in San Mateo,
California.

A copy of the Parties' motion dated Feb. 19, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GvARe2 at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James Bilsborrow, Esq.
          WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC
          700 Broadway
          New York, NY 10003
          Telephone: (212) 558-5500
          E-mail: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Tiana Demas, Esq.
          COOLEY LLP
          110 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 4200
          Chicago, IL 60606-1511
          Telephone: (312) 881-6500
          Facsimile: (312) 881-6598
          E-mail: tdemas@cooley.com

ROCKET LAB: Faces Securities 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
Central District of California, captioned Bray v. Rocket Lab USA,
Inc., et al., Case No. 25-cv-1733, on behalf of persons and
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Rocket Lab USA, Inc.
("Rocket Lab" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: RKLB) securities between
November 12, 2024 and February 25, 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.

IF YOU SUFFERED A LOSS ON YOUR ROCKET LAB INVESTMENTS, CLICK HERETO
INQUIRE ABOUT POTENTIALLY PURSUING CLAIMS TO RECOVER YOUR LOSS
UNDER THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS.

What Happened?

On February 25, 2025, Bleecker Street Research published a report
alleging, among other things, that Rocket Lab "has materially
misled investors about the likelihood that its Neutron rocket will
launch in mid-2025." The report revealed that the Company's plans
for three barge landing tests, which were originally scheduled to
occur in a window between September 2024 and March 2025, had been
pushed back to a window beginning in September 2025 and could occur
as late as March 2026. The report further revealed significant
delays in preparing the Company's launch pad, including a potable
water problem not scheduled to be fixed until January 2026, which
would delay launch further. The report also alleged that Company's
only Neutron contract so far is with an "unreliable startup" named
E-Space which is described as "risk item." The report further
alleged this "contract is not a full-price deal, contrary to what
Rocket Lab has said."

On this news, Rocket Lab's stock price fell $2.21, or 9.8%, to
close at $20.28 per share on February 25, 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
that: (1) the Company's plans for three barge landing tests were
significantly delayed; (2) a critical potable water problem was not
scheduled to be fixed until January 2026, which delayed preparation
of the launch pad; (3) as a result of the foregoing, there was a
substantial risk that Rocket Lab's Neutron rocket would not launch
in mid-2025; (4) Neutron's only contract was made at a discount
with an unreliable partner; and (5) 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 Rocket Lab 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. [GN]

ROSECRANCE INC: Gallagher Files Class Suit in Ill. Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against Rosecrance Inc. The case is
captioned as Shannon Gallagher, for others similarly situated, et
al. v. Rosecrance Inc., Case No. 2025-LA-0000019 (Ill. Cir.,
Winnebago Cty., January 14, 2025).

The suit is assigned to Judge Ronald Barch.

A case management conference is set for April 30, 2025.

Rosecrance Inc. is a provider of behavioral health services with
addiction treatment programs.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.

RYOBI TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Lilly Class Suit Over Defective Mowers
----------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN LILLY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RYOBI TECHNOLOGIES, INC., and TTI OUTDOOR POWER
EQUIPMENT, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00939 (E.D. Pa., Feb. 21, 2025)
is class action lawsuit as an individual who purchased Defendant
Ryobi's 40V Push Mower for normal household use.

TTI Outdoor Power Equipment has issued a recall for certain RYOBI
40- Volt Brushless 21" Cordless Walk-Behind Mowers due to a fire
hazard. Unfortunately, the Products are defective because they can
catch fire. The defect originates from the mower's battery
terminal, where a push-on connector inside the powerhead can
overheat, posing a fire risk.

TTI, a Hong Kong-based company with its American operations
headquartered in Anderson, South Carolina, has received 97 reports
of overheating, including five fires and two minor burn injuries.
Consumers are advised to stop using the recalled mowers immediately
and contact TTI for instructions on how to disable the mower and
receive a free replacement. The recall involves approximately
217,500 units in the U.S. and 28,400 in Canada. Each of the
Products is manufactured, distributed, marketed, and sold by
Defendants to consumers across the United States. The Products are
sold at sold at Home Depot, Direct Tools Factory Outlet, and online
from February 2021 through January 2025.

The Product is defective because it can overheat and catch fire.
Despite this known fire risk, Defendants represented that the
Products were safe and effective for their intended use, the suit
alleges.

The Plaintiff purchased the Product, while lacking the knowledge
that Product could catch fire, thus causing serious harm to those
who use such Products. He and similarly situated consumers who
purchased the Products have allegedly suffered losses. As a result
of the above losses, the Plaintiff seeks damages and equitable
remedies on behalf of himself and the putative class.

Ryobi manufactures and sells power tools and accessories. The
Company offers band saws, biscuit joiners, buffer, polishers, and
circular saws.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stuart A. Carpey, Esq.
          CARPEY LAW, P.C.
          600 W. Germantown Pike, Suite 400
          Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462
          Telephone: (610) 834-6030
          Facsimile: (610) 825-7579
          E-mail: scarpey@carpeylaw.com

SAKS OFF: Agrees to Settle Class Suit Over Discounting Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a settlement has
been reached to resolve a proposed class action lawsuit that
accused Saks Off 5th of engaging in an unlawful false discounting
scheme with respect to merchandise sold in the retailer's stores
and on its website.

The official website for the Saks Off 5th class action settlement
can be found at NunezSaksOff5thSettlement.com.

The settlement agreement with the retailer covers anyone who,
between January 1, 2011 and November 1, 2024, purchased one or more
Saks Fifth Avenue-branded products at a Saks Off 5th store in
California, online on SaksOff5th.com or any other website currently
or previously redirecting to that page, or on any Saks Off 5th
mobile apps, with bill to or ship to addresses in California at a
discount from the advertised "market price" and has not received a
refund or credit for the purchase during that period.

The deal with Saks Off 5th will provide eligible class members with
one merchandise certificate per person for up to $20 off future
purchases in-store or online at SaksOff5th.com, the settlement
website says.

According to the site, consumers who received a settlement notice
via email informing them about the deal do not need to do anything
to get their merchandise certificate.

Class members who did not receive an email notice must submit a
valid claim form with proof of purchase by March 16, 2025.

Consumers can file a Saks Off 5th claim form online on this page or
download a PDF claim form to print and return by mail.

Per the settlement website, certificates for those who did not
receive an email notice may be reduced on a pro rata basis should
the value of the submitted claims exceed the $1.5 million cap
established under the settlement agreement.

Merchandise certificates will not expire and will be reusable,
transferable and stackable with other promotions, the site states.
However, they may not be combined with another certificate from the
class action settlement, the website adds.

The Saks Off 5th settlement was preliminarily approved by the court
on November 1, 2024. It is now up to the court to determine whether
to grant final approval to the terms of the deal at a hearing
scheduled for April 18, 2025. Saks Off 5th settlement rebates will
be issued to eligible class members only if the deal receives
ultimate court approval, and after any appeals are resolved.

The Saks Off 5th lawsuit claimed the retailer violated a handful of
California laws by advertising product discounts that misled
consumers into thinking they were getting a bargain on their
purchases. The class action suit alleged that the deep discounts on
the items' purported "market price" were a "total fiction," as, per
the case, the Saks Fifth Avenue-branded merchandise is perpetually
on sale and never actually sold at the original price. [GN]

SHAMUS & PEABODY: Riley Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
----------------------------------------------------------------
AMANIE RILEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Shamus & Peabody, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-01205 (S.D.N.Y., February 11, 2025) is a civil rights
action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate their website, Thomaskeller.com/perseny, to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights
Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers
that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using
keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive
and include, but are not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure,
changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for
interactive elements, inaccessible contact information, ambiguous
link texts, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive
elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely
with a mouse.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Shamus & Peabody's policies, practices, and procedures so that its
website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination.

Shamus & Peabody, LLC operates the website which enables customers
to explore the French cuisine, make table reservations or inquire
about private event bookings.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Asher Cohen, Esq.
          ASHER COHEN PLLC
          2377 56th Dr.
          Brooklyn, NY 11234
          Telephone: (718) 914-9694
          E-mail: acohen@ashercohenlaw.com

SIGNIFY HEALTH: Faces Jenkins Suit Over Unwanted Phone Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
MARSHAL JENKINS, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SIGNIFY HEALTH, INC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00419
(N.D. Tex., Feb. 20, 2025) contends that the Defendant promotes and
markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text
messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff is, and has been for more than a year, the regular
user to her cellular telephone number—239-237-XXXX.

In November of 2024, the Defendant allegedly began placing calls to
telephone number 239-237-XXXX, intending to reach someone other
than, and unknown to, Plaintiff. The Plaintiff received at least 2
such calls.

Signify Health operates as a healthcare technology company. The
Company offers healthcare platform that leverages advanced
analytics, technology, and nationwide healthcare provider networks
to create and power value-based payment programs. Signify Health
serves customers worldwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony Paronich, Esq.
          PARONICH LAW, P.C.
          350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400
          Hingham, MA 02043
          Telephone: (617) 485-0018
          E-mail: anthony@paronichlaw.com

SIMONMED IMAGING: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Hamermaster Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rosemary Hamermaster, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Simonmed Imaging, LLC, Case No.
2:25-cv-00601-JZB (d. Ariz., Feb. 21, 2025) arises from the
Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the
Plaintiff's and hundreds of thousands of similarly situated Class
Members' sensitive protected health information and personal
identifying information, which as a result, is now in the alleged
criminal ransomware group's possession.

The Plaintiff contends that due to the Defendant's deficient data
security, the cybercriminal organization known as Medusa accessed
Defendant's network servers and systems and exfiltrated Plaintiff's
and Class Members' PHI and PII stored therein, including full
names, dates of birth, full addresses, phone numbers, email
addresses, medical and diagnostic images and test results,
photocopied passports/driver's licenses/government identification
documents, Social Security numbers, payroll information, patient
complaints and incident reports, health insurance details, medical
records, and other sensitive and confidential data, causing
widespread injuries to Plaintiff and Class Members.

The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former patients of
Defendant who, as a condition and in exchange for receiving
healthcare services from Defendant, were required to and did
entrust Defendant with their confidential, non-public Private
Information. The Defendant collected, used, and maintained the
Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information to facilitate
its operations, says the suit.

According to its website, the Defendant "is one of the largest
outpatient medical imaging providers and largest physician
radiology practices in the United States," operating at over 150
facilities across 10 states.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cristina Perez Hesano, Esq.
          PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC
          7508 N. 59th Avenue
          Glendale, Arizona 85301
          Telephone: (602) 730-7100
          Facsimile: (602) 794-6956
          E-mail: cperez@perezlawgroup.com

               - and -

          Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
          Kenneth Grunfeld, Esq.
          KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 332-4200
          E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
                  grunfeld@kolawyers.com

SLEEP NUMBER: Prieto Files Fraud Class Suit in C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against Sleep Number Corporation. The
case is captioned as Gerardo Prieto and Athena Lonich, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Sleep Number
Corporation, Case No. 2:25-cv-00352-RGK-MAA (C.D. Cal., January 14,
2025).

The case arises from Defendant's alleged fraud conduct relating to
Diversity-Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle.

The suit is assigned to Judge R. Gary Klausner.

Sleep Number Corporation is a manufacturer and provider of sleep
beds, related products and technology.[BN]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Omer Salik, Esq.
          TURNER HENNINGSEN WOLF AND VANDENBERG LLP
          707 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 3700
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (323) 653-3900
          Facsimile: (323) 653-3021
          E-mail: osalik@carterarnett.com

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Maloney Seeks to Recover Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN MALONEY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SAFE LTD LIABILITY COMPANY, a
California Limited Liability Company and DOES 1 through 25,
inclusive, Case No. 25STCV04827 (Cal. Cir., Los Angeles Cty., Feb.
21, 2025) is a class action complaint seeking to recover unpaid
overtime wages pursuant to the Labor Code.

The Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees were employed by
SCSC and it successor Defendant SoCal after January 1, 2022, and
signed contracts that included a noncompete clause, or were
required to enter a noncompete agreement.

By February 14, 2024, Defendants were required to provide notice to
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees that said Agreements
were void. Bus. &Prof. Code section 16600.1(b)(2). The Defendant
did not provide notice to Plaintiff or any other similarly situated
current or former employee.

On July 14, 2015, as part of his employment with SCSC, the
Plaintiff signed an Employee Confidentiality and Invention
Assignment Agreement. Upon information and believe, from at least
2015 until at least March 2023, all -- or substantially all -- of
SCSC and its successor Defendant SoCal's employees executed
identical or substantially similar Agreements as Plaintiff, says
the suit.

The Plaintiff was employed by Southern California Safe Company
(SCSC) as a Director of Service from 2006 through March 31, 2023,
when the Defendant SoCal purchased the assets of SoCal Safe and
continued SoCal Safe's business as a successor in interest with
corresponding liability.

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SAFE LTD LIABILITY COMPANY is doing business in
the security industry.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher M. Engels, Esq.
          Sean B. Janzen, Esq.
          Sarah K. O'Brien, Esq.
          ENGELS LAW APC
          2900 Bristol St., Ste. G205
          Costa Mesa CA 92626
          Telephone: (949) 269-7709
          E-mail: chris@engelslaw.com
                  sean@engelslaw.com
                  sarah@engelslaw.com

SPRING EDUCATION: Faces Lee Labor Suit in Cal. Super.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against Spring Education Group, Inc.,
et al. The case is captioned as ANITA LEE, individually, and on
behalf of other similarly situated employees v. SPRING EDUCATION
GROUP, INC., et al., Case No. 25STCV00953 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
Cty., January 14, 2025).

The suit is brought over the Defendants' alleged labor law
violations.

Spring Education Group, Inc. is a for-profit private school company
based in Saratoga, California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan M. Genish, Esq.
          BLACKSTONE LAW
          8383 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 745
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442
          Telephone: (855) 786-6355
          Facsimile: (855) 786-6356
          E-mail: jgenish@blackstonepc.com

STONE ACADEMY: Court Approves Class Settlement Over Abrupt Closure
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruno Matarazzo Jr. of CT Insider reports that a judge on Thursday,
February 27, approved a $5 million class-action settlement for
former Stone Academy nursing students, bringing an end to a legal
battle that stemmed from the school's abrupt closure in 2023.

Judge W. Glen Pierson's decision resolves claims that Stone Academy
misled students and failed to provide them with the education they
were promised.

The lawsuit, led by Waterbury resident Terencia Ridenhour and a
group of former students, accused the school's operator, Career
Training Specialists LLC, of leaving students in a lurch after
shutting its doors without warning two years ago this month.

Attorneys began working on a settlement since late last year and an
agreement was reached in January.

"Stone Academy was a rip-off. Today, its leaders are being held
accountable, and its students will see millions of dollars in
compensation for the time and money they invested in an education
they never received," state Attorney General Tong said in a news
release. "We remain committed to the Stone students, and will
continue to support them in seeking additional relief -- including
loan forgiveness, potential state aid, and new training -- to
provide every remedy possible."

Under the settlement, students who were enrolled in the school's
nursing program between November 2021 and February 2023 will
receive compensation. There were close to 1,000 students in the
class, according to the students' attorneys.

The class has two groups, students who were further along in their
studies and close to graduating and those students who were in the
beginning and middle of the program. The first subclass with
students close to graduating has approximately 70 students,
attorney for the students said.

The school had campuses in Waterbury, West Haven and East
Hartford.

On February 26, the settlement was met with broad approval from
students and no objections were raised by attorneys representing
Stone Academy.

The judge's approval not only settles the class-action lawsuit but
all lawsuits filed against Stone Academy by students and the state.
The state Department of Public Health also will end licensure
investigations based solely on a nurse's attendance at Stone
Academy.

In addition to the $5 million cash payment, the settlement outlines
a series of measures to assist students in completing their
education and professional exams, including remedial programs and
the potential for students to complete their studies through
Griffin Hospital School of Allied Health Careers.

The school's former owners will be barred from employment anywhere
in higher education for five years.

Should Stone Academy's former owners and officers seek to open, own
or operate any other for-profit schools in Connecticut, they must
notify the Office of the Attorney General, according to Tong.

In addition to the settlement relief, the Office of the Attorney
General has petitioned the U.S. Department of Education to
discharge student loan debt related to Stone Academy.

State Sen. Henri Martin, R-Bristol, ranking senator on the Higher
Education and Employment Advancement Committee, said in a news
release the students deserved the relief.

"These students were swindled," Martin said. "The Attorney
General's ongoing efforts to pursue justice in this unfortunate
situation are appreciated. In the legislature, we have worked in
bipartisan fashion to provide direct relief to former Stone Academy
students." [GN]

TESLA INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Self-Driving Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tesla is hit with a fresh class action lawsuit about the
performance and claims of its self-driving and Autopilot systems as
well as its "hardware 3 computer."

The automaker is already facing dozens of lawsuits over its
self-driving claims, crashes using advanced driver assist systems,
alleged breaches of fiduciary duties from its CEO and board
members, but now you can add another one to the list.

In Australia, law firms Woodsford and JGA Saddler organized a class
action in the Federal Court of Australia against Tesla Motors
Australia Pty Ltd (Tesla Australia) and Tesla, Inc. (Tesla US)
"alleging that Tesla Australia marketed and sold motor vehicles
manufactured by Tesla US that were defective."  

The firms are currently recruiting people who purchased or leased a
Tesla Model 3 or Y vehicle in Australia between May 2021 and
February 2025.

They are going after Tesla over three specific issues. When it
comes to the alleged defect, they are focusing on the phantom
breaking issues when using Tesla's FSD and Autopilot features:

Tesla vehicles have the propensity to autonomously engage automatic
emergency braking abruptly in inappropriate circumstances, leading
to a risk of collisions.

Another focus of the lawsuit is the discrepancy between the
advertised and real range in its vehicles:

They lack the ability to achieve, or come close to achieving, the
advertised maximum range or the range displayed on the vehicle's
dashboard when the battery level is greater than 50%.

Finally, the lawsuit is also going after Tesla for claiming that
all its vehicles produced since 2016 have the hardware capable of
self-driving:

Despite statements or representations to the contrary, the hardware
on Tesla vehicles is incapable of supporting fully autonomous or
close to autonomous driving.

This lawsuit comes after CEO Elon Musk finally recently admitted
that its Hardware 3 self-driving computer (HW3) will not be capable
of unsupervised self-driving.

It's the first known lawsuit about this issue since the CEO
admitted the situation.

Tesla has already been having issues selling vehicles in Australia
recently. Tesla's sales were down 17% in the country last year and
33% in the first month of 2025. I would expect to see a lot of
these lawsuits pop up against Tesla in the coming months,
especially about HW3 now that Elon admitted that it won’t be
capable of unsupervised self-driving as promised.

He did say that Tesla would offer retrofits for people who bought
the FSD package, and that’s enough for his fans, but I doubt it
will hold in court.

The way I see it, Tesla used the claim that "all cars produced
since 2016 have the hardware capable of self-driving" to see these
vehicles whether or not people bought the self-driving software
package. Buyers who believed Tesla’s claim expected their cars to
hold better value because of that, and it never happened.

Tesla could very well have to compensate every single person who
bought vehicles from them. [GN]

TOYOTA MOTOR: Malainy Balks at Vehicles' Defective Braking Systems
------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL MALAINY, individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No.
2:25-cv-00949 (E.D. Pa., Feb. 21, 2025) is a class action suit
brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself, and all similarly
situated persons who purchased: A Toyota Tacoma 4 Wheel Drive
equipped with 16-inch brakes and 17-inch wheels.

The action is brought to remedy various violations of law in
connection with Toyota's manufacturing, marketing, advertising,
selling, warranting, and servicing of the Class Vehicles.

Accordingly, the Class Vehicles have malfunctions regarding their
braking systems. The Plaintiffs allege that the rear brake lines
would be damaged by mud and dirt build up in the lines that
potentially cause brake failure.

Toyota designs, manufactures, markets, distributes, services,
repairs, sells, and leases vehicles, including the Class Vehicles,
nationwide.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

         Stuart A. Carpey, Esq.
         CARPEY LAW, P.C.
         600 W. Germantown Pike, Suite 400
         Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462
         Telephone: (610) 834-6030
         Facsimile: (610) 825-7579
         E-mail: scarpey@carpeylaw.com

TRACY ANDERSON: Valencia Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JUSTIN VALENCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRACY ANDERSON MIND AND BODY, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01461 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 20, 2025) alleges
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, www.tracyanderson.com, is not fully or equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in
violation of the ADA.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.

Tracy Anderson Mind and Body, LLC offers fitness method. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rami Salim, Esq.
          STEIN SAKS, PLLC
          One University Plaza, Suite 620
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 282-6500
          Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
          Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com

U.S. CITIZENSHIP: Court Sets Scheduling Conference on April 9
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Parthiban Krishnaraj v.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services et al., Case No.
2:24-cv-09465-SK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Steve Kim entered an
order setting scheduling conference on April 9, 2025.

The parties are reminded to disclose information and confer on a
discovery plan not later than 21 days before the scheduling
conference and to submit a joint report not later than 14 days
after they confer as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) and Local
Rule 26-1.

That joint report should also include a stipulated set of deadlines
for a proposed scheduling order according to the template attached
here as Exhibit A.

Counsel should review Judge Kim’s Modified and Supplemental
Requirements for Prefiling Conference of Counsel under Local Rule
37-1 for guidance on the required Rule 26(f) conference.

Counsel should state in their joint report (and on the stipulated
deadlines table) how they wish to fulfill the mandatory ADR under
Local Rule 16-15: a Magistrate Judge who has agreed in advance to
mediate for the parties; a member of the Mediation Panel; or
private mediation.

Unless the parties expressly request that a scheduling conference
be held to facilitate the goals and purposes of Rules 16(a) and
(c), which the Court will honor, it reserves the right to vacate
the scheduling conference and issue a scheduling order based upon
the parties’ joint report.

U.S. Citizenship oversees immigration to the United States and
approves (or denies) immigrant petitions, and more.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 19, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SyjtVF at no extra
charge.[CC]

U.S. VISION: Secures Dismissal of Data Breach Class Action Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Colleen Murphy, writing for Law.com, reports that a group of
optical companies secured the dismissal of a federal class action
lawsuit that alleged the entities failed to protect their patient's
personal data.

The defense prevailed Wednesday, February 26, in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey in a class action claim that
accused U.S. Vision and related companies of allowing
cybercriminals to access the personal information of more than
700,000 patients. The decision, In re U.S. Vision Data Breach
Litigation, was issued by U.S. District Judge Christine P.
O'Hearn.

The decision hinged on whether the plaintiffs could prove that
defendants U.S. Vision and USV Optical directly interacted with the
consumers filing the lawsuit despite being customers of a third
entity. The complaint, first filed by named plaintiff Ian Torres in
November 2022, alleged that he was a customer of that third
company, Nationwide Vision and SightCare. However, Torres contended
that U.S. Vision should also be held liable for the breach, since
Nationwide Vision and SightCare were essentially acting as the
"alter ego" of that company.

"The court agrees with USV -- plaintiffs fail to allege sufficient
facts to state a claim against under an alter ego legal theory and,
therefore, without a direct relationship between plaintiffs and
USV, plaintiffs' claims for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of
implied contract, and unjust enrichment necessarily fail as well,"
O'Hearn said.

The plaintiffs claimed the breach caused them to suffer identity
theft risks, financial damages, and loss of privacy. The lawsuit
included claims for negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of
contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of consumer protection
laws.

The plaintiffs also argued that Nationwide was a wholly owned
subsidiary of USV and that the two entities had the same financial
director.

The defense countered that the plaintiff improperly invoked the
"alter ego" doctrine. This principle allows the court to find that
a corporation lacks a separate identity, which allows the piercing
of the corporate veil.

However, the court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove a
direct relationship, which doomed the claims for breach of
fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment.

"USV Defendants assert that plaintiffs' primary basis for their
alter ego theory -- a single employee allegedly working for both
entities -- is insufficient to pierce the corporate veil," O'Hearn
said. "It maintains that corporate separateness should be preserved
absent compelling evidence of misuse, and that issues of veil
piercing are generally reserved for the factfinder unless the
record is devoid of facts supporting such a claim, which they claim
is the case here."

O'Hearn also dismissed claims brought under the Consumer Fraud Acts
of Arizona and New Jersey and claims for negligence and negligence
per se. All claims were dismissed with prejudice, except breach of
contract. O'Hearn allowed the plaintiffs to amend their complaint
on that count since the contract underlying that claim was not
submitted.

U.S. Vision and USV were represented in the case by Rebecca L.
Rakoski of Xpan Law Partners in Marlton. Janine L. Pollack of
George Feldman McDonald and Vicki Maniatis of Milberg Coleman
Bryson Phillips Grossman represented Torres. None of the attorneys
immediately responded to requests for comment. [GN]

UNISWAP LABS: Appeals Court Affirms Class Action Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cheyenne Ligon of CoinDesk reports that the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit issued a ruling on Wednesday, February 26,
largely agreeing with a lower court's 2023 decision to toss out a
class action suit against decentralized exchange Uniswap.

A group of investors originally sued Uniswap Labs, the company
behind the decentralized protocol of the same name, and some of its
venture capital investors in 2022, alleging that the company was
responsible for harming investors by allowing scam tokens to be
issued on its protocol.

District Court Judge Katherine Polk Failla of the Southern District
of New York (SDNY) sided with Uniswap in 2023 and scrapped the suit
before it went to trial, likening the plaintiffs' arguments to "a
suit attempting to hold an application like Venmo or Zelle liable
for a drug deal that used the platform to facilitate a fund
transfer."

Plaintiffs appealed Failla's ruling in September 2023, but were
largely shut down by the fresh decision from the Second Circuit on
February 26. The Second Circuit judges affirmed Failla's decision
to throw out the plaintiffs' claims under both the Securities Act
and the Exchange Act, writing:

"In sum, we agree with the district court that it 'defies logic'
that a drafter of a smart contract, a computer code, could be held
liable under the Exchange Act for a third party user's misuse of
the platform," the filing read.

The only part of Failla's ruling that was vacated and remanded back
to a district court -- meaning the lower court will hear this
sliver of the the plaintiffs' case again -- were the state law
claims, which essentially seek to try similar allegations under
state, rather than federal law, in New York, North Carolina and
Idaho.

The ruling is a win for Uniswap, fresh off the heels of Tuesday's,
February 25, announcement that the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC) would drop its investigation into the
decentralized exchange which, under former SEC Chairman Gary
Gensler, was being probed for allegedly operating as an
unregistered securities broker and unregistered securities
exchange, as well as issuing an unregistered security. [GN]

UNITED STATES: Court Extends Class-Cert Related Deadlines
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as L.N.P., on his own behalf
and on behalf of his dependent children P.D.P. and L.D.P. and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, V. MARTIN O'MALLEY, in his
official capacity as Commissioner of the Social Security
Administration, and THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, Case No.
1:24-cv-01196-MSN-IDD (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Michael Nachmanoff
entered an order granting the Parties' consent motion for extension
of time.

The Court further orders that the briefing schedule for the
additional briefing on class certification set forth in the Court's
February 14, 2025 Opinion and Order shall be as follows:

   a. The Plaintiff shall file the additional briefing on class
      certification on or before March 17. 2025:

   b. The Defendants shall file any response to Plaintiffs
      supplemental brief on or before March 31,2025.

The United States Social Security Administration is an independent
agency of the U.S. federal government that administers Social
Security, a social insurance program consisting of retirement,
disability and survivor benefits.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 19, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JmFV34 at no extra
charge.[CC]

UNITED STATES: Nemeth-Greenleaf Balks at Unprotected Personal Info
------------------------------------------------------------------
DENISE NEMETH-GREENLEAF, JASON JUDKINS, JON MICHEL, DONNA NEMETH,
and MICHAEL RIFER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL
MANAGEMENT; CHARLES EZELL, Acting Director of U.S. Office of
Personnel Management, in his official capacity; AMANDA SCALES, U.S.
Office of Personnel Management Chief of Staff, in her official
capacity; BRIAN BJELDE, U.S. Office of Personnel Management Senior
Advisor, in his official capacity; GREGORY BARBACCIA, U.S. Federal
Chief Information Officer, in his official capacity; UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; and SCOTT BESSENT, Secretary of the
U.S. Department of the Treasury, in his official capacity, Case No.
1:25-cv-00407 (D.D.C., February 11, 2025) is an action for
injunctive relief, actual damages and statutory damages against the
Defendants for unlawful ongoing, systemic, and continuous
disclosure of personal, health, and financial information.

Millions of federal employees entrust their personal sensitive
information to the federal government as a condition of their
employment, with the expectation that this data will be securely
maintained. This data is collected and maintained by various
governmental agencies, all of whom have a statutory duty pursuant
to the Privacy Act of 1974 to protect that information from
improper disclosure and misuse.

Beginning shortly after the inauguration of President Donald Trump
on January 20, 2025, Defendants OPM and Treasury Department
illegally and improperly violated these restrictions on disclosure
of PSI by giving access to that PSI to individuals without a lawful
or legitimate need for such data and without their having undergone
the security clearance process. Permitting access to protected
information puts the PSI for the Plaintiffs and proposed Class
Members at real risk, making them vulnerable to fraud,
cyber-attack, and actual theft, says the suit.

Due to Defendants' willful, intentional, and flagrant disregard of
Plaintiffs' and Class Members' privacy rights, the Plaintiffs and
Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer damages,
including actual damages within the meaning of the Privacy Act,
pecuniary losses, anxiety, and emotional distress, asserts the
complaint.

United States Office of Personnel Management is a federal agency
responsible for, among other things, managing the civil service of
the federal government, recruitment of new government employees,
and managing their health insurance and retirement benefits
program.[BN]

The Plaintiffs represented by:

          Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
          Andrea R. Gold, Esq.
          Gemma Seidita, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          2000 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest, Suite 1010
          Washington, DC 20006
          Telephone: (202) 919-5852
          E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
                  agold@tzlegal.com
                  gseidita@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Cort T. Carlson, Esq.
          TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
          1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 254-6808
          E-mail: ccarlson@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Gregory McGillivary, Esq.
          Sara L. Faulman, Esq.
          John W. Stewart, Esq.
          Sarah M. Block, Esq.
          McGILLIVARY STEELE ELKIN LLP
          1101 Vermont Ave. NW Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 833-8855
          E-mail: gkm@mselaborlaw.com
                  slf@mselaborlaw.com
                  jws@mselaborlaw.com
                  smb@mselaborlaw.com

UNITED STATES: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Rule 23 Class
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as REFUGEE AND IMMIGRANT
CENTER FOR EDUCATION AND LEGAL SERVICES, et al., v. KRISTI NOEM,
Secretary of Homeland Security, in her official capacity, et al.,
Case No. 1:25-cv-00306-RDM (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
to enter an order:

-- certifying the proposed Class under Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2)
    consisting of:

    "All noncitizens who were, are, or will be subject to the
    Proclamation and/or its implementation within the United
    States,"

-- appointing the Individual Plaintiffs as Class Representatives,

    And

-- appointing the undersigned as Class Counsel.

The United States Department of Homeland Security is the U.S.
federal executive department responsible for public security,
roughly comparable to the interior or home ministries of other
countries.

A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb. 19, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=saEroL at no extra
charge.[CC]

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lee Gelernt, Esq.
          Omar C. Jadwat, Esq.
          Morgan Russell, Esq.
          Katrina Eiland, Esq.
          Cody Wofsy, Esq.
          Spencer Amdur, Esq.
          Arthur B. Spitzer, Esq.
          Scott Michelman, Esq.
          AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
          IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT
          125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 549-2660
          E-mail: lgelernt@aclu.org
                  ojadwat@aclu.org
                  mrussell@aclu.org
                  keiland@aclu.org
                  cwofsy@aclu.org
                  samdur@aclu.org
                  aspitzer@acludc.org
                  smichelman@acludc.org

                - and -

          Ashley Alcantara Harris, Esq.
          David A. Donatti, Esq.
          ACLU FOUNDATION OF TEXAS
          Houston, TX 77288
          Telephone: (713) 942-8146
          Facsimile: (713) 942-8966
          E-mail: aharris@aclutx.org
                  ddonatti@aclutx.org

                - and -

          Keren Zwick, Esq.
          Richard Caldarone, Esq.
          Mary Georgevich, Esq.
          NATIONAL IMMIGRANT JUSTICE CENTER
          111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 800
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 660-1370
          E-mail: kzwick@immigrantjustice.org
                  rcaldarone@immigrantjustice.org
                  mgeorgevich@immigrantjustice.org

                - and -

          Melissa Crow, Esq.
          Edith Sangueza, Esq.
          Robert Pauw, Esq.
          CENTER FOR GENDER & REFUGEE STUDIES
          1121 14th Street, NW, Suite 200
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 355-4471
          E-mail: crowmelissa@uclawsf.edu
                  sanguezaedith@uclawsf.edu
                  rpauw@ghp-law.net

                - and -

          Tamara Goodlette, Esq.
          TEXAS CIVIL RIGHTS PROJECT
          Alamo, TX 78516
          Telephone: (512) 474-5073, ext. 207
          E-mail: tami@texascivilrightsproject.org

VESELKA ENTERPRISES: Zhang Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ANDREW ZHANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. VESELKA ENTERPRISES, LTD., Defendant, Case
No. 1:25-cv-01433 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 20, 2025) alleges violation of
the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://veselka.com, is not fully or equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in
violation of the ADA.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.

Veselka Enterprises, Ltd. provides to the public a website known as
Veselka.com, which offers consumers with access to an array of
goods and services, including, the ability to explore the services
offered by the Ukrainian restaurant, including browsing the menu,
placing online orders, purchasing frozen Ukrainian dishes, explore
catering options, and buy merchandise. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

           Uri Horowitz, Esq.
           14441 70th Road
           Flushing, NY 11367
           Telephone: (718) 705-8706
           Facsimile: (718) 705-8706
           Email: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com

WARTERS EDGE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hippi Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
XINYUE HIPPE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Warters Edge, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-25
(S.D.N.Y., Feb. 20, 2025) alleges that the Cedarville failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website,
Mightypaw.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable
by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act and The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, prohibiting
discrimination against the blind.

Because of the Defendant's denial of full and equal access to, and
enjoyment of, the goods, benefits and services of the website,
Plaintiff and the class have suffered an injury-in-fact which is
concrete and particularized and actual and is a direct result of
Defendant's conduct.

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
suit.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.

The Defendant owns and operates Mightypaw.com.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Reyes, Esq.
          Equal Access Law Group PLLC
          68-29 Main Street,
          Flushing, NY 11367
          Telephone: (630) 478-0856
          E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law

WENDY'S INT'L: Bid for Prelim Nod of Class Settlement Partly OK'd
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFREY LITTLE,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, v.
WENDY'S INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-03056-CYC (D. Colo.),
the Hon. Judge Cyrus Chung entered an order granting in part the
Plaintiff Jeffrey Little's unopposed motion for preliminary
approval of class action settlement:

The unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement, is granted in part.

The Court finds that it will likely be able to approve the proposed
Settlement under Rule 23(e)(2); and certify the class for purposes
of judgment on the proposed Settlement, and therefore the issuance
of notice to the class and the setting of a final approval and
fairness hearing is justified.

The settlement is therefore preliminarily approved pursuant to Rule
23(e), subject to final approval.

For settlement purposes only, the Court amends the current class
definition under Rule 23(b)(3) as follows:

   "All current and former nonexempt restaurant employees on
   record who worked for any week or more as a nonexempt employee
   at one of Wendy’s corporate restaurants in Colorado during the

   class period (October 25, 2014 up to the date of this Order)."

Optime Administration, a third-party settlement/claims
administrator, is approved as the Class Administrator.

The Court defers consideration of the attorney’s fees award to
the Final Fairness Hearing.

The claim form attached to the Motion is approved.

The proposed method of notice is approved, i.e., text messages and
postcards directing class members to an online notice and claim
form. The settlement website shall also have a Spanish translation
available.

Class counsel shall file a motion requesting approval of an amended
notice within ten days of this Order. The amended notice shall
contain additional questions and answers detailing the attorney's
fees to be sought, the timing of the filing of any motion for
attorney's fees as well as how class members can review that
motion, and the service award to the class representative.
No later than 21 days prior to the date of the fairness hearing,
Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s Counsel shall file their motion for
final approval of the Settlement pursuant to Rule 23(e).

Wendy's operates as a restaurant.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 19, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qrsq8i at no extra
charge.[CC]

WHITE HOUSE: Oaks Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind
----------------------------------------------------------
MARK OAKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WHITE HOUSE BLACK MARKET, INC., Defendant,
Case No. ESX-L-001373-25 (N.J. Super., Essex Cty., Feb. 20, 2025)
alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://www.whitehouseblackmarket.com/store, is not fully or
equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers,
including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA.

The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.

White House Black Market, Inc. sells private label women's casual
clothing and related accessories. The Company offers tops, pants,
shorts, skirts, and dresses. [BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Zemel, Esq.
          ZEMEL LAW LLC
          400 Sylvan Ave, Suite 200
          Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
          Telephone: (862) 227-3106
          Email: dz@zemellawllc.com

WILSHIRE HM: Benitez Files Labor Suit in Calif. Super.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against WILSHIRE HM, LLC. The case is
styled as HECTOR SANTANA BENITEZ, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated vs. WILSHIRE HM, LLC, Case No. 25STCV00950 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Cty., January 14, 2025).

The suit is brought over the Defendants' alleged labor law
violations.

WILSHIRE HM, LLC is a business entity based in Santa Monica,
California.[BN]

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Lavi, Esq.
          LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
          8889 W Olympic Blvd Ste 200
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638
          Telephone: (310) 432-0000
          Facsimile: (310) 432-0001
          E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com

YODLEE INC: Clark Bid to Modify Class Cert. Order Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARIUS CLARK, et al., v.
YODLEE, INC., Case No. 3:20-cv-05991-SK (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Sallie Kim entered an order regarding the Plaintiffs' motion to
modify class certification order:

The Court finds the motion suitable for disposition without oral
argument and vacates the hearing scheduled for March 10, 2025.

The Plaintiffs filed this motion under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(c)(1)(C) and not as a motion for reconsideration
(preceded by a motion for leave to file a motion for
reconsideration) under Northern District Local Civil Rule 7-9.

The Plaintiffs must but cannot satisfy the requirements of Northern
District Civil Local Rule 7- 9 for motions for reconsideration.

First, Plaintiffs did not seek leave of Court to file a motion for
reconsideration as required by the Local Rules. The Court denies
Plaintiffs’ motion for this reason alone.

Because Plaintiffs failed to move for leave to file a motion for
reconsideration and failed to show any material change in law or
facts warranting reconsideration, or any other basis for
reconsideration under Local Civil Rule 7-9, the Court denies
Plaintiffs' motion.

Yodlee is a web application software company that provides
consumer-permissioned data aggregation, consolidating information
from multiple accounts.

A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 19, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=N1rsl8 at no extra
charge.[CC]

[^] Class Action Money & Ethics Conference -- 2024 Attendees
------------------------------------------------------------
Registration is now open for the 9TH ANNUAL CLASS ACTION MONEY &
ETHICS CONFERENCE (CAME 2025), to be held May 7-8, 2025, at The
Harmonie Club, New York City.

Once a year, the top industry experts gather together to discuss
the latest topics and trends in class action. This value-packed
event features special presentations from keynote speakers and live
panel discussions with industry experts, and provides networking
opportunities with other professionals.

The CAME 2024 edition was attended by the industry's Who's Who.
Last year's conference attendees include:

Firm/Organization                Firm/Organization
-----------------                -----------------
A.B. Data, Ltd.                   Lake Avenue Capital
Alvarez & Marsal                  Levi & Korsinsky LLP
Analytics Consulting LLC          Levine Law, LLC
Angeion Group                     Lieff Cabraser Heimann
Atticus Administration LLC           & Bernstein, LLP
Avenue 33, LLC                    Locke Lord LLP
Beasley Allen Law Firm            LTIMindtree
Beer Marketer's Insights          Lynch Carpenter LLP
Berger Montague PC                MarGrady Research
Blank Rome                        Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC
Bloomberg Law                     Messing & Spector LLP
Brann & Isaacson                  Milberg
BRG                               Miller Kaplan
Broadridge                        Morgan Lewis
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney       New York Law Journal
Butsch Roberts & Associates       New York Legal Assistance Group
Cardtable Enterprises             New York Times
Certum Group                      New York University
Citi Law Firm Group               O’Melveny & Myers LLP
ClaimScore                        Orr Taylor
Cohen Milstein                    Otterbourg P.C.
Cooley LLP                        PacerMonitor
Cozen O'Connor                    Parabellum Capital, LLC
CPT Group                         Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton
Darrow                               & Garrison LLP
DCirrus                           Penningtons Manches Cooper LLP
Dealpath                          PJT Partners
Disability Rights Michigan        Pollock Cohen LLP
Duane Morris LLP                  Public Justice
Dukas Linden Public Relations     Red Bridges Advisors LLC
EisnerAmper                       Riverdale Capital
Esquire Bank                      Sadaka Law
Farra & Wang PLLC                 Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law
Flexpoint Ford                    Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP
Foley & Lardner LLP               Simpluris
Foster Yarborough PLLC            Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher
George Feldman McDonald, PLLC        & Flom LLP
Gernon Law                        Slarskey LLC
Giftogram                         Steptoe
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani     Tremendous
Hausfeld                          Tristate Capital Bank
Hook Point                        UConn Law
injuryclaims.com -                Verus LLC
  Typhon Interactive              Wall Street Journal
Integrity Administration          Western Alliance Bank
Janove PLLC                       Wilkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
KCC                               Winston & Strawn LLP
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check     Wollmuth Maher & Deutsch LLP
King & Spalding                   Working Solutions
Kirkland & Ellis                  X Ante

Register for CAME 2025 at https://www.classactionconference.com  
Breakfast and lunch included.

This year's conference will kick off with an OPENING NIGHT COCKTAIL
RECEPTION on May 7 from 5-7 p.m. also at The Harmonie Club.  Enjoy
specialty cocktails and hors d'oeuvres with other professionals
attending the conference. There is no additional cost to attend the
opening reception. The reception is included in the cost of
conference registration so join us!

Missed last year's event? Check the CAME 2024 conference agenda at
https://www.classactionconference.com/agenda.html  Videos of the
conference are available on-demand at
https://www.classactionconference.com/2024-video-replays.html

For sponsorship opportunities, contact:

     Will Etchison
     Tel: 305-707-7493
     E-mail: will@beardgroup.com



                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.

                   *** End of Transmission ***