/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250307.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Friday, March 7, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 48 Headlines 219 DOMINICAN VALLE: Soto Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages 800-FLOWERS: Settlement in Foster, et al. Suit Gets Final Court OK ABC COOLING & HEATING: Nielson Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California ALBERTSONS COS: Unjust Enrichment Claim in Trammell Suit Tossed ALCON LABORATORIES: Sells Adulterated Eye Drops, Even Suit Claims AMAZON.COM INC: Korn Sues Over Applicants' Lie Detector Tests AQIDAS TRADING: Fails to Provide Proper Overtime Pay, Davila Says ARCHWAY ENTERPRISES: Faces Lozano Employment Suit in Cal. Super. ARIAT INTERNATIONAL: Garcia Files Class Suit in Cal. State Court BANK OF AMERICA: Bertonis Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties BAYMARK HEALTH: Corralejo Sues Over Unauthorized Info Access BUREAU OFFICE INC: Fagnani Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York CAPITAL ONE: Faces Oganesyan Fraud Class Suit in E.D. Va. CHILDNET YOUTH: Valenzuela Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CLEVELAND CLINIC: Clark Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages COMFRT LLC: Faces Fischer Suit Over False Reference Pricing Scheme COMPANA PET BRANDS: Riggs-Bergesen Sues Over False Representation COSTCO WHOLESALE: Song Alleges Deceptive Products' Mark-up CRATE & BARREL: Cruz Sues Over Failure to Compensate Overtime CREDIT UNION: Villalobos Sues Over Illegal Overdraft Fees CRESCO LABS: Matthews Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois DECARDENAS COMMERCIAL: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property DIGNITY HEALTH: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. DILIGENT CORP: March 10 Deadline Set to Address Class Requirement EASY SPIRIT: Wilson Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Messages EIG MANAGEMENT: Faces Vaccaro Class Suit Over Unwanted Phone Calls FAMILY DUFFEL: Senior Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website FAMOUSFOODS.COM INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Suit Says FLORIDA: Metz Files Social Security Suit in M.D. Florida FORUM HEALTH: Blind Users Can't Access to Online Store, Senior Says GAME OF SILKS: Faces Cantner Securities Suit Over NFTs Purchase GEISINGER HEALTH: Court Remands Doe Case to State Court GEISINGER HEALTH: Doe Privacy Class Action Remanded to State Court GNC HOLDINGS: Dalton Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website GOOD MOLECULES: Alexandria Sues Over Website's Access Barriers GOTHAM COMEDY: Loses Bid to Dismiss Summerville's ACAL Lawsuit HACKENSACK MERIDIAN: Jacobs Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty HCF MANAGEMENT: Kuhlman Files Contract Suit in N.D. Ohio HERTZ CORP: Bid to Dismiss Doller Class Suit Pending HEX NYC: Sumlin Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users HTLC VENTURES: Faces Zachman Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation INDEPENDENCE REALTY: Continues to Defend Sherman Act-Related Suit INTERNATIONAL FOOTBALL: Hanna Balks at Fraudulent Fund Transfer IT'S A NEW 10: Products' Made in the U.S. Ads "False," Corona Says KRAFT HEINZ: Aceto Sues Over Frozen Potato Products Conspiracy LAMB WESTON: Controls Frozen Potato Product Prices, Mirabi Claims LAUNDRESS LLC: March 6 Deadline Set to Oppose Motion to Dismiss LELO INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Knowles Suit Says LG ELECTRONICS: Chan Sues Over Deceptively Dangerous Product LIGHTSPEED COMMERCE: Court Tosses Nath Securities Fraud Lawsuit LIVEWELL PARTNERS: Mills Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Nurses LOANCARE LLC: Wins Summary Judgment Bid in Tederick, et al. Suit LOWE'S HOME: Raygoza Suit Removed From State Court to N.D. Cal. MARS INC: Eavesdrops Website Visitors, Jimenez Suit Alleges MCCORMICK & COMPANY: McCoy Sues Over Products' Made in the U.S. Ads MCKESSON MEDICAL-SURGICAL: Morales Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. MDL 2873: Fleming Sues Over Side Effects of Using AFFF Products MDL 2873: Saporito Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products MICROSOFT CORP: Poaches Content Creators' Commission, Suit Alleges MIZUNO USA: Fails to Secure Employees' Info, Freiburger Suit Says NEOGENOMICS INC: Continues to Defend Goldenberg Class Suit in N.Y. NICOLE CARRAZANA: Gonzalez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Regular Wages NUUN & COMPANY: Website not Accessible to the Blind, Hampton Says PENUMBRA INC: Approval Hearing on Settlement Set for March 11 PETIT VOUR: Faces Alexandria Suit Over Blind's Equal Website Access PETMED EXPRESS: Faces Bird Suit Over False "Sale" Price POKERGO LLC: Discloses Personal Info to Third Party, Suihkonen Says POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Garcia Says POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Valdovinos Balks at Unprotected Personal Info PRACTICALLY PERFECT: Faces Manoli Wage-and-Hour Suit in Mass. RENAISSANCE FMI: Alexandria Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ROBERT MAY: Court Tosses Desmond's Civil Rights Lawsuit ROC OPCO: Faces Vales Suit Over Deceptive Retinol Cleansers RUSH STREET: Ballard-Holmes Sues Over Inadequate Data Security SEMPER LASER: Faces Silvas Class Suit Over Unwanted Phone Calls SIG CRE 2023 VENTURE: 205 Montague Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. SIMONMED IMAGING: Faces Guest Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info SPS TECHNOLOGIES: Greene Files Suit in Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas SSR MINING: Consolidated Securities Class Suit Pending in Colorado STANLEY BLACK: Continues to Defend Rammohan Class Suit in Conn. STIC HOLDINGS: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property STIIIZY INC: Fails to Safeguard Clients' Info, Ruiz Suit Alleges TAX SERVICES: Tanner Suit Removed to N.D. California TELESCENTS INC: Danso Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website TOYOTA MOTOR: Corolla Vehicles Have Defective Brakes, Infante Says TRADE DESK: United Union Sues Over Misleading Company Statements TRANSMEDICS GROUP: Jewik Sues Over Misleading Company Statements TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: Court Stays Aguilar-Tafoya Insurance Lawsuit TYSON FOODS: Kidd Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages UNITED PARCEL: Continues to Defend Baker Class Suit in Washington UNITED STATES: Dalton Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind US JUNIOR: Martinez Balks at Anticompetitive Tying Arrangements VENUS FASHION: Freund Sues Over Misleading Retail Price Discounts WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Palakurthi Loses Bid to Strike Rule 12(c) Motion WEEE! INC: Jia Sues Over Violations of Property, Privacy Rights YEHUDA SHMIDMAN: D'Arcy Settlement Plan of Allocation Okayed YEHUDA SHMIDMAN: Lead Counsel Fee Request in D'Arcy Suit Okayed YEHUDA SHMIDMAN: Settlement in D'Arcy Suit Obtains Final Court Nod Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Cos. Defends Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemours Has 800 Pending PI Lawsuits at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate-Palmolive Reports 309 Pending Cases ASBESTOS UPDATE: Constellation Energy Estimates $125MM Liabilities ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Defends Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Entergy Corp. Faces 185 Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Freeport-McMoRan Faces Numerous PI Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Faces 35,400 Exposure Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Int'l. Defends Personal Injury Claims ASBESTOS UPDATE: NewMarket Corp. Defends PI Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Faces 364 Product Liability Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Cos. Has $1.34BB Reserves at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vontier Corp. Has $104.6MM Liabilities at Dec. 31 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Watts Water Defends Product Liability Lawsuits ASBESTOS UPDATE: Westinghouse Air Brake Faces Exposure Claims ********* 219 DOMINICAN VALLE: Soto Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Ada Soto (a.k.a. Yuri), individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. 219 DOMINICAN VALLE CORP. (d/b/a MESON RESTAURANT), MAFARDA GONZALEZ and ORLANDO VASQUEZ, Case No. 1:25-cv-01596 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 25, 2025), is brought for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), for violations of the N.Y. Labor Law (the "NYLL"), and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor (herein the "Spread of Hours Wage Order"), including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without receiving the applicable minimum wage, overtime and spread of hours compensation for the hours that she worked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of her hours worked, failed to pay the Plaintiff the applicable minimum wage, and failed to pay her appropriately for any hours worked over 40, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which she had to work over 10 hours a day. Furthermore, Defendants repeatedly failed to pay the Plaintiff wages on a timely basis, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants from December 18, 2023 until November 6, 2024 at Meson Restaurant. The Defendants owned, operated, and/or controlled a Caribbean restaurant located in Bronx, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE ESQ. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Phone: (212) 317-1200 800-FLOWERS: Settlement in Foster, et al. Suit Gets Final Court OK ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Honorable Andre Birotte, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Central District of California granted the plaintiff's unopposed motion for final approval of the class action settlement in the case captioned as TESSIBLE "SKYLER" FOSTER; MARIE SCOTT; and KRISTA BAUMBACH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. 800-FLOWERS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-07441-AB-PVC (C.D. Cal.). The Court finds good cause to grant the Motion. The Court finds the Settlement Agreement was negotiated at arm's length, entered into in good faith, is fair, reasonable, and adequate, and satisfied the standards and applicable requirements for final Approval of this class action settlement pursuant to Rule 23(e)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the requirements of due process and applicable law. The Court finds Class Counsel and Plaintiffs adequately represented the Settlement Class for purposes of entering into and implementing the Settlement and Settlement Agreement Class Counsel is entitled to an Attorneys' Fee Award and reimbursement for costs as indicated by separate order. The Court finds such award is fair and reasonable in light of the nature of this case, Class Counsel's experience and efforts in prosecuting the Action, and the benefits obtained for the Settlement Class. Plaintiffs are each awarded a Service Award as indicated by separate order. The Court finds such awards are fair and reasonable in light of: (a) Plaintiffs' risks in commencing this Action (including financial, professional, and emotional) as a class representative; (b) the time and effort spent by Plaintiffs litigating the Action as class representatives; and (c) Plaintiffs' service rendered in the public interest. Pursuant to Rule 23(e)(2) the Court approves certification of the following Settlement Class: All Persons who purchased Celebrations Passport in California on or after September 7, 2019, through May 31, 13 2022, and who incurred at least one automatic renewal charge for Celebrations Passport that was not fully refunded. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=g4xzgf from PacerMonitor.com. ABC COOLING & HEATING: Nielson Files TCPA Suit in E.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ABC Cooling & Heating Services, LLC. The case is styled as Rodney Nielson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ABC Cooling & Heating Services, LLC Doing business as: Allbritten, The Barefoot Plumber, Case No. 1:25-cv-00241-KES-SKO (E.D. Cal., Feb. 25, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. ABC Cooling & Heating Services, LLC doing business as Allbritten, The Barefoot Plumber -- https://allbritten.com/ -- is an air conditioning contractor in Fresno, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Elizabeth Kaufman, Esq. KAUFMAN PA 237 South Dixie Highway. 4th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33133 Phone: (305) 469-5881 Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com ALBERTSONS COS: Unjust Enrichment Claim in Trammell Suit Tossed --------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Anthony J. Battaglia of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted in part and denied in part Albertsons Companies Inc.'s motion to dismiss the first amended complaint filed by the plaintiff pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, 9(b), 12(b)(1), and 12(b)(6) in the case captioned as MARK TRAMMELL, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ALBERTSONS COMPANIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 24-cv-00862-AJB-AHG (S.D. Cal.). Plaintiff filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss. Plaintiff is a resident and citizen of California. Defendant Albertsons Companies formulates, manufactures, and sells under its in-house generic brand, Signature Selects, the Signature Select Fruit & Grain cereal bars, Blueberry and Strawberry flavors. On or about June 10, 2023, Plaintiff viewed and purchased the Products from a Vons Market -- a subsidiary of Albertsons -- in Carlsbad, California. The packaging for the Products states it is “Naturally Flavored.” Albertsons discloses the presence of malic acid in the ingredient list on the back of the Products' packaging. Plaintiff alleges these representations on Albertsons' packaging are false and misleading because the Products are flavored using an artificial flavoring, DL malic acid, that is derived from petrochemicals. Plaintiff also contends he reasonably relied on the labels' statements and would not have purchased the Products or would have only been willing to pay a substantially reduced price for the Products had he known about Albertsons' alleged misrepresentation. On May 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed a class action complaint against Albertsons, alleging claims for: (1) violations of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code Sec. 1750, et seq.; (2) unjust enrichment; and (3) breach of express warranty. On Nov. 25, 2024, the Court granted in part and denied in part Albertsons' motion to dismiss Trammel's Complaint. By the present motion, Albertsons moves pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8, 12(b)(1), and 12(b)(6) to dismiss Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim (Count II) and request for injunctive relief in the FAC. Specifically, Albertsons argues: (1) California does not recognize a separate cause of action for unjust enrichment; (2) even if California recognized a separate cause of action for unjust enrichment, Plaintiff has not shown that his legal remedies are inadequate; and (3) Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue a claim for injunctive relief. Unjust Enrichment Plaintiff seeks actual damages under the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 1750 et seq., and his claim for breach of express warranty. He does not allege that damages are inadequate. Instead, Plaintiff alleges he pleads this cause of action in the alternative in the event that he has an inadequate remedy at law. Because Plaintiff fails to assert he has no adequate remedy at law, the Court grants Albertsons' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim with leave to amend. Injunctive Relief By way of Count 1 under the CLRA, Plaintiff seeks an order enjoining Albertsons from engaging in alleged deceptive labeling practices. The Court finds Plaintiff's allegation that an injunction would drive down the price of Albertsons' Products is based on pure conjecture and is insufficient to state a cognizable claim for injunctive relief. The Court concludes Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue his claim for injunctive relief and that claim is dismissed. Because the deficiencies identified cannot be cured by amendment of the FAC, the Court dismisses Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief without leave to amend. Should Plaintiff choose to do so, he may file a Second Amended Complaint by March 13, 2025. Albertsons must file a responsive pleading no later than March 27, 2025. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=26ps7N from PacerMonitor.com. ALCON LABORATORIES: Sells Adulterated Eye Drops, Even Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- KATHY EVEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALCON LABORATORIES INC., and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00574 (D. Colo., February 20, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligent misrepresentation/omission, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendants' manufacturing, advertising, marketing, and selling of over-the-counter eye care products, including Systane Lubricant Eye Drops Ultra PF, Single Vials On-the-Go, 25 count, which contains Polyethylene Glycol and Propylene Glycol. The Defendant acknowledged that the Systane Lubricant Eye Drops Ultra PF is adulterated and contaminated with fungus but continued to advertise and market the product. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers suffered damages. Alcon Laboratories Inc. is a pharmaceutical and medical device company, with its principal place of business in Fort Worth, Texas. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thiago M. Coelho, Esq. Chumahan B. Bowen, Esq. Jennifer M. Leinbach, Esq. Reuben A. Aguirre, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM, PLC 3055 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 381-9988 Facsimile: (213) 381-9989 Email: thiago.coelho@wilshirelawfirm.com chumahan.bown@wilshirelawfirm.com jennifer.leinbach@wilshirelawfirm.com reuben.aguirre@wilshirelawfirm.com AMAZON.COM INC: Korn Sues Over Applicants' Lie Detector Tests ------------------------------------------------------------- Justin Korn, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Amazon.com, Inc., Defendant, Case No. ____ (Mass. Super., Suffolk Cty., February 18, 2025) arises from the Defendant's alleged violation of the Mass. Gen. Laws. Mass. Gen. Laws requires all applications for employment within the Commonwealth to contain a notice of job applicants' and employees' rights concerning lie detector tests. Despite this abundantly clear mandate, the Defendant does not provide such written notice of rights in its Massachusetts job applications, says the suit. In or around August 2024, while located in Massachusetts, Plaintiff applied for three Massachusetts-based jobs with Defendant: the Test Engineer, Mechatronics & Sustainable Packaging-Systems Engineering Integration Testing position; the Functional Safety Engineer, Functional Safety position; and the Sr. Product Quality Engineer, Amazon Robotics position. However, in his Amazon job applications, the Plaintiff was not provided the notice of his rights concerning lie detector tests that is required by Mass. Gen. Laws. Amazon.com, Inc. is an American multinational technology company which focuses on e-commerce, cloud computing, and digital streaming.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David S. Godkin, Esq. James E. Kruzer, Esq. BIRNBAUM & GODKIN, LLP 1 Marina Park Drive, Suite 1410 Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 307-6100 E-mail: godkin@birnbaumgodkin.com kruzer@birnbaumgodkin.com - and - Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Matthew A. Girardi, Esq. Julian C. Diamond, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com mgirardi@bursor.com jdiamond@bursor.com AQIDAS TRADING: Fails to Provide Proper Overtime Pay, Davila Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- TOMAS NARCISO DAVILA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AQIDAS TRADING, INC. (D/B/A Q MARQET) and HAK S. MEIER, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01385 (S.D.N.Y., February 18, 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 Davila was employed as a food preparer, salad maker, and stocker at the deli located in New York. He worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage and overtime, for the hours that he worked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked, failed to pay him appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium, says the Plaintiff. Aqidas Trading, Inc. owns, operates, and controls a deli in New York under the name "Q Marqet."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 ARCHWAY ENTERPRISES: Faces Lozano Employment Suit in Cal. Super. ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Archway Enterprises, INC. The case is captioned as Johnathan Lozano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Archway Enterprises, INC., Case No. 25CECG00397 (Cal. Super., Fresno County, Jan. 22, 2025). The suit is brought over alleged employment law violation of the Defendant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Rose, Esq. 23901 Calabasas Rd Ste 2072 Calabasas, CA 91302-3303 Telephone: (818) 225-9040 Facsimile: (818) 225-9042 E-mail: adam@starrlaw.com ARIAT INTERNATIONAL: Garcia Files Class Suit in Cal. State Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Ariat International, Inc., d/b/a www.ariat.com. The case is captioned as SILVIA GARCIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ARIAT INTERNATIONAL, INC., a California corporation, d/b/a WWW.ARIAT.COM, Case No. 25STCV01746 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., January 21, 2025). Ariat International, Inc., doing business as www.ariat.com, is a footwear and clothing manufacturer in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS, APC 4100 Newport Place Drive, Suite 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Telephone: (949) 706-6464 BANK OF AMERICA: Bertonis Sues Over Breach of Fiduciary Duties -------------------------------------------------------------- James Bertonis, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION and MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED, Case No. 1:25-cv-01601 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 25, 2025), is brought to recover damages arising out of Defendants' unlawful conduct related to their Sweep Programs as breach of their fiduciary duties. Under the Sweep Programs, Defendants swept idle customer cash into interest-bearing accounts at banks selected by and affiliated with Defendants. The cash sweep accounts were highly lucrative for Defendants and their banks but paid unreasonably low, below-market interest rates to customers. As such, Defendants used the Sweep Programs to generate massive revenue for themselves at the expense of their customers. The Defendants' use of the Sweep Programs to enrich themselves by paying unreasonably low interest rates to customers breached their fiduciary duties and contractual obligations and violated several state and federal laws including the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO Statute") and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 ("Advisers Act"). Indeed, on January 17, 2025, the SEC announced that it had charged Merrill with "willfully" violating the Advisers Act in connection with the Sweep Programs. The SEC found that Merrill "swept billions of dollars in client cash into its Sweep Program annually," "earned advisory fees on Sweep Program assets," and "was credited with revenue from affiliated banking entities based in part on the spread earned by banking affiliates on the Sweep Program." Despite these "significant financial benefits" to Merrill and its banking affiliates, "the yields advisory clients received from the Sweep Program were often significantly lower than the yields clients could have received had Merrill Lynch made other options available as part of the cash Sweep Programs." As a result, the SEC determined that Merrill failed to adopt and implement policies and procedures to consider their clients' best interest when evaluating potential sweep options for cash held in advisory accounts and to ensure that cash held in an advisory account is properly managed by financial advisers consistent with a client's investment profile. Merrill agreed to pay a civil penalty of $25 million to settle the charges and undertook remedial actions including increasing sweep interest rates paid to advisory clients, says the complaint. The Plaintiff held both a traditional brokerage account and a Roth IRA account with Merrill. Bank of America Corporation is one of the largest financial services firms in the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Rees, Esq. Rene Alan Gonzalez, Esq. Scott Dion, Esq. Stephen R. Astley, Esq. ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP 225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: (561) 750-3000 Fax: (561) 750-3364 Email: arees@rgrdlaw.com rgonzalez@rgrdlaw.com sdion@rgrdlaw.com sastley@rgrdlaw.com - and - Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq. Mary Ellen Conner, Esq. William W. Stone, Esq. JOHNSON FISTEL, LLP Murray House 40 Power Springs Street Marietta, GA 30064 Phone: 470/632-6000 Email: michaelf@johnsonfistel.com maryellenc@johnsonfistel.com williafms@johnsonfistel.com BAYMARK HEALTH: Corralejo Sues Over Unauthorized Info Access ------------------------------------------------------------ CAROLE CORRALEJO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BAYMARK HEALTH SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-00174-ALM (E.D. Tex., February 20, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, declaratory judgment and injunctive relief, and violations of California's Unfair Competition Law and California Customer Records Act. 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 September 24, 2024, and October 14, 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. Baymark Health Services, Inc. is an organization that provides medical treatment and/or employment in 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 - Liberato P. Verderame, Esq. Marc H. Edelson, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 Email: medelson@edelson-law.com lverderame@edelson-law.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com BUREAU OFFICE INC: Fagnani Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bureau Office, Inc. The case is styled as Mykayla Fagnani, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. Bureau Office, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-01611 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 25, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Bureau is a creative agency based in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey Michael Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 E. 18 St., Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Email: nyjg@aol.com michael@gottlieb.legal CAPITAL ONE: Faces Oganesyan Fraud Class Suit in E.D. Va. --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Capital One Financial Corporation, et al. The case is captioned as Edgar Oganesyan, Karina Grace Puttieva, and Matthew Ely, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Capital One Financial Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00113-AJT-WBP, Lead Case No. 1:25-cv-00023-AJT-WBP (E.D. Va., Jan. 22, 2025). The nature of suit states Fraud demanding $5,000,000 in damages. The case is assigned to the District Judge Anthony J. Trenga. The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ari Cherniak, Esq. Hammondlaw, P.C. 1201 Pacific Avenue, Ste. 600 Tacoma, WA 98402 Telephone: (559) 917-4917 E-mail: acherniak@hammondlawpc.com - and - Douglas James McNamara, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC (DC-NA) 1100 New York Ave NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20005-3964 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com CHILDNET YOUTH: Valenzuela Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ChildNet Youth and Family Services, Inc. The case is styled as Ashley Valenzuela, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. ChildNet Youth and Family Services, Inc., Case No. 25STCV05358 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 25, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." ChildNet Youth and Family Services -- https://www.childnet.net/ -- is a private, nonprofit, 501(c)(3) organization that offers innovative programs to young people and their families.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan M. Genish, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442 Phone: 855-786-6355 Fax: 855-786-6356 Email: jgenish@blackstonaepc.com CLEVELAND CLINIC: Clark Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- HOLLEY J. CLARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE CLEVELAND CLINIC FOUNDATION, d/b/a CLEVELAND CLINIC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00323 (N.D. Ohio, February 18, 2025) is a class action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act seeking compensatory, statutory, exemplary, and punitive damages, declarative and injunctive relief, as well as attorneys' fees, costs, and such other relief as the Court may deem just and appropriate. Plaintiff Clark has been employed by Defendant since approximately 2013 as a non-exempt employee, including since approximately May 2021 as a remote worker with the job title of case management assistant. The Plaintiff asserts that instead of compensating her and the members of the FLSA Collective and State Law Class at one and one-half times their regular hourly rates for hours more than 40 hours per workweek, the Defendant paid them less than one and one-half times their regular hourly rates for hours more than 40 hours per workweek. The Defendant shortchanged her and other non-exempt employees and failed to pay overtime compensation through unlawful practices that do not pay all overtime hours worked, says the Plaintiff. Cleveland Clinic is a multinational healthcare provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph F. Scott, Esq. Ryan A. Winters, Esq. Kevin M. McDermott, II, Esq. SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC 11925 Pearl Rd., Suite 308 Strongsville, OH 44136 Telephone: (216) 912-2221 Facsimile: (440) 846-1625 E-mail: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com - and - Seth R. Lesser, Esq. Christopher M. Timmel, Esq. KLAFTER LESSER LLP Two International Drive, Suite 350 Rye Brook, NY 10573 Telephone: (914) 934-9200 E-mail: seth@klafterlesser.com christopher.timmel@klafterlesser.com COMFRT LLC: Faces Fischer Suit Over False Reference Pricing Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------------ ANNA FISCHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COMFRT LLC, a Florida limited liability company; and DOES 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-01574 (C.D. Cal., Feb. 24, 2025) alleges that the Defendant is engaged in unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practice of advertising fictitious prices and corresponding phantom discounts on nearly every product sold through its website, https://comfrt.com/. According to the complaint, the advertised discounts are fictitious because the reference price does not represent a bona fide price at which COMFRT previously sold a substantial quantity of the merchandise for a reasonable period of time. Through its false and misleading marketing, advertising, and pricing scheme, COMFRT violated and continues to violate California law. Specifically, COMFRT violated and continues to violate: California's Unfair Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law, the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and the Federal Trade Commission Act, the suit says. The Plaintiff seeks damages, injunctive relief, and other appropriate relief as a result of COMFRT's sales of merchandise offered at a false discount. The Plaintiff also seeks reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, as this lawsuit seeks the enforcement of an important right affecting the public interest and satisfies the statutory requirements for an award of attorneys' fees. Comfrt, through its website, offers hoodies, sweatpants, blankets, and other clothing items.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kevin J. Cole, Esq. W. Blair Castle, Esq. KJC LAW GROUP, A.P.C. 9701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1000 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 861-7797 E-mail: kevin@kjclawgroup.com COMPANA PET BRANDS: Riggs-Bergesen Sues Over False Representation ----------------------------------------------------------------- Catherine Riggs-Bergesen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COMPANA PET BRANDS LLC and PREMIUM NUTRITIONAL PRODUCTS, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-01067 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 25, 2025), is brought on behalf of purchasers of Defendants' "ZuPreem" pet food products that claim to be "natural" and its false and/or misleading representation in violations of New York General Business Law. To capitalize on the preference of health-conscious pet owners who seek pet food that is free from synthetic ingredients, Defendants prominently represent that the Products are "natural." However, this representation is false and/or misleading because the Products contain multiple synthetic ingredients, including but not limited to pyridoxine hydrochloride, citric acid, D-calcium pantothenate, folic acid, tocopherols, dl-methionine, menadione sodium bisulfite complex, and copper sulfate. On February 2025, the Plaintiff purchased ZuPreem Natural Bird Food For Medium Birds from a PetSmart in Kingston, New York. In purchasing the Products, The Plaintiff relied on Defendants' false, misleading, and deceptive marketing of the Products as "natural." The Plaintiff understood that "natural" meant that the Products did not contain any synthetic ingredients, but in fact, the Products she purchased did contain multiple synthetic ingredients, including pyridoxine hydrochloride, citric acid, D-calcium pantothenate, folic acid, tocopherols, dl-methionine, menadione sodium bisulfite complex, and copper sulfate. Had the Plaintiff known that Defendants' "natural" representation was false and misleading, she would not have purchased the Products or would have only been willing to purchase the Products at a lesser price, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a purchaser of Defendants' Products. The Defendants advertise, market, manufacture, distribute, and sell the Products throughout the United States, including in the State of New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alec Leslie, Esq. Julian C. Diamond, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Phone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 Email: aleslie@bursor.com jdiamond@bursor.com COSTCO WHOLESALE: Song Alleges Deceptive Products' Mark-up ---------------------------------------------------------- ANNIE SONG, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. COSTCO WHOLESALE CORPORATION, Case No. : 25-2-01943-8SEA (Wash Super., Jan. 22, 2025) seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief from Costco arising from its misrepresentations and material omissions regarding its deceptive mark-up of products sold online at Costco.com and its untruthful promises to provide free or flat, low-cost delivery on orders placed through its website. According to the complaint, Costco prominently advertises that it will "waive" the delivery fee on all orders that meet a certain monetary threshold, and provide low, flat-rate delivery on all orders that fall below that monetary threshold. Contrary to those express promises, and unbeknownst to consumers, Costco adds the cost of delivery to the price of many of its online products. In other words, the identical product costs more when ordered through Costco.com than it does when bought in the store, because of surreptitiously added delivery costs, says the suit. This hidden delivery upcharge makes Costco’s representation that consumers are paying "$0.00" for delivery patently false. The true delivery costs are obscured; by baking the cost of delivery in with the price of the product, delivery is not "$0.00." To make matters worse, Costco explicitly promises it will not deceive consumers in this manner. On its website, Costco promises consumers it will disclose whenever a product is more expensive online than the same product offered for sale in-store by stating on the product page that the "item may be available in your local warehouse for a lower, non-delivered price," the suit added. Accordingly, despite its express representation, Costco routinely omits this material message and fails to disclose to consumers in those instances that they will be paying more for a product sold on Costco.com than if they had purchased the same exact product in-store at their local Costco Warehouse. Costco's misrepresentations and omissions are material to consumers. Costco deceives consumers into making online orders that they otherwise would not make and has caused them to suffer monetary injury by paying more for items than they otherwise would have had they purchased those same items in-store. 8. By failing to disclose the truth to consumers about its hidden delivery charges, Costco deceives consumers and gains an unfair upper hand on competitors that fairly disclose their true pricing practices online, the suit further asserts. Costco offers a range of products, including electronics, computers, furniture, outdoor living, appliances, jewelry, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kim D. Stephens, Esq. Cecily C. Jordan, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 Facsimile: (206) 682-2992 E-mail: kstephens@tousley.com cjordan@tousley.com - and - Sophia G. Gold, Esq. KALIELGOLD PLLC 490 43rd Street, Suite 122 Oakland, CA 94609 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: sgold@kalielgold.com CRATE & BARREL: Cruz Sues Over Failure to Compensate Overtime ------------------------------------------------------------- Jose Cruz, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated persons v. CRATE & BARREL HOLDINGS, INC.; RXO LAST MILE, INC.; ABC CORPS. 1-10; and JANE AND JOHN DOES 1- 10, Case No. 3:25-cv-01435 (D.N.J., Feb. 24, 2025), is brought against Defendants for the willful failure to compensate Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals for overtime wages, seeking all relief available under the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL"). The Plaintiff and the putative class members routinely work far in excess of 40 hours per week for Defendants and are not paid 1.5 times their regular hourly wage rate or 1.5 times the minimum wage rate when they work over 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff and the putative class members are paid on a daily, flat-fee basis, regardless of the number of hours they actually work in excess of 40 hours per week. The Defendants' ongoing, unlawful policy and/or practice of failing to pay Plaintiff and the putative class members for all time worked has resulted in Plaintiff and the putative class members being denied substantial legally-required compensation and/or overtime payments given that Plaintiff and the putative class members routinely work(ed) in excess of 40 hours per week, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants from 2023 until 2024 and performed truck driving services of C&B furniture and goods from the Cranbury Facility to C&B's various customer locations. The Defendant C&B is an international retailer of furniture, housewares, and home décor with over 100 stores and franchise partners.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ravi Sattiraju, Esq. SATTIRAJU & THARNEY, LLP 50 Millstone Road, Building 300, Suite 202 East Windsor, NJ 08520 Phone: (609) 469-2110 Facsimile: (609) 228-5649 Email: rsattiraju@s-tlawfirm.com CREDIT UNION: Villalobos Sues Over Illegal Overdraft Fees --------------------------------------------------------- VIRIDIANA VILLALOBOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CREDIT UNION OF AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 6:25-cv-01029 (D. Kan., February 19, 2025) is a class action suit against Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated customers on the basis that Defendant has violated the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E. According to the complaint, the Defendant has economically harmed Plaintiff and its other customers through the use of deceptive, unclear, and ambiguous language which fails to notify its customers of Defendant's true overdraft fee practices and accordingly fails to provide customers like Plaintiff and the putative class with the ability to plan their finances effectively to avoid these onerous fees. Because Regulation E prohibits banks from charging any overdraft fees on one time debit card and ATM transactions without first obtaining affirmative consent based on a proper and accurate disclosure of its overdraft practices as presented in a stand-alone opt-in disclosure agreement, the Defendant's assessment of overdraft fees on one-time debit card and ATM transactions against consumers who were opted-in has been and continues to be illegal, the suit alleges. Credit Union of America is a credit union with its principal place of business in Wichita, Sedgwick County, Kansas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Richard S. Fisk, Esq. BEAM-WARD, KRUSE, WILSON & FLETES, LLC 8645 College Boulevard, Suite 250 Overland Park, KS 66210 Telephone: (913) 339-6888 Facsimile: (913) 339-9653 E-mail: rfisk@bkwflaw.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Facsimile: (317) 636-2593 E-mail: ltoops@cohenmalad.com CRESCO LABS: Matthews Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Josh Matthews, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CRESCO LABS, INC.; CRESCO LABS, LLC; CRESCO U.S. CORP.; CRESCO EDIBLES, LLC; TSC CRESCO, LLC; CRESCO LABS JOLIET, LLC; CRESCO LABS KANKAKEE, LLC; CRESCO LABS LOGAN, LLC; CRESCO LABS NOTES ISSUER, LLC, Case No. 2025CH00388 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, State of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on Feb. 24, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-01928. The Plaintiff alleges that Cresco manufactures, markets, labels, and packages its vape products improperly as "smokeable concentrates" when these products should be, according to Plaintiff, labeled as cannabis infused products ("CIPs"). Based on these allegations, Plaintiff asserts seven causes of action: a violation of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act; a violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act; common law fraud; fraudulent concealment; breach of express warranty; breach of implied warranty; and unjust enrichment.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laura Luisi, Esq. Jamie Holz, Esq. LUISI HOLZ LAW 161 N. Clark St., Suite 1600 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 639-4478 Email: LuisiL@luisiholzlaw.com HolzJ@luisiholzlaw.com - and - James B. Zouras, Esq. Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. Anna M. Ceragioli, Esq. Teresa M. Becvar, Esq. Justin M. Caparco, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLC 222 W. Adams Street, Suite 2020 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312.233.1550 Fax: 312.233.1560 Email: jzouras@stephanzouras.com rstephan@stephanzouras.com aceragioli@stephanzouras.com tbecvar@stephanzouras.com gkimmons@stephanzouras.com The Defendants are represented by: William C. O'Neil, Esq. Sean H. Suber, Esq. Kelly Mannion Ellis, Esq. Savannah L. Murin, Esq. Tyree Petty-Williams, Esq. WINSTON & STRAWN LLP 35 W. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 558-5600 Fax: (312) 558-5700 Email: woneil@winston.com ssuber@winston.com kmannion@winston.com smurin@winston.com tpettywilliams@winston.com - and - Joshua L. Harris, Esq. 600 W. Fulton Street, Suite 800 Chicago, IL 60661 Email: josh.l.harris@crescolabs.com DECARDENAS COMMERCIAL: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property -------------------------------------------------------------- Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. DECARDENAS COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-20855-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. DECARDENAS COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, LLC, owned and operated a commercial property.[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 DIGNITY HEALTH: Martinez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Dignity Health. The case is styled as Z., S., a minor, by and through their guardian, Yesenia Martinez, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Dignity Health, Case No. CGC25622663 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., Feb. 24, 2025). The case type is stated as "Personal Injury/Property Damage." Dignity Health -- https://www.dignityhealth.org/ -- provides compassionate, high-quality, affordable health care services throughout Arizona, California and Nevada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 402 W. Broadway, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 858-209-6941 Email: jnelson@milberg.com DILIGENT CORP: March 10 Deadline Set to Address Class Requirement ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Analisa Torres of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York ordered plaintiffs in the case captioned as FRED WHELAN and MEGAN ELLIS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, -against- DILIGENT CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:22-cv-07598-AT (S.D.N.Y.) to file a letter brief addressing the application of Rule 23 to the California Settlement Subclass by March 10. Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement. As part of their motion, Plaintiffs seek preliminary approval of a California Settlement Subclass, which would include all Settlement Class Members who resided in California on May 23, 2023. When exercising its discretion to certify subclasses, a court must assure itself that each subclass independently meets the requirements of Rule 23. Plaintiffs have not provided any indication or estimate of the California Settlement Subclass' numerosity. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vfEHJM from PacerMonitor.com. EASY SPIRIT: Wilson Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Messages ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Easy Spirit, LLC. The case is captioned as CHET MICHAEL WILSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EASY SPIRIT, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00112-SFR (D. Conn., January 22, 2025). The suit is brought against the Defendant for alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Easy Spirit, LLC is a footwear company based in Connecticut. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, PC 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 485-0018 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com EIG MANAGEMENT: Faces Vaccaro Class Suit Over Unwanted Phone Calls ------------------------------------------------------------------ DAVE VACCARO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, E I G MANAGEMENT d/b/a/ ECO STAR REMODELING & CONSTRUCTION; and DOES 1-10 Inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-00556-FMO-AS (C.D. Cal., Jan. 22, 2025) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Beginning Oct. 2024, the Defendant contacted Plaintiff on Plaintiff’s cellular telephone number ending in -3928, in an attempt to solicit Plaintiff to purchase Defendant's services. The Plaintiff's cellular telephone number ending in -3928 was added to the National Do-Not-Call Registry since July 2, 2003. The Plaintiff estimates that he has received over ten (10) calls from Defendant. The Defendant's calls constituted calls that were not for emergency purposes as defined by 47 U.S.C. section 227(b)(1)(A), says the suit. EIG operates as an investment company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd M. Friedman, Esq. Adrian R. Bacon, Esq. Matthew R. Snyder, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C. 21031 Ventura Blvd., Suite 340 Woodland Hills, CA 91364 Telephone: (323) 306-4234 Facsimile: (866) 633-0228 E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com abacon@toddflaw.com msnyder@toddflaw.com FAMILY DUFFEL: Senior Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website --------------------------------------------------------------- FRANK SENIOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE FAMILY DUFFEL INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01474 (S.D.N.Y., February 20, 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://tobiqtravel.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. The Family Duffel 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 FAMOUSFOODS.COM INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- MYKAYLA FAGNANI, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. FAMOUSFOODS.COM, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-01570 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 24, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.famousfoods.com/, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). During the Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on Feb. 21, 2025, in an attempt to purchase Heritage Mills Milk Lunch Crackers and to view the information on the Website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied her a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public, the suit claims. The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer frustration and humiliation as a result of the discriminatory conditions present on Defendant's Website. These discriminatory conditions continue to contribute to Plaintiff's sense of isolation and segregation, the suit adds. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to The blind and visually-impaired consumers. Ms. Fagnani is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. Famousfoods.Com operates the Famous Foods online interactive Website which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services including information about Defendant's: foods, cookware, and kitchen gadget.[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 FLORIDA: Metz Files Social Security Suit in M.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Michelle King, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, et al. The case is captioned as ANDREA METZ, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MICHELLE KING, Acting Commissioner of Social Security, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-00052-SPC-NPM (M.D. Fla., January 21, 2025). The Plaintiffs bring social security claims against the Defendants. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bezalel Adin Stern, Esq. Douglas J. Smith, Esq. MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS 1050 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (301) 922-5039 (202) 585-6508 Email: BStern@manatt.com DJASmith@manatt.com - and - Joshua N. Drian, Esq. MANATT, PHELPS AND PHILLIPS 2049 Century Park East, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 312-4000 Email: jdrian@manatt.com - and - Michael Alan Steinberg, Esq. MICHAEL A. STEINBERG & ASSOCIATES 4925 Independence Pkwy., Suite 195 Tampa, FL 33634 Telephone: (813) 221-1300 Facsimile: (813) 221-1702 Email: frosty28@aol.com FORUM HEALTH: Blind Users Can't Access to Online Store, Senior Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- FRANK SENIOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FORUM HEALTH & PERSONAL CARE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01473 (S.D.N.Y., February 20, 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.ever.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. Forum Health & Personal Care, 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 GAME OF SILKS: Faces Cantner Securities Suit Over NFTs Purchase --------------------------------------------------------------- CARY CANTNER, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. GAME OF SILKS, INC., DAN NISSANOFF, TROY LEVY, TROPICAL RACING, INC., RON LUNIEWSKI, and DEREK CRIBBS, Case No. 9:25-cv-80262 (S.D. Fla., Feb. 24, 2025) is a class action suit under Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of all purchasers of Game of Silks NFTs who were damaged thereby. The Plaintiff contends that members of the Class are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. While the exact number of Class members is unknown to Plaintiff at this time and can only be ascertained through appropriate discovery, the Plaintiff believes that there are hundreds of members in the proposed Class. Members of the Class may be identified by the Defendants' own databases, cryptocurrency exchange databases, and blockchain data. Upon information and belief, these non-fungible tokens (NFTs) were held by hundreds of individuals located geographically throughout the country and world. For example, in an update on the Fourth Quarter 2022 performance provided in January 2023, the team stated that there were more than 25,000 online community members and there were 4,600 wallets that owned 15,000 in-game assets. The sales and/or solicitations of the sale of the Securities used the internet as a means or instrument of communication in interstate commerce. For example, the Defendants promoted and sold the NFTs through the official Game of Silks website, as well as through major NFT marketplaces such as OpenSea. These platforms were accessible to individuals across state lines and internationally, allowing Defendants to reach a broad audience of potential buyers through internet-based advertisements and promotions. The Defendants also utilized social media platforms, including Twitter and Discord, to communicate with potential investors and solicit sales of the NFTs. These digital communications were integral to the sale of the Securities and facilitated the use of interstate commerce to market, promote, and ultimately sell the NFTs to a global audience. The Defendants created a company to build a computer game called Game of Silks that brought real-life horse racing to the metaverse. Participants could invest in virtual versions of real racehorses and, when the racehorses won at the race track, the owners of the virtual horses would win real money—roughly 1% of the racehorse's real earnings. Defendants promoted the game as a way for investors like the Plaintiff and the Class (defined below) to get the virtual experience of owning and managing racehorses and see a healthy return on their investment as the game succeeded. The Game of Silk software relied on cryptocurrency and web3 technologies. Specifically, investors could purchase various crypto assets that would allow them own avatars (which were like jockeys), racehorses, parcels of land, and stables in the game's metaverse. Each of these crypto assets were sold as NFTs that could be purchased and sold in the online economy. For example, the Defendants released two "seasons" of racehorse NFTs (the Horse NFTs), and each season was a collection that represented real racehorses born in one year. The Defendants also promised that the investors could combine their parcels of Land NFTs in the game's metaverse in order to build stables, where they could earn money by charging rent to stable other players' Horse NFTs. Since many of the real-life race horses would never win in real races and therefore never win money in the virtual game, the Defendants promised that the investors could diversify their risks by owning shares of horses or combining their horse collections with other investors in a syndication process. The Defendants raised millions of dollars from these sales. For example, the first collection of NFTs -- the Avatar NFTs—sold more than 7,358 units as of June 22, 2024, at a price of 0.2 ETH1 each. At current exchange rates, this would be more than $4 million. The 8,525 Season 1 Horse NFTs were sold for up to $750 each, which could have raised up to $6.3 million. The Defendants also sold Land NFTs and Season 2 NFTs for substantial amounts of money.After the Season 1 Horse NFTs were issued, at first the Defendants paid out the winnings as they said that they would, distributing more than half a million dollars to owners of thousands of horses. Based on the promises and promotions of the Defendants, the Plaintiff and other members of the Class invested millions of dollars in these NFTs. Like many other crypto projects, the Defendants relied heavily on the community of investors. They fostered this comradery in online forums and chatrooms, such as Discord, Twitter, and YouTube. They held dozens of Ask Me Anything sessions, where corporate representatives and the Defendants would present the plans for the Company, discuss the details of the NFTs, and take questions from the community. The Defendants were in near constant contact with the Plaintiff and the Class as a whole in order to promote the game and the sale of the NFTs. The Game of Silks game was designed to replicate the real-world horse racing industry in a virtual setting, allowing users to assume roles similar to those in the actual sport. Through the use of various NFTs, players could immerse themselves in the roles of horse owners, stable managers, landowners, and syndicate members. Purchasers of the NFTs would win money when their corresponding real-life horses won races. The first NFT that the Defendants offered was the Silks Avatar NFTs, which looked like digital racing jockeys. A blockchain is a decentralized digital ledger generally associated with the transfer and recording of digital currencies (cryptocurrencies) and digital assets. It operates across a distributed network, maintaining a shared, permanent record of all transactions. Traditional ledgers, like those managed by banks, are centrally controlled and validated by a single trusted authority. In contrast, blockchains operate through a decentralized network, where no single entity controls the ledger. This structure allows for more transparent ownership tracking and less reliance on central authority. Plaintiff Cantner purchased the Game of Silks NFTs and was damaged thereby. The Defendant is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of Delaware. Game of Silks' principal place of business is in Boca Raton, Florida. The sale and marketing of the NFTs took place throughout the United States, utilizing multiple platforms accessible nationwide, thereby supporting jurisdiction and venue in this court.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua W. Ruthizer, Esq. Chet B. Waldman, Esq. Matthew Insley-Pruitt, Esq. Terrence Zhang, Esq. WOLF POPPER LLP E-mail: jruthizer@wolfpopper.com cwaldman@wolfpopper.com minsley-pruitt@wolfpopper.com tzhang@wolfpopper.com - and - Max Burwick, Esq. BURWICK LAW, PLLC 43 West 43rd Street, Suite 114 New York, NY 10036 E-mail: max@burwick.law GEISINGER HEALTH: Court Remands Doe Case to State Court ------------------------------------------------------- Judge Julia K. Munley of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania remanded the case captioned as JANE DOE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. GEISINGER HEAL TH and DOE ENTITIES 1-99, Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-01525 (M.D. Pa.) the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1447(c). The Court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction over this case. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=utUeXY from PacerMonitor.com. GEISINGER HEALTH: Doe Privacy Class Action Remanded to State Court ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Julia K. Munley of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania remanded the case captioned as JANE DOE, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff v. GEISINGER HEALTH and DOE ENTITIES 1-99, Defendants, Case No. 23-cv-01525-JKM (M.D. Pa.) to Lackawanna Court of Common Pleas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1447(c). Before the court is a class action complaint filed against Defendants Geisinger Health and Doe Entities 1-99 by Plaintiff Jane Doe on behalf of all others similarly situated. According to the complaint, Defendant Geisinger Health operates hospitals and medical clinics in Pennsylvania, as well as a website, www.Geisingerhealth.org, which includes digital tools that Geisinger encourages patients to use to seek and receive health services. Plaintiffs complaint alleges that she has been a patient of Geisinger, and she has used its website and patient portal to communicate about her medical conditions and treatments. Generally, plaintiff claims that Geisinger installed advertising technology—the Meta Pixel and Google Tag Manager—on its public website and patient portal. Plaintiff avers that when patients used the website and portal, these web analytics tools caused personal health information and personally identifiable information to be improperly transmitted to Meta Platforms, Inc. and Google. Based on these assertions, plaintiff instituted the instant class action. Initially, she filed suit in the Lackawanna County Court of Common Pleas, and Geisinger removed the case to this court. The next day, plaintiff filed an amended complaint in this court. The amended complaint contains the following four state law causes of action: -- Count I, Violation of Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, 18 PA. CON. STAT. Sec. et seq.; -- Count II, Invasion of Privacy- Intrusion Upon Seclusion under Pennsylvania law; -- Count Ill, Breach of Duty of Confidentiality under Pennsylvania law; and -- Count IV, Unjust Enrichment under Pennsylvania law. The amended complaint contains no causes of action based upon federal law, and the parties are not diverse. In its Notice of Removal, Geisinger indicates that this case is removable pursuant to the Federal Officer Removal statute, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1442(a)(1 ). This statute provides subject matter jurisdiction to this court regarding certain officers of the United States and private persons who lawfully assist a federal officer in the performance of his official duty to remove a case to federal court. After the defendants filed the Notice of Removal, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion regarding the application of the Federal Officer Removal statute to actions such as the instant case. The Third Circuit focused on the second requirement for section 1442(a)(1) applicability, that is, whether the plaintiff's claims are based upon the defendant "acting under" the United States, its agencies, or its officers. Defendant alleges that 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1442(a)(1) applies because its actions were undertaken pursuant to the Meaningful Use Program . In support of its notice of removal, the defendant cites to a case where a similar state court action (Doe 1 v. UPMC, No. 20-cv-359, 2020 WL 4381675, at *6 (W.D. Pa. July 31 , 2020) was found to have been properly removed to federal court. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, however, has since held that they reject the court's holding in Doe 1. Accordingly, Doe 1 does not provide persuasive authority for defendant's position. Because defendant's notice of removal relies on arguments that have been rejected by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to establish that the Federal Officer Removal Statute applies, the court concludes that removal is inappropriate, and the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The court will thus remand this case to the Lackawanna Court of Common Pleas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1447(c). A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CesML8 from PacerMonitor.com. GNC HOLDINGS: Dalton Suit Seeks Blind's Equal Access to Website --------------------------------------------------------------- JULIE DALTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GNC HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-00661 (D. Minn., February 20, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.gnc.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. By failing to provide its website's content and services in a manner that is compatible with auxiliary aids, the Defendant has engaged, directly, or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements, in illegal disability discrimination. 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. GNC Holdings, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services, headquartered in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 South 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 Email: chad@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com GOOD MOLECULES: Alexandria Sues Over Website's Access Barriers -------------------------------------------------------------- ERIKA ALEXANDRIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOOD MOLECULES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01467 (S.D.N.Y., February 20, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 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, www.goodmolecules.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: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Good Molecules, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com GOTHAM COMEDY: Loses Bid to Dismiss Summerville's ACAL Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Edgardo Ramos of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Gotham Comedy Foundation, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the case captioned as NOAH SUMMERVILLE, Plaintiff, – against – GOTHAM COMEDY FOUNDATION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 24-cv-01484-ER (S.D.N.Y.). Noah Summerville brings this action against the Gotham Comedy Foundation, Inc., alleging that they charged him convenience fees when he purchased tickets online in violation of the New York Arts & Cultural Affairs Law Sec. 25.07(4). Summerville alleges that Gotham's conduct violated ACAL because Gotham: (1) failed to disclose the total cost of a ticket, inclusive of all ancillary fees after the ticket was selected; (2) increased the total cost of the tickets during the purchase process; and (3) failed to disclose in a clear and conspicuous manner the portion of the ticket price stated in dollars that represents a service charge, or any other fee or surcharge to the purchaser. Summerville seeks to enjoin Gotham's conduct and recover fifty dollars in statutory damages and reasonable attorney fees. Before the Court is Gotham's motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Gotham argues that: (1) Summerville lacks standing; (2) it did not violate the ACAL; (3) the voluntary payment doctrine bars Summerville's claims; and (4) Summerville does not meet the amount in controversy threshold to establish federal diversity jurisdiction. Gotham argues that Summerville lacks standing because he merely suffered an informational injury. Gotham did not disclose the service fee of $4.50 until after Summerville selected the seat, in violation of the ACAL, which requires that the ticket price shall not increase during the purchase process. As a result, Summerville paid an extra $4.50 per ticket, a concrete economic injury that confers standing in the instant case, the Court finds. Gotham additionally argues that Summerville lacks standing to seek injunctive relief because at most he only suffered a past injury. Summerville does not allege that he intends to return to the Comedy Club in the future and therefore does not show a likelihood of future injury. According to the Court, this precludes Summerville from having standing to seek injunctive relief either for himself or on behalf of a putative class. Accordingly, Gotham's motion to dismiss Summerville's claim is granted insofar as it requests injunctive relief, the Court holds. Because later Summerville ultimately had to pay $24.50 per ticket to purchase the tickets, the total cost of the tickets necessarily increased during the purchasing process. Accordingly, Summerville stated a claim that Gotham violated the ACAL, the Court concludes. Summerville adequately alleges that Gotham failed to disclose the total cost of a ticket including the service fee after he selected the tickets. Because of the alleged lack of full disclosure, the voluntary payment doctrine is not a basis to dismiss Summerville's motion at this juncture, the Court finds. Amount in Controversy Gotham makes two arguments regarding the amount of controversy: (1) the statutory penalty of $50 is constitutionally excessive; and (2) Summerville does not meet the amount in controversy threshold to establish federal diversity jurisdiction. At this juncture, the Court does not pass on the constitutionality of the $50 statutory penalty imposed by the ACAL. In this case, Summerville seeks to recover $50 and to certify a class that numbers at at least in the thousands. Gotham challenges whether Summerville meets the CAFA threshold of $5,000,000. Gotham argues that Summerville's damages are limited to the actual damage of $4.50 per ticket, and that he would therefore need to allege that more than 1,111,000 people are in the class, which he does not do. According to the Court, setting aside the size of the class, Gotham's argument does not render Summerville's claim patently impossible to a legal certainty. Again, to dismiss Summerville's claims, Gotham must show that Summerville cannot recover the claimed amount, not that he does not allege sufficient fact to establish Article III jurisdiction. And Gotham failed to demonstrate it in this case, the Court concludes. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jQPnlK from PacerMonitor.com. HACKENSACK MERIDIAN: Jacobs Sues for Breach of Fiduciary Duty ------------------------------------------------------------- DEIDRA JACOBS, DENNIS LUBRIN, JACQUELINE JACK, and LUANNE RAZON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HACKENSACK MERIDIAN HEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-01272 (D.N.J., February 14, 2025) is a class action brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 against the Consolidated 403(b) Plan of Hackensack Meridian Health, the HMH 401(k) Savings Plan, and the Consolidated Defined Contribution Plan of Hackensack Meridian Health, for breaches of its fiduciary duties. The Plaintiffs allege that during the putative Class Period, Defendant, as fiduciary of the Plans, breached the duties it owed to the Plans, to Plaintiffs, and to the other participants of the Plans by, inter alia, failing to pay reasonable fees for recordkeeping and administration services with respect to the 403(b) Plan, 401(k) Plan, and the Defined Contribution Plan, and objectively and adequately review the Plans' investment portfolio, initially and on an ongoing basis, with due care to ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of performance. Based on this conduct, the Plaintiffs, who participated in the Plans, assert claims against Defendant for breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence. Hackensack Meridian Health, Inc. is the sponsor of the Plans and a named fiduciary of the Plans with a principal place of business in Edison, New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq. James A. Maro, Esq. CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster Road Merion Station, PA 19066 Telephone: (610) 890-0200 Facsimile: (717) 232-3080 E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com jamesm@capozziadler.com HCF MANAGEMENT: Kuhlman Files Contract Suit in N.D. Ohio -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against HCF Management Inc., et al. The case is captioned as DAVID KUHLMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HCF MANAGEMENT INC., et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-00111-JJH (N.D. Ohio, January 21, 2025). The Plaintiff brings contract suit against the Defendants. HCF Management Inc. is a nursing agency in Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy. Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 221-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 Email: ecfnotices@sanfordlawfirm.com HERTZ CORP: Bid to Dismiss Doller Class Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------- Hertz Corp. 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 Doller securities class suit dismissal motion is pending before in the Florida Middle District Court. On May 31, 2024, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida (the "Florida Middle District Court"), captioned Edward M. Doller v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc. et al. (No. 2:24-CV-00513). On September 30, 2024, an amended complaint was filed, following the Florida Middle District Court's appointment of a lead plaintiff and a lead counsel. The amended complaint asserts claims against Hertz Global, former Company CEO, Stephen M. Scherr, and former Company Chief Financial Officer, Alexandra Brooks, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, including concerning statements regarding demand for EVs. Plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of a putative class, consisting of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Hertz Global's securities between January 6, 2023 and April 24, 2024. The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages, together with interest, attorneys' fees and other costs. Hertz Global filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on October 30, 2024. On December 19, 2024, the Florida Middle District Court stayed all proceedings, pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss. Hertz Corp. and its subsidiaries -- http://www.hertz.com/-- operate a worldwide vehicle rental business under the Hertz, Dollar, and Thrifty brands, with car rental locations in North America, Europe, Latin America, Africa, Asia, Australia, the Caribbean, the Middle East, and New Zealand. They also operate a vehicle leasing and fleet management solutions business. HEX NYC: Sumlin Seeks Equal Website Access for Blind Users ---------------------------------------------------------- DENNIS SUMLIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Hex NYC, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01406 (S.D.N.Y., February 19, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website, https://www.hexnyc.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Plaintiff browsed and intended to make a reservation on Hexnyc.com. Despite his efforts, however, the Plaintiff was denied an online experience like that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations. Unless Defendant remedies the numerous access barriers on its website, the Plaintiff and Class members will continue to be unable to independently navigate, browse, use, and make a reservation on Hexnyc.com. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Hex NYC's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Hex NYC, LLC operates the website which provides consumers with access to tabletop gaming events and playing cards, including the ability to make reservations and host private events.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Asher H. Cohen, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP LLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 914-9694 E-mail: acohen@ealg.law HTLC VENTURES: Faces Zachman Suit Over Unpaid Wages, Retaliation ---------------------------------------------------------------- BRITTANY ZACHMAN and ALISON ALLEN, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. HTLC VENTURES, INC., a Florida limited liability company d/b/a HOLLERBACH'S GERMAN RESTAURANT and f/k/a WILLOW TREE CAFÉ, CHRISTINA M. HOLLERBACH, an individual, LINDA M. HOLLERBACH, an individual, and THEODOR R. HOLLERERBACH a/k/a THEO HOLLERBACH, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 6:25-cv-00275 (M.D. Fla., February 19, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and other damages pursuant to the Florida Minimum Wage Amendment and the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants violated the laws by: a. failing to pay the Plaintiffs and other similarly situated servers and bartenders the proper minimum wage; b. misappropriating server and bartender tips to supplement the income of back-of-the-house employees who were ineligible to share in an employer mandated tip pool; c. failing to inform Plaintiffs and other similarly situated servers and bartenders of all the information required to take a tip credit; and making payroll deductions for work uniforms to be worn at Hollerbach's and/or otherwise shifting an operating expense for uniforms to servers and bartenders. Plaintiff Zachman was employed as a server by Defendants from May 15, 2022 to January 19, 2025. Plaintiff Allen initially worked for the Defendants as a hostess from February 2018 to October 11, 2022. Around March 2018, she began working as a server. HTLC VENTURES, INC., a Florida limited liability company d/b/a Hollerbach's German Restaurant, operates as a full-service, German-themed restaurant and bar in Sanford, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Peter J. Bober, Esq. Samara Robbins Bober, Esq. BOBER & BOBER, P.A. 2699 Stirling Road, Suite A-304 Hollywood, FL 33312 Telephone: (954) 922-2298 E-mail: peter@boberlaw.com samara@boberlaw.com INDEPENDENCE REALTY: Continues to Defend Sherman Act-Related Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Independence Realty Trust Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the annual period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Sherman Act-related class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Starting around November 2022, putative class action representatives began filing complaints in various United States District Courts across the country naming as defendants RealPage, Inc. ("RealPage"), a seller of revenue management products, and approximately 50 defendants who own and/or manage multifamily residential rental housing, alleging that the defendants conspired to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize rent prices in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and requesting damages thereunder. Some of the complaints, including one filed on November 14, 2022 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, named the Company as one of the defendants, and others did not. On April 10, 2023, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order transferring the cases to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee for coordinated and consolidated pretrial proceedings, where plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint. The Company filed an answer to the consolidated complaint and asserted affirmative defenses. It denies all allegations of wrongdoing and are currently defending, and will continue to defend against these claims vigorously. Independence Realty Trust, Inc., owns well-located apartment properties in geographic submarkets that support strong occupancy and have the potential for growth in rental rates. INTERNATIONAL FOOTBALL: Hanna Balks at Fraudulent Fund Transfer --------------------------------------------------------------- WILL J. HANNA, on behalf of the Baltimore Lightning Professional Football Franchise and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTERNATIONAL FOOTBALL ALLIANCE; JASON ADAMS, Director of Operations, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00496-GLR (D. Md., February 18, 2025) is a class action complaint brought by the Plaintiff regarding the transfer of funds under fraudulent pretenses and/or means to defraud by putting forth a scheme to obtain funds under the guise of a professional football league. The International Football Alliance and Jason Adams, its chief executive, created a quasi-professional football league and began its recruitment of potential franchises in April, 2023. The league was intended as an "international" sports league in which its member franchises would receive certain benefits because of membership in the IFA, the league. Since 2023, the league, at the direction of Jason Adams, did willfully and fraudulently devised a scheme to receive funds from potential franchise owners, to include the Plaintiff in this matter. This scheme involves persons across the United States and Mexico including, but not limited to: Portland, OR; Las Vegas, NV; Toledo, OH; Mexico City, Mexico, Guadalajara, Mexico; Costa Rica, Huntsville, AL; Tampa, FL; Baltimore, MD and potentially dozens of others. The Plaintiff and others similarly situated cites 18 U.S. Code Section 2314 in reference that the Defendants did in fact obtain and receive funds totaling more than the statutory amount $5,000. In this case, the Plaintiff and others suffered losses of more than $500,000 as a result of the scheme implemented by the Defendants. The International Football Alliance is a proposed professional, outdoor, 11-man American football summer minor league that will operate internationally in both Mexico and the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. IT'S A NEW 10: Products' Made in the U.S. Ads "False," Corona Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ MARIA CORONA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. IT'S A NEW 10, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00377-GPC-BLM (S.D. Cal., February 20, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, and California's False Advertising Law, breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and intentional misrepresentation. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of haircare products. The Defendant advertised and sold the products to consumers as "Made in the USA." However, the Defendant's products contain foreign-made and/or incorporates foreign-made components. Had the Plaintiff and other consumers similarly situated been made aware that the Defendant's products contained a substantial amount of ingredients sourced from outside of the United States, they would not have purchased the products. It's A New 10, LLC is a manufacturer of haircare products, headquartered in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Gil Melili, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 Email: ak@kazlg.com gil@kazlg.com KRAFT HEINZ: Aceto Sues Over Frozen Potato Products Conspiracy -------------------------------------------------------------- BARBARA ACETO, COLLEEN ALLISON, AMY CROSS, and DUSTIN METROKA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE KRAFT HEINZ CO.; LAMB WESTON HOLDINGS, INC.; LAMB WESTON, INC.; LAMB WESTON BSW, LLC; LAMB WESTON/MIDWEST, INC.; LAMB WESTON SALES, INC.; MCCAIN FOODS LIMITED; MCCAIN FOODS USA, INC.; J.R. SIMPLOT CO.; CAVENDISH FARMS LTD; and CAVENDISH FARMS, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-01911 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 24, 2025) contends that the Defendants acted in concert to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of frozen french fries, hash browns, tater tots, and other frozen potato products, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The Defendants control more than 97% of the $68 billion per year-Frozen Potato Products market. To conceal their conspiracy, Lamb Weston told its managers to communicate about competitor pricing and business intelligence using texting instead of emails to avoid creating emails that could be discovered in the event of an antitrust investigation, the suit alleges. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and in a representative capacity on behalf of a Class of indirect purchasers of Frozen Potato Products for end use and not for resale as frozen products, under Section 1 of the Antitrust Act of 1890, and Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Antitrust Act, seek relief against the Defendants for their conspiracy to fix prices of frozen potato products in the United States from at least as early as January 1, 2021, through the date by which the anticompetitive effects of their violations of law shall have ceased, but in any case no earlier than the present. During the Class Period, the Plaintiffs each purchased Frozen Potato Products, including at least Ore-Ida brand Frozen Potato Products, indirectly from Defendants Kraft Heinz and Simplot in New York and Florida, respectively, for end use and not for resale. Kraft Heinz was formed in 2015 through the merger of Kraft Foods Group, Inc. and H.J. Heinz Holding Corporation.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Vincent Briganti, Esq. Sitso Bediako, Esq. Peter A. Barile III, Esq. Nicole Veno, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com sbediako@lowey.com pbarile@lowey.com nveno@lowey.com - and - Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq. Alexander E. Barnett, Esq. Geralyn J. Trujillo, Esq. Jonathan S. Crevier, Esq. Noah L. Cozad, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP 485 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1001 New York, NY 10017 Telephone: (646) 933-1000 E-mail: gasciolla@dicellolevitt.com abarnett@dicellolevitt.com gtrujillo@dicellolevitt.com jcrevier@dicellolevitt.com ncozad@dicellolevitt.com - and - Stacey P. Slaughter, Esq. Caitlin E. Keiper, Esq. ROBINS KAPLAN LLP 800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 349-8500 Facsimile: (612) 349-4181 E-mail: sslaughter@robinskaplan.com ckeiper@robinskaplan.com - and - Robert J. Bonsignore, Esq. BONSIGNORE TRIAL LAWYERS PLLC 23 Forest Street Medford, MA 02155 Telephone: (781) 856-7650 E-mail: rbonsignore@classactions.us LAMB WESTON: Controls Frozen Potato Product Prices, Mirabi Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- MIRABI, INC. d/b/a DOWN THE HATCH; M.B.R.P. REST. INC. d/b/a THE STUMBLE INN; THIRD AVE. REST., INC. d/b/a JAKE'S DILEMMA; 442 AMSTERDAM REST., CORP. d/b/a THE GIN MILL; MACDOUGAL REST. INC. d/b/a OFF THE WAGON; 149 SECOND AVE. REST. INC. d/b/a DOWNTOWN SOCIAL; 134 WEST 3RD ST REST INC. d/b/a 3 SHEETS; 168 ORCHARD ST PARTNERS, INC. d/b/a HAIR OF THE DOG; 587 KING STREET RESTAURANT LLC d/b/a UPTOWN SOCIAL; 23 ANN STREET RESTAURANT LLC d/b/a SHAREHOUSE; and 414 WEST COLEMAN RESTAURANT LLC d/b/a BODEGA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LAMB WESTON HOLDINGS, INC.; LAMB WESTON, INC.; LAMB WESTON BSW, LLC; LAMB WESTON/MIDWEST, INC.; LAMB WESTON SALES, INC.; MCCAIN FOODS LIMITED; MCCAIN FOODS USA, INC.; J.R. SIMPLOT CO.; CAVENDISH FARMS LTD; and CAVENDISH FARMS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01770 (N.D. Ill., February 20, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, state antitrust laws, state consumer protection laws, and common law. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged conspiracy to raise, fix, stabilize or maintain prices on frozen potato products above competitive levels. The Defendants synchronized their price increases multiple times per year since at least early-2021. As a result of the Defendants' combination and conspiracy, frozen potato product prices in the United Stats have been artificially inflated through the Class Period, from January 1, 2021, to the present, causing the Plaintiff and other commercial, industrial, and institutional indirect purchasers to suffer damages. Mirabi, Inc., d/b/a Down the Hatch, is a foodservice business with its primary place of business in New York, New York. M.B.R.P. Rest. Inc., d/b/a The Stumble Inn, is a foodservice business with its primary place of business in New York, New York. Third Ave. Rest., Inc., d/b/a Jake's Dilemma, is a foodservice business with its primary place of business in New York, New York. 442 Amsterdam Rest., Corp., d/b/a The Gin Mill, is a foodservice business with its primary place of business in New York, New York. Macdougal Rest. Inc., d/b/a Off the Wagon, is a foodservice business with its primary place of business in New York, New York. 149 Second Ave. Rest. Inc., d/b/a Downtown Social, is a foodservice business with its primary place of business in New York, New York. 134 West 3rd St Rest Inc., d/b/a 3 Sheets, is a foodservice business with its primary place of business in New York, New York. 168 Orchard St Partners, Inc., d/b/a Hair of the Dog, is a foodservice business with its primary place of business in New York, New York. 587 King Street Restaurant LLC, d/b/a Uptown Social, is a foodservice business with its primary place of business in Charleston, South Carolina. 23 Ann Street Restaurant LLC, d/b/a Sharehouse, is a foodservice business with its primary place of business in Charleston, South Carolina. 414 West Coleman Restaurant LLC, d/b/a Bodega, is a foodservice business with its primary place of business in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina. Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc. is a producer, distributor, and marketer of frozen potato products, headquartered in Eagle, Idaho. Lamb Weston, Inc. is a subsidiary of Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc. Lamb Weston BSW, LLC is a subsidiary of Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc. Lamb Weston/Midwest, Inc. is a subsidiary of Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc. Lamb Weston Sales, Inc. is a subsidiary of Lamb Weston Holdings, Inc. McCain Foods Limited is a producer of frozen potato products, with its corporate headquarters in Toronto, Canada. McCain Foods USA, Inc. is a subsidiary of McCain Foods Limited based in Oakbrook Terrace, Illinois. J.R. Simplot Co. is a producer of frozen potato products, with its headquarters in Boise, Idaho. Cavendish Farms Ltd. is a producer of frozen potato products, with its headquarters in Dieppe, New Brunswick, Canada. Cavendish Farms, Inc. is a subsidiary of Cavendish Farms Ltd., with its principal place of business in North Dakota. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC 111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700 Chicago, IL 60604 Telephone: (312) 984-0000 Email: malmstrom@whafh.com - and - Thomas H. Burt, Esq. Kate McGuire, Esq. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP 270 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-4600 Email: burt@whafh.com mcguire@whafh.com - and – Michelle S. Carino, Esq. GREENWICH LEGAL ASSOCIATES, LLC 881 Lake Avenue Greenwich, CT 06831 Telephone: (203) 622.6001 Email: mcarino@grwlegal.com - and - Blaine Finley, Esq. FINLEY PLLC 1455 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (281) 723-7904 Email: bfinley@finley-pllc.com LAUNDRESS LLC: March 6 Deadline Set to Oppose Motion to Dismiss --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Jesse M. Furman of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York set a deadline of March 6 for any plaintiff to oppose the cross-motion filed by The Laundress, LLC to dismiss Margaret Murphy's claims in the consolidated class action complaint captioned as Ostenfeld v. The Laundress, LLC (In Re Laundress Marketing and Product Liability Litigation), Case No. 22-cv-10667-JMF (S.D.N.Y.). Any reply must be filed by March 11. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NTFxUZ from PacerMonitor.com. LELO INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Knowles Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- CARLTON KNOWLES, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LELO INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01354 (S.D.N.Y., February 14, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, www.lelo.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, New York State Human Rights Law, New York City Human Rights Law, and New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on February 10, 2025, in an attempt to purchase Remote-Controlled Couples' Massager Tiani 3 from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied him a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. He was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Lelo Inc. operates the interactive website that sells sex toys and massage products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal LG ELECTRONICS: Chan Sues Over Deceptively Dangerous Product ------------------------------------------------------------ Justin Chan, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. LG ELECTRONICS USA INC., a New Jersey corporation, Case No. 2:25-cv-01445 (D.N.J., Feb. 24, 2025), is brought against the Defendant concernong a deceptively dangerous product and its manufacturer's inadequate recall efforts. On February 6, 2025, Defendant and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission ("CPSC") announced the recall of over 500,000 slide-in and freestanding electric ranges spanning 22 different model numbers. The recall concerns the front-mounted knobs on the ranges, which can be activated by accidental contact by humans or pets, posing a fire hazard. At the time of the recall, Defendant and the CPSC were aware of at least 86 reports of unintentional activation of the front mounted knobs. The recalled ranges have been involved in more than 28 fires, some of which caused extensive property damage totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars. Id. Burn injuries have also been reported, as well as three fires that involved pet deaths. The Defendant and CPSC warned consumers to "use the Lock Out/Control Lock function on the range control panel to disable activation of the heating elements when the range is not in use." Id. Consumers were also warned to "keep children and pets away from the knobs, to check the range knobs to ensure they are off before leaving home or going to bed, and not to leave objects on the range when the range is not in use." And yet Defendant refuses to give customers any money back for these defective products. Instead, Defendant implemented a deficient recall that allows it to say they are doing the right thing, when in fact the primary objective is to protect their bottom line. By design, the recall received very little publication, with the result that the response rate has been low. An offer to provide a free warning label does little good when Defendant did the bare minimum possible to let people know about the recall. This approach benefits Defendant by minimizing the cost and burden of the recall. The Plaintiff files this class action lawsuit to seek all available relief to consumers, to raise awareness that Defendant's ranges are a hazard, and to encourage companies to take greater care in avoiding the production and sale of hazardous products in the first place, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased an LG range. The Defendant is engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, producing, advertising, selling, and/or distributing the various types of appliances, including the ranges.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joel D. Smith, Esq. Aleksandr "Sasha" Litvinov, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 867 Boylston Street, 5th Floor, Ste. 1520 Boston, MA 02116 Phone: 617-377-7404 Email: joel@skclassactions.com sasha@skclassactions.com - and - Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC 166 Geary Street, Ste. 1500-1507 San Francisco, CA 94108 Phone: 415-839-7000 Email: yeremey@skclassactions.com LIGHTSPEED COMMERCE: Court Tosses Nath Securities Fraud Lawsuit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Brian M. Cogan of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted the defendants' motion to dismiss class action lawsuit captioned as KISHORE NATH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, - against - LIGHTSPEED COMMERCE INC., DAX DASILVA, and BRANDON BLAIR NUSSEY, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-06365-BMC (E.D.N.Y.). Lightspeed is a Canadian software as a service, or SaaS, company that markets and licenses its proprietary software products to businesses. It is traded on both the Toronto Stock Exchange and the New York Stock Exchange. During the putative class period -- September 11, 2020, through September 28, 2021 -- defendant Dax Dasilva was its CEO and defendant Brandon Blair Nussey was its CFO. Nath's claims stem from the interplay between these revenue streams and Lightspeed's strategic and value-enhancing acquisitions of three other SaaS companies: ShopKeep, Inc.; Upserve, Inc.; and Vend Limited. During and after this acquisition spree, as Nath describes it, Lightspeed and the individual defendants made various statements about the purposes of the acquisitions. Nath contends that Lightspeed's representations about the acquisitions were misleading and, in some cases, false. Virtually all the amended complaint's allegations are lifted from a report published by Spruce Point, a short seller, purporting to demonstrate that Lightspeed used the acquisitions to hide its declining organic subscription revenue and customer growth. Nath filed suit shortly after the Spruce Point report was published. The amended complaint asserts securities-fraud claims under Sec. 10(b) of the Exchange Act and related claims under Sec. 20(a) seeking to hold the two individual defendants liable. Defendants have moved to dismiss the entire action, and in response, Nath raised the three bases: (1) Lightspeed's misrepresentation of its organic revenue growth, (2) Lightspeed's misrepresentation of its organic customer-base growth, and (3) Lightspeed's misrepresentation of its rationale for acquiring various competitors Nath alleges that, despite Lightspeed's proffered rationales, the acquisitions were in fact meant only to inflate Lightspeed's organic customer growth count and organic subscription revenue. He relatedly alleges that because Lightspeed was interested only in inflating its numbers, it never intended to integrate the acquirees, despite assuring investors it would. According to the Court, even if one credits Nath's conclusory assertion that defendants wanted to mask Lightspeed's declining growth rate with the acquisitions, their statements were not rendered misleading by the failure to disclose that agenda. Again, defendants never asserted that the stated reasons were the only reasons it wanted to acquire the companies. On top of that, Nath runs into a familiar problem. Because defendants had already disclosed that the acquisitions were motivated by growing Lightspeed's customer base, defendants had no duty to re-disclose, the Court notes. Judge Cogan holds that Lightspeed never misrepresented its profitability, and Nath does not even accuse it of that. The concept of profit is not necessarily related to whether a company generates its revenue through internal growth or by acquisition. The question before him is whether Lightspeed misrepresented the source of its revenue, how it grew its customer base, or its reasons for buying out competitors, and if so, whether it mattered. The amended complaint fails at the first step. Judge Cogan finds that it alleges no plausible reasons why Lightspeed's statements were false or misleading, and defendants had no duty to disclose—or, in some cases, had already disclosed—the information Nath claims they fraudulently withheld. Accordingly, defendants' motion is granted. Judge Cogan adds that because Nath has not pled a Sec. 10(b) claim, his Sec. 20(a) claims also fail. The case is dismissed. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1PWFkx from PacerMonitor.com. LIVEWELL PARTNERS: Mills Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Nurses -------------------------------------------------------------- CHERIE MILLS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIVEWELL PARTNERS HOLDINGS INC., LIVEWELL PARTNERS LLC, and HOPE HOME CARE, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00050-TMR-PBS (S.D. Ohio, February 20, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff has been employed by the Defendants as a registered nurse from approximately November 2020 through the present. Livewell Partners Holdings Inc. is a home care provider doing business in Ohio. Livewell Partners LLC is a home care provider doing business in Ohio. Hope Home Care, LLC is a home care provider doing business in Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq. Adam C. Gedling, Esq. Kelsie N. Hendren, Esq. Tristan T. Akers, Esq. COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC 1550 Old Henderson Rd., Suite #126 Columbus, OH 43220 Telephone: (614) 949-1181 Facsimile: (614) 386-9964 Email: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com agedling@mcoffmanlegal.com khendren@mcoffmanlegal.com takers@mcoffmanlegal.com LOANCARE LLC: Wins Summary Judgment Bid in Tederick, et al. Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Raymond A. Jackson of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted LoanCare, LLC' motion for summary judgment in the case captioned as GARY TEDERICK and LISA TEDERICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LOANCARE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-394 (E.D. Va.). Plaintiffs Gary and Lisa Tederick oppose the Motion. On Sept. 20, 2022, the Tedericks filed a Complaint seeking class action status and alleging that LoanCare violated fair debt collection provisions of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act, W. Va. Code Sec. 46A-2-122 et seq., benefited from unjust enrichment, and converted their funds. On Jan. 27, 2023, LoanCare filed its first motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(7) for failure to join necessary parties under Rule 19. On Oct. 2, 2023, the Court granted LoanCare's Rule 12(b)(6) motion on the Tedericks' fraud-based claims in Count I and their Unjust Enrichment claim in Count II. The Court dismissed those claims without prejudice and granted leave to amend. The Court denied LoanCare s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) Motion on the Tedericks' remaining statutory claims in Count I and their conversion claim in Count III. The Court also denied LoanCare's Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(7) motion. On Oct. 25, 2023, the Tedericks filed a Second Amended Complaint. On Nov. 8, 2023, LoanCare filed a Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). On March 21, 2024, the Court granted the Motion to Dismiss on Counts Two and Three of the Second Amended Complaint and denied the Motion on Count One. The Tedericks built their home in 2002 in Hedgesville, West Virginia. On March 4, 2004, they decided to refinance their home by taking out a loan from Mid-States Financial Group, Inc. using a Note backed by a Deed of Trust and held by the Federal National Mortgage Association. The terms of the loan required the Tedericks to make scheduled monthly payments of $875.36 to the Note Holder beginning May 1, 2004, with any remaining amounts owed in full on April 1, 2034. Interest was to be charged on unpaid principal until the full amount of Principal has been paid. The Tedericks frequently made Prepayments during the life of the loan. When making payments, the Tedericks often wrote one check containing their monthly payment amount and a Prepayment amount, specifying in the memo line that a Prepayment amount was included in the total. According to the Second Amended Complaint, the loan accrued scheduled interest, meaning the Tedericks did not owe interest on the loan until the scheduled monthly payments were due. Between 2005 and 2020 the Tedericks made 180 payments containing both a scheduled monthly payment and a Prepayment ("combined payment") before the monthly payment due date. For at least 152 of those payments, a servicer failed to apply the Prepayment and scheduled monthly payment in the correct order. Instead, the servicer applied the scheduled monthly payment, then the Prepayment. On or around Sept. 5, 2020, the Tedericks requested a payoff statement from LoanCare, which LoanCare provided on Sept. 14, 2020. On around Sept. 21, 2020, the Tedericks paid the loan in full. Because LoanCare misapplied their combined payments, the Tedericks claim LoanCare charged them undue interest. The Tedericks argue that LoanCare's collection of amounts under the Tedericks' mortgage loan violates the fair debt collection provisions of the WVCCPA. Specifically, the Tedericks argue that LoanCare has violated Sections 46A-2-127(d) and 46A-2-128. LoanCare argues that they are entitled to judgment in their favor because there has been violation of the WVCCPA, let alone an intentional violation. It argues that there was no legal proceeding in which a false representation was made. LoanCare asserts that interest was expressly authorized by the terms of the Tedericks' note, and that charging interest cannot violate the WVCCPA. It contends that two cases from district courts in West Virginia in which the courts rejected WVCCPA claims are substantially similar to this case. In response, the Tedericks argue that the Court should dismiss LoanCare s Motion for Summary Judgment on the basis that LoanCare's own evidence is contradictory. The Tedericks also argue that a their payments, as well as related sequencing, contradiction pertaining to daily interest accrual negates the facts LoanCare has set forth. Tedericks contend that these are trial-worthy contradictions. They further argue that LoanCare has failed to clarify or resolve any material ambiguity the Court identified. The WVCCPA's purpose supports Summary Judgment in LoanCare's favor. Judge Jackson explains, "It is important to clarify the central issue here. To be sure, LoanCare may have misapplied the Tedericks' Prepayments resulting in LoanCare receiving unearned interest. But the question is not simply whether and to what extent LoanCare got this wrong. The proper inquiry is whether LoanCare meant to get it wrong. The proper inquiry is whether LoanCare engaged in an unfair, illegal, and deceptive act or practice. The proper inquiry is whether the Tedericks have suffered harm that triggers the WVCCPA. The Tedericks have not demonstrated that there is a genuine dispute as to any fact regarding these questions. Judge Jackson holds that merely finding that LoanCare misapplied Prepayments does not make Summary Judgment inappropriate. Nothing in the record suggests that LoanCare engaged in fraudulent, deceptive or misleading representations or means to collect or attempt to collect claims or to obtain information concerning consumers. Likewise, there is nothing unfair or unconscionable about the way LoanCare applied the Prepayments. The Tedericks have not met their burden by offering sufficient evidence to show the existence of a genuine dispute as to a material fact. The evidence reveals that, at most, LoanCare was merely wrong. Simply being wrong is not conduct for which the WVCCPA covers. The issue for the Court to consider is simple: the Court must determine whether the Tedericks can obtain relief under the WVCCPA. The Court concludes the Tedericks cannot. There is no genuine issue as to any material fact and LoanCare is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Thus, Summary Judgment will be entered in LoanCare's favor. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=sMsfNt from PacerMonitor.com. LOWE'S HOME: Raygoza Suit Removed From State Court to N.D. Cal. --------------------------------------------------------------- DIANA RAYGOZA, and NINA HARRIS individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC; LOWE’S COMPANIES, INC., and DOES 1-100, inclusive, (Filed Dec. 13, 2024), was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on Jan. 22, 2025. The Northern District of California Court Clerk assigned Case No. Case No. 4:25-cv-00771-KAW to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants deceive consumers into believing they are getting a better deal than they actually are by advertising "misleading limited-time sales," "false regular prices," and "fake discounts." The Complaint, styled as a class action, purports to bring claims for violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act; and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. The Plaintiffs purport to bring this action on behalf of a putative nationwide class of: "All persons who, while in the state of California, purchased one or more of the Defendants' Products advertised at a discount in any one or more of DEFENDANTS' stores at any time from four years preceding the filing of this Complaint through certification."[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Stephanie Sheridan, Esq. Meegan B. Brooks, Esq. Nicolette Shamsian, Esq. BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARONOFF LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 3100 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (628) 600-2250 Facsimile: (628) 221-5828 E-mail: ssheridan@beneschlaw.com mbrooks@beneschlaw.com nshamsian@beneschlaw.com MARS INC: Eavesdrops Website Visitors, Jimenez Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- LIZETH JIMENEZ, AYREANNE BORDEAUX, KRYSTINE AQUINO-RORALDO, and REGINA BERRIOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MARS, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00767-SK (D. Or., Jan. 22, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all Facebook users who have an account with Banfield Pet Hospital or VCA Animal Hospitals. According to the complaint, Mars, Inc. owns and operates Banfield and VCA, two of the "largest veterinary practices in the world." The Defendant aids, employs, agrees with, and conspires with a third party, Meta Platforms, Inc., to eavesdrop on communications sent and received by the Plaintiffs and Class members, including communications that contain sensitive and confidential information. By failing to receive consent before helping Facebook intercept these communications, the Defendant violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act, says the suit. Between 2019 and November 2022, Plaintiff Jimenez visited a website operated by Defendant, ww.vcahospitals.com. Upon accessing www.vcahospitals.com, Plaintiff Jimenez scheduled veterinary appointments, purchased veterinary medications, and checked her pet's medical records. Although unaware at the time, Plaintiff Jimenez is informed and believes that Defendant assisted Facebook with intercepting her communications, including communications that contained confidential information about her pet's veterinarian records, the suit alleges. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: MARKOWITZ HERBOLD PC Stanton R. Gallegos, Esq. 1455 SW Broadway, Suite 1900 Portland, OR 97201 Telephone: (503) 295-3085 E-mail: stantongallegos@markowitzherbold.com - and - Sarah N. Westcot, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. Christopher R. Reilly* 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305)-330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 676-9006 E-Mail: swestcot@bursor.com creilly@bursor.com MCCORMICK & COMPANY: McCoy Sues Over Products' Made in the U.S. Ads ------------------------------------------------------------------- DARRNELL MCCOY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MCCORMICK & COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-at-00156 (E.D. Cal., February 20, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, and California's False Advertising Law, breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and intentional misrepresentation. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of French's brand products. The Defendant advertised and sold the products to consumers as "Crafted and Bottled in Springfield, MO, USA." However, the Defendant's products contain foreign-made and/or incorporates foreign-made components. Had the Plaintiff and other consumers similarly situated been made aware that the Defendant's products contained a substantial amount of ingredients sourced from outside of the United States, they would not have purchased the products. McCormick & Company, Inc. is a food company based in Hunt Valley, Maryland. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Abbas Kazerounian, Esq. Pamela E. Prescott, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 Email: ak@kazlg.com pamela@kazlg.com MCKESSON MEDICAL-SURGICAL: Morales Suit Removed to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled BERTHA GABRIELA GUZMAN MORALES, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MCKESSON MEDICAL-SURGICAL, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. CIVRS2403049, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on February 14, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01320 to the proceeding. The suit alleges eight causes of action including: (1) failure to pay minimum wages; (2) failure to pay overtime compensation; (3) failure to provide meal periods; (4) failure to authorize and permit rest breaks; (5) failure to indemnify necessary business expenses; (6) failure to timely pay final wages at termination; (7) failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements; and (8) unfair competition. McKesson Medical-Surgical, Inc. is a distributor of medical supplies, durable medical equipment, surgical supplies, medical lab supplies, and more.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Mia Farber, Esq. Nicky Jatana, Esq. Buck Haddix, Esq. Kishaniah Dhamodaran, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408 Telephone: (213) 689-0404 Facsimile: (213) 689-0430 E-mail: Mia.Farber@jacksonlewis.com Nicky.Jatana@jacksonlewis.com Buck.Haddix@jacksonlewis.com Kishaniah.dhamo@jacksonlewis.com MDL 2873: Fleming Sues Over Side Effects of Using AFFF Products --------------------------------------------------------------- LORIN FLEMING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); ACG CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00469-RMG (D.S.C., January 21, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and wantonness. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and was diagnosed with prostate cancer. The Fleming case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. ACG Chemicals Americas Inc. is a manufacturer of chemical products based in Exton, Pennsylvania. Amerex Corporation is a manufacturer of firefighting products based in Trussville, Alabama. Archroma U.S. Inc. is a global specialty chemicals company headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina. Arkema, Inc. is a diversified chemicals manufacturer in North America, based in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Carrier Global Corporation is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning company based in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemicals, Inc. is a chemical manufacturing company based in Baytown, Texas. Chemours Company FC, LLC is a manufacturer of titanium technologies, fluoroproducts and chemical solutions based in Wilmington, Delaware. Chubb Fire, Ltd is a provider of security and fire protection systems based in United Kingdom. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. Du Pont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West Chester, Pennsylvania. The Chemours Company is a manufacturer of agricultural chemicals with principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. United Technologies Corporation was an American multinational conglomerate headquartered in Farmington, Connecticut. It merged with the Raytheon Company in April 2020 to form Raytheon Technologies. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc., f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc., is a manufacturer of security and fire control systems based in Bradenton, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Constantine Venizelos, Esq. CONSTANT LEGAL GROUP LLP 737 Bolivar Rd., Suite 440 Cleveland, OH 44115 Telephone: (216) 815-9000 Facsimile: (216) 274-9365 MDL 2873: Saporito Sues Over Injury Sustained From AFFF Products ---------------------------------------------------------------- MARK SAPORITO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 3M COMPANY, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co.; BASF CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Ciba Inc.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CORTEVA INC.; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CLARIANT CORPORATION, individually and as successor in interest to Sandoz Chemical Corporation; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, INC.; KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC, INC.; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS, L.P., successor in interest to THE ANSUL COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00388-RMG (D.S.C., January 21, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, battery, inadequate warning, design defect, strict liability, fraudulent concealment, breach of express and implied warranties, and punitive damages. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of his exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) products containing synthetic, toxic per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances collectively known as PFAS. The Defendants failed to use reasonable and appropriate care in the design, manufacture, labeling, warning, instruction, training, selling, marketing, and distribution of their PFAS-containing AFFF products and also failed to warn military and/or civilian firefighters, including the Plaintiff, who they knew would foreseeably come into contact with their AFFF products that use of and/or exposure to the products would pose a danger to human health. Due to inadequate warning, the Plaintiff was exposed to toxic chemicals and developed psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, chronic inflammatory low back pain, spondylitis, autoimmune disease and other ills and illnesses. The Saporito case has been consolidated in MDL No. 2873, In Re: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Richard Gergel. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. BASF Corporation is a chemicals company doing business in New Jersey. Buckeye Fire Equipment Co. is a manufacturer of line of handheld and wheeled fire extinguishers, suppressing foam concentrates & hardware, and kitchen suppression systems, with principal place of business located at 110 Kings Road, Mountain, North Carolina. Chemdesign Products, Inc. is a chemical toll manufacturing company based in Marinette, Wisconsin. Chemguard, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire suppression and specialty chemicals, including AFFF, with principal place of business located at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. Clariant Corp. is a specialty chemical company based in Charlotte, North Carolina. Corteva, Inc. is an American agricultural chemical and seed company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Deepwater Chemicals, Inc. is a producer of organic and inorganic iodine derivatives based in Woodward, Oklahoma. DuPont De Nemours Inc., f/k/a DowDuPont Inc., is a chemical company based in Wilmington, Delaware. Dynax Corporation is a company that specializes in the production of fluorochemicals based in Pound Ridge, New York. E.I Dupont De Nemours & Co. is a provider of agriculture and specialty products with its principal place of business at 1007 Market Street, Wilmington, Delaware. Kidde-Fenwal, Inc. is a manufacturer of fire protection and ignition/temperature control products in Massachusetts. Kidde PLC is a manufacturer of fire safety products based in Mebane, North Carolina. Nation Ford Chemical Company is a manufacturer of specialty organic chemicals based in Fort Mill, South Carolina. National Foam, Inc. is a fire protection system supplier in West Chester, Pennsylvania. Tyco Fire Products L.P., successor-in-interest to The Ansul Company, is a manufacturer of water-based fire suppression system components and ancillary building construction products, including Ansul brand of AFFF, headquartered at One Stanton Street, Marinette, Wisconsin. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Francesca Iacovangelo, Esq. Heather Schneider, Esq. LOCKS LAW FIRM The Curtis Center 601 Walnut Street, Suite 720 East Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 893-0100 Facsimile: (215) 893-3444 Email: fiacovangelo@lockslaw.com MICROSOFT CORP: Poaches Content Creators' Commission, Suit Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ EDDIE BLOTNICKI, LARRY BRITT, TIA COLES, MIESHA DOBBS, COURTNEY DORAN, JULES FLETCHER, RACHEL HENDERSON, CAROLYN JOHNSTON, ANGELA KACHONIK, LAUREN LEATHERMAN, AMY MALCOLM, TATIANA MARQUEZ, KARA MILLER, MALIK NAUMAN, JOEY NGUYEN, CAITLIN PHILLIPS, LEILANI SHIMODA, AND HARRIS WRIGHT on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, Case No. 2:25-cv-00349 (W.D. Wash., Feb. 24, 2025) is a class action lawsuit arising from Microsoft's use of the Microsoft Shopping browser extension to poach commissions generated by online content creators and personalities who use affiliate links to generate and track online sales. Unlike most browser extensions, the Microsoft Shopping extension is pre-installed on Microsoft's Edge browser, which serves as the default web browser on all Windows computers. According to Microsoft, the Microsoft Shopping browser extension is a free tool that automatically searches the internet for coupons and discount codes. Behind the scenes, however, the Microsoft Shopping browser extension operates in an entirely different manner. While pretending to be helpful to the consumer, the browser extension goes to work under the hood to replace any affiliate link tracking cookies with its own tracking cookie so it will appear to the merchant that Microsoft Shopping originated the sale. Microsoft Shopping then takes the commission, unbeknownst to the consumer, affiliate or vendor, depriving the affiliate of the fruits of their marketing efforts, the Plaintiffs aver. This conduct has caused significant financial harm to the Plaintiffs, and similarly situated individuals who rely on affiliate marketing for income, the suit asserts. Mr. Blotnicki is a content creator with a substantial social media following, amassing 11,400 followers on the online platform where he has a presence. As a component of his creative posts, he promotes products on YouTube. He participates in various merchants' affiliate advertising programs, incorporating affiliate links into his content. In an average month, he receives $45 in commissions. Until Microsoft's unlawful scheme was uncovered in December 2024, the Plaintiff was unaware of the reason his commissions appeared lower than expected, despite his significant social media reach and high levels of audience engagement. Microsoft is an American multinational technology conglomerate.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Cindy Heidelberg, Esq. BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND, PLLC 600 Stewart Street, Suite 901 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 652-8660 Facsimile: (206) 652-8290 E-mail: cheidelberg@bjtlegal.com - and - Jason S. Rathod, Esq. Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.* MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP 412 H St N.E., Suite 302 Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 470-3520 Facsimile: (202) 800-2730 E-mail: jrathod@classlawdc.com nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com MIZUNO USA: Fails to Secure Employees' Info, Freiburger Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- Kimberly Freiburger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Mizuno USA Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-00950-MHC (N.D. Ga., Feb. 24, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information that it collected and maintained as part of its regular business practices. On Nov. 6, 2024, Mizuno identified suspicious activity on certain systems within its network. The investigation determined that certain systems within the network were accessed by an unknown individual and files were copied without authorization periodically between Aug. 21, 2024 and Oct. 29, 2024. The compromised information includes the Plaintiff's and Class Members' names, financial account information, driver's license information, passport numbers, and Social Security numbers (collectively defined as "PII"). The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered injury as a result of Defendant's conduct. These injuries include: invasion of privacy; theft of their PII; lost or diminished value of PII; lost time and opportunity costs associated with attempting to mitigate the actual consequences of the Data Breach; actual misuse of the compromised data consisting of an increase in spam calls, texts, and/or emails; and the continued and certainly increased risk to their PII, the suit asserts. Current and former Mizuno employees are required to entrust the Defendant with sensitive, non-public PII in order to obtain employment or certain employment benefits at the Defendant. The Defendant retains this information for at least many years and even after the employee-employer relationship has ended, alleges the suit. Plaintiff Freiburger received the Notice Letter, by U.S. mail, directly from the Defendant, dated Jan. 30, 2025. Mizuno is a sports apparel retail company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Allison E. McCarthy, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ALLIE MCCARTHY 1055 Prince Avenue, Suite 2 Athens, GA 30606 Telephone: (678) 637-3201 Facsimile: (888) 645-6243 E-mail: attorneymccarthy@gmail.com - and - David K. Lietz, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW Washington, DC 20015-2052 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Facsimile: (202) 686-2877 E-mail: dlietz@milberg.com NEOGENOMICS INC: Continues to Defend Goldenberg Class Suit in N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Neogenomics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the annual period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2025, that the Company continues to defend the Goldenberg shareholder class suit in the United States district Court for the Southern District of New York. On December 16, 2022, a purported shareholder class action captioned Daniel Goldenberg v. NeoGenomics, Inc., Douglas VanOort, Mark Mallon, Kathryn McKenzie, and William Bonello was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, naming the Company and certain of the Company's current and former officers as defendants ("the Goldenberg Matter"). This lawsuit was filed by a stockholder who claims to be suing on behalf of anyone who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between February 27, 2020 and April 26, 2022. The lawsuit alleges that material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact were made in the Company's public disclosures in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The alleged improper disclosures relate to statements regarding the Company's menu of tests, business operations and compliance with health care laws and regulations. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Goldenberg Matter on February 5, 2024 and the plaintiff filed its opposition to the motion on March 21, 2024. The parties are awaiting the court's ruling on the motion to dismiss. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an award of costs and expenses, including attorney's fees and expert fees. The Company believes that it has valid defenses to the claims alleged in the lawsuit, but there is no guarantee that the Company will prevail. At the time of filing the outcome of these matters is not estimable or probable. NeoGenomics Inc. is a cancer reference laboratory that provides cancer testing and partnership programs to pathologists and oncologists.[BN] NICOLE CARRAZANA: Gonzalez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Regular Wages ---------------------------------------------------------------- Eydel Gonzalez, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff v. Nicole Carrazana, LLC, a/k/a Regency Group Miami, Sylvia N. Carrazana, and William Carrazana, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-20681 (S.D. Fla., February 14, 2025) is an action to recover monetary damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. This cause of action is brought by the Plaintiff as a collective action to recover from Defendants regular compensation, liquidated damages, costs, and reasonable attorney's fees under the provisions of the FLSA on behalf of Plaintiff and all other current and former employees similarly situated to Plaintiff and who worked more than 40 hours during one or more weeks on or after October 2024, without being adequately compensated. The Plaintiff worked for the Denfendants as a non-exempt, full-time employee from approximately October 3, 2024 to October 25, 2024, or spanning three weeks. Nicole Carrazana, LLC, a/k/a Regency Group Miami, is a carpentry, custom cabinetry & upholstery company located in Miami, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zandro E. Palma, Esq. ZANDRO E. PALMA, PA 9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500 Miami, FL 33156 Telephone: (305) 446-1500 Facsimile: (305) 446-1502 E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com NUUN & COMPANY: Website not Accessible to the Blind, Hampton Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- TAMMY HAMPTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Nuun & Company, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-01896 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 24, 2025) contends that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website 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 blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services Nuun & Company provides to their non-disabled customers through https://nuunlife.com, the suit alleges. On Jan. 23, 2025 the Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of a bundle of hydration and electrolyte supplements on Nuunlife.com. Despite her 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 suit says. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Nuun & Company's policies, practices, and procedures so that the 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. Ms. Hampton is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using her computer. Nuun & Company offers electrolyte tablets, powders, vitamins, and immunity support tablets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Davis B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law PENUMBRA INC: Approval Hearing on Settlement Set for March 11 ------------------------------------------------------------- Penumbra Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the annual period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2025, that the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda has set final settlement approval hearing for PAGA class suit on March 11, 2025. On April 7, 2023, a former contractor who had been retained by the Company through a third party staffing agency filed a putative class action lawsuit as well as a Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA") representative action complaint against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda, on behalf of the contractor and similarly situated Company contractors and employees in California, alleging various claims pursuant to the California Labor Code related to wages, overtime, meal and rest breaks, reimbursement of business expenses, wage statements and records, and other similar allegations. Additionally, on April 10, 2023, a current employee of the Company filed a PAGA representative action complaint against the Company in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda, on behalf of the employee and similarly situated Company employees in California, alleging similar claims. The complaints seek payment of various alleged unpaid wages, penalties, interest and attorneys' fees in unspecified amounts. Following mediation in April 2024, in May 2024 the parties entered into a formal agreement to settle the claims for an aggregate amount of $4.6 million, subject to approval by the court. The proposed settlement agreement was initially submitted to the court for preliminary approval on June 18, 2024, and the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement agreement on October 14, 2024. Class notices have been mailed, and the final settlement approval hearing is scheduled for March 11, 2025. The Company recorded an accrual of $4.6 million in its financial statements for the three months ended March 31, 2024 related to these matters. Penumbra is a global healthcare company that designs, develops, manufactures and markets a broad portfolio of products for thrombectomy, embolization, access and immersive healthcare technologies. PETIT VOUR: Faces Alexandria Suit Over Blind's Equal Website Access ------------------------------------------------------------------- ERIKA ALEXANDRIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PETIT VOUR, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01465 (S.D.N.Y., February 20, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 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, www.petitvour.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: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Petit Vour, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com PETMED EXPRESS: Faces Bird Suit Over False "Sale" Price ------------------------------------------------------- ASHLEY BIRD, TYLER DVORNSKI, and TIFFANY HUGHES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PETMED EXPRESS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 6:25-cv-00214-GTS-MJK (N.D.N.Y., February 14, 2025) is a class action alleging that PetMeds advertised false reference prices that gave consumers, including Plaintiffs, the impression that its products were regularly sold on the market for a substantially higher price than they were, in violation of the New York Consumer Protection from Deceptive Acts and Practices Act, the New York False Advertising Law, the California's Unfair Competition Law, and the California's False Advertising Law. PetMeds offered these discounts by displaying a regular price in strikethrough font to indicate that the regular price is outdated and has been replaced by a "sale" price, which often appeared in conspicuous font of a different size or color, and never in strikethrough font. PetMeds' use of false reference prices constitutes false, fraudulent, and deceptive advertising because the regular prices listed in strikethrough font are always greater than the prices PetMeds sells its products, and because other retailers routinely sold the same products, without false reference prices, for less, says the suit. PetMeds' marketing is designed to trick consumers into believing their purchase includes a discount, when all consumers get is the false impression of a bargain and a larger bill than they'd receive but for PetMeds' use of false reference prices, the suit asserts. PetMed Express, Inc. owns, operates, and controls https://www.1800petmeds.com, a website where consumers may purchase products for their dogs, cats, and horses.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kevin W. Tucker, Esq. Kevin J. Abramowicz, Esq. Kayla Conahan, Esq. Jessica Liu, Esq. Stephanie Moore, Esq. Chandler Steiger, Esq. EAST END TRIAL GROUP LLC 6901 Lynn Way, Suite 503 Pittsburgh, PA 15208 Telephone: (412) 877-5220 E-mail: ktucker@eastendtrialgroup.com kabramowicz@eastendtrialgroup.com kconahan@eastendtrialgroup.com jliu@eastendtrialgroup.com smoore@eastendtrialgroup.com csteiger@eastendtrialgroup.com POKERGO LLC: Discloses Personal Info to Third Party, Suihkonen Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- DANIEL K. SUIHKONEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. POKERGO LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01345 (C.D. Cal., February 18, 2025) is a consumer digital privacy class action against the Defendant for violation of the federal Video Privacy Protection Act and the California Automatic Renewal Law, through its website, PokerGo.com. According to the complaint, the Defendant violates VPPA by knowingly disclosing to a third party, Meta Platforms, Inc., data containing its digital subscribers' (i) personally identifiable information or Facebook ID and (ii) the computer file containing the prerecorded video, and its corresponding URL viewed without obtaining proper consent. The Defendant collects and shares the personal information of visitors to its website with third parties. The Defendant does this through cookies, software development kits, and pixels. In other words, digital subscribers to PokerGo.com have their personal information disclosed to Defendant's third-party business partners, says the suit. The Defendant uses the personal viewing information to build more targeted advertising on its website which, in turn, generates greater revenue. Thus, without obtaining consent from its digital subscribers, the Defendant profits from its unauthorized disclosure of its digital subscribers' personal viewing information to Facebook, the suit added. PokerGo LLC develops, owns, and operates the PokerGo.com website, which includes a broad selection of prerecorded video content of professional poker tournaments.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark L. Javitch, Esq. JAVITCH LAW OFFICE 3 East 3rd Ave Ste. 200 San Mateo, CA 94401 Telephone: (650) 781-8000 Facsimile: (650) 648-0705 E-mail: mark@javitchlawoffice.com POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Garcia Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTINE GARCIA, R.G., I.G., BILLY HO, B.H., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC. and POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-01803 (N.D. Cal., February 20, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and violations of California Privacy Rights Act, the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, and California's Unfair Competition Law. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals stored within their computer system following a data breach between December 19 and December 28, 2024. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiffs and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc. is a software company with its principal place of business located in Folsom, California. PowerSchool Group LLC is a software company with its principal place of business located in Folsom, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David Berger, Esq. Jane Farrell, Esq. Sarah E. Hillier, Esq. Jennifer Sun, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 1111 Broadway, Ste. 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Email: dmb@classlawgroup.com jgf@classlawgroup.com seh@classlawgroup.com jsun@classlawgroup.com - and - Mark H. Troutman, Esq. GIBBS LAW GROUP LLP 1554 Polaris Parkway, Suite 325 Columbus, OH 43240 Telephone: (510) 350-9700 Facsimile: (510) 350-9701 Email: mht@classlawgroup.com - and - Adam E. Polk, Esq. Patrick T. Johnson, Esq. GIRARD SHARP LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1400 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 981-4800 Facsimile: (415) 981-4846 Email: apolk@girardsharp.com pjohnson@girardsharp.com POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Valdovinos Balks at Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------------- GREGHK VALDOVINOS, N.V., AND E.V., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC. AND POWERSCHOOL GROUP LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-01783 (N.D. Cal., February 19, 2025) seeks compensatory and statutory damages as well as injunctive relief to remediate PowerSchool's deficient cybersecurity and provide credit monitoring, identity theft insurance, and credit repair services to protect their and the other breach victims from identity theft and fraud. At some point between December 19 and December 28, 2024, hackers breached the company's vulnerable systems and exfiltrated the valuable personally identifying information and protected health information stored within. PowerSchool learned of the data breach on December 28, 2024, and began to investigate. Beginning on January 8, 2025, PowerSchool began notifying customers that their data was accessed and they were impacted. Despite holding the highly sensitive personal information of millions of people -- many of whom are minors -- PowerSchool neglected to adequately secure it. Unbeknownst to its customers or the end users PowerSchool stored PII and PHI in unencrypted formats on an Internet-accessible environment, vulnerable to exploitation, says the suit. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc. provides cloud-based software in North America. Its product supports vast numbers of teachers, students, and their parents.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Amber L. Schubert, Esq. SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP 2001 Union Street, Suite 200 San Francisco, CA 94123 Telephone: (415) 788-4220 Facsimile: (415) 788-0161 E-mail: aschubert@sjk.law PRACTICALLY PERFECT: Faces Manoli Wage-and-Hour Suit in Mass. ------------------------------------------------------------- DEVON MANOLI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRACTICALLY PERFECT VACATIONS, INC. and JENNIFER ST. GELAIS, Defendants, Case No. 2583cv00161 (Mass. Comm., February 20, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for failure to pay proper minimum wages, including sick time pay, in violation of the Massachusetts General Law. Practically Perfect Vacations, Inc. is a travel agency doing business in Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Shafran, Esq. RUDOLPH FRIEDMANN LLP 92 State Street Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 723-7700 Facsimile: (617) 227-0313 Email: ashafran@rflawyers.com RENAISSANCE FMI: Alexandria Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- ERIKA ALEXANDRIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RENAISSANCE FMI, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01469 (S.D.N.Y., February 20, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 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, www.withclarity.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: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Renaissance FMI, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com ROBERT MAY: Court Tosses Desmond's Civil Rights Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------- Judge Maryellen Noreika of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the case captioned as CHRISTOPHER R. DESMOND, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT MAY, et al., Defendants, 24-cv-00225-MN (D. Del.) for failure to state a claim. On Feb. 20, 2024, Plaintiff Christopher R. Desmond, an inmate at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center in Smyrna, Delaware, initiated this action pro se, alleging civil rights violations by Defendants Robert May, Jason Schaffer, Andrew Peruchi, Roger Rainy, Matthew Dutton, Brian Reynolds and Brian Emig. The operative pleading is the Amended Complaint. Pending before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The Amended Complaint alleges that between October 2023 and June 2024, at James T. Vaughn Correctional Center in Smyrna, Delaware, Defendants committed constitutional and civil rights violations, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. As alleged, in October 2023, Plaintiff was chosen as a representative for a pending class action suit. At that time, Defendants May, Schaffer, and Peruchi told Plaintiff that he could not keep his job in the law library if he participated in the class action suit, which he felt was an attempt to intimidate him into not participating in the suit. Defendants May, Schaffer, Peruchi, and Rainy then threatened to fire Plaintiff and re-classify him to max status. Plaintiff felt that the attempted intimidation and threats by Defendants impinged upon Plaintiff's right to practice his Catholic faith in social justice, which entailed both prison reform and criminal justice reform as agreed to by Delaware Department of Corrections defendants in a prior legal settlement. On Jan. 16, 2024, Defendants May, Schaffer, and Rainy confronted Plaintiff again. Defendants May and Schaffer again threatened Plaintiff and told him not to be involved in the class action suit. Defendant May stated that his wife and stepdaughter were employed by JTVCC or providers for the facility. Defendant May told Plaintiff that if he liked his status, he "should not represent them people." Twenty minutes after Plaintiff filed the initial Complaint in the instant case, Defendant Reynolds and unspecified others served him with a disciplinary report. Three days later, Plaintiff was found guilty of all charges in the disciplinary report, despite Defendants presenting no evidence to support their claims. Plaintiff then appealed the determination to Defendants May and Emig, which was ignored and further retaliation was administered by Defendants May and Emig when he was sent to the max housing unit as further punishment. Plaintiff seeks damages from Defendants in their individual capacities, as they acted to deliberately obstruct and impose sanctions on Plaintiff in violation of his First, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights under the United States Constitution, obstructing Plaintiff's access to the courts and his ability to present claims of constitutional rights, as retaliation for Plaintiff invoking those rights. The Court permitted Plaintiff leave to amend the Complaint to pursue his First Amendment claims exclusively. Accordingly, the Court now determines whether a First Amendment claim against Defendants can be reasonably inferred from the allegations in Plaintiff's Amended Complaint. Upon review of the Amended Complaint, the Court finds that Plaintiff has failed to allege that he lost a chance to present a legal claim, let alone show that such a claim was nonfrivolous or arguable. Without such a showing of injury, Plaintiff fails to state a First Amendment claim, and his action will be dismissed. Because the Amended Complaint fails to state a First Amendment claim, it fails to comply with this Court's May 17, 2024 Order, which warned Plaintiff that failure to timely comply with this Order will result in dismissal of this case without prejudice. Accordingly, this action will be dismissed without prejudice. The following motions filed by Plaintiff are also currently pending: (1) motion for declaratory judgment; (2) letter-motion for immediate stay; (3) motion for reconsideration; (4) letter-motion for discovery requests; (5) motion for denial of Defendants' dismissal motion; (6) motion to recuse the Bar; and (7) motion to disqualify Delaware Attorney General's Office. The Court will deny the remaining pending motions as moot. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Xc70ft from PacerMonitor.com. ROC OPCO: Faces Vales Suit Over Deceptive Retinol Cleansers ----------------------------------------------------------- IVY KARINA VALES, TINA MARIE BARRALES, CINDY DOERR, ADELINA PEPENELLA, and KIMBERLY CAUDLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ROC OPCO LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-01755 (N.D. Cal., February 19, 2025) is a consumer class action against the Defendant for deceptively advertising and selling a rinse-off "Retinol Correxion Deep Wrinkle Serum Cleanser" that purports to deliver the commonly understood dermatologic benefits of retinol. According to the complaint, RoC's advertising claims about the promised benefits of its Retinol Rinse-Off Cleanser are deceptive and misleading. The retinol in the Retinol Rinse-Off Cleanser does not work as advertised and does not provide the advertised benefits. The cleanser is intended to be used like a face wash: applied and then washed off. Washing off retinol within seconds after application means the retinol will not and cannot provide the advertised benefits. Further, retinol is a relatively unstable chemical. It must be properly packaged, shipped, and stored, otherwise it loses its efficacy. RoC does not properly package, ship or store the subject retinol product. As a result, by the time a consumer purchases the subject products, the retinol is no longer active, says the suit. RoC Opco LLC manufactures, advertises, markets, distributes, and sells the Retinol Rinse-Off Cleanser with its principal place of business in New York, New York.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Timothy G. Blood, Esq. Thomas J. O'Reardon II, Esq. James M. Davis, Esq. BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON, LLP 501 West Broadway, Suite 1490 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 338-1100 Facsimile: (619) 338-1101 E-mail: tblood@bholaw.com toreardon@bholaw.com jdavis@bholaw.com RUSH STREET: Ballard-Holmes Sues Over Inadequate Data Security -------------------------------------------------------------- BRITTANY BALLARD-HOLMES and HUNTER THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RUSH STREET GAMING, LLC and SUGARHOUSE HSP GAMING, L.P. d/b/a RIVERS CASINO PHILADELPHIA, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00807 (E.D. Pa., February 14, 2025) is a class action seeking to hold Defendants responsible for the injuries Defendants inflicted on Plaintiffs and Class Members due to Defendants' egregiously inadequate data security, which resulted in the private information of Plaintiffs and those similarly situated to be exposed to unauthorized third parties. On December 30, 2024, the Defendants publicly disclosed the data breach to the public. In the public notice, the Defendants stated that, on November 18, 2024, they determined that an unauthorized threat actor had accessed and/or stolen from its computer servers the private information of Plaintiffs and Class Members. Upon information and belief, the actual data breach occurred before November 18, 2024. The Defendants disregarded the rights of Plaintiffs and Class Members by intentionally, willfully, recklessly, and/or negligently failing to implement reasonable measures to safeguard private information and by failing to take necessary steps to prevent unauthorized disclosure of that information. The Defendants' woefully inadequate data security measures made the data breach a foreseeable, and even likely, consequence of their negligence, says the suit. The Plaintiffs bring this action against the Defendants and assert claims for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and declaratory/injunctive relief. Rush Street Gaming, LLC operates a casino and offers other entertainment products/services in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lee Albert, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Avenue, Suite 358 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 Facsimile: (212) 884-0988 E-mail: lalbert@glancylaw.com - and - John A. Yanchunis, Esq. Ronald Podolny, Esq. Antonio Arzola, Jr., Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP 201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 275-5272 Facsimile: (813) 222-4736 E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com ararzola@forthepeople.com SEMPER LASER: Faces Silvas Class Suit Over Unwanted Phone Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- CRYSTAL SILVAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SEMPER LASER LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-20339-MD (S.D. Fla., Jan. 22, 2025) contends that the Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant engages in telemarketing without the required policies and procedures, and training of its personnel engaged in telemarketing. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's unlawful conduct, which has resulted in the intrusion upon seclusion, invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and disruption of the daily life of Plaintiff and the Class members. The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff and members of the Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies. On Feb. 9, 2024, the Plaintiff requested to opt-out of the Defendant's text messages by replying with a stop instruction. The Plaintiff contends that the Defendant's refusal to honor Plaintiff's opt-out requests demonstrates that Defendant has not instituted procedures for maintaining a list of persons who request not to receive text messages from Defendant. SEMPER LASER LLC provides hair removal services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Faaris K. Uddin, Esq. 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 Phone: (813) 340-8838 E-mail: faaris@jibraellaw.com zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com SIG CRE 2023 VENTURE: 205 Montague Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against SIG CRE 2023 VENTURE LLC. The case is styled as 205 Montague LLC, on behalf of itself and similarly situated vs. SIG CRE 2023 VENTURE LLC, Case No. 651046/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., Feb. 24, 2025). SIG CRE 2023 VENTURE LLC is a portfolio of real estate commercial loans.[BN] SIMONMED IMAGING: Faces Guest Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- Andree Guest and Albert Dumas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SimonMed Imaging, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00548-DWL (D. Ariz., February 18, 2025) is a class action against SimonMed for its failure to properly secure Plaintiffs' and other patients' personally identifiable information and personal health information. On February 10, 2025, a Facebook user reported that SimonMed's information technology systems had been disabled for three days the previous week. The following day, the website SuspectFile reported that the ransomware group Medusa had claimed responsibility for the breach of those systems by posting 45 "proof files" containing SimonMed data. SimonMed failed to comply with industry standards to protect information systems that contain PII and PHI. The Plaintiffs seek, among other things, orders requiring SimonMed to fully and accurately disclose the nature of the information that has been compromised and to adopt sufficient security practices and safeguards to prevent incidents like the disclosure in the future. The Plaintiffs seek to remedy these harms individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals whose PII and PHI were exposed in the data breach. The Plaintiffs seek remedies including compensation for time spent responding to the data breach and other types of harm, free credit monitoring and identity theft insurance, and injunctive relief including substantial improvements to SimonMed's data security policies and practices. SimonMed Imaging, LLC is an outpatient physician radiology group operating in Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Nevada, New York, Texas, and Wisconsin.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Don Bivens, Esq. Teresita T. Mercado, Esq. DON BIVENS, PLLC 15169 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 205 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Telephone: (602) 762-2661 E-mail: don@donbivens.com teresita@donbivens.com - and - Bart D. Cohen, Esq. BAILEY GLASSER LLP 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 274-9420 E-mail: bcohen@baileyglasser.com SPS TECHNOLOGIES: Greene Files Suit in Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against SPS Technologies, LLC. The case is styled as Nikenye Greene, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SPS Technologies, LLC d/b/a PCC FASTENERS, Case No. 250203288 (Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas, Feb. 24, 2025). The case type is stated as "Negligence." SPS Technologies doing business as PCC Fasteners -- https://www.pccfasteners.com/ -- is a global manufacturer of fasteners and precision engineered components for aerospace and other markets with demanding operating requirements and service conditions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph G. Sauder, Esq. SAUDER SCHELKOPF 1109 Lancaster Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312 Phone: 888.711.9975 Email: jgs@sstriallawyers.com SSR MINING: Consolidated Securities Class Suit Pending in Colorado ------------------------------------------------------------------ SSR Mining Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the annual period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2025, that a consolidated securities class suit is pending before the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. On March 18, 2024 and March 22, 2024, two related putative securities class actions, Karam Akhras v. SSR Mining Inc., et. al., Case No. 24-cv-00739 and Eric Lindemann v. SSR Mining Inc., et. al., Case No. 24-cv-00808, were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (collectively, the "US Securities Actions"). The US Securities Actions assert claims for alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against the Company, as well as certain of its current and former members of management (the "Individual Defendants", and together with the Company, the "Defendants") and for alleged violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Individual Defendants. The complaints allege that certain public statements made by the Defendants were rendered materially false and misleading with respect to, among other things, the adequacy of the Company's internal controls relating to its safety practices and operational integrity at its Çöpler mining facility in Turkiye. On August 2, 2024, the US Securities Actions were consolidated as Consolidated Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-00739-DDD-SBP (the "Consolidated US Securities Action") and the court appointed lead counsel and a lead plaintiff for the putative class. On October 15, 2024, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaint on December 17, 2024, which is currently pending before the court. SSR Mining Inc. and its subsidiaries is a precious metals mining company with four producing assets located in the United States, Türkiye, Canada and Argentina. STANLEY BLACK: Continues to Defend Rammohan Class Suit in Conn. --------------------------------------------------------------- Stanley Black & Decker Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the annual period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Rammohan class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. On March 24, 2023, a putative class action lawsuit titled Naresh Vissa Rammohan v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00369-KAD (the "Rammohan Class Action"), was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut against the Company and certain of the Company's current and former officers and directors. The complaint was filed on behalf of a purported class consisting of all purchasers of Stanley Black & Decker common stock between October 28, 2021 and July 28, 2022, inclusive. The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 based on allegedly false and misleading statements related to consumer demand for the Company's products amid changing COVID-19 trends and macroeconomic conditions. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and an award of costs and expenses. On October 13, 2023, Lead Plaintiff General Retirement System of the City of Detroit filed an Amended Complaint that asserts the same claims and seeks the same forms of relief as the original complaint. The Company intends to vigorously defend this action in all respects and on December 14, 2023, filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in its entirety. Stanley Black is a global manufacturer of, inter alia, hand tools, power tools, and outdoor products for consumer and commercial customers, as well as engineered fastening systems for industrial customers.[BN] STIC HOLDINGS: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property ------------------------------------------------------ Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. STIC HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-20857-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. STIC HOLDINGS, LLC, owns, operates, and oversees the Commercial Property, its general parking garage and parking spots, 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 STIIIZY INC: Fails to Safeguard Clients' Info, Ruiz Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- ALBERTA RUIZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STIIIZY, INC., a California corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 25STCV01549 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., January 21, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, and violations of the California Security Notification Law and California Business and Professions Code. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated clients stored within its computer systems following a data breach between October 10 and November 10, 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. Stiiizy, Inc. is a cannabis brand and lifestyle company, with its principal place of business in Los Angeles, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John P. Kristensen, Esq. KRISTENSEN LAW GROUP 120 Santa Barbara St., Suite C9 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Telephone: (805) 837-2000 Email: john@kristensen.law - and - Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. EKSM, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Email: lmontgomery@eksm.com TAX SERVICES: Tanner Suit Removed to N.D. California ---------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Angel Tanner, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. TAX SERVICES OF AMERICA, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 24CV099598 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Feb. 24, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-01940. The Complaint alleges the following causes of action: Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Compensate for All Hours Works; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Failure to Furnish Compliant Wage and Hour Statements; Failure to Reimburse Business Expenses; Failure to Pay Final Wages on Time; Unfair Business Practices; and Violations of the Private Attorney's General Act ("PAGA").[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Richard H. Rahm, Esq. Yash R. Patel, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. One Embarcadero Center, Suite 900 San Francisco, CA 94111 Phone: 415-442-4810 Facsimile: 415-442-4870 Email: richard.rahm@ogletree.com yash.patel@ogletree.com - and - Robert Vorhees, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. Park Tower, Fifteenth Floor 695 Town Center Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Phone: 714-800-7900 Facsimile: 714-754-1298 Email: robert.vorhees@ogletree.com TELESCENTS INC: Danso Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- Charity Danso, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. TELESCENTS, INC., D/B/A FRAGRANCENET, Case No. 1:25-cv-01552 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 24, 2025), is brought against Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website, www.fragrancenet.com (the "Website"), to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website, and therefore denial of the goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation of the ADA. Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com TOYOTA MOTOR: Corolla Vehicles Have Defective Brakes, Infante Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ VALERIE INFANTE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION and TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-00428 (C.D. Calif., February 14, 2025) seeks to redress the significant economic injuries Defendants have caused to Plaintiff and all other persons who purchased or leased 2024 Toyota Corolla because of the alleged defective braking technology. According to the complaint, a serious and dangerous defect in the 2024 Corolla's braking technology prevented Plaintiff's car from properly decelerating for multiple seconds, during a critical time while driving. This brake defect is not (and cannot be) unique to Plaintiff's car, as Toyota has designed and manufactured all of its 2024 Corolla vehicles with similar, highly computerized braking systems. Whatever the precise origin of this brake defect is -- be it a defective brake pedal Sensor, poor electronic control unit software programming, or faulty computer hardware or wiring in the braking system -- this defect must be thoroughly diagnosed and remediated as soon as possible for the sake of public safety, says the suit. Toyota's deceptive marketing and failure to disclose the 2024 Corolla's Brake Defect damaged, and continues to damage, Plaintiff and the Class. If Plaintiff and the Class had known of the brake defect, and thus known that 2024 Corollas were not safe and reliable cars, they would not have purchased or leased their 2024 Corollas at all, much less at the full prices they paid, the suit alleges. Toyota Motor Corporation is a Japanese multinational automotive manufacturer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David J. Harris, Jr., Esq. Gerilyn R. Harris, Esq. HARRIS LLP 501 West Broadway, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 213-1102 E-mail: david@harrisllp.com gerilyn@harrisllp.com TRADE DESK: United Union Sues Over Misleading Company Statements ---------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED UNION OF ROOFERS, WATERPROOFERS & ALLIED WORKERS LOCAL UNION NO. 8 WBPA FUND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE TRADE DESK, INC., JEFFREY TERRY GREEN, and LAURA SCHENKEIN, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01396 (C.D. Cal., February 19, 2025) is a federal securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons or entities that purchased Trade Desk Class A common stock between May 9, 2024 and February 12, 2025, inclusive, against Trade Desk and certain of its officers seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants repeatedly touted the value that the rollout of Kokai, a generative artificial intelligence forecasting tool, was providing to the Company's clients, as well as Kokai's positive impact on Trade Desk's revenue metrics. For example, after markets closed on May 8, 2024, during an earnings call in connection with Trade Desk announcing its financial results for the first quarter of 2024, CEO Green stated, "I believe our revenue growth acceleration in the first quarter speaks to the innovation and value that we are delivering to our clients with Kokai." These statements, among others, were materially false and/or misleading and failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not false and misleading. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose that: (1) Trade Desk was experiencing significant, ongoing, self-inflicted execution challenges rolling out Kokai, including transitioning clients to Kokai from the Company's older platform Solimar; (2) such execution challenges meaningfully delayed the Kokai Rollout; (3) Trade Desk's inability to effectively execute the Kokai Rollout negatively impacted the Company's business and operations, particularly revenue growth; and (4) as a result of the above, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times, says the suit. On this news, the price of Trade Desk Class A common stock dropped $40.31 per share, or more than 32%, from a closing price of $122.23 per share on February 12, 2025, to a closing price of $81.92 per share on February 13, 2025. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in market value of the Company's Class A common stock when the truth was disclosed, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, the suit further alleges. Trade Desk operates globally as a technology company, offering a self-service, cloud-based, ad-buying platform that allows marketers to plan, manage, optimize, and measure data-driven ad campaigns.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Littrell, Esq. Michael R. Williams, Esq. BIENERT KATZMAN LITTRELL WILLIAMS LLP 360 E. 2nd Street, Suite 625 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Telephone: (949) 369-3700 Facsimile: (949) 369-3701 E-mail: jlittrell@bklwlaw.com mwilliams@bklwlaw.com - and - David R. Kaplan, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 505 Lomas Santa Fe Drive, Suite 180 Solana Beach, CA 92075 Telephone: (858) 997-0860 Facsimile: (858) 369-0096 E-mail: dkaplan@saxenawhite.com - and - Marco A. Duenas, Esq. SAXENA WHITE P.A. 10 Bank Street, Suite 882 White Plains, NY 10606 Telephone: (914) 437-8551 Facsimile: (888) 631-3611 E-mail: mduenas@saxenawhite.com TRANSMEDICS GROUP: Jewik Sues Over Misleading Company Statements ---------------------------------------------------------------- MERLY JEWIK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRANSMEDICS GROUP, INC., WALEED HASSANEIN, and STEPHEN GORDON, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-10385 (D. Mass., February 14, 2025) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded TransMedics securities between February 28, 2023 and January 10, 2025, inclusive, seeking to recover compensable damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On February 27, 2023, the Company filed with the Securities Exchange Commission its annual report on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2022. According to the complaint, the statements contained in the report were materially false and/or misleading because they misrepresented and failed to disclose the adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business, operations and prospects, which were known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them. Specifically, the Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) TransMedics used kickbacks, fraudulent overbilling, and coercive tactics to generate business and revenue; (2) TransMedics engaged in unsafe practices and hid safety issues and generally lacked safety oversight; (3) the foregoing subjected TransMedics to heightened risk of scrutiny and regulatory risk; and (4) as a result, Defendants' statements about its business, operations, and prospects, were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times, says the suit. On this news, the price of TransMedics stock fell $3.74 per share, or 5.15%, to close at $68.81 on January 10, 2025. On January 13, 2025, TransMedics stock fell a further $4.76 per share, or 6.9%, to close at $64.05. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's common shares, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, the suit alleges. TransMedics Group, Inc. is a commercial-stage medical technology company transforming organ transplant therapy for end-stage organ failure patients across multiple disease states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua Baker, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 686-1060 Facsimile: (212) 202-3827 E-mail: jbaker@rosenlegal.com philkim@rosenlegal.com lrosen@rosenlegal.com TRAVELERS INDEMNITY: Court Stays Aguilar-Tafoya Insurance Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge James Browning of the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to stay proceedings, in the case captioned as CARLOS AGUILAR-TAFOYA and BRADLEY BREWTON, both individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, vs. THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY; THE STANDARD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY; TRAVELERS CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY; TRAVELERS CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA; THE TRAVELERS CASUALTY COMPANY; TRAVELERS CASUALTY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT; TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF AMERICA; TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT; TRAVELERS PERSONAL INSURANCE COMPANY; TRAVELERS PERSONAL SECURITY INSURANCE COMPANY; TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA; TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; TRAVELERS COMMERCIAL CASUALTY COMPANY and TRAVELERS COMMERCIAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 23-cv-00247-JB-JMR (D.N.M.). This matter comes before the Court on the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint, or, in the Alternative, to Stay Proceedings, filed March 29, 2023. The Court finds contrary to the Defendants' arguments in the Motion, Plaintiff Bradley Brewton plausibly states a claim pursuant to rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In the Complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that Brewton was an insured beneficiary with the Defendants, who provided him with uninsured and underinsured motorist insurance coverage in the amount of $50,000 per person, which exceeds the statutory minimum. After a minimally insured motorist crashes into Brewton and causes him damages that exceed the amount of his uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage, Brewton makes a claim with the tortfeasor's insurer and receives $166,667. Subsequently, Brewton makes a claim for his own underinsured motorist benefits pursuant to the policy that the Defendants issued to him. Despite his reasonable expectations that he would benefit from the insurance premiums Defendants collected, his insurer never paid him his underinsured motorist benefits. Brewton files a suit that proposes a class action comprised of all persons insured by Defendants where Defendants' written representations of UM/UIM benefits misled them to reasonably believe they paid a premium underinsured motorist coverage on a policy that purported to provide underinsured motorist coverage but which effectively provides no coverage. New Mexico's insurance laws operate pursuant to the "offset rule," which dictates that underinsured motorist benefits are calculated by subtracting the amount of the insured's uninsured motorist coverage from the amount of the tortfeasor's liability coverage. In 2022, the Supreme Court of New Mexico decided Crutcher, which holds that minimum uninsured/underinsured coverage is misleading because policyholders are not adequately informed that they are not eligible to receive UIM coverage. According to Crutcher, the offset rule results in an "impossibility," pursuant to which if injured persons purchased only the statutory minimum policy, the person's policy will not cover losses for damages in excess of $25,000. Collection of UIM insurance is therefore practically impossible for minimally insured motorists. This conclusion leads the Supreme Court of New Mexico to impose an obligation on insurers. Insurers now must "adequately disclose" to policyholders that purchase of the statutory minimum of UM/UIM insurance may come with the counterintuitive exclusion of UIM insurance if the insured is in an accident with a tortfeasor who carries minimum liability insurance. Recently, the Supreme Court of New Mexico holds that Crutcher's disclosure rule is retroactive. According to the Defendants, because Brewton's policy exceeds the statutory minimum for uninsured and underinsured motorist coverage, Crutcher does not apply and Brewton fails to state a claim. The Court issued an Order as follows: (i) the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint, or, in the Alternative, to Stay Proceedings, filed March 29, 2023, is granted in part and denied in part; (ii) the Defendants' request that the Court dismiss the Plaintiffs' Class Action Complaint, filed February 17, 2023, in State court, filed March 22, 2023, in federal court, is denied; (iii) the Defendants' request for a stay is granted; (iv) the stay shall be in effect until the Supreme Court of New Mexico decides Smith v. Interinsurance Exchange of Automobile Club, and the Court lifts the stay. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HbcFFD from PacerMonitor.com. TYSON FOODS: Kidd Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- CODY KIDD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TYSON FOODS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-05032-TLB (W.D. Ark., February 18, 2025) is an action brought under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the overtime provisions of the Arkansas Minimum Wage Act for Defendant's failure to pay all due and owing overtime wages to Plaintiff. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a production supervisor during the time period relevant to this lawsuit. He asserts that the Defendant uniformly classified production supervisor position as exempt from the overtime provisions of the FLSA and corresponding state wage and hour laws, regardless of location worked. The Plaintiff seeks damages on behalf of himself and the putative Collective Action Members as the result of Defendant's failure to pay him and similarly situated production supervisor employees overtime premium pay for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Tyson Foods, Inc. is a publicly traded company that provides approximately 20% of the beef, pork, and chicken in the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Colby Qualls, Esq. FORESTER HAYNIE PLLC 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (214) 210-2100 E-mail: cqualls@foresterhaynie.com UNITED PARCEL: Continues to Defend Baker Class Suit in Washington ----------------------------------------------------------------- United Parcel Service Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the annual period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 18, 2025, that the Company continues to defend the Baker class suit in the federal court in the Eastern District of Washington. In July 2023, Baker v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (DE) and United Parcel Service, Inc. (OH) was certified as a class action in federal court in the Eastern District of Washington. The plaintiff in this matter alleges that UPS violated the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. The Company is vigorously defending ourselves in this matter and believe that it has a number of meritorious defenses, and there are unresolved questions of law and fact that could be important to the ultimate resolution of this matter. United Parcel is an American multinational package delivery and supply chain management company.[CC] UNITED STATES: Dalton Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. United States of Aritzia, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-00624 (D. Minn., February 18, 2025) arises because Defendant's website, www.aritzia.com, is not fully and equally accessible to Plaintiff and other people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, the Plaintiff found Defendant's website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like her full and equal access to important Website content -- content Defendant makes available to its sighted website users. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual disabilities. In addition to her claim under the ADA, the Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. United States of Aritzia, Inc. is a Canadian company that operates the website which offers clothing for sale including, but not limited to, tops, bottoms, jeans, activewear, pajamas, shoes, belts, accessories and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Gustafson, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset,Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 South 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: jason@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com US JUNIOR: Martinez Balks at Anticompetitive Tying Arrangements --------------------------------------------------------------- PATRICIA MARTINEZ, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. U.S. JUNIOR NATIONALS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00851 (E.D. Pa., February 18, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for restraint of trade and monopolization under the Sherman Act, violation of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, and unjust enrichment. The case stems from Defendant's alleged illegal and anticompetitive "Stay to Play" arrangements foisted upon their customers, whereby the largest and most powerful organizer of youth sports tournaments grants a hotel broker enormous levels of influence and leverage over the participating families by conditioning participation in the tournament upon staying at hotels designated by the broker. According to the complaint, families who decline to stay at the designated hotels are met with consequences. As a threshold matter, the ability to sign up for the tournament at all is predicated upon agreeing to stay at these partner hotels. In some instances, even a single player declining to stay at the hotel can result in forfeiture of games, impacting not just themselves but the other members of the team and their families. Additionally, in some circumstances, a family may be permitted to stay at the accommodations of their choosing, but only after agreeing to pay a penalty of $250 to $1000 to have the privilege of staying where they want to stay, underscoring that at the end of the day, there is no valid business justification for the policy, and it is instead a naked money grab, says the suit. The Plaintiff has a child who participates in tournaments organized by Defendant and has paid to stay at Defendant's partner hotels under circumstances when other options were preferable. U.S. Junior Nationals, Inc. is a for-profit corporation organized under the laws of Pennsylvania. USJN organizes tournaments and hosts them for youth basketball clubs.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steven A. Schwartz, Esq. Kimberly M. Donaldson Smith, Esq. Alex M. Kashurba, Esq. CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP 361 Lancaster Avenue Haverford, PA 19041 Telephone: (610) 645-4720 E-mail: sas@chimicles.com kds@chimicles.com amk@chimicles.com - and - James J. Rosemergy, Esq. CAREY, DANIS & LOWE 8235 Forsyth, Suite 1100 St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone: (314) 725-7700 E-mail: jrosemergy@careydanis.com VENUS FASHION: Freund Sues Over Misleading Retail Price Discounts ----------------------------------------------------------------- BARBARA FREUND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VENUS FASHION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00175-HES-LLL (M.D. Fla., February 20, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, California's False Advertising Law, and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practice of advertising fictitious prices and corresponding phantom discounts on nearly every product sold through its website (https://www.venus.com/). As a result of the Defendant's misleading practice, consumers are misled into believing they are receiving a good deal, thereby inducing them into making a purchase. Venus Fashion, Inc. is a retail company, with its principal place of business in Jacksonville, Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William Blair Castle, Esq. Kevin J. Cole, Esq. KJC LAW GROUP, A.P.C. 9701 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1000 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 861-7797 Email: blair@kjclawgroup.com kevin@kjclawgroup.com WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Palakurthi Loses Bid to Strike Rule 12(c) Motion ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Honorable Linda V. Parker of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied the motion filed by the plaintiff to strike defendants' Rule 12(c) motion in the case captioned as NAGESH PALAKURTHI, Plaintiff, v. WAYNE COUNTY and ERIC R. SABREE, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-10707 (E.D. Mich.). The plaintiff's request for a Rule 16 scheduling order is also denied. On March 30, 2021, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against Defendants Wayne County and its Treasurer, Eric Sabree, asserting various claims arising from the foreclosure of Plaintiff's previously owned property. In response to Defendants' motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court previously dismissed some of Plaintiff's claims and Sabree as a Defendant. On Feb. 15, 2023, Wayne County filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). However, the parties subsequently stipulated to have the motion withdrawn while mediation was proceeding in a class-action lawsuit brought against the County by former owners of other foreclosed properties. After that mediation was unsuccessful, Wayne County renewed its Rule 12(c) motion. Rather than respond to the motion, Plaintiff has sought to strike it as an improper motion for reconsideration and has moved for a scheduling conference pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16. If the Court declines to strike the County's motion, Plaintiff requests additional time to respond to it. The Court does not view Wayne County's motion as an improper motion for reconsideration. Notably, Plaintiff did not seek to strike it on that basis when it was first filed but stipulated to it being refiled if the mediation failed. Moreover, Sixth Circuit decisions since the Court decided Defendants' initial motion to dismiss warrant another review of Plaintiff's claims. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dHhfJJ from PacerMonitor.com. WEEE! INC: Jia Sues Over Violations of Property, Privacy Rights --------------------------------------------------------------- HELEN JIA, TINGTING DING, HAOQUAN LIANG, and XIAOFANG MEI, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WEEE! INC., and DOES 1-100, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01354 (C.D. Cal., February 18, 2025) is a consumer class action brought by the Plaintiffs to secure redress for Defendants' violations of their property and privacy rights due to an occurrence of a data breach on February 6, 2023. The Plaintiffs and Class Members are consumers who entrusted their personally identifiable information to Defendants. The Defendants allegedly betrayed Plaintiffs and Class Members' trust by failing to properly safeguard and protect their PII, and publicly disclosing their PII without authorization, in violation of numerous laws including the California Customer Records Act, the California Unfair Competition Law, the California Information Practices Act, and the California common law. The Defendants' security failures enabled the hackers to steal personal and financial data from Defendant and put Class members' personal and financial information at serious and ongoing risk. The hackers continue to use the information they obtained as a result of Defendant's inadequate security to exploit and injure Class members across the United States. Because of the data breach, there is an immediate and substantial risk of identity theft, identity fraud, and records, fraudulent credit card activity, the opening or re-opening of new credit card accounts in their name, phishing, increased mailers marketing products and services, says the suit. Weee! Inc. is an Asian grocery store in the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Blake J. Lindemann, Esq. LINDEMANN LAW FIRM, APC 9777 Wilshire Blvd., 4th Floor Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (310) 279-5269 Facsimile: (310) 300-0267 E-mail: blake@lawbl.com YEHUDA SHMIDMAN: D'Arcy Settlement Plan of Allocation Okayed ------------------------------------------------------------ The Honorable J. Paul Oetken of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York approved the plan of allocation of the net settlement fund in the class action lawsuit captioned as PETER D'ARCY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. YEHUDA SHMIDMAN, KAREN MURRAY, GARY KLEIN, ANDREW COOPER, CHAD WAGENHEIM, PETER LOPS, DAVID CONN, DANIEL HANBRIDGE, LORRAINE DISANTO, WILLIAM SWEEDLER, AARON HOLLANDER, AL GOSSETT, STEWART LEONARD, JR., and COHNREZNICK LLP, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-07296 (S.D.N.Y.). Pursuant to and in full compliance with Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court finds and concludes that due and adequate notice was directed to all persons who are Class Members who could be identified with reasonable effort, advising them of the Plan of Allocation and of their right to object thereto, and a full and fair opportunity was accorded to all persons and entities who are Class Members to be heard with respect to the Plan of Allocation. The Court finds and concludes that the formula for the calculation of the claims of Authorized Claimants, which is set forth in the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action sent to Class Members, provides a fair and reasonable basis upon which to allocate the proceeds of the Net Settlement Fund established pursuant to the Stipulation among the Class Members, with due consideration having been given to administrative convenience and necessity. This Court finds and concludes that the Plan of Allocation, as set forth in the Notice, is, in all respects, fair and reasonable. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Vd4cd3 from PacerMonitor.com. YEHUDA SHMIDMAN: Lead Counsel Fee Request in D'Arcy Suit Okayed --------------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable J. Paul Oetken of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York approved the the motion of the lead counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses and award to plaintiff pursuant 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(a)(4) in the class action lawsuit captioned as PETER D'ARCY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. YEHUDA SHMIDMAN, KAREN MURRAY, GARY KLEIN, ANDREW COOPER, CHAD WAGENHEIM, PETER LOPS, DAVID CONN, DANIEL HANBRIDGE, LORRAINE DISANTO, WILLIAM SWEEDLER, AARON HOLLANDER, AL GOSSETT, STEWART LEONARD, JR., and COHNREZNICK LLP, Defendants, Case No.: 1:21-cv-07296 (S.D.N.Y.). The Court awards Lead Counsel attorneys' fees of 25% of the Settlement Amount and expenses of $38,927.19, together with the interest earned on both amounts for the same time period and at the same rate as that earned on the Settlement Fund until paid. The Court finds that the amount of fees awarded is fair, reasonable, and appropriate under the "percentage-of-recovery" method. In making this award of fees and expenses to Lead Counsel, the Court has considered and found that: (a) the Settlement has created a fund of $9,800,398.64 in cash that is already on deposit, and numerous Class Members who submit, or have submitted, valid Proof of Claim and Release forms will benefit from the Settlement created by Lead Counsel; (b) over 36,898 copies of the Notice were disseminated to potential Class Members indicating that Lead Counsel would move for attorneys' fees 25% of the Settlement Amount and expenses of $38,927.19, plus interest on both amounts; (c) Lead Counsel expended substantial time and effort pursuing the Litigation on behalf of the Class; (d) Lead Counsel pursued the Litigation entirely on a contingent basis; (e) the Litigation involves complex factual and legal issues and, in the absence of settlement, would involve lengthy proceedings whose resolution would be uncertain; (f) had Lead Counsel not achieved the Settlement, there would remain a significant risk that the Class may have recovered less or nothing from the Defendants; (g) public policy concerns favor the award of reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses in securities class action litigation; and (h) the attorneys' fees and expenses awarded are fair and reasonable. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(a)(4), the Court awards $3,000 to Plaintiff for the time it spent directly related to its representation of the Class. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iSPXKg from PacerMonitor.com. YEHUDA SHMIDMAN: Settlement in D'Arcy Suit Obtains Final Court Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ The Honorable J. Paul Oetken of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted final approval of the class action settlement in the case captioned as PETER D'ARCY, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. YEHUDA SHMIDMAN, KAREN MURRAY, GARY KLEIN, ANDREW COOPER, CHAD WAGENHEIM, PETER LOPS, DAVID CONN, DANIEL HANBRIDGE, LORRAINE DISANTO, WILLIAM SWEEDLER, AARON HOLLANDER, AL GOSSETT, STEWART LEONARD, JR., and COHNREZNICK LLP, Defendants, Case No. 1:21-cv-07296 (S.D.N.Y.) This matter came before the Court pursuant to the Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Providing for Notice dated November 8, 2024, on the application of Plaintiff for approval of the Settlement set forth in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated as of October 30, 2024. This Final Judgment and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice incorporates by reference: (a) the Stipulation; and (b) the Notice, Summary Notice, and Declaration of the Claims Administrator filed with this Court on October 30, 2024. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Action and over all parties to the Action, including all Members of the Class. The Court finds that during the course of the Action, the Parties and their respective counsel at all times complied with the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this Court affirms its determinations in the Order and finally certifies for purposes of settlement only a Class defined as all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Sequential Securities between November 9, 2016 and December 11, 2020, inclusive. This Court affirms its determinations in the Order and finds, for the purposes of the Settlement only, that the prerequisites for a class action under Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been satisfied in that: (a) the number of Class Members is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; (b) there are questions of law and fact common to the Class; (c) the claims of Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the Class it seeks to represent; (d) Plaintiff and Lead Counsel have fairly and adequately represented the interests of the Class; (e) the questions of law and fact common to the Members of the Class predominate over any questions affecting only individual Class Members; and (f) a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court affirms its determinations in the Order and finally appoints Plaintiff CJD Finance Company, LLC as the class representative for the Class and Freedman Normand Friedland LLP as class counsel for the Class. There have been no objections to the Settlement. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court affirms its determinations in the Order, fully and finally approves the Settlement set forth in the Stipulation in all respects, and finds that: the Stipulation and the Settlement contained therein, are, in all respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate, and in the best interest of the Class; the class representative and Lead Counsel adequately represented the Class; there was no collusion in connection with the Stipulation; the Stipulation was the product of informed, arm's-length negotiations among competent, experienced and able counsel; and the record is sufficiently developed and complete to have enabled Plaintiff and Defendants to have adequately evaluated and considered their positions. Accordingly, the Court authorizes and directs the implementation and performance of all the terms and provisions of the Stipulation, as well as the terms and provisions hereof. The Court dismisses the Action and all Released Claims of the Class with prejudice. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NsscCm from PacerMonitor.com. Asbestos Litigation ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Cos. Defends Exposure Lawsuits -------------------------------------------------------- Over the years, Carlisle Companies Incorporated has been named as a defendant, along with numerous other defendants, in lawsuits in various courts in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to exposure to asbestos-containing friction products produced and sold predominantly by its discontinued Motion Control business between the late-1940s and the mid-1980s and roofing products produced and sold by Henry Company LLC, which was acquired on September 1, 2021, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Carlisle Companies states, "The Company has been subject to liabilities for indemnity and defense costs associated with these lawsuits. "The Company has recorded a liability for estimated indemnity costs associated with pending and future asbestos claims. As of December 31, 2024, the Company believes that its accrual for these costs is not material to the Company's financial position, results of operations or operating cash flows. "The Company recognizes expenses for defense costs associated with asbestos claims during the periods in which they are incurred. Refer to Note 1 for the Company’s accounting policy related to litigation defense costs. "The Company currently maintains insurance coverage and is the beneficiary of other arrangements that provide coverage with respect to asbestos-related claims and associated defense costs. The Company records the insurance coverage as a receivable in an amount it reasonably estimates is probable of recovery for pending and future asbestos-related indemnity claims. Since the Company's insurance coverage contains various exclusions, limits of coverage and self-insured retentions and may be subject to insurance coverage disputes, the Company may incur expenses for indemnity and defense costs and recognize income from insurance recoveries in different periods, as such recoveries are recorded only if and when it becomes probable that such costs will be covered by insurance." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=THCgU5 ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chemours Has 800 Pending PI Lawsuits at Dec. 31 ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Chemours Company, at December 31, 2024 and 2023, had approximately 800 lawsuits pending against former parent company E. I. du Pont de Nemours (EID) alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos, respectively, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "These cases are pending in state and federal court in numerous jurisdictions in the U.S. and are individually set for trial. A small number of cases are pending outside of the U.S. Most of the actions were brought by contractors who worked at sites between the 1950s and the 1990s. A small number of cases involve similar allegations by EID employees or household members of contractors or EID employees. Finally, certain lawsuits allege personal injury as a result of exposure to EID products. "At December 31, 2024 and 2023, Chemours had accruals of $61 and $39 related to these matters, respectively." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lbFkUy ASBESTOS UPDATE: Colgate-Palmolive Reports 309 Pending Cases ------------------------------------------------------------ Colgate-Palmolive Company has been named as a defendant in civil actions alleging that certain of its talcum powder products were contaminated with asbestos and/or caused mesothelioma and other cancers, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Colgate-Palmolive Company states, "As of December 31, 2024, there were 309 individual cases pending against the Company in state and federal courts throughout the United States, as compared to 279 cases as of December 31, 2023. During the year ended December 31, 2024, 142 new cases were filed and 111 cases were resolved by voluntary dismissal, settlement or dismissal by the court, and one case was removed from the case count when it was established that the claim does not relate to talcum powder. The value of the settlements in the periods presented was not material, either individually or in the aggregate, to such periods' results of operations. During the three months ended March 31, 2024, one case resulted in a jury verdict in favor of the Company after a trial. Subsequently, the trial court granted plaintiffs' motion for a new trial in that case. However, during the three months ended September 30, 2024, an appellate court granted the Company's request to reinstate the jury's verdict in favor of the Company. Plaintiffs are challenging that ruling and separately are appealing other issues related to the verdict. "A significant portion of the Company's costs incurred in defending and resolving these claims has been, and the Company believes that a portion of the costs will continue to be, covered by insurance policies issued by several primary, excess and umbrella insurance carriers, subject to deductibles, exclusions, retentions, policy limits and insurance carrier insolvencies. "While the Company and its legal counsel believe that the Company has strong legal grounds to contest these cases and intends to challenge them vigorously, there can be no assurances regarding the ultimate resolution of these matters." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=M7kqxM ASBESTOS UPDATE: Constellation Energy Estimates $125MM Liabilities ------------------------------------------------------------------ Constellation Energy Generation, LLC, at December 31, 2024 and 2023, has recorded estimated liabilities of approximately $125 million and $131 million, respectively, in total for asbestos-related bodily injury claims, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "As of December 31, 2024, approximately $14 million of this amount related to 203 open claims presented to us, while the remaining $111 million is for estimated future asbestos-related bodily injury claims anticipated to arise through 2055, based on actuarial assumptions and analyses, which are updated on an annual basis. On a quarterly basis, we monitor actual experience against the number of forecasted claims to be received and expected claim payments and evaluate whether adjustments to the estimated liabilities are necessary." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FTqUrg ASBESTOS UPDATE: Curtiss-Wright Defends Exposure Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------- Curtiss-Wright Corporation has been named in pending lawsuits that allege injury from exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "To date, we have not been found liable or paid any material sum of money in settlement in any asbestos-related case. We believe that the minimal use of asbestos in our past operations and the relatively non-friable condition of asbestos in our products make it unlikely that we will face material liability in any asbestos litigation, whether individually or in the aggregate. We maintain insurance coverage for these potential liabilities and we believe adequate coverage exists to cover any unanticipated asbestos liability." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0UPFPi ASBESTOS UPDATE: Entergy Corp. Faces 185 Exposure Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------- Entergy Corporation, as a premises owner, is currently named a defendant of approximately 185 lawsuits involving approximately 330 claimants, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Numerous lawsuits have been filed in state courts against primarily Entergy Louisiana and Entergy Texas by individuals alleging exposure to asbestos while working at Entergy facilities between 1955 and 1980. Many other defendants are named in these lawsuits as well. Management believes that adequate provisions have been established to cover any exposure. Additionally, negotiations continue with insurers to recover reimbursements. Management believes that loss exposure has been and will continue to be handled so that the ultimate resolution of these matters will not be material, in the aggregate, to the financial position, results of operation, or cash flows of the Utility operating companies." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HnxyyT ASBESTOS UPDATE: Freeport-McMoRan Faces Numerous PI Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------ Since approximately 1990, various Freeport-McMoRan Inc. affiliates have been named as defendants in a large number of lawsuits alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos or talc allegedly contained in industrial products such as electrical wire and cable, raw materials such as paint and joint compounds, talc-based lubricants used in rubber manufacturing or from asbestos contained in buildings and facilities located at properties owned or operated by affiliates of FCX, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "Many of these suits involve a large number of codefendants. Based on litigation results to date and facts currently known, FCX believes that the amounts of any such losses, individually or in the aggregate, are not material to its consolidated financial statements. There can be no assurance that future developments will not alter this conclusion. "There has been a significant increase in the number of cases alleging the presence of asbestos contamination in talc-based cosmetic and personal care products and in cases alleging exposure to talc products that are not alleged to be contaminated with asbestos. The primary targets have been the producers of those products, but defendants in many of these cases also include talc miners. Cyprus Amax Minerals Company (CAMC), an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of FCX, and Cyprus Mines Corporation (Cyprus Mines), a wholly owned subsidiary of CAMC, are among those targets. Cyprus Mines was engaged in talc mining and processing from 1964 until 1992 when it exited its talc business by conveying it to a third party in two related transactions. Those transactions involved (1) a transfer by Cyprus Mines of the assets of its talc business to a newly formed subsidiary that assumed all pre-sale and post-sale talc liabilities, subject to limited reservations, and (2) a sale of the stock of that subsidiary to the third party. In 2011, the third party sold that subsidiary to Imerys Talc America (Imerys), an affiliate of Imerys S.A. "In accordance with the terms of the 1992 transactions and subsequent agreements, Cyprus Mines has contractual indemnification rights, subject to limited reservations, against Imerys, which historically acknowledged those indemnification obligations and took responsibility for all talc lawsuits against Cyprus Mines and CAMC tendered to it. However, in February 2019, Imerys filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, which triggered an immediate automatic stay under the federal bankruptcy code prohibiting any party from continuing or initiating litigation or asserting new claims against Imerys. As a result, Imerys stopped defending the talc lawsuits against Cyprus Mines and CAMC. "In January 2021, Imerys filed the form of a global settlement agreement to be entered into by CAMC, Cyprus Mines, FCX, Imerys and the other debtors, tort claimants’ committee and future claims representative in the Imerys bankruptcy. In accordance with the global settlement, among other things, (1) CAMC agreed to contribute a total of $130 million in cash to a settlement trust in seven annual installments, which will be guaranteed by FCX, and (2) CAMC and Cyprus Mines and their affiliates will contribute to the settlement trust all rights that they have to the proceeds of certain legacy insurance policies as well as indemnity rights they have against Johnson & Johnson. In accordance with the settlement, Cyprus Mines commenced its bankruptcy process in February 2021, with all talc lawsuits against CAMC, Cyprus Mines and FCX being stayed. The claimants failed to approve the Imerys bankruptcy plan in 2021, which resulted in a lengthy mediation process among the interested parties. Mediation resulted in CAMC agreeing to contribute an additional $65 million over seven years to the claimant trust for a total contribution of $195 million. The claimants in both the Imerys and Cyprus Mines bankruptcy cases approved the global settlement in January 2025, which now remains subject to bankruptcy court approvals in both cases. There can be no assurance that the global settlement will be approved and successfully implemented. "At December 31, 2024, FCX had a litigation reserve of $195 million associated with the proposed settlement." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BFzu4t ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Tire Faces 35,400 Exposure Lawsuits ------------------------------------------------------------- The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company is currently one of numerous defendants in legal proceedings in certain state and federal courts involving approximately 35,400 claimants at December 31, 2024 relating to their alleged exposure to materials containing asbestos in products allegedly manufactured by them or asbestos materials present at their facilities, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "We are a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging various asbestos-related personal injuries purported to result from alleged exposure to asbestos in certain products manufactured by us or present in certain of our facilities. Typically, these lawsuits have been brought against multiple defendants in state and federal courts. To date, we have disposed of approximately 161,200 claims by defending, obtaining a dismissal thereof, or entering into a settlement. The sum of our accrued asbestos-related liability and gross payments to date, including legal costs, by us and our insurers totaled $589 million and $580 million through December 31, 2024 and 2023, respectively." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Tshjvh ASBESTOS UPDATE: Honeywell Int'l. Defends Personal Injury Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Honeywell International Inc. is named in asbestos-related personal injury claims related to North American Refractories Company (NARCO), which was sold in 1986, and the Bendix Friction Materials (Bendix) business, which was sold in 2014, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2GDKrT ASBESTOS UPDATE: NewMarket Corp. Defends PI Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------- NewMarket Corporation is a defendant in personal injury lawsuits involving exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "These cases involve exposure to asbestos in premises owned or operated, or formerly owned or operated, by subsidiaries of NewMarket. We have never manufactured, sold, or distributed products that contain asbestos. Nearly all of these cases are pending in Texas, Louisiana, or Illinois and most involve multiple defendants. We maintain an accrual for these proceedings, as well as a receivable for expected insurance recoveries." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RDhJNt ASBESTOS UPDATE: Transocean Faces 364 Product Liability Lawsuits ---------------------------------------------------------------- One of Transocean Ltd.'s subsidiaries, was named as a defendant, along with numerous other companies, in lawsuits arising out of the its manufacture and sale of heat exchangers, and involvement in the construction and refurbishment of major industrial complexes alleging bodily injury or personal injury as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "As of December 31, 2024, the subsidiary was a defendant in approximately 364 lawsuits with a corresponding number of plaintiffs. For many of these lawsuits, we have not been provided sufficient information from the plaintiffs to determine whether all or some of the plaintiffs have claims against the subsidiary, the basis of any such claims, or the nature of their alleged injuries. The operating assets of the subsidiary were sold in 1989. In December 2021, the subsidiary and certain insurers agreed to a settlement of outstanding disputes that provide the subsidiary with cash. An earlier settlement, achieved in September 2018, provided the subsidiary with cash and an annuity for which installments began in December 2024. Together with a coverage-in-place agreement with certain insurers and additional coverage issued by other insurers, we believe the subsidiary has sufficient resources to respond to both the current lawsuits as well as future lawsuits of a similar nature. While we cannot predict or provide assurance as to the outcome of these matters, we do not expect the ultimate liability, if any, resulting from these claims to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated statement of financial position, results of operations or cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yeu7bb ASBESTOS UPDATE: Travelers Cos. Has $1.34BB Reserves at Dec. 31 --------------------------------------------------------------- The Travelers Companies, Inc.'s net asbestos reserves at December 31, 2024 and 2023 were $1.34 billion and $1.38 billion, respectively, and include case reserves, IBNR reserves and reserves for the costs of defending asbestos-related coverage litigation, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Travelers Companies states, "The Company believes that the property and casualty insurance industry has suffered from court decisions and other trends that have expanded insurance coverage for asbestos claims far beyond the original intent of insurers and policyholders. The Company has received and continues to receive a significant number of asbestos claims. Factors underlying these claim filings include continued intensive advertising by lawyers seeking asbestos claimants and the focus by plaintiffs on defendants, such as manufacturers of talcum powder, who were not traditionally sued and/or primary targets of asbestos litigation. Many defendants have also been subject to increased settlement demands, in part due to the bankruptcy of many traditional primary targets of asbestos litigation. Currently, in many jurisdictions, those who allege very serious injury and who can present credible medical evidence of their injuries are receiving priority trial settings in the courts, while those who have not shown any credible disease manifestation are having their hearing dates delayed or placed on an inactive docket. Prioritizing claims involving credible evidence of injuries, along with the focus on defendants who were not traditionally primary targets of asbestos litigation, contributes to the claims and claim adjustment expense payment patterns experienced by the Company. The Company's asbestos-related claims and claim adjustment expense experience also has been impacted by the unavailability of other insurance sources potentially available to policyholders, whether through exhaustion of policy limits or through the insolvency of other participating insurers. "The Company continues to be involved in disputes, including litigation, with a number of policyholders, some of whom are in bankruptcy, over coverage for asbestos-related claims. Many coverage disputes with policyholders are only resolved through settlement agreements. Because many policyholders make exaggerated demands, it is difficult to predict the outcome of settlement negotiations. Settlements involving bankrupt policyholders may include extensive releases which are favorable to the Company, but which could result in settlements for larger amounts than originally anticipated. Although the Company has seen a reduction in the overall risk associated with these disputes, it remains difficult to predict the ultimate cost of these claims. As in the past, the Company will continue to pursue settlement opportunities. "In addition to claims against policyholders, proceedings have been launched directly against insurers, including the Company, by individuals challenging insurers’ conduct with respect to the handling of past asbestos claims and by individuals seeking damages arising from alleged asbestos-related bodily injuries. While the number of direct actions has decreased significantly over time, it is possible that additional direct actions against insurers, including the Company, could be filed in the future. It is difficult to predict the outcome of these proceedings, including whether the plaintiffs would be able to sustain these actions against insurers based on novel legal theories of liability. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to any such claims and has received favorable rulings in certain jurisdictions." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oPlbDG ASBESTOS UPDATE: Vontier Corp. Has $104.6MM Liabilities at Dec. 31 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Vontier Corporation has recorded $104.6 million gross liabilities associated with known and future expected asbestos claims and projected insurance recoveries as of December 31, 2024, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Vontier Corp. states, "In connection with the recognition of liabilities for asbestos-related matters, the Company records insurance recoveries that are deemed probable and estimable. In assessing the probability of insurance recovery, the Company makes judgments concerning insurance coverage that it believes are reasonable and consistent with its historical dealings, knowledge of any pertinent solvency issues surrounding insurers, and litigation and court rulings potentially impacting coverage. While the substantial majority of the Company's insurance carriers are solvent, some of our individual carriers are insolvent, which has been considered in the analysis of probable recoveries. Projecting future events is subject to various uncertainties, including litigation and court rulings potentially impacting coverage, that could cause insurance recoveries on asbestos-related liabilities to be higher or lower than those projected and recorded. Given the inherent uncertainty in making future projections, the Company reevaluates projections concerning the Company's probable insurance recoveries considering any changes to the projected liabilities, the Company's recovery experience or other relevant factors that may impact future insurance recoveries." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zX9bfB ASBESTOS UPDATE: Watts Water Defends Product Liability Lawsuits --------------------------------------------------------------- Watts Water Technologies, Inc. is defending lawsuits in different jurisdictions, alleging injury or death as a result of exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "The complaints in these cases typically name a large number of defendants and do not identify any of our particular products as a source of asbestos exposure. To date, discovery has failed to yield evidence of substantial exposure to any of our products and no judgments have been entered against us. Based on information currently known to it, management believes that these matters are not likely to have a material adverse effect on the business or financial condition of the Company, or to have a material adverse effect on the Company's operating results for any particular period." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zr4zjH ASBESTOS UPDATE: Westinghouse Air Brake Faces Exposure Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- Claims have been filed against Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation and certain of its affiliates in various jurisdictions across the United States by persons alleging bodily injury as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products, according to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company states, "The vast majority of the claims are submitted to insurance carriers for defense and indemnity, or to non-affiliated companies that retain the liabilities for the asbestos-containing products at issue. We cannot, however, assure that all of these claims will be fully covered by insurance, or that the indemnitors or insurers will remain financially viable. Our ultimate legal and financial liability with respect to these claims, as is the case with other pending litigation, cannot be estimated. A limited number of claims are not covered by insurance, nor are they subject to indemnity from non-affiliated parties. Management believes that the costs of the Company's asbestos-related cases will not be material to the Company's overall financial position, results of operations and cash flows." A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pBuupY ********* 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 ***