/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250306.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, March 6, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 47 Headlines 1285 ROYALE GOURMET: Esquivel Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages AAO STORES: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property ALLEGHENY HEALTH: Weltz Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania ALLSTATE CORP: Collects, Sells Clients' Private Data, Fenton Says AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Shipping Delays AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Consumer Class Suit Over Data Harvesting AMERICAN RENAL: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Salazar Claims ASCENDA USA: O'Quinn Suit Seeks Unpaid wages, OT Under FLSA ASHLEY STEWART: Esparza Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ATKORE INC: Westchester Sues Over Drop in Share Price ATLANTIC UNION: Faces Ray Suit Over Improper Overdraft Fee Charges AVIATOR NATION: Fagnani Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BOSTON UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Suit Over State Wage Law Violations BYTEDANCE INC: Walters Sues Over Data Privacy Violation CAPE COD HEALTHCARE: Doe Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts CBS PERSONNEL: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Monge Suit Says CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY: Discloses Personal Info to Meta, Fenton Says CHURCH STREET: Underpays Restaurant Servers, Slaven Suit Claims CONOCOPHILLIPS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Texas CONSTELLATION BRANDS: Faces Meza Class Suit Over Stock Price Drop CRESCO LABS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Harmful Vape Products DOF SUBSEA: Moore Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL DXC TECHNOLOGY: Rosenthal Sues Over Failure to Secure Clients' Info DYCK-O'NEAL: Saunders Bid for Class Certification Tossed ELMER'S HOME: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Valle Alleges ELON MUSK: Faces Gribbon Suit Over Personal Info Disclosure ETRADE SECURITIES: Faces Smith Suit Over Cash Sweep Programs FAHRENHEIT CLEVELAND: Hale Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages FIRST CLASS CAR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ventura Alleges FORD MOTOR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Willson Alleges FOURTH WALL: Riley Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Powell Class Suit Over Car Engine Defect HANCOCK COUNTY: Patosky Sues Over Collection of Multiple NSF Fees HOSPITAL SISTERS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Corrigan Says ILLINOIS: Illinois Voices Alleges Violation of 14th Amendment IMPACT THEORY: Aug. 15 Settlement Claim Submission Deadline Set JACK IN THE BOX: Faces Soto Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. Super. KINDER MORGAN: Woldman Suit Alleges Unfair Business Practices LANAS FAMILY: Rodriguez Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff LUCKY STRIKE: Fails to Pay Test Operators' OT Wages Under FLSA MALIBU BOATS: Violates Del. General Corp. Law, Gray Suit Says MEMORIAL HOSPITAL: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Evans Says MEMORIAL HOSPITAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Dupree Says MERCK & CO: Cronin Balks at Misleading Revenue Outlook MOUNT AIRY: Faces Class Action Suit Over Underpaying Employees MP MATERIALS: Waiver Provision Violates Delaware Law, Connolly Says MSNF FOODS: Faces Pineda Wage-and-Hour Suit in D. New Jersey NEW ERA: Sanchez Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Customers' Info NEW YORK BLOOD: Storchevoy Alleges Failure to Secure Personal Info OTHER HALF: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Trippett Claims PAPA FIRO: Tejeda Seeks to Recover Deli Workers' Unpaid Wages PIMENTEL DELI: Presinal Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Tillman Balks at Inadequate Data Security POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Wright Says PUBLIX SUPER: Faces Overcharging Class Action Lawsuit in Fla. RETAILMENOT INC: Diverts Content Creators' Commissions, Rhodes Says SCHIAPARELLI USA: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Senior Alleges SEALY INC: Liu Labor Class Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. SERGIO HUDSON: Senior Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website SIMONE ROCHA: Senior Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website SIMPLISAFE INC: Products' Price Discounts "Fake," Schlueter Says SWISS RE AMERICAN: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Rudasill Suit Says TIFFIN UNIVERSITY: Young Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website UNDERDOG FANTASY: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Sports Betting UNITED STATES: United Farm Workers Sues Over Raid by Border Patrol USA QR CULTURE: Holman Sues Over Unlawful Employment Policies VECTRARX MAIL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Mora Alleges VITAS HEALTHCARE: Davis Suit Removed to C.D. California WESTERN TRAFFIC CONTROL: Padilla Suit Removed to N.D. California WINDY CITY: Battle Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind [^] Class Action Money & Ethics Conference 2025 -- The Sponsors ********* 1285 ROYALE GOURMET: Esquivel Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- David Esquivel, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. 1285 ROYALE GOURMET DELI AND GROCERY CORP., d/b/a ROYALE GOURMET DELI, YAHYA ALZINDANI, and JOHN DOES 1-5, Case No. 1:25-cv-01534 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 24, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), that he, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and similarly situated individuals are entitled to recover from Defendants: unpaid overtime wages and premiums; statutory penalties; liquidated damages; and attorney's fees and costs. Despite regularly working weeks that ran 8 to 11 hours over the 40 hours required to earn time-and-a-half premiums, Plaintiff was paid the same rate for all hours worked. Similarly, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class Members regularly worked over 40 hours per week, but Defendants failed to pay them the proper overtime premium rate of one-and-half-times their regular hourly rate for each hour exceeding 40 hours per workweek including due to time shaving, in violation of the FLSA and the NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to work as a Deliman for Defendants. The Defendants collectively own and operate a deli under the tradename "Royale Gourmet Deli" located in Bronx, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Phone: 212-465-1180 Fax: 212-465-1181 AAO STORES: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property --------------------------------------------------- Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. AAO STORES, LLC; CITY SUBWAY CORP d/b/a SUBWAY 798; and A.T.J. CORPORATION d/b/a AMOCO, Case No. 1:25-cv-20854-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 24, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property and restaurant and bar business within the commercial property. Although over 30 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property and the business located within the commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property and the business located within the commercial property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The barriers to access have likewise posed a risk of injury(ies), embarrassment, and discomfort to Plaintiff and others similarly situated. The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located therein, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. AAO STORES, LLC, owns, operates, and oversees the Commercial Property, its general parking lot and parking spots specific to the businesses therein, located in Miami Dade County, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Beverly Virues, Esq. Armando Mejias, Esq. GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L. 350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200 Coral Gables, Fl 33134 Phone: (305) 553-3464 Primary Email: bvirues@lawgmp.com Secondary Emails: amejias@lawgmp.com jacosta@lawgmp.com - and - Ramon J. Diego, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A. 5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103 Miami, FL, 33155 Phone: (305) 350-3103 Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com ALLEGHENY HEALTH: Weltz Files Suit in W.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Allegheny Health Network, et al. The case is styled as John Weltz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Allegheny Health Network, Intrasystems, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00272 (W.D. Pa., Feb. 24, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Allegheny Health Network (AHN), based in Pittsburgh -- https://www.ahn.org/ -- is a non-profit, 14-hospital academic medical system with facilities located in Western Pennsylvania and one hospital in Western New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Email: Gary@lcllp.com ALLSTATE CORP: Collects, Sells Clients' Private Data, Fenton Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- HEIDI FENTON and ASHIKA SINGH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE ALLSTATE CORPORATION, ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ARITY, LLC, ARITY 875, LLC, and ARITY SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01513 (N.D. Ill., February 12, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for illicit surveillance of insureds and invasion of Plaintiffs and other clients' privacy by collecting data on their clients' location and driving habits, surreptitiously, and without their consent. Unbeknownst to consumers, the Defendants, through various subsidiaries and affiliates, conspired to secretly collect and sell Americans' driving behavior data from mobile devices, in-car devices, and vehicles. The Defendants achieved these goals by developing software and integrating their software into third-party apps to directly pull a litany of valuable data directly from consumers' mobile phones. Consumers did not consent to and were unaware of Defendants' collection and sale of their driving data. Pursuant to their agreements with app developers, the Defendants had varying levels of control over the privacy disclosures and consent language that app developers presented and obtained from consumers. However, the Defendants never informed consumers about their extensive data collection, nor did Defendants obtain consumers' consent to engage in such data collection, says the suit. The Allstate Corporation provides insurance products, including car insurance, throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nicholas R. Lange, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 100 Tri-State International Drive, Suite 128 Lincolnshire, IL 60629 Telephone: (224) 632-4500 E-mail: nlange@fklmlaw.com - and - Mark S. Reich, Esq. Colin A. Brown, Esq. Alyssa Tolentino, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: mreich@zlk.com cbrown@zlk.com atolentino@zlk.com AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Shipping Delays --------------------------------------------------------------- Angela MacKenzie of CTV News Montreal reports that it's been a little over a month since Amazon shuttered its Quebec warehouses and switched to shipping from facilities outside of the province. Now, some Quebecers who subscribe to Amazon Prime say it's taking too long to receive their packages and they're trying to do something about it. Earlier this month, Amazon Prime customer Michael Koutsoufis ordered a jacket, hat and gloves. His orders used to arrive in one or two days, but not this time. "Then I check on the 14th and it's changed to estimated delivery on the 28th or somewhere between, you know, next spring, basically," Koutsoufis told CTV News. Koutsoufis says it took a lot of back and forth with Amazon to cancel his order and get a refund. "I ended up going to Simon's and spending less money and less time," he said. Since the online retail giant closed its Quebec warehouses, orders are now shipped from outside of the province and delivered by third party couriers. The company has claimed it's about delivering services in an efficient and cost-effective way. But Jason Stadtlander, who works in IT, says lately his deliveries have been anything but efficient. "I have a client who's in her 90s, and she's waiting for a little piece to plug in her monitor so she could use her computer. Didn't come in. And it got lost because, you know, the further it's coming from, the more chance there's something going to be lost along the way," he said. An Amazon Prime membership in Canada is $99 per year or $10 a month plus tax. Its website still advertises free two-day shipping as a perk. But of the dozens of items CTV News searched on Amazon, estimated delivery times were consistently between four and six days. In an email to CTV News, a company spokesperson says delivery speeds can vary for numerous reasons, including weather and supply chain issues. "We know Prime customers value fast delivery and great service. Our decision to return to a third-party delivery model supported by local small businesses doesn't change our commitment to this. Regardless of delivery carrier, delivery speeds can vary for numerous reasons, including weather like the winter storms that have impacted Montreal recently, traffic, supply chain factors, and more. This is why we're transparent with customers throughout the shopping journey and checkout process about when, exactly, they can expect their orders to arrive." "If you paid your $10 a month, you didn't get your service. You should get some form of compensation," said Saro Turner, a lawyer for the Slater Vecchio LLP law firm that is seeking the court's approval to launch a class-action lawsuit against Amazon. The firm alleges the company did not respect the two-day delivery times promised to its Prime subscribers. "We're talking about a lot of complaints and a lot of delay, and so it just doesn't make sense that if you close all your warehouses, that service is going to be better for cheaper," Turner said. Meanwhile, Koutsoufis is thinking about cancelling his Prime membership. "I could have gone to Italy, had a jacket made by a very old man named Giuseppe, made to measure, come back, and the order I made with Amazon still would be on its way," he said. Even though he got a refund, he says a package arrived from Amazon just the other day and it contained the wrong jacket. [GN] AMAZON.COM INC: Faces Consumer Class Suit Over Data Harvesting -------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Amazon.com Inc. and Amazon Advertising, LLC are facing a class action lawsuit filed by a group of consumers. Why: The plaintiffs allege Amazon secretly collected location data and personal information on millions of Americans. Where: The Amazon class action lawsuit was filed in Washington federal court. A group of 17 plaintiffs filed the class action complaint against Amazon.com Inc. and Amazon Advertising, LLC on Feb. 7, 2025, in Washington federal court, alleging violations of federal and state privacy as well as consumer protection laws. The lawsuit alleges Amazon used software embedded in mobile devices to covertly harvest location data and personal information on millions of Americans, without user consent. This data, the lawsuit claims, reveals highly sensitive information about individuals, such as where they live, work, worship, and receive medical treatments. Developers may not have known about the 'Trojan Horse' software Amazon class action alleges The lawsuit alleges Amazon collected the data through a software development kit (SDK) it licenses to third-party mobile applications. SDKs generally provide application developers with tools necessary to build their applications, including APIs and other automated functions that operate in the background. The Amazon Ads SDK, the plaintiffs say, operated in the background of third-party developers' applications on mainly Apple but also Android devices. Furthermore, the developers themselves may not have been aware of the extent to which their apps had become a "Trojan Horse" for the Amazon data harvesting mechanism. On information and belief, the Amazon Ads SDK has been integrated into at least the following: Free Tone–Calling and Texting, Stick Hero, What's the difference: Spot it, Snap & translate translator, Grocery list with sync, Classic Words, Letter Soup, PixWords, WeatherBug–Weather Forecast and QR reader for iPhone. Android apps include Candy Crush Saga and Subway Surfers. “Amazon has been highly effective at integrating the Ads SDK throughout the ecosystem of mobile applications including 19,964 Android applications and 12,640 iOS iPhone applications,” the Amazon app class action lawsuit says. According to the lawsuit, Amazon incentivized the adoption of the Ads SDK by purchasing advertising space using banner ads, interstitial ads, and video ads on these mobile applications, the plaintiffs say. The plaintiffs are suing on behalf of anyone in the United States who may have fallen victim to the alleged Amazon data harvesting through the Ads SDK. They are suing for violations of the Federal Wiretap Act, the Stored Communications Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the Washington Consumer Protection Act and various state privacy and consumer protection laws. Plaintiffs are seeking certification of the class action, damages, fees, costs and a jury trial. Last year, Amazon was hit with a class action lawsuit alleging it illegally recorded users' conversations through its Alexa devices without obtaining their consent. The plaintiffs are represented by Thomas E. Loeser, Karin B. Swope and Jacob M. Alhadeff of Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy LLP. The Amazon class action lawsuit is Maria Albano, et al. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00252 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle. [GN] AMERICAN RENAL: Fails to Protect Clients' Info, Salazar Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- JHOVANNA SALAZAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN RENAL MANAGEMENT LLC d/b/a INNOVATIVE RENAL CARE, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10414 (D. Mass., February 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of the California Consumer Privacy Act and the California Unfair Competition Law. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its computer system following a data breach between February 21, 2024, and March 1, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. American Renal Management LLC, doing business as Innovative Renal Care, is a for-profit renal care and kidney treatment chain, headquartered in Beverly, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christina Xenides, Esq. Tyler J. Bean, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 1005 Congress Avenue, Suite 925-C36 Austin, TX 78701 Telephone: (512) 265-5622 Email: cxenides@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com - and - A. Brooke Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 4116 Wills Rogers Pkwy., Suite 700 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Telephone: (405) 389-4989 Email: abm@murphylegalfirm.com ASCENDA USA: O'Quinn Suit Seeks Unpaid wages, OT Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------- MA'NYJH O'QUINN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. ASCENDA USA, INC. d/b/a and a/k/a 24-7 INTOUCH., a foreign corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-00324 (D. Nev., Feb. 18, 2025) is a class and collective action against the Defendants for unpaid wages, overtime, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and interest under the Nevada Revised Statutes and the Fair Labor Standards Act. In May 2022, the Plaintiff was promoted to the position of Trainer, which required her to undergo one (1) hour of training each morning in addition to her regular hours. As a result, the Plaintiff was required to work over 8 hours per day without daily or weekly overtime compensation. The Defendant also failed to increase the Plaintiff's pay rate commensurate with her promotion and her additional responsibilities and hours, the suit says. The Plaintiff also came to know that non-black male trainers were paid $19-23 per hour, whereas Plaintiff was still stuck at $14 per hour. The Plaintiff is a black female. In August 2022, the Plaintiff and another black female Trainer complained to the Defendant about wage discrimination on the basis of race and sex. In October 2022, the Defendant informed the Plaintiff that she would not be receiving a wage increase and that she was being demoted back to Customer Service Representative. This change took effect in November 2022. At the time of her demotion, the Plaintiff estimates that she worked over 195 hours of unpaid overtime. On Feb. 3, 2023, approximately one month after receiving the letter from the Plaintiff's lawyer, the Defendant terminated the Plaintiff. On Oct. 17, 2021, the Defendant hired the Plaintiff to work as a remote at-home Customer Service Representative. Ascenda offers managing and developing IT software services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Kuller, Esq. RAFII & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 1120 N. Town Center Dr., Suite 130 Las Vegas, NV 89144 Telephone: (725) 245-6056 Facsimile: (725) 220-1802 E-mail: jason@rafiilaw.com ASHLEY STEWART: Esparza Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ashley Stewart, Inc. The case is styled as Miguel Esparza, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ashley Stewart, Inc., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a WWW.ASHLEYSTEWART.COM, Case No. 25CU009862C (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., Feb. 24, 2025). Ashley Stewart -- https://www.ashleystewart.com/ -- is a global fashion brand that stands for uncompromising style, fashion, fit & empowerment for the woman who flaunts her curves.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC 4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: (949) 706-6464 Fax: (949) 706-6469 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com ATKORE INC: Westchester Sues Over Drop in Share Price ----------------------------------------------------- WESTCHESTER PUTNAM COUNTIES HEAVY & HIGHWAY LABORERS LOCAL 60 BENEFITS FUND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ATKORE INC.; WILLIAM E. WALTZ JR.; JOHN M. DEITZER; and DAVID P. JOHNSON, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01851 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 21, 2025) is a federal securities class action on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased Atkore common stock between February 1, 2024 and February 3, 2025, inclusive, against Atkore and certain of its officers and executives, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants had failed to disclose that: (1) Atkore engaged in an anticompetitive price-fixing scheme that artificially inflated the price of PVC Pipes; (2) Atkore reaped significant, unsustainable financial benefits from its anticompetitive conduct; (3) as Atkore's price-fixing scheme was exposed, the Company and its price-fixing 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; (4) Atkore's business and operations were negatively impacted; and (5) as a result, Defendants' positive statements Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. On this news, the price of Atkore common stock fell $15.59 per share, or nearly 20 percent, from a closing price of $79.72 per share on February 3, 2025, to a closing price of $64.13 per share on February 4, 2025. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in market value of the Company's common stock when the truth was disclosed, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, the suit alleges. Atkore Inc manufactures and supplies metal products and electrical raceway solutions. The Company offers steel tubes and pipes, electrical conduit, armored wire and cable, cable trays, metal framing systems, and building components. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carol V. Gilden, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 190 South LaSalle Street Suite 1705 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 629-3737 Facsimile: (312) 357-0369 Email: cgilden@cohenmilstein.com - and - Marco A. Dueñas, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 10 Bank Street, Suite 882 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 437-8551 Facsimile: (888) 631-3611 Email: mduenas@saxenawhite.com ATLANTIC UNION: Faces Ray Suit Over Improper Overdraft Fee Charges ------------------------------------------------------------------ BRIAN RAY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ATLANTIC UNION BANK, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00132 (E.D. Va., February 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of the Electronic Fund Transfers Act and Regulation E thereto and unjust enrichment in the alternative to the first and second claims. The case arises from the Defendant's use of deceptive, unclear, and ambiguous language which fails to notify its customers of its true overdraft fee practices and accordingly fails to provide customers like the Plaintiff and the putative class with the ability to plan their finances effectively to avoid these onerous fees. As a result of the Defendant's improper and deceptive practices, its customers, including the Plaintiff, have been economically harmed. Atlantic Union Bank is a banking services company headquartered in Richmond, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Devon J. Munro, Esq. MUNRO BYRD, P.C. 120 Day Avenue SW, Suite 100 Roanoke, VA 24016 Telephone: (540) 283-9343 Email: dmunro@trialsva.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Email: ltoops@cohenmalad.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com AVIATOR NATION: Fagnani Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Mykayla Fagnani, Individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. AVIATOR NATION, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-01569 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 24, 2025), is brought this civil rights action against the Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, https://www.aviatornation.com/, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen reading software to read website content using the computer. EIGHT SAINTS SKINCARE, LLC, operates the Eight Saints Skincare online retail store, as well as the Eight Saints Skincare interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: michael@gottlieb.legal jeffrey@gottlieb.legal dana@gottlieb.legal BOSTON UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Suit Over State Wage Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------------------ Madyline Swearing, writing The Daily Free Press, reports that a Boston University Metropolitan College lecturer filed a $5 million class-action lawsuit against the Trustees of Boston University Feb. 21 alleging the University failed to pay her on time, reportedly violating the Massachusetts Wage Act. Part-time faculty and BU alum Lydia Curtin-Wilding filed the suit individually and on behalf of other "similarly situated" exempt employees, claiming BU failed to provide timely wages on a weekly or bi-weekly basis between Feb. 18, 2022, and Aug. 1, 2023, according to the lawsuit. According to BU's Human Resources Regulatory Compliance page, under the Fair Labor Standards Act, employees are hired at BU in exempt or non-exempt positions, with exempt employees being paid on a semi-monthly basis. The lawsuit alleges BU instead paid employees on the last business day of each month during the aforementioned period -- though these employees did not choose to be paid monthly -- violating the Massachusetts Wage Act, which states wages must be paid within six or seven days of the weekly or bi-weekly pay period they were earned. The late payments reportedly resulted in the withholding of "millions of dollars in wages," according to the lawsuit. BU Spokesperson Colin Riley said the University does not comment on legal issues. This suit follows increased discussions about fair wages and labor practices on BU's campus, with recent contract ratifications involving the BU Graduate Workers Union and the Residence Life Union. Similar late-payment lawsuits were also filed against Amherst College and Harvard University by Springfield law firm Hayber, McKenna & Dinsmore LLC earlier this year, alleging the respective universities violated the Massachusetts Wage Act. HammondLaw PC, a law firm based in Tacoma, Washington, will represent the Curtin-Wilding suit. Curtin-Wilding requested authorization from the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office Feb. 19 to pursue the claim for herself and on behalf of the Class of exempt employees, whose potential members "are so numerous and so diversely located throughout Massachusetts (as well as outside the state) that joinder of all members of the Class is impracticable," the lawsuit said. For most wage and hour law violations, workers must first file a complaint with the AGO within three years of the violation, before filing a lawsuit in court. Since Curtin-Wilding resides outside of Massachusetts and seeks compensation greater than $5 million, the suit was filed through the U.S. District Court, as opposed to the Massachusetts Superior courts the Amherst and Harvard suits were filed through. The suit demanded a trial by jury. If Curtin-Wilding and the represented Class win the case, BU will be liable for three times the amount of the late-paid wages, plus interest, litigation costs and reasonable attorney fees. [GN] BYTEDANCE INC: Walters Sues Over Data Privacy Violation ------------------------------------------------------- KATHERINE R. WALTERS, on behalf of L.W., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BYTEDANCE, INC.; BYTEDANCE, LTD.; TIKTOK, LTD.; TIKTOK, INC.; TIKTOK PTE. LTD.; and TIKTOK U.S. DATA SECURITY, INC., Defendants, Case No. 0:25-cv-00677 (D. Minn., Feb. 21, 2025) alleges violation of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 and the Children's Online Privacy Protection Rule. The Plaintiff allege in the complaint, the Defendants failed to disclose that they collect and sell personally identifiable information of millions of minor children, without the consent of the minors or their parents, including, but not limited to: name, age, profile image, password, email, phone number, address, "approximate" location, social media account information, phone and social media contacts, messages sent to and received from other TikTok users, information in the clipboard of a user's device, and payment card numbers. ByteDance Limited operates as a multinational internet technology holding company. The Company operates a range of content platforms that inform, educate, entertain, and inspire people. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Sacchet, Esq. Heather M. McElroy, Esq. CIRESI CONLIN LLP 225 South Sixth Street, Suite 4600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 361-8200 Email: mas@ciresiconlin.com hmm@ciresiconlin.com CAPE COD HEALTHCARE: Doe Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jane Doe, John Doe, Jan Doe, James Doe, and Janet Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CAPE COD HEALTHCARE, INC., Case No. 2384CV00480-BLS1 was removed from the Massachusetts Suffolk County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts on Feb. 24, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-10445. The Original Lead Plaintiff commenced this action more than 25 months ago. It is one of several cases against Massachusetts hospitals, which arise from the hospitals' use of certain technology on their websites. That technology is ubiquitous, and it is employed by substantially every business in the Commonwealth. Plaintiff nevertheless alleged in her lead claim that CCHC's use of the technology violated the Massachusetts Wiretap Act.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Adam J. Bookbinder, Esq. Samuel N. Rudman, Esq. Mark McPherson, Esq. April C. DeLuca, Esq. CHOATE, HALL & STEWART LLP Two International Place Boston, MA 02110 Phone: 617-248-5000 Email: abookbinder@choate.com srudman@choate.com mmcpherson@choate.com adeluca@choate.com CBS PERSONNEL: Fails to Pay Minimum and OT Wages, Monge Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- OSCAR T MONGE, on behalf of himself and current and former aggrieved employees v. CBS PERSONNEL SERVICES, LLC; YUSEN LOGISTICS (AMERICAS) INC.; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV04655 (Cal. Super., Feb. 18, 2025) sues the Defendants for failing to pay the Plaintiff and other current and former aggrieved California-based hourly non-exempt employees their minimum and overtime wages. Additionally, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants maintained a policy, practice, and/or procedure of failing to compensate the Plaintiff and other current and former aggrieved California-based hourly non-exempt employees one hour of pay at their regular rate of pay for each workday that the Plaintiff and other current and former aggrieved California-based hourly non-exempt employees did not receive legally required and compliant meal periods. The Plaintiff seeks on a representative basis, following notice to the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, civil penalties, reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to Labor Code section 2699(g)(1) and costs brought on behalf of the Plaintiff, the State of California, and others aggrieved. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants in an hourly position at Defendants' location in Los Angeles from 2013 to May 26, 2024. CBS Personnel operates as an employment agency.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. Jeffrey D. Klein, Esq. J. Jason Hill, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Telephone: (310) 432-0000 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 E-mail: jlavi@lelawfirm.com vgranberry@lelawfirm.com jklein@lelawfirm.com jhill@lelawfirm.com CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY: Discloses Personal Info to Meta, Fenton Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- HEIDI FENTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01277 (C.D. Cal., February 14, 2025) seeks to redress the practices of the Defendant in knowingly disclosing Plaintiff's and its other consumers' identities, the titles of the prerecorded video materials they requested or obtained from the www.scientology.org website or www.scientology.tv streaming platform to Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc., in violation of the federal Video Privacy Protection Act. According to the complaint, over the past two years, the Defendant has systematically transmitted (and continues to transmit today) its consumers' personally identifying video viewing information to Meta using a snippet of programming code called the Meta Pixel, which Defendant chose to install and configure on its streaming platforms. The Defendant disclosed and continues to disclose its consumers' private viewing information to Meta without asking for or obtaining their consent to these practices, says the suit. Accordingly, on behalf of himself and the putative Class members defined below, the Plaintiff brings this class action complaint against Defendant for intentionally and unlawfully disclosing their private viewing information to Meta. The Plaintiff is a subscriber to Defendant's www.scientology.tv website, which provides access to prerecorded video materials. Church of Scientology International is a tax-exempt, senior ecclesiastical management church of the Scientology religion that is incorporated in California and maintains its headquarters and principal place of business in Los Angeles, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Frank S. Hedin, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Ave., Suite 610 Miami, FL 33131-3302 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 Facsimile: (305) 200-8801 E-mail: fhedin@hedinllp.com - and - Adrian Gucovschi, Esq. Nathaniel Haim Sari, Esq. GUCOVSCHI ROZENSHTEYN, PLLC 140 Broadway, Fl 46 New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 884-4230 E-mail: adrian@gr-firm.com nsari@gr-firm.com CHURCH STREET: Underpays Restaurant Servers, Slaven Suit Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- CANDACE SLAVEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHURCH STREET RESTAURANT ASSOCIATES OF SARATOGA, LLC D/B/A 15 CHURCH, ROBERT PEZULICH & THOMAS BURKE II, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00227-DNH-DJS (N.D.N.Y., February 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including tip misappropriation, failure to pay overtime wages, illegal deductions from gratuities, failure to provide wage notice requirements, and failure to provide wage statement claims. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a server at 15 Church restaurant from October 20, 2023, until September 17, 2024. Church Street Restaurant Associates of Saratoga, LLC, doing business as 15 Church, is a restaurant owner and operator in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ananda Chaudhuri, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ANANDA CHAUDHURI 57 West 57th St., Fourth Fl. New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 457-1288 Email: ananda@ac-pllc.com - and - Joseph T. Moen, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH T. MOEN 63 Putnam Street, Suite 202 Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 Telephone: (518) 588-0316 Facsimile: (617) 607-7587 Email: joe@jtmoenlaw.com CONOCOPHILLIPS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Texas ------------------------------------------------------------------ ConocoPhillips disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the annual period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2025, that the Company continues to defend securities class suit in the federal court in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. In July 2021, a federal securities class action was filed against Concho, certain of Concho's officers, and ConocoPhillips as Concho's successor in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. On October 21, 2021, the court issued an order appointing Utah Retirement Systems and the Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern California as lead plaintiffs (Lead Plaintiffs). On January 7, 2022, the Lead Plaintiffs filed their consolidated complaint alleging that Concho made materially false and misleading statements regarding its business and operations in violation of the federal securities laws and seeking unspecified damages, attorneys' fees, costs, equitable/injunctive relief and such other relief that may be deemed appropriate. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint on March 8, 2022. On June 23, 2023, the court denied defendants' motion as to most defendants including Concho/ConocoPhillips. The Company believes the allegations in the action are without merit and are vigorously defending this litigation. ConocoPhillips is an exploration and production company based in Texas. On January 15, 2021, it completed the acquisition of Concho Resources Inc. (Concho), an independent oil and gas exploration and production company with operations in New Mexico and West Texas focused on the Permian Basin. CONSTELLATION BRANDS: Faces Meza Class Suit Over Stock Price Drop ----------------------------------------------------------------- MACARIA MEZA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CONSTELLATION BRANDS, INC., BILL NEWLANDS, and GARTH HANKINSON, Case No. 6:25-cv-06107 (W.D.N.Y., Feb. 18, 2025) is a federal securities class action on behalf of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Constellation's securities between April 11, 2024 to Jan. 8, 2025, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws. The suit contends that the Defendants provided overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning Constellation's ability to deliver increased profitability, specifically in its Wine and Spirits division. The truth emerged on Jan. 8, 2025 when Defendants issued a press release announcing the Company's third quarter fiscal year 2025 results. In pertinent part, the Defendants presented a significant miss on sales performance in the Beer segment and an even steeper miss for the Wine & Spirits, the Plaintiff avers. Investors and analysts reacted immediately to Constellation's revelation. The price of Constellation's common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $219.28 per share on Jan. 8, 2025 to $181.81 per share on Jan. 10, 2025. The Plaintiff purchased Constellation's common stock at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period and was damaged upon the revelation of the Defendants' fraud. Constellation together with its subsidiaries, produces, imports, markets, and sells beer, wine, and spirits in the United States, Canada, Mexico, New Zealand, and Italy.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Tepper, Esq. Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: dtepper@zlk.com aapton@zlk.com CRESCO LABS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Harmful Vape Products --------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that Cresco Labs faces a proposed class action lawsuit out of Illinois over its allegedly illegal marketing and sale of cannabis vape products with excessively high tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) levels. The 47-page case accuses Cresco Labs and several affiliates of putting Illinois consumers at risk of overconsumption and legal repercussions by misrepresenting its vapable oil products, which include cartridges, disposable vape pens and concentrates like resin, rosin, budder, badder, crumble and shatter sold under brand names Cresco, Good News, High Supply and FloraCal. Under the Illinois Cannabis Regulation and Tax Act, cannabis-infused products such as Cresco Labs' vaping items can contain no more than 100 milligrams of THC per package, the lawsuit explains. In addition, Illinois residents over the age of 21 purchasing for recreational purposes are prohibited by law from cumulatively possessing more than 500 milligrams of THC contained in cannabis-infused products, the complaint relays. As defined by Illinois law, cannabis-infused products contain cannabis or cannabis concentrate that is not intended to be smoked, the suit says. Unlike smokeable concentrates, cannabis-infused products like Cresco Labs' vapable oils are intended to be consumed by vaporizing the contents and then inhaling them using a non-combustible heating device, the filing describes. Despite this, the defendant markets its vapable oils as if they were smokeable concentrates because these items are not subject to any per-package caps and have higher personal possession limits, the Cresco Labs lawsuit contends. Indeed, the case claims, Cresco Labs sells its vapable oils in 300-milligram, 500-milligram and 1-gram quantities, which exceed the legal THC limit for cannabis-infused products by three, five and 10 times, respectively. "On information and belief, [Cresco Labs] made this representation to deceive regulators and consumers in order to allow [the defendants] to sell vapable oils using the 5-gram limit applied to concentrates, instead of the lower 500-milligram [cannabis-infused products] limit imposed on Illinois residents, or the even lower limits imposed on out-of-state consumers," the suit asserts. Per the filing, Cresco Labs' alleged misconduct has allowed it to maximize its market efficiencies and generate significant profits at the expense of consumers' health and safety. "By selling their vapable oils with THC content well above the legally allowed limit, [the defendants] put their customers at risk of adverse physical effects like psychoactive effects, anxiety attacks, or overwhelming intoxication," the case argues. The plaintiff, an Illinois resident, claims he would not have bought a Cresco High Supply Space Fruit 500-milligram cartridge had he known the product was out of compliance with statutorily imposed limits, required labels and packaging. The lawsuit looks to represent anyone who, within the applicable statute of limitations period, purchased within Illinois any vapable oils manufactured, processed, labeled and/or packaged by Cresco Labs. [GN] DOF SUBSEA: Moore Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA, NYLL ---------------------------------------------------------------- QUINTIN MOORE, individually and for others similarly situated v. DOF SUBSEA USA, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-00698 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 18, 2025) is a class and collective action lawsuit seeking to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant. Plaintiff Moore and the other Remotely Operated Vehicle Employees regularly work more than 80 hours a workweek. But instead of paying overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, the Defendant pays Moore and the other ROV Employees using an alleged minimum guarantee plus extras scheme ("guarantee plus pay scheme"), the suit says. The Defendant allegedly uses its scheme to give the illusion of paying its ROV Employees overtime, but the reality is that the Defendant fails to pay overtime as required by law. DOF Subsea's guarantee plus pay scheme violates the FLSA and NYLL because it deprives non-exempt employees of premium overtime wages at rates not less than 1.5 times their regular rates of pay, the suit asserts. The Plaintiff is an ROV Technician and ROV Supervisor for DOF Subsea. Since he started in 2021, DOF Subsea never paid Mr. Moore time and a half for overtime. DOF Subsea provides "[i]ntegrated subsea services, whenever and wherever [its clients] need them," primarily in the offshore oil and gas industry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. David I. Moulton, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com DXC TECHNOLOGY: Rosenthal Sues Over Failure to Secure Clients' Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- CHAD ROSENTHAL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DXC TECHNOLOGY SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00327 (E.D. Va., February 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its computer system following a data breach on or around February 10, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. DXC Technology Services, LLC is an IT solutions and consulting company, headquartered in Ashburn, Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee A. Floyd, Esq. Justin M. Sheldon, Esq. BREIT BINIAZAN, PC 2100 East Cary Street, Suite 310 Richmond, VA 23223 Telephone: (804) 351-9040 Facsimile: (804) 351-9170 Email: Lee@bbtrial.com Justin@bbtrial.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. Kennedy M. Brian, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 Facsimile: (405) 239-2112 Email: wbf@federmanlaw.com kpb@federmanlaw.com DYCK-O'NEAL: Saunders Bid for Class Certification Tossed -------------------------------------------------------- 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 denying the pending Plaintiff's motion for class certification and for summary judgment, as well as any cross motion for relief by the defense. -- This is without prejudice to the Plaintiff's ability to refile a motion for class certification, summary judgment or both not later than April 30, 2025, the Court says. -- This is a long-running TCPA case that has worked through multiple judicial officers. The undersigned assumed responsibility for the case effective Oct. 1, 2024, upon the retirement of the last assigned district judge. Dyck-O'Neal is a debt collector based on mortgage insurance, banking, legal and real estate. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Zz6J5y at no extra charge.[CC] ELMER'S HOME: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Valle Alleges ------------------------------------------------------ ALBERTO VALLE; and ERIC N. LOPEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ELMER'S HOME SERVICES LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-00192 (W.D. Tex., Feb. 21, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as HVAC installers. Elmer's Home Services LLC provides heating and air conditioning services to residential customers in the San Antonio, Dallas-Ft.Worth, and Houston regions. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Melissa Moore, Esq. Curt Hesse, Esq. MOORE & ASSOCIATES Lyric Centre 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 1110 Houston, TX 77002-1063 Telephone: (713) 222-6775 Facsimile: (713) 222-6739 Email: melissa@mooreandassociates.net curt@mooreandassociates.net ELON MUSK: Faces Gribbon Suit Over Personal Info Disclosure ----------------------------------------------------------- ANDREA GRIBBON, CHERICE PRATER, HELGA HERTLEIN, DONALD CUSTER, LYNN BOISROND, and DENNIS TITKO, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ELON MUSK, THE UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, and SCOTT BESSENT, in his official capacity as Secretary of the Treasury, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00422 (D.D.C., February 12, 2025) seeks damages resulting from Defendants' unlawful ongoing, systematic, and continuous disclosure of personal and financial information contained in Defendants' records to Elon Musk and other members of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The federal laws protect sensitive personal and financial information from improper disclosure and misuse, including by barring disclosure to individuals who lack a lawful and legitimate need for it. In his first week as Treasury Secretary, Defendant Bessent allegedly violated these restrictions. Elon Musk and/or other DOGE members had sought access to the Bureau's records for some time, only to be rebuffed by the employee then in charge of the Bureau. Within a week of being sworn in as Treasury Secretary, Mr. Bessent placed that civil servant on leave and granted DOGE-affiliated individuals full access to the Bureau of the Fiscal Service's data and the computer systems that house them. He did so without making any public announcement, providing any legal justification or explanation for his decision, or undertaking the process required by law for altering the agency's disclosure policies, says the suit. The Privacy Act of 1974 generally, and the Internal Revenue Code with respect to taxpayer information, make it unlawful for Secretary Bessent to hand over access to the Bureau's records on individuals to Elon Musk or other members of DOGE. The Plaintiffs file this action to recover damages resulting from Defendant's systematic, continuous, and ongoing violation of federal laws that protect the privacy of personal information contained in federal records, including but not limited to reimbursement of the cost of credit monitoring and identity protection services. Elon Musk resides in Austin, Texas and is a businessman and executive at various companies, including Tesla, Inc., where Musk serves as CEO. On or about November 13, 2024, Musk was named by then President-elect Donald Trump to co-lead DOGE.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary E. Mason, Esq. Danielle L. Perry, Esq. Salena J. Chowdhury, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com dperry@masonllp.com schowdhury@masonllp.com ETRADE SECURITIES: Faces Smith Suit Over Cash Sweep Programs ------------------------------------------------------------ Kevin Smith, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. E*TRADE SECURITIES LLC, MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY LLC, MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, and MORGAN STANLEY, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01223 (D.N.J., February 13, 2025) arises from Defendants' alleged unlawful, unfair, misleading, and deceptive business acts and practices involving their cash sweep programs in violation of the New York's General Business Law. The Plaintiff brings this class action individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons or entities who maintained E*TRADE Securities LLC or Morgan Stanley Smith Barney LLC retirement accounts since 2018. In violation of its fiduciary duties and contractual obligations and a regulatory mandate to act only in the best interests of its clients and pay all clients a reasonable rate of interest on their cash, the Defendants instead ignored benchmark and risk-free interest rates, and paid customer only minimal, near-zero, interest rates, generating hundreds of millions of dollars in profits for defendants and their affiliates, says the Plaintiff. E*TRADE has kept sweep interest rates essentially unchanged over the past several years, ignoring current market conditions in which interest rates rose significantly. Further, the Defendants made materially misleading statements to customers about their sweep program and failed to disclose that Defendants established and used the sweep program to enrich themselves by paying unreasonably low interest rates to customers to increase Defendants' financial benefits from the Sweep Program, the suit alleges. E*TRADE is a registered broker-dealer, member of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation, and a wholly owned subsidiary of E*TRADE Capital Management, LLC, which is an indirect subsidiary of Morgan Stanley.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher A. Seeger, Esq. David R. Buchanan, Esq. Caleb Seeley, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 55 Challenger Road, 6th Floor Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 Telephone: (973) 639-9100 Facsimile: (973) 639-9393 E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com dbuchanan@seegerweiss.com cseeley@seegerweiss.com FAHRENHEIT CLEVELAND: Hale Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- AMIYAH HALE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FAHRENHEIT CLEVELAND LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00273 (N.D. Ohio, February 12, 2025) arises from the Defendant's violation of the Ohio Constitution, Ohio Revised Code, and the Fair Labor Standards Act by not paying Plaintiff and similarly situated employees at least minimum wage for all hours worked. Because of Defendant's minimum wage violations, the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees are entitled to the Ohio minimum wage rate, instead of the Ohio tipped minimum wage rate, for all hours worked for Defendant. In addition to being entitled to unpaid back wages, the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees are also entitled to an additional two times back wages as liquidated damages under the state and federal laws, says the suit. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant within the last two years as a server, and her rate of pay was the Ohio tipped minimum wage rate. Fahrenheit Cleveland LLC is a restaurant company which does business in Cuyahoga County, Ohio.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephan I. Voudris, Esq. VOUDRIS LAW LLC 8401 Chagrin Road, Suite 8 Chagrin Falls, OH 44023 Telephone: (440) 543-0670 Facsimile: (440) 543-0721 E-mail: svoudris@voudrislaw.com FIRST CLASS CAR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Ventura Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- LUIS VENTURA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MICHAEL MIZHIRITSKY; PETER L/N/U FERNANDO ZAVALA; FIRST CLASS CAR CARE MERRICK ROAD INC.; LPMM HOLDINGS LLC; and LPMM RAINBOW CAR WASH LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00991 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 21, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Ventura was employed by the Defendants as a crew. First Class Car Care Merrick Road Inc. operates a car wash, car maintenance, and detailing center. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marcus Monteiro, Esq. MONTEIRO & FISHMAN LLP 91 N. Franklin Street, Suite 108 Hempstead, NY 11550 Telephone: (516) 280-4600 Facsimile: (516) 280-4530 Email: mmonteiro@mflawny.com FORD MOTOR: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Willson Alleges ------------------------------------------------------ TIMOTHY WILLSON; and LANDON BURRESS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-10511-FKB-CI (D. Mich., Feb. 21, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendant unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as process coaches. Ford Motor Company designs, manufactures, and services cars and trucks. The Company also provides vehicle-related financing, leasing, and insurance through its subsidiary. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Robert E. DeRose, Esq. Anna R. Caplan, Esq. BARKAN MEIZLISH DEROSE COX, LLP 4200 Regent Street, Suite 210 Columbus, OH 43219 Telephone: (614) 221-4221 Facsimile: (614) 744-2300 Email: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com acaplan@barkanmeizlish.com - and - Jennifer L. McManus, Esq. FAGAN MCMANUS, P.C. 25892 Woodward Avenue Royal Oak, MI 48067-0910 Telephone: (248) 542-6300 Email: jmcmanus@faganlawpc.com - and - Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Carter T. Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd. Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 Email: lauren@a2xlaw.com clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com FOURTH WALL: Riley Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store ------------------------------------------------------------ AMANIE RILEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FOURTH WALL RESTAURANTS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01405 (S.D.N.Y., February 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.qualityitalian.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, the lack of adequate labeling of form fields, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Fourth Wall Restaurants, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Asher H. Cohen, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 914-9694 Email: acohen@ealg.law GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Powell Class Suit Over Car Engine Defect -------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES S. POWELL, II, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-10479-SDK-KGA (E.D. Mich., Feb. 18, 2025) is class action brought by the Plaintiff and Class Members who purchased or leased specified models and years of GM vehicles, which are equipped with GM's L87 V8 engines. The Plaintiff avers that the Class Vehicles share a common defect regarding the bearings in their engines which are prone to, and have experienced failure, resulting in breaching of the engine block by the connecting rod and/or engine seizure. The Engine Defect makes continued use of the Class Vehicles unsafe because drivers are unable to sense an issue with their engine prior to the engine failure occurring. This is particularly dangerous because the Engine Defect results in a sudden loss of power of the vehicle, often while it is being driven at high speeds, thus significantly increasing the risk of a dangerous crash and/or injury, the suit alleges. In addition to rendering the Class Vehicles unsafe to drive, the Engine Defect significantly reduces the value of the Class Vehicles. GM has known about the Engine Defect for several years but failed to disclose it to Class Members prior to their purchases or leases of Class Vehicles. Moreover, simply replacing the defective engine with the same type of engine does not address the Engine Defect and leaves consumers subject to the same undisclosed safety risk, the suit claims. GM's actions violate the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and the consumer protection laws of the states in the Consumer Fraud Multi-State Class, and constitute unjust enrichment. On Oct. 22, 2022, the Plaintiff purchased a new 2023 GMC Yukon Denali manufactured by GM and containing a L87 V8 engine. GM manufactures and sells vehicles under several different brand names, including Chevrolet, Buick, GMC, and Cadillac.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq. Julia G. Prescott, Esq. COULSON P.C. 300 River Place Drive, Suite 1700 Detroit, MI 48207 Telephone: (313) 645-0045 E-mail: nick@coulsonpc.com jprescott@coulsonpc.com - and - Kevin P. Green, Esq. Daniel S. Levy, Esq. GOLDENBERG HELLER & ANTOGNOLI, P.C. 2227 South State Route 157 Edwardsville, IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 656-5150 E-mail: kevin@ghalaw.com daniel@ghalaw.com - and - Christopher J. Petri, Esq. BYRON CARLSON PETRI & KALB, LLC 411 Saint Louis Street Edwardsville , IL 62025 Telephone: (618) 655-0600 Facsimile: (618) 655-4004 E-mail: cjp@bcpklaw.com - and - Mike Arias, Esq. M. Anthony Jenkins, Esq. ARIAS SANGUINETTI WANG & TEAM, LLP 6701 Center Drive West, 14th Floor Los Angeles, CA Telephone: (310) 844-9696 Facsimile: (310) 861-0168 E-mail: mike@aswtlawyers.com anthony@aswtlawyers.com HANCOCK COUNTY: Patosky Sues Over Collection of Multiple NSF Fees ----------------------------------------------------------------- BRIAN PATOSKY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. HANCOCK COUNTY SAVINGS BANK, FSB, Inc., Case No. 5:25-cv-00033-JPB (N.D.W. Va., Feb. 18, 2025) sues the Defendant over the improper assessment and collection of multiple $35.00 Non-sufficient Funds fees on an item that the consumer only presented for payment once. On July 3, 2023, the Plaintiff attempted a single payment to SHOP YOUR WAY MC AUTO PYMT in the amount of $50.00. The Defendant rejected payment of that item on July 5, 2023 due to insufficient funds in the Plaintiff's account and charged a $35.00 ACH NSF Fee for doing so. Unbeknownst to the Plaintiff and without the Plaintiff's request to the Defendant to reprocess the item, on July 7, 2023, the Defendant processed the same item yet again, and on July 10, 2023, rejected the item again and assessed the Plaintiff a second $35.00 ACH NSF Fee for doing so. In sum, the Defendant allegedly charged Plaintiff $105 in fees on an item that the consumer only presented for payment once. Besides being deceptive, this practice breaches the Defendant's standardized adhesion contract. This practice also breaches Defendant's duty of good faith and fair dealing and unjustly enriches the Defendant to the detriment of its customers. Through the imposition of these fees, the Defendant has made substantial revenue to the tune of millions of dollars, seeking to turn its customers' financial struggles into revenue, the suit contends. Mr. Patosky is a citizen of Pennsylvania and has had a checking account with the Defendant. The Defendant is a West Virginia bank with nearly $475 million in assets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rodney A. Smith, Esq. M. Alex Urban, Esq. ROD SMITH LAW PLLC 108 1/2 Capitol St., Suite 300 Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 342-0550 Facsimile: (304) 344-5529 E-mail: rod@lawwv.com aurban@lawwv.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Ste. 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com - and - David M. Berger, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 1111 Broadway, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 E-mail: dmb@classlawgroup.com HOSPITAL SISTERS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Corrigan Says -------------------------------------------------------------- GESSICA CORRIGAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HOSPITAL SISTERS HEALTH SYSTEM, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-03040-CRL-EIL (C.D. Ill., February 12, 2025) is a class action against HSHS for its failure to adequately secure and protect the personally identifiable information and protected health information of Plaintiff and other similarly situated HSHS patients and employees. According to the notice sent to Plaintiff and the Class Members, the Defendant detected unusual activity on certain computer systems in late August 2023. In response, the Defendant initiated an investigation, which later confirmed that an unauthorized party had accessed files containing sensitive patient and employee information between August 16 and August 27, 2023. Despite this discovery, HSHS waited over a year before notifying the public, leaving those affected unaware of their exposure and at risk, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit to address HSHS' inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' private information that it collected and maintained, and its failure to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and Class Members of the types of information that were accessed, and that such information was subject to unauthorized access by cybercriminals. Accordingly, Plaintiff, on behalf of themselves and the Class, assert claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and the Illinois Personal Information Protection Act. Hospital Sisters Health System, headquartered in Springfield, IL, operates a network of 13 hospitals, providing care to nearly 2 million patients annually across Illinois and Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. Katherine M. Aizpuru, Esq. David W. Lawler, Esq. TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 1010 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 973-0900 E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com kaizpuru@tzlegal.com dlawler@tzlegal.com ILLINOIS: Illinois Voices Alleges Violation of 14th Amendment ------------------------------------------------------------- ILLINOIS VOICES FOR REFORM, and JOSHUA HALE, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BRENDAN KELLY, in his official capacity as Director of the Illinois State Police, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01477 (N.D. Ill., February 12, 2025) arises under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 and alleges violations of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Illinois State Police (ISP) is obligated under state law to maintain and administer the Illinois Sex Offender Registry and ensure the accuracy of the information on the registry website. However, at present, the ISP has no effective process for a registrant to correct erroneous information that appears on the registry website. As a result of the ISP's failure to create and implement a process for correcting errors, individuals on the registry have no remedy when they are harmed by errors on the registry. For example, an individual who is mislabeled as a "sexual predator" on the registry website when that label does not apply pursuant to the relevant Illinois statutes is unable to challenge or correct that erroneous designation. Likewise, an individual who is erroneously told by local police that he must register for the rest of his life when he is only required to register for ten years pursuant to the relevant Illinois statutes does not have any effective way to seek relief from the burdens of continued registration, says the suit. The Plaintiffs allege that the ISP's failure to create and implement an effective process for correcting errors on the registry violates the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of procedural due process. The Plaintiffs seek class-wide injunctive and declaratory relief. Brendan Kelly is sued in his official capacity as Director of the Illinois State Police.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adele D. Nicholas, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ADELE D. NICHOLAS 5707 W. Goodman Street Chicago, IL 60630 Telephone: (847) 361-3869 E-mail: adele@civilrightschicago.com - and - Mark G. Weinberg, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MARK G. WEINBERG 3612 N. Tripp Avenue Chicago, IL 60641 Telephone: (773) 283-3913 E-mail: mweinberg@sbcglobal.net IMPACT THEORY: Aug. 15 Settlement Claim Submission Deadline Set --------------------------------------------------------------- Simpluris, Inc., Fund Administrator for the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, issued a statement regarding the Impact Theory Fair Fund and Plan of Distribution. NOTICE OF FAIR FUND DISTRIBUTION PLAN In the Matter of Impact Theory, Inc. Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-21585 For more information, visit www.ImpactTheoryFairFund.com The United States Securities and Exchange Commission has settled administrative proceedings against Impact Theory. In the Order, the SEC found that from October 13, 2021, to December 6, 2021, Impact Theory violated Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act by offering and selling crypto asset securities known as Founder's Keys without having a registered statement filed or in effect with the SEC or qualifying for an exemption from registration. The SEC ordered the Respondent to pay $5,120,718.27 in disgorgement, $483,195.90 in prejudgment interest, and a $500,000.00 civil money penalty, for a total of $6,103,914.17, to the SEC. The SEC also created a Fair Fund, pursuant to Section 308(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, so the penalty collected, along with the disgorgement and interest collected, could be distributed to harmed investors. The Fair Fund will be paid out according to the Plan of Distribution. A summary of the eligibility criteria and claims process is below. Full details are available at www.ImpactTheoryFairFund.com. You may also request a copy of the Plan from the Fund Administrator via email at info@ImpactTheoryFairFund.com or by calling 833-285-3401. Who is eligible to receive a payment from the Fair Fund? To receive a payment, you must have: 1. purchased or acquired Founder's Keys between October 13, 2021, and December 6, 2021; 2. submitted a timely Claim Form; 3. suffered a Recognized Loss as calculated under the Plan; and 4. not been an Excluded Party under the Plan. How do I submit a Claim? The easiest way to submit a claim is online at the Impact Theory Fair Fund website: www.ImpactTheoryFairFund.com. Claim Forms completed online must be submitted on or before 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on August 15, 2025. If you are unable to submit a Claim Form online and/or you have lost relevant credentials associated with wallets and/or exchanges required as part of an online claim, you may request a copy of the paper Claim Form from the Fund Administrator via email at info@ImpactTheoryFairFund.com or by calling 833-285-3401. You may also download a copy of the Claim Form to print at: www.ImpactTheoryFairFund.com. Claim Forms submitted via mail must be sent to the address provided on the Claim Form and postmarked (or if not sent by U.S. Mail, then received) by August 15, 2025. The Fund Administrator will send a Determination Notice advising each claimant who timely submitted a Claim Form of their eligibility determination and will provide a calculation of Recognized Loss to those determined to be Eligible Claimants. The Fund Administrator may consider disputes of an Eligible Claimant's Recognized Loss calculation if timely submitted in accordance with the Plan. This notice is a summary. For more information, visit www.ImpactTheoryFairFund.com JACK IN THE BOX: Faces Soto Wage-and-Hour Suit in Cal. Super. ------------------------------------------------------------- ROSA I. SOTO DE SALTO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JACK IN THE BOX INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV04743 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., February 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide meal period or pay premium in lieu thereof, failure to provide rest period or pay premium in lieu thereof, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to timely pay wages, failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements, and failure to maintain accurate records. The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendants as a cook since approximately 1989. Jack in the Box Inc. is an American fast food restaurant chain, headquartered in San Diego, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. Sean M. Blakely, Esq. Joel M. Gordon, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 292-2350 Facsimile: (424) 292-2355 Email: phaines@haineslawgroup.com sblakely@haineslawgroup.com jgordon@haineslawgroup.com KINDER MORGAN: Woldman Suit Alleges Unfair Business Practices ------------------------------------------------------------- WILLIAM F. WOLDMAN, Plaintiff v. KINDER MORGAN, INC. and KINDER MORGAN KEYSTONE GAS STORAGE, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00159 (D.N.M., February 13, 2025) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated alleging violations of the New Mexico Unfair Trade Practices Act, tortious acts under New Mexico common law and unjust enrichment, arising from Defendants' egregious conduct in anticipation of and during Winter Storm Uri in February 2021. This is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and other natural gas consumers against Kinder Morgan and its affiliate Kinder Morgan Keystone Gas Storage. Keystone owns a natural gas storage facility, which New Mexico Gas Company (NMGC) leases out for the benefit of its customers. Before and during Winter Storm Uri in February 2021, Keystone and Kinder Morgan unlawfully removed and otherwise withheld billions of cubic feet of gas, including NMGC's gas, from access. During the storm, the Class was deprived of a vast inventory of low-cost gas that NMGC and its customers had already paid for. Consequently, NMGC was forced to purchase replacement gas at record-high prices on the intraday and day-ahead markets. Over the six-day brunt of Uri, NMGC paid over $100 million for desperately needed gas supply, roughly equivalent to NMGC's total cost of gas in 2020. Allegedly, residential and business customers fully reimbursed NMGC for the extraordinary gas costs and other related expenses incurred during Winter Storm Uri. These costs arose largely because of Defendants' unlawful conduct, making Defendants liable for a substantial portion of the losses that resulted from the deception and other wrongful acts, alleges the suit. Kinder Morgan, Inc. is one of the largest energy transportation companies in North America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tony F. Ortiz, Esq. Eugene (Geno) I. Zamora, Esq. Jessica R. Terrazas, Esq. ORTIZ & ZAMORA, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLC 530 Harkle Road, Suite B Santa Fe, NM 87505 Telephone: (505) 986-2900 Facsimile: (505) 986-2911 E-mail: tony@ortiz-zamora.com geno@ortiz-zamora.com jessica@ortiz-zamora.com - and - John V. Wertheim, Esq. JOHN WERTHEIM LAW, LLC 317 Commercial Street, NE Albuquerque, NM 87102 Telephone: (505) 450-4199 E-mail: johnv@johnwertheimlaw.com - and - Michael T. Gallagher, Esq. Pamela R. McLemore, Esq. L. Boyd Smith, Jr., Esq. THE GALLAGHER LAW FIRM, PLLC 2905 Sackett Street Houston, TX 77098 Telephone: (713) 222-8080 Facsimile: (713) 238-7852 E-mail: mike@gld-law.com pamm@gld-law.com bsmith@boydsmithlaw.com - and - Filemon Vela, Esq. Rose Vela, Esq. VELA JUSTICE, PLLC 912 Prairie Street, Suite 100 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 600-1800 Facsimile: (713) 600-1940 E-mail: filemon@velajustice.com rose@velajustice.com - and - Mikell A. West, Esq. Robert W. Clore, Esq. BANDAS LAW FIRM PC 802 N. Carancahua, Ste. 1400 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 696-5200 Facsimile: (361) 698-5222 E-mail: mwest@bandaslawfirm.com rclore@bandaslawfirm.com - and - Eric Reed, Esq. THE REED LAW FIRM, PLLC 912 Prairie Street, Ste. 100 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: (713) 600-1800 Facsimile: (713) 600-1840 E-mail: ereed@reedlawpllc.com LANAS FAMILY: Rodriguez Seeks Unpaid Wages for Restaurant Staff --------------------------------------------------------------- NATALY RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LANAS FAMILY CORP. (d/b/a ESTRELLITA POBLANA), HECTOR GONZALEZ, and ANGELA GONZALEZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01423 (S.D.N.Y., February 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to provide wage notice requirements, failure to provide wage statement claims, failure to reimburse business expenses, and failure to timely pay wages. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a cook and food preparer at Estrellita Poblana from approximately July 2021 until on or about December 26, 2024. Lanas Family Corp., doing business as Estrellita Poblana, is a restaurant owner and operator in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 LUCKY STRIKE: Fails to Pay Test Operators' OT Wages Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- HECTOR MEDINA, and RICARDO VASQUEZ, JR., individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals v. LUCKY STRIKE OILFIELD PROFESSIONALS LLC, KATELYN LUCKY, AND COLE LUCKY, Case No. 4:25-cv-00718 (S.D. Tex., Feb. 18, 2025) alleges that the Defendants refuse to pay the torque and test operators overtime pay while requiring these employees to work more than 40 hours per week, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Defendants paid Mr. Medina and Mr. Vasquez on a salary basis, without regard to the number of hours worked, despite knowing that Mr. Medina and Mr. Vasquez worked more than 40 hours per week. The Defendants did not consistently pay Mr. Medina, Mr. Vasquez, and their Similarly Situated Workers time-and-a-half for the overtime hours that they worked for Lucky Strike, the suit says. Accordingly, the Defendants' underpayment of the Plaintiffs and their co-workers, often referred to as "wage theft," allowed the Defendants to gain an unfair advantage in the marketplace as compared to other oil field inspection companies that pay their employees all of the money required by law. Mr. Medina and Mr. Vasquez worked as a team carrying out the torque and test duties as assigned. The Defendants required Mr. Medina and Mr. Vasquez to travel to various locations located in the oil fields of Texas to carry out these duties. They conducted all of their work in the State of Texas. Mr. Medina and Mr. Vasquez were hired by Lucky Strike in May of 2024 to conduct torque and test duties at various drilling rigs in Texas. Lucky Strike provides torque and test, pit cleaning, and roustabout needs for oil field operators in Texas and Louisiana.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas H. Padgett, Jr., Esq. Josef F. Buenker, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM Houston, TX 77206 Telephone: (713) 868-3388 Facsimile: (713) 683-9940 E-mail: tpadgett@buenkerlaw.com jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com MALIBU BOATS: Violates Del. General Corp. Law, Gray Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- EDWARD GRAY, Plaintiff v. MALIBU BOATS, INC., a Delaware Corporation, MICHAEL K. HOOKS, STEVEN D. MENNETO, JAMES R. BUCH, IVAR S. CHHINA, MICHAEL J. CONNOLLY, MARK W. LANIGAN, PETER E. MURPHY, JOHN E. STOKELY, and NANCY M. TAYLOR, Defendants, Case No. 2025-0151 (Del. Ch., February 12, 2025) is a verified class action complaint brought by the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders of Malibu Boats, for declaratory relief relating to the Company's violation of Delaware General Corporation Law Section 141(k) and Delaware common law. According to the complaint, a certain provision of the Company's charter, adopted and maintained by Defendants, provides the Company's directors with the authority to remove other directors, contrary to Delaware law. Under Delaware law, the right of removal of directors is exclusive to stockholders. The Company's current charter allowing that under certain circumstances a director of the Company may be removed by the other members of the Board interferes with the stockholders' exclusive right to director removal and is inconsistent with Section 141(k). The Removal Provision is invalid, says the suit. Malibu Boats, Inc. designs, engineers, manufactures, markets, and sells a range of recreational powerboats.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake A. Bennett, Esq. COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A. The Brandywine Building 1000 N. West Street, Suite 1500 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 984-3800 E-mail: bbennett@coochtaylor.com - and - Brian P. Murray, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Ave., Suite 530 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com - and - Werner R. Kranenburg, Esq. KRANENBURG 80-83 Long Lane London EC1A 9ET United Kingdom Telephone: (44) 20-3174-0365 E-mail: werner@kranenburgesq.com MEMORIAL HOSPITAL: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Evans Says ------------------------------------------------------------- JONATHAN EVANS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AND MANOR AUXILIARY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00028-LAG (M.D. Ga., February 14, 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 Plaintiff and other similarly situated patients of Defendant including potentially tens of thousands of individuals. On November 8, 2024, the threat actor group called Embargo announced that it had stolen a trove of 1.15 terabytes of patient data from the Defendant, which it then threatened to release to the public. The stolen data purportedly includes the names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, health insurance information, medical treatment information, and medical histories of approximately 120,085 individuals. Failing to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures has significant consequences for the patients whose records are leaked to cybercriminals and identity thieves. Because of Defendant's failures, the Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members have suffered a severe invasion of privacy and must now face a substantially increase in identity theft and fraud for years to come. Memorial Hospital and Manor Auxiliary, Inc. is a Georgia-based healthcare services provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel H. Wirth, Esq. ALONSO & WIRTH 1708 Peachtree Street, NW, Suite 303 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (678) 928-4472 E-mail: dwirth@alonsowirth.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com MEMORIAL HOSPITAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Dupree Says ------------------------------------------------------------- MARTY DUPREE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AND MANOR AUXILIARY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00024-LAG (M.D. Ga., February 12, 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 Plaintiff and other similarly situated patients of Defendant including potentially tens of thousands of individuals. On November 8, 2024, the threat actor group called Embargo announced that it had stolen a trove of 1.15 terabytes of patient data from Defendant, which it then threatened to release to the public. The stolen data purportedly includes the names, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, health insurance information, medical treatment information, and medical histories of approximately 120,085 individuals. Failing to implement reasonable cybersecurity measures has significant consequences for the patients whose records are leaked to cybercriminals and identity thieves. Because of Defendant's failures, the Plaintiff and the proposed Class Members have suffered a severe invasion of privacy and must now face a substantially increase in identity theft and fraud for years to come, says the suit. Memorial Hospital and Manor Auxiliary, Inc. is an 80-bed hospital and a 107-bed long-term care facility with its principal place of business in Bainbridge, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel H. Wirth, Esq. ALONSO & WIRTH 1708 Peachtree Street, NW, Suite 303 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (678) 928-4472 E-mail: dwirth@alonsowirth.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com MERCK & CO: Cronin Balks at Misleading Revenue Outlook ------------------------------------------------------ MICHAEL CRONIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MERCK & CO., INC., ROBERT M. DAVIS, CAROLINE LITCHFIELD, and DEAN Y. LI, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01208 (D.N.J., February 12, 2025) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Merck securities between February 3, 2022, to February 3, 2025, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. According to the complaint, the Defendants provided investors with material information concerning Merck's expected revenue of $11 billion from sales of Gardasil by 2030. The Defendants' statements included, among other things, confidence in Merck's purported ability to utilize successful consumer activation and education efforts on the benefits of Gardasil in order to drive demand and capitalize on eligible populations for vaccination, resulting in confidently optimistic reports and forecasts of Gardasil's growth in China. The Defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts concerning the true state of Gardasil's demand in China. During the October 31, 2024, earnings call, the Defendants continued to mislead investors with repeated statements of confidence in Gardasil's growth in China, both in the existing eligible population of women and the planned expansion following approval for male vaccinations, particularly as they related to Merk's ability to achieve $11 billion in worldwide Gardasil sales by 2030, says the suit. The full truth finally emerged on February 4, 2025, when Merck announced it would no longer achieve the long-forecasted $11 billion in sales of Gardasil by 2030, as it would cease shipments of Gardasil to China "through at least midyear" to facilitate a "rapid reduction of inventory." Investors and analysts again reacted promptly to Merk's revelations. The price of Merck's common stock declined dramatically. From a closing market price of $99.79 per share on February 3, 2025, Merck's stock price fell to $90.74 per share on February 4, 2025, a decline of more than 9% in the span of just a single day, the suit alleges. Merck & Co., Inc. is a global healthcare company that operates through two segments, Pharmaceutical and Animal Health, with a significant focus on prescription medications.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: aapton@zlk.com MOUNT AIRY: Faces Class Action Suit Over Underpaying Employees -------------------------------------------------------------- Max Augugliaro, writing for Pocono Record, reports that Mount Airy Casino Resort is accused of underpaying employees by multiple methods. More than three dozen plaintiffs have joined the class-action lawsuit. In a class-action federal lawsuit joined by more than three dozen plaintiffs, Mount Airy Casino Resort has been accused of underpaying employees. According to the complaint filed Feb. 7 in the Middle District of Pennsylvania by former table games dealer Jennifer Mak and former dealer and dual-rate supervisor William Neidig, Mount Airy violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA) and the Wage Payment and Collection Law (WPCL). Since the lawsuit was filed, 37 more plaintiffs have joined, as of a Feb. 24 court filing. The complaint says Mount Airy paid the plaintiffs below minimum wage but failed to meet FLSA and PMWA requirements for notifying employees about the the tip credit. The tip credit allows employers to offer a rate below the federal minimum wage of $7.25, on the premise that the tips earned by the employee will at least match minimum wage. Additionally, Mount Airy is accused of using money from the tip pool for table games dealers to pay all of the paid time off of dual-rate supervisors, who act as both a floor supervisor and a dealer. Mount Airy is also accused of rounding the times employees clocked in and out to the closest 15-minute interval, leading to employees not getting properly compensated for all time worked. Finally, the lawsuit says that Mount Airy calculated the overtime rate for tipped employees at a lower rate than it should have been. The lawsuit alleges nine total counts: four counts of FLSA violations, four counts of PMWA violations, and one count of WPCL violations. Mount Airy spokesperson Nicole Krieger declined to comment on pending litigation. [GN] MP MATERIALS: Waiver Provision Violates Delaware Law, Connolly Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- PAUL CONNOLLY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MP MATERIALS CORP. f/k/a FORTRESS VALUE ACQUISITION CORP., a Delaware Corporation, JAMES H. LITINSKY, ARNOLD W. DONALD, CONNIE K. DUCKWORTH, MARYANNE R. LAVAN, ANDREW A. MCKNIGHT, RICHARD B. MYERS, and RANDALL J. WEISENBURGER, Defendants, Case No. 2025-0153 (Del. Ch., February 12, 2025) is a verified class action complaint against MP Materials and the members of the Company's board of directors for declaratory relief relating to the Company's violation of Delaware General Corporation Law Sections 102(b)(7) and 122(17) and Delaware common law and public policy. According to the complaint, the Company's charter, adopted and maintained by Defendants, has a provision in which the Company grants a blanket waiver of the corporate opportunity doctrine contrary to Delaware law. Under Delaware law, fiduciary duties may be modified or eliminated and corporations have the power to renounce in advance any interest of the corporation in an opportunity to participate in specified business opportunities. Such a waiver of corporate opportunities must be specific and a company's officers and directors may not be issued carte blanche to pursue opportunity belonging to the Company. Likewise, the duty of loyalty cannot be eliminated or limited. The Defendants' Waiver Provision allegedly violates both rules. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other stockholders of MP Materials against the Company and the members of its Board, seeking a declaratory judgment that the provision violates Delaware law and public policy and is invalid. MP Materials Corp., f/k/a Fortress Value Acquisition Corp., produces and markets rare earth specialty materials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Blake A. Bennett, Esq. COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A. 1000 N. West Street, Suite 1500 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 984-3800 E-mail: bbennett@coochtaylor.com - and - Brian P. Murray, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Ave., Suite 358 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com - and - Werner R. Kranenburg, Esq. KRANENBURG 80-83 Long Lane London EC1A 9ET United Kingdom Telephone: (44) 20-3174-0365 E-mail: werner@kranenburgesq.com MSNF FOODS: Faces Pineda Wage-and-Hour Suit in D. New Jersey ------------------------------------------------------------ DAVID PINEDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MSNF FOODS 4 LLC; MASSOUD ANSARI; BRIAN LUGO; AARON SILVERMAN; DOE CORPORATION 1-10; JOHN DOE 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01349 (D.N.J., February 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey Minimum Wage Law, and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law, and unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff worked as a delivery driver at the Defendants' Domino's Pizza stores in New Jersey MSNF Foods 4, LLC is a company that owns and operates Domino's Pizza franchise stores, doing business in New Jersey. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Evan L. Goldman, Esq. GOLDMAN DAVIS KRUMHOLZ & DILLON, P.C. 3 University Plaza Drive Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 488-2600 Email: egoldman@goldmandavis.com - and - Andrew Biller, Esq. Andrew Kimble, Esq. Laura Farmwald, Esq. Emily Hubbard, Esq. BILLER & KIMBLER LLC 8044 Montgomery Rd., Suite 515 Cincinnati, OH 45236 Telephone: (513) 202-0710 Email: abiller@billerkimble.com akimble@billerkimble.com lfarmwald@billerkimble.com ehubbard@billerkimble.com NEW ERA: Sanchez Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Customers' Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- MARIA SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW ERA ENTERPRISES, INC. and NEW ERA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-00732 (S.D. Tex., February 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within their network system following a data breach between December 9, 2024, and December 18, 2024. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. New Era Enterprises, Inc. is a life insurance company, with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. New Era Life Insurance Company is a life insurance company, with its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joe Kendall, Esq. KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825 Dallas, TX 75219 Telephone: (214) 744-3000 Facsimile: (214) 744-3015 Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com - and - John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 402 W. Broadway, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 Email: jnelson@milberg.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com NEW YORK BLOOD: Storchevoy Alleges Failure to Secure Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ ALLISON STORCHEVOY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW YORK BLOOD CENTER, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01322 (S.D.N.Y., February 13, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of Plaintiff and other similarly situated patients. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal information -- which they entrusted to Defendant on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against disclosure -- was targeted, compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the data breach. The private information compromised in the data breach was exfiltrated by cyber-criminals and remains in the hands of those cyber-criminals who target Private Information for its value to identity thieves, says the Plaintiff. The complaint alleges that the data breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect its patients' private information from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. Through this complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals whose private information was accessed during the data breach. New York Blood Center, Inc. is an independent blood collection and distribution organization.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vicki J. Maniatis, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 405 East 50th Street New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 594-5300 E-mail: vmaniatis@milberg.com - and - David K. Lietz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 440 Washington, D.C. 20015-2052 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (202) 686-2877 E-mail: dlietz@milberg.com OTHER HALF: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Trippett Claims -------------------------------------------------------------- ALFRED TRIPPETT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Other Half Brewing Company, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-01372 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 18, 2025) contends that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://otherhalfbrewing.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Defendant is denying the blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Other Half Brewing Company provides to their non-disabled customers through its website, the suit alleges. The Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of a pack of beer on Otherhalfbrewing.com. Despite his efforts, however, the Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted individual due to the Website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Other Half Brewing Company's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant’s website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Other Half Brewing offers a variety of craft beers, including IPAs, stouts, pale ales, sours, lagers, and limited-edition releases, along with branded merchandise like shirts and hats.[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 PAPA FIRO: Tejeda Seeks to Recover Deli Workers' Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- JOSE TEJEDA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PAPA FIRO GROCERY CORP (D/B/A PAPA FIRA GOCERY CORP) and JOSE BAEZ, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00822 (E.D.N.Y., February 13, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and for violations of the New York Labor Law, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff Tejeda was employed as a deli worker by Defendants at Papa Fira Grocery Corp. from approximately Mid-1994 until March 2022. Papa Firo Grocery Corp. owns, operates, and controls a deli in Brooklyn, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catalina Sojo, Esq. CSM LEGAL, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 PIMENTEL DELI: Presinal Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------------ YEURIS R. PRESINAL, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. PIMENTEL DELI GROCERY II CORP. (D/B/A PIMENTEL DELI GROCERY II CORP.), DIGNA DELI GROCERY CORP (D/B/A PIMENTEL DELI GROCERY), REYSON PIMENTEL, and CHIRIDEIVIS ORTIZ, Case No. 1:25-cv-01374 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 18, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law. The suit says that the Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiff Presinal and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation required by federal and state law and regulations. The Defendants employed and accounted for the Plaintiff Presinal as a delivery worker in their payroll, but in actuality his duties required a significant amount of time spent performing the non-tipped duties. Further, the Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff Presinal the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a day, the suit adds. Plaintiff Presinal was employed by the Defendants as a merchandise stocker and delivery worker at Pimentel Deli Grocery from December 2021 until Jan. 21, 2024. The Defendant operates delis located in the Riverdale neighborhood in The Bronx.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catalina Sojo, Esq. CSM LEGAL, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 POWERSCHOOL GROUP: Tillman Balks at Inadequate Data Security ------------------------------------------------------------ JERATHEN TILLMAN, individually and on behalf of C.T., a minor, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC and POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00514-CSK (E.D. Cal., February 13, 2025) seeks to hold the Defendant responsible for the injuries the Defendant inflicted on Plaintiff and his minor child, and millions of similarly situated persons due to the Defendant's inadequate and unlawful data security, which caused their personal information to be exfiltrated by unauthorized access by cybercriminals on December 19, 2024 and continuing through December 28, 2024. According to the complaint, prior to and through the time of the data breach, the Defendant obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' personal information and then maintained that sensitive data in a negligent and/or reckless manner. When Defendant finally notified Plaintiff and Class Members of their personal information exfiltration, the Defendant 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. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these injuries on behalf of themselves and all similarly situated individuals whose Personal Information was exfiltrated and compromised in the data breach. PowerSchool Group LLC is a provider of cloud-based software to K-12 educational institutions in North America.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jon A. Tostrud, Esq. TOSTRUD LAW GROUP, P.C. 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 278-2600 Facsimile: (310) 278-2640 E-mail: jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com - and - James F. Woods, Esq. Annie E. Causey, Esq. WOODS LONGERGAN PLLC 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 1410 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 684-2500 E-mail: jwoods@woodslaw.com acausey@woodslaw.com - and - Brian Murray, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Ave., Suite 358 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com - and - Erik H. Langeland, Esq. ERIK H. LANGELAND, P.C. 733 Third Avenue, 15th Floor New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (212) 354-6270 E-mail: elangeland@langelandlaw.com POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Wright Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY WRIGHT, individually and as a parent and guardian of her minor child, A.B., and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC. and POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-01543-TSH (N.D. Cal., February 13, 2025) is a data breach class action against Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and/or other members of the proposed class' personally identifying information stored by the Defendants. On January 7, 2025, the Defendants began announcing to schools that an unauthorized threat actor had accessed records of students and employees between December 19 and December 24, 2024. According to Defendants, an unauthorized threat actor used compromised credentials to gain access to PowerSchool's internal support tools. The Plaintiff brings this class action against the Defendants for their failure to properly secure and safeguard the sensitive and personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and Class Members whose data was stored and maintained by PowerSchool. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' failure to implement and follow standard security measures, the value of Plaintiff's and Class Members' personal information diminished, says the suit. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc. is a cloud-based software provider of education technology to K–12 schools.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lesley E. Weaver, Esq. Anne K. Davis, Esq. Joshua D. Samra, Esq. BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP 1330 Broadway, Suite 630 Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (415) 445-4003 Facsimile: (415) 445-4020 E-mail: lweaver@bfalaw.com adavis@bfalaw.com jsamra@bfalaw.com PUBLIX SUPER: Faces Overcharging Class Action Lawsuit in Fla. ------------------------------------------------------------- James R. Hood, writing for ConsumerAffairs reports that a Florida shopper has filed a class-action lawsuit against Publix, accusing the supermarket chain of falsely increasing the weight of meat and cheese at self-checkout scales, leading to higher prices for customers. The lawsuit, filed last week in Miami federal court, also claims that Publix leaves expired sale signs up to mislead shoppers into purchasing items at regular prices instead of discounted rates. The lawsuit was brought by Wendy Koutouzis, who says she encountered overcharges at five different Publix locations in Tampa. It seeks damages for all affected Publix shoppers who may have been unknowingly overcharged. Evidence of overcharges Koutouzis documented her claims with photos of receipts, sale signs, product weights, and self-checkout screens showing discrepancies in pricing. One example cited in the lawsuit involved a 4.15-pound chicken that self-checkout weighed at 4.98 pounds, effectively increasing the price beyond what should have been charged. Another instance involved a pork tenderloin on sale for $4.99 per pound (down from $6.99 per pound), but the checkout system recorded an inflated weight, canceling out the discount. According to the lawsuit, Publix's checkout system automatically increases the weight of sale-priced products, ensuring that shoppers do not receive the full advertised discount. Publix's Response Publix, the fifth-largest grocery chain in the U.S., declined to comment on the lawsuit. "It would be inappropriate for us to comment on pending litigation," said Publix spokeswoman Lindsay Willis in an email to the Miami Herald. Employees allegedly discouraged from helping customers The lawsuit further claims that Publix's employee-ownership model creates a lack of incentive for employees to alert customers about pricing errors. Instead, employees allegedly insist that shoppers are wrong when they question checkout discrepancies. "Employees, including cashiers, customer service attendants, and department managers, do not only fail to alert customers, but insist purposely that the customer is wrong, and that the savings were already applied," the lawsuit states. Weighing system under scrutiny Publix's pricing system for meat, cheese, and produce is at the heart of the lawsuit. Koutouzis argues that when a product is on sale, Publix's system adjusts the weight to maintain the original price, eliminating the intended discount. The lawsuit was filed by attorney Anthony Russo Jr. of The Russo Firm in Boca Raton. If successful, it could result in financial compensation for Publix shoppers who have been overcharged. The case highlights growing concerns about transparency in supermarket pricing, especially as more retailers shift towards self-checkout systems. [GN] RETAILMENOT INC: Diverts Content Creators' Commissions, Rhodes Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- TESSA RHODES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RETAILMENOT, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01420-UA (S.D.N.Y., February 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for unjust enrichment, interference with prospective economic advantage, intentional interference with contractual relations, conversion, and violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, and the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged deceptive scheme in a form online marketing fraud where a malicious affiliate marketer secretly places tracking cookies on a user's browser, making it appear as if the user came to a website through its affiliate link, even if the user did not. This deceptive tactic has allowed the Defendant to profit off of the promotional efforts of online content creators like the Plaintiff and Class members, by maliciously replacing the legitimate affiliate cookies of the Plaintiff and Class members with the Defendant's own affiliate cookies just as users begin the checkout process. By implementing this malicious cookie-stuffing scheme, the Defendant is able to poach the commissions of the Plaintiff and other online content creators. RetailMeNot, Inc. is an online retailer, with its principal place of business in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven M. Nathan, Esq. Ashley M. Crooks, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street Fourteenth Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 357-1100 Email: snathan@hausfeld.com acrooks@hausfeld.com - and - James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. Amanda V. Boltax, Esq. Ian E. Engdahl, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 888 16th Street N.W., Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com mboltax@hausfeld.com iengdahl@hausfeld.com - and - Joseph J. DePalma, Esq. Catherine B. Derenze, Esq. Collin J. Schaffhauser, Esq. LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG & AFANADOR, LLC 570 Broad St., Suite 1201 Newark, NJ 07102 Telephone: (973) 623-3000 Email: jdepalma@litedepalma.com cderenze@litedepalma.com cschaffhauser@litedepalma.com SCHIAPARELLI USA: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Senior Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ FRANK SENIOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SCHIAPARELLI USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01429 (S.D.N.Y., February 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.schiaparelli.com/en, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Schiaparelli USA, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [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 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal SEALY INC: Liu Labor Class Suit Removed to C.D. Calif. ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled KAI LIU and JASON L. CARBONNEAU, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SEALY, INC.; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 24STCV18300, was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, in and for the County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on February 12, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01215 to the proceeding. The complaint seeks Private Attorney's General Act penalties based on underlying alleged California Labor Code violations related to failure to pay for all hours worked (minimum and overtime wages), failure to provide meal periods, failure to authorize and permit rest periods, failure to maintain accurate records of hours worked and meal periods, failure to timely pay final wages, failure to furnish accurate wage statements, and failure to reimburse business expenses. Sealy, Inc. manufactures and markets bedding products.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Angela J. Rafoth, Esq. Courtney Chambers, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 101 Second Street, Suite 1000 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 433-1940 Facsimile: (415) 399-8490 E-mail: arafoth@littler.com cchambers@littler.com SERGIO HUDSON: Senior Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- FRANK SENIOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SERGIO HUDSON COLLECTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01400 (S.D.N.Y., February 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://sergiohudson.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Sergio Hudson Collections, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [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 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal SIMONE ROCHA: Senior Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website -------------------------------------------------------------- FRANK SENIOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SIMONE ROCHA RETAIL LTD., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01430 (S.D.N.Y., February 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://shop-us.simonerocha.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Simone Rocha Retail Ltd. is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [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 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal SIMPLISAFE INC: Products' Price Discounts "Fake," Schlueter Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- TRAVIS SCHLUETER-BECKNER and ZACH BABKA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SIMPLISAFE, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-01764 (N.D. Cal., February 19, 2024) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California's False Advertising Law, California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and California's Unfair Competition Law. The case arises from SimpliSafe's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its products. According to the complaint, SimpliSafe advertises fake or illusory discounts to lure consumers to buy its products with urgency or risk losing the discount. Had SimpliSafe been truthful, the Plaintiffs and other consumers would not have purchased the products. SimpliSafe, Inc. is a company that provides home security systems, with its principal place of business in Boston, Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Elliot J. Siegel, Esq. Julian Burns King, Esq. Brent R. Boos, Esq. KING & SIEGEL LLP 724 South Spring Street, Suite 201 Los Angeles, CA 90014 Telephone: (213) 465-4802 Facsimile: (213) 465-4803 Email: elliot@kingsiegel.com julian@kingsiegel.com brent@kingsiegel.com SWISS RE AMERICAN: Mismanages Retirement Plan, Rudasill Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- NIA RUDASILL, EILEEN GILLIS, MICHAEL SCHLEM, and ROBERT VUOTO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SWISS RE AMERICAN HOLDING CORPORATION, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SWISS RE AMERICAN HOLDING CORPORATION, PHILIP K. RYAN, LARRY ZIMPLEMAN, THE SWISS RE AMERICAN HOLDING CORPORATION EMPLOYEE PENSION PLAN COMMITTEE, GREAT-WEST LIFECO INC., GREAT-WEST LIFECO U.S. LLC, EMPOWER ANNUITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, EMPOWER RETIREMENT, LLC, EMPOWER TRUST COMPANY, LLC, and DOES NO. 1-10, whose names are currently unknown, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01403 (S.D.N.Y., February 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. According to the complaint, the Defendants have breached their fiduciary duties to the Swiss Re Group U.S. Employees' Savings Plan by (1) allowing the Plan to pay excessive recordkeeping service fees; (2) failing to use accepted methodologies when selecting investments to be included in the Plan, including poor performing investments in the Plan, and failing to monitor the performance of the investments included within the Plan; (3) failing to use Plan assets located in the Plan's forfeiture account pursuant to the Plan document; and (4) failing to prudently monitor Empower's misuse of participant data and Empower's cross-selling activity. The Plaintiffs seek to recover and obtain all losses resulting from each breach of fiduciary duty. Swiss Re American Holding Corporation is an insurance provider, headquartered in Zurich, Switzerland. Great-West Lifeco Inc. is an international financial services holding company headquartered in Canada. Great-West Lifeco U.S. LLC, is the wholly owned U.S. subsidiary of Great-West Lifeco Inc. Empower Annuity Insurance Company of America is an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Great-West Lifeco Inc., headquartered in Greenwood Village, Colorado. Empower Retirement, LLC is a branch of Empower Annuity Insurance Company of America, headquartered in Greenwood Village, Colorado. Empower Trust Company, LLC is a branch of Empower Annuity Insurance Company of America, headquartered in Greenwood Village, Colorado. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Rania V. Sedhom, Esq. SEDHOM LAW GROUP, PLLC 630 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2508 New York, NY 10111 Telephone: (212) 664-1600 Facsimile: (212) 563-9280 Email: rsedhom@bespokelawfirm.com TIFFIN UNIVERSITY: Young Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- LESHAWN YOUNG, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TIFFIN UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01328 (S.D.N.Y., February 13, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.tiffin.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. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, including on January 13, 2025 and the last occurring on February 7, 2025, in an attempt to purchase a Nike Women's Tempo Short-Black, from Defendant, and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied her a shopping and recreational experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. The Plaintiff 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. Tiffin University operates the Tiffin online retail store as well as the Tiffin interactive website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal UNDERDOG FANTASY: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Sports Betting ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Mehorter, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed class action lawsuit out of New York alleges Underdog Fantasy, LLC operates an unlicensed sports betting operation. The 26-page complaint centers around Underdog Fantasy Pick'em, a game that enables users to place over/under bets on the performance statistics of professional athletes. Underdog markets Pick'em as an interactive fantasy sports contest, which New York's Racing and Pari-Mutuel Wagering & Breeding Law defines as a "game of skill," the lawsuit says. The state law specifies that fantasy sports are skill-based competitions because contestants compete against each other using their knowledge and expertise of a particular sport to create imaginary teams of professional athletes, the case relays. The "winner" of a fantasy sports contest hinges on the real-world performance metrics of these athletes, the filing explains. According to the suit, however, Underdog's Pick'em games are neither interactive nor fantasy. They are illegal games of chance, the case contends. Per the complaint, Pick'em participants compete against the house, which sets sophisticated betting lines that give it the best chance of making money. "Consumers cannot rely on their skill and knowledge to gain a competitive edge over other players because they are not competing only against other players," the filing asserts. "Rather, they are competing against a multi-million dollar corporation that would fail if consumers were simply able to win based on skill and knowledge alone." What's more, the case says, Pick'em players do not pick a fantasy team that "competes" against other contestants. Instead, outcomes are based on predictions about the performance of particular athletes, the suit shares. "[J]ust as with any other wager, consumers in Pick'em contests are placing wagers on the likelihood of a future contingent event—e.g., whether basketball player x scores y points in z game—over which the consumer has no control," the Underdog Fantasy lawsuit claims. The complaint alleges Underdog is illegally operating sports betting without a license and, as a result, sidestepping New York's strict regulatory framework designed to monitor legalized gambling. "Without regulation, illegal sports books are able to mislead the public, including duping consumers into thinking they are not engaging in the highly addictive behavior of gambling when they are, creating betting lines with extremely poor odds of winning, misrepresenting consumers' chances of winning, and ultimately collecting money from consumers who do not realize the implications of their bets," the filing states. The lawsuit looks to represent anyone in the United States who lost money by wagering in Pick'em style betting on mobile platforms provided by Underdog. [GN] UNITED STATES: United Farm Workers Sues Over Raid by Border Patrol ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Recorder reports that in response to brazen and unlawful raids by federal agents in the Central Valley in January, Keker, Van Nest & Peters and the ACLU are representing United Farm Workers (UFW) and five Kern County residents in a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security, Customs and Border Protection, and U.S. Border Patrol to prohibit them from stopping, arresting, and summarily expelling community members from the country using practices that violate the U.S. Constitution and federal law. Border Patrol agents based at the U.S.-Mexico border traveled over 300 miles to Bakersfield to launch "Operation Return to Sender," a weeklong operation through predominantly Latine areas of Kern County and the surrounding region. The operation appears to have been designed to stop, detain, and arrest people of color who appeared to be farmworkers or day laborers, regardless of their actual immigration status or individual circumstances, transport them back to the El Centro Border Patrol Station, and coerce them into "voluntary departure," a form of summary expulsion which can result in a yearslong bar on reentry to the U.S. Keker partner Ajay Krishnan spoke with The Recorder about the lawsuit: "It really is outrageous," Keker partner Ajay Krishnan said in an interview Thursday, February 27. The Plaintiffs allege Border Patrol agents pressured or misled people into signing their names to electronic documents they were not allowed to read, Krishnan said. Some later received documents stating they’d been given versions to read in Spanish, which was not true, he said. "It seems that Border Patrol officers just lied, just lied to the detainees and said this was for some other purpose, and just asked them to sign something without being clear as to what it was and being deceptive as to what they were signing," he said. Krishnan, who said Keker is involved in this suit as part of its long history of pro bono work, encouraged other firms to consider providing similar support to "stop this type of conduct as quickly as possible." "Firms should be making sure they're fulfilling their obligations to the law by standing up and doing what they can do when they see something that's happening," he said. "That's very much the ethos of our firm." He pointed to two previous cases that included Keker: County of Santa Clara v. Trump and Al-Mowafak v. Trump. In the Santa Clara County case, Keker won a nationwide injunction against Trump’s January 2017 executive order that attempted to defund state and local governments deemed to be "sanctuary jurisdictions." In Al-Mowafak, Keker partnered with the ACLU to file a class action suit challenging Trump's executive order restricting immigration from several predominantly Muslim countries and suspending entry of refugees from all countries. [GN] USA QR CULTURE: Holman Sues Over Unlawful Employment Policies ------------------------------------------------------------- Gabriel Holman, individually and on behalf all other employees similarly situated v. USA QR CULTURE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT LLC d/b/a Hutaoli Music Restaurant & Bar a/k/a Hutaoli, WEI YOU a/k/a Mr. You a/k/a Ms. You, SHUAI ZHANG a/k/a Ms. Shu, and CHERRIE ZHANG, Case No. 1:25-cv-01560 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 24, 2025), is brought alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") for various willful and unlawful employment policies, patterns, and/or practices and to recover minimum wage, unpaid wages, damages for the late payment of wages and for the gratuities that Defendants improperly withheld from Plaintiff, and damages for Defendants' failure to provide Plaintiff with Wage Theft Protection Act ("WTPA") statements and notices. The Defendants have deprived Plaintiff and other similarly situated current and former employees of minimum wages, gratuities, timely wages, and the wages that they were entitled to receive but did not receive in violation of the NYLL. The Defendants committed the following alleged acts knowingly, intentionally and willfully. The Defendants knew that the nonpayment wages and illegal deductions from the compensation of Plaintiff, the Collective Action Members, and members of the Class would economically injure them and violated federal and state laws, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a server at Hutaoli from May 10, 2024 until July 18, 2024. Hutaoli operates as a Chinese restaurant and the servers of the restaurant greet customers and serve various dishes to the customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Diana Seo, Esq. SEO LAW GROUP, PLLC 136-68 Roosevelt Ave., Suite 726 Flushing, NY 11354 Phone: (718) 500-3340 Email: diana@seolawgroup.com VECTRARX MAIL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Mora Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- HAROLD MORA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VECTRARX MAIL PHARMACY SERVICES LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00080-JCH (D. Ariz., Feb. 18, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information and personal health information of the Plaintiff and the Class members, including names, dates of birth, home addresses, phone numbers, Social Security numbers, prescription numbers, prescription information, and dates of services. On Dec. 13, 2024, an intruder gained entry to the Defendant's network, accessed the Plaintiff's and the Class members' PII, and exfiltrated information. The Defendant did not notify the Plaintiff and the Class members of the incident until Feb. 6, 2025, depriving the Plaintiff and the Class Members of months to protect themselves from the fallout of the Incident, the suit says. The Plaintiff and Class Members continue to be at significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social, and financial harm. The risk will remain for their respective lifetimes, the suit asserts. The Plaintiff is and was a citizen and resident of California. VectraRx is a prescription delivery service in Arizona, providing home delivery of medications for on-the-job and personal injury claims.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 E-mail: zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com VITAS HEALTHCARE: Davis Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Zulfia Davis, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. VITAS HEALTHCARE CORPORATION OF CALIFORNIA, a Delaware Corporation; VITAS HEALTHCARE, a Business of Unknown Formation; and DOES 1 TO 50, Case No. 25STCV01568 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 24, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01572. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts causes of action on a class wide basis for: Failure to Pay All Minimum Wages, Failure to Pay All Overtime Wages, Failure to Provide Rest Periods and Pay Missed Rest Period Premiums, Failure to Provide Meal Periods and Pay Missed Meal Period Premiums, Failure to Maintain Accurate Employment Records, Failure to Pay Wages Timely during Employment, Failure to Pay All Wages Earned and Unpaid at Separation, Failure to Indemnify All Necessary Business Expenditures, Failure to Furnish Accurate Itemized Wage Statements, and Violations of California's Unfair Competition Law.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Spencer C. Skeen, Esq. Jesse C. Ferrantella, Esq. Cameron O. Flynn, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900 San Diego, CA 92122 Phone: 858-652-3100 Facsimile: 858-652-3101 Email: spencer.skeen@ogletree.com jesse.ferrantella@ogletree.com cameron.flynn@ogletree.com WESTERN TRAFFIC CONTROL: Padilla Suit Removed to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Elizabeth Padilla and Armando Bernal, as individuals and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WESTERN TRAFFIC CONTROL, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 24CV07026 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Sonoma, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Feb. 24, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01949. The Complaint alleges 11 class action allegations: failure to pay overtime wages; failure to pay minimum wages; failure to provide meal periods; failure to provide rest periods; waiting time penalties; wage statement violations; failure to timely pay wages; failure to indemnify; failure to pay interest on deposits; violation of labor code and; unfair competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Efthalia S. Rofos, Esq. Spyros Staikos, Esq. O'HAGAN MEYER LLP 4695 MacArthur Court, Suite 900 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Phone: 949.519.2080 Facsimile: 949.519.2110 Email: TRofos@ohaganmeyer.com SStaikos@ohaganmeyer.com WINDY CITY: Battle Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------- ANDRE BATTLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. Windy City Luggage and Repair, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01532 (N.D. Ill., February 13, 2025) is a civil rights action against Windy City Luggage and Repair for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the e Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate heading hierarchy, ambiguous link texts, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, inaccessible contact information, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Windy City Luggage and Repair' 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. Windy City Luggage and Repair, LLC operates the website that sells luggage, backpacks, briefcases, duffel bags, handbags, wallets, carry-ons, laptop bags, luggage accessories, and travel accessories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com [^] Class Action Money & Ethics Conference 2025 -- The Sponsors --------------------------------------------------------------- Registration is ongoing 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. This year's event is sponsored by: (A) Major Sponsors Atticus Administration, LLC Visit at https://www.atticusadmin.com ClaimScore Visit https://www.claimscore.ai Duane Morris LLP Visit https://www.duanemorris.com Esquire Bank Visit https://esquirebank.com Labaton Keller Sucharow Visit https://www.labaton.com Tremendous Visit https://www.tremendous.com (B) Patron Sponsors AB Data Visit https://www.abdataclassaction.com Darrow AI Visit https://www.darrow.ai Miller Kaplan Visit https://www.millerkaplan.com (C) Supporting Sponsors Verita (Kurtzman Carson Consultants, LLC, KCC Class Action Services, LLC, Gilardi & Co., LLC, and RicePoint Administration Inc. have rebranded as Verita) Visit https://veritaglobal.com (D) Media Partners Class Action Insights Visit https://classactionsinsight.com PacerMonitor, a Fitch Solutions Company Visit https://www.pacermonitor.com/dashboard 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 ***