/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250310.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, March 10, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 49 Headlines ADORE ME: Faces Oaks Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ALLSTATE CORP: Collects, Sells Consumers' Personal Data, Seay Says AOA OFFICE: Pardo Alleges Property's Architectural Barriers ARCADIA PUBLISHING: Settles Data Breach Class Suit For $450,000 CAVENDISH FARMS: Bradley Alleges Frozen Potatoes Market Conspiracy CAVENDISH FARMS: Schilliano Alleges Potatoes' Price Fixing Scheme COHEN KEEPERS: Underpays Home Health Aides, Burk Suit Says DRIVEN BRANDS: Court Denies to Dismiss Shareholder Class Lawsuit EIT NYC LLC: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Clement Says ELAN SALON: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Layne Says EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Dukes Appeals FCRA Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. FOREST RIVER: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response GEN DIGITAL: Lewis Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona GIGSMART INC: Johnson Suit Removed to N.D. California GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Cude Sues Over Improper Insurance Policy HUT CAROLINAS: Jones Sues Over Excessive Sloping Conditions INTERNATIONAL DIRECTIONAL: Williams Sues Over Unpaid Wages JPMORGAN CHASE: Pessin Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 2nd Cir. LYMI INC: Sanchez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. MAMA TINA'S: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Maldonado Alleges MANDATO FRUITS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Molina Suit Alleges MATTRESS DIRECT: Contreras Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime META PLATFORMS: Klein Appeals Class Cert. Ruling to 9th Cir. MI OPCO: Bowers Suit Alleges Failure to Pay Overtime Wages NEW YORK: DeFreitas Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir. OAK HARBOR: Class Settlement in Alvarado Suit Gets Final Nod ONE BROOKLYN: Settles Data Breach Class Suit for $1.5-Million PENSION SPECIALISTS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Miller Says PENSION SPECIALISTS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Newman Says PENTAGON FEDERAL: Class Cert Bid Deadline Modified to August 1 POINT.360: Burson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PROFESSIONAL PARKING: Cicale Suit Seeks Class Certification PROFESSIONAL SECURITY: Jimenez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Franco Suit Seeks to Certify Insured Class PUBLIC HEALTH: Felder Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages QUANTUM COMPUTING: Cohen Sues Over Drop in Share Price RETAILING ENTERPRISES: Clement Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website RETREAT BEHAVIORAL: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response RICHMOND, VA: Illegally Overcharges Rent Fees, Coleman Says RUSSELL COUNTY SHERIFF: Hill Suit Seeks to Certify Class S.O.S. MAINTENANCE: Valdivia Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages SELENE FINANCE: Milam Appeals Court Order in FDCPA Suit to 7th Cir. SEMTECH CORP: Kleovoulos Suit Alleges Decline in Share Price SHALEEMENTERPRISE3LLC: Siracusa Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages SHARPE INTERIOR: Cabrera Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SKIMS BODY: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Battle Claims SLT LENDING: Class Settlement in Baker Suit Gets Initial Nod SOCIETY6 LLC: Battle Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind SOMA INTIMATES: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SOUTHWEST STAGE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Flores Alleges STATE FARM: Wiggins Case Stayed Pending Ruling in Freeman Suit SUNRUN INC: Luckau TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class SUPERB CABLE: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response SYNERGY INSPECTIONS: Hodge Seeks to Certify Employee Class TARGET CORP: Issues Misleading Statements to Investors, Suit Says TELECARE CORPORATION: Uzoukwu Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. THOMSON REUTERS: Class Settlement in Brooks Suit Gets Final Nod TOURO COLLEGE: Court Narrows Claims in Yodice Suit TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Maurer Suit Over Defective Seatbelts TPUSA INC: Katsnelson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages TRUMBULL INSURANCE: Court Stays Case Deadlines in Grawe TTEC SERVICES: Bid for Conditional Certification Partly OK'd TURQUOISE HILL: Must File Clas Cert Opposition by March 27 UI GLOBAL BRANDS: Fagnani Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York UNIFIRST CORP: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in Lazare UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Seeks to Seal Class Cert Exhibits in Jones UNITED PARCEL: Seeks to File Class Exhibits Under Seal UNITED RENTALS: Martin Suit Removed to N.D. California UNITED STATES: Burton Seeks to Certify Military Veteran Class UNITED STATES: Burton Sues Over Denied Prostate Cancer Treatment VALENTINO USA: Plaintiffs' Renewed Bid for Class Cert Tossed VAUGHAN MCLEAN: Seeks to Strike Demetro Bid for Class Cert. VECTRARX MAIL: Ciminski Alleges Inadequate Data Security Measures WARNER MUSIC: Judge to Deny Hall Class Certification Bid WEBMD LLC: Jancik Suit Wins Bid to Certify Class & Subclass WELLS FARGO: Chakravarthy Suit Transferred to N.D. California WORKFORCE7 INC: Class Opposition Briefs in Ballast Due March 21 WORLDWIDE FLIGHT: Class Cert Hearing Set for Dec. 15 ZWANGER & PESIRI: Self-Initiated Living Sues Over ADA Violation ********* ADORE ME: Faces Oaks Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------- MARK OAKS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADORE ME, INC., Defendant, Case No. ESX-L-001368-25 (N.J. Super., Essex Cty., February 20, 2025) is a civil rights action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, seeking redress for Defendant's actions which violate the Americans with Disabilities Act. Upon visiting Defendant's website, https://www.adoreme.com, the Plaintiff quickly became aware of Defendant's failure to maintain and operate its website in a way to make it fully accessible for himself and for other blind or visually-impaired people. For example, many features on the website fail to accurately describe the contents of graphical images, fail to properly label title, fails to distinguish one page from another, contains multiple broken links, contains headings that do not describe the topic or purpose, and contains text that is not read. These access barriers effectively denied Plaintiff the ability to use and enjoy Defendant's website the same way sighted individuals do, the suit says. 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. Adore Me Inc. operates the website that serves as a direct-to-consumer women's intimate apparel brand.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Zemel, Esq. ZEMEL LAW LLC 400 Sylvan Ave, Suite 200 Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632 Telephone: (862) 227-3106 E-mail: dz@zemellawllc.com ALLSTATE CORP: Collects, Sells Consumers' Personal Data, Seay Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHRYSTIE SEAY and VALENCIA TUCKER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE ALLSTATE CORPORATION, ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, ALLSTATE VEHICLE AND PROPERTY INSURANCE COMPANY, ARITY, LLC, ARITY 875, LLC, and ARITY SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01744 (N.D. Ill., February 20, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Federal Wiretap Act, the Federal Stored Communications Act, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, the Illinois Wiretaping, Electronic Surveillance, and Interception of Communications Law, and the South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants developed the Routely app, which helps consumers monitor their driving habits. Routely, however, does not disclose that users' precise location and other data is constantly monitored and aggregated into a profile that can be sold or used by third parties to analyze the user's behavior and driving habits. The Defendants have leveraged the value of consumers' mobility data to the maximum extent by both selling it to third-party companies and advertisers and by using it themselves for their own insurance underwriting, says the suit. The unauthorized collection and dissemination of Arity software development kit data has and will continue to result in substantial injury to consumers, including Plaintiffs, the suit asserts. Allstate is one of the largest insurance companies in the United States, with over $50 billion in annual revenue and 53,000 employees.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 E-mail: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com - and - Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and - Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 E-mail: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com AOA OFFICE: Pardo Alleges Property's Architectural Barriers ----------------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, Plaintiff v. AOA OFFICE, LLC and ALTECH AMERICA LLC D/B/A EL MANI RESTAURANT, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-20794 (S.D. Fla., February 20, 2025) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals, against the Defendant for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. Defendant, AOA OFFICE, LLC, owns, operates and/or oversees a commercial property to include its general parking lot, parking spots, and entrance access and path of travel specific to the tenant businesses therein and all other common areas open to the public located within the commercial property. According to the complaint, Plaintiff Pardo has encountered architectural barriers that is in violation of the ADA at the subject commercial property. The barriers to access at Defendants' commercial property and commercial restaurant business has each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial property and restaurant and has endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have discriminated against him by denying access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 E-mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com ARCADIA PUBLISHING: Settles Data Breach Class Suit For $450,000 --------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that Arcadia Publishing agreed to pay $450,000 to resolve claims it failed to protect consumer information from a 2023 data breach. The Arcadia Publishing settlement benefits individuals who received a notice from Arcadia Publishing informing them their personal information may have been compromised in a data breach discovered in April 2023. According to the data breach class action lawsuit, Arcadia Publishing could have prevented the data breach with reasonable cybersecurity measures. The Arcadia Published data breach allegedly compromised sensitive personal information of employees, including Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers and financial account information. Arcadia Publishing is a publisher that specializes in local and state history. Arcadia Publishing has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $450,000 class action settlement to resolve these allegations. Under the terms of the Arcadia Publishing settlement, class members can receive reimbursement for documented expenses and credit monitoring services, or an alternative cash payment. Class members who experienced documented monetary losses can receive up to $5,000. This reimbursement includes up to five hours of lost time at a rate of $25 per hour. Class members can also receive three years of comprehensive one-bureau credit card monitoring and $1 million of identity theft insurance. This is in addition to any documented losses claimed. Instead of documented losses, lost time payment and/or credit card monitoring, you can opt for a po-rata cash payout. This is estimated to be around $100 increased or decreased depending upon the number of claims filed. Also in the publishing field, the education publishing giant Scholastic fell victim to a data breach in January 2025, during which stolen data was shared with the Daily Dot. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Feb. 7, 2025. The final approval hearing for the Arcadia Publishing data breach settlement is scheduled for April 7, 2025. In order to receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by March 9, 2025. Who's Eligible Individuals who received a data breach notification from Arcadia Publishing informing them that their personal information may have been compromised in a data breach discovered in April 2023. Potential Award Up to $5,000 in documented expenses including lost time, 3-year credit card monitoring and identity theft insurance, or a pro-rata cash payment. Proof of Purchase Attorneys' fees, accountants' fees, fees for credit repair services, costs associated with freezing or unfreezing credit with any credit reporting agency and credit monitoring. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 03/09/2025 Case Name Everingham, et al. v. Arcadia Publishing Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-00487-DCN, in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. Final Hearing 04/07/2025 Settlement Website ArcadiaPublishingSettlement.com Claims Administrator Arcadia Publishing Settlement Administrator P.O. Box 301134 Los Angeles, CA 90030-1134 (888) 726-1297 Class Counsel Raina C. Borrelli STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC Defense Counsel Paulyne Gardner MULLEN COUGHLIN LLC [GN] CAVENDISH FARMS: Bradley Alleges Frozen Potatoes Market Conspiracy ------------------------------------------------------------------ BRADLEY CONCESSIONS LLC; DAWKIT, INC. d/b/a BURGER BARN GRILL; ERIC MEYERS d/b/a EAT AT ERIC'S; MARK BENIGER d/b/a LITTLE JEWEL OF NEW ORLEANS; NORTHERN COMFORT HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC; POLIZZI GENEROSA INC. d/b/a SCILEPPI'S AT THE OLD STONE CHURCH; SKIP'S COME BACK INN, INC.; and VISTA AZUL, INC. on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CAVENDISH FARMS LTD.; CAVENDISH FARMS, INC.; CIRCANA, LLC; J.R. SIMPLOT COMPANY; LAMB WESTON HOLDINGS, INC.; LAMB WESTON, INC.; LAMB WESTON BSW, LLC; LAMB WESTON SALES, INC.; MCCAIN FOODS LTD; and, MCCAIN FOODS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01800 (N.D. Ill., February 20, 2025) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Section 16 of the Clayton Act, seeking injunctive relief, costs of suit, and reasonable attorney's fees, and the state law claims seek injunctive relief, damages, costs of suit, and reasonable attorneys' fees. Starting as early as January 1, 2021, and continuing to the present, the Defendants and their co-conspirators conspired to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of frozen potatoes in the United States. The Defendants implemented and executed their conspiracy by increasing the price of frozen potatoes at nearly identical times, leveraging a temporary spike in input costs to justify permanent industry-wide price increases, and utilizing other available means to exploit their collective market power and artificially increase prices of frozen potatoes, says the suit. As a direct result of Defendants' concerted pricing and supply side decision making, frozen potato prices in the United States have been artificially inflated since at least January 1, 2021, causing businesses such as Plaintiffs and members of the Classes to pay more for frozen potatoes than they would have but for the Defendants' agreement, the suit alleges. Plaintiff Bradley Concessions is based out of Enfield, Connecticut, where it operates numerous food and concession trucks and where it indirectly purchased frozen potatoes. Cavendish Farms, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that manufactures frozen french fries and potato products at facilities throughout the United States and is the fourth largest processor of frozen potato products in North America.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steven A. Hart, Esq. Julie A. Murphy, Esq. HART McLAUGHLIN & ELDRIDGE, LLC One South Dearborn, Suite 1400 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 955-0545 E-mail: shart@hmelegal.com jmurphy@hmelegal.com - and - Kimberly A. Justice, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 923 Fayette Street Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (484) 243-6335 E-mail: kjustice@fklmlaw.com - and - Douglas A. Millen, Esq. Matthew W. Ruan, Esq. Robert J. Wozniak, Esq. FREED KANNER LONDON & MILLEN LLC 100 Tri-State International, Suite 128 Lincolnshire, IL 60069 Telephone: (224) 632-4500 E-mail: dmillen@fklmlaw.com mruan@fklmlaw.com rwozniak@fklmlaw.com - and - Daniel L. Warshaw, Esq. Bobby Pouya, Esq. Matthew A. Pearson, Esq. Eric J. Mont, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP 15165 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 400 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (818) 788-8300 E-mail: dwarshaw@pwfirm.com bpouya@pwfirm.com mapearson@pwfirm.com emont@pwfirm.com - and - Brian S. Pafundi, Esq. PEARSON WARSHAW, LLP 328 Barry Ave. South, Suite 200 Wayzata, MN 55391 Telephone: (612) 389-0600 E-mail: bpafundi@pwfirm.com - and - Todd M. Schneider, Esq. Matthew S. Weiler, Esq. Raymond Levine, Esq. SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY LLP 2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 421-7100 E-mail: TSchneider@schneiderwallace.com MWeiler@schneiderwallace.com RLevine@schneiderwallace.com CAVENDISH FARMS: Schilliano Alleges Potatoes' Price Fixing Scheme ----------------------------------------------------------------- Schilliano, LLC d/b/a ILLIANO'S RISTORANTE & PIZZERIA, on behalf of itself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CAVENDISH FARMS LTD.; CAVENDISH FARMS, INC.; CIRCANA, LLC; J.R. SIMPLOT COMPANY; LAMB WESTON HOLDINGS, INC.; LAMB WESTON, INC.; LAMB WESTON BSW, LLC; LAMB WESTON SALES, INC.; MCCAIN FOODS LTD; and, MCCAIN FOODS USA, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01796 (N.D. Ill., February 20, 2025) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff under the Sherman Act and Clayton Act to put an end to Defendants' illegal price fixing scheme, to recover damages, and to restore competition in the frozen potato marketplace. Starting as early as January 1, 2021, and continuing to the present, the Defendants and their co-conspirators conspired to fix, raise, maintain, and stabilize the price of frozen potatoes in the United States. The Defendants implemented and executed their conspiracy by increasing the price of Frozen Potatoes at nearly identical times, leveraging a temporary spike in input costs to justify permanent industry-wide price increases, and utilizing other available means to exploit their collective market power and artificially increase prices of frozen potatoes. As a direct result of the Defendants' concerted pricing and supply side decision making, frozen potato prices in the United States have been artificially inflated since at least January 1, 2021, causing businesses such as Plaintiff and members of the Classes to pay more for frozen potatoes than they would have but for the Defendants' agreement, says the suit. Cavendish Farms, Ltd. sells frozen french fries, hash browns, tater tots and other frozen potato products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew M. Stroth, Esq. ACTION INJURY LAW GROUP, LLC One South Dearborn, Suite 1400 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (844) 878-4529 E-mail: astroth@actioninjurylawgroup.com - and - Stuart G. Gross, Esq. GROSS KLEIN PC The Embarcadero Pier 9, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 671-4628 E-mail: sgross@grosskleinlaw.com COHEN KEEPERS: Underpays Home Health Aides, Burk Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------- SANDRA BURK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE COHEN KEEPERS LLC d/b/a AT HOME ESSENTIAL ASSISTANCE DELIVERY, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00912 (E.D. Pa., February 20, 2025) is a class action complaint contending that Defendant unlawfully failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly-situated overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. The Plaintiff was an employee of the Defendant employed in the position of live-in home health aide. The Plaintiff and Class members regularly worked more than 40 hours per week, but were not properly compensated for their work in that they were not paid an overtime premium at one and a half times their regular rate of pay for each hour worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek. In this regard, the Plaintiff contends that Defendant unlawfully misclassified her and Class members as exempt from the overtime compensation requirements of the FLSA and PMWA. The Plaintiff began her employment with Defendant in September 2024, when she was hired as a live-in home health aide. She continued working for Defendant in the position until her separation from employment on January 10, 2025. The Cohen Keepers LLC is a home supportive care agency providing services in the patients' home.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Murphy, Esq. Michael Groh, Esq. MURPHY LAW GROUP, LLC Eight Penn Center, Suite 2000 1628 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 273-1054 Facsimile: (215) 525-0210 E-mail: murphy@phillyemploymentlawyer.com mgroh@phillyemploymentlawyer.com DRIVEN BRANDS: Court Denies to Dismiss Shareholder Class Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Johnson Fistel, LLP announces it is investigating whether certain directors and officers of Driven Brands Holdings Inc. (NASDAQ: DRVN) breached their fiduciary duties to the Company and its shareholders. What can I do? If you are a current long-term Driven Brands shareholder, you may have legal claims that may be brought on behalf of the company, against the Company's directors and officers. If you wish to discuss this notice or your legal rights, please contact lead analyst Jim Baker (jimb@johnsonfistel.com) at 619-814-4471. If emailing, please include a phone number. If you have continuously owned Driven Brands shares, you can click or copy and paste the link below in a browser to join: https://www.cognitoforms.com/JohnsonFistel/DrivenBrandsHoldingsInc What is this about? Recently the court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the shareholder class action lawsuit. The lawsuit alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose that: (i) despite repeatedly touting the Company's ability to execute and integrate acquisitions as a "core strength," Driven had not made significant progress integrating the auto glass businesses it had acquired; (ii) the large scale of its car wash business was not enough to preserve Driven's competitive position in the market; (iii) the severity of its issues with customer demand for its car wash business segment; (iv) the Company was several quarters behind on integrating its auto glass businesses; and (v) the Company's car wash business was faltering and more exposed to a decline in demand from retail customers than Defendants represented to investors. Johnson Fistel LLP's investigation seeks to determine whether the senior officers or members of its board of directors harmed the company by breaching their fiduciary duties or otherwise violating securities laws in connection with the foregoing alleged conduct. About Johnson Fistel, LLP: Johnson Fistel, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder rights law firm with offices in California, New York, Georgia, and Colorado. The firm represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit http://www.johnsonfistel.com. Johnson Fistel, LLP has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Frank J. Johnson is the attorney responsible for its content. Contacts Johnson Fistel, LLP 501 W. Broadway, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101 James Baker, Investor Relations or Frank J. Johnson, Esq. (619) 814-4471 jimb@johnsonfistel.com fjohnson@johnsonfistel.com [GN] EIT NYC LLC: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Clement Says --------------------------------------------------------------- VINCENT CLEMENT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. EIT NYC, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01042 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 25, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.elementintime.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. EIT NYC, LLC is engaged in buying, selling and trading both modern and vintage, unworn and pre-owned luxury timepieces. [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 ELAN SALON: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Layne Says ------------------------------------------------------------ DALE LAYNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ELAN SALON & DAY SPA CORP., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01068 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 25, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.elansalonandspa.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. 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 EXPERIAN INFORMATION: Dukes Appeals FCRA Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- MELONIECE M. DUKES is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing her lawsuit entitled Meloniece M. Dukes, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-02855-SMB, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. On Nov. 18, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, which Judge Susan M. Brnovich granted on Dec. 11, 2024. The case is dismissed in its entirety and the Clerk of the Court is instructed to terminate this case. The appellate case is captioned Dukes v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Case No. 25-889, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on February 11, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on March 24, 2025; and -- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due on April 22, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant MELONIECE M. DUKES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, appears pro se. Defendant-Appellee EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC. is represented by: Kathryn Gasior, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE LLP 4000 Town Ctr., Ste. 1800 Southfield, MI 48075 FOREST RIVER: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAY NELSON, v. FOREST RIVER, INC. and DOES 1- 25, Case No. 4:22-cv-00049-BMM (D. Mont.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of time to respond to Plaintiff Jay Nelson's motion for class certification until 30 days after this Court decides Nelson's motion for leave to amend. Nelson moved for class certification on Feb. 11, 2025, making Forest River's response due Feb. 25, 2025. But Nelson's Motion for Leave to Amend the Third Amended Complaint remains fully briefed and pending before this Court, and it is essential that the Court resolve that the Motion before Forest River can respond to Nelson's Motion for Class Certification. Through his Motion for Leave to Amend, Nelson seeks to add three class claims: (1) breach of express warranty; (2) breach of implied warranty; and (3) violations of Indiana's Deceptive Consumer Sales Act. Forest River, however, cannot respond to Nelson's Motion for Class Certification without knowing which claims Nelson actually seeks to certify on behalf of his putative classes. Forest River has asked Nelson for his consent to this extension; Nelson did not consent. A copy of Forest River's correspondence is attached as Exhibit A. Forest River is an American manufacturer of recreational vehicles, cargo trailers, utility trailers, pontoon boats, and buses. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0rQXT0 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Mark T. Hayden, Esq. TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP 425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 357-9610 E-mail: mhayden@taftlaw.com - and - Maxon R. Davis, Esq. DAVIS, HATLEY, HAFFEMAN & TIGHE, P.C. The Milwaukee Station, Third Floor 101 River Drive North Great Falls, MT 59403-2103 Telephone: (406) 761-5243 E-mail: max.davis@dhhtlaw.com GEN DIGITAL: Lewis Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona ------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Gen Digital Incorporated. The case is styled as Tiffany Lewis, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. Gen Digital Incorporated, Case No. 2:25-cv-00647-SMB (D. Ariz., Feb. 25, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Gen Digital Inc. -- https://www.gendigital.com/us/en/ -- is a multinational software company co-headquartered in Tempe, Arizona and Prague, Czech Republic.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (508) 221-1510 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com GIGSMART INC: Johnson Suit Removed to N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Susan Johnson and Christi McCracken on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. GIGSMART, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 24CV066123 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. 25, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-02003. The Complaint asserts the following causes of action: Failure to Reimburse Expenses; Unlawful Deductions from Wages; Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements; Failure to Pay Overtime; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Breaks; Failure to Pay Wages When Due; Failure to Pay Minimum Wage; Unfair Business Practices; and Violation of Labor Code (Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA")).[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Timothy J. Long, Esq. Samuel S. Hyde, Esq. Alexander Nowinski, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: (916) 442-1111 Facsimile: (916) 448-1709 Email: longt@gtlaw.com hydes@gtlaw.com alexander.nowinski@gtlaw.com GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES: Cude Sues Over Improper Insurance Policy -------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTOPHER CUDE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES INSURANCE COMPANY d/b/a GEICO, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00475-N (N.D. Tex., Feb. 25, 2025) alleges violation of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The Plaintiff allege in the complaint that GEICO misrepresented it would not increase the premiums for its insured with Accident Forgiveness due to first at-fault accidents. GEICO took advantage of its total loss insureds' relatively disadvantaged positions by failing to comply with its Accident Forgiveness policy through its employment of an improper scheme designed to ensure GEICO's customers would still pay higher premiums due to first at-fault accidents. As a result, the Plaintiff and the Class paid artificially increased premiums for first at-fault accidents that fell under the Accident Forgiveness policy and have been damaged accordingly, says the suit. Government Employees Insurance Company provides insurance products. The Company offers automobile, motorcycle, renter, homeowner, life, mobile home, flood, condo, umbrella, and boat insurances. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Bruce W. Steckler, Esq. Austin P. Smith, Esq. Paul D. Stickney, Esq. STECKLER WAYNE & LOVE PLLC 12720 Hillcrest Road, Suite 1045 Dallas, TX 75230 Telephone: (972) 387-4040 Facsimile: (972) 387-4041 Email: bruce@stecklerlaw.com austin@stecklerlaw.com judgestickney@stecklerlaw.com HUT CAROLINAS: Jones Sues Over Excessive Sloping Conditions ----------------------------------------------------------- Sananda Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. HUT CAROLINAS LLC; HUT AMERICAN GROUP LLC; and DOES 1 to 25, Case No. 5:25-cv-00106-BO (E.D.N.C., Feb. 25, 2025), is brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") arising from her own experience with excessive sloping conditions in purportedly accessible parking spaces, access aisles, and curb ramps ("Parking Area" or "Parking Areas") at places of public accommodation owned, operated, controlled, and/or leased by Defendants ("Defendants' facilities"), and from site investigations at 7 of Defendants' facilities also finding excessive sloping conditions. The Plaintiff visited Defendants' facilities located at 6781 Raeford Road, Fayetteville, North Carolina 28304, in August 2024, where she experienced unnecessary difficulty and risk of physical harm exiting and entering her vehicle and navigating the facilities due to the unlawful sloping conditions in Defendants purportedly accessible parking areas. Specifically, the parking facilities featured excessive sloping conditions which violated federal regulations. Despite the inaccessible conditions present at Defendants' facilities, Plaintiff plans to return to Defendants' facilities. Plaintiff often lives with her sister, whose residence is located less than five miles away from Defendants' Raeford Road restaurant. On August 23, 2024, Ms. Jones visited Defendants' facilities on her way home from her sister's work. Ms. Jones and her sister often stop at Defendants' restaurant to pick up food for the family. Because of the close proximity to her sister's house, Ms. Jones intends to frequent Defendants' facility in the future. Furthermore, she intends to return to Defendants' facility to ascertain whether it remains in violation of the ADA. As a result of Defendants' non-compliance with the ADA, Plaintiff's ability to access and safely use Defendants' facilities has been significantly impeded and she will be deterred from returning to and fully and safely accessing Defendants' facilities due to the discrimination she has previously encountered there, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Sananda Jones is a person with a mobility disability. Hut Carolinas LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company, doing business in the state of North Carolina as the owner, lessee, and/or operator of dozens of Pizza Hut restaurants in this state, including a number in the Eastern District of North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: E.D. Gaskins, Esq. EVERETT GASKINS HANCOCK TUTTLE HASH LLP 220 Fayetteville Street, Suite 300 Raleigh, NC 27601 Phone: 919-755-0025 Facsimile: 919-755-0009 Email: ed@eghlaw.com - and - Jordan T. Porter, Esq. NYE, STIRLING, HALE, MILLER & SWEET, LLP 33 West Mission Street, Suite 201 Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Phone: 805-963-2345 Email: jordan@nshmlaw.com - and - Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq. NYE, STIRLING, HALE, MILLER & SWEET, LLP 101 Pennsylvania Boulevard, Suite 2 Pittsburgh, PA 15228 Phone: 412-857-5352 Email: ben@nshmlaw.com INTERNATIONAL DIRECTIONAL: Williams Sues Over Unpaid Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Michael Williams, individually and for others similarly situated v. INTERNATIONAL DIRECTIONAL DRILLING INC., Case No. 0:25-cv-60367-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 25, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant (IDD) in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff and the other Day Rate Employees regularly work more than 40 hours a week. But IDD does not pay them overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 a week. Instead, IDD pays The Plaintiff and its other Day Rate Employees a fixed daily sum for each day worked, regardless of the total number of hours they work in a workweek (IDD's "day rate pay scheme"). IDD pays all its Day Rate Employees according to this day rate pay scheme regardless of any allegedly individualized factors. IDD thus misclassified The Plaintiff and the other Day Rate Employees as exempt from overtime. But IDD never paid The Plaintiff and the other Day Rate Employees on a "salary basis" as required for any relevant overtime exemption, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant from August 2024 through November 2024 as a directional drilling supervisor. IDD touts that "installing utilities is its specialty and by utilizing directional boring methods it has proven to save their customers time and money while preventing unnecessary disruption."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor P.O. Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Phone: (407) 420-1414 Fax: (407) 245-3401 Email: RMorgan@forthepeople.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com JPMORGAN CHASE: Pessin Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 2nd Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH PESSIN is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Joseph Pessin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JPMorgan Chase U.S. Benefits Executive, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:22-cv-2436, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, Plaintiff Joseph Pessin, a former employee of JPMorgan Chase & Company ("JPMC"), brought this action against the administrator of his pension plan, the JPMC Benefits Executive, for failing to make certain disclosures as required by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). Pessin also alleged that JPMC's Board of Directors ("JPMC Board") violated ERISA by failing to monitor the JPMC Benefits Executive. On July 27, 2022, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On Oct. 4, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's amended complaint. In their motion, the Defendants argue that Pessin's claims fail because he agreed not to bring them in his Release Agreement. Pessin responds that the Release Agreement is not properly before the Court, and that, even if it were, the release does not bar his claims. The Defendants' motion to enforce the release is converted to a motion for summary judgment. The Defendants' motion to enforce the release relies on the release itself, which is not integral to the FAC. Accordingly, the Defendants seek to convert their motion to one for summary judgment. On Jan. 8, 2025, Judge Denise L. Cote entered an Order granting the conversion of the Defendants' October 4 motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment. The motion for summary judgment is granted. The Clerk of Court will enter judgment for the Defendants. The appellate case is captioned Pessin v. JPMorgan Chase U.S. Benefits Executive, Case No. 25-309, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on February 11, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant JOSEPH PESSIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Teresa Renaker, Esq. RENAKER SCOTT LLP 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 1125 San Francisco, CA 94111 Defendants-Appellees JPMORGAN CHASE U.S. BENEFITS EXECUTIVE, et al. are represented by: Jeremy Paul Blumenfeld, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 2222 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 LYMI INC: Sanchez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against LYMI INC. The case is styled as Aracely Deras Sanchez, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. LYMI INC., Case No. 25STCV05284 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 25, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." LYMI, Inc., doing business as The Reformation, designs and manufactures clothes for women.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com MAMA TINA'S: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Maldonado Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- LEONARDO LUJAN MALDONADO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MAMA TINA'S PIZZA CORP. (d/b/a MAMA TINA'S PIZZA); PETER GOLLA; MODESTO DOE; and GUSTAVO DOE, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01549 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 24, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The firm Maldonado was employed by the Defendants as a delivery worker. Mama Tina's Pizza Corp. owns, operates, or controls a pizzeria, located at New York, New York, under the name "Mama Tina's Pizza". [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 MANDATO FRUITS: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Molina Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- MARIO ANGEL RENDON MOLINA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MANDATO FRUITS & GROCERY CORP. (D/B/A MANDATO BAKERY); and PEDRO LUIS OSORIO GUZMAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01017 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 24, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Molina was employed by the Defendants as a cook. Mandato Fruits & Grocery Corp. owns, operates, or controls a Mexican food restaurant and bakery, located at Brooklyn, NY 11209, under the name "Mandato Bakery". [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catalina Sojo, Esq. CSM LEGAL, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 MATTRESS DIRECT: Contreras Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------- OMAR CONTRERAS, ANTONIO DE LA ROSA, and CARMEN LLIGUICOTA, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MATTRESS DIRECT INC. and AHMAD SCHUAIB, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01359 (D.N.J., February 20, 2025) is an action brought on behalf of the Plaintiffs and all similarly situated non-exempt workers to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, statutory damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law. Throughout Plaintiffs' employment periods, Plaintiffs and the FLSA Collective have had work schedules consisting of over 40 hours per workweek, have performed virtually the same work duties, and have been subjected to Defendants' common pay policies depriving them of overtime pay at the rate of one and one-half times their regular hourly wage rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek, says the suit. Plaintiffs Contreras and de la Rosa worked as box spring builders and wrappers/non-exempt factory workers for Defendants from approximately 2016 or 2017 to November 14, 2024 and from approximately 2007 to January 8, 2025, respectively. Plaintiff Lliguicota worked as a sewer, a non-exempt factory worker for Defendants from approximately August 2008 to January 3, 2025. Mattress Direct Inc. is in the business of mattress manufacturing, refurbishment, and distribution based in New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Louis Pechman, Esq. Gianfranco J. Cuadra, Esq. PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC 488 Madison Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 583-9500 E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com cuadra@pechmanlaw.com META PLATFORMS: Klein Appeals Class Cert. Ruling to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------ MAXIMILIAN KLEIN, et al. are appealing the a class certification bid ruling in their lawsuit entitled Maximilian Klein, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:20-cv-08570-JD, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case is an antitrust case alleging Facebook illegally monopolized and attempted to monopolize the personal social network services (PSNS or PSN) market. The Plaintiffs, among other things, are challenging Facebook's deception-based monopoly maintenance scheme under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, and seek to certify a class consisting of all persons in the United States who maintained and used a Facebook profile between Dec. 3, 2016, and Dec. 3, 2020. On May 24, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification, which Judge James Donato denied on Jan. 24, 2025. The Court ruled that Dr. Nicholas Economides cannot provide admissible opinions on antitrust injury. Without those opinions, the Plaintiffs cannot establish that they have a class-wide method proving antitrust injury for either of their section 2 claims. On Feb. 13, 2025, Judge Donato entered an Amended Order regarding Dr. Nicholas Economides and User Class Certification. The appellate case is captioned Maximilian Klein, et al. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Case No. 25-983, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on February 14, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Petitioners MAXIMILIAN KLEIN, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Shana E. Scarlett, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 300 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 - and – Sanford I. Weisburst, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 295 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 849-7000 - and – Kevin Y. Teruya, Esq. Adam B. Wolfson, Esq. Claire D. Hausman, Esq. Brantley I. Pepperman, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 865 S. Figueroa Street, 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 443-3000 MI OPCO: Bowers Suit Alleges Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- VERA BOWERS, individually and for others similarly situated v. MI OPCO HOLDCO LLC d/b/a THE ORCHARDS MICHIGAN, Case No. 2:25-cv-10495-MAG-APP (E.D. Mich., February 20, 2025) is a collective action brought by the Plaintiff to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, Plaintiff Bowers and other straight time workers regularly work more than 40 hours a workweek for Orchards. But the Plaintiff and the other straight time workers are not paid required overtime wages when they work in excess of 40 hours a workweek. Instead, Orchards misclassifies him and the other straight time workers as independent contractors, says the suit. Plaintiff Bowers worked for Orchards as a certified nursing assistant at its Roseville and Warren, Michigan facilities. MI OpCo HoldCo LLC, d/b/a The Orchards Michigan, owns and operates 11 facilities in Michigan that provide services including assisted living care, skilled nursing care, long term care, memory care, and post-surgical recovery services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jennifer L. McManus, Esq. FAGAN MCMANUS, PC 25892 Woodward Avenue Royal Oak, MI 58067-0910 Telephone: (248) 542-6300 E-mail: jmcmanus@faganlawpc.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com NEW YORK: DeFreitas Appeals Civil Rights Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- RUSSELL DEFREITAS is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing the lawsuit entitled Russell DeFreitas, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. RAYMOND A. TIERNEY, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-6856, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The Plaintiffs filed civil rights suit against the Defendant. On Jan. 28, 2025, Judge Nusrat J. Choudhury entered an Order dismissing the case without prejudice pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court ruled that it is appropriate to dismiss this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(b). The Court's Order set a deadline for DeFreitas and Hart of twenty-one days, i.e. December 13, 2024. More than a month and a half since that deadline elapsed neither DeFreitas nor Hart has complied with the Court's Order or communicated with the Court about this case. The appellate case is captioned DeFreitas v. Tierney, Case No. 25-305, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on February 11, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant RUSSELL DEFREITAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, appears pro se. OAK HARBOR: Class Settlement in Alvarado Suit Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as HECTOR ALVARADO, et al., v. OAK HARBOR FREIGHT LINES, INC., Case No. 3:17-cv-06425-SK (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sallie Kim entered an order: -- granting the Plaintiff's the motion for final approval of the class action settlement -- granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and costs and for the Plaintiff's incentive payment. The Court awards the following fees and costs: $906,250 in attorneys' fees, $20,000 in litigation costs; $18,450 to the Claims administrator ILYM Group, Inc., and $10,000 to each named Plaintiff. Ten percent of the attorney's fees award ($90,625) shall be held back pending further order, to be issued after counsel have filed the post-distribution accounting required by the District's Procedural Guidance on Class Action Settlements. Oak Harbor provides transportation services. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb, 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=omKWPu at no extra charge.[CC] ONE BROOKLYN: Settles Data Breach Class Suit for $1.5-Million ------------------------------------------------------------- Top Class Actions reports that One Brooklyn Health System agreed to pay $1.5 million to resolve claims it failed to prevent a 2022 data breach that compromised patient information. The One Brooklyn Health System settlement benefits individuals whose personal information may have been compromised, accessed or involved in the One Brooklyn Health System data breach between July 9, 2022, and Nov. 19, 2022. According to the class action lawsuit, the One Brooklyn Health System breach allegedly compromised sensitive patient information including names, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, birth dates, financial account information, medical treatments and health insurance information. Plaintiffs argue that the health system should have done more to protect patient information from the cyberattack. One Brooklyn Health System is a health system in Brooklyn, New York, that provides care to over 400,000 patients annually. One Brooklyn Health System has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $1.5 million settlement to resolve the data breach class action lawsuit. Under the terms of the One Brooklyn Health System settlement, class members can receive either a cash payment or credit monitoring services. The cash payment is pro-rata and therefore determined by the final number of claimants. Identity theft protection services include three-bureau monitoring, identity restoration services and $1 million in identity theft insurance. Class members who experienced out-of-pocket expenses or losses due to the data breach can receive up to $2,500 for documented expenses such as bank fees, communication charges, credit expenses and travel costs in the main. Also included is four hours of lost time at a rate of $25 per hour for a total of $100. The deadline for exclusion and objection is Jan. 24, 2025. In order to receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid claim form by March 10, 2025. Who's Eligible Individuals who were notified by One Brooklyn Health System that their personal information may have been compromised in the 2022 data breach. Potential Award Up to $2,500 in documented out-of-pocket expenses including lost time, or a choice between a pro-rate cash payment and 24 months of credit monitoring services. Proof of Purchase Documentation of expenses, such as bills, receipts, account statements, credit reports and tax documents. Claim Form NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a claim. Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury. You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out our database of other open class action settlements you may be eligible for. Claim Form Deadline 03/10/2025 Case Name Johnson, et al. v. One Brooklyn Health System Inc., Case No. 512485/2023, in the New York Supreme Court for Kings County Final Hearing 02/26/2025 Settlement Website OBHSettlement.com Claims Administrator One Brooklyn Health Data Incident Settlement Administrator PO Box 5645 Portland, OR 97228-5645 info@OBHSettlement.com (888) 961-5105 Class Counsel Benjamin F. Johns SHUB & JOHNS LLC Ben Barnow BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES PC Defense Counsel Claudia McCarron Daniel M. Braude MULLEN COUGHLIN LLC [GN] PENSION SPECIALISTS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Miller Says -------------------------------------------------------------- DANIELLE MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE PENSION SPECIALISTS, LTD., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-50075 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 24, 2025) seeks to hold the Defendant responsible for the harms it caused the Plaintiff and similarly situated persons in the preventable data breach of the Defendant's inadequately protected computer network. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that due to the Defendant's negligence and failures, cyber criminals obtained and now possess everything they need to commit personal identity theft and wreak havoc on the financial and personal lives of thousands of individuals, for decades to come. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit to hold the Defendant responsible for its grossly negligent—indeed, reckless—failure to use statutorily required or reasonable industry cybersecurity measures to protect Class members' Personal Information. As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class members have already suffered damages. Their Personal Information has been released into the criminal cyber domains, the Plaintiff and Class members are at imminent and impending risk of identity theft. This risk will continue for the rest of their lives, as the Plaintiff and Class members are now forced to deal with the danger of identity thieves possessing and using their Personal Information, says the suit. The Pension Specialists, Ltd. provides bundled services for 401(k) and other retirement plans. The Company offers plan solutions that include retirement recordkeeping and administration, actuarial services, compensation, and employee benefits consulting. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amanda Brooke Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 4116 Will Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Telephone: (405) 389-4989 Email: abm@murphylegalfirm.com PENSION SPECIALISTS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Newman Says -------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW NEWMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE PENSION SPECIALISTS LTD., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01925 (N.D. Ill., Feb. 24, 2025) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its customers. According to the complaint, the Data Breach was a direct result of the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect consumers' personally identifiable information or "PII", from a foreseeable and preventable cyber-attack. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant's inadequate data security, and its breach of its duty to handle PII with reasonable care, Plaintiff's PII has been accessed by hackers, posted on the dark web, and exposed to an untold number of unauthorized individuals, the suit alleges. The Pension Specialists, Ltd. provides bundled services for 401(k) and other retirement plans. The Company offers plan solutions that include retirement recordkeeping and administration, actuarial services, compensation, and employee benefits consulting. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amanda Brooke Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 4116 Will Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Telephone: (405) 389-4989 Email: abm@murphylegalfirm.com PENTAGON FEDERAL: Class Cert Bid Deadline Modified to August 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DENISE BEYARD, et al., v. PENTAGON FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No. 1:21-cv-01063-KJM-SAB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stanley Boone entered an order that: 1. Defendant's motion to preclude the Plaintiffs from using expert testimony in connection with any motion, including any motion for class certification, or at trial is denied; and 2. The scheduling order is modified as follows: (a) Expert discovery is re-opened until June 20, 2025 for the limited purpose of deposing Plaintiffs' expert Arthur Olsen; allowing Defendant's rebuttal expert Sonya Kwon to provide a report to Plaintiffs; and deposing Ms. Kwon; and (b) The deadline to file a motion for class certification is Aug. 1, 2025. The motion shall be filed in accordance with Local Rule 230 and the assigned District Judge's standing order. The Court finds the prejudice to the Defendant caused by Plaintiffs' nondisclosure can be cured by modifying the scheduling order for the limited purpose of deposing Mr. Olsen; allowing time for the Defendant's designated rebuttal expert to submit a report; and allowing the Plaintiffs the opportunity to depose Defendant's rebuttal expert. Pentagon offers a wide range of financial services. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb, 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KkyreG at no extra charge.[CC] POINT.360: Burson Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Point.360, et al. The case is styled as Nicholas Robert Burson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Point.360, Does 1 through 100, Case No. 25STCV05347 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 25, 2025). Point.360 -- https://www.point360.com/ -- delivers innovative digital media solutions to the theatrical, television, and restoration industries.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Ginzburg, Esq. FRONTIER LAW CENTER 23901 Calabasas Rd., Ste. 1084 Calabasas, CA 91302 Phone: (818) 914-3433 Fax: (818) 914-3433 Email: dan@frontierlawcenter.com PROFESSIONAL PARKING: Cicale Suit Seeks Class Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PETER CICALE, JR., and FRANCES REMY, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PROFESSIONAL PARKING MANAGEMENT CORPORATION and YSA ARM LLC d/b/a OXYGENXL, Case No. 0:24-cv-61146-AHS (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order motion for class certification or, alternatively, motion to lift stay of discovery: Accordingly, the case is well-suited to class action treatment, as it will allow for the resolution of numerous identical small claims in one efficient case. The class easily meets all the requirements for class certification under Federal Rule 23, and thus the class should be certified. Alternatively, the stay should be lifted in this matter so that Plaintiffs may develop a more fulsome evidentiary record in support of this Motion. The Court entered a scheduling order in September of 2024. That Order included a class certification motion deadline of Feb. 21, 2025. The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants knowingly obtained, used, and disclosed class members' motor vehicle data without a permissible purpose, in violation of the Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA). Professional Parking operates private parking facilities. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb, 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gDhaRU at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bret L. Lusskin, Jr., Esq. BRET LUSSKIN, P.A. 1025 E. Hallandale Beach Blvd., Ste 1532 Hallandale Beach, FL 33009 Telephone: (954) 454-5841 Facsimile: (954) 454-5844 E-mail: blusskin@lusskinlaw.com - and - Scott D. Owens, Esq. SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A. 2750 N. 29th Ave., Suite 209A Hollywood, FL 33020 Telephone: (954) 589-0588 E-mail: scott@scottdowens.com - and - Janet R. Varnell, Esq. Brian W. Warwick, Esq. Christopher J. Brochu, Esq. Pamela G. Levinson, Esq. Jeffrey L. Newsome, Esq. VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A. 400 N Ashley Drive, Suite 1900 Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (352) 753-8600 Facsimile: (352) 504-3301 E-mail: jvarnell@vandwlaw.com bwarwick@vandwlaw.com cbrochu@vandwlaw.com plevinson@vandwlaw.com jnewsome@vandwlaw.com ckoerner@vandwlaw.com PROFESSIONAL SECURITY: Jimenez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Professional Security Consultants, Inc. The case is styled as Alberto Jimenez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Professional Security Consultants, Inc., Case No. 25STCV05243 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 24, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Professional Security Consultants -- https://www.pscsite.com/ -- is a security and investigations company specializing in security screening and specialty services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emanuel Manny Starr, Esq. FRONTIER LAW CENTER 23901 Calabasas Rd., Ste. 1084 Calabasas, CA 91302-3392 Phone: 818-914-3433 Fax: 818-914-3433 Email: manny@frontierlawcenter.com PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Franco Suit Seeks to Certify Insured Class ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAYRA FRANCO, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, v. PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY AND PROGRESSIVE SOUTHEASTERN INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:24-cv-00225-CCE-JLW (M.D.N.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting class certification and pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3), to certify the following class of individuals: "All Progressive insureds of any North Carolina Progressive Company underwriting policies in North Carolina with first- party auto policies issued in the State of North Carolina, who received compensation for the total loss of their vehicles under their first party (comprehensive, collision, and UM/UIM) coverages, and who received a total loss valuation from Progressive generated by the WCTL program which took a deduction/adjustment for "projected sold adjustment" and were paid the amount of the valuation with the "projected sold adjustment." Progressive provides personal, automobile, homeowner, boat, renters, business, life, and health insurance services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VAOx7Q at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron C. Hemmings, Esq. Kelly A. Stevens, Esq. HEMMINGS & STEVENS, P.L.L.C 5540 McNeely Drive, Suite 202 Raleigh, NC 27612 Telephone: (919) 277-0161 Facsimile: (919) 277-0162 E-mail: ahemmings@hemmingsandstevens.com kstevens@hemmingsandstevens.com PUBLIC HEALTH: Felder Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------------- Sheila Felder, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. THE PUBLIC HEALTH TRUST OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY (dba) JACKSON HEALTH SYSTEM (dba) JACKSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Case No. 1:25-cv-20887-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 25, 2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair labor Standards Act of 1938 (hereinafter the "FLSA") for the recovery of unpaid minimum and overtime wages. The Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff full and proper overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 per week during her employment with Defendant. When Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours in a given work week, Defendant failed to pay her for all overtime including on-call time worked properly. Furthermore, Plaintiff should have been compensated at the rate of one-half times Plaintiff's regular rate for all hours that Plaintiff worked in excess of 40 hours per week, as required by the FLSA, throughout her employment, says the complaint. The Plaintiff works for Defendant from October 2002 through the present. Jackson Memorial Hospital is both a referral center and a magnet for medical research.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Noah E. Storch, Esq. RICHARD CELLER LEGAL, P.A. 7951 SW 6th Street, Suite 316 Plantation, FL 33324 Phone: (866) 344-9243 Facsimile: (954) 337-277 Email: noah@floridaovertimelawyer.com QUANTUM COMPUTING: Cohen Sues Over Drop in Share Price ------------------------------------------------------ DREW COHEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. QUANTUM COMPUTING INC.; WILLIAM J. MCGANN; ROBERT LISCOUSKI; CHRISTOPHER BOEHMLER; and CHRISTOPHER ROBERTS, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01457 (D.N.J., Feb. 25, 2025) is a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired QCI securities between March 30, 2020 and January 15, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by the Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i) Defendants overstated the capabilities of QCI's quantum computing technologies, products, and/or services; (ii) Defendants overstated the scope and nature of QCI's relationship with NASA, as well as the scope and nature of QCI's NASA-related contracts and/or subcontracts; (iii) Defendants overstated QCI's progress in developing a TFLN foundry, the scale of the purported TFLN foundry, and orders for the Company's TFLN chips; (iv) QCI's business dealings with Quad M and millionways both qualified as related party transactions; (v) accordingly, QCI's revenues relied, at least in part, on undisclosed related party transactions; (vi) all the foregoing, once revealed, was likely to have a significant negative impact on QCI's business and reputation; and (vii) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. QCI's stock price fell $1.72 per share, or 14.89 percent, over the following two trading sessions, to close at $9.83 per share on January 17, 2025. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. Quantum Computing Inc. designs and develops application software. The Company offers hardware designing, application development, security support, and consultancy services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas H. Przybylowski, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 Email: tprzybylowski@pomlaw.com RETAILING ENTERPRISES: Clement Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------- Vincent Clement, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. RETAILING ENTERPRISES, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01030 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 25, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to 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"). Because Defendant's website, www.invictastores.com (the "Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant's Website offers products and services for online sale and general delivery to the public.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: 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 RETREAT BEHAVIORAL: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIA WILLIAMS, BRITTANY CALVERT, DEDTRA DAVIS, and ALISA LEGGETT, on their own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. RETREAT BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Corporation, NR FLORIDA ASSOCIATES, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Corporation, et al., Case No. 9:24-cv-80787-DMM (S.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion for an enlargement of time to respond to Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification and approval of class representatives, class counsel, and notice. The Plaintiff filed this lawsuit under the WARN Act and the FLSA. Pursuant to Rule 23, Fed. R. Civ. P., Plaintiffs have sought class certification against the corporate defendants. Plaintiffs also seek certification of a collective action under the FLSA against all defendants. The Estate of Peter Schorr was not served. However, the undersigned, upon being retained, agreed to accept service of the summons. The Estate reviewed the Corut docket upon being retained and learned that Plaintiffs had filed their Renewed Motion for Class Certification on February 6, 2025. The Estate was not served with a copy of this Motion as, at the time, no appearance had been filed. Promptly upon being retained, the undersigned filed Motion to Dismiss on February 18, 2025. That Motion is pending. A response to Plaintiffs' Motion For Class Certification is due Feb. 20, 2025. Because it was only recently discovered that Plaintiffs had filed their Renewed Motion for Class Certification, the undersigned has not had an opportunity to evaluated that Motion and prepare a response. The Estate of Peter Schorr requests an additional fourteen days, through and including March 6, 2025, within which to file a response to Plaintiffs’ Motion. The requested enlargement of time will not cause any undue delay or prejudice, the lawsuit says. The Defendants include NR PENNSYLVANIA ASSOCIATES, LLC, a Pennsylvania Limited Liability Corporation, JAMES YOUNG, in his capacity as Receiver of NR Pennsylvania Associates, LLC, NR CONNECTICUT, LLC, a Connecticut Limited Liability Corporation, DRPS MANAGEMENT, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Corporation COAL LAKE WORTH, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, COAL CAPITAL HOLDINGS (FLORIDA), LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Corporation, COAL CONNECTICUT, LLC, a Connecticut Limited Liability Corporation COAL NEW HAVEN LLC, a Connecticut Limited Liability Corporation, COAL CAPITAL EPHRATA, LLC, a Pennsylvania Limited Liability Corporation, COAL CAPITAL GROUP, LLC, a New York Limited Liability Corporation, CLW HOLDINGS, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, HFGC FLORIDA, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, CHRISSY GARIANO, ALEXANDER HOINSKY, DAVID SILBERSTEIN, ESTATE OF PETER SCHORR, and ESTATE OF SCOTT KOROGODSKY. Retreat Behavioral provides inpatient and outpatient treatment for substance abuse and mental health disorders. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nAKaop at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ryan D. Barack, Esq. Michelle Erin Nadeau, Esq. KWAL1 BARACK NADEAU PLLC 304 S. Belcher Rd., Suite C Clearwater, FL 33765 Telephone: (727) 441-4947 Facsimile: (727) 447-3158 Fax E-mail: rbarack@employeerights.com mnadeau@employeerights.com - and - Michael A. Pancier, Esq. MICHAEL A. PANCIER, P.A. 9000 Sheridan Street, Suite 93 Pembroke Pines, FL 33024 E-mail: mpancier@Pancierlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Robyn S. Hankins, Esq. ROBYN S. HANKINS, P.L. 1217 Merlot Dr. Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 721-3890 Facsimile: (561) 721-3889 E-mail: robyn@hankins-law.com scott@hankins-law.com RICHMOND, VA: Illegally Overcharges Rent Fees, Coleman Says ----------------------------------------------------------- VERNITA COLEMAN and JAYDA JAMES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. RICHMOND REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AUTHORITY, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00133-RCY (E.D. Va., February 20, 2025) seeks declaratory, injunctive, and other relief to prevent the Defendant from continuing its unlawful rent policy to residents including Plaintiffs. According to the complaint, Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority has systemically overcharged its residents in violation of federal law by failing to offer and grant a hardship exemption to minimum rent. RRHA's practice is to hide the availability of the hardship exemption from potentially eligible residents. That makes this vital information functionally unavailable to the hundreds of RRHA residents on minimum rent, says the suit. To fulfill its duty under federal law, RRHA must ensure eligible residents are aware of and able to request a Hardship Exemption and immediately grant the exemption when it is aware that a resident qualifies. But, in violation of these statutory requirements, RRHA fails to adequately inform qualifying residents of their right to a Hardship Exemption or grant the exemption when it is aware residents are eligible, depriving residents of a benefit they are entitled to under federal housing law and systemically overcharging its residents. As a result, of the hundreds of tenants paying minimum rent each year, only one tenant in the last five years has been granted the Hardship Exemption, the suit asserts. The Richmond Redevelopment and Housing Authority is the federally funded public housing authority for the City of Richmond, Virginia.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: George P. Sibley, III, Esq. Robert M. Rolfe, Esq. Michael J. Bisceglia, Esq. David W. Tisel, Esq. HUNTON ANDREWS KURTH LLP 951 E. Byrd Street Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 788-8200 E-mail: gsibley@Hunton.com rrolfe@Hunton.com mbisceglia@Hunton.com dtisel@Hunton.com - and - Catherine Cone, Esq. LEGAL AID JUSTICE CENTER 6402 Arlington Blvd., Suite 1130 Falls Church, VA 22042 Telephone: (434) 995-9983 Facsimile: (703) 778-3454 E-mail: catherine@justice4all.org - and - Victoria Horrock, Esq. Alex Kornya, Esq. LEGAL AID JUSTICE CENTER 1000 Preston Ave Suite A Telephone: (434) 466-2233 Facsimile: (434) 977-0558 E-mail: victoria@justice4all.org alexkornya@justice4all.org - and - Michaela Ross, Esq. Lauren Beebe King, Esq. LEGAL AID JUSTICE CENTER 626 East Broad Street, Suite 200 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (434) 284-3643 Facsimile: (804) 643-2059 E-mail: michaelaross@justice4all.org laurenking@justice4all.org - and - Hannah D. Adams, Esq. NATIONAL HOUSING LAW PROJECT 90 New Montgomery St., Ste. 1015 San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 546-7000 E-mail: hadams@nhlp.org RUSSELL COUNTY SHERIFF: Hill Suit Seeks to Certify Class -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nathaniel Lamar Hill, Ricky Mack Morris, Jason Bernard Cole, Quanshawn T. Harris, Kenneth Ewgene Lawhorn, Joshua L. Tolbert, Kirk Slagle, Daryus Sullivan, Anthony Hold, Markei Miles, Javius Thomas, Anthony Sims, Randall Wilkes, v. Russell County Sheriff Department, Russell County Jail Detention Facility, Sheriff Heath Taylor, Lieutenant Steve Johnson, Lieutenant Williams, Staff Sargent Paul Weatherly, Sargent Ian Parker, Case No. 3:24-cv-00646-ECM-CWB (M.D. Ala.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for class certification and appointment of counsel: The Plaintiff contends that the majority of those affected are unlikely to bring their own suit due to poverty, illiteracy and/or language barriers, lack of resources to prosecute, stringent financial resources, limited access to legal representation, as well as Perspective Class Members fear of reprisal from Perspective Class Defendants - consistent with past behavior by Perspective Defendants which can be and should be construed as retaliation. If securely certified by the Court, the Perspective Class Members will be given the sense of security and safety necessary in willing to come forward. The Perspective class members bring allegations against Perspective Class Defendants for First, Eight, and Fourteenth Amendment violations, citing cruel and unusual punishment; living conditions, due process violations, and violations of religious freedoms. Perspective Class Members are currently inmates at the Russell County Jail Detention Facility in Phenix City, AL. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb, 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dhtwXA at no extra charge.[CC] S.O.S. MAINTENANCE: Valdivia Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------ Stephanie Valdivia, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. S.O.S. MAINTENANCE INC., PETER SEPULVEDA And MARIA OTANO, Case No. 1:25-cv-01035 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 25, 2025), is brought for damages and equitable relief based upon Defendants' flagrant and willful violations of Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to him by: the overtime wage provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"); the overtime provisions of NYLL and the corresponding N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs ("NYCCRR"); Throughout their employment, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff, as well as the FLSA Plaintiffs, all of the wages due to them under the law. The Defendants failed to furnish Plaintiffs with accurate wage statements on each payday as the NYLL requires. Specifically, Defendants' wage statements showed fewer hours than what the Plaintiffs actually worked, which prevented the Plaintiffs from determining and seeking payment for the precise amount of unpaid wages. As such, Plaintiffs were harmed by being deprived of their income for longer than they would have been had they been able to timely raise their underpayment earlier. Defendants' failure to provide accurate notices not only denied Plaintiff the time-value of the underpayments he seeks to recover in this action but also resulted in continued practice of paying Plaintiff less than one and one-half times his regular rate for hours that he worked after 40 hours per workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a customer service representative from October 27, 2021 to April 30, 2023. The Defendants own and operate a maintenance company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amit Kumar, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF WILLIAM CAFARO 108 West 39th Street, Suite 602 New York, NY 10018 Phone: (212)583-7400 Email: AKumar@Cafaroesq.com SELENE FINANCE: Milam Appeals Court Order in FDCPA Suit to 7th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- RAMONA MILAM is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Ramona Milam, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Selene Finance, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00317, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendant for its systematic use of unlawful and unfair debt collection practices to collect upon residential consumer mortgage loans in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. The appellate case is captioned Ramona Milam v. Selene Finance, Case No. 25-1208, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on February 11, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Docketing Statement was due on February 18, 2025; -- Appellant's transcript information sheet is due on February 25, 2025; and -- Appellant's brief is due on or before March 24, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant RAMONA MILAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Scott C. Harris, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 900 W. Morgan Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Telephone: (919) 600-5000 Defendant-Appellee SELENE FINANCE is represented by: Phillip Russell Perdew, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE LLP 111 S. Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 443-1712 SEMTECH CORP: Kleovoulos Suit Alleges Decline in Share Price ------------------------------------------------------------ COLLEEN KLEOVOULOS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SEMTECH CORPORATION, HONG Q.HOU, and MARK LIN, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01474 (C.D. Cal., February 20, 2025) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Semtech securities between August 27, 2024 and February 7, 2025, inclusive, pursuing claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On February 7, 2025, after the market closed, Semtech revealed that CopperEdge Products' sales would not ramp-up over the course of fiscal year 2026. Based on feedback from a server rack customer and discussions with end users of the server rack platform, the Company would implement certain rack architecture changes. As a result, the Company expected CopperEdge sales to be lower than the Company's previously disclosed floor case estimate of $50 million. On this news, Semtech's stock price fell $16.91, or 31%, to close at $37.60 per share on February 10, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that its CopperEdge products did not meet the needs of its server rack customer or end users; (2) that, as a result, the CopperEdge products required certain rack architecture changes; (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's sales of CopperEdge products would not ramp-up during fiscal 2026; (4) that, as a result, sales of CopperEdge products would be lower-than-expected; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis, the suit alleges. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages. Semtech Corporation is a semiconductor, digital systems and cloud connectivity service provider.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles Linehan, Esq. Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 - and - Frank R. Cruz, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 914-5007 SHALEEMENTERPRISE3LLC: Siracusa Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Anthony Siracusa, on behalf of himself and similarly situated employees v. SHALEEMENTERPRISE3LLC and SHALEEM PERVEZ, Case No. 2:25-cv-01007 (E.D. Pa., Feb. 26, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA") as a result of the Defendants failure to pay minimum wages. Throughout the relevant period, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and other Servers any compensation, including the tipped minimum hourly wage, for their hours worked. Instead, the Servers only compensation for their work at the Club was tips left for them by patrons of the Club, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a bartender at the Club for three years until in or around November 2024. The Defendants own and operate the Roar nightclub located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Winebrake, Esq. R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Phone: 215-884-2491 Email: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com asantillo@winebrakelaw.com SHARPE INTERIOR: Cabrera Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sharpe Interior Systems, Inc. The case is styled as Samuel Cabrera, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sharpe Interior Systems, Inc., Case No. 25STCV05348 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 25, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Sharpe Interior Systems, Inc. -- https://www.sharpeinteriorsystems.com/ -- are a premier union contractor that specializes in drywall and metal stud framing.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Seung Lyun Yang, Esq. THE SENTINEL FIRM, APC 355 S Grand Ave., Ste. 1450 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3152 Phone: 213-985-1150 Email: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com SKIMS BODY: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Battle Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ ANDRE BATTLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. Skims Body, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01741 (N.D. Ill., February 20, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://skims.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. According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to inadequate focus order, inaccessible contact information, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of navigation links, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Skims Body's policies, practices, and procedures to 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. Skims Body, Inc. operates the website that offers a variety of modern designer underwear, bras, bodysuits, dresses, hoodies, pajamas, leggings, and pants.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. HOROWITZ LAW PLLC 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: uri@horowitzlawpllc.com SLT LENDING: Class Settlement in Baker Suit Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN BAKER, LUANN PETRULAKIS, and JAMELAH ELDER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SLT LENDING SPV, INC. d/b/a SUR LA TABLE, Case No. 2:23-cv-00190-GSL-AZ (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Gretchen Lund entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action settlement: The Settlement Agreement provides for a Settlement Class defined as follows: "All individuals to whom the Defendant sent notice of the Data Incident on May 24, 2023 (the "Class")." The Settlement Agreement also provides for a California subclass defined as follows: "All California residents to whom the Defendant sent notice of the Data Incident on or around May 24, 2023. Specifically excluded from the Settlement Class and Subclass are: (i) all Persons who timely and validly request exclusion from the Class; (ii) the Judge assigned to evaluate the fairness of this Settlement; and (iii) any other Person found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be guilty under criminal law of initiating, causing, aiding or abetting the criminal activity occurrence of the Data Incident or who pleads nolo contendere to any such charge. Final Approval Hearing. A Final Approval Hearing shall be held on Wednesday, Aug. 27, 2025. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BRvZOX at no extra charge.[CC] SOCIETY6 LLC: Battle Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRE BATTLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. Society6, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01742 (N.D. Ill., February 20, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://society6.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. According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by Plaintiff and blind persons using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers are pervasive and include, but are not limited to inadequate focus order, inaccessible contact information, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, inaccessible drop-down menus, the lack of navigation links, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Skims Body's policies, practices, and procedures to 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. Society6, LLC operates the website that offers wall tapestries, art prints, framed posters, living room furniture, pillows, kitchenware, dining decor, benches, bath mats and towels, hoodies, sweatshirt, t-shirts, bags.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. HOROWITZ LAW PLLC 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: uri@horowitzlawpllc.com SOMA INTIMATES: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Soma Intimates, LLC, Case No. 0:25-cv-00738 (D. Minn., Feb. 26, 2025), is brought arising because Defendant's Website www.soma.com (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind. The Defendant offers women's intimates, clothing and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, lingerie, bras, undergarments, dresses, swimwear, pajamas, loungewear and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Gustafson, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC Jason Gustafson (#0403297) 222 South Ninth Street, Suite 1600 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: jason@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com SOUTHWEST STAGE: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Flores Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- CLAYTON FLORES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHWEST STAGE FUNDING, LLC d/b/a CASCADE FINANCIAL SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00645-SHD (D. Ariz., Feb. 25, 2025) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its customers. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant, despite having the financial wherewithal and personnel necessary to prevent the Data Breach, nevertheless failed to use reasonable security procedures and practice appropriate to the nature of the sensitive, unencrypted information it maintained for Plaintiff and Class Members, causing the exposure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information. As a result of the Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals. Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries including: financial losses caused by misuse of their Private Information; the loss or diminished value of their Private Information as a result of the Data Breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information, says the suit. Southwest Stage Funding, LLC, doing business as Cascade Financial Services, provides financial services. The Company specializes in financing for manufactured and modular homes. The Company offers number of financing options including FHA, VA, USDA, and conventional home loans. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ty D. Frankel, Esq. FRANKEL SYVERSON PLLC 2375 E. Camelback Road, Suite 600 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 598-4000 Email: ty@frankelsyverson.com - and - Patricia N. Syverson, Esq. FRANKEL SYVERSON PLLC 9655 Granite Ridge Drive, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92123 Telephone: (602) 598-4000 Email: patti@frankelsyverson.com - and - Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. Mark Svensson, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: ek@zlk.com msvensson@zlk.com STATE FARM: Wiggins Case Stayed Pending Ruling in Freeman Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wiggins, et al., v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 8:21-cv-03803 (D.S.C., Filed Nov. 19, 2021), the Hon. Judge Jacquelyn D. Austin entered an order staying case pending the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling in Freeman v. Progressive Direct Insurance Company, Case No. 24-1684 (4th Cir. July 24, 2024), and denying with leave to refile the following pending motions: -- motion to certify class, -- motion to exclude Jason Merritt, -- motion to exclude Kirk Felix, -- motion to exclude Philip M. Fernbach, -- motion to exclude Neal Lowell, and -- motion for summary judgment. The case was filed on Nov. 19, 2021, and the motion to certify the class was filed on May 5, 2023. The parties shall file a joint status report regarding Freeman v. Progressive Direct Insurance Company, No. 24-1684 (4th Cir. July 24, 2024), on June 1, 2025, and every 60 days thereafter, or within 10 days of the Fourth Circuit's decision. The nature of suit states Insurance Contract. State Farm is a group of mutual insurance companies throughout the United States with corporate headquarters in Bloomington, Illinois.[CC] SUNRUN INC: Luckau TCPA Suit Seeks to Certify Class --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jeremy Luckau, v. Sunrun Inc., Case No. 4:25-cv-01661-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff, on May 8, 2025, will move for class certification of the following class: "All persons in the United States (1) who are not customers of Sunrun (2) to whom Sunrun initiated or caused to be initiated more than one call (3) where the caller used the name Solar America (4) within any 12-month period during the last four years from the filing of this action through the date of class certification. The Plaintiff's Motion also asks the Court to appoint Jeremy Luckau as the class representative and The HQ Firm, P.C. as class counsel. The Plaintiff filed the Motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3). Sunrun is a habitual and unrepentant telephone spammer. Over the past decade, it has been sued 25 times for violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), settling one case after another before courts can certify a class. Consequently, Sunrun continues to harass millions of Americans, including Jeremy Luckau, with unwanted telemarketing calls. Luckau is the residential subscriber of the cell number 425-XXX-5862. Sunrun Inc. is an American provider of photovoltaic systems and battery energy storage products, primarily for residential customers. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VVP0pd at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Gramajo, Esq. AJG LAW GROUP, PC 25A Crescent Dr. #402 Pleasant Hill, CA 94523 Telephone: (415) 638-9140 E-mail: andrew@ajglawgroup.us - and - Alexander Hood, Esq. THE HQ FIRM, P.C. 7533 S. Center View Ct. #4424 West Jordan, UT 84084 Telephone: (385) 440-4126 E-mail: alexander.hood@thehqfirm.com SUPERB CABLE: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHAD FOREMAN, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. SUPERB CABLE CONNECTIONS, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, and RASHAUN CUNNINGHAM, individually, Case No. 9:24-cv-81410-WM (S.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their unopposed motion for extension of time to respond to the Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective and send notice to collective members and memorandum of law in support thereof until and including Feb. 28, 2025; and granting such other relief as is just and proper. On Feb. 7, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Conditionally Certify FLSA Collective and Send Notice to Collective Members and Memorandum of Law in Support Thereof Complaint in this matter. 2. Defendants' response to Plaintiff's Motion to Certify is due on Feb. 21, 2025. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb, 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Yk6nxv at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Corey L. Seldin, Esq. Andrew R. Frisch, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 8151 Peters Road, Suite 4000 Plantation, FL 33324 E-mail: cseldin@forthepeople.com afrisch@forthepeople.com The Defendants are represented by: Adi Amit, Esq. ADI AMIT, P.A. 101 Centre 101 N.E. Third Avenue, Suite 300 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 533-5922 E-mail: Adi@DefenderOfBusiness.com SYNERGY INSPECTIONS: Hodge Seeks to Certify Employee Class ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN HODGE, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, v. SYNERGY INSPECTIONS, LLC, And FIRMSO, LLC, Case No. 5:24-cv-00177 (S.D.W. Va.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for default judgment and class certification pursuant to fed. r. civ. p. 55(b)(2). The Plaintiff Brian Hodge also moves to certify the following class: "All employees of each Defendant, at any work site or location in West Virginia, who were entitled to and did not receive proper WARN notice." Synergy Inspections provides various construction support and inspection services for the Energy Industry. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb, 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0dNsb2 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony Majestro, Esq. POWELL & MAJESTRO, PLLC 405 Capitol Street, Suite 1200 Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 346-2889 Facsimile: (304) 346-2895 E-mail: amajestro@powellmajestro.com - and - Greg A. Hewitt, Esq. HEWITT & SALVATORE, PLLC 109 E. Main Street, Suite 200 Beckley, WV 25801 Telephone: (304) 574-0272 Facsimile: (304) 578-5345 E-mail: ghewitt@hewittsalvatore.com TARGET CORP: Issues Misleading Statements to Investors, Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- STATE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF FLORIDA, Plaintiff v. TARGET CORPORATION, BRIAN C. CORNELL, DAVID P. ABNEY, DOUGLAS M. BAKER, JR., GEORGE S. BARRETT, GAIL K. BOUDREAUX, ROBERT L. EDWARDS, MELANIE L. HEALEY, DONALD R. KNAUSS, CHRISTINE A. LEAHY, MONICA C. LOZANO, GRACE PUMA, DERICA W. RICE, AND DMITRI L. STOCKTON, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00135 (M.D. Fla., February 20, 2025) is a class action arising from the Defendants' alleged violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-9 promulgated thereunder. This case is related to an action currently pending in this court captioned Craig v. Target Corp., No. 2:23-cv-599-JLB-KCD (M.D. Fla.). This action arises out of the same operative facts as Craig v. Target Corp. Aside from changes in the identity of Plaintiffs (and corresponding changes throughout) and the addition of class allegations, the substance of this complaint matches the substance of the first amended complaint in Craig. This case is also related to another class action currently pending in this Court captioned City of Riviera Beach Police Pension Fund v. Target Corp., No. 2:25 cv-00085 (M.D. Fla.). According to the complaint, Target Corp. and its Board of Directors betrayed both Target's core customer base of working families and its investors, including Plaintiff, by making false and misleading statements about Target's Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) mandates that led to its disastrous 2023 children-and-family themed LGBT-Pride campaign. Allegedly, Target's 2023 LGBT-Pride Campaign was exceptionally offensive to Target customers for obvious and apparent reasons. Target marketed the Campaign at families and children and sold highly inappropriate merchandise such as transgender "tuck-friendly" women's swimsuits with "extra crotch coverage," sold in XXS sizes. Despite the evident risks to Target's ESG/DEI mandates, and despite the obvious and well-known risks of Target's planned exceptional and aggressive LGBT Pride Month campaign upcoming in May and June 2023, Target failed to disclose that Target was subject to backlash from consumers because of its ESG/DEI mandates and the upcoming LGBT campaign, says the suit. The Company's 2022 and 2023 Proxy Statements' assurances that the Governance & Sustainability Committee oversaw the "social and political issues and risks" of Target's ESG matters was false and misleading. The Governance & Sustainability Committee did not oversee social and political issues and risks arising from Target's ESG matters. Instead, the Committee oversaw Target's engagement with stakeholders to advance ESG/DEI-aligned goals -- regardless of social or political issues or risks created or enhanced by Target's pursuit of them, the suit further asserts. Target Corporation is an American mass-market retail company operating large-scale food and general-merchandise discount stores.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jonathan Berry, Esq. Andrew W. Smith, Esq. BOYDEN GRAY PLLC 800 Connecticut Ave NW, No. 900 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 955-0620 E-mail: jberry@boydengray.com - and - James Uthmeier, Esq. STATE OF FLORIDA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL The Capitol, Pl-01 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050 Telephone: (850) 414-3300 - and - Paul C. Huck, Jr., Esq. Samuel J. Salario, Jr., Esq. Jason B. Gonzalez, Esq. LAWSON HUCK GONZALEZ, PLLC 215 S. Monroe Street, Suite 320 Tallahassee, FL 32301 Telephone: (850) 825-4334 E-mail: jason@lawsonhuckgonzalez.com - and - Reed D. Rubinstein, Esq. Andrew J. Block, Esq. AMERICA FIRST LEGAL FOUNDATION 611 Pennsylvania Avenue S.E. No. 231 Washington, DC 20003 Telephone: (202) 964-3721 E-mail: reed.rubinstein@aflegal.org TELECARE CORPORATION: Uzoukwu Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Telecare Corporation. The case is styled as Chisom E. Uzoukwu, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Telecare Corporation, Case No. 25STCV05333 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 25, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Telecare -- https://www.telecarecorp.com/ -- is a family- and employee-owned company that has been treating individuals with serious mental illness since 1965.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638 Phone: 310-432-0000 Fax: 310-432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com THOMSON REUTERS: Class Settlement in Brooks Suit Gets Final Nod --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAT BROOKS and RASHEED SHABAZZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THOMSON REUTERS CORPORATION, Case No. 3:21-cv-01418-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward Chen entered an order granting final approval of class action settlement: 1. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, the Court certifies, for settlement purposes only, the Settlement Class defined as follows: "All persons who, during the Class Period, both resided in the state of California and whose information Thomson Reuters made available for sale through CLEAR." 2. The Class Period is defined by the Settlement as Dec. 3, 2016 through the date that is 36 days before the Response Deadline for class members to submit claims for monetary relief, opt-out of the settlement, or comment on the settlement. Because the Court set the Response Deadline as Dec. 6, 2024 in its Order Granting Preliminary Approval, the Class Period is thus Dec. 3, 2016 through Oct. 31, 2024. 3. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g), the Court confirms that Cat Brooks and Rasheed Shabazz are appointed to serve as Class Representatives on behalf of the Settlement Class, and that Andre M. Mura of Gibbs Law Group LLP, and Geoffrey Graber of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, are appointed as Settlement Class Counsel. Up to $545,000 shall be disbursed to reimburse the settlement administrator for its reasonable costs of settlement administration, as those costs are incurred. The Court grants the motion for attorneys' fees, costs, and service awards. The foregoing amounts -- $6,875,000 in attorneys' fees, $670,885.29 in cumulative litigation costs, and $10,000 in cumulative service award payments to class representatives – shall be disbursed within 7 days of this Order from the Settlement Fund now held in escrow. Thomson Reuters is a provider of news and information-based tools to professionals. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb, 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BoRA8a at no extra charge.[CC] TOURO COLLEGE: Court Narrows Claims in Yodice Suit -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mark Yodice, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Touro College and University System, Case No. 1:21-cv-02026-DLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Denise Cote entered an order granting in part Touro's Oct. 8, 2024, motion to dismiss: -- Yodice may proceed on the unjust enrichment claim on behalf of people who paid tuition as or on behalf of a student enrolled at TCDM during the Spring 2020 Semester. Yodice's brief alleges that Touro "improperly withheld information related to processing refunds and that Touro knew that they would not refund students paid fees in the event of contractual faults. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Feb, 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lmWUed at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul Doolittle, Esq. Eric Poulin, Esq. Roy T. Willey, IV, Esq. ANASTAPOULO LAW FIRM, LLC 32 Ann St, Charleston, SC 29403 - and – John Macleod Bradham, Esq. Peter B. Katzman, Esq. MOREA SCHWARTZ BRADHAM FRIEDMAN & BROWN LLP 444 Madison Avenue Fourth Floor New York, NY 10022 - and - Edward G. Toptani, Esq. TOPTANI LAW PLLC 375 Pearl Street, Suite 1410 New York, NY 10038 The Defendant is represented by: Mariah L. Passarelli, Esq. Janice Sued Agresti, Esq. COZEN O'CONNOR 301 Grant Street, 26th Floor Pittsburgh, PA15219 TOYOTA MOTOR: Faces Maurer Suit Over Defective Seatbelts -------------------------------------------------------- MARK MAURER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00240-LEK-PJE (N.D.N.Y., Feb. 24, 2025) is an action against the Defendant alleging that the Defendants sells defective 2025MY Toyota Camry, a 2025 Lexus NX and certain 2024-2025 Lexus RX1 ("Recalled Vehicles" or "Class Vehicles"). According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Class Vehicles have malfunctions regarding the second-row center seatbelt. The second-row center seatbelt of the recalled vehicles may have been damaged during manufacturing and might cause the seatbelt to not meet certain strength requirements and increase the risk of injury during certain crashes ("seatbelt defect"). As a result of Toyota's Recall, the Plaintiff's Vehicle's resale value is now diminished. When Plaintiff intends to sell his Vehicle, the reputation of being a faulty vehicle will harm the resale value and place the Plaintiff in a much worse bargaining position compared to if Toyota had properly manufactured, designed, produced, distributed, and advertised Class Vehicles with functioning Seatbelt, the suit asserts. Toyota Motor North America Inc. operates as a holding company. The Company manages all North American operations covering automotive sales, engineering, manufacturing, economic research, advertising, corporate communications, government affairs, and all other related operations. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip J. Furia, Esq. Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Telephone: (845) 483-7100 Facsimile: (888) 749-7747 Email: furiap@thesultzerlawgroup.com sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com - and - Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Telephone: (803) 222-2222 Facsimile: (843) 494-5536 Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com TPUSA INC: Katsnelson Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------- Robert Katsnelson, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situation v. TPUSA, INC., d/b/a TELEPERFORMANCE, Case No. 9:25-cv 80277-XXXX (S.D. Fla., Feb. 26, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of the Defendants unpaid overtime wages. The Plaintiff worked well in excess of his 40 scheduled hours per week. The Plaintiff's regular schedule and his actual worked hours remained the same after this change, but he was no longer paid at all for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. The Plaintiff's paystubs after the period in which he was paid a salary did not include his actual hours worked. Had Plaintiff been able to track his hours worked, he would have demanded that Defendant be paid his legally required overtime rate for all overtime hours worked after receiving his wage statements. The Defendant knew that nonpayment of overtime would economically injure Plaintiff's and that it violated federal and state laws, says the complaint. The Plaintiff began working for Defendant in May 2022 as a Business Transformation Intern. The Defendant provides services for debt collection, telemarketing, customer relationship management, content moderation, and communication.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Labkowski, Esq. LABKOWSKI LAW, P.A. 1200 Brickell Avenue, Suite 800 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (786) 461-1340 Email: david@labkowskilaw.com - and - D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 32 Broadway, Suite 601 New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 688-5640 Email: maimon@jk-llp.com TRUMBULL INSURANCE: Court Stays Case Deadlines in Grawe ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Grawe, et al., v. Trumbull Insurance Company, Case No. 3:23-cv-00160 (D. Conn., Filed Feb. 8, 2023), the Hon. Judge Sarala V. Nagala entered an order granting joint motion to stay the case and all interim deadlines for 60 days to permit defense counsel the opportunity to evaluate proposals from Plaintiffs that could "streamline and/or resolve some or all of the case." -- The Court grants this request as the stay would promote the just and efficient resolution of the action by preserving this Court's and the parties' resources and affording the parties the necessary time to resolve some or all of the dispute on their own. However, because the Court previously stayed the action for six months, and has already once extended the parties' discovery timeline, it intends to grant no future stays in this case, absent extraordinary circumstances. Accordingly, all discovery deadlines are suspended until April 21, 2025 . If the matter has not resolved by April 21, 2025 , by that date, the parties shall propose an aggressive but realistic schedule for the remaining Phase I discovery, including class certification discovery, and class certification motions. The Court does not intend to grant extensions to the deadlines proposed by the parties. The nature of suit states Diversity-Insurance Contract. Trumbull operates as an insurance company.[CC] TTEC SERVICES: Bid for Conditional Certification Partly OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEREK WILFONG, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. TTEC SERVICES CORPORATION, Case No. 1:24-cv-01076-CNS-KAS (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Charlotte Sweeney entered an order rulings as follows: (1) The Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification, Expedited opt-in discovery, and Court-authorized notice to potential opt-in Plaintiffs, is granted in part and denied in part; (2) The parties are ordered to meet-and-confer on a revised notice; and (3) The Defendant shall respond to the Plaintiff's opt-in discovery consistent with this order. In sum, the Court rejects Defendant's three arguments and finds that Plaintiff's allegations, his declaration, and the opt-in Plaintiffs' declarations, taken together, are sufficient to warrant conditional certification under the FLSA. Each Plaintiff stated that they are (or were) TTEC customer service representatives subject to the same pay practice. The Court thus has no trouble concluding that Plaintiff has carried his minimal burden at the notice stage of asserting "substantial allegations that the putative class members were together the victims of a single decision, policy, or plan." The Plaintiff moves for conditional certification of the following collective: "All former and current customer service representatives, and persons with jobs performing substantially identical functions and/or duties to customer service, employed by TTEC Services Corporation in the United States at any time between [three years from date of this order] and the present." The Plaintiff initiated this action as a collective action against TTEC, alleging that TTEC has a practice and policy of not paying its nonexempt employees for all hours worked, including overtime pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week. TTEC is a global provider of customer experience strategy, technology and business process outsourcing solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb, 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yqJjDs at no extra charge.[CC] TURQUOISE HILL: Must File Clas Cert Opposition by March 27 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Turquoise Hill Resources Ltd. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:20-cv-08585-LJL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Lewis Liman entered an order regarding the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification: 1. The Defendants will file their opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion no later than March 27, 2025. 2. The Plaintiffs will file their reply in support of the motion no later than April 30, 2025. 3. These deadlines may be amended only by order of the Court, which may be sought by the Parties. 4. The Parties agree to be bound by the terms of this stipulation pending its entry by the Court. The Court entered a Scheduling Order on Nov. 26, 2024, which set the briefing schedule for Lead Plaintiff the Pentwater Funds' Motion for Class Certification. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb, 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zSezMR at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq. James A. Harrod, Esq. Michael D. Blatchley, Esq. BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP 1251 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Telephone: (212) 554-1400 Facsimile: (212) 554-1444 The Defendants are represented by: Corey Worcester, Esq. Renita Sharma, Esq. Hope Skibitsky, Esq. Jesse Bernstein, Esq. Leigha Empson, Esq. QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP 295 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 849-7000 Facsimile: (212) 849-7100 UI GLOBAL BRANDS: Fagnani Files ADA Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against UI Global Brands LLC. The case is styled as Mykayla Fagnani, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated v. UI Global Brands LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01612 (S.D.N.Y., Feb. 25, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. UI Global Brands -- https://www.uiglobalbrands.com/ -- is a wholesale firm that designs and sells apparel, beauty and hair care products online and to retailers.[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 UNIFIRST CORP: Court Modifies Scheduling Order in Lazare -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TYLER LAZARE, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated individuals, v. UNIFIRST CORPORATION, a Massachusetts corporation; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-09149-AH-SSC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Anne Hwang entered an order regarding private mediation and to modify scheduling order dates: Event Current Date New Deadline Last Date to Hear Motion to Apr. 23, 2025 Apr. 23, 2025 Amend Pleadings or Add Parties: Class certification motion Feb. 25, 2026 hearing cut-off: Expert Discovery Cut-Off: Jan. 14, 2026 Apr. 15, 2026 Motion Hearing Cut-Off: Jan. 21, 2026 Apr. 22, 2026 ADR Cut-Off: Mar. 11, 2026 May 11, 2026 The Parties are ordered to submit a Joint Status Report no later than 21-days after the completion of mediation. Unifirst offers linen and uniform services. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb, 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Dv6QzT at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael H. Boyamian, Esq. BOYAMIAN LAW, INC. 550 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1500 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 547-5300 Facsimile: (818) 547-5678 E-mail: michael@boyamianlaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Ryan H. Crosner, Esq. Kevin B. Piercy, Esq. Timothy D. Hastie, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 239-9800 Facsimile: (213) 239-9045 E-mail: Ryan,crosner@ogletreedeakins.com Kevin.piercy@ogletreedeakins.com Timothy.hastie@ogletreedeakins.com UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Seeks to Seal Class Cert Exhibits in Jones ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY JONES, through her agent, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, Case No. 3:19-cv-06999-RS (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting administrative motion to seal exhibits in support of UBH's opposition to the Plaintiff's motion to modify class certification order. The request is narrowly tailored to protect only the information that is confidential. UBH will file a redacted version of the Opposition Brief pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(e). Because Exhibit 2 to the Nguyen Declaration and Exhibit 3 to the Holmer Declaration are replete with personal and protected health information throughout, redaction of the documents would be impracticable and UBH will not file redacted versions of those documents pursuant to Civil Local Rule 79-5(e). United Behavioral provides mental health services and alcohol and drug services. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb, 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Kj6zkV at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Jennifer S. Romano, Esq. Andrew Holmer, Esq. Nicholas Dowd, Esq. CROWELL & MORING LLP 515 South Flower Street, 40th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 622-4750 Facsimile: (213) 622-2690 E-mail: jromano@crowell.com aholmer@crowell.com ndowd@crowell.com UNITED PARCEL: Seeks to File Class Exhibits Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Timothy Brown, et al., v. United Parcel Service of America, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01672-TCB (N.D. Ga.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting request that Exhibits J, K, P, Q, R, U, V, W, X, and Y to Defendants' memorandum of law in opposition to the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification be filed under seal. Exhibit P contains confidential, personally identifiable information for Plaintiff John Braxton, including addresses, birth dates, and social security numbers. On Oct. 30, 2023, the Court entered the Parties' amended protective confidentiality order. The Plaintiff Nancy Youngermann was deposed on Feb. 13, 2024 and May 9, 2024. The Plaintiff Warren Washburn was deposed on February 8, 2024. Mr. Washburn designated his deposition testimony as "Confidential" pursuant to the Amended Protective Confidentiality Order and instructed the Parties to treat the transcript as such under the Amended Protective Confidentiality Order. United Parcel is an American multinational shipping & receiving and supply chain management company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb, 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0wONy1 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Emily S. Costin, Esq. David R. Godofsky, Esq. R. Blake Crohan, Esq. Michelle Jackson, Esq. ALSTON & BIRD LLP 950 F. Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004-1404 Telephone: (202) 239-3300 Facsimile: (202) 239-3333 E-mail: emily.costin@alston.com david.godofsky@alston.com Blake.crohan@alston.com Michelle.jackson@alston.com UNITED RENTALS: Martin Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Mario Martin, an individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. UNITED RENTALS (NORTH AMERICA), INC., a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. CGC-24-620586 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Francisco, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Feb. 26, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-02041. The Plaintiff's Complaint alleges the following causes of action against Defendant: Unfair Competition in Violation of California Business & Professions Code; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages in Violation of California Labor Code; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages in Violation of California Labor Code; Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods in Violation of California Labor Code and the Applicable IWC Wage Order; Failure to Provide Required Rest Periods in Violation of California Labor Code and the Applicable IWC Wage Order; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Statements in Violation of California Labor Code; Failure to Reimburse Employees for Required Expenses in Violation of California Labor Code; Failure to Provide Wages When Due in Violation of California Labor Code; and Failure to Pay Sick Pay Wages in Violation of California Labor Code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Julie M. Capell, Esq. Arielle Spinner, Esq. Xiaochen Chen, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, 27th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 633-6800 Fax: (213) 633-6899 Email: juliecapell@dwt.com ariellespinner@dwt.com xiaochenchen@dwt.com - and - Jaime Walter, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 50 California Street, 23rd Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4701 Phone: (415) 276-6500 Fax: (415) 276-6599 Email: jaimewalter@dwt.com UNITED STATES: Burton Seeks to Certify Military Veteran Class ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as 2d Lt. John L. Burton, in behalf of himself and other and any veterans similarly situated, v. Doug Collins, Secretary, Department of Veteran Affairs; Dr. Ryan Burri, Oncologist, VA Hospital Bay Pines; Dr. Tora Roca, Oncologist, Moffitt Cancer Center; Dr. Yu, Oncologist, Moffitt Cancer Center; Dr. Daniel Fernandez, Oncologist, Moffitt Cancer Center; Dr. Green, VA Hospital, Tampa; Dr. Pearlman VA Hospital, Tampa, Case No. 8:25-cv-00428-TPB-AEP (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying a class of: A. All Afro-American military veterans who have contacted prostate cancer Agent Orange and/or contaminated water and desire proton treatment B. All Afro-American military veterans who have prostate cancer but who have not contacted Agent Orange and/or contaminated water and desire proton treatment C. All veterans who have contacted prostate cancer Agent Orange and/or contaminated water and desire proton treatment A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated Feb. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OA6V4S at no extra charge. The Plaintiff appears pro se.[CC] UNITED STATES: Burton Sues Over Denied Prostate Cancer Treatment ---------------------------------------------------------------- 2d Lt. JOHN L. BURTON, in behalf of himself and other and any veterans similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Doug Collins, Secretary, Department of Veteran Affairs; Dr. Ryan Burri, Oncologist, VA Hospital Bay Pines; Dr. Tora Roca, Oncologist, Moffitt Cancer Center; Dr. Yu, Oncologist, Moffitt Cancer Center; Dr. Daniel Fernandez, Oncologist, Moffitt Cancer Center; Dr. Green, VA Hospital, Tampa; Dr. Pearlman VA Hospital, Tampa, Defendants, Case No. 8:25-cv-00428-TPB-AEP (M.D. Fla., February 20, 2025) is brought against the Defendants pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act. Plaintiff Burton, a 70 Afro-American back male, who currently has prostate cancer, seeks temporary restraining order enjoining the Defendants from denying him needed emergency proton prostate cancer treatment, compensatory damages arising from Defendant United States of America's negligence in failing to adhere to the prevailing professional standard of care which 1s generally recognized as acceptable and appropriate by reasonably prudent similar health care providers. In line with Smith v. United States, Case No. 20-11365, the Veteran Administration is breaching their legal duty to exercise ordinary medical care and negligently failed to diagnose Plaintiff's prostate cancer and immediately treat it, says the suit. Doug Collins is sued in his official capacity as Secretary of the Department of Veteran Affairs.[BN] VALENTINO USA: Plaintiffs' Renewed Bid for Class Cert Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ROGELIO BENITEZ, as Administrator for the Estate of Josefina Benitez, ZION BRERETON, JAMES CHOI, and ANDREYA CRAWORD, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. VALENTINO U.S.A., INC., Case No. 1:19-cv-11463-JGLC-RWL (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification. The parties are directed to confer regarding trial and to provide their availability for a trial in September, October, or November of 2025. The parties shall also confer regarding settlement and along with the proposed trial dates, include whether they would like to be referred to a Magistrate Judge or the Mediation program. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 193, and to terminate Plaintiff Alicia Learmont, Counter Claimant Valentino U.S.A., Inc., and Counter Defendant Alicia Learmont. The Plaintiffs seek to certify a Full-Time Employee Class ("FTE Class"), comprised of "All non-executive Full-Time Employees paid a salary of under $100,000.00 annually, and who worked in Defendant's New York corporate office at any time from Dec. 13, 2013 to Present." The Court understands this class to represent those like Choi, Benitez and Crawford, who Plaintiffs allege were full-time employees, who were allegedly improperly misclassified and denied overtime wages. As evidence of numerosity for the FTE Class, the Plaintiffs direct the Court to three pieces of evidence, none of which demonstrate numerosity. The Plaintiffs have failed to prove that the proposed FTE is sufficiently homogenous to meet the requirements of Rule 23. The Plaintiff's evidence does not speak to several of the relevant factors to determine that the extent of control Valentino held over the proposed Freelancer Class amounted to an employment relationship. Namely, the evidence does not demonstrate that Plaintiffs Brereton or Crawford, or any members of the proposed Freelancer Class, set their own schedules or controlled when they worked, whether they worked for other companies while working for Valentino, or that they set their rate of pay. As such, the Plaintiffs have failed to provide evidence beyond bare allegations with respect to its Freelancer Class. Valentino is a global fashion brand that designs, manufactures, and markets luxury designer clothing and accessories. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Feb. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MxL0ne at no extra charge.[CC] VAUGHAN MCLEAN: Seeks to Strike Demetro Bid for Class Cert. ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHERINE DEMETRO, et al., v. VAUGHAN MCLEAN, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-02199-APM (D.D.C.), the Defendants asks the Court to enter an order granting their motion to strike Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Defendants contend that the Plaintiffs failed to file a motion for class certification within ninety (90) days of filing their initial complaint, in violation of the requirement of Local Rule 23.1(b). The Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint in this case on June 20, 2024. To comply with Local Rule 23.1(b), the Plaintiffs needed to file their motion for class certification by Sept. 18, 2024. The Plaintiffs filed their class certification motion on Feb. 7, 2025, one hundred and forty-two (142) days after the deadline. Vaughan McLean offers litigation and advisory legal services. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated Feb, 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RWFxRx at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Constantinos G. Panagopoulos, Esq. Sarabeth Rangiah, Esq. BALLARD SPAHR LLP 1909 K Street, NW, 12th Floor Washington, DC 20006 E-mail: cgp@ballardspahr.com Telephone: (202) 661-2202 - and - Kyra A. Smerkanich, Esq. Robert C. Gill, Esq. Jason W. McElroy, Esq. SAUL EWING LLP 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 550 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 295-6605 E-mail: kyra.smerkanich@saul.com robert.gill@saul.com jason.mcelroy@saul.com - and - Brian Wood Thompson, Esq. Nathan J. Bresee, Esq. JACKSON & CAMPBELL, P.C. 2300 N St NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20037 Telephone: (202) 457-1648 E-mail: bwthompson@jackscamp.com nbresee@jackscamp.com VECTRARX MAIL: Ciminski Alleges Inadequate Data Security Measures ----------------------------------------------------------------- William Ciminski, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VectraRx Mail Pharmacy Services, LLC. Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-00085-JGZ (D. Ariz., February 20, 2025) arises out of a recent data breach involving information on Defendant's network, including the personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and other patients, such as names, dates of birth, prescription numbers, prescription information, dates of service, and/or Social Security numbers. According to the complaint, VRMP is responsible for allowing this data breach because of multiple acts of negligence, including but not limited to its: failure to design, implement, and maintain reasonable data security systems and safeguards; failure to exercise reasonable care in the hiring, supervision, and training of its employees and agents and vendors; failure to comply with industry-standard data security practices; and failure to comply with federal and state laws and regulations that govern data security and privacy practices and are intended to protect the type of Sensitive Information at issue in this action. The Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms, and to prevent their future occurrence, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated persons whose sensitive information were compromised as a result of the data breach. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and other Class Members, asserts claims for negligence; breach of implied contract; violation of the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act; and violation of the California Customer Records Act. The Plaintiff further seeks injunctive relief, declaratory relief, monetary damages, and all other relief as authorized in equity or by law. VectraRx Mail Pharmacy Services, LLC is an Arizona prescription delivery service that provides delivery of medications for on-the-job and personal injury claims.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lincoln Combs, Esq. O'STEEN MACLEOD COMBS PLC 300 W. Clarendon Ave., Suite 400 Phoenix, AZ 85013-3424 Telephone: (602) 252-888 Facsimile: (602)-274-1209 E-mail: lcombs@omclawyers.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Amina A. Thomas, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 Facsimile: (317) 636-2593 E-mail: ltoops@cohenmalad.com athomas@cohenmalad.com WARNER MUSIC: Judge to Deny Hall Class Certification Bid -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN HALL, an individual; and LANCE HOPPEN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. WARNER MUSIC GROUP CORP. and ELEKTRA ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00457 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Aleta Trauger will deny the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. All of the Plaintiffs' substantive claims lack the requisite commonality on the most important threshold elements of those causes of action. For basically the same reasons, the plaintiffs have also failed to satisfy the typicality or adequacy of representation requirements. In this case, the Plaintiffs' ability or inability to prove their claims will say nothing about other individuals' ability to prove their claims. As for adequacy, the plaintiffs' ability—or inability—to prove their claims should not be imputed to the remainder of the proposed class. The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, initiated this action in June 2022 against the defendants Warner Music Group Corp. ("WMG"), Warner Music, Inc., and Warner Records, Inc. The Second Amended Complaint filed in September 2022, added new defendants, including Elektra Entertainment Group, Inc. ("EEG"), Elektra Music Group, Inc., and Atlantic Recording Corp. In June 2023, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' Motion to Dismiss the SAC, dismissing all claims against defendants Warner Music, Inc., Warner Records, Inc., Elektra Music Group, Inc., and Atlantic Recording Corp., and leaving intact the plaintiffs' claims against defendants WMG and EEG only for (1) breach of contract (Count I) (in part), fraud (Count III), accounting (Count IV), and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count V). Warner is an American multinational entertainment and record label conglomerate. A copy of the Court's memorandum dated Feb, 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rQ9ZVC at no extra charge.[CC] WEBMD LLC: Jancik Suit Wins Bid to Certify Class & Subclass ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LINDA M. JANCIK, et al., v. WEBMD LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00644-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Thomas Thrash, Jr. entered an order granting the Plaintiff's motion to certify class and subclass: Class All persons in the United States who, from Feb. 17, 2020, through the date on which class notice is disseminated, had the same email address associated with a subscription to webmd.com and a Facebook account, and for whom there is associated Event Data in the possession of Meta Platforms, Inc. showing their video-viewing behavior on webmd.com." Subclass "All persons in the United States who, from Feb. 17, 2020, through the date on which class notice is disseminated, had the same email address associated with a newsletter subscription to webmd.com and a Facebook account, and for whom there is associated Event Data in the possession of Meta Platforms, Inc. showing their video-viewing behavior on webmd.com that was accessed through a webmd.com newsletter The Court also appoints the Plaintiff Jancik as Class Representative and Plaintiff's counsel as Class Counsel. The Court further agrees with Jancik that certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is appropriate. The Court does not find Jancik's request for declaratory or injunctive relief overly vague. The Plaintiff Jancik alleges that the Defendant violated the Video Privacy Protection Act ("VPPA") by improperly disclosing her and other putative class members' personally identifiable information ("PII") to Facebook. WebMD offers online health information through the website webmd.com. A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated Feb. 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9QmaVF at no extra charge.[CC] WELLS FARGO: Chakravarthy Suit Transferred to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Andrew Penuela, Koushik Charan, Jill Molaris, Maria Smythe, Gopal Chakravarthy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wells Fargo & Company, Wells Fargo Clearing Services LLC doing business as: Wells Fargo Advisors, Case No. 2:24-cv-08831 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Feb. 25, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-01968-DMR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Wells Fargo & Company -- http://www.wellsfargo.com/-- is an American multinational financial services company with a significant global presence.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam A. Schwartzbaum, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave., Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (305) 725-1245 Email: adam@edelsberglaw.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW PA 1925 Century Park East, No 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (305) 975-3320 Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com The Defendants are represented by: Bryan A. Merryman, Esq. WHITE AND CASE LLP 555 South Flower Street Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90071-2433 Phone: (213) 620-7700 Fax: (213) 452-2329 Email: bmerryman@whitecase.com - and - David G. Hille, Esq. WHITE & CASE LLP 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10020 Phone: (212) 819-8357 Email: dhille@whitecase.com WORKFORCE7 INC: Class Opposition Briefs in Ballast Due March 21 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ballast et al., v. Workforce7 Inc. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-03812-ER (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order extending certain pending deadlines set in the Oct. 11, 2024, revised civil case discovery plan and scheduling order. -- The Plaintiffs' deadline to take the Feb. 21, 2025 first step in class certification motion practice: -- Deadline for any party to make a Feb. 21, 2025 dispositive motion on all counts in Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint, except for Count 10: -- Deadline for any opposition briefs to March 21, 2025 be filed in response to the dispositive motion: -- Deadline for any reply briefs in March 31, 2025 further support of the dispositive motion: On Jan. 7, 2025, the Court issued its decision granting in part and denying in part Con Edison's June 21, 2024 Motion to Dismiss Count 10 of Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint for alleged unpaid prevailing wages brought under a breach-of-contract theory. Further, on Jan. 13, 2025, Defendant Con Edison submitted a proposed briefing schedule for summary judgment with respect to Plaintiffs' joint employer claims, which the Court granted on Jan. 14, 2025. On Feb. 10, 2025, all parties participated in a mediation before Martin F. Scheinman, Esq. of Scheinman Arbitration and Mediation Services during which Plaintiffs reached a settlement in principle with the Workforce7 Defendants and Vali Industries and are currently working on drafting the necessary settlement materials for the Court's approval. Workforce7 Inc. is a veteran-owned company founded in 2015 by Ronald Hilton. We proudly offer professional flagging services. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated Feb, 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aE9nDY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brent E. Pelton, Esq. PELTON GRAHAM LLC 111 Broadway, Suite 1503 New York, NY 10006 Telephone: (212) 385-9700 Facsimile: (212) 385-0800 E-mail: Pelton@PeltonGraham.com WORLDWIDE FLIGHT: Class Cert Hearing Set for Dec. 15 ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTIAN FERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated, v. WORLDWIDE FLIGHT SERVICES, INC., an active Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, Case No. 2:23-cv-10435-DSF-JPR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dale Fischer entered an order granting the Parties' revised joint stipulation to stay discovery and continue the case as follows: 1. All formal discovery is stayed until July 9, 2025; 2. The class certification hearing date is scheduled for Dec. 15, 2025, or the earliest date the Court is thereafter available; 3. If the class certification hearing date is scheduled for Dec. 15, 2025, the class certification motion filing deadline would be continued to Oct. 24, 2025; the opposition to class certification filing deadline would be scheduled for Nov. 21, 2025; and the reply to opposition deadline would be scheduled for Dec. 1, 2025; 4. The trial is continued from Oct. 14, 2025 to June 16, 2026 or the earliest date the Court is thereafter available, and all trial-related deadlines are continued in accordance with the new trial date as follows: Event Current Date Requested Date Motion to Amend Pleadings or Mar. 3, 2025 No change Add Parties Cutoff: Discovery Cut-Off: May 20, 2025 Jan. 20, 2026 Motion Hearing Cut-off: July 7, 2025 Mar. 9, 2026 Worldwide Flight specializes in the processing and transporting of goods. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb, 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ss8l6N at no extra charge.[CC] ZWANGER & PESIRI: Self-Initiated Living Sues Over ADA Violation --------------------------------------------------------------- Self-Initiated Living Options, Inc., Justin Ainsworth, Asa Bacon, Gina Barbara, and David Rodriguez, and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. ZWANGER & PESIRI RADIOLOGY GROUP, LLP, Case No. 2:25-cv-01104 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 26, 2025), is brought as a result of the Defendant's violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, the Affordable Care Act, New York State Human Rights Law, New York State Civil Rights Law, and Nassau County Administrative Code. Despite a clear statutory mandate that has been in place for more than three decades, Defendant has neglected their legal obligations under the Americans with Disabilities Act ('ADA') and refused services to persons with physical disabilities because it refused to provide them with a reasonable accommodation. Defendant has also ignored its legal obligation to construct, alter and remove architectural barriers at its radiology offices in compliance with the ADA. These decisions reflect a policy and practice that has prevented the individual Plaintiffs, along with all others with mobility-related disabilities who cannot walk or stand and rely on wheelchairs and scooters, from having access to and use of Defendant's radiology offices. These aforementioned breaches have created a two-tier system among Defendant's patients relegating individuals with disabilities to a substandard level of treatment. Therefore, this is not only unlawful discrimination, but also unnecessarily jeopardizes the health and well-being of patients with physical disabilities and significantly impairs their ability to monitor and maintain their own health. The Defendant's ongoing and pervasive pattern of systemic discrimination is common to all of its 23 radiology offices in Nassau and Suffolk counties. The pervasive and systematic discrimination reflects the lack of proper training of Defendant's employees and agents in dealing with mobility-impaired individuals, says the complaint. The Plaintiff Self Initiated Living Options, Inc., a/k/a Suffolk Independent Living Organization ("SILO"), has been providing programs and services to people with disabilities in Nassau and Suffolk Counties since 1985. The Defendant owns, operates and leases 23 radiology offices throughout Nassau and Suffolk counties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: James E. Bahamonde, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JAMES E. BAHAMONDE, P.C. Phone: (646) 290-8258 Fax: (646) 435-4376 Email: James@CivilRightsNY.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***