/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250318.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, March 18, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 55 Headlines 360 COOKWARE LLC: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website 3M COMPANY: Charnock Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams 3M COMPANY: Couto Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams 3M COMPANY: Klitzke Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 3M COMPANY: Ray Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams 808 LEX: Class Settlement in Tenezaca Suit Gets Initial Nod AIRTALK WIRELESS: Faces Soper Class Suit Over Substandard Service ALTUS POWER: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With TPG APPLOVIN CORP: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit ASSOCIATED WHOLESALE: Court Dismisses Jenkins Data Breach Suit BLACKHAWK MINING: Massey Class Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA CALERES INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Reyes Claims CANADA: Agrees to Settle Federal Indian Hospitals Class Action CARE PETROLEUM: Taylor Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Under FLSA CENTRAL PARK WEST: Picon Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, C&B Alleges CNL EXPRESS: Kim Seeks to Recover Minimum Wages, OT Under FLSA CO-DIAGNOSTICS INC: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action Suit COMMUNITY BANK: Reed Sues Over Deceptive Overdraft Fee Practices COMMUNITY CARE: Petty Seeks Minimum Wages, OT for Nursing Staff DICKINSON BRANDS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Suit Says DISA GLOBAL: Faces Class Action Over April 2024 Cyber-Attack EPIC GAMES: Can Arbitrate Claims in Johnson, et al. Fortnite Suit ETHOS TECHNOLOGIES: Post-Distribution Info From Stein Due March 19 FCA US: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Defective Jeep Models FREESE II: Tucker Seeks Conditional Certification of FLSA class FUNKO INC: $14.75MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 6 G & S PIZZA: Schilling Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement GANNETT CO: Bid to Name Class Counsel in Deddeh Suit Due March 28 GANNETT CO: N.D. California Consolidates Wu and Deddeh Suits GATEHOUSE MEDIA: Must Oppose Ewalt Class Cert Bid by March 24 GECU FEDERAL: Trevino Files Discrimination Class Action in Ariz. GENERAL ELECTRIC: $362.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on April 24 INSPIRA MEDICAL: Paramedics Deprived of OT Pay, Oatman Suit Says JACK COOPER: O'Hare Alleges Mass Layoff Without Proper Notice JACKSON LABORATORY: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Seijas Due Oct. 17 JH WALL: Website Inaccessible to the Blind Users, Jones Alleges JM WIRELESS: Arreola Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. LEAD YOU: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Hernandez Class Suit Alleges LHNH LAVISTA: Jan. 31 Order in Lanz Class Suit Amended LUXCLUB INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Guerrero Due Dec. 19 MADISON, WI: Voters Sue Over 193 Uncounted November Ballots MAMOUNS FRANCHISE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Claude Says MARAVAI LIFESCIENCES: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit MDL 3040: Bids to Exclude Zigler and Stockton's Opinions Granted MDL 3107: Tire Makers Wins Dismissal of Consolidated Antitrust Suit MDL 3111: Feb. 28 Order in Bellantoni v. Capital One Amended MDL 3111: Feb. 28 Order in Hopkins v. Capital One Amended MDL 3111: Feb. 28 Order in Pitts v. Capital One Amended MDL 3111: Feb. 28 Order in Port v. Capital One Amended MDL 3111: Feb. 28 Order in Savett v. Capital One Amended MDL 3111: Feb. 28 Order in Savings Account Suit Amended MDL 3111: Feb. 28 Order in Sim v. Capital One Amended MERCER COUNTY, PA: Denial of Campbell Class Cert Bid Endorsed MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Bid to Certify Class in Ramey Suit Re-Noted MOTORSPORT.TV: Guereca Seeks More Time to File Expert Report NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Faces Time Restriction Class Action Under TCPA NEWELL BRANDS: Barrales Suit Removed to C.D. California NEYMAR FARMS: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, NYLL, Sanchez Says NICHOLAS PELLEGRINI: Orgera Sues to Recover Expropriated Tips NORTH AMERICAN: Reyes Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA, PMWA OKLAHOMA BAPTIST: Collins' Bid for Jurisdictional Discovery OK'd PACIFIC SEAFOOD: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Little Due August 23 PARKER-HANNIFIN CORP: Naranjo Suit Removed to C.D. California PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Court Ends Broiler Chicken Grower Suit PP RETAIL USA: Mercurio Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Court Affirms ACB's Victory in ADA Class Suit REGAL CINEMAS: Discloses Cosumers' Info to Meta, Indivglio Says REGIONAL CARE: Court Consolidates Data Security Incident Cases RH DENVER: Hernandez Class Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA RITE AID: Class Action Settlement in Bianucci Gets Initial Nod ROAD HAULAGE: Appeals Court Refuses DAF to Appeal Class Cert. ROBERT LESSER: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Dumas Due Sept. 26 ROCKET LAB: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit SALT SOLUTIONS: Standing Order Entered in TIAL Class Suit SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA: Settlement Deal in Dunsmore Gets Initial Nod SANDISK SSDS: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Oct. 14 SEABOARD CORP: Settlement Deal Reached in Antitrust Suit SHORELINE ENTERTAINMENT: Sued Over Unlawful Credit Reporting SKOPOS FINANCIAL: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona SONIC INC: Brennan Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Oklahoma SONIC INC: Faces TCPA Class Action Lawsuit Over Marketing Texts SOUNDHOUND AI: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims STARBUCKS CORP: W.D. Washington Stays Consolidated Stockholder Suit STRUCTURAL BUILDERS: Perez Class Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Under FLSA SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Fischer Suit Removed to N.D. California TAKARA SAKE: Class Cert Hearing in Tunick Continued to April 10 TELEFLEX INC: Violates DGCL, Harrison Class Action Suit Alleges TELEPHONE AND DATA: Continues to Defend Stockholder Class Suit THEHUFFINGTONPOST.COM INC: Golub Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. TICKETSALES.COM LLC: Hampton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website TOZO INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Walker Claims TRADE DESK: Faces Savorelli Class Suit Over Stock Price Drop TRANSAK USA: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Goodwin Suit Alleges TREY CAIN: Bids for Summary Judgment in Sake Suit August 15 TRUELINE INFRASTRUCTURE: Faces Class Suit Over Labor Law Violations TRUELINE INFRASTRUCTURE: Higgins Files Suit in D. Delaware TWEEZERMAN INTERNATIONAL: Williams Sues Over Inaccessible Website UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO MEDICAL: Vanderzee Suit Removed to N.D. Ill. VALSOFT CORP: Sued Over Inadequately Protected Computer Network VENADO INC: Morris Seeks to Certify Proposed Classes VERTIV CORP: Class Cert. Bid in Torok Suit Extended to April 7 VIRGINIA: Rebuttal Expert Witness Disclosures in King Due May 2 VUORI INC: Bid for Initial OK of Settlement Tossed w/o Prejudice W.T.F.N. INC: Winslow Files Suit in E.D. California WARREN TRANSPORT: Filing for Conditional Cert Extended to March 26 YRV ENTERPRISE: Alvarez Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Overtime ZACKS INVESTMENT: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Trouy Alleges ZONI LANGUAGE: Class Cert Bid Filing in Ortega Due Jan. 16, 2026 ZUFFA LLC: Class Action Settlement in Le Suit Gets Final Nod ZURU LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Dauod Suit Due Nov. 14 [] Appeals Court Refuses to Dismiss "Freedom Convoy" Class Action ********* 360 COOKWARE LLC: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------------- Felipe Fernandez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. 360 COOKWARE LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01847 (S.D.N.Y., March 5, 2025), is brought against Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website, www.all-clad.com (the "Website"), to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website, and therefore denial of the goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com 3M COMPANY: Charnock Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams -------------------------------------------------------------- Robert Charnock, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC. DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;) DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDIE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Case No. 2:25-cv-00524-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 28, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio-persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his career in the U.S. Air Force and was diagnosed with thyroid disease as and/or other medical related conditions a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq. John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq. KEEFE LAW FIRM, LLC 2 Bridge Ave, Suite 623 Red Bank, NJ 07701 Phone: 732-224-9400 Facsimile: 732-224-9494 3M COMPANY: Couto Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams ---------------------------------------------------------------- Greg Couto and June Bandouser, his wife, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC. DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;) DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDIE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Case No. 2:25-cv-00530-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 28, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio-persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff, Greg Couto regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career in the U.S. Airforce and was diagnosed with thyroid disease and/or other medical related conditions as a result of exposure to the Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq. John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq. KEEFE LAW FIRM, LLC 2 Bridge Ave, Suite 623 Red Bank, NJ 07701 Phone: 732-224-9400 Facsimile: 732-224-9494 3M COMPANY: Klitzke Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams ----------------------------------------------------------------- Frederick Klitzke, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC. DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;) DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDIE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Case No. 2:25-cv-00526-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 28, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio-persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his career and was diagnosed with ulcerative colitis as and/or other medical related conditions a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq. John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq. KEEFE LAW FIRM, LLC 2 Bridge Ave, Suite 623 Red Bank, NJ 07701 Phone: 732-224-9400 Facsimile: 732-224-9494 3M COMPANY: Ray Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams ------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Ray, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S., INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCK EYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC. DEEPWATER CHEMICALS INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.;) DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; KIDDIE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as Successor-in-interest to the Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.); and ABC CORPORATIONS (1-50), Case No. 2:25-cv-00525-RMG (D.S.C., Jan. 28, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injuries resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS. AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in response to Class B fires. The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained highly toxic and bio-persistent PFASs, which would expose end users of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further, Defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained PFAS for use in firefighting. PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain in the human body while presenting significant health risks to humans. The Defendants PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products. Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein. Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the same, says the complaint. The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his career in the U.S. Navy and was diagnosed with thyroid disease as and/or other medical related conditions a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF products. The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers, distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals used in AFFF production.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stephen T. Sullivan, Jr., Esq. John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq. KEEFE LAW FIRM, LLC 2 Bridge Ave, Suite 623 Red Bank, NJ 07701 Phone: 732-224-9400 Facsimile: 732-224-9494 808 LEX: Class Settlement in Tenezaca Suit Gets Initial Nod ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALFONSO TENEZACA, NELSON NACIPUCHA, RENAN ZAMORA-FLORES, and MALVIN LUNA, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v. 808 LEX RESTAURANT, LLC d/b/a IL GRADINO RESTAURANT, TERRENCE LOWENBERG, and TODD COHEN, Case No. 1:23-cv-08545-JGLC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Jessica G. L. Clarke entered an order preliminarily approving class action settlement and providing for notice: The Court appoints Joseph & Kirschenbaum LLP as Class Counsel. The Court appoints Rust Consulting as the Settlement Claims Administrator as Rust Consulting was preliminarily identified by the parties as the Settlement Claims Administrator in paragraph 1.4 of the Agreement. The Settlement Fairness Hearing Shall be held before this Court at 12:00 pm on June 11, 2025. The Defendants offer Italian classics for lunch and dinner, including options for risotto, calamari, and veal medallions. A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lDRtok at no extra charge.[CC] AIRTALK WIRELESS: Faces Soper Class Suit Over Substandard Service ----------------------------------------------------------------- JERRY SOPER III, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AIRTALK WIRELESS, a Texas corporation, Case No. 2:25-cv-02064-UA (C.D. Cal., March 5, 2025) is a class action against AirTalk for fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of contract, and violations of Proposed Amendment XXVIII to the U.S. Constitution. On Feb. 10, 2025, the Plaintiff paid AirTalk $39.95 for its "Lifeline Unlimited Plan," advertised as "Unlimited High Speed 5G+ Internet" on a "leading 4G LTE/5G network" (AirTalk website, accessed Feb 24, 2025). Post-upgrade, the Plaintiff's service delivered 0.2Mbps download/1.6Mbps upload (Speedtest, Feb 23, 2025, 20:47 PST) and 0.50Mbps (prior tests), with diagnostics showing 3G/EDGE connectivity (CMC 310, CMNC 280), despite his iPhone 12 Pro Max's 5G NR capability (4Gbps down/200Mbps up, per Apple specs, Feb 14, 2025). AirTalk's Terms and Conditions (TOCs, accessed Feb 23, 2025) cap "unlimited" data at 40GB, after which speeds "may be reduced" to undisclosed levels—here, 0.2-0.50Mbps, 1/1000th of 5G+ capacity (1Gbps+ per AT&T 5G+ specs) and below FCC broadband (25Mbps down/3Mbps up, 2015). The Plaintiff's billing reflects $30/month with a $9.25 Lifeline discount (Feb 23, 2025), yet he was charged $39.95 (receipt, Feb 10, 2025, 4:15pm PST), indicating overbilling of $9.95 claiming the Lifeline discount was already used. The Plaintiff seeks relief for himself and a nationwide class of Lifeline recipients subjected to AirTalk's deceptive practices, including substandard service, undisclosed throttling, overbilling, and device downgrades Mr. Soper is an individual residing at a temporary homeless shelter with address 711 N. Alameda Street, Los Angeles, California, a Lifeline recipient under the federal program administered by the FCC. AirTalk provides wireless services under Lifeline and AT&T Mobility wholesaling network capacity. The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN] ALTUS POWER: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With TPG ------------------------------------------------------ Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is investigating: -- Altus Power, Inc. (NYSE: AMPS), relating to the proposed merger with TPG. Under the terms of the agreement, Altus Power will be acquired by TPG for $5.00 per share of its Class A common stock in an all-cash transaction. Click link for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/altus-power-inc-amps/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Paragon 28, Inc. (NYSE: FNA), relating to the proposed merger with Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, Zimmer Biomet will acquire all outstanding shares of Paragon 28 common stock for $13.00 per share. Paragon 28 shareholders will also receive a non-tradeable contingent value right entitling holders to receive up to $1.00 per share in cash if certain revenue milestones are achieved. Click link for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/paragon-28-inc-fna/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- ESSA Bancorp, Inc. (Nasdaq: ESSA), relating to the proposed merger with CNB Financial Corporation. Under the terms of the agreement, ESSA shareholders will receive 0.8547 shares of CNB common stock for each outstanding share of ESSA common stock. Click link for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/essa-bancorp-inc-essa/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. -- Intevac, Inc. (Nasdaq: IVAC), relating to the proposed merger with Seagate Technology Holdings plc. Under the terms of the agreement, Seagate will acquire Intevac in an all-cash transaction for $4.00 per share. ACT NOW. The Tender Offer expires on March 28, 2025. Click link for more https://monteverdelaw.com/case/intevac-inc-ivac/. It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you. NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you should talk to a lawyer and ask: 1. Do you file class actions and go to Court? 2. When was the last time you recovered money for shareholders? 3. What cases did you recover money in and how much? About Monteverde & Associates PC Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a national class action securities firm with a successful track record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341. Contact: Juan Monteverde, Esq. MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC The Empire State Building 350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740 New York, NY 10118 United States of America jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN] APPLOVIN CORP: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------- A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against AppLovin Corporation ("AppLovin" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: APP). The lawsuit alleges that Defendants provided investors with material information concerning AppLovin's financial growth and stability, while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts related to AppLovin's manipulative practices. If you bought shares of AppLovin between May 10, 2023 and February 25, 2025, and you suffered a significant loss on that investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832 or you may visit the firm's website at www.holzerlaw.com/case/applovin/ to learn more. The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the case is May 5, 2025. Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law firm for 2021, 2022, and 2023, dedicates its practice to vigorous representation of shareholders and investors in litigation nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate misconduct. More information about the firm is available through its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm. Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney responsible for its content. CONTACT: Corey Holzer, Esq. (888) 508-6832 (toll-free) cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN] ASSOCIATED WHOLESALE: Court Dismisses Jenkins Data Breach Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Daniel D. Crabtree of the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit titled SCOTT JENKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASSOCIATED WHOLESALE GROCERS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-04039-DDC-GEB (D. Kan.). Plaintiff Scott Jenkins alleges unauthorized third parties accessed his personal identifying information (PII) in a data breach. According to him, Defendant Associated Wholesale Grocers did not maintain secure data systems. The Plaintiff asserts a number of claims, on behalf of himself and a prospective class. The Defendant moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)--arguing the Plaintiff lacks standing. The Defendant also invoked Rule 12(b)(6)--arguing the Plaintiff has failed to state a claim. The Plaintiff is the Defendant's former employee. As part of the hiring process, the Defendant required the Plaintiff to provide certain PII. The Plaintiff relied on the Defendant to maintain confidentially and secure his PII for business purposes. The Plaintiff, for his part, is careful to avoid sharing his PII. He stores sensitive documents in secure locations or destroys them. His usernames and passwords are unique. All this focus on security matters, he contends, because PII is highly valuable to criminal actors. In October 2023, an unknown actor breached the Defendant's computer systems. The breach released the PII of the Plaintiff (and a putative class). Included in the breach were the Plaintiff's name, Social Security number, and date of birth. But it was not until April 2024 that the Defendant notified the Plaintiff about the breach. After the data breach occurred, the Plaintiff has faced ongoing worry about when and how unauthorized actors may use his sensitive information. Such misuse has begun already, he alleges. For starters, the Plaintiff received multiple notifications about unauthorized purchases on his PayPal account and sign-in attempts to his bank accounts. Cybercriminals were able to pose as the Plaintiff and hack his financial accounts to steal his money. On top of that, the Plaintiff says he has received spam calls referencing falsified illegal actions. These calls are clearly attempts to use his PII to extort him for money or more PII. The Plaintiff spent 240 hours cleaning up the data breach's consequences. And the Plaintiff also experiences fear, anxiety, and increased concern for the loss of his privacy. The Defendant still possesses the Plaintiff's PII. He believes the Defendant's security measures are still inadequate, though the Defendant publicly denies these allegations. The Plaintiff filed this lawsuit in May 2024, asserting claims of negligence, negligence per se, invasion of privacy, breach of implied contract, breach of confidence, and breach of fiduciary duty. He seeks monetary, injunctive, and declaratory relief. The Defendant moved to dismiss the Complaint. The Plaintiff responded. But, as the Defendant emphasizes, the Plaintiff filed his Response out of time. The Response was due Aug. 2, 2024, but the Plaintiff did not file his Response until Aug. 6, 2024. A quick survey of the docket reveals that the Plaintiff never requested an extension of time. The Defendant asks the Court to sanction him by disregarding his Response. Judge Crabtree notes that this case is a close cousin to In re Progressive Leasing Breach Litig., No. 23-cv-00783-DBB-CMR, 2025 WL 213744, at *9 (D. Utah Jan. 16, 2025). The Plaintiff here likewise alleges that the Defendant elected to store the unencrypted PII in an Internet-accessible environment, and that its data security measures remain inadequate but it publicly denies these allegations. The Court finds that the Plaintiff here has not alleged any more to show a future data breach is "certainly impending" than the plaintiffs in In re Progressive. And so, the Court concludes the Plaintiff lacks standing to seek his requested injunctive and declaratory relief. Taking stock of all the Plaintiff's alleged injuries and requested relief, Judge Crabtree finds the Plaintiff does not have standing to maintain this lawsuit. The Plaintiff must support his damages request with an injury in fact. But at every alleged injury specific to him, the Complaint's allegations fall short, Judge Crabtree points out. Judge Crabtree opines that the Plaintiff has not alleged actual misuse of his stolen PII that is fairly traceable to the data breach. He has not shown that the risk of future identity theft and fraud is sufficiently imminent. And his emotional distress, mitigation costs, and loss of privacy are not cognizable injuries in fact. The Plaintiff also lacks standing to seek injunctive and declaratory relief against the Defendant because he has not shown another data breach is imminent. Without standing, there's no Article III case or controversy before the Court. In turn, that conclusion means that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Therefore, the Court grants the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. The Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/nhcch22d from PacerMonitor.com. BLACKHAWK MINING: Massey Class Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA ----------------------------------------------------------------- JOSHUA MASSEY, individually and for others similarly situated v. BLACKHAWK MINING, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00143 (S.D.W.Va., March 5, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid wages and other damages from Blackhawk pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. Blackhawk employed Massey as one of its Hourly Employees in West Virginia. Massey and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more than 40 hours a workweek. However, Blackhawk does not pay Massey and the other Hourly Employees for all their hours worked, including overtime hours. Rather, Blackhawk requires Massey and the other Hourly Employees to suit out in protective clothing and safety gear necessary to safely perform their job duties and travel into the mines, while on Blackhawk's premises, all prior to being "clocked in." Likewise, Blackhawk requires Massey and the other Hourly Employees to change out of and store their safety gear and protective clothing and wash-up, while on Blackhawk's premises, after being "clocked out." But Blackhawk does not pay Massey and the other Hourly Employees for the time they spend donning and doffing their safety gear and protective clothing, traveling into the mine, and washing-up, "off the clock," before and after their shifts. Blackhawk's pre/post shift off the clock policy violates the FLSA by depriving Massey and the other Hourly Employees of overtime wages when they work in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, the suit alleges. Blackhawk employed Massey as a scoop operator from approximately January 2021 to October 2023. Throughout his employment, Blackhawk subjected Massey to its pre/post shift off the clock policy and bonus pay scheme The FLSA Collective of similarly situated employees is defined as: All hourly Blackhawk employees who worked at an operation owned, operated, or controlled by Blackhawk during the last three years" The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Majestro, Esq. POWELL & MAJESTRO PLLC 405 Capitol Street, Suite 807 Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 346-2889 Facsimile: (304) 346-2895 E-mail: amajestro@powellmajestro.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com whogg@mybackwages.com obeale@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 CALERES INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Reyes Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ NATHALIE REYES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Caleres, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01531 (S.D.N.Y., February 24, 2025) is a civil rights action against Caleres for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.naturalizer.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. On December 26, 2024, the Plaintiff was searching for a store where she could find shoes that would suit her preferences. During her search, she came across the Defendant's website which offers a wide range of trendy and durable shoes available in a variety of sizes and widths. However, while trying to make a purchase of Joy Dress Sandal, she encountered several accessibility issues. When she attempted to apply filters to find the desired products, she found that the product descriptions were insufficient, which prevented her from selecting shoes that would meet her needs, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Caleres' policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Caleres, Inc. operates the website that offers a variety of women's sneakers, flats, loafers, heels, wedges, boots and sandals.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Asher H. Cohen, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 914-9694 E-mail: acohen@ealg.law CANADA: Agrees to Settle Federal Indian Hospitals Class Action -------------------------------------------------------------- On March 6, 2025, the Honourable Gary Anandasangaree, Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, and Minister responsible for the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency, and Ann Cecile Hardy, court-appointed representative plaintiff, jointly announced that a proposed Settlement Agreement has been reached in the Federal Indian Hospitals (Hardy) class action. Over the past five years, the Government of Canada and counsel for the plaintiffs have been engaged in discussions to resolve this litigation outside of the courts. With the signing of this proposed Settlement Agreement, Canada has agreed to provide individual compensation to former patients who suffered verbal, psychological, physical, and/or sexual abuse at a Federal Indian Hospital ("Hospital"). Canada has also agreed to provide $150 million to support healing, wellness, reconciliation, protection of languages, education and commemoration activities, as well as $235.5 million to support research, education, and preservation of the history of the Hospitals. Indigenous Services Canada will also be provided $150 million to extend existing mental health and wellness supports to Hardy class members. This approach builds on lessons learned and effective practices for supporting survivors and their families in previous settlements. The parties will seek approval of the proposed Settlement Agreement from the Federal Court of Canada on June 10-11, 2025. The Court will consider whether the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the class. If approved by the Court, compensation and other benefits will be available to eligible class members. Class members will have an opportunity to review the proposed Settlement Agreement and provide their comments to the Court. More information on this process and timelines, including compensation and class member supports, will be provided to class members in advance of the approval hearing. The parties will work to ensure that class members are actively engaged in the resolution of this settlement. The forthcoming steps and outreach -- will be a trauma-informed and culturally safe process. Quotes "I am so glad we have finally reached this stage in the settlement agreement. This class action has been going on for more than 7 years. It has been an exhausting process. For me personally, it has taken most of my adult life to come to terms with what Canada did to me when I was a child. I did not start this class action to get paid. I started it because I needed Canada to acknowledge what it did to us. I'm so glad that has now happened. Because these hospitals caused so much trauma, it was extremely important to me that the compensation process had to be trauma informed. I'm proud of what we achieved with this process. It is Survivor centric. It is culturally sensitive. It is user-friendly. Survivors are assumed to be acting honestly and in good faith. These elements were crucial for me and the entire Class. Canada's commitment to healing and wellness initiatives, locating burial sites connected to the Hospitals and mental health supports for class members are another important step on the path to reconciliation. The Federal Hospitals have left a terrible legacy on our Indigenous people. I have met with the minister personally to explain how important it is to recognize the impact this has had on us, the Indigenous patients. I appreciated how respectful he was and his true desire to learn the history of Survivors." Ann Cecile Hardy Court-appointed Representative Plaintiff "To truly walk the path of reconciliation and build a renewed relationship with Indigenous Peoples, we must face up to and address past wrongs, guided by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We acknowledge and profoundly regret the abuse and the destruction of culture that Indigenous Peoples experienced in these Hospitals. This proposed settlement marks a significant milestone in Canada’s effort to resolve historical Indigenous claims and represents continued progress towards renewed partnership and healing. It is a priority to ensure that survivors are well supported and not revictimized in this process. Survivors have told me first-hand that the recognition of past wrongs and healing supports are just as critical as the compensation itself." The Honourable Gary Anandasangaree Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs and Minister responsible for the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency Quick facts The federal government established 33 Hospitals which provided medical treatment to hundreds of thousands of Indigenous patients during the class period, January 1, 1936 to December 31, 1981. Filed in 2018 and certified in 2020, Hardy v. Attorney General of Canada is a national class action brought on behalf of former patients of the Hospitals and their families. Over the past five years, the Government of Canada and counsel for the plaintiffs have been engaged in discussions to resolve this litigation outside of the courts. Contacts For more information, media may contact: Koskie Minsky LLP (866) 777-6308 indianhospitalsclassaction@kmlaw.ca Gregory Frame Press Secretary Office of the Honourable Gary Anandasangaree Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs and Minister responsible for the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency gregory.frame@rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca Media Relations Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada RCAANC.media.CIRNAC@sac-isc.gc.ca Castlemain Class Action and Community Delivery Media@IHClassAction.ca [GN] CARE PETROLEUM: Taylor Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------ DERRICK TAYLOR, individually, and on behalf of herself and other similarly situated current and former employees v. CARE PETROLEUM, INC. and JOHNY CASTELLAW III, Individually, Case No. 1:25-cv-01066 (W.D. Tenn., March 5, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages owed to Plaintiff and other similarly situated hourly-paid employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The action is intended to include every similarly situated full-time, hourly-paid employee who has worked for Defendants within any weekly pay period anywhere in the United States at any time within the past three years. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and those similarly situated worked as hourly-paid employees for the Defendants during the relevant statutory period. Specifically, the Plaintiff worked as an hourly-paid employee at Defendant's convenient market and gas station at 6621 Saint John Avenue in Dyersburg, Tennessee, during all times material. The Plaintiff was employed as an hourly-paid employee by the Defendants. The Defendants own and operate a petroleum business and convenience store in Dyersburg, Tennessee.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gordon E. Jackson, Esq. J. Russ Bryant, Esq. J. Joseph Leatherwood IV, Esq. Cooper Mays, Esq. JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT OWEN & BRYANT 262 German Oak Drive Memphis, TN 38018 Telephone: (901) 754-8001 Facsimile: (901) 754-8524 E-mail: gjackson@jsyc.com jbryant@jsyc.com jleatherwood@jsyc.com cmays@jsyc.com CENTRAL PARK WEST: Picon Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ----------------------------------------------------------------- YELITZA PICON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Central Park West Dentistry, P.C., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01524 (S.D.N.Y., February 24, 2025) is a civil rights action against Central Park West Dentistry for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://cpwdentistry.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. On January 24, 2025, the Plaintiff was searching online for a local dental clinic that offered general dental care, including routine check-ups and cleanings. While browsing, she came across the Defendant's website, which appeared to offer the type of dental care she needed. However, she encountered accessibility issues that prevented her from navigating to find details about locations and schedule an appointment online. These barriers included inaccurate interactive elements and ambiguous link texts that did not clearly indicate their functions or purposes, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Central Park West Dentistry's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Central Park West Dentistry, P.C. operates the website which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a range of dental services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gabriel A. Levy, Esq. GABRIEL E. LEVY, P.C. 1129 Northern Blvd., Suite 404 Manhasset, NY 11030 Telephone: (347) 941-4715 E-mail: glevyfirm@gmail.com CHANGE HEALTHCARE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, C&B Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------- C & B PHARMACY INC. d/b/a HOSPITAL DISCOUNT PHARMACY, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CHANGE HEALTHCARE, INC.; OPTUM, INC.; and UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INC., Case No. 5:25-cv-00293-R (W.D. Okla., Mar. 6, 2025) alleges that the Plaintiff and putative class members' pharmacy business operations have been harmed by the Defendants' negligence in securing and safeguarding their information systems from a foreseeable cyberattack. Accordingly, on Feb. 12, 2024, cybercriminals took advantage of weaknesses in Change's cybersecurity processes to access its network. Change first reported the network outage on Feb. 21, 2024, and later said the problem was a "cybersecurity issue" from an outside threat. It was only on Feb. 29, 2024, after the Russian-speaking ransomware group AlphV, also known as Blackcat, in a since deleted message on the dark web, claimed responsibility for the attack that Change confirmed that its systems had been penetrated by the group. Blackcat, a well-known cybergroup, breaches healthcare institutions by exploiting network vulnerabilities, using ransomware to attack valuable targets. They then demand payment for decryption keys, but even when paid, they may still leak data onto the Dark Web, says the suit. According to publicly reported information, the data breach involved a ransomware attack, wherein the cybercriminals accessed Change Healthcare's systems and encrypted Change's data to hold it hostage in seeking a ransom payment. It was reported that Change paid Blackcat a ransom of 350 bitcoins, or approximately $22 million. Change is a part of Optum, which in turn is part of the healthcare conglomerate, UHG. It offers a range of services to the healthcare sector, including payment and billing, prescription processing, and data analytics, connecting approximately 900,000 physicians, 118,000 dentists, 33,000 pharmacies, 5,500 hospitals, and 600 laboratories.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Sill, Esq. Tara Tabatabaie, Esq. SILL LAW GROUP, PLLC 1101 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 102 Oklahoma City, OK 73103 Telephone: (405) 509-6300 Facsimile: (800) 978-1345 E-mail: msill@fulmersill.com ttabatabaie@fulmersill.com - and - Jacob D. Diesselhorst, Esq. MAPLES, DIX & DIESSELHORST 15401 North May Avenue Edmond, OK 73013 Telephone: (800) 539-0652 Facsimile: (405) 513-5005 E-mail: Jacob@mndlawfirm.com CNL EXPRESS: Kim Seeks to Recover Minimum Wages, OT Under FLSA -------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES KIM a/k/a Jin Woo Kim, individually and on behalf all other employees similarly situated v. CNL EXPRESS NY INC d/b/a C&L Express d/b/a CNL Express d/b/a Mega Air Express a/k/a CNL Express US a/k/a CNL Express East, YOUNGGUANG PEI, and SAMUEL BAE, Case No. 1:25-cv-01313 (E.D.N.Y., Mar. 6, 2025) seeks to recover minimum wage, overtime compensation, and unpaid wages that Defendants improperly withheld from the Plaintiff in violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law as well as seeks damages for the Defendants' failure to provide Plaintiff with Wage Theft Protection Act statements and notices. CNL Express paid Plaintiff and other similarly situated and former courier workers pursuant to a similar, if not the same, compensation structure. The Defendants classified Plaintiff, and other similarly situated and former couriers, as non-exempt from overtime, says the suit. The Plaintiff, and other similarly situated and former courier workers, worked broadly as "couriers" and were assigned various tasks at the will and pleasure of the employer to accomplish tasks as the employer saw fit from day to day, meaning that they generally serve CNL Express' customers by waiting for the customers' packages at the airport, picking up the packages, delivering the packages to the designated locations. CNL Express collects the customers' items and packages at the airports, sorting out parcels based on their destinations, and delivering the items and packages to the customers' desired locations in New York and New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Diana Y. Seo, Esq. SEO LAW GROUP, PLLC 136-68 Roosevelt Ave, Suite 726 Flushing, NY 11354 Telephone: (718) 500-3341 E-mail: diana!@seolawgroup.com CO-DIAGNOSTICS INC: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Co-Diagnostics, Inc. (Nasdaq: CODX) (the "Company" or "Co-Dx"), a molecular diagnostics company with a unique, patented platform for the development of molecular diagnostic tests, announced that on March 4, 2025, the Securities & Governance Litigation Team at BakerHostetler, the legal firm retained to represent the Company, won complete dismissal on summary judgment of a Section 10(b) securities class action that had been pending against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. See Gelt Trading, Ltd. v. Co-Diagnostics, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00368-JNP-DBP (D. Utah). On June 15, 2020, Plaintiff Gelt Trading, Ltd. filed a securities class action against Co-Diagnostics, Inc. and certain of the Company's current and former directors and officers alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. At issue was the Company's May 1, 2020, press release, which disclosed, among other things, that the Company's Logix Smart® COVID-19 test demonstrated "100% sensitivity and 100% specificity" -- well-defined scientific metrics—across independent evaluations. Plaintiff alleged that the May 1 press release was false and/or misleading because it conveyed to investors that the Logix Smart test was "100% accurate" (i.e., perfect), allegedly causing the Company's stock price to be artificially inflated. Plaintiff alleged that this artificial inflation was removed, and investors suffered losses, when the Company's stock price dropped on May 15 following three disclosures that allegedly revealed the May 1 press release to be false ("Alleged Corrective Disclosures"). BakerHostetler was retained to replace prior counsel after the motion to dismiss was denied and the case was in the early phases of discovery. On summary judgment, BakerHostetler argued that Plaintiff could not establish any genuine issue of material fact supporting liability as to any element of its Section 10(b) claim—falsity, scienter, reliance, loss causation, or damages. BakerHostetler also argued that Plaintiff's experts' testimony—which related to clinical testing and loss causation—should be excluded on summary judgment under Daubert. On March 4, 2025, after oral argument, the Court granted Defendants' Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of Plaintiff's loss causation expert and granted summary judgment for Defendants, concluding that Plaintiff could not demonstrate loss causation. The Court held that none of the three Alleged Corrective Disclosures actually "corrected" the May 1 press release, either because they did not discuss the Company's Logix Smart test, or because the allegedly contradictory information was long known to the market and already baked into the Company's stock price. Accordingly, Plaintiff could not establish that the May 1 press release was the cause of Plaintiff's or the class's losses. Having reached this conclusion, the Court declined to address the other summary judgment arguments or Daubert motions. The Company regards this dismissal as a tremendous victory and is optimistic about its chances of prevailing in any appeal Plaintiff might file. The Company looks forward to putting the matter behind it, as it moves ahead with its mission of increasing the availability of high-quality molecular diagnostics on a global scale. About Co-Diagnostics, Inc.: Co-Diagnostics, Inc., a Utah corporation, is a molecular diagnostics company that develops, manufactures and markets state-of-the-art diagnostics technologies. The Company's technologies are utilized for tests that are designed using the detection and/or analysis of nucleic acid molecules (DNA or RNA). The Company also uses its proprietary technology to design specific tests for its Co-Dx PCR at-home and point-of-care platform and to identify genetic markers for use in applications other than infectious disease. [GN] COMMUNITY BANK: Reed Sues Over Deceptive Overdraft Fee Practices ---------------------------------------------------------------- ROGER REED, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COMMUNITY BANK OF MISSISSIPPI, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00135-CWR-ASH (S.D. Miss., February 24, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and all others similarly situated on the basis that Defendant Community Bank of Mississippi has violated the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E thereto, 12 C.F.R. According to the complaint, the Defendant has economically harmed Plaintiff and its other customers through the use of deceptive, unclear, and ambiguous language which fails to notify its customers of Defendant's true overdraft fee practices and accordingly fails to provide customers like Plaintiff and the putative class with the ability to plan their finances effectively to avoid these onerous fees. The Defendant has knowingly accepted and retained a benefit in the form of improper fees to the detriment of Plaintiff and the members of the Class, who reasonably expect to be compensated for their injury, says the suit. Community Bank of Mississippi is engaged in the business of providing retail banking services to consumers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Winston S. Hudson, Esq. JENNINGS & EARLEY PLLC 500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 110 Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (601) 270-0197 E-mail: winston@jefirm.com COMMUNITY CARE: Petty Seeks Minimum Wages, OT for Nursing Staff --------------------------------------------------------------- DIAMOND PETTY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. COMMUNITY CARE CENTER OF GRENADA LLC, Case No. : 4:25-cv-00031-DMB-DAS (N.D. Miss., Mar. 6, 2025) challenges the Defendant's violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant until approximately February of 2025. The Plaintiff likewise brings this lawsuit as a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) on behalf of all similarly situated employees who were or are employed by the Defendant. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a certified nursing assistant (CNA). The Plaintiff was paid on an hourly basis through the entirety of her employment. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and all other CNAs, LPNs, and RNs (collectively nursing personnel) frequently worked more than 40 hours per week. The Defendant instituted a policy whereby it deducted 30 minutes per day from all its nursing personnel for an unpaid break. The Defendant instructed Plaintiff and all its nursing personnel to clock out at the start of this thirty-minute break and clock back in after thirty minutes had passed. However, regardless of whether the Plaintiff and all other nursing personnel clocked out for the break, Defendant automatically deducted thirty minutes from each employee's time. There were many occasions on which Plaintiff did not clock out for her break because she was unable to stop working, the lawsuit says. The Defendant allegedly failed to compensate the Plaintiff and the other nursing personnel for all hours worked. By neglecting to do so, the Defendant systematically deprived Plaintiff and the other nursing personnel of the minimum wage and overtime they are due pursuant to 29 U.S.C. sections 206 and 207, added the lawsuit. The Defendant operates a skilled nursing facility in Grenada County, Mississippi.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William "Jack" Simpson, Esq. SIMPSON, PLLC 100 South Main Street Booneville, MS 38829-0382 Telephone: (662) 913-7811 Facsimile: (662) 728-1992 E-mail: jack@simpson-pllc.com DICKINSON BRANDS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Suit Says -------------------------------------------------------------- JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. DICKINSON BRANDS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01817 (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 4, 2024) sues the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, e, www.dickinsons.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was injured when Plaintiff attempted multiple times most recently on Aug. 22, 2024, to access the Defendant's Website from Plaintiff's home in an effort to shop for the Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. 21. Specifically, Plaintiff wanted to purchase a skincare product (Hydrating Gel Cleanser). Due to the Defendant's failure to build the Website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, the Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the Website, and was thus denied the benefit of purchasing the Polo, that Plaintiff wished to acquire from the Website. Because simple compliance with the WCAG 2.1 Guidelines would provide Plaintiff and other visually-impaired consumers with equal access to the Website, the Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has engaged in acts of intentional discrimination, says the suit. Despite this direct harm and frustration, the Plaintiff intends to attempt to access the Website in the future to purchase products and services the Website offers, and more specifically a Polo, if remedied, the suit says. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Defendant's Website offers products and services for online sale and general delivery to the public. The Website offers features which ought to allow users to browse for items, access navigation bar descriptions, inquire about pricing, and avail consumers of the ability to peruse the numerous items offered for sale.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC rsalim@steinsakslegal.com One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 DISA GLOBAL: Faces Class Action Over April 2024 Cyber-Attack ------------------------------------------------------------ The National Law Review reports that last week, two separate class actions were filed in the federal district court for the Southern District of Texas against DISA Global Solutions (DISA), a third-party employment screening services provider, related to an April 2024 cyber-attack. DISA provides drug and alcohol testing and background checks for employers. DISA reportedly faced a cyber-attack from February to April 2024, which resulted in unauthorized third-party access to over 3.3 million individuals' personal information. According to DISA, the information may have contained individuals' names, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers, and financial account information. DISA sent notification letters to individuals around February 24, 2025. The lead plaintiffs in both actions claim that they were required to provide their personal information to DISA as part of a job application or to obtain certain employment-related benefits. Data breach class actions can help inform entities' risk management strategies. We will consider some key considerations from the class action complaints against DISA. Reasonable Safeguards One plaintiff alleges that DISA had a duty to exercise reasonable care in securing data, but that DISA breached that duty by "neglect[ing] to adequately invest in security measures." The complaint lists numerous commonly accepted security standards, including: -- Maintaining a secure firewall configuration; -- Monitoring for suspicious credentials used to access servers; and -- Monitoring for suspicious or irregular server requests. The other plaintiff similarly alleges that DISA failed to adequately implement measures. This complaint also enumerates common measures, including: -- Scanning all incoming and outgoing emails; -- Configuring access controls; and -- Applying the principle of least-privilege. Such claims of inadequate security and privacy measures are common in data breach class action litigation. Organizations should evaluate their security standards and ensure they are aligned with current best practices. Notification Timeframe DISA's notification letter to affected individuals states that the unauthorized access occurred between February and April 2024. DISA sent notification letters in February 2025. One plaintiff alleges that the "unreasonable delay in notification" heightened the foreseeability that affected individuals' personal information has been or will be used maliciously by cybercriminals. It can take months to investigate a cyber incident and determine the nature and extent of information involved. Still, organizations who experience such incidents should be mindful of the ways in which plaintiffs can use the notification timeframe in their litigation. Heightened Sensitivity of Social Security Numbers One plaintiff includes in their complaint that Social Security numbers are "invaluable commodities and a frequent target of hackers." This plaintiff alleges that, given the type of information DISA maintains and the frequency of other "high profile" data breaches, DISA should have foreseen and been aware of the risk of a cyber-attack. The other plaintiff states that various courts have referred to Social Security numbers as the "gold standard" for identity theft and that their involvement is "significantly more valuable than the loss of" other types of personal information. When it comes to information, not all data elements present the same level of risk if subject to unauthorized access. Organizations should track the types of information they maintain and understand that certain information may present higher risk if exposed, potentially requiring heightened security standards to protect it. The suits against DISA highlight that organizations should implement robust measures to not only minimize risk of cyber-attacks but also to minimize litigation risk in the often-inevitable class actions that follow. [GN] EPIC GAMES: Can Arbitrate Claims in Johnson, et al. Fortnite Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge James M. Moody Jr. of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas granted Epic Games, Inc.'s motion to compel arbitration in the case captioned as PRESTON JOHNSON and ELIZABETH JONES PLAINTIFFS v. ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC.; INFINITY WARD, INC.; TREYARCH CORP.; SLEDGEHAMMER GAMES, INC.; EPIC GAMES, INC.; ROBLOX CORP.; ROCKSTAR GAMES, INC.; ROCKSTAR NORTH LIMITED; TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE, INC.; and JANE & JOHN DOES I-XX DEFENDANTS, Case No. 3:24-cv-00026-JM (E.D. Ark.). Plaintiffs Preston Johnson and Elizabeth Jones filed suit against Epic Games and others due to alleged harm experienced by Johnson, including video game addiction (also called internet gaming disorder) and brain damage, resulting from his use of Defendants' video game products. Epic Games is the developer and publisher of the Fortnite video game franchise. Epic Games argues that Johnson's claims should be compelled to arbitration. It asserts that since the launch of Fortnite in July 2017 all users have been required to affirmatively agree to the Fortnite End User License Agreement ("EULA") and that agreement contains a binding arbitration provision and an agreement to delegate issues of arbitrability to an arbitrator. Plaintiffs admit that Epic Games requires users to agree to the EULA in order to play Fortnite. Further, Plaintiffs do not dispute that Johnson has a Fortnite account but argue that Johnson created this account when he was a minor, without his parent's input or knowledge and Johnson affirmatively disaffirms any agreements he may have entered. However, Johnson also admits that as a minor, if he wanted to play a game or was playing a game and a screen popped up that required him to "click it" to keep playing he would click the box to keep playing. Further, Johnson admits that after attaining the age of majority and filing this lawsuit, he again agreed to the terms and conditions to continue playing. Plaintiffs argue that the agreement is not valid because Johnson lacked the capacity and competency to manifest assent and Elizabeth Jones never assented to or accepted the EULA. Alternatively, they argue the contract is unconscionable. Because Johnson's contract is voidable, not void under Arkansas law, his infancy and alleged lack of competency do not nullify his agreement. Further, because of the EULA's broad delegation clause, the plaintiffs' contract enforceability challenges including Johnson's disaffirmation of the agreement go to an arbitrator. The Court finds that a valid arbitration agreement exists and that Johnson's claims fall within the substantive scope of the arbitration agreement. Jones claims against Epic are stayed pending the completion of Johnson's arbitration. The Court finds that Epic Games motion to compel arbitration must be granted. The case is stayed as to Plaintiffs' claims against Epic Games pending the completion of arbitration. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PfrSKv from PacerMonitor.com. ETHOS TECHNOLOGIES: Post-Distribution Info From Stein Due March 19 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the lawsuit titled CHRISTOPHER STEIN, et al., Plaintiffs v. ETHOS TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-09203-SK (N.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California wants more information from the Plaintiffs by March 19, 2025, regarding post-distribution accounting of settlement funds. The Court has reviewed the declarations filed regarding the distribution of the settlement funds. Pursuant to the class action settlement approved by the Court, remaining funds would be paid out to eligible claimants on a pro rata basis. The Court notes that taking into account the approved attorney's fees and costs and the service awards, and the amount Scott M. Fenwich from Kroll Settlement Administration ("Kroll") calculated for eligible claimants, there would be $189,035.87 remaining from the $1,000,000 settlement fund. Additionally, although the Plaintiffs represented that Kroll's costs were estimated at $97,987, it does not appear as though the Plaintiffs ever requested that the Court to approve Kroll's final costs for administering the settlement. Before the Court releases the $50,000 in attorney's fees, the Court must approve the final amount of Kroll's requested costs, including any justification, if any, for increasing it beyond the disclosed $97,987 and needs to ensure that any remaining amount from the settlement fund will be paid on a pro rata basis to eligible claimants from the class. The Plaintiffs will file a response to this Order by no later than March 19, 2025. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/bhr49fn7 from PacerMonitor.com. FCA US: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Defective Jeep Models ------------------------------------------------------------- Corrado Rizzi of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class action lawsuit alleges certain 2021-2023 Jeep Wrangler JL and Gladiator JT vehicles are equipped with a defective power steering pump electrical connector that increases the risk of a spontaneous under-hood fire. The 37-page Jeep lawsuit says that nine vehicle owner questionnaire reports, including one death and injury report, and several field reports of alleged engine compartment fires for 2021-2023 Jeep Wrangler and Gladiator models have been made since March 2021. Per the suit, the bulk of the reports describe a fire occurring while a vehicle's ignition was off, with the suspected origin "at the passenger front side of the engine compartment." The class action suit says the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Office of Defects Investigation has estimated that nearly 781,500 2021-2023 Jeep Wrangler and Gladiator models are equipped with the allegedly faulty power steering pump electrical connector and/or component parts. According to the complaint, automaker FCA US is aware of the spontaneous fire risk plaguing the Wrangler JL and Gladiator JT yet has concealed the existence of the problem from potential buyers and lessees. The filing states the defendant has failed to initiate a recall to remedy what the lawsuit calls the "fire defect." "While Defendant is said to be cooperating with the NHTSA's investigation, Defendant has not issued a recall based on the Fire Defect," the class action suit reads, alleging drivers have as a result been left with vehicles hampered by "an extremely dangerous latent defect" of which they were unaware at the time of purchase or lease. The suit notes that the NHTSA began its investigation into the Gladiator and Wrangler models following a fatal accident resulting from a vehicle fire. MotorSafety.org writes that driver complaints have mentioned the vehicles "catching on fire out of the blue while driving or parked," with one fire apparently occurring six hours after a vehicle was parked and turned off, and another occurring suddenly in a vehicle parked next to a house. The plaintiff, an Illinois consumer, bought a used 2023 Jeep Wrangler based on FCA US's promotions touting the quality and safety of its vehicles, the complaint shares. In light of the alleged "fire defect," the plaintiff has relayed her concerns about the problem to the dealer from whom she bought the vehicle, who advised her to check the VIN to determine whether to bring the car in for service, the filing says. Upon providing the VIN, the dealer called the plaintiff and informed her that her vehicle "was not part of the recall," even though FCA US has not initiated any recall to address the alleged power steering pump electrical connector fire problems, the lawsuit says. According to the suit, the apparent defect stems from FCA US's "improper installation and/or manufacturing" of the part. "There is no reason for the Pump Electrical Connector, and/or any of its component parts, to fail if it was installed and/or manufactured correctly," the case states. The Jeep Wrangler/Gladiator class action lawsuit looks to cover all persons in the United States who bought or leased a 2021-2023 model year Jeep Wrangler JL or Jeep Gladiator. [GN] FREESE II: Tucker Seeks Conditional Certification of FLSA class --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DYREAKA TUCKER, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated, v. FREESE II, INC. d/b/a CLUB BLAZE ATLANTA, a Georgia Domestic Profit Corporation, DAVID L. WHORTON, an individual, and LAKISHA S. BROWN, an individual, Case No. 1:24-cv-03494-JPB (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: (a) conditionally certifying the following FLSA class: "All adult entertainers/dancers who worked at Club Blaze in the past three years"; (b) requiring the Defendants to produce within 14 days a list of all adult entertainers/dancers who worked in the past three (3) years in an electronic or computer-readable format with their full name, dates of employment, last known address, cell phone number, email address and last four (4) digits of their social security number; and (c) authorizing notice in the form and manner requested. The Plaintiffs have met their burden of demonstrating that they and potential collective action members are similarly situated, and that other class members would join this action if notice was issued. The Plaintiffs assert that the Defendants willfully violated the minimum wage and overtime wage provisions of the Fair labor Standards Act ("FLSA") by misclassifying them as independent contractors rather than employees. Freese owns and operates an adult entertainment club in Conley, Georgia. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8grZ4Y at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos V. Leach, Esq. Jordan P. Rose, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1560 N. Orange Ave., Suite 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 423-5864 E-mail: cleach@theleachfirm.com jrose@theleachfirm.com ppalmer@theleachfirm.com FUNKO INC: $14.75MM Class Settlement to be Heard on June 6 ---------------------------------------------------------- SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR KING COUNTY In re FUNKO, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS. Case No. 17-2-29838-7 SEA (Consol. with Nos. 18-2-01264-3 SEA, 18-2-01582-1 SEA, 18-2-02535-4 SEA, 18-2-08153-0 SEA, 18-2-12229-5 SEA, and 18-2-14811-1 SEA) CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION, PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, AND MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES TO: ALL PERSONS WHO PURCHASED OR OTHERWISE ACQUIRED FUNKO, INC. COMMON STOCK PURSUANT TO OR TRACEABLE TO THE REGISTRATION STATEMENT AND PROSPECTUS ISSUED IN CONNECTION WITH FUNKO'S NOVEMBER 1, 2017, INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Washington Superior Court Civil Rules and an Order of the Superior Court of Washington in and for King County, that Court-appointed Class Representatives Robert Lowinger, The Ronald and Maxine Linde Foundation, and Carl Berkelhammer, on behalf of themselves and all members of the Class, and Defendants Funko, Funko Acquisition Holdings, L.L.C., Brian Mariotti, Russell Nickel, Ken Brotman, Gino Dellomo, Charles Denson, Diane Irvine, Adam Kriger, and Richard McNally, Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Piper Jaffray & Co., Jefferies LLC, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated, BMO Capital Markets Corp., and SunTrust Robinson Humphrey, Inc. (n/k/a Truist Securities, Inc.), Fundamental Capital, LLC and Fundamental Capital Partners, LLC, and ACON Investments, L.L.C., ACON Funko Manager, L.L.C., ACON Funko Investors, L.L.C., ACON Funko Investors Holdings I, L.L.C., and ACON Equity GenPar, L.L.C., have reached a proposed settlement of the claims in the above-captioned class action in the amount of $14,750,000. A hearing will be held before the Honorable Karen Donohue on June 6, 2025, at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom E-863 of the King County Superior Court, 516 3rd Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104 (the "Settlement Hearing") to determine whether the Court should: (i) approve the proposed Settlement as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) dismiss the Action with prejudice as provided in the Stipulation of Settlement, dated February 7, 2025; (iii) approve the proposed Plan of Allocation for distribution of the proceeds of the Settlement to Class members; and (iv) approve Class Counsel's Fee and Expense Application. The Court may change the date of the Settlement Hearing without providing another notice. Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of the hearing, will be posted to the Settlement website, www.FunkoSecuritiesSettlement.com. You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing to receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund. IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO A MONETARY PAYMENT. If you have not yet received a full Notice and Claim Form, you may obtain copies of these documents by visiting the website for the Settlement, www.FunkoSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by contacting the Claims Administrator at: Funko Securities Settlement c/o A.B. Data, Ltd. P.O. Box 173109 Milwaukee, WI 53217 www.FunkoSecuritiesSettlement.com (877) 777-9555 Inquiries, other than requests for information about the status of a claim, may also be made to Class Counsel: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP Ellen Gusikoff Stewart 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 settlementinfo@rgrdlaw.com (800) 449-4900 If you are a member of the Class, to be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked or submitted online no later than July 2, 2025. If you are a member of the Class and do not timely submit a valid Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless be bound by all judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable. If you are a member of the Class and wish to exclude yourself from the Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice so that it is received no later than May 16, 2025. If you properly exclude yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court relating to the Settlement, whether favorable or unfavorable, and you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Class Counsel's Fee and Expense Application, and/or the proposed Plan of Allocation must be filed with the Court, either by mail or in person, and be mailed to counsel for the Parties in accordance with the instructions in the Notice, such that they are received no later than May 16, 2025. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. DATED: FEBRUARY 12, 2025 BY ORDER OF THE SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR KING COUNTY G & S PIZZA: Schilling Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JALYN SCHILLING, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. G & S PIZZA, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00410-jdp (W.D. Wis.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for final approval of class and collective action settlement agreement. The settlement class is defined as: "All persons who worked for G&S Pizza, Inc., at their Domino's Pizza stores as delivery drivers at any time between Sept. 15, 2019, and Sept. 14, 2022." The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Wisconsin Minimum Wage Law by failing to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated delivery drivers the lawful and applicable minimum wage because their expense reimbursements were alleged to be insufficient to cover their automobile expenses while delivering pizzas for Defendant. G&S is a family-owned restaurant offering a variety of pizzas, subs, and specialty items. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0l6BHZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josh Sanford, Esq. SANFORD LAW FIRM PLLC Kirkpatrick Plaza 10800 Financial Centre Pkwy, Suite 510 Little Rock, AR 72211 Telephone: (501) 211-0088 Facsimile: (888) 787-2040 E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Matthew R. Korn, Esq. Phillips L. McWilliams, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP 1320 Main Street, Suite 750 Columbia, SC 29201 Telephone: (803) 255-0000 Facsimile: (803) 255-0202 E-mail: mkorn@fisherphillips.com pmcwilliams@fisherphillps.com GANNETT CO: Bid to Name Class Counsel in Deddeh Suit Due March 28 ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California rules that any motion for appointment as interim class counsel will be filed no later than March 28, 2025, in the lawsuit styled John Deddeh, Plaintiff v. GANNETT CO. INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-08742-MMC (N.D. Cal.). Before the Court is Defendant Gannett Co. Inc.'s Motion, filed Feb. 7, 2025, to Consolidate Cases, whereby the Defendant seeks an order consolidating the instant action, specifically, Wu v. Gannett Co., Inc., Case No. 24-cv-05150-MMC ("Wu Action"), with Deddeh v. Gannett Co., Inc., Case No. 24-cv-08742-MMC ("Deddeh Action"). Ryan Wu and Saber Khamooshi, Plaintiffs in the Wu Action, have filed a Statement of Non-Opposition, as has John Deddeh ("Deddeh"), plaintiff in the Deddeh Action. Gannett has filed a "Response," replying to the Statement of Non-Opposition filed by Deddeh. Thereafter, Deddeh filed a "Reply," which is, in essence, a surreply. As leave to file such document was not sought, much less provided, the Court rules that said filing is stricken. Having read and considered the parties' respective written submissions, the Court deems the matter suitable for decision thereon, vacates the hearing scheduled for March 21, 2025, and rules as follows. Good cause appearing, the Court grants the motion to consolidate the Wu Action and the Deddeh Action, and all further filings will be made in the lower-numbered action using the caption In re Gannett Co. Internet Tracking Litigation. Additionally, to the extent Gannett requests a consolidated complaint be filed in the consolidated action, the request is granted, and, in light thereof, the Court stays briefing on Gannett's motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint in the Deddeh Action. To the extent Gannett requests the consolidated complaint not include any new allegations, however, the Court declines to impose such condition. Judge Chesney explains that for example, Gannett, in its pending motion to dismiss filed in the Deddeh Action, contends the operative complaint therein contains several pleading deficiencies. Assuming, arguendo, any pleading deficiencies exist in either of the actions, Judge Chesney points out that such deficiencies can be addressed in the consolidated complaint. The Court will not, at this time, set a deadline for the filing of the consolidated complaint. Rather, the Court will do so after it has appointed interim class counsel, who will then have the authority to determine which claims presently asserted in the two actions should be asserted in such consolidated pleading. Further, any motion for appointment as interim class counsel will be filed no later than March 28, 2025, and any response thereto will be filed no later than April 11, 2025, as of which date, unless the parties are otherwise advised, the Court will take the matter under submission. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3med577w from PacerMonitor.com. GANNETT CO: N.D. California Consolidates Wu and Deddeh Suits ------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Maxine M. Chesney of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants the Defendant's motion to consolidate cases in the lawsuit captioned RYAN WU, et al., Plaintiffs v. GANNETT CO. INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:24-cv-05150-MMC (N.D. Cal.). Before the Court is Defendant Gannett Co. Inc.'s Motion, filed Feb. 7, 2025, to Consolidate Cases, whereby the Defendant seeks an order consolidating the instant action, specifically, Wu v. Gannett Co., Inc., Case No. 24-cv-05150-MMC ("Wu Action"), with Deddeh v. Gannett Co., Inc., Case No. 24-cv-08742-MMC ("Deddeh Action"). Ryan Wu and Saber Khamooshi, Plaintiffs in the Wu Action, have filed a Statement of Non-Opposition, as has John Deddeh ("Deddeh"), plaintiff in the Deddeh Action. Gannett has filed a "Response," replying to the Statement of Non-Opposition filed by Deddeh. Thereafter, Deddeh filed a "Reply," which is, in essence, a surreply. As leave to file such document was not sought, much less provided, the Court rules that said filing is stricken. Having read and considered the parties' respective written submissions, the Court deems the matter suitable for decision thereon, vacates the hearing scheduled for March 21, 2025, and rules as follows. Good cause appearing, the Court grants the motion to consolidate the Wu Action and the Deddeh Action, and all further filings will be made in the lower-numbered action using the caption In re Gannett Co. Internet Tracking Litigation. Additionally, to the extent Gannett requests a consolidated complaint be filed in the consolidated action, the request is granted, and, in light thereof, the Court stays briefing on Gannett's motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint in the Deddeh Action. To the extent Gannett requests the consolidated complaint not include any new allegations, however, the Court declines to impose such condition. Judge Chesney explains that for example, Gannett, in its pending motion to dismiss filed in the Deddeh Action, contends the operative complaint therein contains several pleading deficiencies. Assuming, arguendo, any pleading deficiencies exist in either of the actions, Judge Chesney points out that such deficiencies can be addressed in the consolidated complaint. The Court will not, at this time, set a deadline for the filing of the consolidated complaint. Rather, the Court will do so after it has appointed interim class counsel, who will then have the authority to determine which claims presently asserted in the two actions should be asserted in such consolidated pleading. Further, any motion for appointment as interim class counsel will be filed no later than March 28, 2025, and any response thereto will be filed no later than April 11, 2025, as of which date, unless the parties are otherwise advised, the Court will take the matter under submission. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/9xcw9st5 from PacerMonitor.com. GATEHOUSE MEDIA: Must Oppose Ewalt Class Cert Bid by March 24 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN EWALT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, et al., v. GATEHOUSE MEDIA OHIO HOLDING II, INC., d/b/a THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH, Case No. 2:19-cv-04262-MHW-KAJ (S.D. Ohio), the Hon. Judge Kimberly Jolson entered an order granting the parties' joint proposed schedule for the pending motion for class certification and the Plaintiffs' upcoming motion related to removal as followed: Event Deadline Plaintiffs' motion related to removal: March 10, 2025 GateHouse's opposition to Wylie's March 24, 2025 motion for class certification: GateHouse's opposition to Plaintiffs' April 9, 2025 motion related to removal: Wylie's reply in support of his motion April 21, 2025 for class certification: Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion April 30, 2025 related to removal: Gatehouse Media is a media company, specializing in publishing newspapers and digital content across various local markets. A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9bYEx4 at no extra charge.[CC] GECU FEDERAL: Trevino Files Discrimination Class Action in Ariz. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Carlos Barraza Trevino, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GECU Federal Credit Union, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00625-SMB (D. Ariz., February 24, 2025) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff against the Defendant for its alleged unlawful discrimination in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. According to the complaint, Defendant GECU follows a policy of denying full access to credit products and services to applicants on the basis of their alienage, including those who have Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) status. The Defendant's violations have inflicted harm on Plaintiff and the Class he seeks to represent, including but not limited to, access to credit or loan products with unfavorable terms and conditions, and emotional distress. The Plaintiff has been a DACA recipient since 2015. As part of the DACA initiative, he received authorization to work in the United States and a social security number. He resided in Phoenix, Arizona on the date that he applied for an auto loan from Defendant and was unlawfully denied. GECU Federal Credit Union is a member-owned credit union headquartered in El Paso, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas A. Saenz, Esq. Luis L. Lozada, Esq. MEXICAN AMERICAN LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND 634 South Spring Street, 11th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90014 Telephone: (213) 629-2512 Facsimile: (213) 629-0266 E-mail: tsaenz@maldef.org llozada@maldef.org - and - Daniel R. Ortega Jr., Esq. ORTEGA LAW FIRM 361 East Coronado Road, Suite 101 Phoenix, AZ 85004-1525 Telephone: (602) 386-4455 E-mail: danny@ortegalaw.com GENERAL ELECTRIC: $362.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on April 24 ------------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SJUNDE AP-FONDEN and THE CLEVELAND BAKERS AND TEAMSTERS PENSION FUND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, et al., Defendants. Case No. 1:17-cv-8457-JMF Hon. Jesse M. Furman SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PROPOSED SETTLEMENT; (II) SETTLEMENT HEARING; AND (III) MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES TO: All persons and entities that purchased or acquired General Electric Company common stock between February 29, 2016 and January 23, 2018, inclusive and were damaged thereby. Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Class as set forth in detail in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated November 22, 2024 and the Notice described below. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY; IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, that the Court-appointed Class Representatives Sjunde AP-Fonden and The Cleveland Bakers and Teamsters Pension Fund, on behalf of themselves and the Court-certified Class in the above-captioned securities class action, have reached a proposed settlement of the Action with defendants GE and Jeffrey S. Bornstein for $362,500,000 in cash that, if approved, will resolve all claims in the Action. A hearing will be held on April 24, 2025 at 11:00 a.m., before the Honorable Jesse M. Furman, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, either in person in Courtroom 1105 of the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007, or by telephone or videoconference (at the discretion of the Court), to determine, among other things: (i) whether the Settlement on the terms and conditions provided for in the Stipulation is fair, reasonable, and adequate to the Class, and should be finally approved by the Court; (ii) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against Defendants and the releases specified and described in the Stipulation (and in the Notice) should be granted; and (iii) whether Class Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees in an amount not to exceed 25% of the Settlement Fund and payment of expenses in an amount not to exceed $10 million (which amount may include a request for reimbursement of the reasonable costs incurred by Class Representatives directly related to their representation of the Class) should be approved. Any updates regarding the Settlement Hearing, including any changes to the date or time of the hearing or updates regarding in-person or remote appearances at the hearing, will be posted to the case website, www.GeneralElectricSecuritiesLitigation.com. If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by the pending Action and the Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement Fund. This notice provides only a summary of the information contained in the full Notice of (I) Proposed Settlement; (II) Settlement Hearing; and (III) Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Litigation Expenses. You may obtain a copy of the Notice, along with the Claim Form, on the case website, www.GeneralElectricSecuritiesLitigation.com. You may also obtain a copy of the Notice and Claim Form by contacting the Claims Administrator by mail at General Electric Securities Litigation, c/o JND Legal Administration, P.O. Box 91449, Seattle, WA 98111; by calling toll free 1-844-202-9485; or by emailing info@GeneralElectricSecuritiesLitigation.com. Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can also be found on the websites for Class Counsel and Liaison Counsel, www.ktmc.com and www.gelaw.com, respectively. If you are a Class Member, in order to be eligible to receive a payment from the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked (if mailed), or online via www.GeneralElectricSecuritiesLitigation.com, no later than June 20, 2025, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Claim Form. If you are a Class Member and do not submit a proper Claim Form, you will not be eligible to share in the distribution of the net proceeds of the Settlement, but you will nevertheless be bound by any releases, judgments, or orders entered by the Court in the Action. Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, and/or Class Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees and Litigation Expenses must be filed with the Court and delivered to Class Counsel and Defendants' Counsel such that they are received no later than April 3, 2025, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. As this Class was previously certified and, in connection with class certification, Class Members had the opportunity to request exclusion from the Class, the Court has exercised its discretion not to allow a second opportunity to request exclusion in connection with the Settlement proceedings. If you previously requested exclusion from the Class in connection with class certification and wish to opt back into the Class to be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement, you must submit a request to opt back into the Class so that it is received no later than April 3, 2025, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice. PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE. All questions about this notice, the Settlement, or your eligibility to participate in the Settlement should be directed to Class Counsel or the Claims Administrator. Requests for the Notice and Claim Form should be made to the Claims Administrator: General Electric Securities Litigation c/o JND Legal Administration P.O. Box 91449 Seattle, WA 98111 1-844-202-9485 info@GeneralElectricSecuritiesLitigation.com www.GeneralElectricSecuritiesLitigation.com All other inquiries should be made to Class Counsel: Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP Sharan Nirmul, Esq. Richard A. Russo, Jr., Esq. Joshua A. Materese, Esq. 280 King of Prussia Road Radnor, PA 19087 1-610-667-7706 DATED: March 4, 2025 BY ORDER OF THE COURT United States District Court Southern District of New York INSPIRA MEDICAL: Paramedics Deprived of OT Pay, Oatman Suit Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTINA OATMAN and DENISE RICHMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INSPIRA MEDICAL CENTERS, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-01695 (D.N.J., Mar. 6, 2025) is a class action brought by current and former employees of the Defendant of who were paid improperly pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law. The Plaintiffs are paramedics who taught required classes at a flat rate of $300 per class as part of their employment. Although teaching classes was an integral part of their employment, Defendant did not count the hours spent preparing for and teaching classes toward the total hours Plaintiffs worked in a week, the lawsuit says. In a typical week, each Plaintiff would work three twelve-hour shifts, and they would usually pick up additional overtime shifts for a total in excess of 40 hours a week. Generally, each class took about five hours, however, none of the time Plaintiffs spent preparing for and teaching the classes was included in Plaintiffs' weekly total of hours. Thus, Plaintiffs were improperly deprived of overtime pay. 5. When Plaintiffs complained to their supervisors that their pay was incorrectly calculated, however, Defendant did not alter its practice of paying Plaintiffs and the proposed class a flat rate for teaching classes and not including teaching time in the calculations for overtime compensation, the lawsuit further asserts. Inspira is a nonprofit healthcare organization that comprises four hospitals, two comprehensive cancer centers, nine multi-specialty health centers, and locations throughout Southern New Jersey.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Eric Lechtzin, Esq. Andrew Lapat, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N-300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 E-mail: elechtzin@edelson-law.com alapat@edelson-law.com JACK COOPER: O'Hare Alleges Mass Layoff Without Proper Notice ------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN O'HARE, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JACK COOPER TRANSPORT COMPANY, LLC; JACK COOPER INVESTMENTS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-04030-WJE (W.D. Mo., February 24, 2025) is a class action complaint brought under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act by the Plaintiff on his own behalf and on behalf of the other similarly situated persons against Defendants, his employer for WARN Act purposes. Over the last 90 days, upon information and belief, the Defendants abruptly terminated thousands of employees nationwide, unilaterally and without proper notice to employees or staff, terminating over 50 employees and at least 33% of active full-time employees, including Plaintiff, notes the complaint. The Plaintiff was terminated on February 8, 2025, as part of a mass layoff without proper notice. The Defendants are one of the largest for-hire carriers in North America, based out of Kansas City, Missouri.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John F. Garvey, Esq. Colleen Garvey, Esq. Ellen Thomas, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 701 Market Street, Suite 1510 St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 390-6750 E-mail: jgarvey@stranchlaw.com cgarvey@stranchlaw.com ethomas@stranchlaw.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Michael C. Iadevaia, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS, & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 Facsimile: (615) 255-5419 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com miadevaia@stranchlaw.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI, LLP 613 Williamson St., Suite 201 Madison, WI 53703 Telephone: (608) 237-1775 Facsimile: (608) 509-4423 E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Ian Bensberg, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ltoops@cohenmalad.com ibensberg@cohenmalad.com JACKSON LABORATORY: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Seijas Due Oct. 17 ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EMMALIE SEIJAS, v. THE JACKSON LABORATORY, ET AL., Case No. 2:24-cv-03423-DJC-AC (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Daniel Calabretta entered a scheduling order as follows: All fact discovery shall be completed no later than Mar. 27, 2026. The parties shall disclose initial experts and produce reports in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) by no later than Apr. 24, 2026. All expert discovery shall be completed no later than June 19, 2026. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification, shall be filed on or before Oct. 17, 2025 and shall be noticed for hearing before Judge Calabretta no later than Dec. 4, 2025. The final pretrial conference is set for Jan. 28, 2027 at 1:30 p.m. A jury trial is set for Mar. 29, 2027 at 8:30 a.m. Jackson is an independent, non-profit biomedical research institution. A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ieWDZO at no extra charge.[CC] JH WALL: Website Inaccessible to the Blind Users, Jones Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- CLAY LEE JONES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. JH WALL PAINTS, Case No. 1:25-cv-01845 (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 5, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.jhwallpaints.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The suit contends that the Plaintiff was injured when she attempted multiple times, most recently on December 13, 2024 to access Defendant's Website from her home access the Defendant's Website from her home but encountered barriers that denied her full and equal access to Defendant's online content and services.. Due to Defendant's failure to build the Website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the Website and was thus denied the benefit of reviewing the services and booking a spa session in order to visit the spa, the suit claims. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which the Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com JM WIRELESS: Arreola Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against JM WIRELESS LLC. The case is styled as Henry Arreola, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. JM WIRELESS LLC, Case No. 25STCV06078 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 4, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." JM Wireless LLC doing business as Metro BY T-Mobile -- https://www.metrobyt-mobile.com/ -- formerly known as MetroPCS, and simply known as Metro, is an American prepaid wireless service provider and brand owned by T-Mobile US.[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 LEAD YOU: Fails to Pay Minimum Wage, Hernandez Class Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANA HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. LEAD YOU LLC, a Nevada Limited Liability Company, and JOSE ANGEL ORTIZ URENO, as an individual, Case No. 2:25-cv-00412 (D. Nev., Mar. 6, 2025) alleged that the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff the legally prescribed minimum wage for her hours worked during the relevant statutory period beginning on or about February 12, 2023 until on or about April 29, 2024, in violation of the minimum wage provisions contained in the Fair Labor Standards Act. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants from Jan. 1, 2020 until on or about April 29, 2024. As a result of the violations of Federal and Nevada labor laws, the Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and liquidated damages in an amount exceeding $100,000.00. Plaintiff also seeks interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and all other legal and equitable remedies this Court deems appropriate. The Plaintiff resides in Nevada and was employed by the Defendants from Jan. 1, 2020 until on or about April 29, 2024. The Plaintiff was a Restroom Attendant while performing other miscellaneous duties during the relevant statutory period beginning Feb. 12, 2023 until April 29, 2024. LEAD YOU LLC is a company that provides training and learning solutions, and also to LEAD LLC at Baylor University, a living-learning community. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Yancey III, Esq. CONSUMER JUSTICE LAW FIRM 2300 West Sahara Ave. Suite 800 Las Vegas, NV 89102 Telephone: (480) 573-9272 Facsimile: (718) 715-1750 E-mail: myancey@consumerjustice.com LHNH LAVISTA: Jan. 31 Order in Lanz Class Suit Amended ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXANDER LANZ, et al., v. LHNH LAVISTA LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-05344-LMM (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Leigh Martin May entered a consent order amending Jan. 31, 2025 order: To resolve a discovery dispute between the parties, the Court entered an Order on January 31, 2025 giving the Defendants 30 days from the entry of the Order to complete its document production. The Court also extended the Plaintiffs' deadline to move for class certification 45 days. Pursuant to a consent agreement reached between the parties and communicated to the Court, the Court adopts the parties' agreement and amends its prior Jan. 31, 2025 Order to give (1) Defendants through Friday, Mar. 7, 2025 to complete its document production and (2) Plaintiffs through Saturday, Mar. 22, 2025 to file their motion for class certification. A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yZxC4E at no extra charge.[CC] LUXCLUB INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Guerrero Due Dec. 19 ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREA GUERRERO, v. LUXCLUB, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00721-JLT-CDB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered a class certification scheduling order as follows: Pleading Amendment: April 27, 2025 Initial Disclosures: March 10, 2025 Fact Discovery: Oct. 3, 2025 Mid-Discovery Status Conference: Aug. 22, 2025 Expert Disclosures: Oct. 17, 2025 Rebuttal Disclosures: Oct. 31, 2025 Expert Discovery: Dec. 1, 2025 Class Certification Motion Deadlines: Filing: Dec. 19, 2025 Opposition: Jan. 9, 2026 Reply: Jan. 23, 2026 Hearing: Feb. 5, 2026 Luxclub is engaged in the retail sale of radios, televisions, and other consumer electronics. A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=obRAdK at no extra charge.[CC] MADISON, WI: Voters Sue Over 193 Uncounted November Ballots ----------------------------------------------------------- Rich Kremer, writing for Wisconsin Public Radio, reports that Four Madison voters have launched a class-action lawsuit seeking $175,000 each because the city clerk's office failed to count their ballots in the November presidential election. The liberal law firm representing them says there is "a price to pay" when voters are disenfranchised. The lawsuit comes amid a Wisconsin Elections Commission investigation into why 193 ballots were misplaced on Election Day and weren't reported to the commission until Dec. 18. Liberal firm Law Forward is representing the four voters and asking for $175,000 in damages for each of them. State law caps damages to $50,000, which the lawsuit claims is unconstitutional. Speaking to reporters, attorney and Law Forward co-founder Jeff Mandell said the lawsuit is not an attack on any individual or municipality. "It is instead a necessary and important defense of the right to vote in Wisconsin," Mandell said. Fellow Law Forward attorney Scott Thompson said it doesn't appear the clerk's office engaged in any type of "coordinated anti-democracy effort." "But our message should resonate with anyone who seeks to disrupt Wisconsin's votes, absentee ballots or otherwise," Thompson said. "If anyone takes steps to violate a Wisconsinites' right to vote, there is a price to pay." In a statement, Madison communications manager Dylan Brogan said the city "takes election integrity extremely seriously and the clerk's office has issued a public apology and reached out to each affected voter directly." "They have also taken a number of steps to ensure this never happens again," Brogan said. "Ahead of the February primary, election officials were trained on new safeguards and procedures for handling absentee ballots. Internal review of the incident is still underway, and additional steps may be taken." Mandell and Thompson said as the lawsuit proceeds, all 193 affected voters could theoretically receive money from the city. If a court were to agree to lift the cap on damages, the total price could reach nearly $33.8 million. In January, the state elections commission launched an investigation into what WEC Chair Ann Jacobs called an "egregious" error and questioned why it took more than six weeks for the Madison clerk's office to report it, while acknowledging the 193 uncounted ballots wouldn't have changed the outcome of any of any race or referendum. When the commission meets again, it will discuss whether to take further action. A summary of findings thus far shows commission staff still have questions about how the error happened and offered potential actions for the six-member board overseeing the elections commission. Those include continuing the investigation to determine whether the Madison clerk abused their discretion or failed to follow state law, draft a decision or issue a statewide communication to clerks on best practices. [GN] MAMOUNS FRANCHISE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Claude Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- WISLANDE CLAUDE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. MAMOUNS FRANCHISE COMPANY, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01646 (D.N.J., Mar. 5, 2024) alleges that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.mamouns.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The suit contends that the Plaintiff was injured when she attempted multiple times, most recently on December 13, 2024 to access Defendant's Website from her home access the Defendant's Website from her home but encountered barriers that denied her full and equal access to Defendant's online content and services.. Due to Defendant's failure to build the Website in a manner that is compatible with screen access programs, Plaintiff was unable to understand and properly interact with the Website, and was thus denied the benefit of making the online food order she wished to acquire from the Website. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The Defendant's Website offers products and services for online sale and general delivery to the public. The Website offers features which ought to allow users to browse for items, access navigation bar descriptions, inquire about pricing, and avail consumers of the ability to peruse the numerous items offered for sale.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com MARAVAI LIFESCIENCES: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- If you suffered a loss on your Maravai LifeSciences Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ:MRVI) investment and want to learn about a potential recovery under the federal securities laws, follow the link below for more information: https://zlk.com/pslra-1/maravai-lifesciences-holdings-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=134196&wire=1 or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or call (212) 363-7500 to speak to our team of experienced shareholder advocates. THE LAWSUIT: A class action securities lawsuit was filed against Maravai LifeSciences Holdings, Inc. that seeks to recover losses of shareholders who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between August 7, 2024 and February 24, 2025. CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made false statements and/or concealed that: Maravai LifeSciences Holdings had postponed its Q4 and FY24 earnings release and delayed filing its Form 10-K. Maravai attributed the delay to internal control issues, along with a potential goodwill impairment and a revenue recognition error. Following this news, shares of Maravai LifeSciences Holdings fell over 14% in pre-market trading on the morning of February 25, 2025. WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Maravai LifeSciences stock during the relevant time frame -- even if you still hold your shares - go to https://zlk.com/pslra-1/maravai-lifesciences-holdings-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=134196&wire=1 to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or obligation to participate. WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the United States. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. CONTACT: Levi & Korsinsky, LLP Joseph E. Levi, Esq. Ed Korsinsky, Esq. 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 jlevi@levikorsinsky.com Tel: (212) 363-7500 Fax: (212) 363-7171 https://zlk.com/ [GN] MDL 3040: Bids to Exclude Zigler and Stockton's Opinions Granted ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, In re: Chrysler Pacifica Fire Recall Products Liability Litigation, Case No. 22-md-03040 (E.D. Mich.), Judge David M. Lawson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan entered an Opinion and Order: (i) granting the Defendant's motions to exclude the opinions of Bradley Zigler at the class certification phase of the case; (ii) denying the Defendant's motions to exclude the opinions of Edward Stockton at the class certification phase of the case; (iii) granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion to exclude the opinions of Denise Martin at the class certification phase of the case; and (iv) granting the Plaintiffs' motion to exclude the opinions of Eldon Leapheart at the class certification phase of the case. The Plaintiffs in this multidistrict litigation allege that Defendant FCA US LLC (known also as Chrysler or Chrysler Corp.) manufactured and sold Chrysler Pacifica Plug-in Hybrid minivans that were defective because they had been known to spontaneously combust. The deadline for filing a motion to certify a class is forthcoming. In anticipation, the parties have filed motions to exclude opinion testimony by several of their respective experts as they pertain to the anticipated class certification motion. The Defendant has moved to exclude the opinions of Zigler, the Plaintiffs' engineering expert who opined about the nature of the high voltage battery pack defect, and Stockton, who proposed two potential models for valuation of class-wide damages based on either projected repair cost or compensation for the loss of use of the vehicles as "idled assets." The Plaintiffs moved to exclude testimony by Martin, whose opinion is offered to rebut Stockton's report via Martin's principal conclusion that potential class members suffered "no damages" caused by the alleged defect unless they experienced actual "manifestation" of the defect in the form of a catastrophic vehicle fire, and Leapheart, who opined based on his analysis of engineering design documents and reports of 14 class vehicle fire incidents that all of the incidents were caused by "manufacturing anomalies" and that the class vehicles do not have any class-wide "common defect" that could sustain the plaintiffs’ claims. The Plaintiffs allege that Chrysler Pacifica Plug-in Hybrid minivans from model years 2017 and 2018 have a defect that causes spontaneous combustion, resulting in two voluntary recalls and an investigation by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. They claim that Chrysler's recall remedies, including software updates to monitor battery performance, do not fully address the defect. Judge Lawson first examined the Defendant's motion to exclude the opinions of Zigler. The Plaintiffs hired Zigler to review available information about the 2017-2018 Chrysler Pacifica Plug-In Hybrid Electric (PHEV) vehicles related to possible defects in the high-voltage (HV) battery pack and vehicle system[s] resulting in fires. The leading conclusion of the report, which the Defendant seeks to exclude, is Zigler's opinion that the high voltage battery pack used in the class vehicles in model years 2017 and 2018 "is a common design and interchangeable part," based on his observation that the same service part number (6488189AA) for the HV battery pack was used throughout the model years 2017 through 2024. The Defendant argues that Zigler is not qualified to opine on the design or features of hybrid powertrain high voltage battery packs because he is a mechanical engineer, and all of his engineering practice has been in the field of internal combustion engine design, with no experience in the area of hybrid or electric vehicle powerplant design. The Defendant is mistaken, Judge Lawson held. He found that the factual premise for Zigler's conclusion is indisputably wrong because his own analysis indicates that the existence of a common "service part number" has no relation to the use of numerous "engineering part numbers"indicating variant internal designs for a component, and because Zigler himself asserts that later iterations of the battery pack having the same "backward compatible" SPN designation are safe and suitable for replacement in class vehicles, while earlier versions of the same SPN assembly are fatally defective. Because Zigler's opinion is lacking a sufficiently credible factual basis, the Defendant's motion to exclude his testimony will be granted. Next, Judge Lawson examined the Defendant's motions to exclude the opinions of Stockton. He found that the Defendant's arguments for exclusion of Stockton's opinion are immaterial to the task presently before the Court, which is simply to determine whether practical methods may exist for computation of damages remedy based on class-wide common proofs. Among other things, he said, Stockton has presented opinions based on sufficient factual substance and reliable and widely recognized methods for estimating losses in a consumer product defect case. The Plaintiffs have shown by a preponderance of evidence that Stockton's opinions satisfy the requisites of Evidence Rule 702. The motion to exclude Stockton's opinion will be denied. As to the Plaintiffs' motion to exclude the opinions of Martin, Judge Lawson rejected for want of a valid factual premise Martin's opinion that all but a handful of class members suffered "no loss" because they have not experienced vehicle fires. He say the opinion does nothing to inform the Court's consideration of class certification issues because the premise from which she proceeds is contrary to the prevailing law. Hence, Martin's opinion that potential class members suffered "no damages" if they have not experienced a vehicle fire is contrary to the law and will be excluded. However, Judge Lawson found Martin's criticism of the methodology of Stockton's loss-of-use damage computation model to be admissible for whatever persuasive value it may have through illumination of difficulties in the proposed model. Finally, as to the Plaintiffs' motion to exclude the opinions of Leapheart, Judge Lawson said that Leapheart's conclusions challenged by the Plaintiffs are inadmissible because, by his own admission, they are unsupported by any reliable methodology or factual basis. Leapheart's challenged opinions are unhelpful, unsupported by any reliable methodology or sufficient factual basis, and contrary to the prevailing law. Therefore, the Plaintiffs' motion to exclude his opinions concerning the existence of design variations and various circumstances accompanying the reported vehicle fires, whether or not the class vehicles have a common defect contributing to thermal runaway fire risk, and whether replacement of the allegedly defective battery packs is an appropriate remedy will be granted. Based on the foregoing, Judge Lawson concluded that the Plaintiffs' automotive engineering expert Zigler is qualified to render an opinion on common defects, but his opinion to that effect does not satisfy the requirements of Evidence Rule 702. The opinions of Stockton on a method of calculating class-wide damages are admissible. The opinion of Martin to the effect that the Plaintiffs suffered "no damages" if they have not yet experienced a catastrophic vehicle fire does not satisfy the requirements of Evidence Rule 702, but her opinion that Stockton's loss-of-use damages model is unreliable for various reasons is admissible. The opinions of Leapheart on the question of a common defect in the class vehicles and a remedy of replacing the battery pack do not satisfy the requirements of Evidence Rule 702. MDL 3107: Tire Makers Wins Dismissal of Consolidated Antitrust Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Chief Judge Sara Lioi of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio has granted without prejudice the Defendants' joint motion to dismiss the case, In re: Passenger Vehicle Replacement Tires Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 5:24-md-3107 (N.D. Ohio). These consolidated putative class actions allege a conspiracy between the Defendants, who are among the largest tire manufacturers in the world, to fix prices on replacement tires sold in the United States during and after the COVID-19 pandemic. The Defendants are alleged to have unlawfully agreed to coordinate a series of price increases between 2020 and 2023 and to have maintained those artificially inflated prices from 2023 through the present. There are three plaintiff groups: Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs ("DPPs"), who bought tires directly from the Defendants; End Payor Plaintiffs (EPPs), who bought tires for personal use from non-defendant sellers; and Automobile Dealership and Other Reseller Plaintiffs ("ADPs"), who bought tires from non-defendant sellers for resale. They seek relief under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, with EPPs and ADPs also asserting related state law claims that overlap with the federal antitrust claims. The Plaintiffs claim the U.S. replacement tire market is prone to collusion due to its oligopolistic structure, high barriers to entry, and price inelasticity. They allege that before the conspiracy period, the Defendants struggled to raise prices, but after the COVID-19 pandemic, they used rising input costs as a pretext to coordinate price hikes. Between 2020 and 2023, tire prices allegedly increased by 21.4%, far exceeding core inflation and actual cost increases, with the Defendants maintaining artificially high prices even as inflation eased. The Plaintiffs argue that the Defendants signaled their intent to fix prices through public earnings calls, where they announced future price increases in advance. The Defendants jointly filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Nokian and Continental submitted additional motions with case-specific arguments, while Defendant Pirelli & C. S.p.A. ("P&C") has sought dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction. In moving to dismiss, they argue that the consolidated complaints do not plausibly allege a price-fixing conspiracy. The Defendants primarily challenge the sufficiency of the Plaintiffs' parallel conduct and plus factor allegations and argue that the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic is an "obvious alternative explanation" for the price increases. The Plaintiffs opposed P&C's motion separately and filed a single brief against the three Rule 12(b)(6) motions. The Defendants submitted reply briefs, and the Court held a hearing on Jan. 10, 2025. As to the Plaintiffs' Sherman Act claims, Judge Lioi held that a complaint alleging several common and obvious industry practices should not bypass a motion to dismiss and proceed directly into the costly and settlement-inducing quagmire of antitrust discovery. She found that dismissal was warranted because the pleadings—taking all well-pleaded factual allegations as true, drawing all reasonable inferences in the Plaintiffs' favor, and viewing everything holistically—failed to meaningfully address the "obvious alternative explanation" for the price increases. Instead, they merely alleged conduct that, while consistent with conspiracy, was equally aligned with rational and competitive business strategies driven by common market perceptions. Accordingly, she concluded that the Plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged a price-fixing conspiracy among the Defendants. Turning to the Plaintiffs' state-law claims, Judge Lioi granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss, finding that the Plaintiffs had failed to adequately plead a conspiracy. She explained that their state antitrust claims failed for the same reason as their Sherman Act claim—they had not plausibly alleged a conspiracy. Because their state antitrust, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment claims all relied on the same alleged price-fixing conspiracy underlying the Sherman Act claim, which the Court found deficient, these claims were also dismissed. Finally, since the Plaintiffs' Section 1 Sherman Act claims and the state-law claims were dismissed in their entirety, Judge Lioi declined to address P&C's personal jurisdiction challenge. For the foregoing reasons, the joint motion to dismiss was granted, and the individual motions to dismiss filed by P&C, Continental, and Nokian were denied as moot. The consolidated complaints were dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiffs may seek leave to file amended consolidated complaints no later than March 25, 2025. A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order is available for free at https://surl.li/wyqmma from PacerMonitor.com. MDL 3111: Feb. 28 Order in Bellantoni v. Capital One Amended ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wise v. Capital One Financial Corporation et al. (Re: CAPITAL ONE 360 SAVINGS ACCOUNT INTEREST RATE LITIGATION, MDL 3111), Case No. 1:24-01080 (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge David Novak entered an order amending its Feb. 28, 2025, Order: For the purposes of class certification and summary judgment briefing, the moving party may file up to 80 pages total for each set of briefs, allocated across its initial filing and its reply as it sees fit. The responding party may file up to 50 pages in its opposition. All other provisions in the Court's prior Order remain undisturbed. The Plaintiffs allege that Capital One paid too little interest on and deceptively marketed its 360 Savings account. Capital One provides commercial banking services. A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aj2f6g at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3111: Feb. 28 Order in Hopkins v. Capital One Amended --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hopkins et al., v. Capital One, N.A. et al., (Re: CAPITAL ONE 360 SAVINGS ACCOUNT INTEREST RATE LITIGATION, MDL 3111), Case No. 1:24-cv-00292 (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge David Novak entered an order amending its Feb. 28, 2025, Order: For the purposes of class certification and summary judgment briefing, the moving party may file up to 80 pages total for each set of briefs, allocated across its initial filing and its reply as it sees fit. The responding party may file up to 50 pages in its opposition. All other provisions in the Court's prior Order remain undisturbed. The Plaintiffs allege that Capital One paid too little interest on and deceptively marketed its 360 Savings account. Capital One provides commercial banking services. A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SktLAI at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3111: Feb. 28 Order in Pitts v. Capital One Amended ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Pitts v. Capital One Financial Corporation et al. (Re: CAPITAL ONE 360 SAVINGS ACCOUNT INTEREST RATE LITIGATION, MDL 3111), Case No. 1:24-cv-01087 (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge David Novak entered an order amending its Feb. 28, 2025, Order: For the purposes of class certification and summary judgment briefing, the moving party may file up to 80 pages total for each set of briefs, allocated across its initial filing and its reply as it sees fit. The responding party may file up to 50 pages in its opposition. All other provisions in the Court's prior Order remain undisturbed. The Plaintiffs allege that Capital One paid too little interest on and deceptively marketed its 360 Savings account. Capital One provides commercial banking services. A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=272jyl at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3111: Feb. 28 Order in Port v. Capital One Amended ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as PORT v. CAPITAL ONE, N.A., (Re: CAPITAL ONE 360 SAVINGS ACCOUNT INTEREST RATE LITIGATION, MDL 3111), Case No. 1:24-cv-01028 (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge David Novak entered an order amending its Feb. 28, 2025, Order: For the purposes of class certification and summary judgment briefing, the moving party may file up to 80 pages total for each set of briefs, allocated across its initial filing and its reply as it sees fit. The responding party may file up to 50 pages in its opposition. All other provisions in the Court's prior Order remain undisturbed. The Plaintiffs allege that Capital One paid too little interest on and deceptively marketed its 360 Savings account. Capital One provides commercial banking services. A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=etPeFZ at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3111: Feb. 28 Order in Savett v. Capital One Amended -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned Savett, et al., v. Capital One N.A. and Capital One Financial Corp., (Re: CAPITAL ONE 360 SAVINGS ACCOUNT INTEREST RATE LITIGATION, MDL 3111), Case No. 1:23-cv-00890 (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge David Novak entered an order amending its Feb. 28, 2025, Order: For the purposes of class certification and summary judgment briefing, the moving party may file up to 80 pages total for each set of briefs, allocated across its initial filing and its reply as it sees fit. The responding party may file up to 50 pages in its opposition. All other provisions in the Court's prior Order remain undisturbed. The Plaintiffs allege that Capital One paid too little interest on and deceptively marketed its 360 Savings account. Capital One provides commercial banking services. AA copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=n04b19 at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3111: Feb. 28 Order in Savings Account Suit Amended ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Re: Capital One 360 Savings Account Interest Rate Litigation MDL No. 1:24md3111 (DJN), the Hon. Judge David Novak entered an order amending its Feb. 28, 2025, Order: For the purposes of class certification and summary judgment briefing, the moving party may file up to 80 pages total for each set of briefs, allocated across its initial filing and its reply as it sees fit. The responding party may file up to 50 pages in its opposition. All other provisions in the Court's prior Order remain undisturbed. The Plaintiffs allege that Capital One paid too little interest on and deceptively marketed its 360 Savings account. Capital One provides commercial banking services. A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=k5uflx at no extra charge.[CC] MDL 3111: Feb. 28 Order in Sim v. Capital One Amended ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jay Sim v. Capital One Financial Corporation et al. (Re: CAPITAL ONE 360 SAVINGS ACCOUNT INTEREST RATE LITIGATION, MDL 3111), Case No. 1:24-cv-01031 (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge David Novak entered an order amending its Feb. 28, 2025, Order: For the purposes of class certification and summary judgment briefing, the moving party may file up to 80 pages total for each set of briefs, allocated across its initial filing and its reply as it sees fit. The responding party may file up to 50 pages in its opposition. All other provisions in the Court's prior Order remain undisturbed. Capital One provides commercial banking services. The Plaintiffs allege that Capital One paid too little interest on and deceptively marketed its 360 Savings account. A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uQonDh at no extra charge.[CC] MERCER COUNTY, PA: Denial of Campbell Class Cert Bid Endorsed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOYELLE CAMPBELL and CLAYTON BOYD, v. THE COUNTY OF MERCER, Case No. 2:23-cv-00099-CB-KT (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Kezia O. L. Taylor recommended that the motion for class certification be denied because the Plaintiffs have failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the elements of Rule 23 are satisfied. On May 11, 2023, the Plaintiffs Joyelle Campbell and Clayton Boyd, filed their first amended complaint on behalf of individuals who were pre-arraignment detainees at the Mercer County Jail, charged with "minor crimes" who were subjected to visual strip searches. They alleged violations of their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures and their Fourteenth Amendment due process rights by subjecting them to visual strip searches. The proposed class that Plaintiffs seek to certify consists of: "All persons who have been or will be placed into the custody of the Mercer County Jail after being charged with misdemeanors, summary offenses, violations of probation or parole, traffic infractions, civil commitments, or other minor crimes and were, or will be, subjected to strip searches prior to being arraigned and/or provided with a reasonable opportunity to post bail upon their entry into the Mercer County Jail pursuant to the policy, custom, and practice of Mercer County." This class period commences on Jan. 19, 2021 and extends to the date on which The County of Mercer is enjoined from, or otherwise ceases, enforcing their unconstitutional policy, practice, and custom of conducting illegal strip searches of detainees prior to being arraigned and/or providing them with reasonable opportunity to post bail. Specifically excluded from the class is Defendant and any and all of its respective affiliates, legal representatives, heirs, successors, employees, or assignees. A copy of the Court's report and recommendation dated March 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=W3N8Ie at no extra charge.[CC] MOLINA HEALTHCARE: Bid to Certify Class in Ramey Suit Re-Noted -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ramey v. Molina Healthcare Inc., Case No. 3:23-cv-05768 (W.D. Wash., Filed Aug. 24, 2023), the Hon. Richard A. Jones Judge entered an order granting unopposed motion for extension of time regarding motion to Certify Class. -- The Plaintiff's reply is due March. 18, 2025 -- The Motion to Certify Class is re-noted for March 18, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). Molina is a managed care company headquartered in Long Beach, California, United States.[CC] MOTORSPORT.TV: Guereca Seeks More Time to File Expert Report ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALAN GUERECA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. MOTORSPORT.TV DIGITAL, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-24066-CMA (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting an extension to the class certification expert report deadline and subsequent deadlines. The Plaintiff has not yet received essential class discovery from the Defendant or third-party discovery, despite diligent efforts, and thus is not in possession of the data necessary to produce an expert report in support of class certification. As per Meta's counsel, Meta will need 4–6 weeks to produce responsive documents related to the Plaintiff, and an additional 6–8 weeks to produce class-wide responses. Without class discovery from the Defendant, specifically and at a minimum including the email addresses of its customers, and the subpoena responses from Meta, the Plaintiff cannot meet the current deadlines. The Plaintiff requests this Court continue the class-certification related deadlines to allow Plaintiff time to receive the subpoenaed documents from Meta and discovery from the Defendant and allow Plaintiff's expert time to review both and complete a report. On Oct. 21, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that the Defendant violated the Video Privacy Protection Act ("the VPPA"), by making non-consensual disclosures of the Personal Identifying Information ("PII") of subscribers to its Motorsport.tv website to Meta, Inc. via the Meta Pixel. Motorsport.tv is a global streaming OTT platform specialized in motor racing and motoring content, live and on demand. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5ZMAY5 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Julie Holt, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Ave, Ste 610 Miami, FL, 33131 Telephone: (305) 357-2107 E-mail: jholt@hedinllp.com NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Faces Time Restriction Class Action Under TCPA ----------------------------------------------------------------- Eric J. Troutman of Troutman Amin, LLP, in an article for National Law Review, reports that so TCPAWorld has been reporting on the clear trend of TCPA class action suits against companies (primarily retailers) that deploy text clubs and particularly those arising out of timing limitations in the TCPA and state statutes. Well, the NFL's Tampa Bay Buccaneers are the latest to fall victim to this trend with a new TCPA class action filed in Florida against the team's ownership. Plaintiff Andrew Leech claims he was texted by the Buccaneers at 9:24 pm his time– he claims to live in Palm Beach County, Florida so not sure what happened there. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class consisting of: All persons in the United States who from four years prior to the filing of this action through the date of class certification (1) Defendant, or anyone on Defendant's behalf, (2) placed more than one marketing text message within any 12-month period; (3) where such marketing text messages were initiated before the hour of 8 a.m. or after 9 p.m. (local time at the called party's location) Notably the Plaintiff does not say whether he agreed to be texted by the Buccaneers to begin with. As I have previously reported the TCPA's timing regulations likely do NOT apply to consented calls, but there is very little case law on the issue. The case is brought by the Law Offices of Jibrael S. Hindi -- the same firm behind a number of similar timing cases. (He is apparently a Dolphins fan . . . ) Again until this trend abates companies deploying SMS need to be EXTREMELY cautious to assure timing limitations are complied with! [GN] NEWELL BRANDS: Barrales Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Tinamarie Barrales, and all others similarly situated v. NEWELL BRANDS INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 24STCV33476 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on March 4, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01882. The Plaintiff asserts four causes of action: unjust enrichment under Georgia law; violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), Business & Professions Code; violation of California's False Advertising Law ("FAL"), Business & Professions Code; and violation of the Civil Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA").[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Oscar A. Figueroa, Esq. Mir Y. Ali, Esq. ARENTFOX SCHIFF LLP 555 S. Flower St., 43rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213.629.7400 Facsimile: 213.629.7401 Email: oscar.figueroa@afslaw.com mir.ali@afslaw.com NEYMAR FARMS: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, NYLL, Sanchez Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ EDIN ELIOBARDO SANCHEZ GUARDADO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NEYMAR FARMS IMPORT LLC and NEYMAR FARMS II LLC d/b/a UTICA FARM and MARVEL VASQUEZ, BIANYOR GERMOSEN and BIANYELI GERMOSEN as individuals, Case No. 1:25-cv-01294 (E.D.N.Y., Mar. 6, 2025) alleges that the Defendants suffered and permitted the Plaintiff and the Collective Class to work more than 40 hours per week without appropriate overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The employees similarly situated are the collective class consisting of: "All persons who are or have been employed by the Defendants as stockers, cleaners and store organizers, or other similarly titled personnel with substantially similar job requirements and pay provisions, who were performing the same sort of functions for Defendants, other than the executive and management positions, who have been subject to Defendants’ common practices, policies, programs, procedures, protocols and plans including willfully failing and refusing to pay required minimum and overtime wage compensation." The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a stocker, cleaner and store organizer, while performing other miscellaneous at Neymar Farms Import LLC And Neymar Farms II LLC d/b/a UTICA FARM, from November 2023, until January 2025. The Defendant sells fresh produce, meats, and groceries at Neymar Farms.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Avshalumov, Esq. HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601 Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: (718) 263-9591 NICHOLAS PELLEGRINI: Orgera Sues to Recover Expropriated Tips ------------------------------------------------------------- William Orgera, and all similarly situated employees v. NICHOLAS PELLEGRINI, IAN DINNALL, and NFRP CATERING, INC. d/b/a SEA CLIFF MANOR, Case No. 1:25-cv-01194 (E.D.N.Y., March 3, 2025), is brought to recover unlawfully expropriated tips pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA") and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL"), seeking compensatory damages for the value of illegally appropriated tips, liquidated damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' costs and fees. The Defendants clients and guests would regularly leave tips for Plaintiff and the Class Members' benefit. The Defendants retained most or all of these tips for themselves. The Defendants intentionally, willfully, and repeatedly followed a pattern, practice, and/or policy of expropriating tips for themselves and refusing to disburse tips to the Class Members, including Plaintiff, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a bartender from 2019 to 2023. Sea Cliff is a private wedding and event space and/or catering service that hosts one event per night.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zachary Naidich, Esq. NAIDICH LAW 137 5th Ave., 9th Fl. New York, NY 10010 Phone: 646.661.5694 Email: ZNaidich@naidichlaw.com NORTH AMERICAN: Reyes Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA, PMWA ----------------------------------------------------------------- MILSI SIRI, on behalf of herself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and the Class v. NORTH AMERICAN PACKAGING, LLC, d/b/a ECONO-PAK, and PAUL A.S. WIEBEL JR., a/k/a PJ WIEBEL, Case No. 2:25-cv-01186 (E.D. Pa., March 5, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, and the Pennsylvania Wage Collection Law. The Plaintiff brings claims for relief pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23, on behalf of all non-exempt employees (including, but not limited to, warehouse workers, scanners, drivers, packers, and delivery persons, among others) employed by Defendants on or after the date that is three years before the filing of the Complaint. The Defendants own and operate a co-packing and co-manufacturing facility located at 535 Route 6 and 209, Milford, Pennsylvania.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: C.K. Lee, Esq. Anne Seelig, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1188 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 OKLAHOMA BAPTIST: Collins' Bid for Jurisdictional Discovery OK'd ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Charles B. Goodwin of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma grants the Plaintiff's Motion for Jurisdictional Discovery in the lawsuit entitled KARLIE ANN COLLINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE OKLAHOMA BAPTIST UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 5:24-cv-00234-G (W.D. Okla.). Plaintiff Karlie Ann Collins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, initially filed this action against Defendant The Oklahoma Baptist University in the District Court of Pottawatomie County, bringing claims arising from a 2023 data breach. The Defendant removed the case to this Court and has moved to dismiss. Now before the Court is the Plaintiff's Motion for Jurisdictional Discovery. The Defendant has responded in opposition, and the Plaintiff has replied. The Defendant's removal to federal court was premised upon the applicability of the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"). Under CAFA, a federal district court has subject matter jurisdiction over class actions involving (1) at least 100 members and (2) over $5 million in controversy when (3) minimal diversity is met (between at least one defendant and one plaintiff-class member). The Plaintiff argues that removal was improper because the "home state exception" to CAFA jurisdiction applies. This exception prescribes that the federal court "shall decline to exercise jurisdiction" where "two-thirds or more of the members of all proposed plaintiff classes in the aggregate, and the primary defendants, are citizens of the State in which the action was originally filed." Having considered the parties' arguments, the Court concludes that the Plaintiff has shown an entitlement to the requested discovery. The Plaintiff has sufficiently identified controverted "pertinent jurisdictional facts" regarding the citizenship of the proposed plaintiff class. The Plaintiff wishes to serve specific and limited discovery--e.g., a request for the Defendant's mailing address for all individuals that were impacted by the data breach--in order to determine whether more than 2/3 of the individuals impacted by the data breach used an Oklahoma address. Although the Defendant objects to such discovery on the basis that a mailing address is not a guarantee of residence, and residence is not a guarantee of citizenship, Judge Goodwin finds the Plaintiff has adequately established that such addresses can serve as evidence of residence, and residence in turn as evidence of domicile. Judge Goodwin points out that the Plaintiff's requested discovery is reasonably likely to assist the Court in determining whether, assuming jurisdiction otherwise lies, it should abstain from exercising that jurisdiction pursuant to a CAFA exception. For these reasons, the Court grants the Plaintiff's Motion for Jurisdictional Discovery. The parties may engage in jurisdictional discovery limited to the potential applicability of the 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(4)(B) home state exception to this action. All discovery on this issue will be completed within sixty (60) days of the date of this Order. The Plaintiff may submit a supplemental brief or motion within 14 days after discovery is concluded. The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is stayed and held in abeyance pending conclusion of the parties' jurisdictional discovery and further order of the Court. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/yd8yye5x from PacerMonitor.com. PACIFIC SEAFOOD: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Little Due August 23 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRAND LITTLE, et al., v. PACIFIC SEAFOOD PROCUREMENT, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01098-AGT (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Alex Tse entered a case management order as follows: Event Date/Deadline Close of fact discovery: Nov. 9, 2026 Last day to file joint discovery Dec. 7, 2026 letter briefs relating to fact discovery: Last day to exchange initial expert Feb. 8, 2027 Reports: Last day for plaintiffs to file Aug. 23, 2027 motion for class certification and all parties to file Daubert motions: Last day for defendants to file Oct. 4, 2027 opposition to class certification and all parties to file oppositions to Daubert motions: Last day to file replies in support Nov. 1, 2027 of class certification and Daubert motions: Hearing on class certification and Dec. 17, 2027 Daubert motions: Pacific Seafood is a family-owned and operated company dedicated to providing the healthiest protein on the planet. A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=I6Q6tm at no extra charge.[CC] PARKER-HANNIFIN CORP: Naranjo Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Nicholas A. Naranjo, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. PARKER-HANNIFIN CORPORATION, an Ohio corporation; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 30-2025-01451420-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on March 3, 2025, and assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-00405. In Plaintiff's Complaint, he alleges 9 causes of action: failure to pay wages for all time worked at minimum wage in violation of Labor Code; failure to pay overtime wages for daily overtime worked in violation of labor code; failure to authorize or permit meal periods in violation of labor code; failure to authorize or permit rest periods in violation of labor code; failure to pay all accrued and vested vacation/PTO wages in violation of labor code; failure to timely pay earned wages during employment in violation of labor code; failure to timely pay all earned wages and final paychecks due at time of separation of employment in violation of labor code; failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements in violation of labor code; and unfair business practices, in violation of business and professions code.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Tao Y. Leung, Esq. Ronnie Arenas, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 785-4600 Facsimile: (310) 785-4601 Email: tao.leung@hoganlovells.com ronnie.arenas@hoganlovells.com PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Court Ends Broiler Chicken Grower Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Pilgrim's Pride Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 15, 2025, that on January 7, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma granted final approval of the company's settlement and dismissed a January 27, 2017 consolidated class action captioned, "In re Broiler Chicken Grower Litigation," Case No. CIV-17-033 filed on behalf of broiler chicken farmers was brought against the company and other chicken producers. Case alleged, among other things, a conspiracy to reduce competition for grower services and depress the price paid to growers. The complaint was consolidated with several subsequently filed consolidated amended class action complaints. On June 24, 2024, a settlement was reached in the amount of $100.0 million. This settlement was paid on October 28, 2024. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation is primarily engaged in the production, processing, marketing and distribution of fresh, frozen and value-added chicken and pork products to retailers, distributors and foodservice operators. PP RETAIL USA: Mercurio Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against PP Retail USA, LLC. The case is styled as Josh Mercurio, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. PP Retail USA, LLC doing business as: Phillipp Plein, Case No. 3:25-cv-00496-BJC-KSC (S.D. Cal., March 3, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. PP Retail USA, LLC doing business as Phillipp Plein -- https://www.plein.com/home/ -- offers fashion luxury handbags and shoes exclusively made in Italy.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: Court Affirms ACB's Victory in ADA Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- acb.org reports that last week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California affirmed ACB's trial victory against Quest Diagnostics. In 2023, following a week-long bench trial in Los Angeles, a federal court in California had found Quest Diagnostics in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and enjoined Quest from continuing to violate the ADA. Quest appealed that decision. Beginning in 2016, Quest Diagnostics began to install self-service kiosks at its Patient Service Centers, which allow patients to, among other things, check in for phlebotomy appointments in a private and independent manner. Following complaints from ACB's members that these kiosks as designed prevent people who are blind from accessing their services, ACB joined a civil rights complaint in federal court alleging that Quest's kiosks deprived members of the blind community full and equal enjoyment of Quest's services and failed to provide effective communication. In 2023, the Court ruled in favor of ACB and a nationwide class of blind and low vision Quest patients. The court found that Quest violated Title III of the ADA in that Quest failed to effectively communicate with its blind patients regarding Quest's services and facilities. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has now affirmed that judgment. "Self-service kiosks are increasingly used in many aspects of daily public life," said Scott Thornhill, Executive Director for The American Council of the Blind. "This appellate victory, upholding the Court's decision that Quest violated the ADA and that the check-in services of these kiosks must be accessible to people who are blind, is another significant step towards ensuring that the rights to full and equal enjoyment and effective communication are protected." Deb Cook Lewis, President of the American Council of the Blind added, "Although the ADA is more than 30 years old, people who are blind are still forced to fight for full and equal access to healthcare. This judgment and appellate result sends a clear message that effective communication is required by law, and health care providers must ensure access for people with disabilities." [GN] REGAL CINEMAS: Discloses Cosumers' Info to Meta, Indivglio Says --------------------------------------------------------------- DEENA INDIVIGLIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REGAL CINEMAS, INC.,Case No. 7:25-cv-01884 (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 6, 2025)alleges that Regal has installed the Meta Tracking Pixel on its website to secretly and surreptitiously send consumers' personally identifiable information to Meta in violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act. According to the complaint, when the cinema lights dim and the films begin, the spotlight is not on the movie, but on the consumer. Every time a consumer watches a movie trailer or purchases a movie ticket on Regal's website, the Meta Tracking Pixel tells Meta exactly who watched what, when, and where. Whenever a consumer watches a movie trailer or purchases a ticket to a movie screening on Regal's website, Regal discloses the title of the movie watched, the buttons the consumers clicked, and the consumer's personally identifiable information to Meta Platforms, Inc. Because Regal collects and discloses all this and other sensitive data about consumers without their written consent, Regal violated the VPPA, says the suit. The Plaintiff purchased several tickets to see movies at a cinema operated by the Defendant and watched dozens of movie trailers through Defendant's website, https://www.regmovies.com. The Plaintiff is not a Regal Crown Club member and purchased her tickets as a "Guest" on Defendant's website. Regal is a cinema chain that develops, owns, and operates the website, regmovies.com, where consumers can watch movie trailers and purchase tickets to movie screenings at various Regal movie theater locations throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. Christopher R. Reilly, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1420 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 676-9006 E-mail: pfraietta@bursor.com REGIONAL CARE: Court Consolidates Data Security Incident Cases -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chisolm v. Regional Care, Inc. (Re Regional Care Data Security Incident Litigation), Case No. 7:24CV5009 (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Michael Nelson entered an order for consolidation and appointment of interim co-lead class counsel: The Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate Cases (Filing No. 5 in Case No. 4:24CV3236) is granted. The cases are consolidated for all purposes. The Court designated Case No. 4:24CV3236 as the "Lead Case" and Case Nos. 4:24CV3237, 4:24CV3238, 4:24CV3240, 7:24CV5009, and 7:24CV5010 as "Member Cases." The Lead Case will proceed under the new title "In re Regional Care Data Security Incident Litigation." The plaintiffs in the above-captioned cases shall seek leave to file a Consolidated Amended Complaint in the Lead Case on or before April 17, 2025. The Plaintiffs' Motion to Appoint Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel (Filing. No. 5 in Case No. 4:24CV3236) is granted to the extent it requests appointment of Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel. Bryan L. Bleichner of Chestnut Cambronne PA and Gary M. Klinger of Milberg Bryson Coleman Phillips Grossman PLLC are appointed as Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedures 23(g)(3). The plaintiffs' Interim Co-Lead Counsel will be responsible for and have plenary authority to prosecute any and all claims of plaintiffs' and the putative class and to provide general supervision of the activities of plaintiffs' counsel in the Consolidated Action. Regional Care is a healthcare management company that partners with employers to provide customized health plan solutions. A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zUi5R8 at no extra charge.[CC] RH DENVER: Hernandez Class Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------- ELDER HERNANDEZ, MARIBEL HERNANDEZ and EUDES VENEGAS, on their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. RH DENVER THORNTON 3600, LLC and RH KEN CARYL 5020 LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00712 (D. Colo., March 5, 2025) is a class and collective Action complaint for unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act and Colorado Minimum Wage Act. The Defendants employed the Plaintiffs and those similarly situated as hourly workers in Defendants' Sonic restaurants. The Defendants allegedly refused to pay their employees overtime premiums for overtime hours worked. The Defendants thus violated the FLSA, because that Act requires employers to pay their employees one-and-one-half times each Employee's regular rate of pay for each hour worked beyond forty each workweek, says the suit. The Defendants also failed to provide their employees with compensated rest periods during their shifts. The Defendants thus violated the COMPS because it requires employers to provide their employees with a compensated ten-minute rest period for each four-hour work period, the suit added. RH Denver Thornton 3600, LLC is a registered Colorado limited liability company engaged in restaurant business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brandt Milstein, Esq. MILSTEIN TURNER, PLLC 2400 Broadway, Suite B Boulder, CO 80304 Telephone: (303) 440-8780 E-mail: brandt@milsteinturner.com RITE AID: Class Action Settlement in Bianucci Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARGARET BIANUCCI, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. RITE AID CORP., Case No. 2:24-cv-03356-HB (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Harvey Bartle III entered an order granting unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement: 1. For purposes of settlement only, the Court provisionally certifies the class, defined as follows: "All residents of the United States whose Personal Information was compromised or potentially compromised in the Rite Aid Data Breach, including all persons who received notice of the Data Breach." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) the Judge(s) presiding over the Action and members of their immediate families and their staff; (2) Rite Aid, its subsidiaries, parent companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which Rite Aid or its parents, have a controlling interest, and its current or former officers and directors; (3) natural persons who properly execute and submit a Request for Exclusion prior to the expiration of the Opt-Out Period; and (4) the successors or assigns of any such excluded natural person. 2. The Plaintiffs Margaret Bianucci, Kathryn Edwards, Erica Judka, and Faith Spiker are provisionally designated and appointed as the Class Representatives. 3. The Court finds that Andrew W. Ferich of Ahdoot & Wolfson, PC, Benjamin F. Johns of Shub Johns & Holbrook LLP, Thomas E. Loeser of Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP, Kevin Laukaitis of Laukaitis Law LLC, and Ashley Crooks of Hausfeld LLP are experienced and adequate counsel, and are provisionally designated as Class Counsel. 4. A Final Approval Hearing shall be held on Thursday, July 17, 2025, at 10:00 A.M. The case arises from a Data Breach discovered by Rite Aid on or about June 6, 2024. An unknown third party impersonated a company employee to compromise their business credentials and gain access to certain of Rite Aid’s business systems (i.e., the Data Breach). Following the investigation of the Data Breach, Rite Aid determined that certain data associated with the purchase or attempted purchase of specific retail products was compromised or potentially compromised by the unknown third party during the Data Breach. This data included names, addresses, dates of birth, and driver’s license numbers or other forms of government-issued ID of approximately 2.2 million individuals presented at the time of purchase at certain Rite Aid locations between June 6, 2017, and July 30, 2018 Rite Aid sells prescription drugs, as well as other products such as health and beauty aids, nonprescription medications, and cosmetics. A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NNcwR1 at no extra charge.[CC] ROAD HAULAGE: Appeals Court Refuses DAF to Appeal Class Cert. ------------------------------------------------------------- Theresa Hudson, Eleanor Winn and Elspeth Aylett, writing for Hogan Lovells, report that in a reasoned order in January 2025, the Court of Appeal refused DAF Trucks permission to appeal against certification in the Trucks collective proceedings, deferring to the discretion of the Competition Appeal Tribunal in respect of a procedural decision made to address a previously identified conflict of interest between two sub-classes of claimants. Background In June 2022, the Competition Appeal Tribunal ("CAT") held that the application by the Road Haulage Association ("RHA") for a collective proceeding order ("CPO") for a follow-on damages claim should be granted. The claim was based on the European Commission's July 2016 decision in which a number of European truck manufacturers were fined for anti-competitive activity. The defendants to RHA's claim (and a competing class representative, UK Trucks Claim Limited) brought an appeal in respect of the CAT's decision. The appeal was unsuccessful, but the Court of Appeal did identify that there was an unresolved issue in relation to a conflict of interest between two categories of claimants being incorrectly represented as one class by RHA. The Court of Appeal suggested that the claimants should be separated into two sub-classes and the issue was referred back to the CAT to resolve. CAT management and further appeal To resolve the conflict, RHA remained the representative of purchasers of new trucks, and RHA Used Trucks Limited ("RUTL") was established to represent the purchasers of used trucks. Each of the two sub-classes have separate legal counsel, and although both are funded by the same litigation funder, this is managed through separate funding arrangements by separate teams subject to an information barrier. The CAT considered the arrangements to be adequate to address the conflict and made a CPO in favour of RHA/RUTL on this basis. One of the defendants, DAF Trucks, applied for permission to appeal the CAT's CPO decision. In its January decision, the Court of Appeal rejected DAF's application stating that "this was a pragmatic case management decision by the CAT well within its discretion". As the CPO has been upheld, the RHA/RUTL collective action can now proceed. [GN] ROBERT LESSER: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Dumas Due Sept. 26 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TONI DUMAS, v. ROBERT LESSER, et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-03979-JLS (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Jeffrey Schmehl entered an order class certification deadlines as follows: Milestone Deadline Amendment of the Pleadings: Aug. 4, 2025 Joining Additional Parties: Aug. 4, 2025 Motion for Class Certification: Sept. 26, 2025 Opposition to Motion for Class Oct. 27, 2025 Certification: Reply in Support of Motion for Class Nov. 10, 2025 Certification: Close of Fact Discovery: Jan. 9, 2026 A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cMAcaK at no extra charge.[CC] ROCKET LAB: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------- Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, a nationally recognized law firm, notifies investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed against Rocket Lab USA, Inc. ("Rocket Lab" or "the Company") (NASDAQ: RKLB) and certain of its officers. Class Definition This lawsuit seeks to recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal securities laws on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Rocket Lab securities between November 12, 2024 and February 25, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). Such investors are encouraged to join this case by visiting the firm's site: bgandg.com/RKLB. Case Details The Complaint alleges that, 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, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the Company's plans for three barge landing tests were significantly delayed; (2) a critical potable water problem was not scheduled to be fixed until January 2026, which delayed preparation of the launch pad; (3) as a result of the foregoing, there was a substantial risk that Rocket Lab's Neutron rocket would not launch in mid-2025; (4) Neutron's only contract was made at a discount with an unreliable partner; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. What's Next? A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to review a copy of the Complaint, you can visit the firm's site: bgandg.com/RKLB or you may contact Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Client Relations Manager, Nathan Miller, of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 332-239-2660. If you suffered a loss in Rocket Lab you have until April 28, 2025, to request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as lead plaintiff. There is No Cost to You We represent investors in class actions on a contingency fee basis. That means we will ask the court to reimburse us for out-of-pocket expenses and attorneys' fees, usually a percentage of the total recovery, only if we are successful. Why Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a nationally recognized firm that represents investors in securities fraud class actions and shareholder derivative suits. Our firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors nationwide. Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar outcomes. Contacts Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC Peretz Bronstein or Nathan Miller 332-239-2660 | info@bgandg.com [GN] SALT SOLUTIONS: Standing Order Entered in TIAL Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THE INFINITE ACTUARY, LLC, v. SALT SOLUTIONS, INC. Case No. 2:25-cv-01715-SB-AGR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. entered a standing order for civil cases assigned to judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. The plaintiff(s) shall promptly serve the complaint in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and file the proofs of service pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(l). Any answer filed in state court must be refiled in this Court as a supplement to the Notice of Removal. All discovery matters are referred to the assigned magistrate judge. The Court grants continuances of pretrial and trial deadlines only on a timely showing of good cause. The parties in a putative class action, are to act diligently and begin discovery immediately, so that the motion for class certification can be filed expeditiously. A motion for class certification must be filed no later than 120 days from the date initially set for the scheduling conference, unless the Court orders otherwise. Salt Solutions provides a proven repair option for customers with broken salt chlorinator equipment. A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nFZFnn at no extra charge.[CC] SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CA: Settlement Deal in Dunsmore Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as DARRYL DUNSMORE, ANDREE ANDRADE, ERNEST ARCHULETA, JAMES CLARK, ANTHONY EDWARDS, LISA LANDERS, REANNA LEVY, JOSUE LOPEZ, CHRISTOPHER NELSON, CHRISTOPHER NORWOOD, JESSE OLIVARES, GUSTAVO SEPULVEDA, MICHAEL TAYLOR, and LAURA ZOERNER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. SAN DIEGO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, SAN DIEGO COUNTY PROBATION DEPARTMENT, and DOES 1 to 20, inclusive, Case No. 3:20-cv-00406-AJB-DDL (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Anthony Battaglia entered an order granting joint motion for preliminary approval of the parties' settlement agreement as to Plaintiffs' third claim. 1. Post the Proposed Settlement Notice in English and Spanish throughout the Jail on white paper and in 16-point font for the Subclass, including in housing units, intake areas, holding cells, and medical units; 2. Provide a hard copy of the Proposed Settlement Notice to every individual who enters the Jail for a period of four weeks; 3. Provide the Proposed Settlement Notice in English and Spanish on video kiosks in housing units; and 4. Read the Proposed Settlement Notice to incarcerated people who have a disability that may affect their ability to read the notice. The Court additionally directs the Defendants to distribute notice to Subclass Members within two (2) business days of entry of this Order. On Nov. 3, 2023, the Court granted the parties' joint motion to certify three subclasses under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). As relevant to this Order, the Court certified a subclass defined as: "All adults who have a disability, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. section 12102, 29 U.S.C. section 705(9)(B), and California Government Code section 12926(j) and (m), and who are now, or will be in the future, incarcerated in any of the San Diego County Jail facilities ("Incarcerated People with Disabilities Subclass")." San Diego County Sheriff's Office is the chief law enforcement agency in San Diego County. A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=g8O70N at no extra charge.[CC] SANDISK SSDS: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due Oct. 14 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit re Sandisk SSDS Litigation, Case No. 3:23-cv-04152-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Rita Lin entered an order granting joint stipulation to extend case schedule as follows: 1. The close of fact discovery will be extended to May 1, 2025. 2. The Plaintiffs' designation of experts will be due on June 11, 2025. 3. The Defendants' designation of experts will be due on July 17, 2025. 4. Rebuttal reports will be due by Aug. 20, 2025. 5. Expert discovery will be completed by Sept. 16, 2025. 6. The Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and the Parties' Rule 702 motions will be due by Oct. 14, 2025. 7. The Defendants' opposition to class certification and the Parties' Rule 702 opposition briefs will be due by Nov. 25, 2025. 8. The Plaintiffs' reply in support of class certification and the Rule 702 reply briefs will be due by Dec. 16, 2025. 9. The hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and Rule 702 motions is set for Jan. 13, 2026, at 10 a.m. The SanDisk SSD litigation is a class action lawsuit against SanDisk and Western Digital over defective solid-state drives (SSDs). A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZdJPs7 at no extra charge.[CC] SEABOARD CORP: Settlement Deal Reached in Antitrust Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Seaboard Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 15, 2025, that it has entered into settlement agreements with parties to a pork price-fixing antitrust litigation. On June 28, 2018, twelve indirect purchasers of pork products filed a class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota against several pork processors, including Seaboard Foods LLC and Agri Stats, Inc., a company described in the complaint as a data sharing service. Additional class action complaints with similar claims on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect purchasers were later filed in the Minnesota District Court, and additional actions by standalone plaintiffs (including the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico) were filed in or transferred to the Minnesota District Court. The consolidated actions are styled "In re Pork Antitrust Litigation." The complaints allege, among other things, that beginning in January 2009, the defendants conspired and combined to fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the price of pork products in violation of U.S. antitrust laws by coordinating output and limiting production, allegedly facilitated by the exchange of non-public information about prices, capacity, sales volume and demand through Agri Stats, Inc. The complaints on behalf of the putative classes of indirect purchasers also assert claims under various state laws, including state antitrust laws, unfair competition laws, consumer protection statutes, and common law unjust enrichment. The relief sought in the respective complaints includes treble damages, injunctive relief, pre- and post-judgment interest, costs and attorneys’ fees. On October 16, 2020, the Minnesota District Court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss the amended complaints. On March 3, 2023, the Minnesota District Court granted the plaintiffs' Motions to Certify the Classes with respect to all three classes. On June 12, 2023, Seaboard Foods entered into a settlement agreement with the putative direct purchaser plaintiff (DPP) class. The settlement with the DPP Class does not cover the claims of "direct action" plaintiffs that opted-out of Seaboard's settlement with the DPP Class and are continuing direct actions, other direct purchasers that opted-out of the settlement and may in the future file actions against Seaboard, the Commercial and Industrial Indirect Purchaser (CIIP) class or the End User Consumer Indirect Purchaser (EUCP) plaintiff class. Subsequent to the settlement with the DPP Class, Seaboard settled with some of the DPPs and Other Opt-Outs. Seaboard continues to litigate against the DPPs it has not settled with, but Seaboard will consider additional reasonable settlements where they are available. On June 18, 2024 and June 20, 2024, Seaboard Foods entered into settlement agreements with the CIIP Class and the EUCP Class. The settlement with the EUCP Class remains subject to court approval. Seaboard Foods entered into settlement agreements with the state of Alaska on August 7, 2024 and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico on January 2, 2025. Seaboard Corporation and its subsidiaries comprise a diversified group of companies that operate worldwide in agricultural, energy and ocean transport businesses. Seaboard is primarily engaged in hog production, pork processing and biofuel production in the United States. SHORELINE ENTERTAINMENT: Sued Over Unlawful Credit Reporting ------------------------------------------------------------ James Addorisio, individually and on behalf of a class of other similarly situated individuals v. SHORELINE ENTERTAINMENT GROUP, LLC, and WESTBROOK CINEMAS LLC, Case No. 2577CV00226-D (Mass. Commonwealth, March 3, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendants' repeated violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act ("FACTA") amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting Act (the "FCRA"), a federal statute which requires merchants to truncate and mask certain credit and debit card information on printed receipts provided to consumers. Despite the clear requirements of the statute, Defendants have knowingly and/or recklessly failed to comply with FACTA by printing the expiration dates of their customers' credit and debit cards on the receipts provided to them in Defendants' business. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' unlawful conduct, Plaintiff has experienced injury, including without limitation, violation of statutory rights under § 1681c(g); violation of legally protected interests; invasion of privacy; and exposure to an elevated risk of identity theft. The Defendants' continual, reckless disregard of the requirements of FACTA on a massive scale has occurred despite the fact they had years to comply with those requirements, says the complaint. The Plaintiff used his credit card to make a purchase at Defendants' theater. SEG is a Massachusetts company, and is conducting business in the state of Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Cohen, Esq. CWLAW GROUP, P.C. 160 Speen Street, Suite 309 Framingham, MA 01701 Phone: 508-309-4880 Fax: 508-597-7722 Email: jeremy@cwlawgroup.com - and - Scott D. Owens, Esq. SCOTT D. OWENS, P.A. 2750 N. 29th Ave., Suite 209A Hollywood, Florida 33020 Phone: 954-589-0588 Fax: 954-337-0666 Email: scott@scottdowens.com SKOPOS FINANCIAL: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Skopos Financial, LLC. The case is styled as Chet Wilson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Skopos Financial, LLC, Case No. 6:25-cv-00375 (D. Ariz., March 4, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Skopos Financial -- https://www.skoposfinancial.com/ -- offers financing solutions that help hard-working individuals and families purchase reliable new and used vehicles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Neal Weingart, Esq. 820 SW 2nd Ave., Suite 200 Portland, OR 97204 Phone: (503) 379-9933 Email: neal@nealweingartlaw.com SONIC INC: Brennan Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Oklahoma --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sonic, Inc. The case is styled as Joseph Brennan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Sonic, Inc. doing business as: Sonic Drive-In, Case No. 5:25-cv-00280-HE (W.D. Okla., March 4, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Sonic Corporation -- https://www.sonicdrivein.com/ -- founded as Sonic Drive-In and more commonly known as Sonic, is an American drive-in fast-food chain owned by Inspire Brands.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Krahl, Esq. 210 Park Ave Ste 3030 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Phone: (405) 232-3800 Fax: (405) 232-8999 - and - Kevin E. Krahl, Esq. John A. Krahl, Esq. BEHENNA GOERKE KRAHL & MEYER, PLLC 210 Park Avenue, Ste. 3030 Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Phone: (405) 930-4300 Fax: (405) 835-6616 Email: krahl@lawfirmokc.com jkrahl@lawfirmokc.com - and - Patrick H. Peluso, Esq. PELUSO LAW LLC 865 Albion Street, Suite 250 Denver, CO 80220 Phone: (720) 805-2008 Email: ppeluso@pelusolawfirm.com SONIC INC: Faces TCPA Class Action Lawsuit Over Marketing Texts --------------------------------------------------------------- In an article for National Law Review, Blake Landis of Troutman Amin, LLP asks if you ever received a text about a fast food deal you never signed up for. Usually, I receive these texts because I signed up for some deal, like a free milkshake or a discount. That is the trade-off. You get a coupon; in return, you let them send you marketing you can opt out of. Well, Plaintiff in this newly filed class action lawsuit says he has, and he is taking Sonic Drive-In to court over it. The lawsuit, filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, accuses Sonic of sending promotional texts to consumers who had placed their numbers on the National DNC Registry. See Brennan v. Sonic, Inc., No. 5:25-CV-00280 (W.D. Okla. filed Mar. 4, 2025). According to the Complaint, Plaintiff added his number to the DNC Registry on February 3, 2024. That should have stopped unsolicited marketing texts, but by March 6, Sonic was already sending him offers for grilled cheese and 99-cent corn dogs. The Complaint details texts sent on March 6, March 11, March 13, March 15, and March 20. Plaintiff claims he never provided his phone number to Sonic, never had a business relationship with them, and never opted into any rewards program. So how did Sonic get his number? Interesting . . . The lawsuit argues that Sonic's "impersonal and generic" messages, their frequency, and the lack of consent all suggest that Sonic used an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS"). This is where things make me ponder. This is not Plaintiff's first TCPA lawsuit. He has previously filed complaints against Pizza Hut, DirecTV, Meyer Corporation, and Transfinancial Companies. That is a stacked lineup of big-name defendants. That track record raises some interesting questions. Is Plaintiff an unlucky mass marketing recipient or something else at play here? Is this about stopping unlawful texts, or is Plaintiff turning TCPA enforcement into a side hustle? Either way, it puts Sonic in a tough spot. This is where Troutman Amin always steps up to the plate for stellar legal work. Beyond the Plaintiff's individual claims, this lawsuit covers a broader group of consumers who allegedly received these messages. The Complaint defines two classes. The DNC Registry Class includes those on the registry but still got texts. Additionally, the Autodialed Text Class covers anyone who received automated marketing texts from Sonic without providing written consent. If the Court sides with Plaintiff, Sonic might find itself in a legal pickle that no amount of tots and milkshakes can fix—no pun intended. We'll be sure to keep you posted. [GN] SOUNDHOUND AI: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of shareholders of SoundHound AI, Inc. (NASDAQ: SOUN, SOUNW) resulting from allegations that SoundHound may have issued materially misleading business information to the investing public. So What: If you purchased SoundHound securities you may be entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses. What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=36267 or call Phillip Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com for information on the class action. What is this about: On March 4, 2025, SoundHound filed a Notification of Late Filing on Form 12b-25 with the SEC stating that the Company would be unable to file its 10-K annual report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024 within the prescribed time period. The Notification of Late Filing explained that, "[d]ue to the complexity of accounting for [the Company's prior acquisitions of Synq3, Inc. and Amelia Holdings, Inc.], the Company requires additional time to prepare financial statements and accompanying notes." The Notification of Late Filing further stated that the Company "has identified material weaknesses in its internal control over financial reporting. These material weaknesses continue to exist as of December 31, 2024. The Company expects to file its Form 10-K within the fifteen-day period provided under Rule 12b-25, no later than by March 18, 2025." On this news, SoundHound shares fell 5.8% on March 4, 2025. Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4 each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438 million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Contacts Laurence Rosen, Esq. Phillip Kim, Esq. The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. 275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor New York, NY 10016 Tel: (212) 686-1060 Toll Free: (866) 767-3653 Fax: (212) 202-3827 case@rosenlegal.com www.rosenlegal.com [GN] STARBUCKS CORP: W.D. Washington Stays Consolidated Stockholder Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Judge John H. Chun of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, approves the parties' stipulation to stay the consolidated derivative case styled IN RE STARBUCKS CORPORATION STOCKHOLDER DERIVATIVE LITIGATION. This Document Relates to: All Actions, Lead Case No. 2:24-cv-01720-JHC (W.D. Wash.). Consolidated with Case No. 2:24-cv-01979 (W.D. Wash.). Pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Civil Rule 42, Plaintiffs Katherine King and Portia McCollum, Defendants Laxman Narasimhan, Rachel Ruggeri, Richard E. Allison, Jr., Andrew Campion, Beth Ford, Mellody Hobson, Jorgen Vig Knudstorp, Neal Mohan, Satya Nadella, Daniel Servitje, Mike Sievert and Wei Zhang (the "Individual Defendants"), and Nominal Defendant Starbucks Corporation, by and through their counsel of record, submit the stipulation to stay the consolidated shareholder derivative action. On Oct. 21, 2024, and Dec. 2, 2024, Plaintiffs King and McCollum filed, respectively, shareholder derivative actions purportedly on behalf of Nominal Defendant Starbucks against the Individual Defendants alleging, inter alia, violations of federal securities laws and breaches of fiduciary duty. On Jan. 3, 2025, the Court consolidated the two derivative actions into In re Starbucks Corporation Stockholder Derivative Litigation ("Consolidated Derivative Action"). A related securities fraud class action is also pending in this Court captioned Garbaccio v. Starbucks Corp., et al., No. 2:24-cv-01362-JHC, which purports to allege violations of federal securities laws against Starbucks and certain of the Individual Defendants (the "Securities Class Action"). Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 ("PSLRA"), the Court appointed a lead plaintiff in the Securities Class Action on Nov. 19, 2024, and on Dec. 3, 2024, the Court entered a schedule whereby an amended complaint will be filed in the Securities Class Action by Feb. 3, 2025, and the defendants will file a motion to dismiss or otherwise respond to the amended complaint by April 4, 2025. The Parties to this action agree that the resolution of the anticipated motion(s) to dismiss in the Securities Class Action may help inform the Parties and Court on the manner in which the Consolidated Derivative Action should proceed. In the interest of judicial economy, conservation of resources, and the efficient resolution of both actions, the Parties agree that the Consolidated Derivative Action should be temporarily stayed in its entirety through the final resolution of any and all motion(s) to dismiss the Securities Class Action, including any appeals. The Parties agree, subject to approval of the Court, that the Consolidated Derivative Action is stayed in its entirety through the final resolution of any and all motion(s) to dismiss the Securities Class Action, including any appeals, and the Defendants have no obligation to answer or otherwise respond to the complaints in the Consolidated Derivative Action at this time. The Parties have the option to terminate this stay by giving thirty days' notice in writing via email to the counsel for the Parties if: (a) any derivative action with the same or substantially similar factual allegations is not stayed for the same or longer duration and under similar terms; or (b) a stipulation of settlement of the Securities Class Action is filed with the Court. Any of the Parties, with ten (10) business days' notice to all other Parties via their counsel, may seek to lift the stay in the Consolidated Derivative Action. In the event that any Defendants oppose such a request to lift the stay, they may not do so on the grounds that the Consolidated Derivative Action should be stayed in order for a similar derivative action to proceed before the Consolidated Derivative Action. Upon such notice, the Parties will work together in good faith to jointly propose a briefing schedule for a motion to lift the stay, a motion to transfer the action, a motion to dismiss, and/or any other appropriate motion. In the event this stipulated stay of proceedings is lifted, the Parties will meet and confer, and within fourteen (14) days after the stay is lifted, will submit a proposed schedule for the consolidated Derivative Action to the Court for approval. By entering into this Stipulation, the Parties do not waive any rights not specifically addressed herein. The Defendants preserve all rights, objections, arguments, and defenses, including any defenses under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b) and 23.1, as well as any and all other procedural or substantive challenges to the Consolidated Derivative Action or any other complaint. A full-text copy of the Court's Stipulation and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4j9j7vcp from PacerMonitor.com. Duncan C. Turner -- dturner@badgleymullins.com -- BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC, in Lynnwood, WA 98036; Timothy Brown -- tbrown@thebrownlawfirm.net -- THE BROWN LAW FIRM, P.C., in New York, NY 10017, Attorneys for Plaintiff Katherine King and Co-Lead Counsel for the Plaintiffs. Timothy J. MacFall -- tjm@rl-legal.com -- Samir Aougab -- sa@rl-legal.com -- RIGRODSKY LAW, P.A., in Garden City, NY 11530; Joshua H. Grabar -- jgrabar@grabarlaw.com -- GRABAR LAW OFFICE, in Philadelphia, PA 19103, Attorneys for Plaintiff Portia McCollum and Co-Lead Counsel for the Plaintiffs. Pallavi Mehta Wahi -- Pallavi.Wahi@klgates.com -- Tyler K. Lichter -- Tyler.Lichter@klgates.com -- Ruby A. Nagamine -- Ruby.Nagamine@klgates.com -- K&L GATES LLP, in Seattle, Washington 98104-1158; Whitney B. Weber -- whitney.weber@lw.com -- LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, in San Francisco, CA 94111-6538; Andrew B. Clubok -- andrew.clubok@lw.com -- Susan E. Engel -- susan.engel@lw.com -- LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, in Washington, D.C. 20004-1304; Michele D. Johnson -- michele.johnson@lw.com -- LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, in Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1925; Daniel R. Gherardi -- daniel.gherardi@lw.com -- LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, in Menlo Park, CA 94025, Attorneys for the Defendants. STRUCTURAL BUILDERS: Perez Class Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Under FLSA ---------------------------------------------------------------- FERNANDO PEREZ, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. STRUCTURAL BUILDERS AND RESTORATIONS, LLC (S-BR), and YOSBANY BALLATE, Case No. 1:25-cv-21041 (S.D. Fla., Mar. 6, 2025) seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, the Plaintiff worked approximately 48 hours per week. The Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff any overtime pay during his employment with the Defendant. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a laborer/carpenter from December 15, 2022, until his termination on October 2024. S-BR is a specialty contractor focused in Concrete Restoration and Waterproofing solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Julisse Jimenez, Esq. THE SAENZ LAW FIRM, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 482-147 E-mail: julisse@legalopinionusa.com SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Fischer Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Thomas Fischer, Brian Blair and Margaret Blazic, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO. OF ARIZONA, LLC, and DOES 1-20, inclusive; Case No. 24CV002217 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Napa, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on March 4, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-02232. The Plaintiffs' putative class claims arise from allegations that Defendant failed to comply with California's wage and hour laws in compensating drivers as follows: failure to pay for all hour worked under Labor Code; failure to pay minimum wages under Labor Code; failure to provide accurate itemized paystubs under Labor Code; failure to pay wages upon termination under Labor Code; unlawful business practices in violation of Business and Professions Code.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Paul S. Cowie, Esq. John Ellis, Esq. Nina Montazeri, Esq. Alexis S. Cherry, Esq. SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP A Limited Liability Partnership Including Professional Corporations Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4109 Phone: 415.434.9100 Facsimile: 415.434.3947 Email pcowie@sheppardmullin.com jellis@sheppardmullin.com nmontazeri@sheppardmullin.com acherry@sheppardmullin.com TAKARA SAKE: Class Cert Hearing in Tunick Continued to April 10 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as COLBY TUNICK, v. TAKARA SAKE USA INC., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00572-TSH (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Thomas Hixson entered an order continuing hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, currently set for March 6, 2025, to April 10, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. by Zoom video conference. The webinar link and instructions are located at https://cand.uscourts.gov/judges/hixson-thomas-s-tsh/. Briefing deadlines are unchanged. The parties' stipulated administrative motion for Joshua Nassir to appear via Zoom for the March 6, 2025, hearing on Plaintiffs' motion is denied as moot. Takara is a producer of premium sake, mirin, and plum wine. A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PusX6i at no extra charge.[CC] TELEFLEX INC: Violates DGCL, Harrison Class Action Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL HARRISON v. TELEFLEX INCORPORATED, a Delaware Corporation, LIAM J. KELLY, STEPHEN K. KLASKO, M.D., CANDACE H. DUNCAN, GRETCHEN R. HAGGERTY, JOHN C. HEINMILLER, ANDREW A. KRAKAUER, NEENA M. PATIL, STUART A. RANDLE, and JAEWON RYU, M.D., Case No. 2025-0251 (D. Del., Mar. 6, 2025) is a Verified Class Action Complaint brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated stockholders of the Company for declaratory relief relating to the Company's violation of Delaware General Corporation Law Section 228(a) and Delaware common law. As detailed in the Complaint, a certain provision of the Company's bylaws (the Rights Limitation), adopted and maintained by Defendants (as defined herein), specifically denies the taking of corporate action by written stockholder consent in lieu of a stockholders' meeting, contrary to Delaware law. Stockholders of a corporation organized and existing under Delaware law have the right to take any action which must or may be taken at any stockholder annual or special meeting without a meeting, without prior notice, and without a vote, unless this right is denied in the appropriate manner. Accordingly, the Defendants interfere with a fundamental stockholder franchise and have improperly eliminated that right. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself and all other stockholders of the Company against the Company and the members of its Board, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Rights Limitation violates Section 228(a) of the DGCL and Delaware common law and is void. The Plaintiff brings this class action pursuant to Court of Chancery Rule 23, on behalf of himself and the Class, consisting of: "All owners of the Company's common stock who have been injured or are threatened with injury arising from Defendants' described unlawful conduct." The Class excludes Defendants and any members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, and any entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest. Mr. Harrison is stockholder of Teleflex Incorporated. Teleflex, headquartered in Wayne, Pennsylvania, is an American provider of specialty medical devices for a range of procedures in critical care and surgery. The Individual Defendants are officers and directors of the company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David M. Klauder, Esq. Ryan M. Ernst, Esq. BIELLI & KLAUDER, LLC 1204 N. King Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 803-4600 E-mail: dklauder@bk-legal.com rernst@bk-legal.com - and - Brian P. Murray, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Ave., Suite 530 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (212) 682-5340 E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com - and - Werner R. Kranenburg, Esq. KRANENBURG 80-83 Long Lane London EC1A 9ET Telephone: (44) 20-3174-0365 E-mail: werner@kranenburgesq.com TELEPHONE AND DATA: Continues to Defend Stockholder Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Telephone and Data Systems Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 21, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a stockholder class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On May 2, 2023, a putative stockholder class action was filed against TDS and UScellular and certain current and former officers and directors in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. An Amended Complaint was filed on September 1, 2023, which names TDS, UScellular, and certain current UScellular officers and directors as defendants, and alleges that certain public statements made between May 6, 2022 and November 3, 2022 (the potential class period) regarding, among other things, UScellular's business strategies to address subscriber demand, violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of stockholders who purchased TDS equity securities during the potential class period and demands unspecified money damages. TDS is unable at this time to determine whether the outcome of these actions would have a material impact on its results of operations, financial condition, or cash flows. TDS intends to contest plaintiffs' claims vigorously on the merits. Telephone And Data Systems, Inc. is a telecommunications company based in Illinois. THEHUFFINGTONPOST.COM INC: Golub Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against THEHUFFINGTONPOST.COM, INC. The case is styled as Barton Golub, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. THEHUFFINGTONPOST.COM, INC., Case No. CGC25622955 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., March 4, 2025). The case type is stated as "Business Tort." HuffPost -- https://www.huffpost.com/ -- is an American progressive news website, with localized and international editions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emily A. Horne, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd. 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Phone: 925-300-4455 TICKETSALES.COM LLC: Hampton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- TAMMY HAMPTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. Ticketsales.com, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01900 (N.D. Ill., February 24, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://ticketsales.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. On September 11, 2024, the Plaintiff was looking for tickets to a circus performance. Using the search key term "buy circus tickets online" she landed on Ticketsales.com, a platform selling tickets for various live events, including concerts, theater performances, sports, and family-friendly shows. While browsing, she found tickets for the Universoul Circus performance. However, after opening the page for selecting seats, she encountered significant accessibility issues. A dialog box appeared for choosing the number of tickets, but the focus was not automatically set on it. Additionally, she found many improperly labeled interactive elements, making it difficult to understand their purpose and navigate the ticket selection process efficiently, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Ticketsales.com's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Ticketsales.com, LLC is a Delaware Limited Liability Company doing business in Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law TOZO INC: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Walker Claims ------------------------------------------------------------ LEAH WALKER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated Plaintiff v. Tozo, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01882 (N.D. Ill., February 24, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, https://www.tozostore.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, ambiguous link texts, unclear labels for interactive elements, lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. These barriers to access have denied Plaintiff full and equal access to, and enjoyment of, the goods, benefits and services of the website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Tozo's policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination. Tozo, Inc. operates the website that provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view wide range of electronics including earbuds, headphones, speakers, watches.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law TRADE DESK: Faces Savorelli Class Suit Over Stock Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------------ MANUEL SAVORELLI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE TRADE DESK, INC., JEFF T. GREEN, and LAURA SCHENKEIN, Case No. 2:25-cv-01915 (C.D. Cal., March 5, 2025) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Trade Desk Class A common stock or call options, or sold Trade Desk put options, between May 9, 2024, and Feb. 12, 2025, inclusive, pursuing claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On June 6, 2023, the Company launched Kokai, a new digital advertising platform experience which purported to incorporate major advances in distributed artificial intelligence (AI), measurements, and advertising partner integrations. In the press release announcing the launch, Trade Desk described Kokai as a "co-pilot to the programmatic marketer" that digests over 13 million advertising impressions every second, helping "advertisers buy the right ad impressions, at the right price, to reach the target audience at the best time." The Company advertised Kokai as its "largest and most important platform overhaul ever. As the Company rolled out Kokai and transitioned clients from its older ad-buying platform called Somilar, Trade Desk touted the manner in which Kokai was allegedly driving success for itself and its customers. The Company claimed the "switch over to the new" platform was seamless, stating that it was "without the disruption that comes from yanking something out of the box and maybe having something totally hate it and just be angry." Trade Desk expected "full adoption" of Kokai "over the course of 2024." Before the start of the Class Period, Trade Desk affirmed prior estimates that, from the June 2023 launch, Kokai "would take about a year to roll out in its entirety." On Feb. 12, 2025, after the market closed, Trade Desk released its fourth quarter and full year 2024 financial results, revealing revenue of only $741 million. This significantly missed the Company's prior guidance of "at least" $756 million issued only months earlier. During the related earnings call held on February 12, 2025, Founder and Chief Executive Officer Jeff Green revealed that "Kokai rolled out slower than we anticipated," which was "in some cases" "deliberate," as the Company faced ongoing efforts to "understand what the customer needs." The Company was "maintaining 2 systems, Somilar and Kokai," which "slows us down." On this news, the Company's stock price fell $40.31, or 32.98%, to close at $81.92 per share on Feb. 13, 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 that the Company was experiencing self-inflicted execution challenges in rolling out Kokai, including transitioning clients from the Company's older platform and struggling to understand customer needs, alleges the suit. Trade Desk is a technology company that operates a self-service, cloud-based platform targeted at advertisers. The Company's platform integrates with inventory, publisher, and data partners to provide ad buyers with the ability to create, manage and optimize data-driven digital advertising campaigns across ad formats and channels.[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, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: rprongay@glancylaw.com prajesh@glancylaw.com clinehan@glancylaw.com - and - Howard G. Smith LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112 Bensalem PA 19020 Telephone: (215) 638-4847 Facsimile: (215) 638-4867 TRANSAK USA: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Goodwin Suit Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- NOAH GOODWIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TRANSAK USA, LLC, Case No. 218276689 (Fla. Cir., Miami Dade Cty., March 6, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard personally identifiable information and personal health information of the Plaintiff and the Class members, including names, dates of birth, home addresses, phone numbers, Social Security numbers, prescription numbers, prescription information, and dates of services. Accordingly, between September 1, 2024, and September 11, 2024, an intruder gained entry to Defendant's database, accessed Plaintiff's and the Class members' PII, and exfiltrated information from Defendant's systems (the "Data Breach Incident"). The Plaintiff contends that over 20,000 putative class members were impacted by the breach. The Defendant did not notify Plaintiff and the Class members of the incident until February 28, 2025. During that time, Defendant deprived Plaintiff and the Class Members of the opportunity to take any steps to protect themselves from the misuse of their PII, the lawsuit says. The Plaintiff's and the Class members' PII that was acquired in the Data Breach Incident can be sold on the dark web. Hackers can access and then offer for sale the unencrypted, unredacted PII to criminals. The Plaintiff and the Class members face a lifetime risk of identity theft, the lawsuit adds. The "Class" that Plaintiff seeks to represent is defined as: "All persons in the U.S. whose PII was accessed and/or exfiltrated during the Data Breach Incident." Transak is a financial technology company specializing in fiat-to-crypto payment gateway solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Zane C. Hedaya, Esq. Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 110 SE 6th Street, Suite 1744 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 E-mail: zane@jibraellaw.com gerald@jibraellaw.com TREY CAIN: Bids for Summary Judgment in Sake Suit August 15 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAKE TN, LLC, and SEANACHE HOMES, INC., for themselves and all others similarly situated, v. TREY CAIN, KALI CAIN, CAIN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC, TENNESSEE TITLE & ESCROW AFFILIATES, LLC, KNOX VALLEY PARTNERS, LLC, MORRIS FAMILY HOLDINGS, LLC, PATRICK MOSS, IRA INNOVATIONS, LLC, MARY M. WESTER, individually and as Trustee of the Mary M. Wester Revocable Trust, MIKE TODD, and ALYCIA WHITE as Executrix of the Estate of William J. Gulas, Case No. 3:21-cv-00108 (M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Aleta Trauger entered an order modifying case management order: 1. The Plaintiffs shall file and serve their supplement the motion to certify on or before April 28, 2025. 2. The Defendants shall file and serve their supplemental Class Expert Report on or before May 26, 2025. 3. The Defendants shall file and serve their Response to Plaintiffs' Class Certification Motion on or June 26, 2025. 4. The parties shall submit their Mediation Report on or before July 24, 2025. 5. All discovery in this matter, including depositions of all fact and expert witnesses shall close on July 31, 2025. 6. Motions for Summary Judgment by any party are due on or before Aug. 15, 2025. 7. The trial date and pretrial conference shall be reset by the Court by separate order. A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Z0yr7B at no extra charge.[CC] TRUELINE INFRASTRUCTURE: Faces Class Suit Over Labor Law Violations ------------------------------------------------------------------- Wireless Estimator reports that Trueline Infrastructure Solutions, a broadband construction firm backed by private equity giant Grain Management, abruptly shut down last week, laying off nearly all its 500 employees on Friday, March 7. The sudden closure shocked employees, prompting a class-action lawsuit against Trueline for allegedly violating federal labor laws. In its reporting, Fierce Network stated that Trueline emailed its staff to inform them that the company would begin winding down operations immediately due to “unprecedented changes in the market” and “increasing competitive pressures.” A small group of employees will remain for a few weeks to handle the shutdown. The lawsuit, filed by Dusty James Higgins on March 3, 2025, on behalf of himself and approximately 500 other affected workers, claims that Trueline terminated employees without the required 60-day advance written notice following a “plant closing” on or around February 28, 2025. Higgins, who worked at the company's Bloomington, Indiana facility, alleges that the sudden layoffs left employees without pay, benefits, and other compensation for the mandatory 60-day period stipulated under the WARN Act. The WARN Act requires employers with 100 or more employees to provide written notice at least 60 days before company closings or mass layoffs affecting 50 or more workers. According to the complaint, Trueline failed to notify employees and did not provide wages, 401(k) contributions, or health insurance benefits for the two months following their termination. The lawsuit seeks compensation equal to 60 days of back pay and benefits for the affected employees, along with interest, attorneys' fees, and other related costs. It also requests class-action status. Leadership exodus and financial woes The shutdown followed a series of ominous signs. Trueline's CEO, Rob Hughart, resigned just days before the layoffs, and CFO Karla Lunan stepped down in January. Darren Muljo, Trueline's former Environment, Health, and Safety Manager, criticized Grain's handling of the situation, questioning how the firm, which manages $9 billion in assets, could allow such a collapse. “There are 300 families left in limbo,” Muljo informed Fierce Network, highlighting employees' uncertainty, including at least three who had surgeries scheduled and are now unsure if they still have health insurance. Contracts terminated and projects abandoned Trueline's troubles became more evident when Aspire/Highline, a significant service provider client in Michigan, recently terminated its contract. A few weeks prior, Trueline had instructed employees to pause operations in certain states, attributing the decision to weather conditions. A former program manager, Rob Bridges, said he suspected financial trouble months ago when he managed warehouses full of materials and staff but no active projects. Muljo described unfinished construction sites in Florida and other states, with open trenches, exposed conduits, and roads left partially restored. “It's a shame that Grain purchased fully functioning family-owned businesses only to now shut everything down,” he added. Grain management remains silent Grain Management, a well-known telecom investor with several service providers, declined to comment on the shutdown. In 2024, Grain had formed Trueline by merging Atlantic Engineering Group, Fiber Optic Services, and Young's Communications, with plans to compete aggressively in the fiber broadband infrastructure market. Last September, Trueline announced the tripartite team that closed its doors six months later. The sudden collapse of Trueline has raised questions about Grain's due diligence and management practices, leaving employees and industry analysts seeking answers. As the employees' legal battle unfolds, additional lawsuits are expected to be filed. Grain's investment strategy, according to its website, is: “We target hard assets and companies with inflation-protected revenue streams and sustainable cash flows that are uncorrelated to market cycles.” It doesn't appear that Truline came close to meeting that design. Waiting for BEAD funding could have torpedoed Trueline Trueline, heavily weighted in fiber to the home, in principle, could have benefited significantly from the $42.5 BEAD funding that had been delayed during the Biden administration. Congressman Richard Hudson (NC-09), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Communications and Technology, criticized the Biden Administration's handling of rural broadband funding during a hearing titled “Fixing Biden's Broadband Blunder”. Hudson highlighted that despite the $42.5 billion allocated through the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) program under the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, no homes have been connected with these funds. He blamed delays on slow FCC map development and the “burdensome” regulations imposed by the Biden Administration, including labor rules and climate requirements. To accelerate broadband deployment, Hudson introduced the SPEED for BEAD Act. The proposed bill aims to eliminate these regulations, clarify that broadband rate regulations are prohibited, and ensure that funding is used efficiently. He also stressed the need for streamlined permitting processes to avoid further delays. Hudson welcomed Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick's announcement of a review to reduce red tape in the BEAD program, calling it a step in the right direction. He urged bipartisan cooperation to overcome obstacles and close the digital divide for rural Americans. [GN] TRUELINE INFRASTRUCTURE: Higgins Files Suit in D. Delaware ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trueline Infrastructure Solutions, LLC. The case is styled as Dusty James Higgins, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Trueline Infrastructure Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00238-RGA (D. Del., March 3, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Labor for Worker Adjustment & Retraining Notification Act. Trueline Infrastructure Solutions -- https://www.truelineinfrastructure.com/ -- is a leading technology enabled infrastructure services provider, specializing in design, engineering, construction, and contracting services to the telecommunications and utility industry to build resilient, reliable next-generation infrastructures.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: James E. Huggett, Esq. MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 800 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 888-1112 Fax: (302) 888-1119 Email: jhuggett@margolisedelstein.com TWEEZERMAN INTERNATIONAL: Williams Sues Over Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------------- MILTON WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. TWEEZERMAN INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01865 (S.D.N.Y., Mar. 5, 2025) contends that the Defendant failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.tweezerman.com/, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. During the Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on February 21, 2025, in an attempt to purchase a Park Ave. Derm Eye Crème from Defendant and to view the information on the Website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public; and that denied Plaintiff the full enjoyment of the goods, and services of the Website by being unable to purchase a Park Ave. Accordingly, the Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer frustration and humiliation as a result of the discriminatory conditions present on Defendant's Website. These discriminatory conditions continue to contribute to Plaintiff's sense of isolation and segregation. The Defendant offers the commercial website, https://www.tweezerman.com/, to the public. The Website offers features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services offered by Defendant and which Defendant ensures delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO MEDICAL: Vanderzee Suit Removed to N.D. Ill. ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Trent Vanderzee, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. University of Chicago Medical Center doing business as: UChicago Medicine, Case No. 2025CH00974 was removed from the Cook County Chancery, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on March 3, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-02207 to the proceeding. The lawsuit nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. University of Chicago Medical Center doing business as UChicago Medicine -- https://www.uchicagomedicine.org/ -- is a leading academic medical center that offers comprehensive care for various conditions and services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Dunklin, Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 55 West Wacker Drive, Floor 9 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 893-7002 Email: jdunklin@mcgpc.com The Defendants are represented by: Daniel Ray Campbell, Esq. Chelsea L Mounayer, Esq. Emilie Elizabeth O'Toole, Esq. William Wright Hameline, Esq. MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY 444 West Lake Street, Suite 4000 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: (312) 984-2167 Email: dcampbell@mwe.com cmounayer@mwe.com eotoole@mwe.com whameline@mwe.com VALSOFT CORP: Sued Over Inadequately Protected Computer Network --------------------------------------------------------------- Jolie Esparza, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. VALSOFT CORPORATION, INC. d/b/a ALLTRUST NETWORKS and ASPIRE USA, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00393 (E.D. Va., March 4, 2025), is brought seeking to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it caused Plaintiff in the preventable data breach of Defendant's inadequately protected computer network. By taking possession and control of Plaintiff's and Class members' personal information, Defendant assumed a duty to securely store and protect it. The Defendant breached this duty and betrayed the trust of Plaintiff and Class members by failing to properly safeguard and protect their personal information, thus enabling cybercriminals to access, acquire, appropriate, compromise, disclose, encumber, exfiltrate, release, steal, misuse, and/or view it. On February 14, 2024, AllTrust detected suspicious activity on the computer network of its subsidiary Aspire, indicating a data breach on Defendant's network. Based on a subsequent forensic investigation, AllTrust determined that cybercriminals infiltrated Aspire's inadequately secured computer environment and thereby gained access to AllTrust's data files between February 12, 2024, and February 15, 2024 (the "Data Breach"). The investigation further determined that, through this infiltration, cybercriminals accessed and even copies files containing the sensitive personal information of thousands of individuals. The personally identifiable information ("PII") accessed by cybercriminals included names, Social Security numbers, financial account information, and driver's license numbers (collectively, "Personal Information"). The Defendant's misconduct--failing to implement adequate and reasonable measures to protect Plaintiff's and Class members' Personal Information, failing to timely detect the Data Breach, failing to take adequate steps to prevent and stop the Data Breach, failing to disclose the material facts that it did not have adequate security practices in place to safeguard the Personal Information, and failing to provide timely and adequate notice of the Data Breach—caused substantial harm and injuries to Plaintiff and Class members across the United States, says the complaint. The Plaintiff received a notice letter from Defendant, informing her that her Personal Information was specifically identified as having been exposed to cybercriminals in the Data Breach. AllTrust is a software and services provider for check cashing and alternate financial services solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee A. Floyd, Esq. Justin M. Sheldon, Esq. BREIT BINIAZAN, PC 2100 East Cary Street, Suite 310 Richmond, VA 23223 Phone: (804) 351-9040 Facsimile: (804) 351-9170 Email: Lee@bbtrial.com Justin@bbtrial.com - and - A. Brooke Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 4116 Will Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Phone: (405) 389-4989 Email: abm@murphylegalfirm.com VENADO INC: Morris Seeks to Certify Proposed Classes ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned Zachary Morris, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. VENADO, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00318-WCG (E.D. Wis.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order certifying the proposed classes in this case, appointing the Plaintiff as class representative, and appointing Stein Saks PLLC as Class Counsel, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate. The Plaintiff further requests that the Court stay this class certification motion until an amended motion for class certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and requirement that the Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents in support of this motion. Dicta in the Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, left open the possibility that a defendant facing a class action complaint could moot a class representative's case by depositing funds equal to or in excess of the maximum value of the plaintiff's individual claim with the court and having the court enter judgment in the plaintiff's favor prior to the filing of a class certification motion. To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the Seventh Circuit instructed plaintiffs to file a certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to stay briefing on the certification motion. As this motion to certify a class is a placeholder motion as described in Damasco, the parties and the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and the resulting expense when short motion to certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed. Venado is lifestyle Brand based out of Wisconsin that makes apparel made for the outdoors. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ONiWmE at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yaakov Saks, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620, Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: ysaks@steinsakslegal.com VERTIV CORP: Class Cert. Bid in Torok Suit Extended to April 7 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAWRENCE TOROK, v. VERTIV CORPORATION, Case No. 3:24-cv-01645-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge William Alsup entered an order extending class certification deadline. The Plaintiffs have submitted a second request to extend the deadline for class certification, again citing delays in discovery precipitated by the defendant. The deadline for plaintiff's motion for class certification is moved to Apr. 7, 2025, at noon, to be heard on a 49-day track. No further delays will be approved absent a precis letter and in person discovery hearing. Vertiv is a global provider of mission-critical infrastructure technologies for vital applications in data centers, communication networks, and commercial and industrial environments. A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NpZr78 at no extra charge.[CC] VIRGINIA: Rebuttal Expert Witness Disclosures in King Due May 2 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TATI ABU KING and TONI HEATH JOHNSON, V. JOHN O'BANNON, in his official capacity as Chairman of the State Board of Elections for the Commonwealth of Virginia, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00408-JAG (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge John Gibney Jr. entered an order granting unopposed motion to modify initial pretrial order: Accordingly, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to modify initial pretrial order, and amends the initial pretrial order as follows: 1. The party with the burden of proof shall disclose the expert witness information required under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) by April 4, 2025; 2. Rebuttal expert witness disclosures shall be served by May 2, 2025; 3. Motions challenging the designation of experts shall be filed by Thursday, May 22, 2025; 4. Responses to motions challenging the designation of experts, motions for summary judgment, and motions regarding class certification shall be filed by Thursday, June 12, 2025; and 5. Replies in support of motions challenging the designation of experts, motions for summary Judgment, and motions regarding class certification shall be filed by Thursday, June 26, 2025. All other deadlines outlines in the initial pretrial order shall remain the same. The Defendants include ROSALYN R. DANCE, in her official capacity as Vice Chair of the State Board of Elections for the Commonwealth of Virginia; GEORGIA ALVIS-LONG, in her official capacity as Secretary of the State Board of Elections for the Commonwealth of Virginia; DONALD W. MERRICKS, in his official capacity as a member of the State Board of Elections for the Commonwealth of Virginia; MATTHEW WEINSTEIN, in his official capacity as a member of the State Board of Elections for the Commonwealth of Virginia; SUSAN BEALS, in her official capacity as Commissioner of the Department of Elections for the Commonwealth of Virginia; ERIC SPICER, in his official capacity as the General Registrar of Fairfax County, Virginia; and SANDY C. ELSWICK, in her official capacity as the General Registrar of Smyth County, Virginia, A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yIYQG1 at no extra charge.[CC] VUORI INC: Bid for Initial OK of Settlement Tossed w/o Prejudice ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TERRENCE BUCHANAN, v. VUORI, INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-01121-NC (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Nathanael Cousins entered an order denying without prejudice motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. The Court encourages the parties to carefully review and address the Court's concerns and the guidance from the Northern District in connection with any subsequent motion for preliminary approval. A subsequent motion should also include any updated class notices and executed settlement agreement. The Court notes that Plaintiff’s briefing often appears hasty, slipshod, and, occasionally, incomplete, and that Plaintiff’s counsel failed to appear for the initial hearing on the motion due to a calendaring error. The parties have at times overlooked discrepancies between their signed settlement agreement, proposed class notices, and the motion. The Plaintiff filed a class action suit alleging Defendant failed to pay hourly, non-exempt employees overtime wages, wages owed at termination, and failed to provide accurate wage statements in violation of California law and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The settlement defines two classes: a California class under Rule 23 that includes "all individuals who held an hourly, nonexempt retail position at Vuori in California from Aug. 12, 2021 to Dec. 8, 2023" and who do not opt out of the action; and a nationwide FLSA class that includes individuals "who held an hourly, non-exempt retail position at Vuori outside of California from March 14, 2020 to Dec. 8, 2023" and who consent to join the action. The settlement provides for a total settlement amount of $1,100,000 with reversion to a cy pres awardee. Vuori provides online apparel products. A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Q3YJya at no extra charge.[CC] W.T.F.N. INC: Winslow Files Suit in E.D. California --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against W.T.F.N. Inc., et al. The case is styled as India Winslow, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. W.T.F.N. Inc., Oui Lab, Inc., Case No. 1:25-at-00182 (E.D. Cal., March 3, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. W.T.F.N. Inc. -- https://wtfn.com/ -- was founded in 1982. The Company's line of business includes the wholesale distribution of non-durable goods.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin Heikali, Esq. TREEHOUSE LAW LLP 3130 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 555 Santa Monica, CA 90403 Phone: (310) 751-5928 Email: bheikali@treehouselaw.com WARREN TRANSPORT: Filing for Conditional Cert Extended to March 26 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREW BEISSEL, v. WARREN TRANSPORT, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-00090-CJW-MAR (N.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge C.J. Williams, entered an order granting the joint motion to extend conditional certification briefing deadlines: -- The deadline for the Defendant to file a resistance to the motion to certify class, motion for conditional certification, is extended to March 19, 2025. -- The deadline for the Plaintiff to file a reply in support of the motion to certify class, motion for conditional certification, is extended to March 26, 2025. Warren is headquartered in Waterloo, Iowa, and provides freight delivery services throughout the Midwest. A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=w5E7ZS at no extra charge.[CC] YRV ENTERPRISE: Alvarez Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------- Claudia Alvarez, Francisca Castro, Leydi Lopez, and Eligio Gomez; on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. YRV ENTERPRISE, LLC; KASLO ENTERPRISES, LLC; HLM ENTERPISE, LLC; PRECISION PIPELINE SOLUTIONS, LLC; NPL CONSTRUCTION CO.; MICHELS PIPELINE, INC.; MILLER PIPELINE, LLC; CARLOS HERNANDEZ-FLORES; AND YANSI ROCIO VAQUERANO ACOSTA; Case No. 8:25-cv-00701-GLS (D. Md., March 3, 2025), is brought for unpaid wages and unpaid overtime in violation under the Maryland Wage and Hour Law ("MWHL"); the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law ("MWPCL") (collectively, the "Maryland Wage Laws"). The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and others similarly situated for all hours worked. The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and others similarly situated one-and-a-half times their regular rate of pay for those hours worked in excess of forty in any one workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are construction traffic control workers, commonly known as "flaggers," whose work involves directing traffic at various construction sites in Maryland, Washington D.C., and Virginia. YRV Enterprise, LLC is a Maryland limited liability company with its principal place of business located at 3912 Livingston St., Hyattsville, Maryland.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew K. Handley, Esq. Rachel Nadas, Esq. HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC 1201 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 200K Washington, DC 20036 Phone: (202) 559-2411 (202) 899-2991 Email: mhandley@hfajustice.com rnadas@hfajustice.com - and - Samantha Braver, Esq. HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC 33 Irving Place New York, NY 10003 Phone: 212-843-9181 Email: sbraver@hfajustice.com ZACKS INVESTMENT: Fails to Secure Customers' Info, Trouy Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- JOSEPH TROUY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ZACKS INVESTMENT RESEARCH, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-02344 (N.D. Ill., Mar. 5, 2025) is a class action arises from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal information -- which they entrusted to the Defendant on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against disclosure -- was targeted, compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the Data Breach the lawsuit says. Accordingly, the Defendant collected and maintained certain personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and the putative Class Members, who are (or were) customers at Defendant. The PII compromised in the Data Breach included Plaintiff's and Class Members' full names, usernames, email addresses, addresses, and phone numbers. The PII compromised in the Data Breach was exfiltrated by cyber-criminals and remains in the hands of those cyber-criminals who target PII for its value to identity thieves. As a result of the Data Breach, Plaintiff and Class Members suffered concrete injuries in fact including invasion of privacy and theft of their PII, says the suit. The Defendant is an investment research company that provides data insights on stock performance.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Steven Sukert, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com suker@kolawyers.com ZONI LANGUAGE: Class Cert Bid Filing in Ortega Due Jan. 16, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PRINCESA ORTEGA, NATHALIA GARCIA, on behalf of themselves, and those similarly situated, v. ZONI LANGUAGE CENTERS, INC., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-08223-DEH-KHP (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katharine Parker entered a post-conference order -- All fact discovery shall be completed by: May 28, 2026 -- Affirmative expert reports shall be May 28, 2026 served by: -- Rebuttals are due by: June 25, 2026 -- The Plaintiffs shall file their Aug. 1, 2025 Motion for Conditional Certification pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216 by: -- The Defendants shall file their Aug. 29, 2025 opposition by: -- The Plaintiffs shall file their reply by: Sept. 12, 2025 -- The Plaintiffs shall file their Jan. 16, 2026 Motion for Class Certification pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 by: -- The Defendants shall file their Feb. 13, 2026 opposition by: Zoni is an established English school with campuses across the United States. A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LUOqmu at no extra charge.[CC] ZUFFA LLC: Class Action Settlement in Le Suit Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CUNG LE, NATHAN QUARRY, JON FITCH, BRANDON VERA, LUIS JAVIER VAZQUEZ, and KYLE KINGSBURY, On Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, v. ZUFFA, LLC, D/B/A ULTIMATE FIGHTING CHAMPIONSHIP and UFC, Case No. 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-BNW (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge Richard Boulware, II entered a final judgment and order approving class action settlement: 1. The Court reaffirms its finding that the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3) are satisfied for the Class, including for settlement and judgment purposes. 2. The Class includes: "All persons who competed in one or more live professional UFC-promoted mixed-martial arts ("MMA") bouts taking place or broadcast in the United States from Dec. 16, 2010 to June 30, 2017." Excluded from the Class are all persons who are not residents or citizens of the United States unless the UFC paid such persons for competing in a bout fought in the United States. 3. The Court reaffirms the appointment of Berger Montague PC, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, and Joseph Saveri Law Firm LLP as Co-Lead Class Counsel for the Class having determined that the requirements of Rule 23(g) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are fully satisfied by this appointment. Zuffa is an American sports promotion company specializing in mixed martial arts. A copy of the Court's order dated March 3, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dXeeIV at no extra charge.[CC] ZURU LLC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Dauod Suit Due Nov. 14 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Leyth Dauod v. Zuru LLC et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-09737-JLS-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Josephine Staton entered an order setting Rule 23 class certification briefing schedule as follows: Last Day to File a Motion to Add Parties Apr. 11, 2025 or Amend Pleadings: Last Day to File a Motion for Class Nov. 14, 2025 Certification: Last Day to File an Opposition to Motion Feb. 13, 2026 for Class Certification: Last Day to File a Reply to Motion for March 27, 2026 Class Certification: Fact Discovery Cutoff: May 15, 2026 Expert Discovery Cutoff: July 24, 2026 Last Day to File Daubert Motions: July 31, 2026 Last Day to Motions in Limine: Sept. 18, 2026 Final Pretrial Conference (10:30 a.m.): Oct. 16, 2026 Zuru manufactures multiple brands of toys and consumer goods products. A copy of the Court's order dated March 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=c9uyML at no extra charge.[CC] [] Appeals Court Refuses to Dismiss "Freedom Convoy" Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------------- The Canadian Press reports that a proposed class action lawsuit against those who allegedly organized and funded the "Freedom Convoy" protests cleared another hurdle on Thursday, March 6, when the Ontario Court of Appeal refused to dismiss the case. Some downtown Ottawa residents and businesses are suing for $290 million, alleging personal suffering and business losses from the 2022 protest. The lawsuit has not yet been certified as a class action. The defendants tried to get the case thrown out of court by arguing that their protest was in the public interest, but the Court of Appeal upheld a lower court's ruling allowing the lawsuit to proceed. In court documents, the defendants say they plan to argue they were following police direction when they parked their trucks in Ottawa's downtown core. The Court of Appeal panel said it saw no evidence to suggest that "police directed the truckers to remain parked on public streets" for as long as they did, or to "honk their horns with the frequency and intensity they did." "(The motion judge) understood the political motivation and goals of the convoy protest, and he understood the harm the residents and businesses in the protest zone contended they had suffered as a result of how the protest was conducted," Justice David Brown wrote on behalf of the three-judge panel. Brown said he saw no error in how the lower court weighed the harm to the residents and businesses against the public interest element of the protest. [GN] ********* 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 ***