/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250326.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, March 26, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 61
Headlines
24HRDOC LLC: Faces Hendrick Class Action Suit in S.D. Tex.
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Similac Contains Heavy Metals, Huggins Claims
ABLETO INC: Sessa Bid for Leave to File Reply Partly OK'd
ACCOR MANAGEMENT: Discloses Consumers' Info to Meta, Gianne Says
ADAMS COMMUNITY: Filing for Class Cert Bid in McGuire Due August 25
AEGIS FIRE: Faces Hernandez Labor Class Suit in Calif Super.
ALAMEDA, CA: Hearing on Joint Discovery Dispute Set for March 26
ALASKA: Court Dismisses Out-of-Custody Plaintiffs
ALDERFER FAMILY: Spindel Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
ALDI INC: Faces Graham Class Suit Over Carlini Oil False Ads
AMAZON.COM INC: Tole's Bid for Attys' Partly OK'd
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Perry Alleges
AMERICAN ECONOMY: Class Cert. Bids in Stanley Due April 23, 2026
AMGEN INC: Faces Antitrust Suit over Tumor Necrosis Treatment
AMGEN INC: Faces Shareholder Suit over Tax Liability Disclosures
AMGEN INC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due August 22
AMGEN INC: Settles Antitrust Suit over Kidney Disease Drug
AMS GALAXY: Masemore Sues Over Defective Automatic Milking System
ANI PHARMA: 2nd Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Antitrust Suit
ARDAGH GLASS: Castaneda Loses Bid to Continue Class Cert Deadline
ARDAGH GLASS: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Extended to June 13
ASSOCIATION OF TENNIS: Faces Class Suit Over Antitrust Violations
ATKOKE INC: Coles Alleges Price Fixing of PVC Pipes
ATP TOUR: Pospisil Sues Over Pro Tennis Monopoly
AUTOMATED HEALTH: Delk Seeks Conditional Status of FLSA Collectives
AVID RATINGS: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due August 22
BANK OF AMERICA: Amendment of Case Management Order Sought
BANK OF AMERICA: Class Cert Hearing in Nguyen Amended to June 5
BARCLAYS PLC: Settlement Class Gets Certification
BENCHMARK DUCK: Fails to Pay Restaurant Staff's Minimum Wages
BEST CHOICE VENDING: Guillen Sues to Recover Overtime Premium Pay
BETACOM HOLDINGS: More Time to File Class Cert Bid in Lay Sought
BIONIC PROTECTION: Fails to Pay Hours Worked, OT, Huerta Alleges
BLUE OVAL: Seeks to Dismiss Ford EcoBoost Class Action Lawsuit
BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Faces Suit Over Online Tracking Activities
BROOKDALE VEHICLE: Floyd Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
C.A.T.5 COMMUNICATIONS: Tapp Sues Over Uncompensated Overtime
CALLAHAN LEARNING: Ward Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
CANADA: Court Denies Certification of Black Civil Servants' Suit
CAREDX INC: Plumbers' Fund Files Securities Suit in CA Court
CERTEGY PAYMENT: Stachewicz Allowed to Seal Documents
CHEXSYSTEMS INC: Fact Discovery in Best Due July 24
CHOP'T CREATIVE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Sumlin Says
CITI TRENDS: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration
CITIBANK NA: Seeks More Time to Disclose Class Cert Expert Witness
CLIENTS ON DEMAND: Bid to Continue Class Cert Deadline Tossed
COLORADO RIVER ADVENTURES: Dement Files Suit in C.D. California
COMERICA BANK: Retains Beneficiaries' Fund Interests, Pustelak Says
COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER: Brown Suit Removed to D. Connecticut
COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER: Tedone Suit Removed to D. Connecticut
COMMUNITY REGIONAL: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Pierre Suit Alleges
CORE NATURAL: Loughrie Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Advance Notice
CORNERSTONE NATIONAL: Settlement in Johnson Gets Initial OK
CROWDSTREET INC: Shah Sues Over Unregistered Securities Offerings
CROWDVEST LLC: Johnson Bid to Conduct Limited Discovery Partly OK'd
CRST EXPEDITED: Kelchner Class Cert. Bid Amended to August 16, 2026
CS CONTRACT: Russell Seeks Conditional Status of Collective Action
CVB INC: O'Shea Sues Over Defective Bed Products
CVB INC: O'Shea Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
DANFORDS F&B: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Orgera Alleges
DETAILERS OF NAPLES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lynch Alleges
DOGPOUND FITNESS: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
DONALD TRUMP: Pacito Suit Seeks to Certify Three Subclasses
EAST JORDAN: Jones Class Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
EDDIE BAUER: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Clark Extended to Sept. 15
ELITE ELETRICAL: Smith Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
EMMANUEL COLLEGE: Class Settlement in Parchinskya Gets Initial Nod
ENCORE ENERGY: Zhongjian Sues Over Drop in Share Price
ENTRATA INC: More Time to File Response to Complaint Sought
EQUITY INVESTMENT: Feltzin Sues Over Discriminative Property
ER GARAGE: Piamba Sues Over Unpaid Overtime and Retaliation
EVERGY INC: Faces Nagle Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
EVRY JEWELS: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Beaver Due August 8
FABLETICS INC: Faces Class Action Over VIP Membership Program
FASTAFF LLC: Court Restricts Egan Bids for Class Certification
FAT BRANDS: Faces Ballard Suit Over Privacy Law Violations
FEDERAL HOUSING: Court Tosses Bid for Judgment
FIFTH THIRD: Howards Seek to Certify Class of Accountholders
FIRSTKEY HOMES: Harper Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA
FIRSTSOURCE SOLUTIONS: McClain Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Kentucky
FLOOR AND DECOR: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Dalton Says
FLORIDA POWER: Faces Breach of Contract Suit
FLUENCE ENERGY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 12
FOR GOODNESS: Discloses Consumers' Info to Meta, Levens Says
FOREST RIVER: Class Cert Hearing in Nelson Suit Set for April 15
FORMULA ONE: Parties Must File Discovery Plan if Mediation Fails
FRANKLIN WIRELESS: Settles Ali Shareholder Suit for $2.4MM
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Court Certifies Class in Gur-Ravantab
GERON CORPORATION: Dabestani Sues Over Exchange Act Violation
GOLDCO DIRECT: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Extended to April 18
GOLDCO DIRECT: Summerton Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid
GOODRX INC: Capitol Heights Pharmacy Sues Over Price-Fixing Scheme
GOOGLE LLC: Taylor Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
GOURMET KOSHER: Cadot Sues to Recover Overtime Wages
GREATER GOODS: Sells Defective Kitchen Scales, Holton Suit Alleges
GRUNT STYLE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hampton Alleges
GYMSHARK USA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hippe Alleges
HASH MAP LABS: Florea Sues Over Fraudulent Scheme
HCA HEALTHCARE: Bid for Conditional Class Cert Extended to April 23
HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
HEARST TELEVISION: Therrien Seeks OK of Renewed Bid for Class Cert
HOLIDAY INN: Lingard Seeks Reconsideration of Feb. 14 Order
HOTEL COLLECTION: Nason Balks at Unwanted Telemarketing Calls
HOTELENGINE INC: Figueroa et al. Seek to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
HP INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Davis Extended to Jan. 28, 2026
ICF TECHNOLOGY: Bid for Class Cert. Oral Argument in Mondello OK'd
ICONTAINERS USA: Bid to Dismiss SX Amended Complaint Tossed
ILLINOIS VALLEY: Class Cert Bid Filing in P3 Suit Due June 12
INVOCA INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Busby's First Claim
J&I CORDON: Monsalve Must Refile Class Cert Exhibits, Court Says
JACKSON GALAXY: Perkins Sues Over Unwanted Telemarketing Messages
JAMBA JUICE: Ballard Sues Over Unlawful Private Info Disclosure
JOG ROAD: Feltzin Sues Over Discriminative Property
JOHN PAUL: Hair Products' Made in USA Label "False," Lauer Alleges
KAISER FOUNDATION: Faibvre and Hamoda Suit Removed to S.D. Calif.
KB CUSTOM: Delgado-Bojorquez et al. Seek Proper Wages
KIA AMERICA: Faces Jasinski Suit Over Vehicles' Oil Ring Defect
KIM KOVOL: Seeks Leave to Supplement Class Cert Factual Materials
KLOVER HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Interest Fees
KOKODAK CORP: Keys Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
KRISTI NOEM: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
LA TAPATIA TORTILLERIA: Face Lopez Labor Suit in Calif. Super.
LEAFFILTER NORTH: Georgopolous Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio
LEGACY PROFESSIONALS: Abraham Sues Over Failure to Secure PII
LEGACY PROFESSIONALS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Nailor Says
LIBERTY MEDIA: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Cuesta Alleges
LIVE NATION: Madrigal Sues Over Deceptive Sale of Tickets
LUMEN TECH: Class Cert Bid Filing in Civelli Suit Due July 15
MARIO'S AIR: Germain's Class Cert Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge
MCCABE & WEISBERG: Faces Fisher Class Suit Over Collection Letter
MDL 3010: Class Cert. Bids in Antitrust Suit Amended to April 14
MDL 3126: Keller Remains as Co-Lead Counsel in Data Breach Suit
MONA LEE: Esquivel Sues Over Unwanted Telemarketing Text Messages
MYMICHIGAN HEALTH: Sued Over Mismanagement of Retirement Plan
NAB-CW LLC: Faces Cordiota Suit Over Serial Breaches of Contract
NAKOMA PRODUCTS: Espinal Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Bids for Class Cert in Shabazz Due July 8
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Manley Suit Removed to S.D. West Virginia
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Bids to Exclude Testimony of Plaintiff Experts Nixed
NEW YORK, NY: Case Management Order Entered in Carambot Suit
OCHSNER CLINIC: Estay and Messore Allege Breach of Fiduciary Duties
OLDE GOOD: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Hernandez Says
OSBORNE CORRECTIONAL: Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed in Boyd Suit
PALEOVALLEY LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hampton Says
PATAGONIA INC: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Sumlin Says
PENSION SPECIALISTS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Maher Says
PENSION SPECIALISTS: Miller Sues Over Unprotected Personal Data
PENZEYS LTD: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Ayala Suit Claims
PLATINUM CONTRACTING: Shaw Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
PLATINUM WEALTH: Cote Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
PRETTY LITTER: Class Certification Hearing in Hill Suit Due Dec. 4
PROCTORU INC: Faces McDowell Over Feb. 2025 California Bar Exam
PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED: Bartee Class Cert Hearing Set for March 28
RALPHS GROCERY: Sheehan Files Motion to Quash Subpoena
RENTOKIL NORTH: Faces Knight Leslie Suit Over Tobacco Surcharge
RICH MALDENADO: Alvarado Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed
ROADWORK AHEAD: Rufino Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA & NYLL
ROBEY INC: Faces Luna Wage-and-Hour Suit in D. Md.
ROCKSTAR GAMES: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Reid Says
RUGSUSA LLC: McCarrell Sues Over Use of Fake Sales to Sell Products
SCHNADER HARRISON: Class Cert Filing in Bennett Extended to May 19
SCOTT SEMPLE: Coons Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed w/o Prejudice
SCOTT SEMPLE: Gridley Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed w/o Prejudice
SCOTT SEMPLE: Harmon Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed w/o Prejudice
SECURITAS SECURITY: Bars Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
SEMTECH CORP: Wronski Sues Over Decline of Securities Price
SERVICE MEASURE: Wiggins Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
SHAKE SHACK: Carpenter Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SHOREFRONT OPERATING: Chow Wins Renewed Bid for Class Cert.
SIRIUS XM: Horoschak Suit Seeks Class Certification
SMART ERP: Discloses Personal Info to Third Parties, Demmie Says
SNOWFLAKE INC: Removes Milito Suit to W.D. Wash.
SOPHIE BUHAI: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Evans Alleges
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Parties Seek to Suspend Class Cert. Deadline
SPLINTEK INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Espinal Alleges
SPS TECHNOLOGIES: Greene Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
STIFEL & NICOLAUS: Faces Kiesling Over Cash Sweep Programs
STIFEL FINANCIAL: Briarwood Investments Sues Over Sweep Programs
STRAIGHT SMILE: Phillips Sues Over Dental Equipment's Deceptive Ads
STRYKER CORP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Graham Due July 17, 2026
SUNFLOWER MEDICAL: Failed to Secure Personal Info, Johnson Says
SUNFLOWER MEDICAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Conrad Says
TENNESSEE GAS: Parties Seek to Amend Scheduling Order
TFI INTERNATIONAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 13
TFI INTERNATIONAL: Brownbridge Alleges Securities Law Violations
TIMBUK2 DESIGNS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Henry Alleges
TN MARKETING: Croteau et al. Sue Over Unlawful Disclosure to Meta
TOMOCREDIT INC: Faces Davis Class Suit Over Electronic Payments
TORY BURCH: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts, Museve Alleges
TRAX RETAIL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Perez Extended to August 3
TYLER TECHNOLOGIES: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit
UAB QBIT FINANCIAL: Mashkevich Files Suit in N.D. California
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Huber Sues Over Uber One's Hidden Delivery Fees
UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Jones Seek to Seal Portions of Class Cert Reply
UNITED PARCEL: Overcharges for Delivery Services, Lomeli Suit Says
UNITED PARCEL: Removes Torres Jr. Suit to C.D. Calif.
UNITED SEATING: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Goguen Alleges
UNITED STATES: Court Narrows Claims in BLM Suit
UNITED STATES: Faces Suit Over Termination of Housing Initiatives
UNITED STATES: Kingdom Sues Over E.O. 14168 Impact to Gender Care
UPMC BENEFIT: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Feb. 17, 2026
USAA: Filing for Class Certification Bid in Burton Due Oct. 24
VALLEY PRESBYTERIAN: Charles Sues Over Labor Law Violations
VETERANS GUARDIAN: Bid to Compel Discovery in Ford Partly OK'd
VITOL INC: Class Settlement in Antitrust Suit Gets Final Nod
VNGR BEVERAGE: Agrees to Settle Poppi Class Suit for $8.9-Mil.
WESTLIFE DISTRIBUTION: Espinal Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Faces Employee Labor Suit in California Court
WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Class Suit
WOLVERINE WORLD: Violates FTSA's Caller ID Rules, Demaio Alleges
WOODSIDE AUTO PARTS: Rojo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
WORKFORCE7 INC: Ballast Seeks OK of Briefing Schedule
YES COMMUNITIES: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Kay Suit Alleges
ZULLAS LC: Dorsey Files Suit in D. Utah
[^] CLASS ACTION MONEY & ETHICS CONFERENCE 2025 -- Agenda
*********
24HRDOC LLC: Faces Hendrick Class Action Suit in S.D. Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 24HRDOC LLC. The suit
is captioned as Hedrick v. 24HRDOC LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00712
(S.D. Tex., Filed Feb. 18, 2025).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Keith P. Ellison.[BN]
The Plaintiff Kelly Hedrick Individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated is represented by:
Leigh S Montgomery, Esq.
ELLZEY ASSOCIATES PLLC
4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (888) 350-3931
E-mail: leigh@ellzeylaw.com
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Similac Contains Heavy Metals, Huggins Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
TIFFANY HUGGINS and LAUREN NUNEZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES,
Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02460 (N.D. Ill., March 7, 2025) is a
class action against the Defendant for violations of Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, the Washington
Consumer Protection Act, Minnesota Unlawful Trade Practices Act,
Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Minnesota False
Statement in Advertising Act, Minnesota Prevention of Consumer
Fraud Act, California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California
False Advertising Law, Unfair Competition Law, Pennsylvania Unfair
Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, New York's Deceptive
Acts and Practices, and New York's False Advertising Law, breach of
implied warranty of merchantability, fraudulent misrepresentation
by omission, fraud by omission, and unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its Similac
powdered infant formulas. The Defendant is aware of the presence of
heavy metals such as arsenic, cadmium, lead, or mercury on the
infant formulas, but failed to disclose it on its packaging. As a
result of the Defendant's misrepresentations and omissions, the
Plaintiffs and similarly situated consumers purchased the infant
formulas at a premium price and suffered losses, says the suit.
Abbott Laboratories is a producer of infant formulas, with a
principal place of business in Abbott Park, Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
Kara A. Elgersma, Esq.
WEXLER BOLEY & ELGERSMA LLP
311 S. Wacker, Suite 5450
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 346-2222
Facsimile: (312) 346-0022
Email: kaw@wbe-llp.com
kae@wbe-llp.com
- and -
Rebecca A. Peterson, Esq.
GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC
1650 West 82nd Street, Suite 880
Bloomington, MN 55431
Telephone: (612) 778-9595
Facsimile: (888) 421-4173
Email: rpeterson@4-Justice.com
- and -
Lori Feldman, Esq.
Janine Pollack, Esq.
GEORGE FELDMAN MCDONALD, PLLC
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (561) 232-6002
Facsimile: (888) 421-4173
Email: lfeldman@4-Justice.com
jpollack@4-Justice.com
- and -
Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
Catherine Sung-Yun K. Smith, Esq.
GUSTAFSON GLUEK, PLLC
Canadian Pacific Plaza
120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 333-8844
Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
Email: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
csmith@gustafsongluek.com
- and -
Simon B. Paris, Esq.
Patrick Howard, Esq.
SALTZ MONGELUZZI & BENDESKY, PC
1650 Market Street, 52nd Floor
One Liberty Place
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 496-8282
Facsimile: (215) 754-4443
Email: sparis@smbb.com
phoward@smbb.com
- and -
Katrina Carroll, Esq.
Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
CARROLL SHAMBERG LLC
111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (872) 215-6205
Email: katrina@csclassactions.com
kyle@csclassactions.com
- and -
Jason Gustafson, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
80 South 8th Street, Suite 900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (763) 515-6110
Email: jason@throndsetlaw.com
ABLETO INC: Sessa Bid for Leave to File Reply Partly OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sessa v. AbleTo, Inc.,
Case No. 8:23-cv-02219 (M.D. Fla., Filed Sep. 29, 2023), the Hon.
Judge Thomas P. Barber entered an order granting in part and
denying in part the Plaintiff's motion pursuant to Rule 3.01(d) for
leave to file a reply to the Defendant's opposition to the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
The Plaintiff's motion is granted to the extent that, no later than
March 24, 2025, the Plaintiff may file a reply to Defendant's
response
The Plaintiff's reply, however, may not exceed more than seven
pages, inclusive of all parts. The Plaintiff's motion is denied in
all other respects.
The nature of suit states Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA).[CC]
ACCOR MANAGEMENT: Discloses Consumers' Info to Meta, Gianne Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
NATALIE GIANNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ACCOR MANAGEMENT US INC., f/k/a FAIRMONT HOTELS &
RESORTS (U.S.) INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-02425 (C.D. Cal., March 19,
2025) alleges that the Defendant has installed 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.
Specifically, the Defendant violated the VPPA by knowingly
disclosing the personally identifiable information (PII) of
Plaintiff and the class members to Meta without their consent.
Plaintiff Gianne is a resident and citizen of Los Angeles,
California. In 2005, she created a Facebook account. Several times,
including in March 2025, she visited Defendant's Website,
fairmont.com, on the same browser that she used to access Facebook.
Plaintiff Gianne was in California when she visited the Website.
Plaintiff Gianne browsed and booked a Fairmont hotel. Each of these
communications was intercepted in transit by the Third Parties --
as enabled by Defendant -- including communications that contained
Plaintiff Gianne's confidential "guest records," as defined by Cal.
Civil Code section 53.5. Neither Defendant nor the Third Parties
procured Plaintiff Gianne's prior consent to this interception,
asserts the suit.
Accor does business across the nation and operates numerous hotels
throughout California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
Stefan Bogdanovich, 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
sbogdanovich@bursor.com
ADAMS COMMUNITY: Filing for Class Cert Bid in McGuire Due August 25
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as McGuire v. Adams Community
Care Center, LLC, Case No. 5:24-cv-00127 (S.D. Miss., Filed Dec.
26, 2024), the Hon. Judge Keith Starrett entered an order as
follows:
-- The parties will conduct class certification-related discovery
which shall end July 11, 2025.
-- The deadline for filing any motion to conditionally certify
collective action is Aug. 25, 2025, with the response and
reply due in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and the Local Uniform Civil Rules.
-- If a motion is not filed on or before said date, the Court
will reconvene the case management conference.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
Adams Community is a healthcare organization in Natchez,
Mississippi with a specialty of Skilled Nursing Facility.[CC]
AEGIS FIRE: Faces Hernandez Labor Class Suit in Calif Super.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AEGIS FIRE SYSTEMS
TECHNOLOGY, INC. The case is captioned as HERNANDEZ, an individual
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AEGIS FIRE
SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al., Case
No. 25CV111851 (Cal., Super., Alameda Cty., Feb. 18, 2025).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Somnath Raj.
The suit alleges violation of employment-related laws.
Aegis Fire Systems Technology, Inc. installs, designs, and services
fire suppression systems.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
Bibiyan Law Group, P.C.
1460 Westwood Blvd, Ste 300
Los Angeles, CA 90024-4937
Telephone: (310) 438-5555
Facsimile: (310) 300-1705
E-mail: david@tomorrowlaw.com
ALAMEDA, CA: Hearing on Joint Discovery Dispute Set for March 26
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARMIDA RUELAS, et al., v.
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al., Case No. 4:19-cv-07637-JST (N.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an order setting a hearing on the
parties' joint discovery dispute letter for March 26, 2025, at 9:30
a.m.
Alameda County is a county located in the U.S. state of
California.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 14, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lOZZ75 at no extra
charge.[CC]
ALASKA: Court Dismisses Out-of-Custody Plaintiffs
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEREMIAH M., et al., v.
KIM KOVOL, Director, Alaska Department of Family and Community
Services, in her official capacity, et al., Case No.
3:22-cv-00129-SLG (D. Alaska), the Hon. Judge Sharon Gleason
entered an order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss
Out-of-Custody Plaintiffs:
-- Jeremiah M., Hannah M., Hunter M., David V., George V.,
Lawrence V., Karen V., Damien V., and Gayle T. are dismissed
as Named Plaintiffs from the case.
Further, the Court denies the Plaintiffs' motion to substitute next
friend at Docket 110 and grants the Defendants' motion to
disqualify next friend Melissa Skarbek. The Plaintiffs may seek
substitution of next friends for Mary B., Connor B., and Lana H.
within 30 days of the date of this order.
Because Jeremiah M., Hannah M., Hunter M., David V., George V.,
Karen V., Damien V., Lawrence V., and Gayle T. were no longer in
OCS custody at the time the Plaintiffs moved for class
certification in November 2024, their claims were then moot. The
Court therefore grants Defendants' Motions to Dismiss
Out-of-Custody Named Plaintiffs and to Dismiss Gayle T.
As such, the Court finds that Ms. Skarbek is inappropriate as a
next friend based on, at least, the appearance of impropriety.
In this putative class action, Plaintiffs—fourteen children who
were in the custody of Alaska's Office of Children's Services
("OCS") at the time this suit was filed—seek wide-ranging reform
of Alaska's foster care system, alleging that the system harms the
children it is designed to protect and violates the Plaintiffs'
federal rights.
The Plaintiffs bring claims on behalf of themselves and on behalf
of a proposed class consisting of:
"all children for whom OCS has or will have legal
responsibility and who are or will be in the legal and
physical custody of OCS."
In addition, the Plaintiffs bring claims on behalf of three
proposed subclasses:
(1) Alaska Native children who are or will be entitled to
federal [Indian Child Welfare Act] ICWA protection (the
"Alaska Native Subclass");
(2) Children who currently reside or will reside in a kinship
foster home—the home of a family member—who meet the
criteria to receive foster care maintenance payments under
42 U.S.C. section 672 (the "Kinship Subclass"); and
(3) Children who are or will be in foster care and experience
physical, cognitive, or psychiatric disabilities (the "ADA
Subclass").
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 8, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EerM9C at no extra
charge.[CC]
ALDERFER FAMILY: Spindel Suit Seeks to Certify Settlement Class
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEFFERY SPINDEL, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. ALDERFER FAMILY
FARM LLC, et al., Case No. 7:23-cv-10710-PMH (S.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
(1) preliminarily certifying the Settlement Class, appointing
the Plaintiff Jeffrey Spindel as Class Representative, and
appointing Mr. Spindel's counsel as Class Counsel;
(2) preliminarily approving the proposed Settlement Agreement;
(3) approving the Class Notice and the Notice Plan, and
directing that Class Notice be disseminated pursuant to the
Notice Plan; and
(4) setting a fairness hearing and other necessary dates in
connection with Final Approval of the Settlement.
The Plaintiff alleges that Alderfer advertised certain shell egg
Products with representations that the eggs were sourced from "Free
Roaming" hens.
Furthermore, the Plaintiff alleges that these representations were
false and/or misleading because some Alderfer hens have access to
only 1.2-to-1.6 square feet of indoor space per bird and no or
minimal outdoor access, thus violating the New York General
Business Laws Sections 349 and 350.
The Plaintiff, a resident of New York, initially sought to
represent a class of:
"all consumers who purchased the Products within the State
of New York during the Class Period."
The Settlement Agreement provides for multiple benefits for the
Class, including a $287,500.00 Common Fund for payments of
Authorized Claims, robust Class Notice, and extensive changes to
Alderfer's marketing representations.
Alderfer is a fifth-generation family farm based in Southeastern
Pennsylvania, specializing in producing high-quality eggs.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 14, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SUOuHX at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kim E. Richman, Esq.
RICHMAN LAW & POLICY
1 Bridge St., Suite 83
Irvington, NY 10533
Telephone: (914) 693-2018
E-mail: krichman@richmanlawpolicy.com
ALDI INC: Faces Graham Class Suit Over Carlini Oil False Ads
------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Karley Graham filed a
class action lawsuit against Aldi Inc.
Why: Graham claims Aldi falsely advertises its vegetable oil as
containing cucumber, broccoli and carrot oil when in fact it is
100% soybean oil.
Where: The Aldi vegetable oil class action lawsuit was filed in
Maryland federal court.
A new class action lawsuit accuses Aldi of falsely advertising its
Carlini Pure Vegetable Oil as containing cucumber, broccoli and
carrot oil when it is actually 100% soybean oil.
Plaintiff Karley Graham claims Aldi misleads consumers into
believing the product primarily contains a combination of the three
oils by displaying images of cucumbers, broccoli and carrots on the
front of the label.
"However, the Product is 100% soybean oil and does not contain any
cucumber, broccoli, and/or carrot oil," the Aldi class action
says.
Graham claims Aldi conceals the fact that the product contains 100%
soybean oil by listing it in small print on the side of the label.
Graham wants to represent a nationwide class and a Maryland class
of consumers who purchased Carlini Pure Vegetable Oil in the past
three years.
Aldi misleads consumers into thinking product contains cucumber,
broccoli, carrot oil, class action claims.
Graham alleges Aldi is deceiving consumers by stating and implying
on the front of the product packaging that the product primarily
contains a combination of cucumber, broccoli and carrot oil.
Furthermore, Graham argues Aldi creates an unfair advantage over
competitors who do not use images on their packaging or prominently
and explicitly state what the oil is made from.
Graham claims she purchased Carlini Pure Vegetable Oil for $3.50
from an Aldi store in Maryland in the summer of 2023, believing it
was oil extracted from cucumbers, carrots and broccoli as stated
and implied on the front label.
Graham argues Aldi is guilty of breach of implied warranty and that
it violates the Maryland Consumer Protection Act. She demands a
jury trial and requests declaratory and injunctive relief and an
award of compensatory damages for herself and all class members.
In May 2023, ConAgra Foods Inc. agreed to a $3 million class action
settlement resolving claims it falsely advertised certain Wesson
oil products as "natural."
Graham is represented by Amanda Fox of Fox McKenna PLLC and Anthony
Russo and James C. Kelly of The Russo Firm.
The Aldi vegetable oil class action lawsuit is Graham, et al. v.
Aldi Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-02818-RDB in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland. [GN]
AMAZON.COM INC: Tole's Bid for Attys' Partly OK'd
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRANDON TOLE, v.
AMAZON.COM, INC., et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-00594-MJP (W.D. Wash.),
the Hon. Judge Marsha Pechman entered an order granting in part the
Plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and costs.
The Plaintiff's motion presents an unusual request given the
posture of this case. The Parties settled this matter, and without
disclosing any terms of the agreement, the Plaintiff has asked for
a substantial attorneys' fee award.
The Court finds that the rates requested are unreasonable and that
the Plaintiff's counsel failed to supported the requested rates
with sufficient evidence. Additionally, the Court finds substantial
flaws in the billing records and excessive hours spent litigating
this relatively straightforward employment discrimination matter.
The Court finds that an award of $239,022 in fees and $15,442.11 is
an appropriate award based on the record presented and the
Court’s intimate familiarity with this case. The Court awards the
Plaintiff $239,022 in attorneys' fees and $15,442.11 in costs.
The clerk is ordered to provide copies of this order to all
counsel.
The Plaintiff Brandon Tole and two other plaintiffs pursued
classwide claims that Defendants Amazon.com, Inc. and related
entities mistreated them on account of their military service in
violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment
Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA).
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 12, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jWydar at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMAZON.COM SERVICES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Perry Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
NATASHA PERRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. AMAZON.COM SERVICES LLC, Defendant, Case No.
3436317 (Ohio Comm. Pleas, Cuhayoga Cty., March 18, 2025) is an
action against the Defendant's failure to pay the Plaintiff and the
class overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 hours
per week.
Plaintiff Perry was employed by the Defendant as a staff.
Amazon.com Services LLC provides e-commerce services. The Company
retails books, diamond jewelry, electronics, appliances, apparels,
and accessories. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
7034 Braucher Street, N.W., Suite B
North Canton, OH 44720
Telephone: (330) 470-4428
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
- and -
Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
NILGES DRAHER LLC
1360 E. 9th St., Ste. 808
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (216) 230-2955
Facsimile: (330) 754-1430
Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com
- and -
Don J. Foty, Esq.
5625 Cohn Meadow Lane
Houston, TX 77007
Telephone: (832) 865-9900
Email: dfoty@fotylawgroup.com
AMERICAN ECONOMY: Class Cert. Bids in Stanley Due April 23, 2026
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stanley, et al., v.
American Economy Insurance Company, Case No. 1:24-cv-10622 (D.
Mass., Filed March 13, 2024), the Hon. Judge Denise J. Casper
entered an order as follows:
-- Initial disclosures due by: March 24, 2025
-- Fact discovery to be completed by: Nov. 17, 2025
-- Plaintiff's expert disclosures due by: Dec. 17, 2025
-- Defendant's expert disclosures due by: Jan. 19, 2026
-- Expert discovery to be completed by: March 23, 2026
-- Motions for Class Certification to April 23, 2026
be filed by:
-- Response to Motions for Class June 22, 2025
Certification to be filed by:
-- Status Conference set for: Dec. 1, 2025
The nature of suit states contract insurance dispute.
American Economy operates as an insurance company.[CC]
AMGEN INC: Faces Antitrust Suit over Tumor Necrosis Treatment
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amgen Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 14, 2025, that on August 6, 2024, CareFirst
of Maryland, Inc., Group Hospitalization and Medical Services,
Inc., and CareFirst BlueChoice, Inc., filed a class action
antitrust lawsuit against Amgen Inc., Amgen Manufacturing, Limited
(corrected to Amgen Manufacturing Limited LLC in CareFirst's
amended complaint on October 11, 2024), and Immunex Corporation in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia,
alleging federal and state antitrust claims and state consumer
protection claims.
The plaintiffs allege that, in 2004, Amgen entered into an
anticompetitive agreement with certain F. Hoffman/La Roche AG
entities and other parties that provided Amgen with rights to
Roche's patents in a manner that enabled Amgen to allegedly
unlawfully extend the life of patents applicable to the tumor
necrosis factor blocker drug, etanercept (ENBREL) and, thereby,
delay biosimilar entry.
On November 4, 2024, Amgen filed a motion to dismiss, and
plaintiffs thereafter filed an amended complaint on November 25,
2024. On January 8, 2025, Amgen filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.
Amgen Inc. is a global biotechnology company into human
therapeutics as its only business segment.
AMGEN INC: Faces Shareholder Suit over Tax Liability Disclosures
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amgen Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 14, 2025, that it is facing a purported
class action filed by Roofers Local No. 149 Pension Fund against
Amgen and its former board members Robert Bradway and Peter
Griffith in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York on March 13, 2023. The action was brought on behalf of an
alleged class of Amgen shareholders who owned stock between July
29, 2020 and April 27, 2022.
Plaintiffs allege that the defendants made a series of materially
false and misleading statements and omissions during the alleged
class period regarding the failure to timely disclose the potential
tax liability claimed by the IRS. Plaintiffs further allege that
they and other purported class members suffered losses and damages
resulting from declines in the market value of Amgen's common stock
after the potential tax liability claimed by the IRS was
disclosed.
On August 31, 2023, plaintiff filed an amended complaint and Amgen
filed a motion to dismiss on November 6, 2023, which the Southern
District Court of New York denied on September 30, 2024. On
November 20, 2024, Amgen filed an answer to the amended complaint.
A Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order was entered on January
16, 2025. Class certification briefing will be completed by
December 23, 2025 and the last day to file summary judgment motions
is August 12, 2025 but no briefing schedule has been set.
Amgen Inc. is a global biotechnology company into human
therapeutics as its only business segment.
AMGEN INC: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due August 22
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JANE DOE and JOHN ROE, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMGEN
INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 2:23-cv-07448-MCS-SSC (C.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Mark Scarsi entered a scheduling order as
follows:
Non-Expert Discovery Cut-Off: July 11, 2025
Expert Disclosure (Initial): July 18, 2025
Expert Disclosure (Rebuttal): Aug. 1. 2025
Expert Discovery Cut-Off: Aug. 8, 2025
Deadline to File Motions for Class Aug. 22, 2025
Certification and Summary Judgment:
Deadline to File Oppositions to the Class Sept. 12, 2025
Certification and Summary Judgment Motions:
Deadline to File Replies in Support of Sept. 26, 2025
the Class Certifications and Summary
Judgment Motions
Hearing on Class Certification and Oct. 20, 2025,
Summary Judgment Motions: at 9:00 a.m.
Amgen discovers, develops, manufactures, and delivers human
therapeutics.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GJ3U4o at no extra
charge.[CC]
AMGEN INC: Settles Antitrust Suit over Kidney Disease Drug
----------------------------------------------------------
Amgen Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 14, 2025, that on November 12, 2024, Amgen
settled with a putative class of direct purchasers of cinacalcet
hydrochloride (Sensipar), and the remaining claims were dismissed
on November 29, 2024. It was on January 12, 2024, the Amgen reached
an agreement in principle to settle with the putative class of
indirect purchasers of the chronic kidney disease drug.
On October 17, 2023, Amgen submitted its initial brief in its
appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit with
regards to "In re: Sensipar (Cinacalcet Hydrochloride Tablets)
Antitrust Litigation," C.A. No. 19-md-02895-LPS. On February 17,
2024, Amgen and the indirect purchasers filed a stipulation in the
Delaware District Court to dismiss the indirect purchasers' claims.
On February 22, 2024, Amgen and the indirect purchasers filed a
stipulation in the Third Circuit Court dismissing the portion of
the Third Circuit Court's appeal relating to the claims of the
indirect purchasers. Amgen and the direct purchasers filed a
stipulation on April 12, 2024 in the Delaware District Court,
dismissing with prejudice the direct purchasers’ claims that were
at issue in the appeal and seeking entry of final judgment in
Amgen’s favor. On April 15, 2024, the Delaware District Court
entered an order pursuant to the stipulation and closed the case.
On May 14, 2024, the putative class of direct purchasers of
Sensipar appealed the claims that were dismissed with prejudice by
the Delaware District Court.
Cinacalcet hydrochloride is a calcium-sensing receptor agonist
indicated for secondary hyperparathyroidism in adult patients with
chronic kidney disease on dialysis.
Amgen Inc. is a global biotechnology pioneer that discovers,
develops, manufactures and delivers innovative human therapeutics
as its only business segment. Amgen has sold cinacalcet
hydrochloride under the brand name Sensipar in the United States
since 2004.
AMS GALAXY: Masemore Sues Over Defective Automatic Milking System
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN MASEMORE and ALBERT MENDES, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AMS GALAXY, USA, LLC,
HOKOFARM GROUP B.V., A/S S.A. CHRISTENSEN & CO., Defendants, Case
No. 250301083 (Pa. Comm. Pl., Philadelphia Cty., March 7, 2025) is
a class action against the Defendants for breach of contract,
breach of implied warranty of merchantability, breach of implied
warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, breach of express
warranty, strict products liability, negligence, fraudulent
inducement, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment or
omission, and violation of the California Unfair Competition Law.
The case arises from the Defendants' false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of the Astrea
20.20, an automatic milking system (AMS). The Defendants expressly
warrantied that the AMS would, among other things, perform three
essential functions: (1) clean, treat with a sanitizing solution,
fore-strip and dry each lactating teat before milking; (2)
completely milk each lactating quarter in a manner that prevents
contamination of milk and milking equipment; and (3) post-spray
teat disinfectant on each teat after milking (the "Essential
Functions"). In reality, the AMS was defective and incapable of
successfully performing its Essential Functions. Consequently, the
Plaintiffs and others dairy farmers who purchased the AMS each
suffered harm in the form of impaired cow health, milk quality, and
milk production and, more specifically, elevated bacteria levels
and mastitis rates, causing elevated somatic cell counts decreased
milk production, and a host of other harms to both cows and milk
quality due to the uniform concealments, defects and
misrepresentations, says the suit.
AMS Galaxy, USA, LLC is a milk production equipment manufacturer,
with its principal place of business in Kutztown, Pennsylvania.
Hokofarm Group B.V. is a milk production equipment manufacturer,
with its principal place of business in the Netherlands.
A/S S.A. Christensen & Co. is a milk production equipment
manufacturer based in Denmark. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Joe H. Tucker, Jr., Esq.
TUCKER LAW GROUP
Ten Penn Center
1801 Market Street, Suite 2500
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-0609
Email: jtucker@tlgattorneys.com
- and -
Patrick J. Stueve, Esq.
K. Ross Merrill, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Rd., Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64113
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
Email: stueve@stuevesiegel.com
merrill@stuevesiegel.com
- and -
Daniel C. Perrone, Esq.
PERRONE LAW LLC
3600 NJ-66, Suite 150
Neptune, NJ 07753
Telephone: (833) 287-6748
Email: dcp@theperronefirm.com
- and -
Arend R. Tensen, Esq.
CULLENBERG & TENSEN, PLLC
199 Heater Road, Suite 2
Lebanon, NH 03766
Telephone: (603) 448-7100
Email: tensen@nhvt-injurylaw.com
ANI PHARMA: 2nd Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ani Pharmaceuticals, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 28, 2025, that on February 21,
2023, the company and the defendants' motions to dismiss all
actions were granted with prejudice. Plaintiffs have filed notices
of appeal in the Second Circuit. On June 12, 2023,
plaintiffs-appellants filed their brief in the Second Circuit and
defendants-appellees filed their brief on July 17, 2023. On May 13,
2024, the Second Circuit affirmed the district court's judgment,
dismissing plaintiffs' claims with prejudice.
On December 3, 2020, class action complaints were filed against the
company on behalf of putative classes of direct and indirect
purchasers of the drug "Bystolic." On December 23, 2020, six
individual purchasers of Bystolic, CVS, Rite Aid, Walgreen, Kroger,
Albertsons, and H-E-B, filed complaints against the Company.
On March 15, 2021, the plaintiffs in these actions filed amended
complaints. All amended complaints were substantively identical.
The plaintiffs in these actions alleged that, beginning in 2012,
Forest Laboratories, the manufacturer of Bystolic, entered into
anticompetitive agreements when settling patent litigation related
to Bystolic with seven potential manufacturers of a generic version
of Bystolic: Hetero, Torrent, Alkem/Indchemie, Glenmark, Amerigen,
Watson, and various of their corporate parents, successors,
subsidiaries, and affiliates. ANI itself was not a party to patent
litigation with Forest concerning Bystolic and did not settle
patent litigation with Forest. The plaintiffs named the Company as
a defendant based on the company's January 8, 2020 Asset Purchase
Agreement with Amerigen. Under the terms of the 2020 Asset Purchase
Agreement, Amerigen agreed to indemnify ANI for certain liabilities
relating to Bystolic, including liabilities that arose prior to
closing of the asset purchase. The complaints alleged that the 2013
patent litigation settlement agreement between Forest and Amerigen
violated federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer
protection laws by delaying the market entry of generic versions of
Bystolic. Plaintiffs alleged they paid higher prices as a result of
delayed generic competition. Plaintiffs sought damages, trebled or
otherwise multiplied under applicable law, injunctive relief,
litigation costs and attorneys’ fees. The complaints did not
specify the amount of damages sought from the Company or other
defendants and the company.
The cases were consolidated in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York as "In re Bystolic Antitrust
Litigation," Case No. 20-cv-005735 (LJL). On April 23, 2021, the
company and other defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended
complaints. On January 24, 2022, the court dismissed all claims
brought by the plaintiffs without prejudice. The court granted the
plaintiffs until February 22, 2022 to file amended complaints,
which were filed in federal court in the Southern District of New
York, on that date. The newly amended complaints contained
substantially similar claims. On April 19, 2022, the company and
other defendants filed motions to dismiss the newly amended
complaints. On May 23, 2022, the plaintiffs filed oppositions to
the motions to dismiss and, on June 24, 2022, the company and other
defendants filed replies to those oppositions.
ANI Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries is a
diversified bio-pharmaceutical company serving patients in need by
developing, manufacturing, and marketing high quality branded and
generic prescription pharmaceuticals, including for diseases with
high unmet medical need. It is focused on delivering growth by
scaling up our Rare Disease business through the successful launch
of our lead asset, "Cortrophin Gel," strengthening its generics
business with enhanced development capability, innovation in
established brands and leveraging our manufacturing capabilities.
ARDAGH GLASS: Castaneda Loses Bid to Continue Class Cert Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Castaneda v. Ardagh Glass
Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-03547 (N.D. Cal., Filed July 17, 2023), the
Hon. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. entered an order denying
stipulation and proposed order to continue the Plaintiff's class
certification deadline.
The Court further sets a case management conference on March 18,
2025, at 2:00 p.m. The hearing will be held by Public Zoom Webinar.
All counsel, members of the public, and media may access the
webinar information at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/hsg.
All attorneys and pro se litigants appearing for the case
management conference are required to join at least 15 minutes
before the hearing to check in with the courtroom deputy and test
internet, video, and audio capabilities.
The class certification filing deadline will be held in abeyance
until after the case management conference.
The nature of suit states Civil Rights involving collecting of
unpaid wages.
Ardagh is a global supplier of sustainable, infinitely recyclable,
metal and glass packaging for brand owners around the world.[CC]
ARDAGH GLASS: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Extended to June 13
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Castaneda v. Ardagh Glass
Inc. , Case No. 4:23-cv-03547-HSG (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the
Court to enter an order that:
1. The briefing schedule for the Plaintiff's motion for class
certification be extended by three (3) months, as follows:
The Plaintiff's motion for class certification deadline is
extended from March 13, 2025 to June 13, 2025;
The Defendant's opposition deadline is extended from April
17, 2025 to July 17, 2025;
The Plaintiff's reply deadline is extended from May 15, 2025
to Aug. 15, 2025; and
The hearing on Plaintiff's motion for class certification is
continued from June 5, 2025 to Sept. 4, 2025, or another
date chosen by the Court.
2. The statute of limitations as to the Plaintiff's First Cause
of Action in the FAC for failure to pay overtime wages under
the FLSA is tolled from March 5, 2025 until June 5, 2025.
On Oct. 11, 2024, the Parties filed a Joint Status Report and Joint
Stipulation, which sought to extend the Parties’ tolling
agreement and continue the Defendant's responsive pleading deadline
to the FAC to Feb. 24, 2025, as the Parties moved
mediation to Jan. 24, 2025, pursuant to the Defendant's request.
On Jan. 24, 2025, the Parties attended mediation with experienced
wage and hour mediator Glenn Lerman. The Parties did not reach a
settlement at mediation but have agreed to continue engaging in
good faith settlement discussions.
one June 9, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint in
the Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda,
entitled Alex Castaneda v. Ardagh Glass Inc., Case No. CV035655,
asserting claims under the California Labor Code.
On July 17, 2023, the Defendant removed the Class Action to N.D.
Cal.
On Aug. 28, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a Private Attorneys General
Act (PAGA) Action in the Superior Court of California for the
County of Alameda, entitled Alex Castaneda v. Ardagh Glass Inc.,
Case No. 23CV041542 (the PAGA Action).
Ardagh Glass manufactures custom glass containers for a variety of
food applications.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 13, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QHkW2U at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq.
Melissa M. Kurata, Esq.
Brielle D. Edborg, Esq.
LEBE LAW, APLC
777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90021
Telephone: (213) 444-1973
E-mail: Jon@lebelaw.com
Melissa@lebelaw.com
Brielle@lebelaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Sabrina L. Shadi, Esq.
Nicholas D. Poper, Esq.
Matthew J. Goodman, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 2700
Los Angeles, CA 90067-4301
Telephone: (310) 820-8800
Facsimile: (310) 820-8859
E-mail: sshadi@bakerlaw.com
npoper@bakerlaw.com
mgoodman@bakerlaw.com
ASSOCIATION OF TENNIS: Faces Class Suit Over Antitrust Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Erik Uebelacker, writing for Courthouse News Services, reports that
a group of athletes in the Professional Tennis Players Association,
an organization founded by tennis stars Novak Djokovic and Vasek
Pospisil, sued the sport's biggest governing bodies on Tuesday,
March 18, for operating as a "cartel" to suppress competition.
In a 163-page lawsuit filed in federal court in the Southern
District of New York, the players accuse the Association of Tennis
Professionals Tour, the Women's Tennis Association Tour, the
International Tennis Federation and the International Tennis
Integrity Agency of violating antitrust laws with contracts that
kill competition.
The renowned Grand Slam tournaments -- Wimbledon, the Australian
Open, the French Open and the U.S. Open -- are co-conspirators, the
players claim, that colluded with major governing bodies "in order
to enrich themselves at the players' expense, to the detriment of
fans and the game."
"Professional tennis players are stuck in a rigged game," the
players argue. "Not on the court, where fierce competition between
players delights millions of fans worldwide, but off of it, where
players are forced to endure grueling schedules, capped earnings,
abusive and invasive investigations and discipline, and have
limited control over their own careers and brands."
The domination of these governing bodies in tennis has led to the
"monopolization" of men and women's tennis, the group asserts,
denying players' rights to fair competition.
"This is because a cartel of tour organizers and tournament
operators have conspired to avoid competition amongst themselves
and to shut out outside tournaments, affording them complete
control over the players' pay and working conditions," the players
write. "These horizontal and vertical agreements are textbook
violations of state and federal law."
As a result, the group says that tennis' top organizations are
allowed to exercise "callous" power over their players. Athletes
can be fined for playing in alternative tournaments, and suspended
for withdrawing from events run by the defendants, the players
note.
"Defendants will penalize players even when an absence results from
an injury, the birth of a child, or the death of a loved one," the
group continues. "And the grueling 45-week-per-year schedule that
defendants and their co-conspirators impose -- comprising dozens of
tournaments spread across six continents -- all but ensures that
players lack any practical ability to play elsewhere."
The Professional Tennis Players Association spent the past several
years pushing for change by negotiating with the defendants
directly, according to the players. The lawsuit represents an
escalation in those efforts after the group says it has been
"repeatedly strung along and then rebuffed" by the governing
bodies.
In addition to New York, the group also vowed to file lawsuits in
the European Union and the United Kingdom.
"Tennis is broken," the Professional Tennis Players Association's
executive director Ahmad Nassar said in a statement announcing the
lawsuit. "Behind the glamorous veneer that the defendants promote,
players are trapped in an unfair system that exploits their talent,
suppresses their earnings, and jeopardizes their health and
safety."
Nassar said that the legal action came after the governing bodies
had left them with no other choice.
The Association of Tennis Professionals Tour said in a statement
that it "believe[s] the case to be entirely without merit, and will
vigorously defend our position."
The Women's Tennis Association Tour called the lawsuit "regrettable
and misguided," and similarly agreed to defend itself in the
impending litigation.
"The WTA is fully committed to continuing to develop and evolve the
structure and operations of professional women's tennis, listening
closely as always to the views of our players," the group said in a
statement. "Contesting this baseless legal case will divert time,
attention and resources from our core mission to the detriment of
our players and the sport as a whole."
The Professional Tennis Players Association is not a players'
union; professional tennis players currently lack such a body,
which is available to professional athletes in other major sports.
Instead, the association, which was founded in 2019, represents
players' interests independently from the major governing bodies.
Tennis players are independent contractors, much like boxers and
mixed martial artists -- the latter of which won a $375 million
settlement from the Ultimate Fighting Championship earlier this
year after bringing their own antitrust lawsuit against the fight
league. [GN]
ATKOKE INC: Coles Alleges Price Fixing of PVC Pipes
---------------------------------------------------
KING P. COLES, II, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ATKORE, INC., WILLIAM E. WALTZ,
DAVID P. JOHNSON, and JOHN M. DEITZER, Defendants, Case No.
1:25-cv-02686 (N.D. Ill., March 14, 2025), seeks to pursue remedies
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.
The Plaintiff brings this federal securities class action on behalf
of all purchasers of Atkore common stock from August 2, 2022
through February 3, 2025, inclusive. Prior to and during the said
period, Atkore was allegedly one of the primary participants in and
beneficiary of a multi-year illegal price fixing scheme in the PVC
Pipe market. The absence of foreign competition allowed Atkore and
other US-based PVC pipe manufacturers to engage in a price-fixing
scheme, in which they exchanged competitively sensitive data in a
concerted effort to artificially inflate the price of their PVC
pipes, says the suit.
Based in Illinois, Atkore, Inc. manufactures electrical products
and tubes that are used in a variety of construction applications.
Its common stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the
ticker symbol "ATKR." [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lisa B. Weinstein, Esq.
GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A.
30 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2350
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 610-5350
Facsimile: (312) 214-0001
E-mail: lweinstein@gelaw.com
- and -
Caitlin M. Moyna, Esq.
Karin E. Fisch, Esq.
Vincent J. Pontrello, Esq.
485 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 722-8500
Facsimile: (610) 722-8501
E-mail: cmoyna@gelaw.com
kfisch@gelaw.com
vpontrello@gelaw.com
ATP TOUR: Pospisil Sues Over Pro Tennis Monopoly
------------------------------------------------
VASEK POSPISIL; NICHOLAS KYRGIOS; ANASTASIA RODIONOVA; NICOLE
MELICHAR-MARTINEZ; SAISAI ZHENG; SORANA CIRSTEA; JOHN-PATRICK
SMITH; NOAH RUBIN; ALDILA SUTJIADI; VARVARA GRACHEVA; TENNYS
SANDGREN; REILLY OPELKA; and THE PROFESSIONAL TENNIS PLAYERS
ASSOCIATION, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. ATP TOUR, INC.; WTA TOUR, INC.;
INTERNATIONAL TENNIS FEDERATION LTD.; and INTERNATIONAL TENNIS
INTEGRITY AGENCY LTD., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-02207
(S.D.N.Y., March 18, 2025) alleges violation of the Sherman Act.
The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants have
formed a cartel, acquired monopsony power in the market for the
services of professional tennis players, erected barriers to entry
to lock out competitors and preserve their own artificial market
position, and abused their power to the harm of players, the sport,
fans, and competition.
The cartel has locked up the market for players' services by
implementing a number of draconian, interlocking anticompetitive
restraints. These include price-fixing arrangements and other
restrictions that limit players' pay, restrictive scheduling and
ranking mandates that lock players in to their closed system of
tournaments, and restrictive non-competes and other agreements to
exclude competition from other professional tennis events. These
illegal restraints enable the cartel to pay artificially low
compensation to professional tennis players, eliminate competition
amongst themselves, and prevent any potential competitors from
entering the market. The cartel then exploits its market power by
subjecting the players to abusive investigations and arbitrary
discipline to keep them in line.
As a result, players received artificially depressed pay when they
competed at the event that year. Put another way, the Defendants
denied players compensation the market was ready and willing to
provide, says the suit.
The ATP Tour is the sole worldwide top-tier tennis tour for men
organized by the Association of Tennis Professionals founded in
1990 that replaced the earlier dual Grand Prix Circuit and WCT
Circuit. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
James W. Quinn, Esq.
JW QUINN ADR LLC
767 Fifth Avenue Suite RP4
New York, NY 10153
Telephone: (646) 465-3607
Facsimile: (646) 219-1977
Email: quinn@jwquinnlaw.com
- and -
Luna N. Barrington, Esq.
Zachary A. Schreiber, Esq.
Nicholas J. Reade, Esq.
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
767 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10153
Telephone: (212) 310-8000
Facsimile: (212) 310-8007
Email: luna.barrington@weil.com
zach.schreiber@weil.com
nick.reade@weil.com
- and -
Andrew S. Tulumello, Esq.
Meagan Bellshaw, Esq.
WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
2001 M Street NW, Suite 600
Telephone: (202) 682-7100
Facsimile: (202) 857-0940
Email: drew.tulumello@weil.com
meagan.bellshaw@weil.com
AUTOMATED HEALTH: Delk Seeks Conditional Status of FLSA Collectives
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIE DELK, MICHELLE
ROLDAN, and AMY BABCOCK, v. AUTOMATED HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC., Case
No. 2:24-cv-00802-MJH (W.D. Pa.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order;
(1) Conditionally certifying the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) Collectives, defined as:
"All persons who work or worked for Defendant at any time
from June 3, 2021 in hourly non-exempt positions, were
required to bootup a computer to perform their jobs, and
who were subject to the time rounding policy (the "Time
Rounding Collective")";
"All persons who work or worked for Defendant as an hourly
non-exempt remote customer service representative ("CSR")
at any time from May 13, 2024 to present (the "Computer
Bootup Collective")";
(2) Implementing a procedure to send Court-approved Notice of
this action to putative members of the proposed Collectives
via US Mail and email;
(3) Requiring Defendant to identify all putative members of the
proposed Collectives by providing a list of their names,
last known addresses, dates and locations of employment,
phone numbers, and e-mail addresses in electronic and
importable format, e.g., a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet,
within 14 days of the entry of the order;
(4) Approving a sixty (60) day opt-in period from the date the
Court-approved Notice is sent during which putative members
of the Collectives may join this case by returning their
written consents; and
(5) Approving the short reminder Notice to be sent to the
Collectives via text message and e-mail thirty (30) days
into the opt-in period.
The Defendant provides business process outsourcing (BPO) services
to businesses and government agencies throughout the country.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 14, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2lUr2V at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Charles R. Ash, IV, Esq.
ASH LAW, PLLC
43000 W. 9 Mile Road, Ste. 301
Novi, MI 48375
Telephone: (734) 234-5583
E-mail: cash@nationalwagelaw.com
- and -
Oscar Rodriguez, Esq.
RODRIGUEZ LAW PLC
402 W. Liberty Street
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
Telephone: (734) 355-5666
E-mail: oscar@orodlaw.com
- and -
Jonathan K. Cohn, Esq.
Maureen Davidson-Welling, Esq.
STEMBER COHN & DAVIDSON-WELLING, LLC
425 First Avenue, 7th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Telephone: (412) 338-1445
E-mail: jcohn@stembercohn.com
mdw@stembercohn.com
AVID RATINGS: Filing for Class Certification Bid Due August 22
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHET MICHAEL WILSON, v.
AVID RATINGS, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00782-wmc (W.D. Wis.), the
Hon. Judge Anita Marie Boor entered a preliminary pretrial
conference order as follows:
-- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification and Plaintiff's
disclosure of class certification expert reports/summaries:
Aug. 22, 2025
-- The Defendant's opposition to class certification and the
Defendant's disclosure of class certification expert
reports/summaries: Oct. 21, 2025
-- Reply brief in support of motion for class certification and
deadline for filing Daubert motions for class certification
experts: Dec. 22, 2025
-- Disclosure of liability and damages experts:
Plaintiffs/Proponents: May 15, 2026
Defendants/Respondents: Aug. 14, 2026
-- Rule 26(a)(3) Disclosures and all motions in limine: Oct. 16,
2026
Objections: Nov. 6, 2026
Avid designs and develops customers experience platform.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 14, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OCdYgq at no extra
charge.[CC]
BANK OF AMERICA: Amendment of Case Management Order Sought
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELLE NGUYEN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA,
N.A., Case No. 5:23-cv-04999-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the
Court to enter an order granting their joint motion for class
certification briefing schedule and to amend case management
order.
On Jan. 14, 2025, the Court entered the Case Management Order
currently operative in this case. It provided for a deadline of
March 17, 2025, for the Plaintiff to file a motion for class
certification.
The Defendant agreed to produce a witness, Ms. Patricia Johnson,
for corporate representative deposition testimony under Rule
30(b)(6) on March 13, 2025.
The Plaintiff intended to use Ms. Johnson's testimony to confirm
several key facts in support of their motion for class
certification.
The Parties have conferred and agree that the following class
certification briefing schedule would be appropriate:
-- Motion by April 10, 2025
-- Opposition by May 9, 2025
-- Reply by May 22, 2025
-- Hearing on May 29, 2025
Bank of America offers saving and current account, investment and
financial services, and online banking.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 14, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bk58kK at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason S. Hartley, Esq.
Jason M. Lindner, Esq.
HARTLEY LLP
101 West Broadway, Suite 820
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 400-5822
E-mail: hartley@hartleyllp.com
lindner@hartleyllp.com
- and -
George A. Hanson, Esq.
Alexander T. Ricke, Esq.
Caleb J. Wagner, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
ricke@stuevesiegel.com
wagner@stuevesiegel.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Adam P. KohSweeney, Esq.
Chelsea E. Espiritu, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3823
Telephone: (415) 984 8700
Facsimile: (415) 984 8701
E-mail: akohsweeney@omm.com
cespiritu@omm.com
BANK OF AMERICA: Class Cert Hearing in Nguyen Amended to June 5
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LLE NGUYEN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA,
N.A., Case No. 5:23-cv-04999-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the Court entered an
order granting the Amended Case Management Order as follows:
-- The hearing on Class Certification shall be held on June 5,
2025.
-- Class certification briefing deadlines as follows:
Motion by April 10, 2025
Opposition by May 9, 2025
Reply by May 22, 2025
Hearing on May 29, 2025
Bank of America offers saving and current account, investment and
financial services, and online banking.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 14, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hV2Bez at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason S. Hartley, Esq.
Jason M. Lindner, Esq.
HARTLEY LLP
101 West Broadway, Suite 820
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 400-5822
E-mail: hartley@hartleyllp.com
lindner@hartleyllp.com
- and -
George A. Hanson, Esq.
Alexander T. Ricke, Esq.
Caleb J. Wagner, Esq.
STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 714-7100
Facsimile: (816) 714-7101
E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com
ricke@stuevesiegel.com
wagner@stuevesiegel.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Adam P. KohSweeney, Esq.
Chelsea E. Espiritu, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-3823
Telephone: (415) 984 8700
Facsimile: (415) 984 8701
E-mail: akohsweeney@omm.com
cespiritu@omm.com
BARCLAYS PLC: Settlement Class Gets Certification
-------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned re Barclays PLC Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:22-cv-08172-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge
Katherine Polk Failla entered an order as follows:
1. The Court affirms its determinations in the Preliminary
Approval Order and finally certifies, for purposes of the
Settlement only, pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Settlement Class of:
"all persons and entities who or which purchased or
otherwise acquired American Depositary Shares ("ADS") of
Barclays PLC during the period from Feb. 18, 2021 through
Feb. 14, 2023, both dates inclusive, and were allegedly
damaged thereby."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) Defendants and
former defendants in the Action; (ii) members of the
immediate family of any Defendant or former defendant who is
an individual; (iii) any person who was an officer,
director, and/or control person of Barclays during the Class
Period; (iv) any firm, trust, corporation, or other entity
in which any excluded person or entity has or had a
controlling interest and/or beneficial interest; and (v) the
legal representatives, affiliates, heirs, successors-in-
interest, or assigns of any such excluded person or entity.
Notwithstanding the foregoing exclusions, no Investment
Vehicle shall be excluded from the Settlement Class.
Also excluded from the Settlement Class are those Persons
who or which excluded themselves from the Settlement Class
by submitting a valid request for exclusion that is accepted
by the Court.
Exhibit A attached hereto lists the request for exclusion
that is being accepted by the Court.
2. Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and for purposes of the Settlement only, the Court re-
affirms its determinations in the Preliminary Approval Order
and finally certifies Boston Retirement System as Class
Representative for the Settlement Class; and finally
appoints the law firm of Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP as
Class Counsel for the Settlement Class.
Barclays is a British multinational universal bank.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=c1xR6s at no extra
charge.[CC]
BENCHMARK DUCK: Fails to Pay Restaurant Staff's Minimum Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARK MCDERMOTT, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. BENCHMARK DUCK KEY, LLC D/B/A HAWK'S CAY RESORT, Case
No. CACE-25-003719 (Fla. Cir., Broward Cty., Mar. 17, 2025) alleges
that the Defendant failed to pay servers and bartenders state
minimum wages pursuant to the Florida Minimum Wage Act.
Accordingly, the Defendant committed state minimum wage violations
because it compensated Servers and Bartenders at the reduced wage
for tipped employees, but failed to provide Plaintiff and all
others similary situated with statutory notice of taking a tip
credit.
The Plaintiff and all Servers and Bartenders worked or have worked
for the Defendant at the Hawk's Cay Resort located at 61 Hawks Cay
Boulevard in Duck Key, Florida.
The Plaintiff seeks certification of two (2)separate classes under
Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.220, the FMWA, and Florida Constitution for
Florida Minimum Wage violations, as follows:
-- Tip Notice Class
"All Servers and Bartenders who worked for Defendant during
the five (5)years preceding this lawsuit who did not receive
proper notice from Defendant that it would be taking a tip
credit pursuant to Fla. Const. Art. X 24(c) and/or F.S.
section 448.110."
-- Dual Jobs Class
"All Servers and Bartenders who worked for the Defendant
during the previous five (5) years preceding this lawsuit,
who were required to perform more than occasional non-tipped
jobs/work and non-serving duties during any shift and were
paid a reduced tip credit wage for time spent working such
non-tipped jobs/work."
The Defendant is doing a restaurant business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jordan Richards, Esq.
Michael Miller, Esq.
USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS-JORDAN RICHARDS, PLLC
1800 SE 10th Ave, Suite 205
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Telephone: (954) 871-0050
E-mail: Jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
Michael@tilusaemploymentlawyers.com
BEST CHOICE VENDING: Guillen Sues to Recover Overtime Premium Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Arnulfo Guillen and Alexander Gil, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. BEST CHOICE VENDING USA INC., PPS
CAPITAL NY LLC, PPS CAPITAL LLC, HESHY BRACHFELD, RAFAEL ARYE
MOSSBERG, PAVEL ROYZMAN, and JOHN DOES 1 through 10, Jointly and
Severally, Case No. 1:25-cv-01466 (E.D.N.Y., March 14, 2025), is
brought to recover overtime premium pay owed to them pursuant to
both the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor
Law ("NYLL").
The Defendants' corporate policy, Plaintiffs were paid a fixed
weekly salary which did not include overtime premiums for hours
worked over 40 in a given workweek and, during a portion of their
employment, did not compensate them at the New York statutory
minimum wage for all hours worked. The Plaintiffs also bring claims
for unpaid minimum wage and, for weeks in which they were paid at
or below minimum wage, for unpaid spread-of-hours premiums,
pursuant to NYLL §§ 190 et seq. and the supporting regulations,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are former warehouse and service employees at 2
locations of Defendants' vending machine servicing business.
Best Choice Vending USA Inc. is an active New York Corporation with
its principal executive office located in Brooklyn, New York.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
PELTON GRAHAM LLC
111 Broadway, Suite 1503
New York, NY 10006
Phone: (212) 385-9700
Facsimile: (212) 385-0800
Email: pelton@peltongraham.com
graham@peltongraham.com
BETACOM HOLDINGS: More Time to File Class Cert Bid in Lay Sought
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LMAR LAY, Individually and
for Others Similarly Situated, v. BETACOM HOLDINGS, INC., a
Washington for-profit corporation, and BETACOM INCORPORATED, a
Florida for-profit corporation, Case No. 2:24-cv-01195-RSM (W.D.
Wash.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order extending the
time for the Plaintiff to file his motion for conditional
certification and motion for class certification by 75 days so the
Parties may attend mediation.
Lay filed the instant class and collective action lawsuit on Aug.
6, 2024, alleging the Defendants failed to pay him and similarly
situated employees wages and overtime compensation for time worked
off the clock in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
and Massachusetts Wage and Hour Law (MWHL).
Counsel for the Parties have initiated preliminary discussions
wherein they broached the possibility of early resolution. To that
end, the Parties have mutually consented to attend mediation on May
14, 2025, with Frank Neuner.
The proposed extension of deadlines will conserve the Parties' and
the Court's resources while they work towards a potential
resolution of this matter.
Under the extended schedule, the Plaintiff's deadline to file his
Motion for Conditional Certification will be extended to June 11,
2025. The Plaintiff's deadline to file his Class Certification
motion will be extended to July 30, 2025.
Betacom is a telecommunications equipment service provider.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 13, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PY8wNQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael C. Subit, Esq.
FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS, LLP
705 Second Ave., Suite 1200
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 682-6711
E-mail: msubit@frankfreed.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Alyssa J. White, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP, LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
awhite@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH, PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
William C. (Clif) Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC
101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Telephone: (361) 452-1279
E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
James E. Breitenbucher, Esq.
Nikki H. Howell, Esq.
Nicholas J. Walker, Esq.
FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
1001 Fourth Avenue, Suite 4400
Seattle, WA 98154
Telephone: (206) 624-3600
Facsimile: (206) 389-1708
E-mail: jbreitenbucher@foxrothschild.com
nhowell@foxrothschild.com
nwalker@foxrothschild.com
BIONIC PROTECTION: Fails to Pay Hours Worked, OT, Huerta Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE ANGEL HUERTA and WILLIAM GABRIEL, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. BIONIC PROTECTION SECURITY
SERVICES INC; DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 25VECV01512 (Cal.
Super., March 18, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to
provide meal breaks, rest breaks, and pay all hours worked and
overtime.
According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs
for all hours worked because Plaintiffs were required to remain on
site and perform work related tasks at the end of their shift as
they wait for a reliever. Further, meal breaks were unpaid, but the
Plaintiffs were required to remain on call, on duty, and on
premises during meal breaks. Thus, they are owed 30 minutes of
unpaid time per shift. 10. Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs all
overtime owed because Plaintiffs usually worked 8 hours in a day
and 40 hours in a week and thus any unpaid time was necessarily
overtime.
The Plaintiff seeks PAGA Penalties on behalf of all Aggrieved
Employees. The Aggrieved Employees are defined as "All other
nonexempt, hourly employees, current and former, who were employed
by Defendants within one year prior to October 23, 2024, through
final disposition of this action."
The Defendant operates business in security industry.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel Ginzburg, Esq.
FRONTIER LAW CENTER
23901 Calabasas Road, Suite 1084
Calabasas, CA 91302
Telephone: (818) 914-3433
Facsimile: (818) 914-3433
E-mail: dan@frontierlawcenter.com
BLUE OVAL: Seeks to Dismiss Ford EcoBoost Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brett Foote, writing for Ford Authority, reports that back in
September 2024, The Blue Oval recalled 90,736 2021-2022 Ford
Bronco, Ford F-150, Ford Edge, Ford Explorer, Lincoln Nautilus, and
Lincoln Aviator vehicles equipped with the 2.7L V6 EcoBoost and
3.0L V6 EcoBoost engines over faulty intake valves that could break
and lead to a total engine failure. The automaker instructed
dealers to perform an engine cycle test and replace it if
necessary, but regardless, a class action lawsuit was filed against
Ford this past January. Now, Ford is asking the court to dismiss
that same lawsuit.
According to Car Complaints, Ford has asked the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan to dismiss the lawsuit --
Barkus, et al., v. Ford Motor Company -- on the grounds that
neither of the plaintiffs have had any trouble with their vehicles
or the EcoBoost engines that power them. "They do not even allege
their own intake valves are actually out of specification and thus
have any heightened risk of fracture," the automaker stated.
"Instead, the premise of their case is as follows: Other people
with vehicles manufactured during a different time period had a
possibility of being manufactured with out-of-spec valves."
Ford ultimately determined that only around one percent of the 90k
recalled vehicles have defective intake valves made from a material
known as Silchrome Lite, which can become "excessively hard and
brittle if exposed to over-temperatures during the machining of the
component." Once it made this discovery, Ford stopped using that
material in October 2021, replacing it with an alloy called
Silchrome 1, which has thus far proven to be trouble-free. The
automaker also created a customer satisfaction program (24N12) that
provides extended warranty coverage to impacted vehicles for 10
years or 150,000 miles.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) closed
its own investigation into this matter following Ford's recall on
the grounds that it believed this action was sufficient. The agency
noted that "defective intake valves will likely fail at a low time
in service and . . . the majority of subject vehicles equipped with
defective valves have already experienced a failure. The vast
majority of failures have occurred before 20,000 miles with over
half of all reported failures occurring before 5,000 miles." [GN]
BRINKER INTERNATIONAL: Faces Suit Over Online Tracking Activities
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HARVEY ST. MARY, an individual v. BRINKER INTERNATIONAL, INC., a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No.
2:25-cv-02345 (C.D. Cal., March 17, 2025) is a class action
alleging that Defendant use its online trackers as "trap and trace
devices" in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act.
The Deendant owns, develops, operates, and franchises restaurant
brands, primarily Chili's Grill & Bar and Maggiano's Little Italy.
The complaint alleges that Chili's encourages users to engage in
foot traffic to the Website through various digital campaigns.
Chili's is known for recruiting new members from the general public
by leveraging is latest data technologies to give its marketing
efforts a more human touch.
When a new visitor enters the Website, as the Website populates,
the software implemented on the Website is already at work tracking
the visitors’ information and activities. The visitor is able to
scroll through the Website and access multiple pages on the Website
by clicking the various buttons and icons provided. There is no
requirement for a visitor to review or consent to the Website's
privacy policy or terms and conditions nor to agree to Website
terms before using the Website, says the suit.
Accordingly, the Defendant failed and continues to fail to obtain
Plaintiff's and Class Members' prior consent to its
tracking/surveillance activities. There is no requirement that a
user interacts with a consent mechanism, no restriction on the
user's ability to access the Website when the user does not
"consent," and no reduction of the Defendant's use of
fingerprinting.
The TikTok Software gathers device and browser information,
geographic information, referral tracking, and URL tracking by
running code or "scripts" on the Website to send user details to
TikTok. The TikTok Software begins to collect information the
moment a user lands on the Website and immediately starts sending
information to TikTok regarding the user's visit. According to a
leading data security firm, the TikTok tracking pixel secretly
installed on the Defendant's website is particularly invasive. The
pixel "immediately links to data harvesting platforms that pick off
usernames and passwords, credit card and banking information and
details about users' personal health."
Because Defendant has implemented TikTok's "Auto Advanced Matching"
technology, the TikTok Software scans every website for
information, such as name, phone number and address, and
simultaneously sends the information to TikTok in order to isolate
with certainty the individual to be targeted, added the suit.
The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated defined as follows:
"All persons within California whose identifying information
was sent to TikTok within the statute of limitations
period.
Chili's is the proprietor of the Website, an online platform that
offers goods and services for sale to the general public. Defendant
is a company headquartered in Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Reuben D. Nathan, Esq.
NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC
2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Telephone: (949) 270-2798
E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com
- and -
Michael J. Manning, Esq.
MANNING LAW, APC
26100 Towne Centre Drive
Foothill Ranch, CA 92610
Telephone: (949) 200-8755
E-mail: privacy@manninglawoffice.com
BROOKDALE VEHICLE: Floyd Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BROOKDALE VEHICLE
HOLDING, LLC. The case is styled as Davina Floyd, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated v. BROOKDALE VEHICLE HOLDING,
LLC, Case No. 25STCV07436 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March
14, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
BROOKDALE VEHICLE HOLDING, LLC is a business entity in Brentwood,
Tennessee.[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
C.A.T.5 COMMUNICATIONS: Tapp Sues Over Uncompensated Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Walker Lane Tapp and Christian Delk, and others similarly situated
v. C.A.T.5 COMMUNICATIONS, INC., EZRA CATALDO and SAMUEL CATALDO,
Case No. 3:25-cv-00301 (M.D. Tenn., March 15, 2025), is brought
arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") due to
uncompensated overtime.
From the time the Plaintiffs and others similarly situated were
hired until February 2024, plaintiffs improperly were paid a flat
"day rate," regardless of the number of hours they worked. The
Defendants corrected this unlawful pay practice for a period of
time. Thereafter, defendants placed Plaintiffs and others similarly
situated on "salary," again not paying overtime compensation for
hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek.
Additionally, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiffs and others
similarly situated any compensation at all for certain weeks of
work. In the case of the Plaintiffs, Defendants failed to pay them
at all for nearly 4 weeks of work. Plaintiffs and others similarly
situated performed work in excess of 40 hours per week on a regular
and repeated basis for which they were not compensated, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiffs worked for Defendants as tower technicians.
C.A.T.5 Communications, Inc. is a Tennessee corporation having its
principal place of business in Tennessee.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Kerry E. Knox, Esq.
117 South Academy Street
Murfreesboro, TN 37130
Phone: (615) 896-1000
Email: kek@castelliknox.com
- and -
Stephen W. Grace, Esq.
1019 16th Avenue, South
Nashville, TN 37212
Phone: (615) 255-5225
Email: sgrace@sgracelaw.com
CALLAHAN LEARNING: Ward Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Tammy Ward, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. CALLAHAN LEARNING CENTERLLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00206 (E.D. Va.,
March 16, 2025), is brought for unpaid overtime in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") and the Virginia Overtime
Wage Act ("VOWA").
The Plaintiff contends Defendant has violated and continue to
violate the FLSA and VOWA by having the following policy and
practice: Not including bonuses, commissions, or similar forms of
incentive pay in calculating overtime rates paid to Plaintiff and
similarly situated employees (the "Overtime Rate Policy").
This policy and practice of Defendant resulted and results in
Plaintiff and similarly situated employees receiving less overtime
wages than they are entitled to receive under the FLSA and VOWA.
The Defendant's policies and/or practices comprising the alleged
violations are Ongoing, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant in Virginia as a Teacher
from March 2022 to December 20, 2024.
The Defendant operates day care centers in Fredericksburg, Locust
Grove, and possibly other locations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy Coffield, Esq.
COFFIELD PLC
106-F Melbourne Park Circle
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Phone: (434) 218-3133
Fax: (434) 321-1636
Email: tc@coffieldlaw.com
CANADA: Court Denies Certification of Black Civil Servants' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Morrison of The Canadian Press, in an article for Coast
Reporter, reports that a Federal Court judge on Monday, March 17,
dismissed a motion to certify a proposed class action lawsuit that
was launched by Black public servants in 2020 who alleged there was
systemic racism within the public service.
In an "order and reasons" document, Justice Jocelyne Gagne said the
case did not sufficiently meet the class action requirement that
the claims raise common issues.
Gagne also said the scope of the plaintiffs' claim "simply makes it
unfit for a class procedure."
Filed in 2020, the class action sought $2.5 billion in damages
because of lost salaries and promotion.
The Black Class Action Secretariat, a group created as a result of
the lawsuit, is seeking long-term solutions to address systemic
racism and discrimination in the public service, including
compensation and the appointment of a Black equity commission.
Gagne said the court acknowledges the "profoundly sad ongoing
history of discrimination suffered by Black Canadians" and that
plaintiffs have faced challenges in the public service.
However, she said the plaintiffs didn't present an adequate
litigation plan and that they failed to present a ground for the
court to assert jurisdiction over the case.
The document also said there are several class actions against
individual federal departments and agencies alleging racial
discrimination, which "overlap significantly with the present
action."
Proposed class members, the judge said, "would therefore be
included in the class definition of these other class
proceedings."
The Black Class Action Secretariat said in a news release that the
ruling was a "major disappointment, but it is not the end of our
fight for justice."
"For five years, this has been a David vs. Goliath battle, and
while today's outcome is frustrating, it only strengthens our
resolve," the organization said.
The news release said systemic anti-Black racism has long been
recognized by the federal government and that the plaintiffs will
meet with their legal team to "explore next steps."
In 2023, a grievance ruling by the Treasury Board Secretariat found
that the Canadian Human Rights Commission discriminated against its
Black and racialized employees. In 2024, an internal report found
that public servants working at the Privy Council Office were
subject to racial stereotyping, microaggressions and verbal
violence.
"For decades, Black public service workers have faced systemic
discrimination, and today's decision does nothing to change that
reality," Thompson said.
A Federal Court hearing took place last fall to help determine
whether the class-action lawsuit could proceed.
At the time, the federal government filed a motion to strike,
asking the judge to dismiss the case. The government argued that
Black public servants could file grievances or human rights
complaints.
The government also called to remove Canadian Armed Forces and RCMP
members, as well as Department of National Defence and Correctional
Service Canada employees as class members because of similar class
action lawsuits against those departments.
Thompson says the government used procedural barriers to "avoid
addressing the merits of this case, rather than standing on the
side of fairness and accountability." The government has spent
around $10 million fighting the class action.
"Black workers deserve more than recognition of past harms -- they
deserve real change," he said. [GN]
CAREDX INC: Plumbers' Fund Files Securities Suit in CA Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Caredx, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 28, 2025, that on May 23, 2022, Plumbers &
Pipefitters Local Union #295 Pension Fund filed a federal
securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against the company, Reginald Seeto, its
President, Chief Executive Officer and member of the company's
Board of Directors, Ankur Dhingra, its former Chief Financial
Officer, Marcel Konrad, its former interim Chief Financial Officer
and former Senior Vice President of Finance & Accounting, and Peter
Maag, its former President, former Chief Executive Officer, former
Chairman of the Board and current member of the company's Board of
Directors.
On November 15, 2024 the defendants filed a motion to dismiss a
third amended complaint and on December 13, 2024, plaintiffs filed
an opposition brief. On January 10, 2025, defendants filed their
reply brief and a hearing was held on January 28, 2025. On February
18, 2025, the court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the
third amended complaint.
The action alleges that the company and the individual defendants
made materially false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions
and that such statements violated Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The action also alleges that the individual
defendants are liable pursuant to Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act
as controlling persons of the company.
CareDx is a precision medicine company focused on the discovery,
development and commercialization of diagnostic solutions for
transplant patients and caregivers. It offers testing services,
products, and patient and digital solutions along the pre- and
post-transplant patients. Its headquarters is located in Brisbane,
California with locations in Omaha, Nebraska and Stockholm,
Sweden.
CERTEGY PAYMENT: Stachewicz Allowed to Seal Documents
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stachewicz v. Certegy
Payment Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-01258 (C.D. Ill., Filed
July 11, 2023), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered an order
granting the Plaintiff's motion to seal documents:
The documents are filed in support of the Plaintiff's reply in
further support of her motion for class certification and the
Defendant's notice of non-opposition to the plaintiff's motion to
seal and support for sealing identified documents.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
(FCRA).
Certegy, headquartered in Clearwater, Florida and established in
1961 as Telecredit, provides payment risk management to
retailer.[CC]
CHEXSYSTEMS INC: Fact Discovery in Best Due July 24
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Best v. ChexSystems, Inc.,
Case No. 1:24-cv-03228 (E.D.N.Y., Filed April 30, 2024), the Hon.
Judge Eric N. Vitaliano entered an order on motion for extension of
time to complete discovery:
-- The parties must serve affirmative expert reports on class
certification issues by April 25, 2025.
-- Rebuttal expert reports on class certification issues must be
served by May 30, 2025.
-- Expert depositions on class certification issues must be
completed by June 27, 2025.
-- Fact discovery closes on July 24, 2025.
-- Affirmative expert reports on merits issues are due by Aug.
21, 2025, rebuttal expert reports on merits issues by Sept.
25, 2025, and expert depositions on merits issues by Oct. 30,
2025.
-- By Oct. 30, 2025, the Parties must file a joint letter
certifying the close of all discovery.
-- Summary judgment motion practice must commence by Nov. 20,
2025 in accordance with the Individual Rules of the District
Judge.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
ChexSystems is an American check verification service and consumer
reporting agency owned by the eFunds subsidiary of Fidelity
National Information Services.[CC]
CHOP'T CREATIVE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Sumlin Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS SUMLIN, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Chop'T Creative Salad Company, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02149 (S.D.N.Y., March 14, 2025) arises
from Defendant's failure to make its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has violated the basic
equal access requirements under New York State Human Rights Law,
the New York City Human Rights Law, and the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
Headquartered in Rye Brook, NY, Chop'T Creative Salad Company owns
and maintains the website, https://www.choptsalad.com, which
provides consumers the ability to view and purchase chopped salads,
warm bowls, wraps, drinks, snacks, and high protein picks. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael H. Cohen, Esq.
EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
68-29 Main Street,
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (917) 437-3737
E-mail: mcohen@ealg.law
CITI TRENDS: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration
-------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SIENNA THOMAS, SABRINA
GREEN-FOG, YEIMY SAMBRANO, SHYKIRA SCOTT, CONSTANCE MATOUSEK,
ALEXANDER MATOUSEK, and HALEY MATOUSEK, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, v. CITI TRENDS, INC., Case No.
4:23-cv-00175-RSB-CLR (S.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge R. Stan Baker
entered an order granting Defendant's motion to compel individual
arbitration and stay action.
The Court orders the parties to individually submit the underlying
dispute to arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration
Agreements.
In addition, the Court directs the Clerk of Court to stay and
administratively close this case. Because the Court grants the
Defendant's motion for individual arbitration, the Court denies
without prejudice the Defendant's motion to dismiss dependent
Plaintiffs' consolidated class action complaint.
The parties are directed to file a joint report on the status of
the arbitration proceeding 90 days from the date of this Order,
every 90 days thereafter, and within 10 days of completion of
arbitration proceedings.
Because the Plaintiffs' substantive unconscionability arguments are
preempted by the FAA, and the Arbitration Agreements are otherwise
valid, the Defendant's motion to compel individual arbitration and
stay action is granted.
The Plaintiffs sued the Defendant in this Court on June 27, 2023,
and filed an Amended Complaint on Feb. 15, 2024. The Plaintiffs
allege in their Amended Complaint that, because of the data breach,
they "have all sustained actual injuries and damages."
All the Plaintiffs are former employees of Defendant, except for
Alexander Matousek and Haley Matousek, who are the children of
former employee Constance Matousek.
Citi Trends is a clothing retailer with its principal place of
business in Savannah, Georgia.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 14, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ihgk3G at no extra
charge.[CC]
CITIBANK NA: Seeks More Time to Disclose Class Cert Expert Witness
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LETIDAS LOGISTICS, LLC,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
CITIBANK, N.A., and ROYAL BENGAL LOGISTICS, INC., Case No.
0:24-cv-61469-DSL (S.D. Fla.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order extending:
(1) the deadline for Citibank to disclose its class
certification expert witness and report until May 20, 2025;
(2) for the parties to complete all class discovery until June
24, 2025; and
(3) the deadline for Letidas to file its class certification
motion until July 22, 2025.
The parties seek an enlargement of sixty days of the current April
25, 2025, class discovery deadline to allow for subpoenas and the
coordination of necessary depositions. Counsel for both parties
have upcoming trials that are limiting the time available to
complete necessary class discovery.
Counsel for Citibank is currently scheduled for trial in the
Southern District of Florida beginning March 24, 2025. Counsel for
Letidas has a special set trial from April 7, 2024, through April
11, 2025.
On Oct. 18, 2024, the Court issued an Order Setting Trial and
Pre-Trial Schedule. On Nov. 19, 2024, the Court dismissed all of
Letidas’ aiding and abetting claims against Citibank.
Citibank is the primary U.S. banking subsidiary of Citigroup, a
financial services multinational corporation.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 13, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7lZPuy at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zachary D. Ludens, Esq.
Jordan Shaw, Esq.
Lauren Palen, Esq.
SHAW LEWENZ
110 SE 6th Street Suite 2900
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 361-3633
E-mail: zludens@shawlewenz.com
jshaw@shawlewenz.com
lpalen@shawlewenz.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Edward M. Mullins, Esq.
Ana M. Barton, Esq.
Sujey S. Herrera, Esq.
John C. Scalzo, Esq.
REED SMITH LLP
200 South Biscayne Boulevard, 26th FL
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (786) 747-0200
Facsimile: (786) 747-0299
E-mail: emullins@reedsmith.com
abarton@reedsmith.com
abarton@reedsmith.com
sherrera@reedsmith.com
jscalzo@reedsmith.com
CLIENTS ON DEMAND: Bid to Continue Class Cert Deadline Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENDRICK DAVIS on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. CLIENTS ON DEMAND,
LLC, and RUSSELL RUFFINO, individually and as an officer of CLIENTS
ON DEMAND, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-10541-MWC-SSC (C.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Michelle Williams Court entered an order denying the
Parties' Joint stipulation to continue deadline for moving for
class certification, discovery deadlines and final pretrial
conference and related deadlines for lack of good cause shown.
Clients on Demand is a sales and marketing education and training
company.
A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 11, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3AMVrI at no extra
charge.[CC]
COLORADO RIVER ADVENTURES: Dement Files Suit in C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Colorado River
Adventures, Inc. The case is styled as William Dement, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Colorado River
Adventures, Inc., Case No. 5:25-cv-00683 (C.D. Cal., March 14,
2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor
Vehicle.
Colorado River Adventures, Inc. -- https://www.cramember.com/ --
operates as a resort.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John J. Nelson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
280 South Beverly Drive, Penthouse
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Phone: (868) 252-0878
Fax: (707) 334-3727
Email: jnelson@milberg.com
COMERICA BANK: Retains Beneficiaries' Fund Interests, Pustelak Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MARY PUSTELAK and LINDA CARLE, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. COMERICA BANK, Defendant,
Case No. 2:25-cv-10659-DPH-DRG (E.D. Mich., March 7, 2025) is a
class action against the Defendant for breach of contract, breach
of fiduciary duty, common law conversion, statutory conversion,
unjust enrichment, and violation of the Michigan Consumer
Protection Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful practice of
retaining the interest and other investment income it generated
from the federal benefits funds held at its bank by the Plaintiffs
and similarly situated customers. The Plaintiffs and the putative
Class members are participants in the Direct Express Debit
Mastercard ("Direct Express") program administered by the
Defendant, which allows recipients of federal benefits to receive
and spend their benefits funds via debit card accounts. By
retaining the interest and other investment earnings generated from
beneficiaries' federal benefits funds, all of which rightfully
belong to the beneficiaries, the Defendant breached its contract
with, and fiduciary duty owed to, the Plaintiffs and members of the
putative Class, converted their property, and unjustly enriched
itself, all in violation of Michigan law, says the suit.
Comerica Bank is a financial services company headquartered in
Dallas, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
Gregory A. Mitchell, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
850 W. University Drive, Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (248) 841-2200
Email: epm@millerlawpc.com
gam@millerlawpc.com
- and -
Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
Paula S. Buzzi, Esq.
Julie E. Holt, Esq.
HEDIN LLP
1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1140
Miami, FL 33131
Telephone: (305) 357-2107
Email: fhedin@hedinllp.com
pbuzzi@hedinllp.com
jholt@hedinllp.com
COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER: Brown Suit Removed to D. Connecticut
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Christine-Ann Brown, on behalf of herself and
her minor child A.B., and all others similarly situated v.
Community Health Center, Inc., Case No. FST-CV25-6072298-S was
removed from the Connecticut Superior Court, Judicial District of
Middlesex at Middletown, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Connecticut on March 14, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00372-SFR to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Community Health Center, Inc. -- https://www.chc1.com/ -- are one
of the leading health-care providers in the state of
Connecticut.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Oren Faircloth, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Phone: (772) 783-8436
Fax: (646) 417-5967
Email: ofaircloth@sirillp.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Philip H. Bieler, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP - NY
45 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10111
Phone: (212) 847-2868
Fax: (212) 589-4201
Email: pbieler@bakerlaw.com
COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER: Tedone Suit Removed to D. Connecticut
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Matthew Tedone, individually and on behalf of
those similarly situated v. Community Health Center, Inc., Case No.
FST-CV25-6072297-S was removed from the Connecticut Superior Court,
Judicial District of Middlesex at Middletown, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Connecticut on March 14, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00371 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Community Health Center, Inc. -- https://www.chc1.com/ -- are one
of the leading health-care providers in the state of
Connecticut.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Philip H. Bieler, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP - NY
45 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10111
Phone: (212) 847-2868
Fax: (212) 589-4201
Email: pbieler@bakerlaw.com
COMMUNITY REGIONAL: Fails to Pay OT Wages, Pierre Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
JEAN RICHARD PIERRE, individually and for others similarly situated
v. COMMUNITY REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER f/k/a FRESNO COMMUNITY
HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL CENTER, Case No. 1:25-cv-00322-SKO (E.D. Cal.,
March 17, 2025) alleges that Defendant failed to pay overtime under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the California Labor Code.
Accordingly, the Straight Time Employees regularly work more than 8
hours a day and 40 hours a week. But CRMC does not pay Pierre and
the other Straight Time Employees overtime at one and a half times
their regular rate of pay when they work more than 8 hours a day or
40 hours a week.
Instead, CRMC misclassifies Pierre and the other Straight Time
Employees as independent contractors and pays Pierre and the other
Straight Time Employees the same hourly rate for all hours worked
up to 12 in a day (CRMC's "straight time for overtime" pay scheme).
CRMC's straight time for overtime pay scheme violates various
provisions of the California Labor Code and applicable Industrial
Welfare Commission Wage Orders by depriving the Straight Time
Employees of "time and a half" overtime pay they are owed for all
hours worked after 8 in a day and 40 in a week, the lawsuit
says.[BN]
CRMC employed Pierre as one of its Straight Time Employees.
The FLSA Collective of similarly situated employees are defined as:
"All hourly-paid workers with patient care duties who worked at
CRMC and were paid the same hourly rate for hours worked in
excess of 40 in a workweek as hours worked under 40 in a
workweek, at any time from 3 years before the filing of this
lawsuit through final resolution of this Action (the Putative
Collective Members)."
The Rule 23 Class of similarly situated employees is defined as:
"All hourly CRMC employees in California who were paid the same
hourly rate for hours worked in excess of 8 in a workday as
hours worked under 8 in a workday (or in excess of 40 in a
workweek as hours worked under 40 in a workweek), at any time
during the past 4 years through final resolution of this Action
(the Putative Class Members).
The Putative Collective Members and Putative Class Members are
collectively referred to as "Straight Time Employees."
CRMC pays Pierre and the other Straight Time Employees by the hour.
COMMUNITY REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER f/k/a FRESNO COMMUNITY HOSPITAL
AND MEDICAL CENTER is a 685-bed regional hospital and trauma center
in Fresno, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William M. Hogg, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: whogg@mybackwages.com
CORE NATURAL: Loughrie Sues Over Mass Layoff Without Advance Notice
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JASON LOUGHRIE and CALEB MALCOMB, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. CORE NATURAL RESOURCES,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00004-TSK (N.D. W. Va., March 7,
2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's action of terminating several
groups of employees unilaterally and without proper notice as
required under the WARN Act.
Plaintiffs Malcomb and Loughrie were terminated as part of a mass
layoff on January 14, 2025 and February 21, 2025, respectively.
Core Natural Resources, Inc. is a mine operator located at 21550
Barbour County Hwy., Philippi, West Virginia. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Rodney A. Smith, Esq.
M. Alex Urban, Esq.
ROD SMITH LAW PLLC
108 1/2 Capitol St., Suite 300
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 342-0550
Facsimile: (304) 344-5529
Email: rod@lawwv.com
aurban@lawwv.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
Email: 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
Email: 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
Email: ltoops@cohenmalad.com
ibensberg@cohenmalad.com
CORNERSTONE NATIONAL: Settlement in Johnson Gets Initial OK
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM JOHNSON, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
CORNERSTONE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., et al., Case No.
2:22-cv-04140-BP (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Beth Phillips entered
an order granting consent motion for preliminary approval of class
action settlement:
1. The Court conditionally certifies the following Settlement
Class for settlement purposes only:
"All persons residing in the United States to whom
Cornerstone sent notice on or near Aug. 4, 2022, that their
PI was compromised in the Unauthorized Data Disclosure."
Excluded from the Settlement Class are any officers or
directors of Cornerstone; any officers or directors of any
affiliate, parent, or subsidiary of Cornerstone; any agents
of Cornerstone; and any judge to whom this case is assigned,
his or her spouse, members of the judge's staff, and anyone
who timely requests exclusion from the Settlement Class.
2. The Court appoints Plaintiffs William Johnson, Joshua Kirk,
and Toni Reynolds as Class Representatives for the
Settlement Class.
3. The Court appoints the following counsel as Class Counsel:
Kate M. Baxter-Kauf of Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P.;
Rachele R. Byrd of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz
LLP; M. Anderson Berry of Clayeo C. Arnold, A Professional
Corp.; Gayle M. Blatt of Casey Gerry Schenk Francavilla
Blatt & Penfield, LLP; and Maureen M. Brady of McShane &
Brady, LLC.
4. The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on Sept. 25,
2025.
Cornerstone offers auto insurance and flood coverages.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 14, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=l7bKFH at no extra
charge.[CC]
CROWDSTREET INC: Shah Sues Over Unregistered Securities Offerings
-----------------------------------------------------------------
VIPUL SHAH; DOLPH HAEGE; SAMEMMA HOLDINGS, LLC; and STEVE WIONS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. CROWDSTREET, INC.; TORE STEEN; and IAN FORMIGLE,
Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00383 (W.D. Tex., March 14, 2025)
seeks the rescission of more than $1 billion of investments made
through CrowdStreet while it was operating as an unregistered
broker-dealer offering securities to investors across the United
States.
The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that by failing to register
as a broker-dealer and not qualifying for any applicable exemption
from registration, CrowdStreet has defied a regulatory regime that
Congress and the State of Texas constructed to serve as a
cornerstone of investor protection in the capital markets -- all
while earning tens of millions of dollars in transaction-based
compensation along the way.
CrowdStreet's intentional evasion of the regulatory scheme set
forth by Congress and the State of Texas is precisely what led to a
$50 million investment fraud that impacted hundreds of CrowdStreet
investors, which is an example of how CrowdStreet's failure to
register directly and proximately causes actual and imminent harm
to investors, including Plaintiffs and the Class Members, says the
suit.
CrowdStreet, Inc. provides a crowdfunding marketplace that connects
accredited investors with institutional-grade real estate
investments. The Company offers a cloud-based fundraising and
investor relationship management platform that enables real estate
operators, funds, and private equity companies to raise capital and
manage relationships with new and existing investors. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Adam R. Shaw, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
30 South Pearl Street, 12th Floor
Albany, NY 12207
Telephone: (518) 434-0600
Facsimile: (518) 434-0665
Email: ashaw@bsfllp.com
- and -
Marc Ayala, Esq.
BOIES SCHILLER FLEXNER LLP
333 Main Street
Armonk, NY 10504
Telephone: (914) 749-8200
Facsimile: (914) 749-8300
Email: mayala@bsfllp.com
- and -
Joshua Kons, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JOSHUA B. KONS, LLC
92 Hopmeadow Street, Suite 205
Weatogue, CT 06089
Telephone: (860) 920-5181
Email: joshuakons@konslaw.com
- and -
Joseph Wojciechowski, Esq.
Sara Hanley, Esq.
STOLTMANN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
2000 Center Drive, Suite East C218
Hoffman Estates, IL 60192
Telephone: (312) 332-4200
Email: joe@stoltlaw.com
sara@stoltlaw.com
CROWDVEST LLC: Johnson Bid to Conduct Limited Discovery Partly OK'd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CYNTHIA JOHNSON, v.
CROWDVEST LLC, Case No. 2:24-cv-01293-JPS (E.D. Wis.), the Hon.
Judge J. P. Stadtmueller entered an order granting in part and
denying in part Johnson's motion for leave to conduct limited
discovery.
-- The motion is granted to the extent that it seeks leave to
conduct limited discovery and denied as moot to the extent
that it seeks the Court to reserve jurisdiction and permit
the Plaintiff to move for default judgment.
The Plaintiff may engage in limited discovery reasonably calculated
to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence on the issues of
class member identification, class certification, and damages.
The Plaintiff may move for class certification, if at all, within
60 days of this Order.
The Court will grant Plaintiff’s motion for leave to conduct
discovery to identify members of the potential classes and to
determine their damages. The only reason that Plaintiff has not yet
been able to confer with Defendant under Rule 26(f) such that
Plaintiff could begin discovery without the Court’s leave is
because Defendant has apparently ignored this action.
In October 2024, Plaintiff Johnson filed a putative class action
complaint against Crowdves for "routinely violating 47 U.S.C.
section 227(c)(5) and 47 C.F.R. section 64.1200(c)(2) by delivering
more than one advertisement or marketing text message to
residential or cellular telephone numbers registered with the
National Do-Not-Call Registry without prior express invitation or
permission."
The Defendant failed to file a responsive pleading or otherwise
defend against the action following timely service of process.
Crowdvest is a commercial real estate investment firm.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 13, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uTq6fz at no extra
charge.[CC]
CRST EXPEDITED: Kelchner Class Cert. Bid Amended to August 16, 2026
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HARLEY KELCHNER,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
CRST EXPEDITED, INC.; CRST SPECIALIZED TRANSPORTATION, INC.; CRST
LINCOLN SALES, INC.; and JOHN SMITH, Case No. 1:24-cv-00082-CJW-KEM
(N.D. Iowa), the Hon. Judge Kelly Mahoney entered an amended
scheduling order and discovery plan as follows:
A. Completion of fact discovery: Feb. 23, 2026
B. Expert witness disclosures:
1. Plaintiff's expert(s): Mar. 12, 2026
2. Defendants' expert(s): May 12, 2026
3. Plaintiff's rebuttal expert(s): June 18, 20261
4. Completion of expert discovery: July 16, 2026
C. Class certification briefing:
1. Plaintiff's motion: Aug. 6, 2026
2. Defendants' response: Sept. 21, 2026
3. Plaintiff's reply: Oct. 19, 2026
D. Dispositive motions: Jan. 15, 2027
CRST offers transportation services focusing on longer length hauls
and including short-haul regional, air cargo, shipping, and
dedicated fleets.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 13, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GLtsX6 at no extra
charge.[CC]
CS CONTRACT: Russell Seeks Conditional Status of Collective Action
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID RUSSELL on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, v. CS CONTRACT SOLUTIONS,
LLC d/b/a/ CONEXA TECHNOLOGIES and DRIVE MANAGEMENT GROUP, CITIZENS
TELECOM SERVICES COMPANY, LLC d/b/a FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS,
BENJAMIN SUNDERLAND, and KEITH CRISTOBAL, in their individual and
professional capacities, Case No. 8:24-cv-02421-CEH-AAS (M.D.
Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order:
-- conditionally certifying collective action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and
-- permitting notice to similarly situated persons, expedited
disclosure of contact information.
The Plaintiff seeks to notify current and former Technicians who
were/are employed by the Defendants in Florida, were/are paid on a
piece-rate basis, and were/are not paid overtime wages for all
hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a workweek.
The putative collective members were not paid overtime because of
the Defendants' policy and practice of paying Technicians based on
a piece-rate basis without accounting for overtime at all.
Mr. Russell commenced the action on Oct. 18, 2024, against the
Defendants CS Contract Solutions, LLC and Drive Management Group,
Frontier Communications Parent, Inc., Benjamin Sunderland, and
Keith Cristobal.
On Jan. 22, 2025, the Plaintiff voluntarily withdrew his claims
against Frontier Communications Parent, Inc. and filed an Amended
Complaint adding as a defendant Citizens Telecom Services Company,
LLC, and Cristobal.
CS Contract provides telecommunications and technology services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 14, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=u6PD1I at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Taylor J. Crabill, Esq.
CRABILL PLLC
71-01 Austin Street
Forest Hills, NY 11375
Telephone: (727) 335-1030
E-mail: tcrabill@crabilllawfirm.com
CVB INC: O'Shea Sues Over Defective Bed Products
------------------------------------------------
DEBBIE O'SHEA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CVB, INC., d/b/a Lucid, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-01636 (S.D.N.Y., February 26, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for breach of implied warranty of
merchantability, unjust enrichment/quasi-contract, and violation of
New York General Business Law.
This is a class action brought by Plaintiff on behalf of herself
and other similarly situated consumers nationwide who purchased a
Lucid Platform Bed with Upholstered Square Tufted Headboard in
Twin, Full, Queen, King and Cal-King sizes that have wooden support
beams and wooden support legs and a white federal law label,
referred here as Noticed Products, for personal or household use
and not for resale.
On September 19, 2024, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
announced a recall of approximately 137,000 units of the Noticed
Products because the beds can sag, break, or collapse during use,
posing fall and injury hazards to consumers. By the time the recall
was issued, Defendant had received 245 reports of the beds
breaking, sagging, or collapsing during use, causing 18 injuries,
including contusions and bruises.
The hazardous nature of the Noticed Product and propensity for
injury from the Noticed Product makes a full refund the proper
method of recall. Consumers like Plaintiff trust manufacturers such
as Defendant to sell Noticed Products that are safe and free from
known safety defects. The Plaintiff and all reasonable consumers
are injured at the point of purchase because they had no way of
knowing of the Noticed Product's safety defect, says the suit.
As a result of Defendant's misconduct, misrepresentations, and
omissions, Plaintiff and putative Class Members have suffered
injury in fact, including economic damages, the suit asserts.
CVB, Inc. designs, manufactures, markets, distributes, and sells
mattresses and other bedroom furniture, including platform beds and
the Noticed Products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lisa R. Considine, Esq.
Mason A. Barney, Esq.
Leslie L. Pescia, Esq.
SIRI | GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
Facsimile: (646) 417-5967
E-mail: mbarney@sirillp.com
lconsidine@sirillp.com
lpescia@sirillp.com
- and -
Kevin Laukaitis, Esq.
Daniel Tomascik, Esq.
LAUKAITIS LAW LLC
954 Avenida Ponce De Leon
Suite 205, #10518
San Juan, PR 00907
Telephone: (215) 789-4462
E-mail: klaukaitis@laukaitislaw.com
dtomascik@laukaitislaw.com
CVB INC: O'Shea Suit Transferred to E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Debbie O'Shea, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. CVB, Inc. d/b/a Lucid, Case No.
1:25-cv-01636 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on March 14, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-01446-RER-MMH to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Fraud or Truth-In-Lending.
CVB, Inc. doing business as Lucid -- https://lucidmattress.com/ --
offers quality, comfortable, affordable mattresses for every sleep
style and stage of life.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mason Adams Barney, Esq.
Lisa R. Considine, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Phone: (212) 532-1091
Email: mbarney@sirillp.com
lconsidine@sirillp.com
DANFORDS F&B: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Orgera Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM ORGERA, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GARY D. TUCKER; DANFORDS F&B LLC d/b/a
DANFORDS HOTEL & MARINA; and DPJ HM OWNER, LLC, Defendants, Case
No. 2:25-cv-01503 (E.D.N.Y., March 18, 2025) seeks to recover from
the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Plaintiff Orgera was employed by the Defendants as a bartender.
Danford F&B LLC was founded in 2016. The company's line of business
includes operating public hotels and motels. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zachary Naidich, Esq.
NAIDICH LAW
137 5th Ave., 9th Fl.
New York, NY 10010
Telephone: (646) 661-5694
Email: ZNaidich@naidichlaw.com
DETAILERS OF NAPLES: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Lynch Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
DOUGLAS LYNCH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated Plaintiff v. DETAILERS OF NAPLES, LLC; and BRENNEN SEAMAN,
Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00212 (M.D. Fla., March 13, 2025)
seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime
compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Lynch was employed by the Defendants as an automobile
detailer.
DETAILERS OF NAPLES, LLC provides paint protection film, ceramic
coating, window tinting, and auto detailing services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin H. Yormak, Esq.
YORMAK EMPLOYMENT & DISABILITY LAW
27200 Riverview Center Blvd., Suite 109
Bonita Springs, FL 34134
Telephone: (239) 985-9691
Facsimile: (239) 288-2534
Email: byormak@yormaklaw.com
DOGPOUND FITNESS: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------------
DEVIN FERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DOGPOUND FITNESS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-01098 (E.D.N.Y., February 26, 2025) is a civil rights
action against the Defendant for the failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, www.thedogpound.com, to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.
The Plaintiff was allegedly injured when he attempted multiple
times, most recently on November 7, 2024, to access Defendant's
Website from Plaintiff's home in an effort to utilize Defendant's
services, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal
access to its online, content, and services.
The website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use
by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen reading software. These
barriers include but are not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden
elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop
ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement
that some events be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit.
The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
Dogpound Fitness, Inc. operates the website that serves as an
online gym platform offering group fitness training, personal
training services, and fitness apparel and accessories.[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
DONALD TRUMP: Pacito Suit Seeks to Certify Three Subclasses
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PLAINTIFF PACITO;
PLAINTIFF ESTHER; PLAINTIFF JOSEPHINE; PLAINTIFF SARA; PLAINTIFF
ALYAS; PLAINTIFF MARCOS; PLAINTIFF AHMED; PLAINTIFF RACHEL;
PLAINTIFF ALI; HIAS, INC., CHURCH WORLD SERVICE, INC., GLOBAL
REFUGE, and LUTHERAN COMMUNITY SERVICES NORTHWEST, v. DONALD J.
TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States;
MARCO RUBIO, in his official capacity as Secretary of State; KRISTI
NOEM, in her official capacity as Secretary of Homeland Security;
ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR., in his official capacity as Acting
Secretary of Health and Human Services, Case No. 2:25-cv-00255-JNW
(W.D. Wash.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
certifying the following subclasses (together, "the Class"), with
Plaintiffs Pacito, Esther, Josephine, Sara, Alyas, Marcos, Ahmed
and Ali appointed as class representatives ("Representative
Plaintiffs") and appointing their undersigned counsel as class
counsel:
1. The Refugee and Family Member Subclass:
"all persons who are being or will be processed for
admission to the United States as a refugee or who have
applied or will apply for a family member to be processed
for admission as a refugee";
2. The Reception & Placement ("R&P") Subclass:
"all refugees and Afghan and Iraqi Special Immigrant Visa
("SIV") holders resettled to the United States and within
their first ninety days post-resettlement as of Jan. 20,
2025, the issuance date of the Refugee Ban Executive Order,
or who currently are, or will be, resettled in the United
States and within their first ninety days post-
resettlement"; and
3. The FTJ Petitioner Subclass:
"all persons in the United States who are currently
petitioning or will petition for family members to be
admitted to the United States under the follow-to-join
("FTJ") refugee program."
The Representative Plaintiffs and the proposed subclasses satisfy
the requirements of Rule 23(a) as they easily meet the numerosity,
commonality, typicality and adequacy requirements. Furthermore, the
Defendants have acted, and refused to act, on grounds
generally applicable to Representative Plaintiffs and all proposed
class members such that the relief sought by Representative
Plaintiffs would benefit the entire Class, meeting the requirements
of Rule 23(b)(2).
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 14, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aU0XvI at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Deepa Alagesan, Esq.
Mevlüde Akay Alp, Esq.
Linda Evarts, Esq.
Ghita Schwarz, Esq.
Melissa Keaney, Esq.
Laurie Ball Cooper, Esq.
Megan McLaughlin Hauptman, Esq.
INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE
ASSISTANCE PROJECT
One Battery Park Plaza, 33rd Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (646) 939-9169
Facsimile: (516) 324-2267
E-mail: dalagesan@refugeerights.org
makayalp@refugeerights.org
levarts@refugeerights.org
gschwarz@refugeerights.org
mkeaney@refugeerights.org
lballcooper@refugeerights.org
mhauptman@refugeerights.org
- and -
Harry H. Schneider, Jr., Esq.
Jonathan P. Hawley, Esq.
Shireen Lankarani, Esq.
Esme L. Aston, Esq.
John M. Devaney, Esq.
Joel W. Nomkin, Esq.
Nicholas J. Surprise, Esq.
PERKINS COIE LLP
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 4900
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 359-8000
Facsimile: (206) 359-9000
E-mail: HSchneider@perkinscoie.com
JHawley@perkinscoie.com
SLankarani@perkinscoie.com
EAston@perkinscoie.com
JDevaney@perkinscoie.com
JNomkin@perkinscoie.com
NSurprise@perkinscoie.com
EAST JORDAN: Jones Class Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
TRAEVIS J. JONES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. EAST JORDAN FOUNDRY, LLC, a Michigan limited
liability company, Case No. 1:25-cv-00298 (W.D. Mich., March 18,
2025)seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest,
attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendant employs and employed hourly workers, including
Plaintiff, to facilitate its operations with a number of job
titles, including, but not limited to Melt Deck Operator.
The individuals Plaintiff seeks to represent in this action are
current and former hourly employees who are similarly situated to
each other in terms of their positions, job duties, pay structure,
and claims regarding the Defendant's violations of federal and
state law (hourly employees).
The Defendant is a global manufacturer of iron products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jesse L. Young, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600
Kalamazoo, MI 49007
Telephone: (269) 250-7500
E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com
- and -
Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
Laura Supanich, Esq.
MELMED LAW GROUP, P.C.
1801 Century Park East, Suite 850
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 824-3828
EDDIE BAUER: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Clark Extended to Sept. 15
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SUSAN CLARK, for herself
and/or on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EDDIE BAUER
LLC, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-01106-RAJ (W.D. Wash.), the Hon.
Judge Richard Jones entered an amended scheduling order as
follows:
Event Date
Defendants' responses to Plaintiff's April 1, 2025
discovery due:
Class Certification Motion Deadline Sept. 15, 2025
(motion to be noted for Oct. 31, 2025):
Class Certification Opposition Deadline: Oct. 17, 2025
Class Certification Reply Deadline: Oct. 31, 2025
The Court will set further case scheduling deadlines after ruling
on the motion for class certification. Should the Court deny the
class certification motion, any party may request an expedited
trial date. These are firm dates that can be changed only by order
of the Court, not by agreement of counsel or the parties. The Court
will alter these dates only upon good cause shown.
Counsel are directed to review Judge Jones’ Chambers Procedures
at http://www.wawd.uscourts.gov/judges/jones-procedures.Counsel
are expected to abide by the requirements set forth therein.
Failure to do so may result in the imposition of sanctions. Links
to Local Rules, Electronic Filing Procedures for Civil and Criminal
Cases, court forms, instruction sheets, and General Orders, can be
found on the Court’s website at www.wawd.uscourts.gov.
Eddie Bauer is an American outdoor recreation brand and chain
store.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 13, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=J2PWFl at no extra
charge.[CC]
ELITE ELETRICAL: Smith Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Alante Smith, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.
ELITE ELETRICAL CONTRACTORS, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00215 (M.D.
Fla., March 14, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938 ("FLSA") as a result of unpaid overtime wages owed.
The Plaintiff alleges the Defendant violated the FLSA by failing to
pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees all overtime
wages owed. Specifically, the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff
and other similarly situated employees for drive time from the shop
to the first jobsite and from the jobsite back to the shop, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an electrician from
2021, until January 31, 2025.
ELITE is a Southwest Florida electrical contractor.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason L. Gunter, Esq.
Conor P. Foley, Esq.
Peter M. Jennings, Esq.
GUNTERFIRM
2165 W. First St., #104
Fort Myers, FL 33901
Phone: 239.334.7017
Email: Jason@GunterFirm.com
Conor@GunterFirm.com
Peter@GunterFirm.com
EMMANUEL COLLEGE: Class Settlement in Parchinskya Gets Initial Nod
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Parchinskya v. The
Trustees of Emmanuel College (re Emmanuel College Data Security
Incident), Case No. 1:24-cv-10314-AK (D. Mass.), the Hon. Judge
Angel Kelley entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement.
1. The Court conditionally certifies the following class for
settlement purposes only under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 23:
"All residents of the United States who were notified by
Emmanuel College that their PII was or may have been
affected in the Data Security Incident who have not opted-
out of the Settlement."
The Settlement Class is estimated to contain as many as
89,065 members.
Excluded from the Settlement Class are: (1) the Judges
presiding over the Action, Class Counsel, and members of
their families; (2) Emmanuel College and its subsidiaries,
parent companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity
in which Emmanuel College or its parents, have a controlling
interest, and its current or former officers and directors;
(3) 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 Persons.
2. The Court appoints Elizabeth Parchinskya, Grace Viviano,
Brian Hamdan, Sopiya Shrestha, Casey Whalen, and Luke
Millspaugh as Representative Plaintiffs for the Settlement
Class.
3. The Court appoints David Lietz of Milberg Coleman Bryson
Phillips Grossman, PLLC, Kevin Laukaitis of Laukaitis Law
LLC, Daniel Srourian of Srourian Law Firm, P.C., Nickolas
Hagman of Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, and
Carl Malmstrom of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLC
as Settlement Class Counsel.
5. The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on July 29,
2025 at 11:00 AM.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 13, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=upe3Ae at no extra
charge.[CC]
ENCORE ENERGY: Zhongjian Sues Over Drop in Share Price
------------------------------------------------------
SUN ZHONGJIAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ENCORE ENERGY CORP.; PAUL GORANSON; and
SHONA WILSON, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-01234 (S.D. Tex., March
14, 2025) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that
purchased or otherwise acquired enCore securities between March 28,
2024 and March 2, 2025, inclusive, pursuing claims against the
Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, throughout the Class
Period, Defendants made materially false and misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that encore lacked
effective internal controls over financial reporting; (2) that
enCore could not capitalize certain exploratory and development
costs under GAAP; (3) that, as a result, its net losses had
substantially increased; and (4) that, as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and
lacked a reasonable basis.
EnCore's stock price fell $1.17, or 46.4%, to close at $1.35 per
share on March 3, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume. As a
result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the suit.
enCore Energy Corp. is a U.S. domestic uranium developer focused on
becoming a leading in-situ recovery (ISR) uranium producer. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sammy Ford IV, Esq.
Davis Metzger, Esq.
AHMAD, ZAVITSANOS & MENSING, PLLC
1221 McKinney Street, Suite 2500
Houston, TX 77010
Telephone: (713) 665-1101
Facsimile: (713) 665-0062
Email: sford@azalaw.com
dmetzger@azalaw.com
- and -
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
- and -
Frank R. Cruz, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ
2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800
Century City, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 914-5007
ENTRATA INC: More Time to File Response to Complaint Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BONNIE MANASKIE, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. ENTRATA, INC.
d/b/a RESIDENT VERIFY and RESIDENT VERIFY, LLC, Case No.
1:25-cv-00704-MHC-CCB (N.D. Ga.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order extending the time for the Defendants to answer or
otherwise respond to the Complaint by three weeks, up to and
including April 7, 2025, and staying the Local Rule 23.1(B) class
certification deadline.
The Plaintiff’s Complaint in this lawsuit was filed on February
12, 2025.
The Defendants were served with the Summons and Complaint on
February 24, 2025.
The deadline for Defendants to answer or otherwise respond to
Plaintiff's Complaint is March 17, 2025.
The Defendants request an extension of time within which to answer
or otherwise respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint in order to
alleviate a scheduling conflict on the part of undersigned counsel
and to thereby permit a more complete investigation of
Plaintiff’s allegations and preparation of an appropriate
response to the Complaint.
Entrata operates as a software development company.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 14, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=o6pCrs at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey B. Sand, Esq.
Andrew L. Weiner, Esq.
WEINER & SAND LLC
800 Battery Avenue SE, Suite 100
Atlanta, GA 30339
Telephone: (404) 254-0842
Facsimile: (866) 800-1482
E-mail: js@wsjustice.com
aw@wsjustice.com
- and -
James A. Francis, Esq.
Lauren KW Brennan, Esq.
FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.
1600 Market Street Suite 2510
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 735-8600
Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
E-mail: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
lbrennan@consumerlawfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Stephen G. Lowe, Esq.
LEACH & LOWE LLC
750 Hammond Drive
Building 19, Suite 300
Atlanta, GA 30328
Telephone: (678) 587-3831
Facsimile: (770) 800-7190
E-mail: slowe@lllawllc.com
- and -
Andrew C. Gresik, Esq.
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
150 East Gilman Street, Suite 5000
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: (608) 258-4235
Facsimile: (608) 258-4258
E-mail: agresik@foley.com
EQUITY INVESTMENT: Feltzin Sues Over Discriminative Property
------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Feltzin, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. EQUITY INVESTMENT CORPORATION, Case No.
9:25-cv-80350-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 14, 2025), is brought for
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result
of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff
by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or
accommodations of the commercial property.
Although over 30 years have passed since the effective date of
Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities
accessible to individuals with disabilities. The Plaintiff found
the Commercial Property and the business located within the
commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff
encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property and
the business located within the commercial property and wishes to
continue his patronage and use of the premises.
The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in
violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and
businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to
access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each
denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial
Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA.
The barriers to access have likewise posed a risk of injury(ies),
embarrassment, and discomfort to Plaintiff and others similarly
situated.
The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff
by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or
accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located
therein, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate.
EQUITY INVESTMENT CORPORATION, owns, operates, and oversees the
Commercial Property, its general parking lot/or and parking spots
specific to the business therein, located in Saint Lucie County,
Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq.
GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L.
350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200
Coral Gables, Fl 33134
Phone: (305) 553-3464
Primary Email: bvirues@lawgmp.com
Secondary Emails: aquezada@lawgmp.com
jacosta@lawgmp.com
- and -
Ramon J. Diego, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A.
5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103
Miami, FL, 33155
Phone: (305) 350-3103
Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com
ER GARAGE: Piamba Sues Over Unpaid Overtime and Retaliation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Javier Piamba, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff v. ER Garage Door and Gate Corp, Rincon
Powder Coating Corp, Rincon Group Corp, d/b/a Rincon Fence Supply
Ediccio A. Rincon, Kelvin D. Rincon, and Keiver J. Rincon,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-20906-JEM (S.D. Fla.,
February 26, 2025) is an action to recover monetary damages for
unpaid overtime wages and retaliation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Within the relevant period of employment, the Plaintiff had a
regular and mandatory schedule and worked more than 40 hours every
week, but he was not paid for overtime hours.
On or around February 23, 2024, the Plaintiff complained about
unpaid overtime to manager Nancy Garcia and business owner Keiver
J. Rincon. However, as a direct result, the Defendants fired
Plaintiff, alleging pretextual reasons, on or about February 28,
2024, says the suit.
Plaintiff Piamba was employed by the Defendant as a non-exempt,
full-time employee from approximately April 15, 2021, to February
28, 2024.
ER Garage Door and Gate, Rincon Powder Coating, and Rincon Fence
Supply are full-service providers of fences, gates, and garage
doors.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
9100 S. Dadeland Blvd. Suite 1500
Miami, FL 33156
Telephone: (305) 446-1500
Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com
EVERGY INC: Faces Nagle Suit for Breach of Fiduciary Duty
---------------------------------------------------------
JOSEPH NAGLE, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EVERGY, INC., TERRY BASSHAM, DAVID CAMPBELL,
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF EVERGY, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-20,
Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-00136-JAM (W.D. Mo., February 26,
2025) is a class action brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 against the 401(k) Savings Plan's
fiduciaries, which include Evergy, Inc., Terry Bassham, David
Campbell and the Administrative Committee of Evergy, Inc., and its
members during the class period for breaches of their fiduciary
duties.
During the putative Class Period, the Defendants, as "fiduciaries"
of the Plan, as that term is defined under ERISA, breached the
duties they owed to the Plan, to Plaintiff, and to the other
participants of the Plan by, inter alia, failing to objectively and
adequately review the Plan's investment portfolio with due care to
ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of
performance.
The Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan, to the detriment of
participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach of the
fiduciary duty of prudence, in violation of the ERISA. Their
actions were contrary to actions of a reasonable fiduciary and cost
the Plan and its participants millions of dollars, says the suit.
Plaintiff Nagle participated and invested in the options offered by
the Plan that are challenged in this lawsuit during his
employment.
Evergy, Inc. is an energy service provider to 1.7 million customers
in Kansas and Missouri.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kelly M. Spann, Esq.
FORTMANSPANN, LLC
250 St. Catherine Street
Florissant, MO 63031
Telephone: (314) 522-2312
Facsimile: (314) 524-1519
Email: kms@fortmanlaw.com
- and -
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
James A. Maro, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C. 312 Old Lancaster
Road Merion Station, PA 19066
Telephone: (610) 890-0200
E-mail: markg@capozziadler.com
jamesm@capozziadler.com
EVRY JEWELS: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Beaver Due August 8
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATIE BEAVER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EVRY JEWELS
INCORPORATED, Case No. 3:24-cv-06215-CRB (N.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Charles Breyer entered a case management order as
Follows:
Event Proposed Deadline
Deadline to exchange initial disclosures: March 28, 2025
Deadline to amend pleadings: June 26, 2025
Close of discovery on issues related to July 25, 2025
class certification:
Motion for class certification: Aug. 8, 2025
Opposition to motion for class Sept. 5, 2025
Certification:
Reply in support of motion for class Sept. 26, 2025
Certification:
Hearing on class certification: Oct. 10, 2025
The Complaint alleges that Defendant Evry Jewels, Inc. engages in
deceptive, unfair, and unlawful conduct by advertising supposedly
time-limited sales that in truth are always available. Plaintiff
contends that these practices harm consumers.
Evry Jewels is an online jewelry retailer.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 14, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=E9WUbe at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christin Cho, Esq.
Simon Franzini, Esq.
Grace Bennett, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 656-7066
Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
E-mail: christin@dovel.com
simon@dovel.com
grace@dovel.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Ira M. Steinberg, Esq.
Sherry E. Jackman, Esq.
GREENBERG GLUSKER FIELDS
CLAMAN & MACHTINGER LLP
2049 Century Park East, Suite 2600
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 553-3610
Facsimile: (310) 553-0687
E-mail: ISteinberg@ggfirm.com
SJackman@ggfirm.com
FABLETICS INC: Faces Class Action Over VIP Membership Program
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that Fabletics faces a
proposed class action lawsuit centered on its VIP membership
program, including allegations about deceptive pricing, hidden
auto-renewal terms and store credit that illegally expires.
The 52-page lawsuit was filed by 11 consumers who paid Fabletics'
$59.95 monthly VIP membership fee in exchange for promotional
member credit each month, which can purportedly be used to buy any
single item or two-piece outfit from the sportswear retailer for up
to $100. The complaint says VIP members also receive 20-50 percent
off Fabletics' retail prices.
According to the complaint, however, the $100 value of promotional
member credit is deceptive since virtually no items available at
the VIP membership pricing level come close to costing $100.
"In fact, most items [the defendant] sells do not exceed the $59.95
monthly membership fee even before the 20-50% discount is applied,"
the Fabletics lawsuit asserts.
The plaintiffs claim they reasonably believed the VIP membership
program was a good deal since Fabletics represented that they would
receive $100 in purchasing value for a $59.95 fee.
Per the case, the consumers did not realize until after they
enrolled in the program that it was "next to impossible" to obtain
items close to $100 in value, as very few products were actually
priced that high.
The suit further accuses Fabletics of violating California law by
failing to clearly and conspicuously disclose its VIP membership
automatic renewal terms to consumers before they complete the
enrollment process. Specifically, the lawsuit contends, the
defendant fails to adequately inform customers that the membership
will automatically renew and charge their stored payment method
each month. Fabletics also hides information about its cancellation
policy, the suit alleges.
"[T]o capture more revenue per transaction, Defendant designed its
order processes to present the terms of the VIP Membership Program
in an intentionally inconspicuous manner," the case says.
Finally, the lawsuit alleges Fabletics has run afoul of the
California Gift Certificate Statute, which makes it illegal for
companies to sell gift certificates with an expiration date. The
filing argues that the retailer's $100 promotional membership
credit—which includes a $59.95 monthly membership fee and an
extra $40.05 in purchasing value—is a gift certificate that
illegally expires 12 months after issuance.
The lawsuit looks to represent all United States residents who,
within the applicable statutory period, purchased a Fabletics VIP
membership. [GN]
FASTAFF LLC: Court Restricts Egan Bids for Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THERESA EGAN, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
FASTAFF, LLC and U.S. NURSING CORPORATION, Case No.
1:22-cv-03364-CYC (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge Cyrus Chung entered an
order granting the Defendants' unopposed motion to restrict the
Plaintiffs' motions for class certification and all exhibits.
Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is directed to maintain ECF No.
130, ECF No. 131, and all exhibits attached to ECF No. 130 at
Restriction Level 1 pursuant to D.C.COLO.L.CivR 7.2, limiting
access thereto to the parties and the Court.
Fastaff offers staffing services.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 13, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yGmae5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
FAT BRANDS: Faces Ballard Suit Over Privacy Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES BALLARD, an individual, Plaintiff v. FAT BRANDS INC., a
Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 5:25-cv-00686 (C.D. Cal., March 14, 2025) accuses the
Defendants of violating the California Invasion of Privacy Act.
Defendant Fat Brands, Inc. allegedly installed TikTok tracking
pixel on its website, www.roundtablepizza.com. The said software
gathers device and browser information, geographic information,
referral tracking, and URL tracking by running code or "scripts" on
the Website to send user details to TikTok. However, the Defendant
failed and continues to fail to obtain Plaintiff's and Class
Members' prior consent to its tracking/surveillance activities,
says the suit.
Headquartered in California, Fat Brands Inc. owns, operates and/or
controls the website, an online platform that offers pizzas for
sale, delivery services, and coupons. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Reuben D. Nathan, Esq.
NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC
2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Telephone: (949) 270-2798
E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com
- and -
Michael J. Manning, Esq.
MANNING LAW, APC
26100 Towne Centre Drive
Foothill Ranch, CA 92610
Telephone: (949) 200-8755
E-mail: privacy@manninglawoffice.com
FEDERAL HOUSING: Court Tosses Bid for Judgment
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FAIRHOLME FUNDS, INC. et
al., v. FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY, et al., Case No.
1:13-cv-1053-RCL (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Royce Lamberth will deny
Defendants' motion for judgment as a matter of law.
The Jury's verdict will stand. A separate order consistent with
this memorandum opinion shall issue, the Court says.
The Defendants argue that the Court should "reconsider its rulings"
that the claims travel with the shares. The new twist that the
Defendants offer is to label this issue as a standing problem for
lack of injury, presumably because standing is a jurisdictional
issue that cannot be waived and can be raised at any point.
But this challenge offers nothing new in its substance. It is
virtually indistinguishable from the challenges that this Court has
already resolved at multiple points throughout this litigation,
both pre-trial and during trial.
The Court adheres to the law of the case: that claims challenging
the Net Worth Sweep as a breach of the implied covenant in the
shareholder certificates run with the shares, and thus are injuries
experienced by all current shareholders, including post-Third
Amendment purchasers. Therefore, Plaintiffs have identified an
injury that satisfies the requirement for Article III standing.
On Aug. 12, 2021, the Class Plaintiffs filed their motion to
certify this action as a class action. The parties stipulated to
certification of three classes on Oct. 14, 2021, and on Dec. 7,
2021, the Court granted the Class Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification after a "rigorous analysis" of the factual bases for
class certification. The following three classes were certified:
1. All current holders of junior preferred stock in Fannie Mae
as of the date of certification, or their successors in
interest to the extent shares are sold after the date of
certification and before any final judgment or settlement
(the "Fannie Preferred Class");
2. All current holders of junior preferred stock in Freddie Mac
as of the date of certification, or their successors in
interest to the extent shares are sold after the date of
certification and before any final judgment or settlement
(the "Freddie Preferred Class"); and
3. All current holders of common stock in Freddie Mac as of the
date of certification, or their successors in interest to
the extent shares are sold after the date of certification
and before any final judgment or settlement (the "Freddie
Common Class").
The Plaintiffs filed suit in 2013 to challenge the so-called "Net
Worth Sweep," arising from an amendment to the agreement between
the United States Department of the Treasury and the FHFA in the
FHFA's capacity as conservator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Federal Housing provides oversight of mortgage & housing credit
government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs).
A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated March 14, 2025, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NQv5oW
at no extra charge.[CC]
FIFTH THIRD: Howards Seek to Certify Class of Accountholders
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TROY HOWARDS, on behalf of
himself and all individuals similarly situated, v. FIFTH THIRD
BANK, Case No. 1:18-cv-00869-MRB (S.D. Ohio), the Plaintiff asks
the Court to enter an order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(3), certifying the following Class:
"All Fifth Third checking accountholders in the United States
who, from March 8, 2010, to Sept. 18, 2021, were charged
Multiple Fees on the same ACH debit or check."
Specifically excluded from the putative Class is the
Defendant, any entities in which Defendant has a controlling
interest, any of the Defendant's parents, subsidiaries,
affiliates, officers, directors, employees, and members of
such persons' immediate families, and the presiding judge(s)
in this case, their staff, and their immediate family.
The Plaintiff contends that the Class satisfies all Rule 23 class
certification requirements. The Plaintiff has retained competent
counsel with extensive experience in handling class actions and
other complex litigation and who have already committed, and will
continue to commit, the necessary resources to adequately represent
the Class.
Fifth Third is a bank holding company headquartered in Cincinnati,
Ohio.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 14, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gppeDn at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stuart E. Scott, Esq.
Kevin C. Hulick, Esq.
SPANGENBERG SHIBLEY & LIBER LLP
1001 Lakeside Avenue East, Suite 1700
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (216) 696-3232
Facsimile: (216) 696-3924
E-mail: sscott@spanglaw.com
khulick@spanglaw.com
- and -
Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
Andrea R. Gold, Esq.
Gemma Seidita, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 1010
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
agold@tzlegal.com
gseidita@tzlegal.com
- and -
Jeffrey M. Ostrow, Esq.
Jonathan M. Streisfeld, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
1 West Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
streisfeld@kolawyers.com
tropin@kolawyers.com
- and -
Sophia G. Gold, Esq.
Amanda J. Rosenberg, Esq.
KALIELGOLD PLLC
1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 350-4783
E-mail: sgold@kalielgold.com
arosenberg@kalielgold.com
FIRSTKEY HOMES: Harper Seeks Unpaid Minimum & OT Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
TAKI HARPER, SHAWNTE LEIGH, and KELLY WILLIAMS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. FIRSTKEY HOMES, LLC,
Case No. 3:25-cv-00642-L (N.D. Tex., March17, 2025) is a collective
action to recover overtime compensation, minimum wages, other
unpaid wages, liquidated damages, penalties, attorney's fees,
litigation expenses, costs of court, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest and injunctive relief under the provisions of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiffs and all others similarly situated regularly worked
over 40 hours in a week while employed by the Defendant but were
not paid time and one half their regular rate of pay for all hours
worked over 40 in a workweek. The Defendant's policy and/or
practice was to not pay Plaintiffs and all others similarly
situated overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 in a
week as required by the FLSA.
The collective action consists of current and former employees who
worked for the Defendant who in the three years preceding the
filing of this suit were not paid minimum wages and/or overtime
compensation at time and one half their regular rates of pay for
all hours they worked over 40 in a workweek in violation of the
FLSA and whose job duties included assisting leasing agents with
respect to the leasing activity for rental homes managed by the
Defendant.
Plaintiff Harper was employed by Defendant as a move-in coordinator
from May 2022 to January 2024.
FirstKey provides single-family rental homes in the United States,
with offices in at least seventeen states. FirstKey engages in
managing, leasing, renovating, and administering residential rental
properties.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Rhonda H. Wills, Esq.
Patrick J. Raspino, Esq.
WILLS LAW FIRM, PLLC
1776 Yorktown, Suite 570
Houston, TX 77056
Telephone: (713) 528-4455
E-mail: rwills@rwillslawfirm.com
- and -
Kobby T. Warren, Esq.
WARREN HEALY, PLLC
1910 Pacific Avenue, Suite 9500
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 999-9499
FIRSTSOURCE SOLUTIONS: McClain Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Kentucky
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Firstsource Solutions
USA, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Marshall McClain,
individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities
similarly situated v. Firstsource Solutions USA, LLC, Manatee
Memorial Hospital, Limited Partnership, Case No. 3:25-cv-00150-DJH
(W.D. Ky., March 15, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Firstsource -- https://www.firstsource.com/ -- is a specialized
global business process management partner, and an RP-Sanjiv Goenka
Group company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq.
PERRONG LAW LLC
2657 Mt. Carmel Ave
Glenside, PA 19038
Phone: (215) 225-5529
Fax: (888) 329-0305
Email: a@perronglaw.com
FLOOR AND DECOR: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Dalton Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Floor and Decor Outlets of America, Inc.,
Case No. 0:25-cv-01020 (D. Minn., March 18, 2025) arises because
Defendant's Website, www.flooranddecor.com, is not fully and
equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision
in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the
effective communication and auxiliary aids and services
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act as well as
asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human
Rights Act. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction requiring a
change in Defendant's corporate policies to cause its online store
to become, and remain, accessible to individuals with visual
disabilities.
The Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and others who are similarly
situated, seeks relief including an injunction requiring Defendant
to make its Website accessible to Plaintiff and the putative class;
and requiring Defendant to adopt sufficient policies, practices,
and procedures, the details of which are more fully described
below, to ensure that Defendant's Website remains accessible in the
future.
The Plaintiffs also seek an award of statutory attorney's fees and
costs, damages, a damages multiplier, a civil penalty, and such
other relief as the Court deems just, equitable, and appropriate.
The Plaintiff has been legally blind and is therefore disabled
under the ADA.
The Defendant has physical locations within and around the State of
Minnesota. The Defendant offers hard surface flooring and home
renovation materials for sale including, but not limited to, tile,
wood, stone, fixtures, related tools, and flooring
accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason Gustafson, Esq.
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (763) 515-6110
E-mail: jason@throndsetlaw.com
pat@throndsetlaw.com
chad@throndsetlaw.com
FLORIDA POWER: Faces Breach of Contract Suit
--------------------------------------------
Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) disclosed in its Form 10-Q
report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2025, that it is
a defendant in a purported class action lawsuit filed in February
2018 that seeks from FPL unspecified damages for alleged breach of
contract and gross negligence based on service interruptions that
occurred as a result of Hurricane Irma in 2017. There is currently
no trial date set.
In June 2024, the plaintiffs filed a motion for rehearing,
rehearing en banc or certification with the 3rd DCA and that motion
was denied in August 2024.
In September 2024, the plaintiffs filed a request for the Florida
Supreme Court to review the 3rd DCA's order decertifying the class
and remanding and staying the case, which request remains pending.
The Miami-Dade County Circuit Court certified the case as a class
action and FPL's appeal of that decision was denied by Florida's
Third District Court of Appeal in March 2023. The certified class
encompasses all persons and business owners who reside in and are
otherwise citizens of the state of Florida that contracted with FPL
for electrical services, were charged storm charges, experienced a
power outage after Hurricane Irma and suffered consequential
damages because of FPL's alleged breach of contract or gross
negligence. FPL filed a motion on March 31, 2023, for rehearing
with the 3rd DCA claiming that the opinion upholding the class
certification contains several errors that should be reheard by the
full 3rd DCA.
Additionally, in July 2023, FPL filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit on the basis that, among other things, it believes the FPSC
has exclusive jurisdiction over any issues arising from a utility's
preparation for and response to emergencies or disasters.
In December 2024, the Florida Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs'
request to review the 3rd DCA's order.
Florida Power & Light Company is the largest power utility in
Florida. It is a Juno Beach, Florida-based power utility company
serving roughly 5 million customers and 11 million people in
Florida.
FLUENCE ENERGY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 12
--------------------------------------------------------------
Leading securities law firm Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP announces
that a lawsuit has been filed against Fluence Energy, Inc. (NASDAQ:
FLNC) and certain of the Company's senior executives for potential
violations of the federal securities laws.
If you invested in Fluence Energy, you are encouraged to obtain
additional information by visiting
https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/fluence-energy-inc.
Investors have until May 12, 2025, to ask the Court to be appointed
to lead the case. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of
investors who purchased Fluence Energy common stock. The case is
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia and is captioned Abramov v. Fluence Energy, Inc., et al.,
No. 25-cv-00444.
Why was Fluence Energy Sued for Securities Fraud?
Fluence Energy offers energy storage products and solutions,
delivery services, recurring operational and maintenance services,
and digital applications and solutions for energy storage and other
power assets.
As alleged, Fluence Energy misrepresented the strength of its
competitive position, sales pipeline, and backlog of orders. In
reality, Fluence Energy concealed declines in its sales and
earnings growth by engaging in aggressive revenue pull-forwards and
selectively applied earnings adjustments.
The Stock Declines as the Truth is Revealed
On February 22, 2024, Blue Orca Capital issued a report revealing
that Siemens Energy -- an affiliate of one of the company's
founders and largest sources of revenue -- filed a lawsuit accusing
Fluence Energy of misrepresentations, breach of contract, and
fraud. The Blue Orca report also revealed that much of Fluence
Energy's sales and earnings growth was the result of aggressive
revenue pull-forwards and selectively applied earnings
adjustments.
Then, on February 10, 2025, Fluence Energy issued a press release
announcing its financial results for Q1 2025. Fluence Energy
reported a net loss of $57 million, or $0.32 per share, with
revenues falling 49% year-over-year, and lowered its revenue
guidance for the remainder of the year. According to Fluence
Energy, "[w]e have experienced customer-driven delays in signing
certain contracts that, coupled with competitive pressures, result
in the need to lower our fiscal year 2025 outlook."
This news caused the price of Fluence Energy stock to decline 46%,
to close at $7.00 per share on February 11, 2025.
Click here if you suffered losses:
https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/fluence-energy-inc.
What Can You Do?
If you invested in Fluence Energy you may have legal options and
are encouraged to submit your information to the firm.
All representation is on a contingency fee basis, there is no cost
to you. Shareholders are not responsible for any court costs or
expenses of litigation. The firm will seek court approval for any
potential fees and expenses.
Submit your information by visiting:
https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/fluence-energy-inc
Or contact:
Ross Shikowitz
ross@bfalaw.com
(212) 789-3619
Why Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP?
Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP is a leading international law firm
representing plaintiffs in securities class actions and shareholder
litigation. It was named among the Top 5 plaintiff law firms by ISS
SCAS in 2023 and its attorneys have been named Titans of the
Plaintiffs' Bar by Law360 and SuperLawyers by Thompson Reuters.
Among its recent notable successes, BFA recovered over $900 million
in value from Tesla, Inc.'s Board of Directors, as well as $420
million from Teva Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd.
For more information about BFA and its attorneys, please visit
https://www.bfalaw.com.
https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/fluence-energy-inc [GN]
FOR GOODNESS: Discloses Consumers' Info to Meta, Levens Says
------------------------------------------------------------
CAROLINE LEVENS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FOR GOODNESS SAKE LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-02593-NC (N.D.
Cal., March 17, 2025) alleges that the Defendant has installed 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, the Defendant violated the VPPA by
knowingly disclosing the personally identifiable information of
Plaintiff and the class members to Meta without their consent. To
do so, behind the scenes of its videos, the Defendant installed
computer code on its Website called the "Meta Pixel," which
--unbeknownst to the Plaintiff and the members of the
Class—tracks and records Plaintiff's and the Class Members'
private video consumption and discloses it to Meta without their
consent. Meta, in turn, uses Plaintiff's and the Class Members'
video consumption habits to build profiles on consumers and deliver
targeted advertisements to them, among other activities, says the
suit.
The Plaintiff created an OMGYES account and accesses her account to
watch videos. The Plaintiff has accessed her account and watched
videos as recently as August 2024. The Plaintiff accesses OMGYES
videos on the same browser she uses to access her Facebook account,
which she created using her real name before she had an OMGYES
account.
The Defendant owns and operates OMGYES.com, which is used
throughout California and the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
Stefan Bogdanovich, 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
sbogdanovich@bursor.com
FOREST RIVER: Class Cert Hearing in Nelson Suit Set for April 15
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nelson v. Forest River,
INC et al., Case No. 4:22-cv-00049 (D. Mont., Filed May 23, 2022),
the Hon. Judge Brian Morris entered an order setting hearing on
motion to take deposition and motion to certify class.
-- The motion hearing is set for April 15, 2025.
The nature of suit states torts -- personal property -- other
personal property damage.
Forest River is an American manufacturer of recreational vehicles,
cargo trailers, utility trailers, pontoon boats, and buses.[CC]
FORMULA ONE: Parties Must File Discovery Plan if Mediation Fails
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Palma v. Formula One
Digital Media Limited, Case No. 1:24-cv-05283 (E.D.N.Y., Filed July
29, 2024), the Hon. Judge Orelia E. Merchant entered an order
directing that if mediation is unsuccessful, the parties are
directed to file by April 3, 2025, a proposed discovery plan in
accordance with the Court's instruction that fact discovery be
closed before any briefing on class certification.
The nature of suit states Statutory Actions.
Formula One Digital Media Limited, registered in England and Wales,
operates the official Formula 1 website (www.formula1.com) and is
responsible for commercializing the FIA Formula One World
Championship.[CC]
FRANKLIN WIRELESS: Settles Ali Shareholder Suit for $2.4MM
----------------------------------------------------------
Franklin Wireless Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 14, 2025, that it settled a
shareholder action, "Ali vs. Franklin Wireless Corp. et al." Case
#3:21-cv-00687-AJB-MSB, filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern
District of California (San Diego) on April 16, 2021.
On May 6, 2024, per the terms of the settlement agreement, the
company sent by wire transfer $2,400,000 to an account specified by
the class action claim administrator.
Case alleged, among other things, that the company had prior
knowledge that the Verizon recall was likely and that its did not
disclose that information to investors in a timely manner. The
class and defendants have executed a Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement under which the Class releases all claims against
Defendants in exchange for a payment by Defendants of $2.4 million.
The class has submitted a motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement, which the court denied on January 24, 2024. On April
22, 2024, after resubmission of the application, the court granted
preliminary approval of the settlement.
Doing business as "FranklinAccess,", Franklin Wireless is a global
provider of integrated wireless solutions technologies including
mobile hotspots, fixed wireless routers, and mobile device
management solutions.
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY: Court Certifies Class in Gur-Ravantab
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as EMIR GUR-RAVANTAB, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY, Case No. 1:22-cv-01038-TNM (D.D.C.), the
Hon. Judge Trevor McFadden entered an order granting motion to
certify class.
The settlement class satisfies Rule 23(a) and (b). So, the Court
will certify the class. And the settlement agreement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate. Thus the Court approves the settlement.
The Plaintiffs sued Georgetown University, arguing the school’s
move to virtual instruction during the pandemic violated its
implied contract with its students and led to unjust enrichment.
Following successful settlement negotiations, Plaintiffs move to
certify the proposed settlement class and obtain approval of the
settlement agreement.
In sum, the settlement class satisfies the strictures of Rule 23(a)
and 23(b)(3). And the settlement agreement is fair, reasonable, and
adequate, as required by Rule 23(e)(2). So the Court ORDERS that
the Motion for Settlement, ECF No. 71, and the Motion for Fees, ECF
No. 72, are GRANTED.
Finally, the Court authorizes disbursement of $75,000 to the
Settlement Administrator, Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions,
Inc, to be paid in accordance with the Settlement Agreement, to
compensate the Settlement Administrator for the tasks performed in
connection with class notice and administration of the settlement.
Georgetown University is a private Jesuit research university in
Washington, DC.
A copy of the Court's memorandum order dated March 11, 2025, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=B4Rcu7
at no extra charge.[CC]
GERON CORPORATION: Dabestani Sues Over Exchange Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reza Dabestani, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GERON CORPORATION, JOHN A. SCARLETT, ANDREW J.
GRETHLEIN, MICHELLE J. ROBERTSON, FAYE FELLER, ANIL KAPUR, and
JAMES ZIEGLER, Case No. 3:25-cv-02507 (N.D. Cal., March 13, 2025),
is brought as a federal securities class action on behalf of all
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Geron securities
between June 7, 2024, to February 25, 2025, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants'
violations of the federal securities laws (the "Class") in
violation of the Exchange Act.
The Defendants provided investors with material information
concerning Defendants' expectations for the launch and growth
potential of Rytelo (imetelstat). The Defendants' statements
included, among other things, confidence in Geron's ability to
capitalize on the purportedly significant unmet need for the drug
and to execute on its commercial plan to target first-line ESA
ineligible patients, while continually minimizing the risks
associated with the burden of the weekly monitoring requirement for
Rytelo and the impacts of seasonality and existing competition on
the drug's sales.
The Defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive statements to
investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false
and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts
concerning the true state of Rytelo's potential; notably, that the
lack of awareness for Rytelo, the burden of the continued
monitoring requirement, and the impacts of seasonality and existing
competition resulted in an inability for Geron to capitalize on the
purportedly significant unmet need for the drug, particularly among
first-line patients and those outside the academic setting.
On February 26, 2025, Geron announced its financial results for the
fourth quarter of fiscal 2024, disclosing that Rytelo's growth had
flattened over the preceding months. The Company attributed the
diminished growth on seasonality, competition, lack of awareness
for Rytelo, and the burden of the monitoring requirement necessary
for the drug treatment.
Investors and analysts reacted immediately to Geron's revelation.
The price of Geron's common stock declined dramatically. From a
closing market price of $2.37 per share on February 25, 2025,
Geron's stock price fell to $1.61 per share on February 26, 2025, a
decline of about 32.07% in the span of just a single day, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased Geron common stock at artificially inflated
prices during the Class Period.
Geron is a commercial-stage biopharmaceutical company with a focus
on blood cancer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam M. Apton, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
1160 Battery Street East, Suite 100
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: (415) 373-1671
Email: aapton@zlk.com
GOLDCO DIRECT: Filing for Class Cert. Bid Extended to April 18
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Summerton, Jan v. Goldco
Direct LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00238 (W.D. Wisc., Filed April 18,
2023), the Hon. Judge William M. Conley entered an order extending
filing bid for class certification to March 31, 2025
The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA).
The Defendant is a gold and silver provider.[CC]
GOLDCO DIRECT: Summerton Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAN SUMMERTON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
GOLDCO DIRECT LLC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00238-wmc (W.D. Wis.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending the class
certification deadline from March 13, 2025 to March 31, 2025.
On Sept. 18, 2024, the Court granted the Plaintiff's unopposed
motion to modify the Court's scheduling order and set a deadline of
March 13, 2025, for Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
Goldco is a gold and silver provider.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 13, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZOEC6g at no extra
charge.[CC]
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
GOODRX INC: Capitol Heights Pharmacy Sues Over Price-Fixing Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------------
CAPITOL HEIGHTS PHARMACY, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOODRX, INC.; GOODRX HOLDINGS,
INC.; CVS CAREMARK CORP.; EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC.; MEDIMPACT
HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS, INC.; NAVITUS HEALTH SOLUTIONS, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00849 (D. Colo., March 14, 2025),
seeks to address an unlawful horizontal price-fixing agreement
between GoodRx and four of the largest pharmacy benefit managers in
the United States--CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, MedImpact, and
Navitus.
Through its so-called Integrated Savings Program, GoodRx and the
PBM Defendants have orchestrated a horizontal price-fixing
agreement by coordinating the exchange of competitively sensitive
information and enforcing a single, uniform "lowest negotiated
rate" for every generic-drug claim. This lower rate has
substantially damaged Plaintiff and the Class, as Defendants have
artificially suppressed the prices paid to independent pharmacies
for reimbursement of generic prescription drug claims. Accordingly,
Plaintiff now seek redress for Defendants' unlawful conduct and
asserts claims for violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and
Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act.
Headquartered in Santa Monica, CA, GoodRx, Inc. is a healthcare
company that owns and operates price comparison platforms that
tracks prescription drug prices and offers drug coupons. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David J. Ko, Esq.
Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
Rachel Bowanko, Esq.
Vinh Le, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3400
Seattle, WA 98101-3268
Telephone: (206) 623-1900
Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
E-mail: dko@kellerrohrback.com
dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
rbowanko@kellerrohrback.com
vle@kellerrohrback.com
- and -
Mark D. Boesen
Allyson Snow
BOESEN & SNOW LAW
8501 E Princess Dr., Suite 220
Scottsdale, AZ 85255
Telephone: (602) 900-8562
Facsimile: (602) 581-3146
E-mail: mboesen@bslawusa.com
asnow@bslawusa.com
GOOGLE LLC: Taylor Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSEPH TAYLOR, EDWARD
MLAKAR, MICK CLEARY, EUGENE ALVIS, and JENNIFER NELSON,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
GOOGLE LLC, Case No. 5:20-cv-07956-VKD (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs
ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to certify
class under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3).
Google operates as a global technology company specializing in
internet related services and products.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 11, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OTo8wJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Elizabeth M. Pipkin, Esq.
Ann M. Ravel, Esq.
McMANIS FAULKNER
50 West San Fernando Street, 10th Floor
San Jose, CA 95113
Telephone: (408) 279-8700
Facsimile: (408) 279-3244
E-mail: epipkin@mcmanislaw.com
aravel@mcmanislaw.com
- and -
Glen E. Summers, Esq.
Karma M. Giulianelli, Esq.
Lindley J. Brenza, Esq.
Jonathan Jacob Marsh, Esq.
BARTLIT BECK LLP
1801 Wewatta Street, Suite 1200
Denver, CO 80202
Telephone: (303) 592-3100
- and -
Marc A. Wallenstein, Esq.
George A. Zelcs, Esq.
Ryan Z. Cortazar, Esq.
Chad E. Bell, Esq.
Pamela I. Yaacoub, Esq.
Carol L. O'Keefe, Esq.
Michael E. Klenov, Esq.
KOREIN TILLERY LLC
205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 1950
Chicago, IL 60601
Telephone: (312) 641-9750
Facsimile: (312) 641-9751
GOURMET KOSHER: Cadot Sues to Recover Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Yves Cadot, and other similarly situated individuals v. GOURMET
KOSHER, LLC. d/b/a Gourmet Kosher, f/k/a EMERALD CATERING EVENTS;
GOURMET KOSHER MANAGEMENT COMPANY d/b/a Gourmet Kosher, and
MENACHEM M. HAYES, Case No. 1:25-cv-21197-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March
13, 2025), is brought arising out of Plaintiff's employment
relationship with Defendant, including his discrimination and
wrongful termination in violation of the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act of 1967 (the "ADEA"); the Florida Civil Rights Act
(the "FCRA"), and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1963 and to
recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the laws of
the United States.
The Plaintiff's work schedule at the Defendants varied, but on
average Plaintiff worked 50 to 60 hours per week, 5 to 7 days per
week. The Plaintiff's hourly rate and overtime rate also varied.
Plaintiff's hourly rate was at least $15.5 per hour. However, when
Plaintiff worked overtime, sometimes the Defendants paid him $15
per hour and sometimes the Defendants paid him $20 per hour, even
though Plaintiff's hourly rate was at least $15.5 per hour. This
means that Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff 1.5 times per hour
when he worked over 40 hours per week, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a driver from
September 20, 2020, until his wrongful termination on July 26,
2024.
The Defendants were and are engaged in interstate commerce..[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
R. Martin Saenz, Esquire
THE SAENZ LAW FIRM, PA
20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
Aventura, FL 33180
Phone: (305)482-1475
Email: martin@legalopinionusa.com
GREATER GOODS: Sells Defective Kitchen Scales, Holton Suit Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
KELSEA HOLTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GREATER GOODS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
4:25-cv-00286 (E.D. Mo., March 7, 2025) is a class action against
the Defendant for breach of express warranty, breach of implied
warranty, unjust enrichment, strict liability, negligent failure to
warn, negligent design defect, negligence, and violation of a
federal regulation.
The case arises from the Defendant's design, manufacturing,
marketing, and distribution of kitchen scales containing button
cell or coin batteries. The product is defective because the scale
is powered by a small button cell battery that can be easily
accessed by children posing an ingestion hazard. The packaging
failed to provide an adequate warning of this potential hazard to
consumers. As a result of the Defendant's negligence and omissions,
the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers suffered losses,
says the suit.
Greater Goods, LLC is a manufacturer of consumer electronic related
products, headquartered in Saint Louis, Missouri. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James J. Rosemergy, Esq.
CAREY DANIS & LOWE
8235 Forsyth Boulevard, Suite 1100
St. Louis, MO 63105
Telephone: (314) 725-7700
Facsimile: (314) 721-0905
Email: jrosemergy@careydanis.com
- and -
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (803) 222-2222
Facsimile: (843) 494-5536
Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com
GRUNT STYLE: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hampton Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
TAMMY HAMPTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Grunt Style, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02793 (N.D. Ill.,
March 17, 2025) contends that the Defendant failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and
services Grunt Style provides to their non-disabled customers
through https://gruntstyle.com.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in
conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the ADA.
Allegedly, the access barriers make it impossible for blind and
visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the
website. Thus, Grunt Style excludes the blind and visually-impaired
from the full and equal participation in the growing Internet
economy that is increasingly a fundamental part of the common
marketplace and daily living, the lawsuit says.
Gruntstyle.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods,
services, price specials and other programs offered by Grunt Style.
Yet, Gruntstyle.com contains significant access barriers that make
it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired
customers to use the website.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Davis B. Reyes, Esq.
EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
68-29 Main Street,
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (630) 478-0856
E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law
GYMSHARK USA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hippe Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
XINYUE HIPPE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Gymshark USA, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00401-PP (N.D.
Ill., March 17, 2025) contends that the Defendant failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
Accordingly, Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired
persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods
and services Gymshark USA provides to their non-disabled customers
through https://www.gymshark.com. The Defendant's denial of full
and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its
products and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical
locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the ADA.
In fact, the access barriers make it impossible for blind and
visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the
website. Thus, Gymshark USA excludes the blind and
visually-impaired from the full and equal participation in the
growing Internet economy that is increasingly a fundamental part of
the common marketplace and daily living.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using her
computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms "blind" or
"visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual impairments
who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they have a
visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x 200.
Gymshark.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods,
services, price specials and other programs offered by Gymshark
USA. Yet, Gymshark.com contains significant access barriers that
make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired
customers to use the website.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Davis B. Reyes, Esq.
EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
68-29 Main Street,
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (630) 478-0856
E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law
HASH MAP LABS: Florea Sues Over Fraudulent Scheme
-------------------------------------------------
Alexandru Florea and Stephen J. Campion, individually and behalf of
all others similarly situated v. HASH MAP LABS, INC d/b/a
APPACADEMY, a Delaware Corporation; KUSH PATEL, an Individual, Case
No. 8:25-cv-00628 (M.D. Fla., March 15, 2025), is brought against
the Defendants' who knowingly and intentionally lured the
Plaintiffs, along with hundreds of other student-victims, into a
nationwide fraudulent scheme, falsely representing that enrollment
in an expensive online software engineering coding bootcamp would
guarantee job placement upon completion.
The Defendant APP promoted its program as a meticulously designed,
industry-standard software engineering bootcamp, featuring clear
timelines and outcomes. The academy also assured guaranteed job
placement or career support upon successful completion of the
program. After the start of the program, Defendant APP made
substantial and unexpected changes to the course structure, which
differed from the terms outlined in the agreement. These changes
included fewer resources, reduced staffing, and inadequate support
systems.
These modifications adversely affected numerous students'
experiences and caused detriment to the Plaintiffs who enrolled in
this program under its original terms. The bootcamp encountered
staffing shortages that affected the quality of instruction and
career support. Plaintiffs reported that they did not receive
adequate guidance or assistance during and after their courses.
These shortages were cited as a factor in the perceived value of
the tuition fees paid.
The Defendants knowingly permitted these misrepresentations to
persist while benefiting from the tuition fees, despite not
providing the services that were promised. The Defendant APP did
not inform students of any changes that the program was undergoing,
including the termination of the part-time program, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiffs entered into a contract with the Defendant.
HASH LABS, LLC, d/b/a APP ACADEMY is a Delaware corporation base in
California and a coding bootcamp that offers intensive, full-stack
software engineering programs online and in-person.[BN]
The Plaintiffs represented by:
Michael A. Pizzi, Jr., Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL A. PIZZI, JR., P.A.
6625 Miami Lakes Drive, Suite 316
Miami Lakes, FL 33014
Phone: (305) 986-2277
Fax: (305) 777-3802
Email: mpizzi@pizzilaw.com
- and -
Hao Li, Esq.
FINBERG FIRM PLLC
1100 Lee Wagener Blvd #344
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33315
Phone: (305) 209-5008
Fax (689) 2058800
Email: howard@finbergfirm.com
Secondary Email: info@finbergfirm.com
- and -
David P. Reiner, II, Esq.
REINER & REINER, P.A.
9100 South Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 901
Miami, FL 33156-7815
Phone: (305) 670-8282
Facsimile: (305) 670-8989
Email: dpr@reinerslaw.com
eservice@reinerslaw.com
HCA HEALTHCARE: Bid for Conditional Class Cert Extended to April 23
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as McRee v. HCA Healthcare,
Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00128 (W.D.N.C., Filed April 25, 2024), the
Hon. Judge Max O. Cogburn, Jr. entered an order granting in part
the plaintiff's unopposed motion for extension of the conditional
certification motion deadline
-- The deadline for Plaintiff to file a motion for conditional
class certification is extended through and including April
23, 2025.
-- All other provisions of the Pretrial Order and Case Management
Plan remain in effect.
The nature of suit state Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) involving
collecting of unpaid wages.
HCA is an American for-profit operator of health care facilities
that was founded in 1968.[CC]
HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SANTOS, et al., v.
HEALTHCARE REVENUE RECOVERY GROUP, LLC, et al., Case No.
1:19-cv-23084 (S.D. Fla., Filed July 24, 2019 ), the Hon. Judge
Kathleen M. Williams entered an order granting Defendant's motion
for Extension of Time to Respond to Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for
Class Certification:
-- The Defendant requests an extension of time up to and
including April 24, 2025, to file its response.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
(FCRA).
The Defendant provides collection services to health care
sector.[CC]
HEARST TELEVISION: Therrien Seeks OK of Renewed Bid for Class Cert
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHARLES THERRIEN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
HEARST TELEVISION, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-10998-RGS (D. Mass.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting his renewed
motion for class certification pursuant or, alternatively,
reopening discovery pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4) and
23(c)(1)(C).
Hearst is a broadcasting company in the United States owned by
Hearst Communications.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 14, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Y4SEIG at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Yitzchak Kopel, Esq.
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
Victoria X. Zhou, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
E-mail: ykopel@bursor.com
mroberts@bursor.com
vzhou@bursor.com
- and -
James J. Reardon, Jr., Esq.
REARDON SCANLON LLP
45 South Main Street, 3rd Floor
West Hartford, CT 06107
Telephone: (860) 955-9455
Facsimile: (860) 920-5242
E-mail: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com
HOLIDAY INN: Lingard Seeks Reconsideration of Feb. 14 Order
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELIQUE L. LINGARD and
SUDARIEN D. SMITH, Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. HOLIDAY INN CLUB VACATIONS, INC. f/k/a
ORANGE LAKE COUNTRY CLUB, INC. and WILSON RESORT FINANCE, LLC, Case
No. 6:23-cv-00323-JSS-RMN (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court
to enter an order reconsidering and vacating the portion of its
Feb. 14, 2025, Order denying Plaintiff's motion for class
certification pertaining to typicality and adequacy under Rule
23(a), and predominance and superiority under Rule 23(b)(3).
Holiday Inn is a network of resorts across North America, offering
a variety of destinations from beaches and mountains to bustling
cities.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 14, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xZK1NV at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
Pamela G. Levinson, Esq.
Christopher J. Brochu, Esq.
Jeffrey L. Newsome, Esq.
VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A.
400 N. Ashley Drive, Suite 1900
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (352) 753-8600
Facsimile: (352) 504-3301
E-mail: bwarwick@vandwlaw.com
jvarnell@vandwlaw.com
plevinson@vandwlaw.com
cbrochu@vandwlaw.com
jnewsome@vandwlaw.com
ckoerner@vandwlaw.com
HOTEL COLLECTION: Nason Balks at Unwanted Telemarketing Calls
-------------------------------------------------------------
KAREN NASON, individually and on behalf of all those similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HOTEL COLLECTION LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:25-cv-01626 (C.D. Cal., February 26, 2025) is a putative class
action brought against the Defendant pursuant to the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the law by
initiating telephone solicitations to telephone subscribers such as
Plaintiff and the Class members before the hour of 8 a.m. or after
the hour of 9 p.m. (local time at the called party's location).
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt
Defendant's alleged unlawful conduct which has resulted in
intrusion into the peace and quiet in a realm that is private and
personal to Plaintiff and the Class members. The Plaintiff also
seeks statutory damages on behalf of themselves and members of the
Class, and any other available legal or equitable remedies.
Hotel Collection LLC provides hotel-inspired lifestyle products
with its headquarters located in Miami, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald D. Lane Jr., Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
1515 NE 26TH Street
Wilton Manors, FL 33305
Telephone: (754) 444-7539
E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com
HOTELENGINE INC: Figueroa et al. Seek to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shane Figueroa, Jordan Harrison, and Jennifer Smith, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
HotelEngine, Inc. d/b/a Engine, Defendants, Case No.
1:25-cv-00841-STV (D. Colo., March 14, 2025), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime compensation and other damages for Plaintiffs and
similarly situated individuals who work or have worked for
Defendants as exempt-classified Account Executives, Account
Managers, Sales Associates, and other similar positions.
The Plaintiffs worked for Defendant HotelEngine, Inc. as sales
employees. They regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek
but were not paid for all hours they worked over 40 in a workweek.
Throughout the relevant period, it was HotelEngine's policy to
deprive Plaintiffs and other sales employees of overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Colorado Wage
Claim Act, Colorado Minimum Wage Act, and Colorado civil theft
law.
Headquartered in Denver, CO, HotelEngine, Inc. is a travel
technology company that offers a marketplace where hotels,
airlines, and car rental companies can gain bookings from
customers. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Adam Koshkin Kaelyn Mahar, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
One California, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (202) 929-0640
Facsimile: (202) 847-4410
- and -
Melissa L. Stewart, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
685 Third Avenue, 25th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 245-1000
Facsimile: (646) 509-2060
HP INC: Class Cert Bid Filing in Davis Extended to Jan. 28, 2026
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUSTIN DAVIS and GARY
DAVIS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
HP INC., Case No. 4:23-cv-02114-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered an order granting the Plaintiffs'
motion for administrative relief pursuant to civil local rule 7-11
for extension of case management deadlines:
1. Plaintiffs' motion for administrative relief is granted.
2. The case management and pretrial order is modified, and the
Following deadlines are extended as follows:
Event Current Proposed
Deadline Deadline
Class Certification Expert Apr. 25, 2025 Oct. 22, 2025
Disclosures Opening Reports:
Class Certification Rebuttal May 30, 2025 Nov. 26, 2025
Expert Disclosures:
Class Certification Expert June 30, 2025 Dec. 29, 2025
Discovery Cutoff:
Deadline to File Motion for Aug. 1, 2025 Jan. 28, 2026
Class Certification:
Opposition to CC: Sept. 12, 2025 March 11, 2026
Class Certification Hearing Nov. 4, 2025 May 4, 2026
and Daubert Motions Hearing:
HP was an American multinational information technology company.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 14, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zaJigb at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Leland H. Belew, Esq.
Russell M. Busch, Esq.
Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
Mitchell Breit, Esq.
Tyler Litke, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
227 W. Monroe St., Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866)252-0878
E-mail: lbelew@milberg.com
rbusch@milbeerg.com
lbelew@milberg.com
tkashima@milberg.com
mbreit@milberg.com
tlitke@milberg.com
ICF TECHNOLOGY: Bid for Class Cert. Oral Argument in Mondello OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mondello v. ICF
Technology, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:24-cv-01037(M.D. Fla., Filed
April 30, 2024), the Hon. Judge Sean P. Flynn entered an order
granting the Defendants' motion for oral argument.
The Court says it will schedule a hearing on the Plaintiff's motion
for class certification via separate notice.
The alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
ICF is a streaming and processing service provider. The company
specializes in high-definition live streaming delivery across
multiple platforms to broadcast.[CC]
ICONTAINERS USA: Bid to Dismiss SX Amended Complaint Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SX Holdings, LLC v.
ICONTAINERS USA, INC., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-20824 (S.D. Fla.,
Filed March 18, 2022), the Hon. Judge Darrin P. Gayles entered an
order denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs'
amended complaint.
The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have adequately pled their
claims for Violation of Florida Deceptive Unfair Trade Practices
Act, Breach of Contract, Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good
Faith and Fair Dealing, and Unjust Enrichment.
The Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint contains "sufficient factual
matter to state claims to relief that are plausible on their face,"
the Court says
The Court also finds that it is premature to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' class action allegations. "The question of class
certification is generally not addressed on a motion to dismiss."
The nature of suit states torts - personal property - other fraud.
IContainers is a digital freight forwarder based in Barcelona,
powered by Agility group.[CC]
ILLINOIS VALLEY: Class Cert Bid Filing in P3 Suit Due June 12
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as P3 GROUP, INC. and DEE
BROWN, v. ILLINOIS VALLEY PUBLIC TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION and
PUBLIC BROADCASTING SERVICE, Case No. 2:24-cv-00136-KGB (E.D.
Ark.), the Hon. Judge Tracy Washington entered a final scheduling
order as follows:
1. Trial Date Aug. 11, 2025
2. Leave to add parties or amend Feb. 17, 2025
pleadings must be sought no
later than:
3. Discovery should be completed May 28, 2025
no later than:
4. Case-in-chief expert disclosures, March 14, 2025.
including reports, must be made
by:
5. Rebuttal expert disclosures, April 14, 2025.
including reports, must be
made by:
6. All motions, except motions June 12, 2025
for class certification and
motions in limine, must be
filed on or before:
7. Motions in limine must be filed July 28, 2025
on or before:
8. All requests for a settlement June 27, 2025
conference must be made on
or before:
Illinois Valley Public Telecommunications provides non-commercial
public television to the Peoria community as its primary mission.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 13, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Eg2RKK at no extra
charge.[CC]
INVOCA INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Busby's First Claim
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUHSON BUSBY, et al., v.
INVOCA, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-05542-JD (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
James Donato entered an order denying Invoca's motion to dismiss
the Plaintiffs' first claim.
The FAC plausibly alleges that Invoca is a "third party wiretapper"
that has violated the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA).
Invoca's request to dismiss the plaintiffs' second claim under
section 632(a) of CIPA is also denied.
Invoca says that plaintiffs failed "to plead both absence of
consent and that they had an expectation of privacy in their
calls." This is not a fair description of the complaint. The
Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that here, and that expectation
does not encompass Invoca.
The request to dismiss the CIPA section 637.5 claim is equally
unavailing. The Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged that Invoca is
subject to section 637.5(h) and that it engaged in conduct that
violated section 637.5(a)(1).
The request to strike the nationwide CIPA class claims under Rule
12(f) is denied. This is not a proper request under Rule 12(f).
Questions of class certification will be decided pursuant to Rule
23, as circumstances warrant.
Invoca's request to dismiss "Casner's CIPA claim and the nationwide
CIPA claims for failure to plead the necessary nexus to
California," is denied. The Plaintiffs have alleged that Invoca has
its "principal place of business in San Francisco, California," and
that Invoca recorded, transcribed, and analyzed the calls at issue.
Invoca provides conversation intelligence AI based solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 14, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YBXI9H at no extra
charge.[CC]
J&I CORDON: Monsalve Must Refile Class Cert Exhibits, Court Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN DARIO OSORIO
MONSALVE, on their own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated, v. J&I CORDON ELECTRIC, LLC, et al., Case No.
1:25-cv-01135-LMM (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Leigh Martin May
entered an order directing the Plaintiff to refile the exhibits so
that the docket entries comply with the Local Rules and correspond
to the documents' content.
The properly labeled exhibits shall be filed within five days of
the entry of this Order. Late or noncompliant filings may result in
sanctions, which may include the disregard of evidence. The time
for Defendants to file a response to the motion for conditional
class certification shall be counted from the day the properly
labeled exhibits are filed.
The case comes before the Court on the Plaintiff's motion for
conditional class certification. Review of the filings reveals that
Plaintiff did not comply with the provision of the Court's Local
Rules that requires parties to individually label all
electronically uploaded files according to their content.
J&I is a full service electrical contracting company.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 13, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mX0Jck at no extra
charge.[CC]
JACKSON GALAXY: Perkins Sues Over Unwanted Telemarketing Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMANDA PERKINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. JACKSON GALAXY ENTERPRISES, Defendant, Case
No. 2:25-cv-02025 (C.D. Cal., March 7, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in sending
unsolicited telemarketing text messages to the Plaintiff and
similarly situated consumers in an attempt to promote its products
or services without obtaining prior express written consent. As a
result of the Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff and the
Class suffered damages, says the suit.
Jackson Galaxy Enterprises is an e-commerce and e-learning company,
with its headquarters located in Beverly Hills, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald D. Lane Jr., Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
1515 NE 26th Street
Wilton Manors, FL 33305
Telephone: (754) 444-7539
Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com
JAMBA JUICE: Ballard Sues Over Unlawful Private Info Disclosure
---------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES BALLARD, an individual, Plaintiff v. JAMBA JUICE FRANCHISOR
SPV LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1-10,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-00684 (C.D. Cal., March 14,
2025) is a class action alleging the Defendants of violating the
California Invasion of Privacy Act.
Defendant Jamba Juice failed and continues to fail to obtain
Plaintiff's and Class Members' prior consent to its
tracking/surveillance activities. The company has embedded a TikTok
tracker software on its website. Moreover, the software gathers
device and browser information, geographic information, referral
tracking, and URL tracking by running code or "scripts" on the
website to send user details to TikTok, says the suit.
Headquartered in Georgia, Jamba Juice Franchisor SPV LLC owns,
operates and/or controls www.jamba.com, an online platform that
offers goods and services for sale to consumers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Reuben D. Nathan, Esq.
NATHAN & ASSOCIATES, APC
2901 W. Coast Hwy., Suite 200
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Telephone: (949) 270-2798
E-mail: rnathan@nathanlawpractice.com
- and -
Michael J. Manning, Esq.
MANNING LAW, APC
26100 Towne Centre Drive
Foothill Ranch, CA 92610
Telephone: (949) 200-8755
E-mail: privacy@manninglawoffice.com
JOG ROAD: Feltzin Sues Over Discriminative Property
---------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Feltzin, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. JOG ROAD CENTER, LTD., Case No. 2:25-cv-14088-XXXX
(S.D. Fla., March 14, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the
Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by
denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods,
services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations
of the commercial property.
Although over 30 years have passed since the effective date of
Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities
accessible to individuals with disabilities. The Plaintiff found
the Commercial Property and the business located within the
commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff
encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property and
the business located within the commercial property and wishes to
continue his patronage and use of the premises.
The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in
violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and
businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to
access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each
denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial
Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA.
The barriers to access have likewise posed a risk of injury(ies),
embarrassment, and discomfort to Plaintiff and others similarly
situated.
The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff
by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or
accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located
therein, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate.
JOG ROAD CENTER, LTD., owns, operates, and oversees the Commercial
Property, its general parking lot/or and parking spots specific to
the business therein, located in Palm Beach County, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq.
GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L.
350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200
Coral Gables, Fl 33134
Phone: (305) 553-3464
Primary Email: bvirues@lawgmp.com
Secondary Emails: aquezada@lawgmp.com
jacosta@lawgmp.com
- and -
Ramon J. Diego, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A.
5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103
Miami, FL, 33155
Phone: (305) 350-3103
Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com
JOHN PAUL: Hair Products' Made in USA Label "False," Lauer Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
SAM LAUER and REGINA BROOKSHIER, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JOHN PAUL MITCHELL
SYSTEMS, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02438 (N.D. Ill., March 7,
2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act,
Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and California's Unfair Competition
Law, and California's False Advertising Law, breach of express
warranty, unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and
intentional misrepresentation.
The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of its hair care
products. The Defendant labeled, marketed, and sold its products as
"Made in the USA." However, the products are made with numerous
ingredients and components that are not grown, sourced or otherwise
made in the United States. Had the Plaintiffs and similarly
situated consumers known the truth, they would not have purchased
the products or paid premium for them, says the suit.
John Paul Mitchell Systems is a manufacturer of hair care products,
with its principal place of business in Santa Clarita, California.
[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
245 Fischer Avenue, Ste. D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Email: ak@kazlg.com
KAISER FOUNDATION: Faibvre and Hamoda Suit Removed to S.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled TROY FAIBVRE, MAYADA HAMODA, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. KAISER
FOUNDATION HOSPITALS and THE PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, INC., and
DOES 1-20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25CU007700C, was removed
from the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
on March 14, 2025.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:25-cv-00617-H-JLB to the proceeding.
The Plaintiffs' claims stem from their employment with U.S. Nursing
Corporation and their alleged assignment in the Fall of 2023 to
work at Defendants' facilities in California while those facilities
were engaged in a labor dispute. Moreover, the complaint alleges
that Defendants are liable under California Labor Code section
2810.3 as a client employer.
Kaiser Foundation Hospitals is a nonprofit public benefit
corporation headquartered in Oakland, CA. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Christian J. Rowley, Esq.
Kerry Friedrichs, Esq.
Parnian Vafaeenia, Esq.
Taylor D. Horn, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
560 Mission Street, 31st Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 397-2823
Facsimile: (415) 397-8549
E-mail: crowley@seyfarth.com
kfriedrichs@seyfarth.com
pvafaeenia@seyfarth.com
thorn@seyfarth.com
KB CUSTOM: Delgado-Bojorquez et al. Seek Proper Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
JAIME ALBERTO DELGADO-BOJORQUEZ, OSCAR JOVANNY DIAZ-RAMIREZ, JOSE
ANIEL LOPEZ-VALDEZ, REY DAVID AVIÑA-COTO, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. KB CUSTOM AG
SERVICES, LLC, and KYLE BEAUCHAMP, Defendants, Case No.
1:25-cv-00847 (D. Colo., March 14, 2025) accuses the Defendants of
violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and breaching their
employment contract.
The Plaintiffs were employed as commercial truck drivers.
Allegedly, Defendants paid Plaintiffs the agricultural Adverse
Effect Wage Rate for agricultural field work, a wage rate which was
lower than the truck driver wage rate owed, and which was
inapplicable as Plaintiffs' work was non-agricultural in nature and
involved driving trucks on public roads for Defendants who were
labor contractors.
Based in Ault, CO, KB Custom AG Services, LLC operates as a labor
contractor providing swathing and combining along with transport of
forage and other animal feed for its dairy and animal feed lot
customers. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Dawson Morton, Esq.
DAWSON MORTON, LLC
1808 Sixth Street
Berkeley, CA 94710
Telephone: (404) 590-1295
E-mail: dawson@dawsonmorton.com
- and -
James Knoepp, Esq.
DAWSON MORTON, LLC
1612 Crestwood Drive
Columbia, SC 29205
Telephone: (828) 379-3169
E-mail: jim@dawsonmorton.com
KIA AMERICA: Faces Jasinski Suit Over Vehicles' Oil Ring Defect
---------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC JASINSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. KIA AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:25-cv-01234 (E.D. Pa., March 7, 2025) is a class action against
the Defendant for breach of implied warranty of merchantability,
fraud by omission or fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment,
strict liability, and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's manufacturing, marketing,
advertising, selling, warranting, and servicing of 2021-2023 Kia
Soul and 2021-2023 Kia Seltos vehicles. According to the complaint,
these Class vehicles have malfunctions regarding their incorrectly
manufactured piston oil rings which can result in engine damage and
failure, and even potentially cause a fire. As a result, the
Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers suffered losses. They
would not have purchased the Class vehicles or would have paid less
for them if they had knowledge of the oil ring defect.
Kia America, Inc. is an automobile manufacturer headquartered in
Irvine, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stuart A. Carpey, Esq.
CARPEY LAW, PC
600 W. Germantown Pike, Suite 400
Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462
Telephone: (610) 834-6030
Facsimile: (610) 825-7579
Email: scarpey@carpeylaw.com
KIM KOVOL: Seeks Leave to Supplement Class Cert Factual Materials
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jeremiah M., et al., v.
Kim Kovol, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-00129-SLG (D. Alaska), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for
leave to supplement factual materials supporting their opposition
to class certification pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(d)(2):
The Defendants request leave to supplement the factual materials
supporting their Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class
Certification, with the Plaintiffs' Supplemental Response to
Defendants First Set of Interrogatories.
The Defendants filed their opposition to the motion for class
certification on December 6, 2024. The Defendants argued Plaintiffs
failed to satisfy Rule 23(b)(2) because it is not possible to
redress the harms the Plaintiffs complain of through a single
injunction.
The Defendants could not have included the supplemental responses
as an exhibit to their opposition to class certification because
they were not served until nearly three months after the opposition
was filed.
These circumstances constitute good cause for supplementation, and
defendants request the Court grant leave to supplement the record
and consider the plaintiffs' supplemental interrogatory responses
in ruling on class certification
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 13, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fuB72U at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Margaret Paton Walsh, Esq.
Christopher A. Robison, Esq.
Katherine Demarest, Esq.
Jennifer Teitell, Esq.
Maxwell Jenkins-Goetz, Esq.
ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF LAW
1031 West Fourth Avenue, Ste. 200
Anchorage, AK 99501
Telephone: (907) 269-5275
Facsimile: (907) 276-3697
E-mail: chris.robison@alaska.gov
KLOVER HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Interest Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action lawsuit claims Klover provides Philadelphia residents with
cash advances at excessive interest rates, sometimes reaching as
high as 1,000 percent.
The 19-page lawsuit alleges the lending app has violated a
Pennsylvania law prohibiting unlicensed entities from issuing loans
with interest rates at more than six percent.
According to the complaint, the Klover app allows users to access
up to $200 in cash advances per pay period. The defendant markets
this service to borrowers who need cash "instantly" to cover
unexpected expenses or time-sensitive obligations, the filing says.
The suit explains that the app automatically deducts the advance
amount and several additional charges from a user's linked bank
account as soon as their next paycheck is deposited.
Per the case, Klover charges consumers an express fee, a "tip"
charge and a monthly membership fee to obtain compensation for
lending money.
"These fees cost the equivalent of a loan with an annual percentage
rate (APR) of 500%, 1,000%, or more, which makes it difficult for
borrowers to pay their bills, and which greatly increases the
chance that borrowers will overdraft their bank account," the
Klover lawsuit asserts.
The suit was filed by a Philadelphia County resident who says
Klover charged him a $9.99 express fee to obtain a $75 advance to
be repaid within seven days, which yielded a 694 percent APR. The
filing notes that borrowers must pay the defendant's express fee,
which has allegedly ranged between $1.49 and $20.78, to receive
cash instantly. Users who refuse to pay the express fee obtain an
"inferior version" of Klover's product that provides access to cash
days after a request is made, the complaint shares.
As the case tells it, Klover also deceives users into paying a
charge it misleadingly represents as a "tip."
"Borrowers often pay [Klover's] 'tip' charge because they are
misled to believe that they are helping needy persons (rather than
a large, well-funded corporate lender), or because they are misled
to believe that payment is expected or necessary," the complaint
contends.
Finally, Klover users are required to pay a $4.99 monthly
membership fee in order to receive a cash advance, the case says.
The lawsuit alleges that when this $4.99 monthly fee is included in
the APR calculation for the plaintiff's loan, his interest rate
increases to over 1,041 percent.
The filing claims Klover's cash advance product is nothing more
than an illegal payday loan -- a short-term, high-cost loan due on
the borrower's next payday.
"Pennsylvania outlaws payday lending (no matter its form) because
the excessively high costs associated with this form of lending
leave holes in paychecks, which can create a cycle of reborrowing,
where borrowers take out new loans to fill the gaps created by old
loans," the suit says. "This cycle of reborrowing erodes the
paychecks of borrowers, which prevents them from saving money for
their families, and prevents the financially vulnerable from
improving their situation and moving out of debt."
The lawsuit looks to represent all Philadelphia County residents
who obtained an advance or loan from Klover. [GN]
KOKODAK CORP: Keys Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Silas Keys, individually and for others similarly situated v.
KOKODAK CORP., Case No. 1:25-cv-00386 (W.D. Tex., March 14, 2025),
is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") to recover
unpaid overtime and other damages.
The Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiff, and other workers like
him, overtime as required by the FLSA. Instead, the Defendant pays
the Plaintiff, and other workers like him, the same hourly rate for
all hours worked, including those in excess of 40 in a workweek,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for Paik's Noodle from August 2023 until
September 2024.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carl A. Fitz, Esq.
FITZ LAW PLLC
3730 Kirby Drive, Ste. 1200
Houston, TX 77098
Phone: (713) 766-4000
Email: carl@fitz.legal
KRISTI NOEM: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as UNITED FARM WORKERS, et
al., v. KRISTI NOEM, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00246-JLT-CDB (E.D.
Cal.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting them
a 17-day extension of time, from the current deadline of March 21,
2025, up to and including April 7, 2025, to respond to the
Plaintiffs' motions for provisional class certification, and a
preliminary injunction.
The Defendants require additional time to discuss with the agency
the facts of this case and whether there are aspects of the
Plaintiffs' requested relief that may be resolved without further
litigation.
The Defendants' response deadline is currently March 21, 2025.
On Feb. 26, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a 71-page complaint in this
Court against several federal government officials arising from a
days-long operation in January 2025 conducted by U.S. Customs and
Border Protection ("CBP").
On March 7, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for provisional
class certification, and a motion for a preliminary injunction.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 14, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wpeeeE at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Samuel P. Go, Esq.
Mary L. Larakers, Esq.
Tim Ramnitz, Esq.
Olga Y. Kuchins, Esq.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
CIVIL DIVISION
Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044
Telephone: (202) 353-9923
Facsimile: (202) 305-7000
E-mail: Samuel.Go@usdoj.gov
Olga.Y.Kuchins@usdoj.gov
LA TAPATIA TORTILLERIA: Face Lopez Labor Suit in Calif. Super.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LA TAPATIA
TORTILLERIA, INC. The case is captioned as BERTA LOPEZ,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LA
TAPATIA TORTILLERIA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, et al., Case
No. 25CV003858 (Calif Super., Sacramento Cty., Filed Feb. 18,
2025).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Jill H. Talley.
The suit alleges violation of employment-related laws.
La Tapatia Tortilleria Inc. is a food manufacturer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seung L. Yang, Esq.
The Sentinel Firm, APC
355 S. Grand Ave, Ste. 1450
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3152
Telephone: (213) 985-1150
E-mail: seung.yang@thesentinelfirm.com
LEAFFILTER NORTH: Georgopolous Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LeafFilter North,
LLC. The case is styled as Katherine Georgopolous, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LeafFilter North, LLC
doing business as: LeafFilter Gutter Protection, Case No.
5:25-cv-00511-JRA (N.D. Ohio, March 14, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
LeafFilter North, LLC doing business as LeafFilter Gutter
Protection -- https://www.leaffilter.com/ -- is the nation's
largest gutter protection company, offering a patented stainless
steel micromesh system that prevents debris from clogging your
gutters.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew John Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA
14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 1205
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
LEGACY PROFESSIONALS: Abraham Sues Over Failure to Secure PII
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Abraham, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. LEGACY PROFESSIONALS, LLP, Case No. 1:25-cv-02737 (N.D.
Ill., March 16, 2025), is brought arising out of Defendant Legacy's
failures to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and
adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class members' sensitive
personal identifiable information that it had acquired and stored
for its business purposes.
According to notices sent to State Attorneys General, a data breach
occurred on its network on or about April 25, 2024 (the "Data
Breach"). Due to Defendant's data security failures which resulted
in the Data Breach, cybercriminals were able to target Defendant's
computer systems and exfiltrate highly sensitive and personally
identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information
("PHI") (collectively, the "Private Information") of Plaintiff and
Class members. As a result of this Data Breach, the Private
Information of Plaintiff and Class members remains in the hands of
those cybercriminals.
The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included
current and former clients' PII and PHI, including Plaintiff's.
This Private Information included, but is not limited to name,
Social Security number, and date of birth. The Data Breach was a
direct result of Defendant's failure to implement adequate and
reasonable cybersecurity procedures and protocols necessary to
protect Plaintiff's and Class members' Private Information with
which it was entrusted, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff received notice of the Data Breach.
The Defendant is an organization that provides third-party employee
benefit and insurance services to individuals and business
entities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
Liberato P. Verderame, Esq.
Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
411 S. State Street, Suite N300
Newtown, PA 18940
Phone: (215) 867-2399
Email: elechtzin@edelson-law.com
medelson@edelson-law.com
lverderame@edelson-law.com
LEGACY PROFESSIONALS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Nailor Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL NAILOR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LEGACY PROFESSIONALS LLP, Defendant, Case
No. 1:25-cv-02672 (N.D. Ill., March 13, 2025) is a class action
against Legacy for its failure to secure and safeguard Plaintiff's
and Class members' personally identifying information and personal
health information, including names, Social Security numbers,
driver's license/state ID numbers, medical treatment information,
and health insurance information.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant owed a
duty to the Plaintiff and Class members to implement and maintain
reasonable and adequate security measures to secure, protect, and
safeguard their PII/PHI against unauthorized access and disclosure.
Legacy breached that duty by, among other things, failing to
implement and maintain reasonable security procedures and practices
to protect its clients' customers' PII/PHI from unauthorized access
and disclosure.
As a result of Legacy's inadequate security and breach of its
duties and obligations, the Data Breach occurred, and the
Plaintiff's and Class members' PII/PHI was accessed and disclosed,
says the suit.
Legacy Professionals LLP provides professional services. The
Company offers audit, accounting, and taxation services, as well as
legal services to employee benefit plans, labour organization, nor
for profit, and government entities. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ben Barnow, Esq.
Anthony L. Parkhill, Esq.
Riley W. Prince, Esq.
Nicholas W. Blue, Esq.
BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
205 West Randolph Street, Suite 1630
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 621-2000
Facsimile: (312) 641-5504
Email: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
aparkhill@barnowlaw.com
rprince@barnowlaw.com
nblue@barnowlaw.com
LIBERTY MEDIA: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Cuesta Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
CARLOS CUESTA, and DOUGLAS LONGHINI, individuals, and ACCESS 4 ALL,
INC., a Florida not-for-profit Corporation, v. LIBERTY MEDIA
CORPORATION d/b/a FORMULA 1 MIAMI GRAND PRIX, a Delaware
Corporation, and SOUTH FLORIDA STADIUM, LLC d/b/a HARD ROCK
STADIUM, a Florida Corporation, Case No. 1:25-cv-21263-JB (S.D.
Fla., March 18, 2025) is a class action alleging that the Defendant
continues to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways
that block them from access and use of the Defendants' event and
commercial property and the businesses, including the restaurants
and retail shopping stores, seeking for injunctive relief, a
declaration of rights, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and
costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff suffers from cerebral palsy, a disorder that affects
his movement, balance and posture, and has spent most of his life
in a wheelchair, and is therefore substantially limited in major
life activities due to his impairment, including, but not limited
to, not being able to walk, stand, climb stairs, or perform
activities requiring lower body strength and mobility.
The Defendant owns, operates, and oversees the Commercial Property,
the general parking lots and parking spots specific to the
businesses, that are the subject of the action.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Peter Mineo, Jr.
THE MINEO SALCEDO LAW FIRM, P.A.
5600 Davie Rd.
Davie, FL 33314
Telephone: (954) 463-8100
Facsimile: (954) 463-8106
E-mail: Service@mineolaw.com
LIVE NATION: Madrigal Sues Over Deceptive Sale of Tickets
---------------------------------------------------------
MICHELLE MADRIGAL; HELEN PANTUSO; JESSICA TEMPEST; and TRACEY
SUNDE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC.; and TICKETMASTER
LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-02375 (C.D. Cal., March 18, 2025)
alleges violation of the California's False Advertising Law.
According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, Ticketmaster operates
online marketplaces where consumers can buy and sell tickets for
sports, concerts, and other live entertainment events. Ticketmaster
is, by far, the largest live event ticketing company in the United
States.
To generate profit, Ticketmaster advertises deceptively low prices
at the outset of its transactions while hiding expensive junk fees
until the end of the transaction, says the suit.
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. produces live concerts and sells
tickets to those events over the Internet. The Company offers
ticketing services for leading arenas, stadiums, professional
sports franchises and leagues, college sports teams, performing
arts venues, museums and theaters. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Annick Persinger, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
10880 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1101
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (510) 254-6808
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
Email: apersinger@tzlegal.com
- and -
Shana Khader, Esq.
Robert M. Devling, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W., Suite 1010
Washington, D.C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
Email: skhader@tzlegal.com
rdevling@tzlegal.com
LUMEN TECH: Class Cert Bid Filing in Civelli Suit Due July 15
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Civelli, et al., v. LUMEN
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01739 (D. Or., Filed
Nov. 24, 2023), the Hon. Judge Adrienne Nelson entered an order
grating the Plaintiffs' motion for extension of discovery & PTO
deadlines as follows:
-- Submission of the Plaintiffs' motion July 15, 2025
for class certification is:
-- Submission of the Defendants' response Sept. 3, 2025
to the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification is:
-- Submission of the Plaintiffs' reply in Oct. 1, 2025
support of motion for class
certification is:
-- Completion of fact discovery is: Dec. 29, 2025
-- Exchange initial expert reports is: Jan. 28, 2026
-- Exchange rebuttal expert reports is: Feb. 25, 2026
-- Completion of expert discovery is: March 31, 2026
-- Filing of dispositive motions is: May 13, 2026
The nature of suit states contract -- Class Action Fairness Action.
Lumen is an American telecommunications company headquartered in
Monroe, Louisiana, which offers communications, network services,
security, cloud solutions, voice and managed services.[CC]
MARIO'S AIR: Germain's Class Cert Bid Referred to Magistrate Judge
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Germain v. Mario's Air
Conditioning and Heating, Inc., Case No. 8:23-cv-00671 (M.D. Fla.,
Filed March 27, 2023), the Hon. Judge Thomas P. Barber entered an
order referring the Plaintiff Helena Germain's motion for class
certification to the Hon. Christopher P. Tuite, United States
Magistrate Judge, including any related hearings, motions, and
deadlines.
The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA).
The Defendant offers heating and cooling services.[CC]
MCCABE & WEISBERG: Faces Fisher Class Suit Over Collection Letter
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Phyllis Fisher, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. McCabe, Weisberg, & Conway, LLC, Case No.
1:25-cv-00329-UNA (D. Del., March 17, 2025) is a class action
lawsuit on behalf of a class of Delaware consumers under the Fair
Debt Collections Practices Act.
On Jan.28, 2025, the Defendant sent Plaintiff an initial collection
letter regarding the alleged debt owed to Chase. Accordingly, the
Defendant's failure to clearly and accurately communicate the
amount of debt owed creates confusion for the Plaintiff as to what
amount is actually owed at this time. The discrepancies between the
amounts listed in the collection letter -- most notably the
inconsistent figures regarding the total debt now, the new balance,
and the amount due -- are material, misleading, and violate the
FDCPA's requirement that the debt collector provide clear and
accurate information in the debt collection notice, says the suit.
The Plaintiff seeks damages and declaratory relief.
The Plaintiff is a resident of the State of Delaware in the County
of Kent.
MW&C is a "debt collector."
The Plaintiff brings this claim on behalf of the following case,
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3).
The Class consists of:
a. all individuals with addresses in the State of Delaware;
b. to whom MW&C sent an initial collection letter;
c. attempting to collect a consumer debt;
d. that provides conflicting amounts for the amount owed;
e. and lacks proper itemization of the debt;
f. which letter was sent on or after a date one (1) year prior
to the filing of this action and on or before a date 21 days
after the filing of this action.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Antranig Garibian, Esq.
GARIBIAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
Brandywine Plaza East
1523 Concord Pike, Suite 400
Wilmington, DE 19803
Telephone: (302) 722-6885
E-mail: ag@garibianlaw.com
MDL 3010: Class Cert. Bids in Antitrust Suit Amended to April 14
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned re: Google Digital
Advertising Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:21-md-03010 (PKC)
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge P. Kevin Castel entered an order
granting MDL Plaintiffs' request to extend certain deadlines.
The amended deadlines are as follows:
Event Current Proposed
Due Date Due Date
Expert discovery cutoff: March 24, 2025 April 18, 2025
Pre-motion letters concerning April 14, 2025 May 2, 2025
summary judgment due:
A copy of the Court's order dated March 14, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CFIYMH at no extra
charge.[CC]
MDL 3126: Keller Remains as Co-Lead Counsel in Data Breach Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit Re: Snowflake, Inc., Data Security
Breach Litigation, Case No. 2:24-md-03126-BMM (D. Mont.), the Hon.
Judge Brian Morris entered an order that Amy Keller of DiCello
Levitt will remain as Co-Lead Counsel.
The Court has considered carefully the potential conflict presented
by the Co-Leads and agrees that the 4 Co-Leads had an ethical duty
to raise this issue.
The Court reminds Counsel that this MDL is a first of its kind in
the District of Montana. The Court appointed a diverse leadership
that it thought would be wellequipped to run this MDL.
The leadership team consisted of local counsel who often practice
before the Court but lack extensive experience in MDLs and
out-ofstate counsel with extensive experience in MDLs around the
country. This leadership structure sought to avoid the
balkanization of leadership and equip Plaintiffs with a lead
counsel group that would advocate vigorously on their behalf.
The Court reminds Counsel of these facts moving forward. The Court
admonishes Counsel that they are attorneys, and the Rule of
Professional Conduct applies to just that – conduct – including
when interacting with one another.
The Court also will prohibit Keller from participating in any
discussions regarding the allocation of any proposed settlement
funds from AT&T.
The Court addresses an alleged conflict of interest regarding one
of Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel, Amy Keller. The potential conflict
arises from Keller and her firm, Dicello Levitt, representing
clients in this Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) against Defendant
AT&T and representing clients in another MDL, also involving AT&T.
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation centralized a data
security breach case against AT&T in the Northern District of Texas
on June 5, 2024.
Snowflake is an American cloud-based data storage company.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 12, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LGPTG7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
MONA LEE: Esquivel Sues Over Unwanted Telemarketing Text Messages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JOE ESQUIVEL, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MONA LEE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
3:25-cv-00607-H-BLM (S.D. Cal., March 14, 2025) arises out of
Defendant's marketing practices that violate the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.
The Plaintiff registered his cellular telephone number ending in
4489 on the National Do-Not-Call Registry on February 2, 2024.
However, the Defendant sent Plaintiff multiple text messages
soliciting Defendant's products and services. The Defendant
continues to send telemarketing text messages even after it
receives multiple requests from Plaintiff and other called parties
requesting the Defendant to stop the messages, the suit says.
Headquartered in Boston, MA, Mona Lee, Inc. develops, manufactures
and sells solar products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
21031 Ventura Blvd., Suite 340
Woodland Hills, CA 91364
Telephone: (323) 306-4234
Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
E-mail: tfriedman@toddflaw.com
abacon@toddflaw.com
MYMICHIGAN HEALTH: Sued Over Mismanagement of Retirement Plan
-------------------------------------------------------------
KEVIN MOFFIT; and KEVIN MYERS, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated of MYMICHIGAN HEALTH 403(B) SAVINGS PLAN,
Plaintiffs v. MYMICHIGAN HEALTH; and THE MYMICHIGAN HEALTH PENSION
GOVERNANCE and ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE, Defendants, Case
2:25-cv-10761-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich., March 18, 2025) alleges
violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974,
as amended.
The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants failed
to implement a prudent process for selecting, retaining, or
monitoring the MyMichigan Health 403(b) Savings Plan (the "Plan")
stable value investment option. The Plan has had the same stable
value option for many years, and its earnings are far short of what
the Plan can obtain in the marketplace at the same level of risk.
This breach would be rectified if the Defendants put the Plan's
stable value contract out for bid, but the Defendants has not done
so.
The Plan, Plaintiffs, and members of the putative class suffered
losses or are reasonably likely to suffer future losses resulting
from the foregoing fiduciary breaches of the Defendants, the suit
alleges.
MyMichigan Health home health care services. The Company offers
urgent care centers, home care, nursing homes, physicians, cardiac
rehabilitation, dialysis, wound treatment center, neurodiagnostics,
medical offices, and other services. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jennifer K. Lee, Esq.
Carl F. Engstrom, Esq.
ENGSTROM LEE LLC
323 N. Washington Ave., Suite 200
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Telephone: (612) 305-8349
Facsimile: (612) 677-3050
Email: jlee@engstromlee.com
cengstrom@engstromlee.com
- and -
James H. White IV, Esq.
THE JAMES WHITE FIRM LLC
2100 Morris Avenue
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 317-2551
Email: james@whitefirmllc.com
NAB-CW LLC: Faces Cordiota Suit Over Serial Breaches of Contract
----------------------------------------------------------------
CORDIOTA INC., a California corporation, on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated v. NAB-CW LLC d/b/a CWA MERCHANT
SERVICES, a Delaware limited liability company; MERRICK BANK
CORPORATION; a Utah corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, Case No.
2:25-cv-00209-TS (D. Utah, March 18, 2025) asserts claims for
breach of contract and tortious conversion against the Defendants,
who offer payment processing services to businesses to enable them
to accept debit and credit card payments from their customers.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a Class of businesses
that applied to and contracted with Defendants for payment
processing services. The case arises out of Defendants' serial
breaches of contract and acts of tortious conversion in connection
with the Defendants' assessment of "Early Termination Fees" against
Plaintiff and the other Class members, without proper disclosure,
and without any contractual or other legal right to assess such a
fee.
The Plaintiff seeks compensatory and punitive damages from
Defendants based on Defendants’ serial breaches of contract and
acts of tortious conversion, along with injunctive relief barring
Defendants from continuing to engage in these practices.
On April 11, 2023, the Plaintiff applied for a merchant account
with CWA and Merrick by signing Defendants' standard form merchant
application and submitting it to JHM Processing LLC doing business
as Payze, which is one of many sales agents that solicits and
refers prospective merchants on behalf of CWA for participation in
Merrick’s Program.
The Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of themselves and
on behalf of the following proposed Class, initially defined as
follows:
"All businesses or entities who have contracted with CWA and
Merrick in the United States by executing the CWA Merchant
Application and who were subsequently charged an ETF on or
after January 1, 2021."
The Defendant offers payment processing and merchant
solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eugene Rome, Esq.
Bradley O. Cebeci, Esq.
ROME LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 450
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 282-0690
Facsimile: (310) 282-0691
E-mail: ERome@romellp.com
BCebeci@romellp.com
- and -
Erik A. Christiansen, Esq.
Alex N. Vandiver, Esq.
PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER
201 South Main Street, Suite 1800
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Telephone: (801) 532-1234
Facsimile: (801) 536-6111
E-mail: EChristiansen@parsonsbehle.com
AVandiver@parsonsbehle.com
ecf@parsonsbehle.com
NAKOMA PRODUCTS: Espinal Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------
Frangie Espinal, Individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons v. NAKOMA PRODUCTS LLC, Case No.
1:25-cv-02162 (S.D.N.Y., March 15, 2025), is brought this civil
rights action against the Defendant for their failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website,
https://www.ritdye.com/, including all portions thereof or accessed
thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is
not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it
violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures
so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers.
By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible
with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and
visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods,
content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled
individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma
among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen reading software to read website content using her
computer.
NAKOMA PRODUCTS LLC, operates the Rit Dye online interactive
Website and retail store across the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
dana@gottlieb.legal
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Bids for Class Cert in Shabazz Due July 8
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ABDUL SHABAZZ, v.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC d/b/a RIGHTPATH SERVICING, Case No.
5:24-cv-00498-JMG (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge John Gallagher entered
a second amended scheduling order as follows:
1. All fact and expert discovery shall be completed no later
than June 3, 2025.
2. Affirmative expert reports, if any, are due by April 22,
2025.
3. Rebuttal expert reports, if any, are due by May 20, 2025.
4. Expert depositions, if any, shall be concluded no later than
June 3, 2025.
5. Motions for summary judgment, Daubert motions, and motions
for class certification if any, shall be filed by July 8,
2025.
Responses shall be filed no later than Aug. 8, 2025.
Motions and responses shall be filed in the form prescribed
in Judge Gallagher's Policies and Procedures.
Nationstar is a home loan servicer.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 14, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ppOqbM at no extra
charge.[CC]
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Manley Suit Removed to S.D. West Virginia
--------------------------------------------------------------
BETHANY MANLEY, individually and on behalf of a class of persons,
v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC, d/b/a Mr. Cooper, Case No. 3
CC-26-2025-C-10 (Filed Feb. 7), was removed from the Circuit Court
of Mason County, West Virginia, to the United States District Court
for the Southern District of West Virginia, Huntington Division on
March 12, 2025.
The Southern District of West Virginia Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 3:25-cv-00159 to the proceedings.
The Plaintiffs define the purported class as follows:
"All West Virginia borrowers at the time of the filing of this
action, within the four years of the filing of this complaint
through the date of class certification that Defendant mailed a
collection letter to that threatened the collection of property
evaluation, inspections, court costs, or attorney fees."
The Complaint asserts claims on behalf of Plaintiff and a class of
similarly situated individuals for violations of the West Virginia
Consumer Credit and Protection Act (“WVCCPA”), based upon
alleged improper threats to collect fees for property evaluation,
inspections, court costs, and attorneys’ fees.
Nationstar Mortgage is a home loan servicer.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 12, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LYxZMK at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
John C. Lynch, Esq.
Jason E. Manning, Esq.
Jonathan M. Kenney, Esq.
TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE LLP
222 Central Park Avenue, Suite 2000
Virginia Beach, VA 23462
Telephone: (757) 687-7500
Facsimile: (757) 687-7510
E-mail: john.lynch@troutman.com
jason.manning@troutman.com
jon.kenney@troutman.com
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Bids to Exclude Testimony of Plaintiff Experts Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as B.D., by their next
friend, Christine Wellington, et al., v. Kelly Ayotte, in her
official capacity as the Governor of New Hampshire, et al., Case
No. 1:21-cv-00004-PB (D.N.H.), the Hon. Judge Paul Barbadoro
entered an order denying the Defendants' motions to exclude the
testimony of the plaintiffs' experts.
In all other respects, the motion was denied without prejudice. To
the extent defendants' motions to exclude pertain to testimony upon
which I did not rely in granting plaintiffs' motion, defendants'
motions were denied without prejudice.
The plaintiffs allege that the Defendants have violated Title II of
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act, by unnecessarily placing older foster youth
with mental impairments in congregate care, rather than
community-based foster homes.
The Plaintiffs further allege that the Defendants have violated the
Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act ("CWA") by failing to
comply with federal case planning requirements.
On March 23, 2023, the plaintiffs moved to certify a class
consisting of:
"All children, ages 14 through 17, who: (1) are, or will be, in
the legal custody or under the protective supervision of New
Hampshire's Division of Children, Youth, and Families (DCYF);
(2) have a mental impairment that substantially limits a major
life activity (or with a record of such impairment); and (3)
currently are, or are at serious risk of being, unnecessarily
placed in congregate care settings."
A copy of the Court's memorandum dated March 14, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=w6rfRv at no extra
charge.[CC]
NEW YORK, NY: Case Management Order Entered in Carambot Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as PATTY CARAMBOT, v. NEW
YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORP., et al., Case No.
1:24-cv-00841-JPO-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses
entered a case management order:
All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to
scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for
judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary
judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must
be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's
Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's
website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses.
The parties are reminded that any amended complaint must be filed
no later than March 31, 2025. If plaintiff chooses not to file an
amended complaint, she shall file a letter so stating, in which
case defendants shall file an answer within 14 days after the
filing of such letter.
It appearing to the Court that no initial case management
conference has yet taken place in this action, it is ordered that
an initial conference in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 16 will be
held on April 23, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 20A, 500 Pearl
Street, New York, New York. At the conference, the parties must be
prepared to discuss the subjects set forth in Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)
and (c).
The counsel must meet and confer in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(f) no later than 21 days prior to the initial case management
conference. No later than one week (seven calendar days) prior to
the conference, the parties must file a Pre-Conference Statement,
via ECF, signed by counsel for all parties.
New York City Health and Hospitals offers primary, preventive, long
term care, emergency, and other related services.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 12, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1Ic4AH at no extra
charge.[CC]
OCHSNER CLINIC: Estay and Messore Allege Breach of Fiduciary Duties
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MEGAN ESTAY and FRANCESCA MESSORE, individually and as a
representative of a class of participants and beneficiaries on
behalf of the Ochsner Clinic Foundation 401(K) Plan, Plaintiffs v.
OCHSNER CLINIC FOUNDATION, RETIREMENT BENEFITS COMMITTEE, and DOES
1 to 10 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00507-JTM-JVM (E.D.
La., March 14, 2025), accuses the Defendants of breaching their
fiduciary duties under Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 (ERISA), and of engaging in self-dealing and transactions
prohibited by ERISA.
During the class period, the Plaintiffs' individual accounts were
charged, and Plaintiffs paid, for a share of the Plan's
administrative expenses. The Plan paid direct and/or indirect
compensation for services ranging from, among others, recordkeeping
and administration, accounting, consulting, trustee services, loan
processing, participant communications, investment management
services, and legal services. Moreover, the Plan Fiduciaries have
consistently chosen to utilize a significant portion of the
Forfeited Plan Assets to benefit Ochsner to the detriment of Plan
participants by reducing Defendants' contractually obligated
contributions to the Plan. The Plan Fiduciaries have consistently
chosen to utilize a significant portion of the Forfeited Plan
Assets to benefit Ochsner to the detriment of Plan participants by
reducing Defendants' contractually obligated contributions to the
Plan, says the suit.
Ochsner Clinic Foundation is a Louisiana-incorporated company that
owns and operates an acute-care hospital in New Orleans, LA. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Charles Joseph Stiegler, Esq.
STIEGLER LAW FIRM LLC
318 Harrison Ave., Ste 104
New Orleans, LA 70124-3126
Telephone: (504) 267-0777
Facsimile: (504) 13-3084
E-mail: charles@stieglerlawfirm.com
- and -
Tulio D. Chirinos, Esq.
CHIRINOS LAW FIRM PLLC
370 Camino Gardens Blvd., Ste 106
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: (561) 299-6334
E-mail: tchirinos@chirinoslawfirm.com
- and -
Jenny M. Lewis, Esq.
1323 North Blvd.
Houston, TX 77006
Telephone: (832) 466-5575
E-mail: jlewis@chirinoslawfirm.com
OLDE GOOD: Website Inaccessible to Blind Users, Hernandez Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OLDE GOOD THINGS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-01095 (E.D.N.Y., February 26, 2025) is a civil rights
action against Defendant for the failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate its website, www.ogtstore.com, to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.
The Plaintiff was injured when he attempted multiple times, most
recently on October 1, 2024 to access Defendant's website from his
home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered
barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's
online goods, content, and services. Due to Defendant's failure to
build the website in a manner that is compatible with screen access
programs, he was unable to understand and properly interact with
the website, and was thus denied the benefit of purchasing the pair
of vintage cabinet knobs, that he wished to acquire from the
website, says the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
its Website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers.
Olde Good Things, Inc. is a company that owns and operates the
website, offering architectural antiques and salvaged
materials.[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
OSBORNE CORRECTIONAL: Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed in Boyd Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Boyd v. Osborne
Correctional, Case No. 3:24-cv-00910 (D. Conn., Filed May 28,
2024), the Hon. Judge Stefan R. Underhill entered an order denying
without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel.
The court is aware that pro bono counsel may soon appear in one or
more of the many cases currently pending in this District related
to the conditions of confinement at Osborn CI.
If that happens, the court anticipates a motion to certify a class
action. If counsel is not appointed, or if a motion for class
certification is denied, plaintiff may file a second motion to
appoint counsel.
The nature of suit states prisoner civil rights.[CC]
PALEOVALLEY LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hampton Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
TAMMY HAMPTON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. PALEOVALLEY, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02777 (N.D. Ill.,
March 17, 2025) contends that the Defendant failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and
services PALEOVALLEY provides to their non-disabled customers.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in
conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the ADA.
Ms. Hampton is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using her
computer.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and
services PALEOVALLEY provides to their non-disabled customers
through https://paleovalley.com. The Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products
and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical
locations, is a violation of the Plaintiff's rights under the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
Paleovalley.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods,
services, price specials and other programs offered by
PALEOVALLEY.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Davis B. Reyes, Esq.
EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
68-29 Main Street,
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (630) 478-0856
E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law
PATAGONIA INC: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Sumlin Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
DENNIS SUMLIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PATAGONIA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-02146 (S.D.N.Y., March 14, 2025) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://www.patagonia.com, is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff,
in violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Patagonia, Inc. operates as an apparel store company. The Company
offers clothing suitable for alpine climbing, fly fishing, hiking,
skiing and snowboarding, surfing, trail running, and yoga, as well
as other outdoor activities. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael H. Cohen, Esq.
EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
68-29 Main Street
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (917) 437-3737
Email: mcohen@ealg.law
PENSION SPECIALISTS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Maher Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
JEFFREY MAHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE PENSION SPECIALISTS, LTD., Defendant,
Case No. 1:25-cv-02010 (N.D. Ill., February 26, 2025) is a class
action lawsuit on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons who
entrusted Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable
information and/or private information and that was impacted in a
data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed on February 14,
2025.
The Plaintiff's claims arise from Defendant's failure to properly
secure and safeguard private information that was entrusted to it,
and its accompanying responsibility to store and transfer that
information.
As a result of Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice
process, Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information was
exposed to criminals. The Plaintiff and the Class Members have
suffered and will continue to suffer injuries including financial
losses caused by misuse of their private information; the loss or
diminished value of their private information as a result of the
data breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing
identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information,
says the suit.
The Plaintiff brings this action individually and on behalf of a
Nationwide Class of similarly situated individuals against
Defendant for negligence; negligence per se; unjust enrichment,
breach of implied contract, and breach of confidence.
The Pension Specialists, Ltd. is an administrator that provides
retirement plan services for employers and employees and is
headquartered in Machesney Park, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS
GROSSMAN PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: gklinger@milberg.com
- and -
Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
Mark Svensson, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
E-mail: ek@zlk.com
msvensson@zlk.com
PENSION SPECIALISTS: Miller Sues Over Unprotected Personal Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
RENEE MILLER, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE PENSION SPECIALISTS, LTD., d/b/a
FIDUCIARY EXCELLENCE ASSESSORS and RETIRMENT FINANCIAL EDUCATORS.
Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-50084 (N.D. Ill., February 26, 2025) is
a class action arising from Defendant's failure to protect highly
sensitive data.
According to the complaint, the Defendant stores a litany of highly
sensitive personal identifiable information and protected health
information about thousands of individuals who currently receive or
have received retirement plan services from TPS through their
employers. But Defendant lost control over that data when
cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer
systems in a data breach, says the suit.
The cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because
Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity
and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols
to protect the Class' private information. In short, the
Defendant's failures placed the Class' private information in a
vulnerable position -- rendering them easy targets for
cybercriminals, the suit alleges.
The Pension Specialists, Ltd. is an administrator that provides
retirement plan services for employers and employees and is
headquartered in Machesney Park, Illinois.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com
raina@straussborrelli.com
PENZEYS LTD: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Ayala Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
DIONY AYALA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PENZEYS, LTD., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-01926 (S.D.N.Y., March 7, 2025) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York
State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law, and
declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://www.Penzeys.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the
Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online
goods, content, and services offered to the public through the
website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not
limited to: insufficient focus indicator, denial of keyboard access
for some interactive elements, incorrect role announcements, links
are not properly tagged in lists, links lack descriptive labels,
auto moving content lacks method to pause/stop, insufficient
alternative text for graphic images, headings are not tagged
properly, lack of role announcements, the lack of correct color
contrast requirements, and the requirement that transactions be
performed solely with a mouse, says the suit.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually impaired individuals.
Penzeys, Ltd. is a company that sells online goods and services in
New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert C. Hiltzik, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT C. HILTZIK
380 North Broadway, Penthouse West
Jericho, NY 11753
Telephone: (516) 308-4674
Facsimile: (516) 937-1456
Email: Eagleactiv@aol.com
PLATINUM CONTRACTING: Shaw Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Shaw, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PLATINUM CONTRACTING LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00391 (W.D.
Tex., March 14, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages
and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) against
Defendant.
The Plaintiff and the other workers like him regularly worked for
Platinum Contracting in excess of 40 hours each week. But these
workers never received overtime for hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a single workweek. Instead of paying overtime as required
by the FLSA, Platinum Contracting paid these workers a daily rate
with no overtime pay. This collective action seeks to recover the
unpaid overtime wages and other damages owed to these workers, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff performed work for Platinum Contracting as a Roofing
Supervisor.
Platinum Contracting is a full-service roofing contracting company
that provides roofing services throughout Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carl A. Fitz, Esq.
FITZ LAW PLLC
3730 Kirby Drive, Ste. 1200
Houston, TX 77098
Phone: (713) 766-4000
Email: carl@fitz.legal
PLATINUM WEALTH: Cote Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Cote, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PLATINUM WEALTH VENTURE, LLC d/b/a NEXT LEVEL INSURANCE
DIRECT AND DAVID L. POTTER, Case No. 8:25-cv-00626 (M.D. Fla.,
March 14, 2025), is brought pursuant the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), for failure to pay overtime compensation at the lawful
and correct rates to non-exempt employees, for all hours worked
over 40 each week.
The Defendants have maintained a scheme to avoid its obligations to
pay overtime wages to its non-exempt employees in order to save
thousands of dollars in labor costs and maximize profits, all to
the detriment of its employees. Defendants willfully, or with
reckless disregard for the FLSA, underpays Plaintiff and all other
sales agents for their overtime hours by failing to pay overtime
wages at the required and mandated rate of time and one half the
employee's regular rate of pay. The Defendants do not include
earned commissions and bonuses in the calculations of the regular
rates of pay as required by the FLSA and have underpaid all sales
agents who earned commissions during any workweek he or worked more
than 40 hours for the workweek, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendants from July 21, 2022 to April
2024 from Defendants' Tampa, Florida office as an inside sales
representative (ISR), also known as a Licensed Agent, Broker, or
Sales Agent.
PLATINUM WEALTH VENTURE, LLC is a Florida Limited Liability
Company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mitchell L. Feldman, Esq.
FELDMAN LEGAL GROUP
12610 Race Track Road, Suite 225
Tampa, FL 33626
Phone: 813-639-9366
Email: mfeldman@flandgatrialattorneys.com
PRETTY LITTER: Class Certification Hearing in Hill Suit Due Dec. 4
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Tracy Hill v. Pretty
Litter, Inc., Case No. 2:24-cv-10414 (C.D. Cal., Filed Dec. 3,
2024), the Hon. Judge Jean P. Rosenbluth entered an order setting
scheduling order deadlines as follows:
-- Class Certification Hearing Date: Dec. 4, 2025
-- Nonexpert-Discovery Cutoff: May 14, 2026
-- Dispositive-Motion Cutoff: May 14, 2026
-- Expert-Discovery Cutoff: May 11, 2026
-- Dispositive-Motion Hearing Date: June 11, 2026
-- Motions-in-Limine Cutoff: Aug. 5, 2026
-- Final-Pretrial-Conference Date: Aug. 26, 2026
-- Trial Date: Sept. 16, 2026
The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA).
Pretty Litter is an American pet wellness company based in Los
Angeles.[CC]
PROCTORU INC: Faces McDowell Over Feb. 2025 California Bar Exam
---------------------------------------------------------------
KATRINA MCDOWELL, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PROCTORU, INC. D/B/A MEAZURE LEARNING, Case
No. 5:25-cv-00705 (C.D. Cal., March 17, 2025) is a class action
complaint against the Defendant based on misleading representations
about its ability to competently administer the February 2025
California Bar Exam.
According to the complaint, the Defendant represented that it would
provide competent exam administration services, which included a
"fully operational" exam platform that is capable of providing
"uninterrupted service levels." Contrary to this representation,
Defendant's administration of the February 2025 California Bar Exam
was a disaster, as the two-day exam was plagued with significant
technical issues.
The California Bar Exam is the culmination of years of legal
education, months of intensive studying, and significant financial
and personal sacrifice. It is often the last and most crucial step
to becoming a California-licensed attorney. The exam is only
administered twice per year and takes months to grade, meaning that
if an examinee does not successfully pass the February exam, they
cannot practice law in California for at least nine more months.
Accordingly, for many, the California Bar Exam is the most
important exam they will ever take.
For the February 2025 California Bar Exam, the Defendant contracted
to provide administration and proctoring services. The State Bar of
California considered several examination administration vendors
before recommending Defendant. The decision to engage Meazure
Learning was "grounded in their capacity and ability to deliver a
high volume of complex examinations efficiently and securely." The
exam was to be administered both remotely and in-person. All
examinees, besides those that registered to handwrite the exam,
were required to pay a fee in order to use Defendant's platform,
says the suit.
The Plaintiff registered for the February 2025 California Bar Exam
prior to the deadline. She paid the laptop fee required to use the
Defendant's exam platform. She ultimately was assigned to take the
exam in-person in Ontario, Canada at a Meazure Learning test
center. At the time she paid the laptop fee, the Plaintiff
reasonably believed that Defendant would provide competent
administration services, including a fully operational platform
that was capable of providing uninterrupted service levels.
Meazure Learning offers online exam administration services through
the ProctorU Platform, which is "backed by the largest certified
remote proctoring and support workforce globally."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lisa T. Omoto, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1060
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (424) 256-2884
Facsimile: (424) 256-2885
E-mail: lomoto@faruqilaw.com
PROGRESSIVE ADVANCED: Bartee Class Cert Hearing Set for March 28
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Bartee v. Progressive
Advanced Insurance Company, Case No. 4:22-cv-00342 (E.D. Mo., Filed
March 24, 2022), the Hon. Judge Matthew T Schelp entered an order
setting a hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and
the Defendants' motions to exclude plaintiffs' expert testimony to
March 28, 2025.
The nature of suit states diversity-insurance contract.
The Defendant operates as an insurance firm.[CC]
RALPHS GROCERY: Sheehan Files Motion to Quash Subpoena
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Spencer Sheehan, Movant; Lyvette Grimes,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY, Respondent, Case No.
2:23-cv-09086-TJH-PD was moved from the United States District
Court, Central District of California, to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California on March 15,
2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-mc-00110-MMG, as a motion to Quash
Subpoena.[BN]
The Movant/Plaintiff is represented by:
Spencer Sheehan, Esq.
SHEEHAN & ASSOCIATES P.C.
60 Cuttermill Rd Ste 412
Great Neck NY 11021
Phone: (516) 268-7080
Email: spencer@spencersheehan.com
RENTOKIL NORTH: Faces Knight Leslie Suit Over Tobacco Surcharge
---------------------------------------------------------------
KRISTIN LESLIE and AMY ROSS, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. RENTOKIL NORTH AMERICA, INC, Case No.
5:25-cv-01423 (E.D. Pa., March 17, 2025) challenges LHC's unlawful
practice of charging a "tobacco surcharge" without complying with
the regulatory requirements under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974.
The Plaintiff contends that it is both unfair and unlawful for
entities like LHC to impose discriminatory and punitive health
insurance surcharges on employees who use tobacco products.
Under ERISA, wellness programs must offer, and provide notice of, a
reasonable alternative standard that allows all participants to
obtain the "full reward" -- including refunds for surcharges paid
while completing the program. Instead, under the LHC Group Benefits
Plan, LHC operates a non-compliant, discriminatory tobacco wellness
program that does not offer the "full reward" to participants who
satisfy the alternative standard and does not provide proper notice
in all plan materials, violating federal regulations and depriving
participants of benefits required under ERISA.
Tobacco surcharges have become more prevalent in recent years but
to be lawful plans can impose these surcharges only in connection
with compliant "wellness programs," meaning they must adhere to
strict rules set forth by ERISA and the implementing regulations
established by the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services,
and the Treasury over ten years ago in 2014.
Accordingly, the Departments have issued clear regulatory criteria
that plans must satisfy to qualify for the statutory exception or
safe-harbor, which they may invoke only if they can affirmatively
demonstrate full compliance with these strict requirements in
response to claims that their program is discriminatory.
Moreover, courts must defer to the agency's interpretation of its
own regulations, as long as that interpretation is neither plainly
erroneous nor inconsistent with the regulatory framework, ensuring
that plans cannot evade ERISA's anti-discrimination protections by
selectively or improperly applying these rules, the suit alleges.
The Plaintiffs were employees of Rentokil, who paid a tobacco
surcharge in the form of increased premiums for health insurance.
Rentokil provides pest control and related services across the
country that offers pest management solutions for residential and
commercial customers. Defendant is a Pennsylvania corporation with
its headquarters in Wyomissing, Pennsylvania.
Rentokil is the sponsor of the Plan and the Plan Administrator
under 29 U.S.C. section 1002(16). Rentokil employs thousands of
individuals and there are over 10,000 participants in the Plan as
of December 31, 2023.
Rentokil's employee benefit plan is subject to the provisions and
statutory requirements of ERISA pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section
1002(3).[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Oren Faircloth, Esq.
Catherine Cline, Esq.
Kimberly Dodson, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
E-mail: ofaircloth@sirillp.com
ccline@sirillp.com
kdodson@sirillp.com
RICH MALDENADO: Alvarado Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alvarado v. Rich Maldenado
et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00534 (D. Conn., Filed April 23, 2024),
the Hon. Judge Stefan R. Underhill entered an order denying without
prejudice the Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel.
The court is aware that pro bono counsel may soon appear in one or
more of the many cases currently pending in this District related
to the conditions of confinement at Osborn CI.
If that happens, the court anticipates a motion to certify a class
action. If counsel is not appointed, or if a motion for class
certification is denied, plaintiff may file a second motion to
appoint counsel.
The nature of suit states prisoner civil rights.[CC]
ROADWORK AHEAD: Rufino Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA & NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------
FERNANDO RUFINO, v. ROADWORK AHEAD INC., STACI GENERAL CONTRACTING
LLC, LS GROUP CONSTRUCTION INC. and LUIGI STASI, individually, Case
No. 2:25-cv-00928-GRB-AR (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 18, 2025) is a putative
collective action on behalf of the Plaintiff and other similarly
situated employees of the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and the Wage Theft
Prevention Act.
The action is brought to recover significant unpaid overtime
compensation, statutory damages, and other relief arising from
Defendants' willful violations of federal and state wage and hour
laws on behalf of Plaintiff, a former employee of Defendants.
The Plaintiff was hired directly by the Defendant Luigi, who not
only set his work schedule but also consistently gave his daily
orders and instructions regarding his duties. Defendant LUIGI STASI
also exercised disciplinary authority over the Plaintiff,
including, but not limited to, issuing warnings, reprimands, and
implementing other disciplinary measures as he deemed necessary.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants willfully failed to pay
the required wages. Plaintiff was employed primarily as a welder,
mechanic, load operator and maintenance under the direct
supervision and control of Defendant LUIGI STASI.
The Defendants were required, under relevant New York State law, to
compensate Plaintiff with overtime pay at one and one-half the
regular rate for work in excess of 40 hours per work week.
Road work offers traffic control services for contractors for road
paving, resurfacing, and repair.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
www.StillmanLegalPC.com
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 203-2417
ROBEY INC: Faces Luna Wage-and-Hour Suit in D. Md.
--------------------------------------------------
FRANKLIN LUNA-SANCHEZ, MIGUEL ORLIN, JOSE LOPEZ-FABIAN, SILVIA
CASTILLO, OMRY LAINEZ, and WILLIAM LAINEZ PARRAS, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ROBEY,
INC.; JOSE DAVID AGUILAR; and ARMADA HOFFLER PROPERTIES, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00757-BAH (D. Md., March 7, 2025) is a
class action against the Defendants for failure to pay appropriate
minimum wages and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, Maryland Wage and Hour Law, Maryland Wage
Payment and Collection Law, Virginia Minimum Wage Act, and Virginia
Wage Payment Act.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants as construction
workers in Reston, Virginia and Baltimore, Maryland.
Robey, Inc. is a drywall and finishing contractor based in
Maryland.
Armada Hoffler Properties, Inc. is a real estate investment trust
based in Maryland. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew K. Handley, Esq.
Rachel Nadas, Esq.
Tola Oyeyemi, Esq.
HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC
1201 Connecticut Avenue, Suite 200k
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 559-2411
Email: mhandley@hfajustice.com
- and -
Matthew B. Kaplan, Esq.
THE KAPLAN LAW FIRM
1100 N. Glebe Rd., Suite 1010
Arlington, VA 22201
Telephone: (703) 665-9529
Email: mbkaplan@thekaplanlawfirm.com
ROCKSTAR GAMES: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Reid Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
MONIQUE REID, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ROCKSTAR GAMES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-01450 (E.D.N.Y., March 14, 2025) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, http//:www.store.rockstargames.com, is not fully or equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the
Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Rockstar Games, Inc. provides application software products. The
Company develops and publishes video game software products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Telephone: (917) 373-9128
Email: ShakedLawGroup@gmail.com
RUGSUSA LLC: McCarrell Sues Over Use of Fake Sales to Sell Products
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KEIRA MCCARRELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. RUGSUSA, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00454-AB (D. Or., March
17, 2025) alleges that Defendant has used fake sales to sells its
products for years.
In April 2023, RugsUSA was sued in California for misleading
customers with its fake sale practices. Lawsuits in other states
followed.
The Plaintiffs in the other cases were represented by the
Plaintiff's counsel in this case. In February 2024, the parties
settled, with RugsUSA ultimately paying over $14 million dollars
into a class common fund.
But even after being sued and settled that case, RugsUSA continued
to use fake sales, and continues its practice of using fake sales
today.
This includes using fake strikethrough prices, fake sitewide sales,
and "limited time" sales that are continuously available.
At any given time, on its website, the Defendant advertises steep
discounts on its Products. Even though in truth these discounts run
in perpetuity, Defendant prominently claims that they are "LIMITED
TIME ONLY." And it advertises these discounts extensively: on an
attention-grabbing banner near the top of its website; in a large
banner image on its homepage; on the products listing pages; on the
individual product pages for each Product, and on the checkout
pages, the lawsuit says.
The Defendant manufactures, distributes, markets, and sells rugs
and home accessory products.
RugsUSA sells its Products directly to consumers online, through
its website, rugsusa.com.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonas Jacobson, Esq.
Christin Cho, Esq.
Simon Franzini, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 656-7066
Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
E-mail: jonas@dovel.com
simon@dovel.com
christin@dovel.com
SCHNADER HARRISON: Class Cert Filing in Bennett Extended to May 19
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JO BENNETT, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, v. SCHNADER HARRISON
SEGAL & LEWIS LLP, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00592-JMY (E.D. Pa.),
the Hon. Judge entered an order that the deadline for the Plaintiff
to move for class certification and for preliminary approval of the
parties' settlement is extended by 60 days from March 18, 2025 to
Monday, May 19, 2025.
Schnader is a full-service law firm of 160 attorneys.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 13, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uBp5EY at no extra
charge.[CC]
SCOTT SEMPLE: Coons Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed w/o Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Coons, et al., v. Scott
Semple, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00534 (D. Conn., Filed March 29,
2024), the Hon. Judge Stefan R. Underhill entered an order denying
without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel.
The court is aware that pro bono counsel may soon appear in one or
more of the many cases currently pending in this District related
to the conditions of confinement at Osborn CI.
If that happens, the court anticipates a motion to certify a class
action. If counsel is not appointed, or if a motion for class
certification is denied, plaintiff may file a second motion to
appoint counsel.
The nature of suit states prisoner civil rights.[CC]
SCOTT SEMPLE: Gridley Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed w/o Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Gridley v. Scott Semple,
et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00689 (D. Conn., Filed April 12, 2024),
the Hon. Judge Stefan R. Underhill entered an order denying without
prejudice the Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel.
The court is aware that pro bono counsel may soon appear in one or
more of the many cases currently pending in this District related
to the conditions of confinement at Osborn CI.
If that happens, the court anticipates a motion to certify a class
action. If counsel is not appointed, or if a motion for class
certification is denied, plaintiff may file a second motion to
appoint counsel.
The nature of suit states prisoner civil rights.[CC]
SCOTT SEMPLE: Harmon Bid to Appoint Counsel Tossed w/o Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Harmon v. Scott Semple, et
al., Case No. 3:24-cv-00839 (D. Conn., Filed May 6, 2024), the Hon.
Judge Stefan R. Underhill entered an order denying without
prejudice the Plaintiff's motion to appoint counsel.
The court is aware that pro bono counsel may soon appear in one or
more of the many cases currently pending in this District related
to the conditions of confinement at Osborn CI.
If that happens, the court anticipates a motion to certify a class
action. If counsel is not appointed, or if a motion for class
certification is denied, plaintiff may file a second motion to
appoint counsel.
The nature of suit states prisoner civil rights.[CC]
SECURITAS SECURITY: Bars Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------
The case styled SHAMAYA BARS, an individual, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SECURITAS SECURITY
SERVICES USA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 25STCV03840, 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
14, 2025.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:25-cv-02286 to the proceeding.
The case arises from Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code.
Headquartered in Parsippany, NJ, Securitas Security Services, Inc.
provides protective services. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Frank A. Magnanimo, Esq.
Lirit A. King, Esq.
Jasmne Kiaei, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 650
Woodland Hills, CA 91367
Telephone: (818) 230-4250
Facsimile: (818) 230-4251
E-mail: fmagnanimo@fisherphillips.com
jkiaei@fisherphillips.com
- and -
Landon R. Schwob, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
444 South Flower Street, Suite 1500
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 330-4500
Facsimile: (213) 330-4501
E-mail: lschwob@fisherphillips.com
SEMTECH CORP: Wronski Sues Over Decline of Securities Price
-----------------------------------------------------------
OLIVER WRONSKI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SEMTECH CORPORATION, HONG Q. HOU, and MARK
LIN, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-02058 (C.D. Cal., March 7, 2025)
is a class action against the Defendants for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false
and misleading statements regarding Semtech's business, operations,
and prospects in order to trade Semtech securities at artificially
inflated prices between August 27, 2024, and February 7, 2025.
Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose that Semtech's
CopperEdge products suffered from heating issues, which caused
NVIDIA to curtail its purchases and develop its own new processing
unit.
When the truth emerged, Semtech's share price dropped from $54.51
per share on February 7, 2025, to at $37.60 per share on February
10, 2025. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and
omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the
company's common stock, the Plaintiff and other Class members have
suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit.
Semtech Corporation is a supplier of analog and mixed-signal
semiconductors and advanced algorithms, with its principal place of
business in Camarillo, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
1100 Glendon Avenue, 15th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Telephone: (310) 405-7190
Email: jpafiti@pomlaw.com
- and -
Ira M. Press, Esq.
Lauren Molinaro, Esq.
KIRBY McINERNEY LLP
250 Park Avenue, Suite 820
New York, NY 10177
Telephone: (212) 371-6600
Facsimile: (212) 751-2540
Email: ipress@kmllp.com
lmolinaro@kmllp.com
SERVICE MEASURE: Wiggins Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
James Wiggins, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. SERVICE MEASURE LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01451 (E.D.N.Y.,
March 14, 2025) is brought to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as a
result of Defendant's willful violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act ("FLSA"), the Kentucky Revised Statutes ("KRS"), the Virginia
Overtime Wage Act ("VOWA"), the Virginia Wage Payment Act ("VWPA"),
the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act ("PMWA"), the Pennsylvania Wage
Payment and Collection Law ("WPCL").
The Defendant failed to pay hourly-paid field data collectors for
all hours worked, including hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a
week, and failed to pay them time-and-a-half of their regular rate
of pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in a week, in
violation of the FLSA, KRS, VOWA, VWPA, PMWA, and WPCL, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant since February 2024 as
an hourly-paid field data collector.
Service Measure LLC operates throughout the United States and
Canada, specializing in project management solutions with a focus
on field operations and data collection.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas Conlon, Esq.
BROWN, LLC
111 Town Square Place, Suite 400
Jersey City, NJ 07310
Phone: (877) 561-0000
Fax: (855) 582-5279
Email: nicholasconlon@jtblawgroup.com
SHAKE SHACK: Carpenter Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------
Crystal Carpenter, on behalf of herself and similarly situated v.
SHAKE SHACK ENTERPRISES LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01465 (E.D.N.Y.,
March 14, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL") for a class and
collective-wide failure to pay overtime and other systematic
wage-and-hour violations, and for subjecting her to unlawful
discrimination on the basis of age and caregiver status,
retaliation for complaining about the discrimination she endured,
and a hostile work environment, resulting in Plaintiff's unlawful
termination after 8 years of devoted service.
Throughout her employment as a Shift Manager at Shake Shack,
Plaintiff was not paid for all regular and overtime hours worked.
Instead, owing to Shake Shack's unlawful policies and practices,
Plaintiff was deprived of regular wages and overtime wages at 1.5x
her regular rate for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek. The
Plaintiff was deprived of regular and overtime pay due to a
systematic policy of failing to pay FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and
Class Members the legally-required regular and overtime wages. FLSA
Collective Plaintiffs and Class Members were similarly deprived of
regular and overtime compensation for all hours worked, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Shake Shack from 2016 until June 12,
2024.
Shake Shack owns and operates an international chain of fast food
restaurants.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Taimur Alamgir, Esq
TA LEGAL GROUP PLLC
315 Main Street, Second Floor
Huntington, NY 11743
Phone: (914) 552-2669
Email: tim@talegalgroup.com
SHOREFRONT OPERATING: Chow Wins Renewed Bid for Class Cert.
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WALTER CHOW, as
Administrator of the Estate of LEROY CHOW, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SHOREFRONT OPERATING
LLC D/B/A SEAGATE REHABILITATION AND NURSING CENTER; SHAINDY BERKO;
ROCHEL DAVID; LEAH FRIEDMAN; DEENA LANDA; ESTHER FARKOVITZ; AVI
PHILIPSON; BERISH RUBINSTEIN; DAVID RUBINSTEIN; BRUSCHA SINGER;
JOEL ZUPNICK; SHOREFRONT REALTY LLC; SENTOSACARE, LLC; BENT
PHILIPSON; and DOES 1-25, Case No. 1:19-cv-03541-FB-JRC (E.D.N.Y.),
the Hon. Judge Frederic Block entered an order granting Chow's
renewed motion for class certification.
The Court certifies the proposed class, comprising all Seagate
residents from Nov. 27, 2015, to the present.
The Plaintiff argues that a subsequent decision of the New York
Appellate Division has changed the applicable law. He is correct.
Accordingly, his motion is granted and the class is certified.
The Court thus finds there has been an intervening change in
controlling law concerning section2801-d that it is bound to apply.
Applying the reasoning, the Court finds the proposed class
satisfies the commonality and predominance requirements of Rule 23.
Because the Court previously found the other prerequisites to
certification satisfied, the Court now certifies the proposed
class.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 13, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4JlHRb at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
D. Greg Blankinship, Esq.
FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON
& GARBER, LLP
One North Broadway, Suite 900
White Plains, NY 10601
The Defendants are represented by:
Lori R. Semlies, Esq.
WILSON, ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN &
DICKER LLP
1133 Westchester Avenue
White Plains, NY 10604
SIRIUS XM: Horoschak Suit Seeks Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as David Horoschak, et al.,
v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-08177-JMF (S.D.N.Y.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for
certification of a collective action.
The Plaintiffs move the Court for the following relief:
(1) Issuance of notice to all Sirius XM Radio, Inc. employees
over 40 years of age whose employment separated (either
because of layoff, discharge, or potential constructive
discharge (i.e. resignation)) since Feb. 12, 2024, that
they may opt in to join this case pursuant to the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. sections 621
and section 216(b);
(2) An order requiring Sirius XM to produce to the Plaintiffs a
list of the potential opt-in plaintiffs' names, last-known
mailing addresses, last-known telephone numbers, email
addresses, work locations, dates of employment, and last
position held; and
(3) An order permitting a 90-day period following the issuance
of notice during which potential opt-in plaintiffs may opt
in to this action.
Sirius operates as a satellite radio broadcasting company.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 14, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BHaCwP at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Alan Lescht, Esq.
Victoria L. Watson, Esq.
ALAN LESCHT AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
1825 K Street, NW, Suite 750
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 463-7955
E-mail: alan.lescht@leschtlaw.com
- and -
Michael R. Gordon, Esq.
GORDONLAW LLP
51 Bedford Road, Suite 2
Katonah, NY 10536
Telephone: (914) 232-9500
E-mail: mgordon@gordonlawllp.com
SMART ERP: Discloses Personal Info to Third Parties, Demmie Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
JASON DEMMIE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SMART ERP SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-02639 (N.D.
Cal., March 18, 2025) is a class action individually and on behalf
of all other individuals who had their sensitive personally
identifying information, including but not limited to, names and
Social Security numbers disclosed to unauthorized third parties
during a data breach compromising SmartERP in July 2024.
On July 13, 2024, SmartERP discovered a network security incident
that impacted some of its operations. After further investigation
with the help of third-party forensic specialists, Defendant
discovered unauthorized access to its network between July 3, 2024,
and 13, 2024.
The unauthorized access resulted in the sensitive Personal
Information it held being "accessed and/or acquired by an
unauthorized individual" (Data Breach). The Plaintiff received a
letter from Defendant dated March 11, 2025, notifying him that his
Personal Information was accessed and/or acquired by unauthorized
third parties in the Data Breach.
SmartERP is a software services and solutions corporation based in
Pleasanton, California. Founded in 2005, SmartERP provides
enterprise resource planning (ERP) services and solutions to
organizations across various industries, including government
agencies, healthcare, education, and manufacturing.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Deborah De Villa, Esq.
Alyssa Brown, Esq.
Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
2600 West Olive Avenue, Suite 500
Burbank, CA 91505
Telephone: (310) 474-9111
Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
E-mail: abrown@ahdootwolfson.com
aferich@ahdootwolfson.com
ddevilla@ahdootwolfson.com
SNOWFLAKE INC: Removes Milito Suit to W.D. Wash.
------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of JOHN MILITO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SNOWFLAKE,
INC. DBA SNOWFLAKE COMPUTING, INC.; and DOES 1-20, Defendants,
filed a notice to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the
State of Washington, County of King (Case No. 25-2-03859-9 SEA) to
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington on
March 13, 2025.
The clerk of court for the Western District of Washington assigned
Case No. 2:25-cv-00453. The case is assigned to Judge Barbara J
Rothstein.
Snowflake Inc. provides software solutions. The Company develops
database architecture, data warehouses, query optimization, and
parallelization solutions. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony Todaro, Esq.
Alexandria Cates, Esq.
DLA PIPER LLP (US)
701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 6900
Seattle, WA 98104-7029
Telephone: (206) 839-4800
Facsimile: (206) 839-4801
Email: anthony.todaro@us.dlapiper.com
alexandria.cates@us.dlapiper.com
SOPHIE BUHAI: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Evans Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES EVANS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Sophie Buhai, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02786 (S.D.N.Y., March 27,
2025) sues the Defendant for their failure to design, construct,
maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and
services Sophie Buhai provides to their non-disabled customers
through https://sophiebuhai.com.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in
conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under ADA.
Sophiebuhai.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods,
services, price specials and other programs offered by Sophie
Buhai. Yet, Sophiebuhai.com contains significant access barriers
that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and
visually-impaired customers to use the website, says the suit.
Sophie Buhai provides to the public a website known as
Sophiebuhai.com which provides consumers with access to an array of
goods and services, including, the ability to view earrings,
necklaces, bracelets, rings, lighters, clips, combs, headbands.
Consumers across the United States use Defendant’s website to
pur-chase jewelry and accessories.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Davis B. Reyes, Esq.
EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
68-29 Main Street
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (917) 437-3737
E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Parties Seek to Suspend Class Cert. Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARTHUR ANDERSON, et al.,
v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-00214-S (N.D.
Tex.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order to:
(1) suspend the Plaintiffs' deadline to move for class
certification;
(2) extend by seven days the Plaintiffs' time for opposing the
Defendants' anticipated Motion to Dismiss the Class Action
Complaint and extend by seven days the Defendants' time to
file a reply; and
(3) stay discovery pending the Court's decision on the
Defendants' anticipated Motion to Dismiss.
Under the current case schedule, the Plaintiffs and Defendants will
not have the opportunity to conduct discovery related to a motion
for and opposition against class certification by April 28, 2025.
Due to pre-existing commitments, the Plaintiffs' counsel expect to
have limited availability in late April and early May, during the
21-day period for briefing their opposition to the Defendants'
anticipated Motion to Dismiss.
Should the court grant this motion, the parties agree to propose a
new class certification deadline and proposed discovery schedule to
the Court with their 26(f) report, which the parties will submit to
the Court in accordance with Section III. A & C of the Court’s
Judge Specific Requirements
The Plaintiffs filed their Class Action Complaint on Jan. 28, 2025.
The Defendants' unopposed motion to extend the deadline to file a
responsive pleading was granted by this Court on March 3, 2025.
Southwest is a major airline in the United States that formerly
operated on a low-cost carrier model.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 14, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IHAwg4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Valerie Mosman, Esq.
THE SLOAN FIRM
3500 Maple Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 550-3233
Facsimile: (903) 757-7574
E-mail: vmosman@sloanfirm.com
- and -
Charles Field, Esq.
David Tracey, Esq.
Sharon Kim, Esq.
SANFORD HEISLER SHARP MCKNIGHT, LLP
7911 Herschel Avenue, Suite 3000
La Jolla, CA 92037
Telephone: (619) 577-4252
Facsimile: (619) 577-4250
E-mail: cfield@sanfordheisler.com
dtracey@sanfordheisler.com
sharonkim@sanfordheisler.com
- and -
Megan A. Richmond, Esq.
MEGAN A. RICHMOND, A PROFESSIONAL
CORPORATION
7911 Herschel Avenue, Suite 3000
La Jolla, CA 92037
Telephone: (800) 210-3638
Facsimile: (619) 237-3496
E-mail: megan@therichmondfirm.com
The Defendants are represented by:
David Monteiro, Esq.
Sean McMahan, Esq.
Jared Killeen, Esq.
Keri Engelman, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP
1717 Main Street, Suite 3200
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 466-4000
Facsimile: (214) 466-4001
E-mail: david.monteiro@morganlewis.com
sean.mcmahan@morganlewis.com
jeremy.blumenfeld@morganlewis.com
jared.killeen@morganlewis.com
keri.engelman@morganlewis.com
SPLINTEK INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Espinal Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
FRANGIE ESPINAL, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. SPLINTEK INC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02203
(S.D.N.Y., March 18, 2025) contends that the Defendant failed to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, ,
https://www.sleepright.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 Plaintiff's visits to the Website, the last occurring on
March 5, 2025, in an attempt to purchase a SleepRight Lumbar
Support Belt from Defendant and to view the information on the
Website, 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 SleepRight Lumbar Support Belt, as well
as other products available online and to ascertain information
relating to Defendant's: sleep and healthcare products, as well as
other types of goods, pricing, privacy policies and internet
pricing specials.
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. 34. Plaintiff has
been discriminated against by Defendant's conduct and violations of
the statues and regulations set forth herein by being treated
unequally from sighted persons due Plaintiff's disability and
Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer injury as a result
of Defendant's discriminatory practice.
The Plaintiff is a blind, visually-impaired handicapped person and
a member of a protected class of individuals under the ADA.[BN]
The Defendant operates the SleepRight online interactive Website
and retail store across the United States. This online interactive
Website and retail store constitute a place of public accommodation
because it is a sales establishment.[CC]
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
SPS TECHNOLOGIES: Greene Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Nikenye Greene, individually, on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. SPS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Case No.
03288 was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia
County, to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on March 19, 2025, and assigned Case No.
2:25-cv-01464.
The Plaintiff alleges injuries and damages as a result of a fire
which occurred on February 17, 2025 at a facility operated by SPS
located at 301 Highland Avenue, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania (the "SPS
Facility"). The Complaint asserts claims by Plaintiff Nikenye
Greene who allegedly resides less than a half mile from the SPS
Facility, claiming that she has suffered injuries and damages as a
result of the fire.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Shoshana (Suzanne Ilene) Schiller, Esq.
Kathleen B. Campbell, Esq.
Danielle N. Bagwell, Esq.
MANKO, GOLD, KATCHER & FOX, LLP
Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 700
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
Phone: 484-430-2347
Fax: 484-430-5711
Email: sschiller@mankogold.com
kcampbell@mankogold.com
dbagwell@mankogold.com
STIFEL & NICOLAUS: Faces Kiesling Over Cash Sweep Programs
----------------------------------------------------------
RACHELLE KIESLING and LAURA WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. STIFEL, NICOLAUS & CO., INC. and
STIFEL FINANCIAL CORP., Case No. 4:25-cv-00338 (E.D. Mo., March 18,
2025) is a class action arises out of Stifel's drastic
under-payment of interest to its clients in its cash sweep
programs.
While expressly acting as its clients' agent with respect to its
cash sweep programs, Stifel violated its fiduciary, contractual,
and implied duties by underpaying its clients to enrich itself and
its affiliates at its clients' expense. Rather than pay clients a
fair and reasonable rate of interest on their cash balances and put
their clients' interests above its own as it was obligated to do,
Stifel instead paid de minimis rates to its clients, unjustly
obtaining for itself and its affiliates hundreds of millions of
dollars from that cash during periods of rising interest rates, the
lawsuit says.
In a typical cash sweep program for a brokerage client, the
brokerage firm, acting as its client's agent with respect to the
cash sweep program, establishes and maintains an interest-bearing
sweep account at a participating bank on its client's behalf and
automatically transfers or "sweeps" uninvested cash (also known as
as a free credit balance) from the client's brokerage account into
the sweep account that generates returns for the client. When
Stifel sweeps its clients' cash through its cash sweep programs,
however, Stifel uses that cash to generate enormous returns for
itself and its affiliates, rather than its clients, by keeping the
vast majority of the spread between the interest income that its
clients' cash earns and the amount of interest that it passes on to
its clients, asserts the lawsuit.
The Plaintiffs are citizens of Missouri. They maintain an
Individual Retirement Account with Stifel.
Stifel Financial is a Delaware corporation, and a financial holding
company with its principal place of business in St. Louis,
Missouri, that provides banking, securities, and financial services
through several wholly owned subsidiaries.BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew L. Dameron, Esq.
Claire M. Terrebonne, Esq.
WILLIAMS DIRKS DAMERON LLC
Kansas City, MO 64105
Telephone: (816) 945-7110
E-mail: matt@williamsdirks.com
cterrebonne@williamsdirks.com
- and -
Michael J. Angelides, Esq.
Thomas I. Sheridan, III, Esq.
Sona R. Shah, Esq.
SIMMONS HANLY CONROY LLP
231 S. Bemiston Avenue, Suite 525
Saint Louis, MO 63105
Telephone: (618) 693-3104
E-mail: mangelides@simmonsfirm.com
tsheridan@simmonsfirm.com
sshah@simmonsfirm.com
- and -
Bruce D. Oakes, Esq.
Richard B. Fosher, Esq.
OAKES & FOSHER, LLC
1401 Brentwood Boulevard, Suite 250
Saint Louis, MO 63144
Telephone: (314) 804-1412
E-mail: boakes@oakesfosher.com
rfosher@oakesfosher.com
- and -
Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq.
John Rizio-Hamilton, Esq.
Adam Wierzbowski, Esq.
Michael Blatchley, Esq.
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER
& GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 554-1400
E-mail: salvatore@blbglaw.com
johnr@blbglaw.com
adam@blbglaw.com
michael@blbglaw.com
- and -
Michael Dell'Angelo, Esq.
Alex B. Heller, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 875-3000
E-mail: mdellangelo@bm.net
aheller@bm.net
- and -
Alan L. Rosca, Esq.
Jonathan A. Korte, Esq.
Paul J. Scarlato, Esq.
ROSCA SCARLATO LLC
2000 Auburn Drive, Suite 200
Beachwood, OH 44122
Telephone: (216) 946-7070
E-mail: arosca@rscounsel.law
jkorte@rscounsel.law
pscarlato@rscounsel.law
STIFEL FINANCIAL: Briarwood Investments Sues Over Sweep Programs
----------------------------------------------------------------
BRIARWOOD INVESTMENTS, INC., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STIFEL FINANCIAL CORP.,
STIFEL, NICOLAUS & COMPANY, INC., and STIFEL BANK & TRUST,
Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-00324 (E.D. Mo., March 14, 2025) seeks
to recover damages arising out of Defendants' unlawful conduct
related to Stifel's Automatic Cash Investment Service, which offers
two automatic cash sweep programs, the Stifel Insured Bank Deposit
Program and Stifel Insured Bank Deposit Program for Retirement
Accounts.
Under the said programs, the Defendants sweep uninvested customer
cash from customers' securities accounts into interest-bearing
deposit accounts at banks affiliated with or otherwise selected by
Defendants. However, the Defendants' use of their sweep programs
has allegedly enriched themselves by paying unreasonably low
interest rates to customers. Accordingly, the Defendants breached
their fiduciary duties and contractual obligations and violated
several state and federal laws including the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act and the Investment Advisers Act of
1940.
Stifel is a financial services company headquartered in St. Louis,
MO. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephen R. Astley, Esq.
Andrew T. Rees, Esq.
Rene A. Gonzalez, Esq.
Scott I. Dion, Esq.
ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
225 NE Mizner Boulevard, Suite 720
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: (561) 750-3000
E-mail: sastley@rgrdlaw.com
arees@rgrdlaw.com
rgonzalez@rgrdlaw.com
sdion@rgrdlaw.com
- and -
Jack G. Fruchter, Esq.
ABRAHAM FRUCHTER & TWERSKY LLP
450 7th Ave 38th Floor
New York, NY 10123
Telephone: (212) 279-5050
STRAIGHT SMILE: Phillips Sues Over Dental Equipment's Deceptive Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PAULA J. PHILLIPS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STRAIGHT SMILE LLC d/b/a BYTE and
DENTSPLY SIRONA INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-21074 (S.D.
Fla., March 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for
violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
and Florida Misleading Advertising Statute, breach of implied
warranty of merchantability, breach of implied warranty of fitness
for a particular use, breach of express warranty, breach of
contract, and unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendants' false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of the Byte Aligner
Systems and Impression Kits, dental care products. The Defendants
claim that their products will enable consumers to finally be able
to afford an otherwise costly fix to their dental care needs.
However, the Defendants' products are proven to be ineffective and
dangerous to consumers. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful
acts and omissions, the Plaintiff and other Class members have
suffered damages, says the suit.
Straight Smile LLC, doing business as Byte, is a dental equipment
manufacturer, with its principal place of business in California.
Dentsply Sirona Inc. is a dental equipment manufacturer, with its
principal place of business in North Carolina. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jordan A. Dresnick, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JORDAN A. DRESNICK
901 Brickell Key Blvd., Suite 2901
Miami, FL 33146
Telephone: (786) 220-8785
Email: jordandresnick@gmail.com
- and -
Stuart Z. Grossman, Esq.
Manuel A. Arteaga-Gomez, Esq.
Aimee A. Ferrer, Esq.
Ryan J. Yaffa, Esq.
GROSSMAN ROTH YAFFA COHEN, P.A.
2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1150
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 442-8666
Facsimile: (305) 285-1668
Email: szg@grossmanroth.com
aag@grossmanroth.com
aaf@grossmanroth.com
rjy@grossmanroth.com
STRYKER CORP: Class Cert Bid Filing in Graham Due July 17, 2026
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONATHAN GRAHAM, v.
STRYKER CORPORATION, ET AL., Case No. 2:24-cv-01411-DJC-JDP (E.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Daniel Calabretta entered a scheduling order:
-- All fact discovery shall be completed1 no later than Mar. 13,
2026.
-- All expert discovery shall be completed no later than June 5,
2026.
-- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification, shall be filed
on or before July 17, 2026 and shall be noticed for hearing
before Judge Calabretta no later than Sept. 3, 2026 at 1:30
p.m.
-- All dispositive motions, except motions for continuances,
temporary restraining orders, or other emergency applications,
shall be filed on or before Jan. 22, 2027 and shall be noticed
for hearing before Judge Calabretta no later than Mar. 18,
2027 at 1:30 p.m.
-- The final pretrial conference is set for July 1, 2027 at 1:30
p.m. in Courtroom 7 before District Court Judge Daniel J.
Calabretta.
Stryker is an American multinational medical technologies
corporation.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 12, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=krLOXs at no extra
charge.[CC]
SUNFLOWER MEDICAL: Failed to Secure Personal Info, Johnson Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
KAY JOHNSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SUNFLOWER MEDICAL GROUP, P.A., Case No.
4:25-cv-00190-WBG, Case No. (W.D. Mo., March 18, 2025) alleges that
Sunflower failed to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or
timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class Members'
sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired
and stored for its business purposes.
The failure to secure and monitor its network resulted in a
December 15, 2024, data breach (Data Breach) of highly sensitive
documents and information stored on the computer network of
Sunflower, an organization that provides medical treatment and/or
employment to individuals, including Plaintiff and Class Members.
The Defendant's data security failures allowed a targeted
cybersecurity attack, in or around December 2024, to compromise
Defendant's network that contained PII and protected health
information of Plaintiff and the Class, says the suit.
According to a notice Sunflower sent to the Maine Attorney
General's office, on or about December 15, 2024, the Private
Information of approximately 220,968 individuals was affected in
the Data Breach. According to a notice on its website, Defendant
confirmed that it became aware "suspicious activity within its
computer network" that took place on or about Dec. 15, 2024.
Plaintiff Johnson is a resident of Arkansas City, Kansas. Plaintiff
is a patient of Defendant. On March 7, 2025, the Defendant sent
Plaintiff a notice letter informing him that his Private
Information was compromised in the Data Breach.
Sunflower claims its "practice focuses on prevention, detection,
and treatment of common medical problems" and its "services include
primary care, urgent care, obstetrics and gynecology, laboratory
tests, x-rays, EKG's, ultrasounds, vascular screens & bone density
tests."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Domenica M. Russo, Esq.
Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR
KANE CONWAY & WISE. LLP
One U.S. Bank Plaza, Suite 1950
St. Louis, MO 63101
E-mail: drusso@peifferwolf.com
bwise@peifferwolf.com
- and -
Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
Mark Svensson, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
Facsimile: (212) 363-7171
E-mail: ek@zlk.com
msvensson@zlk.com
SUNFLOWER MEDICAL: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Conrad Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
DOUG CONRAD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SUNFLOWER MEDICAL GROUP, P.A, Case No.
4:25-cv-189, Case No. (W.D. Mo., March 18, 2025) alleges that
Sunflower failed to properly secure, safeguard, encrypt, and/or
timely and adequately destroy Plaintiff's and Class Members'
sensitive personal identifiable information that it had acquired
and stored for its business purposes.
The failure to secure and monitor its network resulted in a
December 15, 2024, data breach (Data Breach) of highly sensitive
documents and information stored on the computer network of
Sunflower, an organization that provides medical treatment and/or
employment to individuals, including Plaintiff and Class Members.
The Defendant's data security failures allowed a targeted
cybersecurity attack, in or around December 2024, to compromise
Defendant's network that contained PII and protected health
information (PHI) of Plaintiff and the Class.
According to a notice Sunflower sent to the Maine Attorney
General's office, on or about December 15, 2024, the Private
Information of approximately 220,968 individuals was affected in
the Data Breach. According to a notice on its website, Defendant
confirmed that it became aware "suspicious activity within its
computer network" that took place on or about Dec. 15, 2024.
Plaintiff Doug Conrad is a natural person and resident and citizen
of the State of Kansas. Plaintiff received a Notice of the Data
Breach on or about March 7, 2025, notifying him that his Private
Information may have been exposed in the Data Breach. 23. Plaintiff
previously received medical or related services from Sunflower.
Sunflower claims its "practice focuses on prevention, detection,
and treatment of common medical problems" and its "services include
primary care, urgent care, obstetrics and gynecology, laboratory
tests, x-rays, EKG's, ultrasounds, vascular screens & bone density
tests."[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 -
Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (310) 474-9111
Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
E-mail: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com
TENNESSEE GAS: Parties Seek to Amend Scheduling Order
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRADISH JOHNSON CO.,
LIMITED, individually and as representative of all those similarly
situated, V. TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY, L.L.C., et al., Case
No. 2:23-cv-07363-CJB-EJD (E.D. La.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order granting their joint motion to amend scheduling
order for class certification under Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure as follows:
a. Fact discovery related to class certification will close on
April 30, 2025.
b. Expert discovery related to class certification will close
on May 30, 2025.
c. Plaintiff's motion for class certification must be filed on
or before June 30, 2025.
d. Defendants' opposition to class certification must be filed
on or before July 31, 2025.
e. Plaintiff's final witness and exhibit lists for the class
certification hearing must be filed on or before August 8,
2025.
f. Defendants' final witness and exhibit lists for the class
certification hearing must be filed on or before August 15,
2025.
On Aug. 22, 2024, the Court entered a scheduling order that
provided deadlines related to class certification. On Jan. 3, 2025,
the Court a joint motion of the parties and amended that scheduling
order.
Under the amended scheduling order, fact discover related to class
certification was to close on Feb. 28, 2025, and various deadlines
were set following that date.
Tennessee Gas Pipeline provides gas transportation and storage
services.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 13, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WDS50G at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James R. Swanson, Esq.
Stephen J. Herman, Esq.
Kerry J. Miller, Esq.
H.S. Bartlett III, Esq.
Lance C. McCardle, Esq.
E. Blair Schilling, Esq.
Julie S. Meaders, Esq.
Isabel A. Englehart, Esq.
FISHMAN HAYGOOD, LLP
201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 4600
New Orleans, LA 70170
Telephone: (504) 586-5252
Facsimile: (504) 586-5250
E-mail: jswanson@fishmanhaygood.com
sherman@fishmanhaygood.com
kmiller@fishmanhaygood.com
tbartlett@fishmanhaygood.com
lmccardle@fishmanhaygood.com
bschilling@fishmanhaygood.com
jmeaders@fishmanhaygood.com
ienglehart@fishmanhaygood.com
- and -
Gladstone N. Jones, III, Esq.
Kevin E. Huddell, Esq.
Lynn E. Swanson, Esq.
Alayne Gobeille, Esq.
Thomas F. Dixon, Esq.
Rosa E. Acheson, Esq.
John T. Arnold, Esq.
JONES SWANSON HUDDELL, L.L.C.
601 Poydras Street, Suite 2655
New Orleans, LA 70130
Telephone: (504) 523-2500
Facsimile: (504) 523-2508
E-mail: gjones@jonesswanson.com
khuddell@jonesswanson.com
jarnold@jonesswanson.com
lswanson@jonesswanson.com
agobeille@jonesswanson.com
tdixon@jonesswanson.com
racheson@jonesswanson.com
- and -
S. Jacob Braud, Esq.
BALLAY, BRAUD & COLON, PLC
81 l 4 Highway 23, Suite 101
Belle Chasse, LA 70037
Telephone: (504) 394-9841
Facsimile: (504) 394-9945
E-mail: Jacob@NolaAttomeys.com
- and -
A.M. "Tony" Clayton, Esq.
D'Ann R. Penner
CLAYTON, FRUGÉ, WARD & HENDRY
3741 La. Highway 1 South
Port Allen, LA 70767
Telephone: (225)344-7000
Facsimile: (225) 383-7631
E-mail: dpenner@claytonfrugelaw.com)
- and -
T. Taylor Townsend, Esq.
T. TAYLOR TOWNSEND, LLC
320 Saint Denis Street
Natchitoches, LA 71457
Telephone: (318) 238-3612
Facsimile: (318) 238-6103
The Defendants are represented by:
Richard D. McConnell, Jr., Esq.
Lily P. Pavy, Esq.
Michael R. Phillips, Esq.
Claire E. Juneau, Esq.
Tyler Moore Kostal, Esq.
Jeffrey J. Gelpi, Esq.
KEAN MILLER LLP
400 Convention Street, Suite 700
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
Telephone: (225) 387-0999
E-mail: richard.mcconnell@keanmiller.com
lily.pavy@keanmiller.com
mike.phillips@keanmiller.com
claire.juneau@keanmiller.com
tyler.kostal@keanmiller.com
jeff.gelpi@keanmiller.com
- and -
Morgan J. Wells, Jr., Esq.
Evan J. Godofsky, Esq.
LARZERLERE PICOU WELLS SIMPSON
LONERO, LLC
3850 N. Causeway Boulevard, Suite 500
Metairie, LA 70002
Telephone: (504) 834-6500
Facsimile: (504) 834-6565
E-mail: mwells@lpwsl.com
egodofsky@lpwsl.com
TFI INTERNATIONAL: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 13
-----------------------------------------------------------------
If you suffered a loss on your TFI International Inc. (NYSE:TFII)
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/tfi-international-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=136902&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
TFI International Inc. that seeks to recover losses of shareholders
who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between
April 26, 2024 and February 19, 2025.
CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
false statements and/or concealed that: (1) the Company was losing
small and medium business customers; (2) as a result, the Company's
TForce revenue was declining; (3) TFI was experiencing difficulties
managing its costs; (4) as a result of the foregoing, the
profitability of its largest business segment was declining; and
(5) 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? If you suffered a loss in TFI International Inc. stock
during the relevant time frame - even if you still hold your shares
- go to
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/tfi-international-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=136902&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]
TFI INTERNATIONAL: Brownbridge Alleges Securities Law Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
BARRETT BROWNBRIDGE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TFI INTERNATIONAL INC., ALAIN
BEDARD, and DAVID SAPERSTEIN, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-02159
(S.D.N.Y., March 14, 2025), asserts claims arising under Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Securities and Exchange Commission's Rule 10b-5.
The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of persons and
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired TFI International's
securities between April 26, 2024 and February 19, 2025, inclusive.
Throughout the said period, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors that, among other things, the Company was losing small
and medium business customers and that, as a result, the Company's
TForce revenue was declining. Moreover, Defendants’ positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. As a
result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's
securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered
significant losses and damages, says the suit.
Headquartered in Quebec, Canada, TFI International Inc. is a
transportation and logistics company that operates in the United
States and Canada. The company's common stock trades on the New
York Stock Exchange under the symbol "TFII." [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rebecca Dawson, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Ave, Suite 358
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (213) 521-8007
E-mail: rdawson@glancylaw.com
- and -
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
- and -
Frank R. Cruz, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ
2121 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 800
Century City, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 914-5007
TIMBUK2 DESIGNS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Henry Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CONSTANCE HENRY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Timbuk2 Designs, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-02781 (N.D.
Ill., March 17, 2025) contends that the Defendant failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other
blind or visually-impaired persons, in violation of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
Accordingly, the Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired
persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods
and services Timbuk2 Designs provides to their non-disabled
customers through https://timbuk2.com.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in
conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under ADA.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read
website content using her computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms
"blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual
impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they
have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x
200.
Timbuk2.com provides to the public a wide array of the goods,
services, price specials and other programs offered by Timbuk2
Designs. Yet, Timbuk2.com contains significant access barriers that
make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired
customers to use the website.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Davis B. Reyes, Esq.
EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
68-29 Main Street,
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (630) 478-0856
E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law
TN MARKETING: Croteau et al. Sue Over Unlawful Disclosure to Meta
-----------------------------------------------------------------
AMIE CROTEAU, THUY DAOJENSEN, and DIANE THOMAS, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TN
MARKETING, LLC d/b/a Craftsy Defendant, Case No.
0:25-cv-00940-PJS-ECW (D. Minn., March 14, 2025), alleges
violations of the federal Video Privacy Protection Act.
The Plaintiffs bring this action for legal and equitable remedies
to redress and put a stop to Defendant TN Marketing, LLC d/b/a
Crafty's practices of knowingly disclosing Plaintiffs' and its
other consumers' identities, their subscription, and the titles of
the prerecorded video materials that they requested or obtained, to
Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc. The
Defendant has been systematically transmitting its subscribers'
personally identifying video subscription purchase and video
viewing information to Meta using a snippet of programming code
called the "Meta Pixel," which Defendant chose to install on its
website, says the suit.
Headquartered in Plymouth, MN, TN Marketing, LLC operates and
maintains the website craftsy.com, where it sells subscriptions to
consumers to access prerecorded video content and provides its
subscribers with access to a digital library comprised of various
types of pre-recorded instructional and educational videos related
to crafting, cooking, baking, knitting, sewing, painting, and
drawing, among other topics. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
111 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 1700
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 984-0000
Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
E-mail: malmstrom@whafh.com
- and -
Arun G. Ravindran, Esq.
RAVINDRAN LAW FIRM PLLC
2525 Ponce deLeon Blvd., Suite 300
Coral Gables, FL 33134
E-mail: arun@ravindranlaw.com
TOMOCREDIT INC: Faces Davis Class Suit Over Electronic Payments
---------------------------------------------------------------
MARQWESHA DAVIS, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated person v. TOMOCREDIT INC. d/b/a TOMO CARD, COMMUNITY
FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK, EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC. and
TRANS UNION LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00126-MW-MAF (N.D. Fla., March
18, 2025) alleges that Community Federal failed to notice some red
flags, including:
a. Tomo Card required consumers to consent to electronic
payments as a condition of credit granting, despite this
requirement expressly violating the Electronic Funds
Transfer Act; and
b. Tomo Card required consumers to make weekly payments, even
though this violated 15 U.S.C. section 1637 which requires
a credit card issuer to provide a statement of account at
least 21 days prior to a payment being due, a clear and
obvious impossibility with weekly billing.
Accordingly, Tomocredit's investment pitch was primarily that its
credit card did not utilize credit scores, but rather looked at the
applicant's income and cash flow. It charged no interest and no
annual fee, and claimed it would make a profit from interchange
fees alone -- the 1.3% to 2.3% merchants pay to the Mastercard
payment network, a portion of which went to Tomocredit.
Such a business model quickly proved untenable. Traditional credit
card issuers get paid the identical interchange fees and even with
interest rates typically exceeding 25% annually and annual fees
averaging $105 annually1.
Tomocredit, whose credit card applications did not consider a
consumer’s credit score and which forswore interest on balances
and annual fees, very quickly ran into serious financial trouble
as, unsurprisingly, the failure to consider credit scores when
issuing credit quickly led to a large percentage of accounts
defaulting.
Unpaid bills quickly racked up at Tomocredit; it was even sued by
the vendor who produced the physical credit cards, alleging in
detail the great obfuscations Tomocredit engaged in to avoid paying
a $700,000 bill for card manufacturing, printing and mailing. It
settled the lawsuit, agreeing to pay off the balance in $40,000 per
month installment payments, and shortly thereafter also defaulted
on these payments, asserts the suit.
The action is brought by Ms. Davis against the Defendants for
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, against Tomocredit and
Community Federal only for violations of the Florida Consumer
Collection Practices Act, against Tomocredit only for violations of
the Florida Telemarketing Act and EFTA.
Until September 2023, Tomocredit issued a Mastercard (TM)credit
card called the Tomo Card through Community Federal, who supervised
and approved of all policies and procedures concerning the cards
issuance and was the lender to consumers who obtained the credit
card, and approved all credit applications.
TOMOCREDIT INC. is a fintech company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas M. Bonan, Esq.
SERAPH LEGAL, P. A.
2124 W Kennedy Blvd. Suite A
Tampa, FL 33606
Telephone: (813) 321-2347
Facsimile: (855) 500-0705
E-mail: tbonan@seraphlegal.com
TORY BURCH: Sends Unsolicited Telemarketing Texts, Museve Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY MUSEVE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TORY BURCH LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:25-cv-02024 (C.D. Cal., March 7, 2025) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act of 1991.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in sending
unsolicited telemarketing text messages to the Plaintiff and
similarly situated consumers in an attempt to promote its products
or services without obtaining prior express written consent. As a
result of the Defendant's unlawful conduct, the Plaintiff and the
Class suffered damages, says the suit.
Tory Burch LLC is a fashion company, with its headquarters located
in New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald D. Lane Jr., Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
1515 NE 26th Street
Wilton Manors, FL 33305
Telephone: (754) 444-7539
Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com
TRAX RETAIL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Perez Extended to August 3
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANA PEREZ, an individual,
MICHELLE RAITH, an individual, RAUL ALFARO, an individual, and
SHARI BAUGH, an individual, on behalf of themselves, the State of
California, as private attorneys general, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. TRAX RETAIL, INC., a Delaware
corporation; BET Information Systems, Inc. dba Survey.com, a
Delaware corporation, and DOES 1 TO 50, Case No.
3:24-cv-00333-LL-DDL (S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order extending by 90 days the following deadlines:
1. The last day to file any motion for class certification is
extended from Apr. 4, 2025, to Aug. 3, 2025.
2. The Deadline to complete fact discovery is extended from
April 28, 2025, to Aug. 28, 2025.
Given the Defendants' position regarding, necessitated by caselaw
related to waiver of right to compel arbitration, is an impediment
to Plaintiffs’ ability to conduct discovery prior to the April 4,
2025 class certification deadline, including their ability to
receive the discovery, meaningfully meet and confer, analyze the
data, conduct any necessary follow-up discovery, and prepare a
comprehensive class certification motion in the event the Motion to
Compel Arbitration is denied.
Trax Retail provides computer vision solutions.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 13, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VD1ISl at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonathan Melmed, Esq.
Laura Supanich, Esq.
Erin Cole, Esq.
MELMED LAW GROUP P.C.
1801 Century Park East, Suite 850
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 824-3828
Facsimile: (310) 862-6851
E-mail: jm@melmedlaw.com
lms@melmedlaw.com
ec@melmedlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Elizabeth A. Brown, Esq.
Amanda Bolliger, Esq.
Christina C.K. Semmer, Esq.
Ryan C. King, Esq.
GBG LLP
633 West 5th Street, Suite 1500
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 358-2810
Facsimile: (213) 995-6382
E-mail: lisabrown@gbgllp.com
amandabolliger@gbgllp.com
christinasemmer@gbgllp.com
ryanking@gbgllp.com
TYLER TECHNOLOGIES: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Tyler Technologies has agreed to a
class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims that it failed to
prevent a 2024 data breach that compromised sensitive consumer
information.
The Tyler Technologies settlement benefits individuals who received
a notice letter informing them that their personally identifiable
information was compromised in a data breach on March 23, 2024.
According to the class action lawsuit, Tyler Technologies failed to
prevent a data breach that compromised sensitive consumer
information. The Tyler Technologies data breach was allegedly the
result of the company's failure to implement reasonable
cybersecurity measures.
Tyler Technologies is a software company that provides services to
public entities, such as schools, courts and law enforcement.
Tyler Technologies has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to
pay an undisclosed sum to resolve the allegations.
Under the terms of the Tyler Technologies settlement, class members
can receive up to $3,500 for fraudulent charges, identity theft,
data breach-related expenses and lost time. To qualify, these
losses must be traceable to the data breach and have occurred
between March 23, 2024, and May 29, 2025.
Class members can also receive up to four hours of lost time at a
rate of $25 per hour. If a class member spent more than 30 minutes
of an hour, their time will be rounded up to the nearest full hour.
Class members can opt for a one-time alternative cash payment of
$75 in lieu of lost time reimbursement.
In addition, class members can receive three years of one-bureau
credit monitoring and identity theft protection services, which
include $1 million in identity theft insurance, real-time credit
monitoring and access to fraud resolution agents.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is May 29, 2025.
The final approval hearing for the Tyler Technologies data breach
settlement is scheduled for Aug. 21, 2025.
To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid
claim form by May 29, 2025.
Who's Eligible
Individuals who received a notice letter informing them that their
personal information was compromised in a data breach that occurred
on March 23, 2024.
Potential Award
Up to $3,500
Proof of Purchase
Bank statements, credit card statements, credit reports, tax
documents, financial forms and police reports, among other relevant
documents.
Claim Form
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
05/29/2025
Case Name
Casey v. Tyler Technologies Inc., Case No. CJ-2024-5929, in the
Oklahoma District Court of Oklahoma County
Final Hearing
08/21/2025
Settlement Website
TylerDataSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Tyler Technologies Data Breach Settlement
c/o Atticus Administration
P.O. Box 64053
St. Paul, MN 55164
TylerDataSettlement@atticusadmin.com
(800) 983-2170
Class Counsel
William B. Federman
FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
Defense Counsel
Alfred J. Saikali
SHOOK HARDY & BACON [GN]
UAB QBIT FINANCIAL: Mashkevich Files Suit in N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against UAB QBIT Financial
Service, et al. The case is styled as Michael Mashkevich, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. UAB QBIT Financial
Service; Bytechip LLC doing business as: QBIT and QBITPAY; Yujun Wu
also known as: Michael Wu, Case No. 5:25-cv-02565 (N.D. Cal., March
14, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud for Personal Property.
Qbit -- https://www.qbitnetwork.com/en/ -- specializes in creating
one-stop overseas fund management services for global
companies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Vijay Rajagopal, Esq.
KURICHETY LAW PC
179 McKnight Drive, Suite 6
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Phone: (217) 390-2505
Email: vijay@kurichetylaw.com
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Huber Sues Over Uber One's Hidden Delivery Fees
------------------------------------------------------------------
PHOENIX HUBER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC. a Delaware
corporation; and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 25CU012082C
(Cal. Super., San Diego Cty., March 7, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of California's Unfair
Competition, False Advertising Law, and Consumer Legal Remedies
Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and
misleading advertising and marketing of its Uber One subscription
service. The Defendant advertises the Uber One subscribers will not
be charged for delivery fee on eligible food, groceries, and more.
However, subscribers who used Uber Eats or Postmates are charged
delivery fees. As a result, the Plaintiff and similarly situated
consumers suffered losses, alleges the suit.
Uber Technologies, Inc. is a transportation company, with a
principal place of business in San Francisco, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas D. Warren, Esq.
Dan Terzian, Esq.
Erick K. Kuylman, Esq.
WARREN TERZIAN LLP
222 N. Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 2000
Los Angeles, CA 90245
Telephone: (213) 410-2620
Email: tom.warren@warrenterzian.com
dan.terzian@warrenterzian.com
erick.kuylman@warrenterzian.com
UNITED BEHAVIORAL: Jones Seek to Seal Portions of Class Cert Reply
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARY JONES, through her
agent, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. UNITED BEHAVIORAL HEALTH, Case No. 3:19-cv-06999-RS
(N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order sealing
portions of the Plaintiff's reply in support of motion to modify
class certification order and exhibits thereto.
Specifically, the Plaintiff seeks to file under seal (a) Exhibits
18 and 19 to the Plaintiff's reply in support of motion to modify
class certification order, in their entirety; (b) portions of the
Plaintiff's Reply that describe the confidential content of and/or
quote from the Sealed Exhibits; and (c) portions of the Plaintiff's
reply that describe the confidential content of and/or quote from
documents this court has previously placed under seal.
United Behavioral was founded in 1996. The Company's line of
business includes providing management services on a contract and
fee basis.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 14, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bavsmh at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Meiram Bendat, Esq.
PSYCH-APPEAL, INC.
7 West Figueroa Street, Suite 300
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (310) 598-3690, x 101
Facsimile: (888) 975-1957
E-mail: mbendat@psych-appeal.com
- and -
Caroline E. Reynolds, Esq.
D. Brian Hufford, Esq.
Jason S. Cowart, Esq.
ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
1800 M St., NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 778-1800
Facsimile: (202) 822-8106
E-mail: creynolds@zuckerman.com
dbhufford@zuckerman.com
jcowart@zuckerman.com
UNITED PARCEL: Overcharges for Delivery Services, Lomeli Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
LADONNA LOMELI and JOHN FRANKLIN JR., Plaintiffs, on behalf of
themselves individually, and on behalf of all citizens of the
United States who are similarly situated v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
COMPANY, a foreign corporation authorized to do business and doing
business in California, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00422-BEN-AHG
(February 26, 2025) arises from the Defendant's engagement in a
practice of intentionally overcharging third party retailers for
packages of its customers that it provided for shipment by adding
surcharges that should never have been charged.
According to the complaint, the customers of the third-party
retailers may or may not discover that Defendant UPS has
overcharged them for its delivery service, depending upon how
closely the Plaintiffs and members of the Plaintiff class monitor
their credit card bills. There have been occasions where members of
the Plaintiff class have complained to the Defendant UPS that
Defendant UPS has overcharged them for its delivery service. In
responding to those complaints, the Defendant has refunded to the
customer the amount of its intentional overcharge. The Plaintiffs
and members of the Plaintiff class contend that the refund of the
overcharge is an admission of intentional wrongdoing by Defendant
UPS, says the suit.
The Plaintiffs seeks to represent one or more classes of UPS
customers who are also citizens of the United States.
United Parcel Service Company is an American multinational shipping
and receiving and supply chain management company.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
J. David Franklin, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF J. DAVID FRANKLIN
2127 Caminito Circulo Norte
La Jolla, CA 902037
Telephone: (858) 459-9178
E-mail: jdfranklaw@san.rr.com
- and -
Anthony A. Ferrigno, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ANTHONY A. FERRIGNO
3445 Golden Gate Way
Lafayette, CA 37919
Telephone: (423) 744-4041
E-mail: a-trust-fraudlaw@msn.com
- and -
Pamela E. Havird, Esq.
PAMELA E. HAVIRD, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
P.O. Box 375
La Jolla, CA 92038-0375
Telephone: (619) 888-8090
E-mail: pehavird@att.net
UNITED PARCEL: Removes Torres Jr. Suit to C.D. Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------
The Defendant in the case of PHILLIP TORRES JR., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED
PARCEL SERVICE, INC.; and DOES 1 to 10, Defendants, filed a notice
to remove the lawsuit from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Santa Barbara (Case No. 25CV00741) to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on March
14, 2025.
The clerk of court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:25-cv-02303. The case is assigned to Judge Hernan D Vera
and referred to Judge Steve Kim.
United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) delivers packages and documents.
The Company provides global supply chain services and
less-than-truckload transportation, primarily in business consists
of integrated air and ground pick-up and delivery network. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Elizabeth A. Brown, Esq.
Jennifer Svanfeldt, Esq.
GBG LLP
633 West 5th Street, Suite 1500
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 358-2810
Facsimile: (213) 995-6382
Email: lisabrown@gbgllp.com
jensvanfeldt@gbgllp.com
UNITED SEATING: Fails to Secure Patients' Info, Goguen Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
CATHY GOGUEN, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. UNITED SEATING AND MOBILITY, LLC D/B/A NUMOTION, Case
No. 3:25-cv-00390-RNC (D. Conn., March 17, 2024) sues the Defendant
for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive
information of its patients.
The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included
Plaintiff's and Class Members' full names, Social Security numbers,
driver's license numbers, payment and financial account
information, and dates of birth and medical and health insurance
information, which is protected health information as defined by
the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996
(HIPAA).
The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach was
exfiltrated by cyber-criminals and remains in the hands of those
cyber-criminals who target Private Information for its value to
identity thieves.
As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members
suffered concrete injuries in fact including, but not limited to:
invasion of privacy; theft of their Private Information; and lost
or diminished value of Private Information, says the suit.
The Defendant is a healthcare company that provides mobility
products and solutions for its patients.BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James J. Reardon, Jr., Esq.
REARDON SCANLON LLP
45 South Main Street, 3rd Floor
West Hartford, CT 06107
Telephone: (860) 955-9455
Facsimile: (860) 920-5242
E-mail: james.reardon@reardonscanlon.com
- and -
Rachel Dapeer, Esq.
DAPEER LAW P.A.
520 S. Dixie Hwy, #240
Hallandale Beach, FL 33009
Telephone: (954) 799-5914
E-mail: rachel@dapeer.com
- and -
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
UNITED STATES: Court Narrows Claims in BLM Suit
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLACK LIVES MATTER D.C.,
et al., v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., Case No.
1:20-cv-01469-DLF (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Dabney Friedrich entered
a memorandum granting the government's motion to substitute under
the Westfall Act, and grants in part and denies in part the
government's motions to Dismiss.
Further, the Court grants in part the BLMDC plaintiffs' motion for
class certification. A separate order accompanies this memorandum
opinion.
Because the Buchanan plaintiffs have failed to allege facts that
could rebut the government's scope-of-employment certification, the
Court will deny the plaintiffs' motion for limited jurisdictional
discovery. The Court will grant the motion to substitute President
Trump under the Westfall Act as to Counts III, V, VII, VIII, and IX
of the Buchanan complaint.
The Court finds that the Buchanan plaintiffs have raised a
plausible inference that federal law enforcement officers committed
the alleged assault and battery. Thus, it will deny the motion to
dismiss Counts II and IV of the Buchanan complaint under Rule
12(b)(1). And because those predicate torts giving rise to the
plaintiffs' IIED claim survive, the Court will also deny the motion
to dismiss Count VI under Rule 12(b)(1).
On June 1, 2020, following the death of George Floyd, protestors
gathered in D.C.’s Lafayette Square "to protest racism and police
brutality."
The plaintiffs brought claims against federal officials—including
then-Attorney General Barr and officers from the U.S. Park Police,
D.C. National Guard, U.S. Secret Service, and Federal Bureau of
Prisons—for damages under Bivens and the First, Fourth, and Fifth
Amendments, and for injunctive relief.
United States consists of 50 States and the District of Columbia.
A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated March 14, 2025, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gcoivT
at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Faces Suit Over Termination of Housing Initiatives
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MASSACHUSETTS FAIR HOUSING CENTER; INTERMOUNTAIN FAIR HOUSING
COUNCIL; SAN ANTONIO FAIR HOUSING COUNCIL, INC., d/b/a FAIR HOUSING
COUNCIL OF SOUTH TEXAS; and HOUSING RESEARCH AND ADVOCACY CENTER
d/b/a FAIR HOUSING CENTER FOR RIGHTS & RESEARCH, INC., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT; SCOTT TURNER, in his
official capacity as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development;
U.S. DOGE SERVICE; U.S. DOGE SERVICE TEMPORARY ORGANIZATION; and
AMY GLEASON, in her official capacity as Acting Administrator of
U.S. DOGE Service and U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization,
Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-30041 (D. Mass., March 13, 2025)
alleges violation of the Fair Housing Act.
According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, on February 27, 2025,
the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)
arbitrarily and without notice, reason, or sensible explanation
terminated 78 Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP) grants, a
primary source of funding for fair housing organizations in 33
states. The advocacy, enforcement, education and outreach,
counseling, and training that has been a bulwark against housing
discrimination and segregation for decades was immediately and
suddenly compromised.
The mass termination of millions of dollars of FHIP grants,
representing a significant portion of total FHIP funding for 2025
and affecting 33 states across the country, was an arbitrary,
capricious, and unlawful action by HUD and an ultra vires action by
DOGE, says the suit.
United States is a country of 50 states covering a vast swath of
North America, with Alaska in the northwest and Hawaii extending
the nation's presence into the Pacific Ocean. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Daniel Ordorica, Esq.
HEISLER, FELDMAN, & ORDORICA, P.C.
293 Bridge Street, Suite 322
Springfield, MA 01103
Telephone: (413) 788-7988
Facsimile: (413) 788-7996
Email: dordorica@hfmgpc.com
- and -
Lila Miller, Esq.
Reed Colfax, Esq.
Zoila Hinson, Esq.
Rebecca Livengood, Esq.
Yiyang Wu, Esq.
Robert Hunter, Esq.
RELMAN COLFAX PLLC 1225
19th Street NW, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 728-1888
Facsimile: (202) 728-0848
Email: lmiller@relmanlaw.com
rcolfax@relmanlaw.com
zhinson@relmanlaw.com
rlivengood@relmanlaw.com
ywu@relmanlaw.com
rhunter@relmanlaw.com
UNITED STATES: Kingdom Sues Over E.O. 14168 Impact to Gender Care
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ALISHEA KINGDOM, SOLO NICHOLS, and JAS KAPULE, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. DONALD J.
TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States;
PAMELA J. BONDI, in her official capacity as Attorney General of
the United States; WILLIAM W. LOTHROP, in his official capacity as
Acting Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons; CHRISTOPHER A.
BINA, in his official capacity as Assistant Director for the Health
Services Division of the Federal Bureau of Prisons; DANA R.
DIGIACOMO, in her official capacity as Acting Assistant Director of
the Reentry Services Division of the Federal Bureau of Prisons; and
SHANE SALEM, in his official capacity as Assistant Director of the
Correctional Programs Division of the Federal Bureau of Prisons,
Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00691 (D.D.C., March 7, 2025) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of Eighth
Amendment and Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and
Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
The case arises from the Federal Bureau of Prisons' implementation
of Executive Order 14168, entitled "Defending Women from Gender
Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal
Government," issued by Defendant Trump on January 20, 2025.
According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs, who have all been
diagnosed with gender dysphoria, have lost or face the imminent
loss of gender-affirming medical treatment and accommodations that
has been essential to their health because of BOP's implementation
of Executive Order 14168. As a result of the lost gender-affirming
health care, the Plaintiffs and similarly situated incarcerated
individuals suffered anxiety, thoughts of suicide and self-harm,
sleeplessness, lethargy, and mood swings.
DONALD J. TRUMP is sued in his official capacity as President of
the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Perloff, Esq.
Aditi Shah, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
529 14th Street NW, Suite 722
Washington, DC 20045
Telephone: (202) 457-0800
Email: mperloff@acludc.org
ashah@acludc.org
- and -
Lynly S. Egyes, Esq.
Shawn Thomas Meerkamper, Esq.
Megan Z. F. Noor, Esq.
TRANSGENDER LAW CENTER
P.O. Box 70976
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 587-9696
Email: shawn@transgenderlawcenter.org
megan@transgenderlawcenter.org
- and -
Milo Inglehart, Esq.
TRANSGENDER LAW CENTER
594 Dean Street, Suite 11
Brooklyn, NY 11238
Telephone: (510) 587-9696
Email: milo@transgenderlawcenter.org
- and -
David C. Fathi, Esq.
Maria V. Morris, Esq.
Elisa C. Epstein, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
915 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
Telephone: (202) 393-4930
Email: dfathi@aclu.org
mmorris@aclu.org
eepstein@aclu.org
- and -
Corene T. Kendrick, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
425 California St., Ste. 700
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (202) 393-4930
Email: ckendrick@aclu.org
- and -
Li Nowlin-Sohl, Esq.
Leslie Cooper, Esq.
Shana Knizhnik, Esq.
James D. Esseks, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 549-2500
Email: lnowlin-sohl@aclu.org
lcooper@aclu.org
sknizhnik@aclu.org
jesseks@aclu.org
UPMC BENEFIT: Class Cert Bid Filing Extended to Feb. 17, 2026
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LIVINGSTON v. UPMC BENEFIT
MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-00914 (W.D. Pa., Filed
June 25, 2024), the Hon. Judge Robert J. Colville entered an order
granting motion to Extend Case Management Order as follows:
-- Class certification discovery shall be completed by Jan. 17,
2026.
-- The Plaintiff will file a motion for court-authorized notice
regarding the FLSA claim by Sept. 30, 2025.
-- The Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be filed
by Feb. 17, 2026.
-- The Defendants Memorandum in Opposition to Class Certification
shall be filed by March 17, 2026.
-- The Plaintiffs Reply Memorandum in Support of Class
Certification, if any, shall be filed by April 8, 2026.
-- The Court will conduct an in-person Rule 23 Class
Certification Hearing on May 6, 2026.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
The Defendant line of business includes providing insurance agent
and broker services.[CC]
USAA: Filing for Class Certification Bid in Burton Due Oct. 24
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Burton, et al., v. United
Services Automobile Association, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00774 (D.
Or., Filed May 9, 2024), the Hon. Judge Mark D. Clarke entered an
scheduling order regarding joint status report as follows:
-- Join Additional Parties and Amend Pleadings by March 31, 2025.
-- Consent to Jurisdiction by a Magistrate Judge, if any, is to
be filed by Sept. 22, 2025.
-- Discovery is to be completed regarding Class Certification by
Sept. 22, 2025.
-- Motion for Class Certification to be filed by Oct. 24, 2025.
-- Response is due by Feb 13, 2026.
-- Reply is due by May 8, 2026.
The nature of suit states insurance contract dispute.
USAA offers competitive auto rates, no-monthly service fee banking
and retirement options to all branches of the military and their
family.[CC]
VALLEY PRESBYTERIAN: Charles Sues Over Labor Law Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
BLIXA CHARLES, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. VALLEY PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL, Defendant, Case No.
2:25-cv-02308 (C.D. Cal., March 14, 2025) arises from Defendant's
employment practices that violated the Fair Labor Standards Act,
the California Labor Code and applicable Wage Order, and the
California Unfair Competition Law.
The Defendant employed Plaintiff Charles as a registered nurse in
its Van Nuys Hospital from approximately August 2022 until December
2023. The Defendant regularly required Plaintiff to work more than
eight hours a day and 40 hours a week. However, the Defendant does
not pay Plaintiff and the other straight time employees overtime at
1.5 times their regular rate of pay when they work more than 8
hours a day or 40 hours a week. Instead, Defendant misclassifies
them as independent contractors and pays them the same hourly rate
for all hours worked up to 12 in a day. Additionally, the Defendant
fails to authorize, permit, and/or make available compliant meal
periods to the straight time employees, says the suit.
Valley Presbyterian Hospital is a 350-bed hospital in Van Nuys, CA.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William M. Hogg, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: whogg@mybackwages.com
VETERANS GUARDIAN: Bid to Compel Discovery in Ford Partly OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FORD v. VETERANS GUARDIAN
VA CLAIM CONSULTING, LLC, Case No. 1:23-cv-00756 (M.D.N.C., Filed
Sept. 1, 2023), the Hon. Judge Catherine C. Eagles entered an
order:
(A) granting in part and denying in par Motion to Compel
Discovery and Award Sanctions, with the Defendant's
supplemental production due to Plaintiffs by April 4, 2025;
and
(B) granting Plaintiffs' oral motion for extension of their
class-certification-related, rebuttal expert report by
extending that deadline to April 18, 2025.
The nature of suit states torts - personal property - other
personal property damage.
Veterans is a pre-filing consulting firm.[CC]
VITOL INC: Class Settlement in Antitrust Suit Gets Final Nod
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit re California Gasoline Spot Market
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 3:20-cv-03131-JSC (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley entered an order granting the
Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the parties' class action
settlement.
In addition, the Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion for attorney's
fees and costs; specifically, the Court awards the following:
$2,011,669.82 or 30 percent of the Net Settlement Fund ($13.9
million - $6,544,433.95 - $650,000 = $6,705,566.05) in
attorney’s fees; $6,544,433.95 in litigation costs; and denies
the request for $15,000 in incentive awards for the Settlement
Class Representatives.
The persons and entities that contacted the Settlement
Administrator and/or Settlement Class Counsel by Jan. 28, 2025
about submitting claims after the January 8 deadline shall be given
the opportunity to submit a claim. The Settlement Administrator
shall inform these persons and entities within 14 days of this
Order that they may submit a claim within 30 days of this Order.
The Settlement Class is composed of:
"(a) natural persons who, at the time of purchase, were not
residents of the State of California, and (b) all Persons that
are not natural persons, wherever located, that: (i) purchased
Gasoline from a retailer, (ii) for their own use and not for
resale, (iii) within the State of California, (iv) from Feb.
18, 2015, through May 31, 2017."
The Settlement Class excludes: (a) the California Attorney
General, bringing suit in the name of the People of the State
of California, including in his role as parens patriae for
natural persons residing in the State of California, as
pleaded in the complaint in the People's Action; (b) the
Settling Defendants or any other named defendant in the
litigation; (c) officers, directors, employees, legal
representatives, heirs, successors, or wholly or partly owned
subsidiaries or affiliated companies of the Settling
Defendants or any other named defendant in the litigation; (d)
Class Counsel and their respective partners and employees; (e)
the Court and other judicial officers, their immediate family
members, and associated court staff assigned to the
Litigation; and (f) those individuals who timely and validly
exclude themselves from the Settlement Class.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 14, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cO6Ijw at no extra
charge.[CC]
VNGR BEVERAGE: Agrees to Settle Poppi Class Suit for $8.9-Mil.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that the maker of Poppi
prebiotic soda has agreed to pay an $8.9 million settlement that,
if approved by the court, will resolve a consolidated class action
lawsuit over allegedly false advertising claims that the products
provide gut health benefits.
If approved, the proposed Poppi class action settlement will cover
all United States residents who purchased one or more Poppi soda
products in the U.S. for household use and not for resale at any
time between January 23, 2020 and the date the settlement
administrator begins to notify class members.
According to the settlement agreement, all flavors and package
sizes of Poppi sodas qualify for the proposed class action
settlement.
If the deal is preliminarily approved by the court, class members
who submit a timely, valid claim form may be eligible to receive a
Poppi settlement rebate, the agreement says.
To get a share of the $8,900,000 settlement, consumers can file a
claim by mail or online through the court-approved settlement
website—PoppiSettlement.com—once it is launched.
According to court documents, class members may submit a claim to
receive up to $0.75 for each single 12- or 16-ounce can of Poppi
they purchased, $3 per four-pack, $6 per eight-pack and $9 per 12-
or 15-pack.
Consumers who do not provide proof of purchase may receive a
maximum of $16 from the Poppi settlement, while there is no payment
cap for class members who submit a claim form with documentation,
the agreement says.
Court documents say that all class members will receive a minimum
of $5 from the Poppi class action settlement. Individual payout
amounts are subject to pro-rated adjustment depending on the total
number of valid claims that are filed, the agreement states.
The plaintiffs submitted an unopposed motion and memo detailing the
terms of the settlement with VNGR Beverage, which does business as
Poppi, on March 14, 2025. The parties now await preliminary
approval of the deal from United States District Judge Haywood S.
Gilliam, Jr.
The plaintiffs' motion explains that notice of the Poppi settlement
will be issued to eligible class members within four weeks
following the court's initial approval of the deal.
The initial Poppi class action lawsuit, filed in June 2024, alleged
the prebiotic sodas were falsely advertised given that they
contained only two grams of prebiotic fiber, an amount too low to
confer any meaningful gut health benefits.
The class action suit claimed that a consumer would need to drink
more than four cans of Poppi in a day to realize any gut health
benefits from the prebiotic fiber found in the drinks. If a
consumer were to drink this many sodas, the lawsuit said, the sugar
content of Poppi would "offset most, if not all," of the purported
gut health benefits.
The Poppi class action was paused in early February 2025 amid class
action settlement discussions.
This month, PepsiCo announced it had entered into an agreement to
buy Poppi for $1.95 billion, in a move to expand its beverage
portfolio. [GN]
WESTLIFE DISTRIBUTION: Espinal Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Frangie Espinal, Individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons v. WESTLIFE DISTRIBUTION, LLC, Case
No. 1:25-cv-02163 (S.D.N.Y., March 15, 2025), is brought this civil
rights action against the Defendant for their failure to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully
accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind
or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website,
https://www.686.com/, including all portions thereof or accessed
thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is
not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it
violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a
change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures
so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers.
By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible
with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and
visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods,
content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled
individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma
among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen reading software to read website content using her
computer.
WESTLIFE DISTRIBUTION, LLC, operates the 686 online interactive
Website and retail store across the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: michael@gottlieb.legal
jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
dana@gottlieb.legal
WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Faces Employee Labor Suit in California Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wintrust Financial Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 28, 2025, that on May 24, 2022, a
former Wintrust Mortgage employee filed a California Private
Attorney General Act (PAGA) suit, not individually, but as
representative of all Wintrust Mortgage's California hourly
employees, against Wintrust Mortgage in the Superior Court of San
Diego County, California.
Plaintiff alleges Wintrust Mortgage failed to provide accurate sick
leave accrual and pay, overtime wages, accurately itemized wage
statements, meal breaks and meal premiums, timely payment of earned
wages, payment of all earned wages and payment of all vested
vacation hours.
Plaintiff also has an arbitration agreement with a collective and
class action waiver and on January 19, 2023, Wintrust Mortgage
moved to compel arbitration. On September 23, 2022, Wintrust filed
a motion to dismiss the entire suit and the court granted that
motion to dismiss on September 27, 2023 and gave Plaintiff until
October 20, 2023 to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff timely
filed an amended complaint. Wintrust moved to dismiss the amended
complaint on November 21, 2023. This motion was fully briefed in
January 2024 and remains pending with the court.
Wintrust is a financial holding company based in Illinois.
WINTRUST FINANCIAL: Seeks Dismissal of Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Wintrust Financial Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 28, 2025, that on May 25, 2022, a
Wintrust Mortgage customer filed a putative class action and
asserted individual claims against Wintrust Mortgage and Wintrust
Financial Corporation in the District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois. Wintrust moved to dismiss a amended complaint
on November 21, 2023. This motion was fully briefed in January 2024
and remains pending with the court.
Plaintiff alleges that Wintrust Mortgage discriminated against
black/African American borrowers and brings class claims under the
Equal Credit Opportunity Act, Sections 1981 and 1982 under Chapter
42 of the United States Code; and the Fair Housing Act of 1968.
Plaintiff also asserts individual claims under theories of
promissory estoppel, fraudulent inducement, and breach of contract.
On September 23, 2022, Wintrust filed a motion to dismiss the
entire suit and on October 20, 2023 plaintiff timely filed an
amended complaint.
Wintrust is a financial holding company based in Illinois.
WOLVERINE WORLD: Violates FTSA's Caller ID Rules, Demaio Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
DESIREE DEMAIO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. WOLVERINE WORLD WIDE, Case No. CACE- 25-003817 (Fla.
Cir., March 18, 2025) alleges that the Defendant violated the
Florida Telephone Solicitation Act's Caller ID Rules by
transmitting a phone number that was not capable of receiving phone
calls when it made Telephonic Sales Calls by text message.
The Defendant transmitted 71995 to Plaintiff' s Cell Phone's caller
identification service when it made the Merrell Text Message Sales
Calls. The Plaintiff called 71995, and call could not be completed,
the suit claims.
As such, with each Merrell Text Message Advertisement, Defendant
transmitted a telephone number to the Caller ID Service of
Plaintiff and the Plaintiff Class that was not capable of receiving
telephone calls, as explicitly requiredby the FTSA's Caller ID
Rules s, asserts the suit.
The action seeks injunctive eand declaratory relief, and damages
for violations of the Caller ID Rules.
The Plaintiff is a regular user of a cellular telephone number that
receives Defendant's telephonic sales calls, and she resides in
Florida.
Wolverine is a publicly traded American footwear manufacturer based
in Rockford, Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
Shawn A. Heller, Esq.
SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
974 Howard Ave.
Dunedin, FL 34698
Telephone: (202)709-5744
Facsimile: (866) 893-0416
E-mail: josh@sjlawcollective.com
shawn@sjlawcollective.com
WOODSIDE AUTO PARTS: Rojo Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
William Rojo, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
WOODSIDE AUTO PARTS, LLC, d/b/a WOODSIDE AUTO PARTS, and DAVID
MYONES, Case No. 1:25-cv-01444 (E.D.N.Y., March 14, 2025), is
brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the
New York Labor Law ("NYLL") that they and others similarly situated
are entitled to recover from Defendants: unpaid minimum wages;
unpaid overtime premium, due to a fixed salary scheme; liquidated
damages; and attorney's fees and costs.
The Plaintiff was paid below the prevailing minimum wage that he
was entitled to. There was never any agreement that the fixed
weekly salary that Defendants paid Plaintiff covered the overtime
hours in excess of 40 that Plaintiff worked each week. Class
Members were similarly paid a fixed salary rate, without an
agreement that their fixed salary would cover overtime hours.
The Plaintiff regularly worked over 40 hours per week, but
Defendants failed to pay him the proper overtime premium rate of
one-and-one-half times his regular hourly rate for each hour
exceeding forty (40) hours per workweek in violation of the FLSA
and the NYLL. Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and Class
Members were not paid all of their wages or their overtime
premiums, at a rate of time and one half of their regular hourly
rate, for all hours worked due to improper use of a fixed salary,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was hired by Defendants to work as a parts puller for
Defendants' Store "Woodside Auto Parts."
The Defendants collectively own and operate an auto parts store
under the trade name "Woodside Auto Parts."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
Anne Seelig, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
New York, NY 10011
Phone: 212-465-1188
Fax: 212-465-1181
WORKFORCE7 INC: Ballast Seeks OK of Briefing Schedule
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ballast et al., v.
Workforce7 Inc. et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-03812-ER (S.D.N.Y.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting briefing
schedule:
-- The Plaintiffs propose having their motion submitted to the
Court by April 28, 2025, Con Edison's opposition by May 28,
2025, and Plaintiffs' reply by June 11, 2025.
The Plaintiffs are construction flaggers who worked for Defendants
Workforce7, Vali Industries Inc. and Con Edison on public streets,
roadways and sidewalks throughout New York City and New York State,
pursuant to contracts with Con Edison.
Workforce7 is a New York corporation with offices in the Bronx and
Yonkers that employs construction flaggers.
While Plaintiffs initially brought claims for unpaid minimum wages,
unpaid overtime and spread-of-hours premiums, unpaid call-in pay
and for failure to provide proper wage notices and wage statements
on behalf of an "Unpaid Wages Class, " as a result of a proposed
class settlement with Vali and Workforce7 reached during a February
10, 2025 mediation session, the Plaintiffs and the proposed
settlement class will release their wage and hour claims.
Thus, the Plaintiffs' anticipated class certification motion is
based solely on Count 10, which asserts a third-party beneficiary
breach of contract claim against Con Edison for breaching
agreements requiring that they pay or ensure payments of prevailing
wages to Plaintiffs and the Putative Class Members.
Workforce7 provides professional flagging services.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 14, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SATtuW at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
PELTON GRAHAM LLC
111 Broadway, Suite 1503
New York, NY 10006
Telephone: (212) 385-9700
Facsimile: (212) 385-0800
E-mail: Pelton@PeltonGraham.com
YES COMMUNITIES: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Kay Suit Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
BRENTON KAY, individually and on behalf all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. YES COMMUNITIES, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-00819 (D. Colo., March 13, 2025) is a class action arising
out of the Defendant's failures to properly secure, safeguard,
encrypt, or timely and adequately destroy the Plaintiff's and Class
Members' sensitive personal identifiable information that it had
acquired and stored for its business purposes.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant's data
security failures allowed a targeted cyberattack in December 2024
to compromise Defendant's network (the "Data Breach") that
contained personally identifiable information ("PII" or "the
Private Information") of Plaintiffs and other individuals ("the
Class").
The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to
implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and
protocols necessary to protect Plaintiff and Class Members' Private
Information. As a result of Yes Communities' Data Breach, Plaintiff
and thousands of Class Members suffered ascertainable losses in the
form of financial losses resulting from identity theft,
out-of-pocket expenses, the loss of the benefit of their bargain,
and the value of their time reasonably incurred to remedy or
mitigate the effects of the attack, says the suit.
YES! Communities, Inc. owns and operates manufactured housing
communities. The Company offers a range of floor plans, the option
to lease or buy, and multiple approaches to financing, including
co-signer, second home purchasing, sub-prime credit, and FHA
government supported programs. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary E. Mason, Esq.
Danielle L. Perry, Esq.
Lisa A. White, Esq.
M ASON LLP
5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640
Washington, DC 20015
Tel: (202) 429-2290
Email: gmason@masonllp.com
dperry@masonllp.com
lwhite@masonllp.com
ZULLAS LC: Dorsey Files Suit in D. Utah
---------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Zullas L.C., et al.
The case is styled as Kynnedi Dorsey, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Zullas L.C. doing business as:
Cafe Zupas, Case No. 2:25-cv-00195-JNP (D. Utah, March 14, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Motor Vehicle Prod. Liability for
Personal Injury.
Zullas L.C. doing business as Cafe Zupas -- https://cafezupas.com/
-- create globally-inspired soups, salads, sandwiches, and desserts
from scratch in our kitchens each day.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Charles H. Thronson, Esq.
PARSONS BEHLE & LATIMER
201 S Main St., Ste. 1800
Po BOX 45898
Salt Lake City, UT 84145-0898
Phone: (801) 532-1234
Email: ecf@parsonsbehle.com
[^] CLASS ACTION MONEY & ETHICS CONFERENCE 2025 -- Agenda
---------------------------------------------------------
Registration is ongoing for the 9TH ANNUAL CLASS ACTION MONEY &
ETHICS CONFERENCE (CAME 2025), to be held May 7-8, 2025, at The
Harmonie Club in New York.
Conference Chairs Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., and Jennifer A. Riley,
both Partners at Duane Morris LLP, will welcome participants with
their Opening Remarks and present key findings from their inaugural
Duane Morris-Class Action Review 2025.
"AI in Law" will follow with Denise Scotto, Esq., Managing Director
and Senior Litigation Analyst at Esquire Bank; Etia Rottman Frand,
VP Litigation Partnerships at Darrow; and Mark Berman, Member at
Bond, Schoeneck & King PLLC.
"Guarding the Process: How to Combat Fraud in Class Action Claims"
will be led by Bryan Heller, Chief Operating Officer at ClaimScore;
Eric Schachter, Vice President at AB Data; and Ryan Clarkson,
Managing Partner at Clarkson Law Firm.
This will be followed by "How Securities Litigation Benefits
Investors," to be headed by James Christie and Lauren Ormsbee, both
Partners at Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP.
The morning session will close with a panel on "Data Breach
Litigation: The Next Wave of High-Stakes Class Actions," by
moderator Bryn Bridley, VP of Business Development at Atticus
Administration; Christopher Longley, Co-Founder & CEO at Atticus;
Chris Wood, Partner at Lewis Brisbois; William Federman, Founder &
Managing Member at Federman & Sherwood; Terry Coates, Managing
Partner at Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC; and Alfred "Al"
Saikali, Chair, Privacy and Cybersecurity Practice at Shook Hardy
Bacon.
A Lunch Panel, "Bankruptcy Developments in the Past Year"
spearheaded by the Hon. Melanie L. Cyganowski (Ret.), Partner at
Otterbourg P.C., will discuss how mass tort claims are being
facilitated in bankruptcy.
The session resumes in the afternoon with "Connecting with
Plaintiffs in the Age of Tech," to be led by Evyatar Ben Artzi,
Co-Founder & CEO at Darrow; Rebecca Gilliland, Principal at Beasley
Allen; and Bryan Heller, Chief Operating Officer at ClaimScore.
"The Rise of Mass Arbitration: Strategy, Ethics, and Corporate
Response," will follow with Dai Wai Chin Feman, Managing Director
and Corporate Counsel at Parabellum Capital; Jonathan Waisnor,
Partner & Chair of ADR Practice at Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP;
Ryan Ellersick, Partner at Zimmerman Reed LLP; Tim Kolesk, Partner
at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP; and Raphael Janove, Founder at
Janove PLLC, leading the discussion.
Josh Janow, CEO at SMI Aware, will then lead the discussion on
"Ethics of Social Media Discovery Panel."
Nick Baum, CEO at Tremendous, will cap the day's events with
"Beyond the Check: How Digital Payments Are Transforming Class
Action Payouts and Fighting Fraud."
The Conference Agenda is available at
https://www.classactionconference.com/agenda.html Register at
https://www.classactionconference.com Breakfast and lunch
included.
This year's conference will kick off with an OPENING NIGHT COCKTAIL
RECEPTION on May 7 from 5-7 p.m. also at The Harmonie Club. Enjoy
specialty cocktails and hors d'oeuvres with other professionals
attending the conference. There is no additional cost to attend the
opening reception. The reception is included in the cost of
conference registration so join us!
This year's event is sponsored by:
(A) Major Sponsors
Atticus Administration, LLC
Visit at https://www.atticusadmin.com
ClaimScore
Visit https://www.claimscore.ai
Duane Morris LLP
Visit https://www.duanemorris.com
Esquire Bank
Visit https://esquirebank.com
Labaton Keller Sucharow
Visit https://www.labaton.com
Tremendous
Visit https://www.tremendous.com
(B) Patron Sponsors
AB Data
Visit https://www.abdataclassaction.com
Darrow AI
Visit https://www.darrow.ai
Miller Kaplan
Visit https://www.millerkaplan.com
(C) Supporting Sponsors
Verita
(Kurtzman Carson Consultants, LLC, KCC Class Action Services,
LLC, Gilardi & Co., LLC, and RicePoint Administration Inc. have
rebranded as Verita)
Visit https://veritaglobal.com
(D) Media Partners
Class Action Insights
Visit https://classactionsinsight.com
PacerMonitor, a Fitch Solutions Company
Visit https://www.pacermonitor.com/dashboard
Once a year, the top industry experts gather together to discuss
the latest topics and trends in class action. This value-packed
event features special presentations from keynote speakers and live
panel discussions with industry experts, and provides networking
opportunities with other professionals.
The CAME 2024 edition was attended by the industry's Who's Who.
Last year's conference attendees include:
Firm/Organization Firm/Organization
----------------- -----------------
A.B. Data, Ltd. Lake Avenue Capital
Alvarez & Marsal Levi & Korsinsky LLP
Analytics Consulting LLC Levine Law, LLC
Angeion Group Lieff Cabraser Heimann
Atticus Administration LLC & Bernstein, LLP
Avenue 33, LLC Locke Lord LLP
Beasley Allen Law Firm LTIMindtree
Beer Marketer's Insights Lynch Carpenter LLP
Berger Montague PC MarGrady Research
Blank Rome Markovits, Stock & DeMarco, LLC
Bloomberg Law Messing & Spector LLP
Brann & Isaacson Milberg
BRG Miller Kaplan
Broadridge Morgan Lewis
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney New York Law Journal
Butsch Roberts & Associates New York Legal Assistance Group
Cardtable Enterprises New York Times
Certum Group New York University
Citi Law Firm Group O’Melveny & Myers LLP
ClaimScore Orr Taylor
Cohen Milstein Otterbourg P.C.
Cooley LLP PacerMonitor
Cozen O'Connor Parabellum Capital, LLC
CPT Group Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton
Darrow & Garrison LLP
DCirrus Penningtons Manches Cooper LLP
Dealpath PJT Partners
Disability Rights Michigan Pollock Cohen LLP
Duane Morris LLP Public Justice
Dukas Linden Public Relations Red Bridges Advisors LLC
EisnerAmper Riverdale Capital
Esquire Bank Sadaka Law
Farra & Wang PLLC Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law
Flexpoint Ford Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP
Foley & Lardner LLP Simpluris
Foster Yarborough PLLC Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher
George Feldman McDonald, PLLC & Flom LLP
Gernon Law Slarskey LLC
Giftogram Steptoe
Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani Tremendous
Hausfeld Tristate Capital Bank
Hook Point UConn Law
injuryclaims.com - Verus LLC
Typhon Interactive Wall Street Journal
Integrity Administration Western Alliance Bank
Janove PLLC Wilkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
KCC Winston & Strawn LLP
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check Wollmuth Maher & Deutsch LLP
King & Spalding Working Solutions
Kirkland & Ellis X Ante
Missed last year's event? Check the CAME 2024 conference agenda at
https://www.classactionconference.com/agenda.html Videos of the
conference are available on-demand at
https://www.classactionconference.com/2024-video-replays.html
For more information, contact:
Will Etchison
Tel: 305-707-7493
E-mail: will@beardgroup.com
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***