/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250331.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, March 31, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 64 Headlines 1STOPBEDROOMS INC: Faces Lewis Suit Over Alleged FTSA Violations 3M COMPANY: Cottingham Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama 3M COMPANY: Kirby Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama 3RD STREET YOUTH: Stewart Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ABC PHONES: Chaidez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ACADEMY MUSEUM: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Morgan Alleges ACELYRIN INC: Continues to Defend Federal Securities Class Suit AEHR TEST SYSTEMS: Guo Appointed as Lead Plaintiff in LAF Suit AINSWORTH PET: Dismissal Nationwide Class Claims in Goetz Denied ALDEYRA THERAPEUTICS: Faces Paice Suit in Massachusetts ALEJANDRO ABREU: Shareholders of US Lighting Files Suit in Ohio Ct. ALLEGHENY TECHNOLOGIES: Schaeffer Balks at Illegal Bonus Pay Scheme AMAZON.COM INC: Court Strikes Gustafson's SAC AMAZON.COM INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Heck Due Dec. 19 AMAZON.COM INC: Seeks to Destroy Certain Exhibits in Brown AMAZON.COM INC: Seeks to Destroy Certain Exhibits in De Coster AMAZON.COM INC: Seeks to Destroy Certain Exhibits in Frame-Wilson AMERICAN AIRLINES: Parisi Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas AMERICAN AUTO: Walker Seeks OT Wages for Call Center Agents AMERICAN-AMICABLE: Bid for Class Cert. in Costa Due Nov. 21 AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Brice Suit over Contaminated Meds AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Hannf Suit over Contaminated Meds AMPAM PARKS: Ramirez Plaintiffs Win Class Certification ANA MANAGEMENT: Chang Sues Over Unlawfully Diverted Funds ANNA JAQUES: Sewell Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII & PHI APELLIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Suit over Eye Medications APFS STAFFING: Portis Suit Removed to D. Colorado APPLE INC: McBride Suit Transferred to N.D. California APPLOVIN CORP: Disseminates False Financial Statements, Quiero Says ATP MEDIA: Discloses Users' Info to Third Parties, Stamatis Alleges AUTO VIRTUAL: Demera Sues to Recover Overtime Compensation AUTONATION INC: Faces Reyes Suit Over Illegal Call Surveillance BEDDY'S LLC: Lewis Sues Over FTSA's Caller ID Rule Violations BGC GROUP: Continues to Defend Sherman Act-Related Class Suit BGC GROUP: Continues to Defend Siegel Class Suit in Delaware BIRCHSTONE MANAGEMENT: Alvarenga Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime BISSELL INC: Lewis Sues Over Breaches of FTSA's Caller ID Rules BLOCK INC: Mora Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BLOOM NU: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Bishop Suit Says BRISTOL HOSPICE: Amended Complaint in Rey Suit Due on April 25 BROOKLYN BAGEL: E.D. New York Dismisses Martin Disabilities Suit BULK TRANSPORT: Quintero Suit Removed to S.D. Florida BUSPATROL AMERICA: Olmea Balks at School Bus Safety Camera Program C.R. ENGLAND: Gonzalez Suit Removed to C.D. California CAMPBELL SOUP: Pabey Seeks OT Wages for Superintendents Under FLSA CAPITAL ONE: Filing for Class Cert. in Jensen Suit Due Dec. 15 CARNEY MANAGEMENT: Desimone Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages CENTENE CORP: Fact Discovery Modified to April 3, 2026 CF MEDICAL: Rachau Suit Transferred From N.D. Ga. to E.D. Pa. CHANGE HEALTHCARE: C & B Pharmacy Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota CHICAGO: In Cordova, Class of Impounded Vehicle Owners Certified CINCINNATI CASUALTY: Bid to Dismiss Schoening Suit Partly Granted CIRCLE K STORES: Morris Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California CIRCLE K: Filing of Class Cert. Bid in Hughes Due June 16 COLECTIVO COFFEE: Cazares Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website COMERICA BANK: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by May 5 COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER: Horn Suit Removed to D. Connecticut COMPASS HEALTH: Mckinley Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY: Herrera Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website COOKWARE COMPANY: Faces Stone Suit Over Unlawful Express Warranties COUNTY OF WAYNE, MI: Bid to Dismiss Claims in Bell Suit Denied CROSS COUNTRY: Blocker Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages CVS HEALTH: Osterhaus Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit CVS PHARMACY: Hearing on Class Cert Bid Due May 22 DELAWARE NORTH: Fact Discovery in Hookano Class Suit Due July 21 DELTA AIR LINES: Goodyear Seeks to Extend Fact Discovery Period DISA GLOBAL: Chappell Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII DISA GLOBAL: White Sues Over Failure to Secure and Safeguard PII DISH DBS: Continues to Defend Jones 401(k) Class Suit in Colorado DISH DBS: Continues to Defend Lingam Securities Class Suit DISH DBS: Continues to Defend Owen-Brooks Data Breach Class Suit DONALD TRUMP: Alishea Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class DONALD TRUMP: Seeks to Vacate TRO in JGG Class Action DUN & BRADSTREET: DeBose Class Suit Discovery Ongoing in Ohio ECHOPARK AUTOMOTIVE: Completion of Discovery Due May 21 ENDURANCE DEALER: Cooper et al. Sue Over Denial of Repair Coverage EQUITYEXPERTS.ORG LLC: Seeks to Stay Lewis Proceedings EUROSTAR INC: Louder Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. EXPRESS FASHION: Dalton Sues Over Website's ADA Non-Compliance EXTO INC: Harris Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Arkansas EYERHAEUSER NR: Barrios Suit Removed to W.D. Texas FANTASIA TRADING: Stains Sues Over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls FCA US: Class Settlement in White Suit Gets Initial Nod FLORIDA CRYSTALS: Merrell Sues Over Sugar Products' False Ad FLYWHEEL ENERGY: Eubanks Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 8th Cir. FLYWHEEL ENERGY: Oliger Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 8th Cir. FTD LLC: Faces Pulbrook Suit Over Hidden Floral Delivery Fees GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Court Stays Fox Suit GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Faces Consolidated Suit in Virginia GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Faces Kaplan Suit over Insurance Policy GIVAUDAN FLAVORS: Joint Status Letter Due April 21 GOOD DOG: Faces Rounds Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices GOODRX INC: Prnrx Sues Over Illegal Price-Fixing Scheme GRACE THAI: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Galicia Suit Says GRAND DESIGN: Auble Suit Over Defective Recreational Vehicles GREAT LAKES: Seventh Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Dawson Suit HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Santos Can Seal Renewed Class Cert Bid HEARST TELEVISION: Bid to Certify Class in Saunders Suit Tossed HERC RENTAL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Ramirez Due March 20, 2026 HONDA MOTOR: Class Cert Bid Filing in Spencer Extended to Sept. 30 HWAREH.COM INC: Court Narrows Claims in Zarif Suit INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL: Continues to Defend Giraudon Class Suit INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL: Continues to Defend Mallozzi Class Suit INOTIV INC: Plaintiffs Lose Bid for Class Certification INTAKE DESK: Teman Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls INTEGRITY FARM: Venegas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. JAGUAR LAND: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Warranty Claims in Joyce JERNIGAN CAPITAL: $12MM Class Settlement to be Heard on May 29 JM FAMILY: Faces Rivera Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. JOHNSON HEALTH: Soto Sues Over Defective Training Cycles KRAFT HEINZ: Philbrook Sues Over Potato Product Price-Fixing KRISTI NOEM: Bid for Preliminary Injunction Continued to April 28 L & W SUPPLY: Chenevert Suit Removed to C.D. California LA CARRETA: Property Has Architectural Barriers, Pardo Says LEAD DOG: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response in Slendak LEAFFILTER NORTH: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio LEGACY PROFESSIONALS: Starns Balks at Unprotected Personal Info LEMME INC: Robins Balks at GLP-1 Daily Supplements' False Ads LENNAR HOMES: Heymann Suit Removed to M.D. Florida LHNH LAVISTA: Has 30 Days to Complete Document Production LINCARE INC: Court Certifies Two Classes in Morris TCPA & FTSA Suit LOCKHEED MARTIN: Fezer et al. Sue Over Alleged ERISA Violations LOYA CASUALTY: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by April 18 M JEWELERS: Sperber Sues Over Deceptive "Sale" Prices MACY'S INC: Forbes Sues Over Absence of Lie Detector Test Notice MDL 2479: Court Reinstates Skippers' Class Action Against CareFirst MDL 3062: Parties in Antitrust Suit Must Confer Class Cert Sched MEDICAL PROPERTIES: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in NY MEDICAL PROPERTIES: Securities Class Suit Pending in N.D. Ala. MEMORIAL HOSPITAL: Callan Sues Over Failure to Secure PHI & PII MONOLITHIC POWER: Continues to Defend Waterford Class Suit MOSAIC CO: Continues to Defend Cruz Class Suit in Florida MOSCOT.COM LLC: Jones Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind MOTOWN DELI: Faces Reyes Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. MOVEMENT MORTGAGE: Standing Order in Davis Class Suit Entered MSB SCHOOL DISTRICT: Land Suit Seeks to Certify Parent Subclass MYLAN NV: $73.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on May 9 NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Class Cert Bid Fling in Nelson Due Sept. 2 NEW BENEVIS: McMillan Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime NEW YUNG: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Xia Suit Due March 31 NEWELL BRANDS: June 12 Claim Form Submission Deadline Set NEWPORT GROUP: Class Settlement in Carmichael Gets Initial Nod NEWREZ LLC: Allegedly Inflate Borrowers' Balances, Tuttle Says OPENAI INC: Tremblay Seeks to Quash Subpoenas Issued to Charlotte OPW FUELING: Bid to Reconsider Sched. Order in Canales Tossed PAULA'S CHOICE: Bid for Clarification in Vargison Suit OK'd in Part PENNSYLVANIA STATE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Thompson Says PENNSYLVANIA STATE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Smith Alleges PHONE LCD: Court Stays Proceedings in Bilir Suit POGI BEAUTY: Williams Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind POMMES FRITES: Cole Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website PRIMARY ARMS: McQueen Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Filing for Class Cert in Wensel Due Nov. 24 PROGRESSIVE NORTHWESTERN: Jury Trial Modified to May 19 PROMENADE GROUP: Jones Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website REBEL RAGS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Jones Says REWIND HAIR: Espinal Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind RISEUP FINANCIAL: Newell Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ROBERT LUNA: Stewart Suit Seeks Class Certification SABAL HOMES: Homeowners Sue Over Building Code Violations SARDIS COMMUNITY: Willingham Seeks OT Pay for Nursing Personnel SELECT REHABILITATION: Must Oppose Class Cert. Bid by May 30 SMART ERP SOLUTIONS: Faces Diaz Suit Over Private Data Breach SOJERN INC: Crano Sues Over Unlawful Interception of Communications SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Faces Coburn Suit over Merger Deal with Boeing SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Faces Johnson Suit over Merger with Boeing SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Faces Murphy Suit over Merger Deal SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Shareholder Suit over Disclosures Settled SPS TECHNOLOGIES: Regan Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania SSP AMERICA: Carr Sues Over Alleged ERISA Breaches STATEBRIDGE CO: Rutto FDCPA Suit Removed to W.D.N.C. STERLING HEIGHTS: Faces Blanding Suit Over Unpaid Wages STILLFRIED CORP: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Battle Claims TAPESTRY INC: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by August 22 TDS TELECOM: Mott Seeks Approval of Revised Notice and Consent TECTON CAFE: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Gonzalez Suit Alleges TICKETMASTER LLC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Hidden Junk Fees TIGER PLUMBING: Exploits Senior Citizens with Inflated Prices TRADE DESK: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 21 TRADE DESK: Gunderson Stockholder Suit Briefing Still Not Set TRADE DESK: Pension Fund Sues Over 33% Drop in Share Price TRINITY BROADCASTING: Discloses Viewing Info to Meta, Allen Says TRU BLISS ORGANICS: Iwamoto Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona UE LINE: Misclassifies Delivery Drivers, Morris Suit Says UNITED NETWORK: Randall Seeks to File Reply Under Seal UNITED STATES OIL FUND: Consolidated Securities Suit Ongoing US BANCORP: 401(k) Savings Plan Class Gets Certification VALSOFT CORP: Faces Smith Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info VEERUP VENTURES: Herrera Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website VISION SERVICE: Class Settlement in Schmidt Wage Suit Wins Final OK VOLATO INC: Court Certifies Class in Gray Lawsuit WEBER DISTRIBUTION: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Ortiz Suit Denied WEIGHTLESS MEDICAL: Discloses Privates Info, Nozil Alleges WESTREET FEDERAL: Johnson Suit Removed to N.D. Oklahoma WESTWIND SCHOOL: Bhattacharya Suit Removed to D. Arizona WEYERHAEUSER NR: Audelo Suit Removed to E.D. California WHITESTONE HOME: Williams Sues Over Mattresses' Deceptive Labels WHOLE FOODS: Bautista Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WHOLESOME STORY: Vegetarian Capsule Deceptively Labeled, Suit Says WINGED NUTRITION: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Herrera Claims ZYNEX INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 19 ZYNEX INC: Faces Tuncel Class Action Suit Over Stock Price Drop ********* 1STOPBEDROOMS INC: Faces Lewis Suit Over Alleged FTSA Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------- ADAM LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 1STOPBEDROOMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. CACE-25-003890 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., March 19, 2025) seeks for injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages for violations of the Caller ID Rules of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. Allegedly, the Defendant made text message sales calls that promoted 1StopBedrooms and violated the Caller ID Rules when it transmitted tot he recipients' caller identification services a telephone number that was not capable of receiving telephone calls. Based in Brooklyn, NY, 1StopBedrooms, Inc. operates a furniture store. [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 3M COMPANY: Cottingham Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama --------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Larry Cottingham; et al, and others similarly situated, and also on behalf of all aggrieved employees v. 3M COMPANY, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co.; AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, Inc.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD.; CLARIANT CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DUPONT DE NEMOURS INC., (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor in interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), inclusive, Case No. 01-CV-2025-900537.00 was removed from the Alabama Circuit Court, Jefferson County, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on March 19, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00413-MHH. The Plaintiffs seek to hold Tyco and certain other Defendants liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and/or selling aqueous film-forming foam ("AFFF") that Plaintiffs allege has resulted in contamination. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' AFFF contained per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"), including perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid ("PFOS"), and that the release of those substances into Plaintiffs' drinking water supplies has caused them to sustain personal injuries.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Gregory M. Taube, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP 201 17th Street, NW, Suite 1700 Atlanta, GA 30363 Phone: (404) 322-6000 Fax: (404) 322-6050 Email: greg.taube@nelsonmullins.com 3M COMPANY: Kirby Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama ---------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Donald Bar Kirby, et al., and others similarly situated v. 3M Company, et al., Case No. 01-CV-2025-900533.00 was removed from the Circuit Court for the Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Jefferson County, Alabama, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama on March 19, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00411-GMB. The Plaintiffs generally allege that certain Defendants, including 3M, have designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, and/or sold AFFF products and/or fluorinated surfactants used therein, which contain PFAS, including PFOS, PFOA, and/or their precursors, and allege that other Defendants have designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed, and/or sold TOG products and/or fluorinated surfactants used therein, which contain PFAS, including PFOS, PFOA, and/or their precursors. Each of the Plaintiffs expressly alleges that he "regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to, AFFF and TOG in training and to extinguish fires during his working career as a military and/or civilian firefighter" and suffered injury "as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF or TOG products."[BN] The Defendant is represented by: M. Christian King, Esq. Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq. W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq. LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C. The Clark Building 400 North 20th Street Birmingham, AL 35203-3200 Phone: (205) 581-0700 Email: cking@lightfootlaw.com hprater@lightfootlaw.com lradney@lightfootlaw.com 3RD STREET YOUTH: Stewart Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against 3rd Street Youth Center & Clinic, et al. The case is styled as Precious Stewart, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3rd Street Youth Center & Clinic, Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CGC25623365 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., March 17, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." 3rd Street Youth Center & Clinic -- https://3rdstyouth.org/ -- offers primary, physical and sexual health care for youth, ages 12 to 27.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 725 South Figueroa St., 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-232-3128 Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com ABC PHONES: Chaidez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ABC Phones Of North Carolina Inc. The case is styled as Alondra Ramirez Chaidez, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ABC Phones Of North Carolina Inc., Case No. BCV-25-100982 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., March 18, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." ABC Phones Of North Carolina Inc. doing business as Victra -- https://victra.com/ -- is a the largest authorized retailer of Verizon Wireless.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Ginzburg, Esq. FRONTIER LAW CENTER 23901 Calabasas Rd., Ste. 1084 Calabasas, CA 91302 Phone: (818) 914-3433 Fax: (818) 914-3433 Email: dan@frontierlawcenter.com ACADEMY MUSEUM: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Morgan Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- PARADISE MORGAN, individually and as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons v. ACADEMY MUSEUM FOUNDATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-00191-EK-MMH (S.D.N.Y., March 20, 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 under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The complaint says the Defendant is denying the blind and visually-impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services WCII provides to their non-disabled customers through www.academymuseumstore.org. The website provides to the public a wide array of the goods, services, price specials, employment opportunities and other programs. Yet, academymuseumstore.org contains thousands of access barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired customers to use the website, asserts the suit. The Defendant's sighted customers can independently browse, select, and buy online without the assistance of others. However, blind persons must rely on sighted companions to assist them in accessing and purchasing on academymuseumstore.org. By failing to make the website accessible to blind persons, Defendant is violating basic equal access requirements under both state and federal law, the suit adds. The Defendant controls and operates academymuseumstore.org. in New York State and throughout the United States.[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 E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@Gmail.com ACELYRIN INC: Continues to Defend Federal Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- ACELYRIN Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a federal securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On November 15, 2023, a purported federal securities class action lawsuit was commenced in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On February 15, 2024, the Court appointed joint lead plaintiffs and lead counsel. An amended complaint was filed on March 26, 2024 (Boukadoum v. Acelyrin, Inc. et al., No. 2:23-cv-09672-FMO-MAA), naming us and current and former executive officers and directors as defendants. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated the Exchange Act and Securities Act by misleading investors about the Phase 2b trial of izokibep in HS. The original complaint was filed following our announcement of the week 16 results from the Part B portion of such Phase 2b trial. The amended complaint seeks damages and an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs, as well as such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. On May 3, 2024, defendants filed their motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which remains pending. It is possible that additional suits will be filed, or allegations made by stockholders, with respect to these same or other matters and also naming the Company and/or its officers and directors as defendants. This lawsuit and any other potential lawsuits are subject to inherent uncertainties, and the actual defense and disposition costs will depend upon many unknown factors. The outcome of this lawsuit is necessarily uncertain. The Company could be forced to expend significant resources in the defense against this and any other related lawsuits and the Company may not prevail. The Company currently is not able to estimate the possible loss to the Company from this lawsuit, as this lawsuit is currently at an early stage, and such amounts could be material to the Company’s financial statements even if the Company prevails in the defense against this lawsuit. ACELYRIN, Inc. operates as a biopharma company. The Company provides life-changing new treatment options by identifying, acquiring, and accelerating development and commercialization of promising drug candidates. ACELYRIN serves patients in the United States. [BN] AEHR TEST SYSTEMS: Guo Appointed as Lead Plaintiff in LAF Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUCID ALTERNATIVE FUND, LP, v. AEHR TEST SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-08683-SI (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Susan Illston entered an order appointing lead plaintiff and lead counsel. The Court grants movant Guo's motion to appoint lead plaintiff and lead counsel and correspondingly denies movant Lucid's motion to appoint lead plaintiff and lead counsel. As Guo is the sole remaining movant before the Court who meets the requirements of the PSLRA, the Court grants movant Guo's motion to be named lead plaintiff in this action. The Court finds that Rosen Law has the relevant experience and qualifications to advocate effectively on behalf of the class. The Court does not consider it "necessary to appoint different counsel to protect the interests of the class" and accordingly designates Rosen Law as lead counsel. Guo is retired, lives in Thailand, and "primarily focuses his time on investing and has over eleven years of investing experience." Guo purchased 17,800 shares of Aehr stock during the class period and presents an associated estimated loss in value of $82,733.84. Lucid initiated a securities fraud class action for a class of persons and entities that purchased Aehr securities from Jan. 9, 2024 to March 24, 2024. Lucid published notice of the action on Dec. 3, 2024. The notice established a deadline of Feb. 3, 2025 for parties to seek appointment as lead plaintiff in this action. Lucid is a hedge fund based in the Cayman Islands that manages approximately $85 million in assets. The fund asserts a net loss of $315,422 for 50,000 shares of Aehr common stock and 1,646 Aehr options contracts purchased during the class period. Aehr manufactures high-performance IC parallel test and reliability screening systems. A copy of the Court's order dated March 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FJg6AD at no extra charge.[CC] AINSWORTH PET: Dismissal Nationwide Class Claims in Goetz Denied ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case LOUISE GOETZ, et al., v. AINSWORTH PET NUTRITION, LLC, et al., Case No. 24-CV-04799 (S.D.N.Y.), Judge J. Paul Oetken of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied the Defendants' motion to dismiss and to strike the Plaintiffs' nationwide class allegations, allowing the putative class action over allegedly misleading 'natural' pet food labeling to proceed. The plaintiffs are represented by Bursor & Fisher, P.A., a law firm known for handling consumer class actions. The defendants, Post Consumer Brands and Ainsworth Pet Nutrition, are represented by Greenberg Traurig, LLP, which specializes in corporate defense and product liability litigation. Plaintiffs Louise Goetz and Karen Meierdiercks, representing a putative class of consumers, filed the lawsuit against Post Consumer Brands, LLC, and Ainsworth Pet Nutrition, LLC, alleging violations of Sections 349 and 350 of the New York General Business Law (GBL) and breach of express warranty. The plaintiffs claim that the defendants engaged in deceptive marketing practices by labeling their pet food products as 'natural' when they allegedly contained synthetic ingredients. The lawsuit focuses on 47 pet food products, including Rachael Ray Nutrish® wet and dry foods, which prominently feature 'natural' on their packaging. Plaintiffs claim that despite this labeling, the products contain synthetic additives like zinc sulfate, copper sulfate, citric acid, glycerin, dicalcium phosphate, xanthan gum, and menadione sodium bisulfate complex. Plaintiffs argue that health-conscious consumers were misled into paying premium prices for products they believed were free from artificial ingredients. They seek monetary damages and a court order requiring the defendants to change their labeling. In response to the complaint, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and a motion to strike class allegations under Rule 23(d)(1)(D), arguing that: a. The term 'natural' is too vague. It has no standard legal definition and that reasonable consumers should not assume that all ingredients in pet food are unprocessed or organic. b. The product packaging disclosed added vitamins and minerals, meaning consumers had access to full ingredient lists and could make informed purchasing decisions. c. The state laws vary significantly on consumer protection and breach of warranty claims, making a nationwide class action inappropriate. Judge Oetken denied the motions, finding that the Plaintiffs plausibly alleged consumer deception and that class allegations should not be dismissed at the pleading stage. The ruling outlined the following key points: i. The Plaintiffs presented enough evidence under GBL Sections 349 and 350 to show that the "natural" label was materially misleading, which may have influenced consumer decisions and violated New York's consumer protection laws. ii. The "natural" label could be seen as an affirmation of fact under the breach of express warranty claim, suggesting that consumers relied on it when making their purchases. Since the plaintiffs argued they wouldn’t have bought the products or would have paid less if they had known the truth, their claims were allowed to move forward. iii. The motion to strike class allegations should be denied, as the issues about managing a nationwide class should be addressed after discovery, once more information about the claims, legal differences, and possible subclasses is available. For the foregoing reasons, the Defendants shall file an answer to the First Amended Complaint within 14 days after the date of the Opinion and Order. In addition, the stay of discovery is hereby lifted. The parties shall file a revised proposed case management plan within 21 days after the date of this opinion and order. The Clerk of Court is likewise directed to terminate the motions at ECF Nos. 16 and 25. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order dated March 3, 2025, is available at https://tinyurl.com/4ry8k77z from PacerMonitor.com. ALDEYRA THERAPEUTICS: Faces Paice Suit in Massachusetts ------------------------------------------------------- Aldeyra Therapeutics, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2025, that in July 31, 2023, a purported stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, against the company and certain current and former officers, captioned "Juliana Paice v. Aldeyra Therapeutics, Inc., et al." (No. 23-cv-11737). The lawsuit alleges violations by the defendants of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5. On January 2, 2024, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint that alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 and that the defendants made false or misleading statements or failed to disclose certain information concerning the new drug application (NDA) for and the prospects of ADX‑2191 for the treatment of primary vitreoretinal lymphoma and (ii) the NDA for and the prospects of reproxalap for the treatment of dry eye disease. The lawsuit seeks, among other things, compensatory damages on behalf of herself and all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired our securities between January 7, 2021, and October 16, 2023, as well as attorneys' fees and costs. On March 4, 2024, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, which was fully briefed as of May 20, 2024. Oral argument on the motion to dismiss was heard on July 24, 2024. Aldeyra Therapeutics, Inc., together with its wholly-owned subsidiaries is a clinical-stage biotechnology company devoted to discovering innovative therapies designed to treat immune-mediated diseases. ALEJANDRO ABREU: Shareholders of US Lighting Files Suit in Ohio Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ALEJANDRO ABREU, et al. The case is styled as Shareholders of US Lighting Group Inc., individually and on behalf of Shareholders of US Lighting Group Inc., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALEJANDRO ABREU, JOHN DOES 1-10, Case No. CV-25-114062 (Ohio Ct. of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga Cty., March 19, 2025). The case type is stated as "Tort-Miscellaneous."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Taylor Bennington, Esq. 180 MAIDEN LANE, 27TH FLOOR New York, NY 10038-0000 Phone: 330-617-2904 ALLEGHENY TECHNOLOGIES: Schaeffer Balks at Illegal Bonus Pay Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------------- JEFFREY SCHAEFFER, individually and for others similarly situated v. ALLEGHENY TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED d/b/a ATI INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00390 (W.D. Pa., March 20, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid wages and other damages from ATI in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act. According to the complaint, Schaeffer and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more than 40 hours a workweek. But ATI does not pay Schaeffer and the other Hourly Employees at least one and a half times their regular rates of pay—based on all remuneration—for all hours they work in excess of 40 a workweek. Instead, ATI pays Schaeffer and the other Hourly Employees non-discretionary bonuses that ATI fails to include in these employees' regular rates of pay for the purpose of calculating their overtime rates, says the suit. ATI employed Schaeffer as one of its Hourly Employees in Pennsylvania. ATI pays Schaeffer and the other Hourly Employees by the hour. ATI employed Schaeffer as an electrician from February 2023 to May 2024. Throughout his employment, ATI paid Schaeffer under its bonus pay scheme. Schaeffer brings this class and collective action on behalf of himself, and other ATI employees paid under its bonus pay scheme. The putative FLSA collective of similarly situated employees is defined as: "All hourly ATI employees who were paid a bonus during the last three years through final resolution of this action (the FLSA Collective Members)" The putative Pennsylvania class of similarly situated employees is defined as: "All hourly ATI employees who worked in, or were based out of, Pennsylvania1 who were paid a bonus during the last 3 years through final resolution of this action (the =Pennsylvania Class Members). The FLSA Collective Members and the Pennsylvania Class Members are collectively referred to as the Hourly Employees. ATI is an American producer of specialty materials headquartered in Dallas, Texas. ATI produces metals including titanium and titanium alloys, nickel-based alloys and superalloys, stainless and specialty steels, zirconium, hafnium, and niobium, tungsten materials, forgings and castings.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - Joshua P. Geist, Esq. William F. Goodrich, Esq. GOODRICH & GEIST, PC 3634 California Ave. Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (412) 766-1455 Facsimile: (412) 766-0300 E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com bill@goodrichandgeist.com AMAZON.COM INC: Court Strikes Gustafson's SAC --------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Stanley M. Gustafson, v. Amazon.com Incorporated, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-01834-SHD (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Sharad Desai entered an order that Second Amended Complaint (SAC) is stricken for failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Court's Local Rules of Civil Procedure. -- Gustafson may either file a motion for leave to file the SAC or seek and obtain the Amazon Defendants' written consent to file it. The Court further ordered an order that the motion for class certification is denied as moot, because it pertains to the now-stricken SAC. The Court's denial is without prejudice to Gustafson filing such a motion in the future, if proper. On March 11, 2025, the Plaintiff Stanley Gustafson filed a Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), and on March 12, 2025, he filed a Motion for Class Certification pertaining to the SAC. Because the time has passed for Gustafson to file an amended complaint as a matter of course, Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1), he can only file an amended complaint with the opposing party's written consent or by filing a motion with the Court for leave to file the amended complaint. Gustafson filed the SAC without seeking leave or certifying that he obtained the Amazon Defendants' written consent to file the SAC. Gustafson also did not attach an exhibit showing the ways in which the SAC differs from the previous complaint. Amazon.com is an online retailer that offers a wide range of products. A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NORSGp at no extra charge.[CC] AMAZON.COM INC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Heck Due Dec. 19 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIA HECK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC.; AUDIBLE, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-01219-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John Chun entered a scheduling order as follows: Deadline to complete discovery on class Dec. 1, 2025 certification (not to be construed as a bifurcation of discovery) Deadline for Plaintiffs to file motion for Dec. 19, 2025 class certification (noted on the fourth Friday after filing and service of the motion pursuant to Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(d)(3) unless the parties agree to different times for filing the response and reply memoranda): Deadline to file Expert Reports: Dec. 19, 2025 Deadline to file Rebuttal Expert Reports: Feb. 17, 2026 Close of Expert Discovery and Deadline to March 19, 2026 file Reply Expert Reports: The Court will set further case schedule deadlines pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b) after ruling on the motion for class certification. Counsel for Plaintiffs shall inform the Court immediately should Plaintiffs at any time decide not to seek class certification. The dates set in this scheduling order are firm dates that can be changed only by order of the Court, not by agreement of the parties. Amazon.com is an online retailer that offers a wide range of products. A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=C1Ozuv at no extra charge.[CC] AMAZON.COM INC: Seeks to Destroy Certain Exhibits in Brown ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER BROWN, et al., v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-00965-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to claw back privileged material and strike references thereto from plaintiffs' class certification motion. The Court should order Plaintiffs to return and/or destroy Exhibits 68, 69 and 94, and strike all references thereto from the Class Certification Motion, the Defendant contends. The Plaintiffs have not disputed that the three documents are privileged; they argue that Amazon "waived" privilege by producing them. Even if the Rule 502(d) Order did not control—and it does—Amazon's handling of the Privileged Material fully satisfies Rule 502(b)’s default provisions: the documents were inadvertently disclosed, Amazon took reasonable steps to prevent disclosure, and it promptly acted to rectify the disclosure. Thus, under either provision of Rule 502, the Court should direct Plaintiffs to refile their Class Certification Motion without references to the three documents and destroy and/or return all copies of the documents and work product mentioning them. The Court should strike the Privileged Material from the Class Certification Motion and order Plaintiffs to return or destroy it. The documents are indisputably privileged, and Amazon has properly invoked its claw back rights. Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xpVBph at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: John A. Goldmark, Esq. MaryAnn Almeida, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 Facsimile: (206) 757-7700 E-mail: SteveRummage@dwt.com JohnGoldmark@dwt.com MaryAnnAlmeida@dwt.com - and - Karen L. Dunn, Esq. William A. Isaacson, Esq. Amy J. Mauser, Esq. Kyle Smith, Esq. Meredith R. Dearborn, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 2001 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1047 Telephone: (202) 223-7300 Facsimile: (202) 223-7420 E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com wisaacson@paulweiss.com amauser@paulweiss.com ksmith@paulweiss.com mdearborn@paulweiss.com AMAZON.COM INC: Seeks to Destroy Certain Exhibits in De Coster -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH DE COSTER, et al., on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:21-cv-00693-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to claw back privileged material and strike references thereto from plaintiffs' class certification motion. The Court should order Plaintiffs to return and/or destroy Exhibits 68, 69 and 94, and strike all references thereto from the Class Certification Motion, the Defendant contends. The Plaintiffs have not disputed that the three documents are privileged; they argue that Amazon "waived" privilege by producing them. Even if the Rule 502(d) Order did not control—and it does—Amazon's handling of the Privileged Material fully satisfies Rule 502(b)’s default provisions: the documents were inadvertently disclosed, Amazon took reasonable steps to prevent disclosure, and it promptly acted to rectify the disclosure. Thus, under either provision of Rule 502, the Court should direct Plaintiffs to refile their Class Certification Motion without references to the three documents and destroy and/or return all copies of the documents and work product mentioning them. The Court should strike the Privileged Material from the Class Certification Motion and order Plaintiffs to return or destroy it. The documents are indisputably privileged, and Amazon has properly invoked its claw back rights. Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8pyTWQ at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: John A. Goldmark, Esq. MaryAnn Almeida, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 Facsimile: (206) 757-7700 E-mail: SteveRummage@dwt.com JohnGoldmark@dwt.com MaryAnnAlmeida@dwt.com - and - Karen L. Dunn, Esq. William A. Isaacson, Esq. Amy J. Mauser, Esq. Kyle Smith, Esq. Meredith R. Dearborn, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 2001 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1047 Telephone: (202) 223-7300 Facsimile: (202) 223-7420 E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com wisaacson@paulweiss.com amauser@paulweiss.com ksmith@paulweiss.com mdearborn@paulweiss.com AMAZON.COM INC: Seeks to Destroy Certain Exhibits in Frame-Wilson ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEBORAH FRAME-WILSON, et al., v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:20-cv-00424-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order granting motion to claw back privileged material and strike references thereto from plaintiffs' class certification motion. The Court should order Plaintiffs to return and/or destroy Exhibits 68, 69 and 94, and strike all references thereto from the Class Certification Motion, the Defendant contends. The Plaintiffs have not disputed that the three documents are privileged; they argue that Amazon "waived" privilege by producing them. Even if the Rule 502(d) Order did not control—and it does—Amazon's handling of the Privileged Material fully satisfies Rule 502(b)’s default provisions: the documents were inadvertently disclosed, Amazon took reasonable steps to prevent disclosure, and it promptly acted to rectify the disclosure. Thus, under either provision of Rule 502, the Court should direct Plaintiffs to refile their Class Certification Motion without references to the three documents and destroy and/or return all copies of the documents and work product mentioning them. The Court should strike the Privileged Material from the Class Certification Motion and order Plaintiffs to return or destroy it. The documents are indisputably privileged, and Amazon has properly invoked its claw back rights. Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=G2JLRy at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: John A. Goldmark, Esq. MaryAnn Almeida, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 Facsimile: (206) 757-7700 E-mail: SteveRummage@dwt.com JohnGoldmark@dwt.com MaryAnnAlmeida@dwt.com - and - Karen L. Dunn, Esq. William A. Isaacson, Esq. Amy J. Mauser, Esq. Kyle Smith, Esq. Meredith R. Dearborn, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 2001 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1047 Telephone: (202) 223-7300 Facsimile: (202) 223-7420 E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com wisaacson@paulweiss.com amauser@paulweiss.com ksmith@paulweiss.com mdearborn@paulweiss.com AMERICAN AIRLINES: Parisi Suit Transferred to N.D. Texas -------------------------------------------------------- The case styled as Thomas Parisi, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., THE EMPLOYEE BENEFITS COMMITTEE AND JOHN/JANE DOES 1-5, Case No. 1:24-cv-09271 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas on March 19, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-00309-O to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). American Airlines, Inc. -- https://www.aa.com/ -- is a major airline in the United States headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas, within the Dallas–Fort Worth metroplex, and is the largest airline in the world in terms of passengers carried and daily flights.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kyle D. McLean, Esq. Oren Faircloth, Esq. David J. DiSabato, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Phone (212) 532-1091 Email: kmclean@sirillp.com ofaircloth@sirillp.com ddisabato@sirillp.com - and - Robert A. Izard, Esq. Christopher M. Barrett, Esq. IZARD, KINDALL & RAABE LLP 29 South Main Street, Suite 305 West Hartford, CT 06107 Phone (860) 493-6292 Email: rizard@ikrlaw.com cbarrett@ikrlaw.com - and - Douglas P. Needham, Esq. M. Zane Johnson, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC One Corporate Center 20 Church Street, 17th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 Phone: 860-218-2720 Email: dneedham@motleyrice.com AMERICAN AUTO: Walker Seeks OT Wages for Call Center Agents ----------------------------------------------------------- TONY WALKER, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. AMERICAN AUTO SHIELD, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00901-CNS (D. Colo., March 20, 2025) is a collective action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to remedy the Defendant's violations of federal law which has deprived Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees of earned overtime compensation as well as to recover unpaid wages, including earned overtime compensation, as a class action pursuant to Colorado law. According to the complaint, American Auto employs hourly-paid, non-exempt classified call center employees, however variously titled, whose primary job duties including handling calls with claimants and providing customer service, whether working remotely or otherwise. As non-exempt employees, the Plaintiff and CCEs are entitled to overtime compensation at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate for all time worked over 40 hours in an individual workweek. American Auto Shield failed to pay Plaintiff and the other similarly situated CCEs for all hours worked, including overtime hours, in violation of the FLSA. Specifically, American Auto Shield has a common, uniform, and widespread policy and practice requiring CCEs to report to their workstations early so that they can be "call ready" and immediately able to handle calls at the start of their shifts. In order to be call ready, CCEs must complete a number of tasks including booting up their computers, loading programs and reviewing email. Despite this requirement, American Auto Shield fails to track and credit this time worked, in violation of the FLSA. Because Plaintiff and other similarly situated CCEs regularly worked over 40 hours in a workweek, American Auto Shield's policy and practices resulted in the Plaintiff and the other CCEs working overtime hours for which they were not compensated, says the suit. American Auto is a nationwide home and vehicle service contract claims administrator with over 400 employees located in Colorado, Florida, Missouri and remote locations in the United States. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian D. Gonzales, Esq. BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC 2580 East Harmony Road, Suite 201 Fort Collin, CO 80528 Telephone: (970) 214-0562 - and – Paolo Meireles, Esq. Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Tamra Givens, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 622 Banyan Trail, Suite 200 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 AMERICAN-AMICABLE: Bid for Class Cert. in Costa Due Nov. 21 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Costa v. American-Amicable Life Insurance Company of Texas, Case No. 3:25-cv-00061 (D.S.C., Filed Jan. 03, 2025), the Hon. Judge Mary Geiger Lewis entered an amended scheduling order: -- Motions to Amend Pleadings due by: May 30, 2025 -- Plaintiff ID of Expert Witness Sept. 26, 2025 due by: -- Defendant ID of Expert Witnesses Oct. 31, 2025 due by: -- Records Custodian Affidavit due by: Dec. 5, 2025 -- Discovery due by : Dec. 19, 2025 -- Motions due by: Jan. 23, 2026 -- Mediation due by: Dec. 12, 2025 -- Motion for Class Certification Nov. 21, 2025 due by: The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).[CC] AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Brice Suit over Contaminated Meds --------------------------------------------------------------- Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2025, that it was named as a defendant in "Marcia E. Brice v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc.," No. 2:20-cv-13728 in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, seeking compensation for economic loss allegedly incurred in connection with their purchase of generic metformin allegedly contaminated with N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA). This was consolidated into "In Re Metformin Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation," No. 2:20-cv-02324-MCA-MAH but on January 7, 2025, the court dismissed a third amended complaint in said consolidated case without prejudice and granted plaintiffs the opportunity to amend their complaint. On February 20, 2025, plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended Complaint and then filed notices of voluntary dismissal of "Brice v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc." as standalone action. Defendants will file a motion to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint by March 7, 2025. Plaintiffs' response in opposition is due on April 7, 2025 and defendants' reply is due on April 22, 2025. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a global pharmaceutical company that develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes a diverse portfolio of essential medicines, including complex generics and specialty branded pharmaceuticals. AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Hannf Suit over Contaminated Meds --------------------------------------------------------------- Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2025, that it was named as a defendant in "Michael Hann v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals of New York, LLC et al.,"" No. 2:23-cv-22902 (D.N.J.) in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, seeking compensation for economic loss allegedly incurred in connection with their purchase of generic metformin allegedly contaminated with N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA). This was consolidated into "In Re Metformin Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation," No. 2:20-cv-02324-MCA-MAH but on January 7, 2025, the court dismissed a third amended complaint in said consolidated case without prejudice and granted plaintiffs the opportunity to amend their complaint. On February 20, 2025, plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended Complaint and then filed notices of voluntary dismissal of "Hann v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc." as standalone action. Defendants will file a motion to dismiss the Fourth Amended Complaint by March 7, 2025. Plaintiffs' response in opposition is due on April 7, 2025 and defendants' reply is due on April 22, 2025. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a global pharmaceutical company that develops, manufactures, markets, and distributes a diverse portfolio of essential medicines, including complex generics and specialty branded pharmaceuticals. AMPAM PARKS: Ramirez Plaintiffs Win Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Alfredo Ramirez et al., v. AMPAM Parks Mechanical, Inc. et al., Case No. 5:24-cv-01038-KK-DTB (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Kenly Kiya Kato entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion to class certification. The Plaintiffs allege various violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") and California Labor Code Section 1198.5. On Oct. 25, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed the instant motion to certify class under seal. The proposed class in the instant motion, the plaintiffs modify the class, and they now seek certification of the following class: "All participants in the AMPAM ESOP on Aug. 6, 2023 or at any time thereafter who vested under the terms of the Plan, and those participants' beneficiaries, excluding the Defendants and their immediate family members; any fiduciary of the Plan; the officers and directors of AMPAM or of any entity in which a Defendant has a controlling interest; and legal representatives, successors, and assigns of any such excluded persons." AMPAM provides mechanical contracting services. A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0oJtFn at no extra charge.[CC] ANA MANAGEMENT: Chang Sues Over Unlawfully Diverted Funds --------------------------------------------------------- Che-Wei Chang, Yu-Hsun Lai, and AIBD Technology, Inc., by and through their undersigned counsel, individually and as a class action on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. ANA MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC. and PEI-SHENG LIN, P AND J TITAN FUND LP, Case No. 2025-0296- (Del. Chancery Ct., March 18, 2025), is brought against the Defendants concerning a limited partnership operating as a hedge fund, Titan, and its general partner's failure to comply with its contractual obligations and allow investors in the Fund to redeem their investments. In addition, Defendants have unlawfully diverted $6.6 million in investor funds and reclassified those funds as a short-term debt owed by the Partnership to Defendants. In October 2024, Plaintiffs and other investors submitted withdrawal requests to Defendants for the full balance of their capital accounts maintained with Titan. However, instead of honoring those requests in accordance with their contractual and fiduciary obligations, Defendants imposed a wholesale halt on all Limited Partner redemptions. Over several months, they offered a litany of shifting, contradictory explanations and justifications for refusing redemptions. Defendants' conflicting messages regarding the timing of and rationale for suspending redemptions are simply part of Defendants' scheme to avoid honoring all redemption requests indefinitely. To this day, Defendants have refused to allow Plaintiffs to withdraw any funds from their capital accounts. The Defendants have engaged in other troubling conduct. At around the same time that they blocked investor redemption requests, Defendants claimed for the first time that $6,600,000 of the assets in the Partnership constituted a short-term loan extended by Defendant ANA to the Partnership. However, Defendants have offered no documentation to support this claim, and it is implausible that the Partnership (all of whose assets as of October 2024 was held in cash) needed any loan. For these reasons, there is a heightened risk that Defendants may be misappropriating investor assets, requiring Court intervention and the relief sought in this action, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs have been Limited Partners of Titan. ANA is a Florida limited liability company formed on April 13, 2020, and is the General Partner and Investment Manager of Titan.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ralph N. Sianni, Esq. ANDERSEN SLEATER SIANNI LLC 2961 Centerville Road, Suite 302 Wilmington, DE 19808 Phone: (302) 485-1102 Email: rsianni@andersensleater.com ANNA JAQUES: Sewell Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII & PHI ------------------------------------------------------------ Angela Sewell and Milena Vitali-Charewicz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ANNA JAQUES HOSPITAL, Case No. 2577CV00293 B (Mass. Commonwealth, Essex Cty., March 18, 2025), is brought Plaintiffs seek monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory relief arising from Defendant's failure to safeguard the names, dates of birth, addresses, phone numbers and Social Security Numbers ("Personally Identifiable Information" or "PII") and medical information, and health insurance information ("Protected Health Information" or "PHI") (together, "Private Information") Of its patients, which resulted in unauthorized access to its information systems on December 25, 2023, and the compromised and unauthorized disclosure of that Private Information, causing widespread injury and damages to Plaintiffs and the proposed Class Members. On December 25, 2023, Anna Jaques detected unusual activity in its computer systems and ultimately determined that an unauthorized third party accessed its network and obtained certain files from its systems on or around December 25, 2023 ("Data Breach"). As a result of the Data Breach, which Defendant failed to prevent, the Private Information of Defendant's patients, including Plaintiffs and the proposed Class Members, were stolen, including their names, dates of birth, addresses, phone numbers, Social Security Numbers, medical information, and health insurance information. The Defendant's failure to safeguard Patients' highly sensitive Private Information as exposed and unauthorizedly disclosed in the Data Breach violates its common law duty, Massachusetts law, and Defendant's implied contract with its Patients to safeguard their Private Information. The Plaintiffs and Class Members now face a lifetime risk of identity then due to the nature of the information lost, which they cannot change, and which cannot be made private again, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs received medical services from Defendant. Anna Jaques Hospital is a not-for-profit community hospital with its principal place of business in Massachusetts.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Randi Kassan, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (212) 594-5300 Email: rkassan@milberg.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. Ken Grunfeld, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: 954-525-4100 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com grunfeld@kolawyers.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: 305-479-2299 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com lloginov@shamisgentile.com APELLIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Suit over Eye Medications ------------------------------------------------------------------- Apellis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2025, that "In Apellis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation," Case 1:23-cv-00834-MN lodged in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On August 2, 2023, Judith M. Soderberg filed a putative class action in the District of Delaware against the company and certain current and former executive officers of the company. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by misrepresenting and/or omitting certain material facts related to the design of prescription eye injection "SYFOVRE's" clinical trials and the risks associated with SYFOVRE's commercial adoption. It seeks, among other relief, compensatory damages and equitable relief in favor of the alleged class against all defendants, including interest, and reasonable costs and expenses incurred by plaintiffs, including attorneys' and expert fees. On October 2, 2023, the defendants moved to transfer the action to the District of Massachusetts. On October 23, 2023, the court appointed Ray Peleckas and Michigan Laborers' Pension Fund together as Co-Lead Plaintiffs and assigned the action the caption "In Apellis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation," Case 1:23-cv-00834-MN. The Co-Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on February 8, 2024 and was brought on behalf of a class of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Apellis common stock between January 28, 2021 and July 28, 2023, inclusive, names the company and Cedric Francois, chief executive officer, as defendants, and makes similar allegations, asserts the same claims and seeks the same relief as the initial complaint. On May 17, 2024, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware approved the motion to transfer to the District of Massachusetts. The defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint on June 12, 2024, and the court held oral argument on this motion for November 14, 2024. The court has not yet ruled on this motion to dismiss. Apellis Pharmaceuticals is a commercial-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on the discovery, development and commercialization of therapeutic compounds to treat diseases needs through the inhibition of the complement system (component of the immune system). It has currently marketed SYFOVRE (pegcetacoplan injection), approved by the Food and Drug Administration in February 2023 for the treatment of geographic atrophy secondary to age-related macular degeneration, targeting C3, the central protein in the complement cascade. APFS STAFFING: Portis Suit Removed to D. Colorado ------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jenna Portis, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated v. APFS STAFFING, Inc., Case No. 2025-CV-30382 was removed from the District Court, City and County of Denver, State of Colorado, to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on March 18, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00883. In this action, Plaintiff's Complaint asserts the following claims: failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Colorado Wage Claim Act ("CWCA"), the Colorado Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Orders ("COMPS Orders"), and the Revised Municipal Code of the City and County of Denver, Colorado ("DRMC"); failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the Colorado Minimum Wage Act ("CMWA"), COMPS Orders, and DRMC; failure to pay earned wages in violation of the CWCA, COMPS Orders, and DRMC; and civil theft of wages. Plaintiff's claims in the Complaint are asserted on both an individual and class action basis.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Andrew D. Ringel, Esq. HALL & EVANS LLC 1001 Seventeenth Street, Suite 300 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: (303) 628-3453 Fax: (303) 628-3368 Email: ringela@hallevans.com - and - Michael R. Phillips, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP 77 W. Wacker Dr., Suite 4100 Chicago, IL 60601 Phone: (312) 750-8902 Email: mphillips@mcguirewoods.com APPLE INC: McBride Suit Transferred to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as Matica McBride, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. APPLE, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-06081 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on March 19, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-02656-LJC to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability. Apple Inc. -- https://www.apple.com/ -- is an American multinational technology company headquartered in Cupertino, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. Seth C Little, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (803) 222-2222 Fax: (843) 494-5536 Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com seth.little@poulinwilley.com - and - Stuart A. Carpey, Esq. CARPEY LAW, P.C. 600 W. Germantown Pike, Suite 400 Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 Phone: (610)834-6030 Email: scarpey@carpeylaw.com - and - Stuart J. Guber, Esq. GUBERLAW 150 Sawgrass Drive Blue Bell, PA 29403 Phone: (215) 834-4254 Email: stuart.guber@poulinwilley.com APPLOVIN CORP: Disseminates False Financial Statements, Quiero Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- MICHAEL QUIERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. APPLOVIN CORPORATION, ADAM FOROUGHI, and MATTHEW STUMPF, Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-02294 (N.D. Cal., March 5, 2025) is a federa1 securities class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired AppLovin securities between May 10, 2023 and February 25, 2025, inclusive, seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act. The Defendants provided investors with material information concerning AppLovin's financial growth and stability. The Defendants' statements included, among other things, confidence in AppLovin's launch of its AXON 2.0 digital ad platform and using "cutting-edge AI technologies" to more efficiently match advertisements to mobile games, in addition to expanding into web-based marketing and e-commerce. Moreover, the Defendants publicly reported impressive financial results, outlooks, and guidance to investors, all while using dishonest advertising practices. The Defendants provided these positive statements to investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts related to AppLovin's manipulative practices to force unwanted apps on customers using a "backdoor installation scheme" which inaccurately inflated installation numbers, and, in turn its profitability. Such statements absent these material facts caused Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase AppLovin's securities at artificially inflated prices, the suit alleges. The truth emerged on February 26, 2025, when analyst research reports emerged stating that AppLovin was reverse engineering and exploiting advertising data from Meta Platforms. Investors and analysts reacted immediately to AppLovin's revelations. The price of AppLovin's stock declined from $377.06 per share on February 25, 2025 to $331.00 per share on February 26, 2025, asserts the suit. Applovin Corporation engages in building a software-based platform for advertisers to enhance the marketing and monetization of their content in the United States and internationally.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1160 Battery Street East, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 373-1671 E-mail: aapton@zlk.com ATP MEDIA: Discloses Users' Info to Third Parties, Stamatis Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------- SOTIRIOS STAMATIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ATP MEDIA OPERATIONS LTD., Case No. 3:25-cv-30046 (D. Mass., March 20, 2025) is a class action suit brought against ATP for violating the Video Privacy Protection Act. "Tennis TV is ATP Media's direct-to-consumer digital subscription service and delivers a rich tennis streaming experience to a global audience, all year round from every ATP Tour tournament." Unbeknownst to the Plaintiff and Class Members, however, the Defendant knowingly and intentionally disclosed Tennis TV users' personally identifiable information -- including a record of every video viewed by the user -- to unrelated third parties. By doing so, Defendant violated the VPPA, the lawsuit asserts. The Plaintiff brings this action for damages and other legal and equitable remedies resulting from the Defendant's violations of the VPPA. Tennis TV users can register for free or paid subscriptions. Registering for a free subscription allows users to "watch selected highlights and more." Registering for a paid (Premium) subscription allows for "unlimited access to live matches and replays." A premium subscription costs $16.99 per month, $79.99 for six months, or $134.99 for the year.10 15. To create either a free or paid subscription, individuals are required to provide their first and last name, date of birth, country, and email address. The Defendant operates "Tennis TV, the official streaming service of the ATP (Association of Tennis Professionals) Tour."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Yitzchak Kopel, Esq. Max S. Roberts, 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 AUTO VIRTUAL: Demera Sues to Recover Overtime Compensation ---------------------------------------------------------- Pablo Demera, Santiago Mejia, Cesar Suarez, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. AUTO VIRTUAL LLC and GUILLERMO BERNAL, individually, Case No. 2:25-cv-01906 (D.N.J., March 17, 2025), is brought to recover overtime compensation and unpaid earned wages owed to them pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law N, ("NJWHL") and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law, ("NJWPL") respectively. The Defendants unlawfully classified Plaintiffs as independent contractors. The Defendants paid Plaintiffs via direct deposit without withholdings. The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring Plaintiffs (and all similarly situated employees) to work in excess of 40 hours a week without paying appropriate overtime compensation as required by federal and state laws. The Plaintiffs were victims of Defendants' common policy and practices, which violated their rights under the FLSA and NJWHL by, inter alia, not paying them for all hours worked and time and a half for work performed after 40 hours, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs worked as Drivers and Helpers for Defendants. Auto Virtual is a trucking company that delivers furniture.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob Aronauer, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF JACOB ARONAUER 250 Broadway, Suite 600 New York, NY 10007 Phone: (212) 323-6980 Email: jaronauer@aronauerlaw.com AUTONATION INC: Faces Reyes Suit Over Illegal Call Surveillance --------------------------------------------------------------- JOHN REYES and MIKE XAVIER, individually and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v. AUTONATION, INC., Case No. 5:25-cv-00731 (C.D. Cal., March 20, 2025) concerns the illegal surveillance and recording, by Invoca, of customer service calls placed to AutoNation in violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. Accordingly, AutoNation employs a conversation intelligence software-as-a-service provided by Invoca. This conversation intelligence service derives information regarding the content of telephone conversations between AutoNation customers and its call centers. Invoca's service records AutoNation customers' speech, transcribes it, then feeds it into Invoca's internal artificial intelligence (AI). Once the data is classified by Invoca's internal AI, such data is then presented back to AutoNation in the form of dashboards, searchable transcripts, and reports, sometimes in real-time to the customer service agents speaking with the customer, the lawsuit asserts. The Plaintiffs bring this action to prevent the Defendant from further violating the privacy rights of California residents, and to recover statutory damages from Defendant for failing to comply with the CIPA. Plaintiff Reyes resides in Menifee, California when he called AutoNation's customer service line, in or around April 2022. Plaintiff Xavier resides in Roseville, California when he called AutoNation's customer service line, in or around April 2021 and November 2023. AutoNation does business across the nation and operates AutoNation parts and dealership locations throughout California. The Defendant also directs the AutoNation call center operations, including AutoNation's implementation of the Invoca Services.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Eugene Y. Turin. Esq. MCGUIRE LAW, P.C. 10089 Willowcreek Road, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92131 Telephone: (312) 893-7002 Facsimile: (312) 275-7895 E-mail: eturin@mcgpc.com BEDDY'S LLC: Lewis Sues Over FTSA's Caller ID Rule Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- ADAMS LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BEDDY'S LLC, Defendant, Case No. CACE-25-003942 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., March 19, 2025) seeks for injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages for violations of the Caller ID Rules of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. The Plaintiff bring this class action alleging that Defendant violated FTSA'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. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a class of persons similarly situated, now seeks injunctive relief to ensure Defendant complies with the Caller ID Rules when it makes Beddy's text message sales calls. Beddy's LLC manufactures and sells bedding products. [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 BGC GROUP: Continues to Defend Sherman Act-Related Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- BGC Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Sherman Act-related class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. On March 9, 2023, a purported class action complaint was filed against Cantor, BGC Holdings, and Newmark Holdings in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware (Civil Action No. 1:23-cv-00265). The collective action, which was filed by seven former limited partners of the defendants on their own behalf and on behalf of other similarly situated limited partners, alleges a claim for breach of contract against all defendants on the basis that the defendants failed to make payments due under the relevant partnership agreements. Specifically, the plaintiffs allege that the non-compete and economic forfeiture provisions upon which the defendants relied to deny payment are unenforceable under Delaware law. The plaintiffs allege a second claim against Cantor and BGC Holdings for antitrust violations under the Sherman Act on the basis that the Cantor and BGC Holdings partnership agreements constitute unreasonable restraints of trade. In that regard, the plaintiffs allege that the non-compete and economic forfeiture provisions of the Cantor and BGC Holdings partnership agreements, as well as restrictive covenants included in partner separation agreements, cause anticompetitive effects in the labor market, insulate Cantor and BGC Holdings from competition, and limit innovation. The plaintiffs seek a determination that the case may be maintained as a class action, an injunction prohibiting the allegedly anticompetitive conduct, and monetary damages of at least $5.0 million. On April 28, 2023, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. In response, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On July 14, 2023, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The plaintiffs then filed a second amended complaint in March 2024. On December 2, 2024, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in its entirety. On December 16, 2024, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The Company believes the lawsuit has no merit. However, as with any litigation, the outcome cannot be determined with certainty. BGC Group, Inc., holding company for and successor to BGC Partners, Inc., its wholly owned subsidiary, and operates a global brokerage and financial technology company servicing the global financial markets through brands including BGC(R), Fenics(R), GFI(R), Sunrise Brokers(TM), Poten & Partners(R) and RP Martin(R), among others. The company's businesses specialize in the brokerage of a broad range of products, including fixed income such as government bonds, corporate bonds, and other debt instruments, as well as related interest rate derivatives and credit derivatives. Additionally, the company provides brokerage products across FX, equities, energy and commodities, shipping, and futures and options. BGC GROUP: Continues to Defend Siegel Class Suit in Delaware ------------------------------------------------------------ BGC Group Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Siegel class suit in the Delaware Court of Chancery. On February 16, 2024, an alleged Company shareholder, Martin J. Siegel, filed a putative class action lawsuit against Cantor Fitzgerald, LP and Howard W. Lutnick in the Delaware Court of Chancery, asserting that the Corporate Conversion was unfair to Class A shareholders of BGC Partners, Inc. because it increased Cantor's percentage voting control over the Company. The suit is captioned Martin J. Siegel v. Cantor Fitzgerald, LP, C.A. 2024-0146-LWW. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on April 22, 2024. The motion was argued at a hearing on January 9, 2025, after which the Court took the matter under advisement. While the lawsuit is in its early stages and does not name the Company as a party, the Company believes the action lacks merit. BGC Group, Inc., holding company for and successor to BGC Partners, Inc., its wholly owned subsidiary, and operates a global brokerage and financial technology company servicing the global financial markets through brands including BGC(R), Fenics(R), GFI(R), Sunrise Brokers(TM), Poten & Partners(R) and RP Martin(R), among others. The company's businesses specialize in the brokerage of a broad range of products, including fixed income such as government bonds, corporate bonds, and other debt instruments, as well as related interest rate derivatives and credit derivatives. Additionally, the company provides brokerage products across FX, equities, energy and commodities, shipping, and futures and options. BIRCHSTONE MANAGEMENT: Alvarenga Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime ---------------------------------------------------------------- Boris A. Alvarenga, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. BirchStone Management, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-01272 (S.D. Tex., March 18, 2025), is brought against Defendant to recover unpaid overtime that is required by the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Defendant has a business plan that includes paying non-exempt employees on a piece-rate basis and not paying the employees overtime pay, no matter how many hours per week they work. This payment plan thus includes not paying an overtime premium for those hours worked over 40 per workweek. The Defendant's failure to pay the overtime premium required by law allows it to gain an unfair advantage over competitors who follow the law in their employment practices. During the time he worked for the Defendant, Alvarenga regularly worked more than 40 hours per week; he generally worked 6 days per week and over 50 hours each week. The Plaintiff worked with numerous other individuals who were paid on a piece-rate basis. These individuals also repaired pallets and also regularly worked over 40 hours per week, and they were also not paid overtime pay for hours they worked over 40 per workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for BirchStone as a pallet repairman from 2016 until March 3, 2025. BirchStone Management, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Josef F. Buenker, Esq. THE BUENKER LAW FIRM P.O. Box 10099 Houston, TX 77206 Phone: 713-868-3388 Facsimile: 713-683-9940 Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com BISSELL INC: Lewis Sues Over Breaches of FTSA's Caller ID Rules --------------------------------------------------------------- ADAM LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BISSELL, INC., Defendant, Case No. CACE-25-003917 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., March 19, 2025), accuses the Defendant of violating the Caller ID Rules of the Florida Telephone Solicitation Act. Allegedly, the Defendant made text message sales calls that promoted Bissell and violated the Caller ID Rules when it transmitted to the recipients' caller identification services a telephone number that was not capable of receiving telephone calls. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks for injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages for FTSA violations. Headquartered in Michigan, Bissell, Inc. manufactures and sells vacuum cleaners and floor care products. [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 BLOCK INC: Mora Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against BLOCK, INC., et al. The case is styled as Gilbert Mora, Dianna Perez, Alan Starzinski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BLOCK, INC., DOES 1 THROUGH 100, INCLUSIVE, Case No. CGC25623356 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., March 17, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Block, Inc. -- https://block.xyz/ -- is an American technology company and a financial services provider for consumers and merchants.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher R. Rodriguez, Esq. SINGLETON SCHREIBER, LLP 1414 K. St., Ste. 470 Sacramento, CA 95814-3966 Phone: 916-256-2312 Fax: 619-255-1515 Email: crodriguez@singletonschreiber.com - and - Thomas A. Leary, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS LEARY, APC 3023 1st Ave. San Diego, CA 92103-5815 Phone: 619-291-1900 Fax: 619-291-2500 BLOOM NU: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Bishop Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------- CEDRIC BISHOP, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BLOOM NU LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02251 (S.D.N.Y., March 19, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant failed to make its website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs. Moreover, due to Defendant's failure and refusal to remove access barriers to its website, Plaintiff and visually-impaired persons have been and are still being denied equal access to Defendant's numerous goods, services and benefits offered to the public through the website. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. Bloom NU LLC operates the Bloom Nu online retail store, as well as the Bloom Nu interactive website, https://bloomnu.com. The website offers information relating to the company's health wellness products. as well as other types of goods, pricing, privacy policies and internet pricing specials. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, 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 BRISTOL HOSPICE: Amended Complaint in Rey Suit Due on April 25 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled DIANNA REY, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. BRISTOL HOSPICE, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-04039-JD (N.D. Cal.), Judge James Donato of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California directs the Plaintiffs to file by April 25, 2025, an amended complaint addressing element of the local controversy exception. The action was removed to this Court on the Defendants' allegation of jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2) (CAFA). The Plaintiffs have asked to remand the case to state court on the basis of the local controversy exception to CAFA jurisdiction. This exception is a "form of abstention" that is narrowly construed to require the Court to decline to exercise jurisdiction when it applies, Benko v. Quality Loan Service Corp., 789 F.3d 1111, 1116 (9th Cir. 2015). The parties dispute, among other factors relevant to the exception, whether the Plaintiffs have demonstrated that the conduct of Defendant Optimal Health Services, which the Defendants acknowledge is "a local defendant," forms a significant basis of the Plaintiffs' claims. As is often the situation when a case is removed, Judge Donato notes that the Plaintiffs' complaint did not necessarily address "CAFA-specific issues, such as the local controversy exception." The Plaintiffs ask for "jurisdictional discovery" in the event of questions about the application of the exception but the proper course is for the Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint to provide the Court with the information required to determine whether a suit is within the court's jurisdiction under CAFA. Consequently, Judge Donato holds that the Plaintiffs may file by April 25, 2025: (1) an amended complaint addressing the "significant basis" element of the local controversy exception, and any other CAFA-related elements they would like to clarify; and (2) a renewed motion to remand based on the amended complaint. A failure to meet this deadline will result in dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4a932ncc from PacerMonitor.com. BROOKLYN BAGEL: E.D. New York Dismisses Martin Disabilities Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Allyne R. Ross of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued an Opinion & Order granting the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit styled DAMIAN MARTIN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff v. BROOKLYN BAGEL & COFFEE Company, LTD., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-03758-ARR-RML (E.D.N.Y.). Plaintiff Damian Martin brings this putative class action against Defendant Brooklyn Bagel & Coffee Company alleging that the Defendant's website violates the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"), and for declaratory judgment. Before the Court is the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint for failure to establish Article III standing and to state a claim. For the reasons set forth in this Opinion & Order, the Court grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to establish standing. Mr. Martin is a legally blind resident of Brooklyn, New York, who uses screen-reading software when browsing the internet. Brooklyn Bagel is a New York Corporation that operates several stores serving breakfast foods in various locations in New York. In furtherance of its operations, the Defendant operates a website, www.bkbagel.com (the "Website"). Among other features, the Website offers users the ability to peruse the Defendant's menu and obtain the location of its physical stores. Mr. Martin visited the Defendant's Website on April 16 and April 18, 2024, to learn more about the bagel stores' location information. However, the Website contained access barriers that prevented free and full use by Mr. Martin. The Plaintiff filed his original Complaint on May 24, 2024. In the Court's previous Opinion and Order, Judge Ross granted the Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to allege standing. As relevant here, Judge Ross concluded that the Defendant failed to sufficiently allege that his intent to return to the Defendant's website, and therefore, failed to establish a sufficient threat of future injury. As explained in the Court's prior order, the allegations in the Plaintiff's original complaint were insufficient to allege his intent to return to the Defendant's website. Judge Ross finds the Plaintiff's amended complaint has failed to allege any new facts relevant to his intent to return. Nor do the arguments offered by his counsel cure that deficiency. The Plaintiff's counsel also argues that Mr. Martin's intent to return to the Defendant's website is established by the fact that Mr. Martin is a resident of the exact area in which the Defendant operates multiple locations. However, Judge Ross says, that argument not only does not appear in the Amended Complaint, but it is also contradicted by its allegations that (1) Mr. Martin does not know the location of the Defendants' bagel stores and (2) Mr. Martin was interested in visiting restaurants and activates [sic] around New York City, rather than in the area in which he resides. More to the point, the allegation is self-evidently false, Judge Ross points out, among other things. Mr. Martin alleges that he lives in Brooklyn, New York, and Brooklyn Bagel does not operate any locations in Brooklyn. Judge Ross holds that the Plaintiff's remaining claims fail for the same reasons that stated in the Court's prior order. Judge Ross, therefore, dismisses the Plaintiff's claims under the NYCHRL. Moreover, the Plaintiff's claims for declaratory relief are duplicative of his claims under the ADA and NYCHRL. Judge Ross, therefore, dismisses the declaratory relief claim. For these reasons, the Court grants the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. The Plaintiff has already been afforded an opportunity to amend, and the Amended Complaint does even attempt to allege any new facts that would cure the deficiencies that the Court identified in its prior order. Nor has the Plaintiff sought leave to amend in response to the Defendant's motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint. The dismissal is, therefore, with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment, accordingly, and close the case. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/mr3w995r from PacerMonitor.com. BULK TRANSPORT: Quintero Suit Removed to S.D. Florida ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Emmanuel Quintero, Jean Vincent, Joffrey Dorestant, Jose Barra Quispe, Moreli Taravine, Pedro Martinez, and others similarly situated v. Bulk Transport Company East, Inc., and George Akerson, Case No. 2025-002133-CA-01 was removed from the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida on March 19, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-21284-JEM. On February 7, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint with the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida alleging claims for unpaid wages and retaliation under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Ingrid H. Ponce, Esq. Coral Del Mar Lopez, Esq. STEARNS WEAVER MILLER WEISSLER ALHADEFF & SITTERSON, P.A. Museum Tower, Suite 2200 150 West Flagler Street Miami, FL 33130 Phone: (305) 789-3200 Facsimile: (305) 789-3395 Email: iponce@stearnsweaver.com clopez@stearnsweaver.com BUSPATROL AMERICA: Olmea Balks at School Bus Safety Camera Program ------------------------------------------------------------------ JORGE JUAN RIZO OLMEA, individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BUSPATROL AMERICA, LLC, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, and THE SCHOOL BOARD OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FL, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-21036 (S.D. Fla., March 5, 2025) arises from an alliance among Defendants which implemented a school bus safety camera program that is allegedly illegal under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. According to the complaint, the Camera Program systematically issued over 120,000 traffic violation notices to unsuspecting drivers without providing a meaningful or accessible process to challenge these fines, in direct violation of the Plaintiff and the proposed Class's right to procedural due process as guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment. These actions not only deprived Plaintiff and other citizens of Miami-Dade County of their property without lawful justification but also enriched the Defendants at the expense of the public under questionable legal and ethical circumstances, says the suit. BusPatrol America, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company that entered into a contract with Miami-Dade County and the School Board to install and operate school bus safety cameras.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gino Moreno, Esq. Arlenys Perdomo, Esq. MORENO PERDOMO, PLLC 5000 S.W. 75th Avenue, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33155 Telephone: (786) 224-5093 E-mail: gmoreno@morenoperdomo.com aperdomo@morenoperdomo.com - and - Robert Strongarone, Esq. ROBERT STRONGARONE, P.A. 20134 SW 79th Court Cutler Bay, FL 33189 Telephone: (786) 543-3223 E-mail: bob@robertstrongaronepa.com C.R. ENGLAND: Gonzalez Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Jose Gonzalez and Shelton Perrin, as individuals and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. C.R. ENGLAND, INC., a Utah Corporation; ERIC WILLIAMS, an individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2500613 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on March 18, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-00713. In the Complaint, Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that Defendant failed to pay overtime wages due in violation of California Labor Code ("Labor Code"), failed to pay all minimum wages due in violation of Labor Code, failed to provide off-duty meal periods or pay premium compensation in lieu thereof in violation of Labor Code, failed to provide off-duty rest periods or pay premium compensation in lieu thereof in violation of Labor Code, failed to pay all wages due at the time of termination from employment in violation of Labor Code, failed to provide accurate wage statements in violation of Labor Code, failed to timely pay all wages owed each pay period in violation of Labor Code, failed to reimburse employees for business expenses in violation of Labor Code, failed to pay unused vested vacation days upon resignation or termination in violation of Labor Code, and violated California's Unfair Competition Law.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Drew R. Hansen, Esq. NOSSAMAN LLP 18101 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 1800 Irvine, CA 92612 Phone: 949.833.7800 Facsimile: 949.833.7878 Email: dhansen@nossaman.com - and - Madeline G. Hassell, Esq. NOSSAMAN LLP 777 South Figueroa Street, 34th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213.612.7800 Facsimile: 213.612.7801 Email: mhasell@nossaman.com CAMPBELL SOUP: Pabey Seeks OT Wages for Superintendents Under FLSA ------------------------------------------------------------------ MAYRA PABEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. CAMPBELL SOUP COMPANY, and SNYDER’S-LANCE INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-01988 (D.N.J., March 20, 2025) seeks to recover overtime compensation for the Plaintiff and her similarly situation co-workers -- salaried Production Superintendents -- who work or have worked for Campbell Soup Company companywide in the United States. As part of its production facilities, the Defendants employ hundreds of Production Supervisors like Plaintiff. The Plaintiff and similarly situated Production Supervisors work generally 14.5 to 15 hour shifts, between 4-7 days per week, regularly working over 40 hours a week. In order to avoid paying Production Supervisors overtime for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek, the Defendants uniformly misclassified the position as exempt from the overtime protections of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Wisconsin's Wage Payment and Collection Laws, and other applicable state wage and hour laws. Despite this classification, the Plaintiff and similarly situated Production Supervisors have non-exempt primary duties, says the suit. Campbell Soup Company is divided into two main subdivisions -- Meals & Beverages and Snacks. The Snacks portfolio contains 16 household brands, such as Snyder's of Hanover, Goldfish, Lance, Pepperidge Farm, Cape Code Chips, Kettle Brand Chips, and Late July Snacks. In order to meet the demands of its Snacks division, Campbell Soup Company maintains various production facilities around the country like the one where Plaintiff physically worked. For instance, Campbell Snacks facilities include those in Franklin, Wisconsin; Hanover, Pennsylvania; Goodyear, Arizona; Charlotte, North Carolina, and Richmond, Utah. The Plaintiff began working for the Defendants in 2012 but was moved to the position of Production Supervisor in 2020. The Plaintiff worked for Defendants until March 2024. Together with the other Defendants, Campbell Soup Company has co-owned and/or co-operated all Campbell Soup Company facilities in the United States. Founded in 1869, Campbell Soup Company is a food manufacturer, with 14,500 employees across North America and net sales of $9.4 billion in 2023.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian S. Schaffer, Esq. Armando A. Ortiz, Esq. Dana M. Cimera, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 E-mail: bschaffer@fslawfirm.com dcimera@fslawfirm.com aortiz@fslawfirm.com CAPITAL ONE: Filing for Class Cert. in Jensen Suit Due Dec. 15 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as TAMIE JENSEN, v. CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, Case No. 2:24-cv-00727-KKE (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Kymberly Evanson entered a scheduling order as follows: Event Deadline Substantial completion of pre-certification Sept. 26, 2025 document discovery: Completion of pre-certification fact Nov. 14, 2025 Depositions: Complete mediation On or before: Nov. 14, 2025 Plaintiff's motion for class certification Dec. 15, 2025 and disclosure of class-certification experts: Defendant's opposition to class certification Jan. 19, 2026 and disclosure of class-certification experts: Plaintiff's reply in support of class Feb. 23, 2026 Certification: Capital One provides commercial banking services. A copy of the Court's order dated March 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RXtw9L at no extra charge.[CC] CARNEY MANAGEMENT: Desimone Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages ----------------------------------------------------------- Derek Desimone, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CARNEY MANAGEMENT CO., INC., BERNARDI'S INC., BOSTON CAR COMPANY, INC., and JAMES P. CARNEY, Case No. 2584CV00721 (Mass. of Commonwealth, Suffolk Cty., March 17, 2025), is brought for the Defendants' failures to pay him and putative class members overtime wages for all hours worked over 40 during each 7 day workweek ("Overtime Wages") pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws Ch, 149, 148, 150 ("Wage Act") and Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 151, IA-IB ("Overtime Laws"); pay him premium pay for all hours worked on each Sunday or holiday ("Blue Laws Wages") pursuant to the Wage Act and Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 136, 5, 6, 16; and furnish him pay slips compliant with the Wage Act resulting in lost wages pursuant to the Wage Act ("Payroll Records Laws"). The Defendants failed to pay the Plaintiff and Class Members all Overtime Wages owed under the Overtime Laws, all Blue Laws wages owed under the Blue Laws, and all wages owed for their failure to furnish proper payroll records under the Payroll Records Laws. The Defendants' failure to timely pay all wages owed under the Overtime Laws, Blue Laws, and Payroll Records Laws resulted in violations of the Wage Act. The Plaintiff files his claims as a class action pursuant to R23. The relevant time period for the Overtime Laws and Wage Act claim, Blue Laws and Wage Act claim, and Payroll Records Laws and Wage Act claim is 3 years preceding the date this civil action was filed and forward, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked as a Sales Manager for the Defendants from January 2020 to May 11, 2024. CMCI operates retail vehicle dealerships in the Commonwealth at which Defendants' employees sell vehicles and automobile financial products to customers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Edward C. Cumbo, Esq. Robert Richardson, Esq. RICHARDSON & CUMBO, LLP 101 Federal Street, Suite 1900 Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (617)217-2779 Email: e.cumbo@rc-llp.com r.richardson@rc-llp.com CENTENE CORP: Fact Discovery Modified to April 3, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mona Samuel Sampson and Orlando Samuel, personal representative of the Estate of Harry Samuel, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. Centene Corporation, Centurion of Delaware LLC, Vitalcore Health Strategies, & Medical Director Dr. Awele Maduka-Ezeh, Case No. 1:23-cv-01134-GBW-SRF (D. Del.), the Hon. Judge entered an order modifying class certification schedules as follows: -- Motions to join additional class Sept. 29, 2025 Representatives: -- Class certification document Aug. 18, 2025 Production: -- Class Cert Fact Discovery: April 3, 2026 -- Class Cert Disclosure: Oct 30, 2026 Centene is an American for-profit healthcare company. A copy of the Court's order dated March 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Bc1Ttx at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Andrew R. Ralli, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 500 Delaware Ave., Suite 700 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 295-9447 E-mail: Andrew.Ralli@lewisbrisbois.com - and - Daniel A. Griffith, Esq. Susan L. Burke, Esq. WHITEFORD TAYLOR PRESTON LLC Courthouse Square 600 North King St., Suite 300 Wilmington, DE 19801-3700 Telephone: (302) 357-3254 E-mail: dgriffith@wtplaw.com sburke@wtplaw.com - and - Dwayne Julian Bensing, Esq. ACLE-DE 100 W. 10 Street, Suite 706 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (215) 200-50205 E-mail: dbensing@aclu-de.org The Defendants are represented by: Dawn C. Doherty, Esq. Brett T. Norton, Esq. MARKS, O'NEILL, O'BRIEN, DOHERTY & KELLY, P.C. 300 Delaware Ave., Suite 900 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 658-6538 E-mail: Ddoherty@moodklaw.com Bnorton@moodklaw.com - and - Michael J. Bentley, Esq. Erin D. Saltaformaggio, Esq. BRADLEY, ARANT, BOULT, CUMMINGS LLP 188 E. Capitol St. Suite 100, One Jackson Place Jackson, MS 39201 Telephone: (601) 948-8000 E-mail: Mbentley@bradley.com - and - James D. Taylor, Jr., Esq. Marisa R. De Feo, Esq. James A. Morsch, Esq. Ryan M. Jerome, Esq. SAUL EWING LLP 1201 N. Market St., Suite 2300 Wilmington, DE 19899 Telephone: (302) 421-6800 E-mail: james.taylor@saul.com marisa.defeo@saul.com jim.morsch@saul.com ryan.jerome@saul.com CF MEDICAL: Rachau Suit Transferred From N.D. Ga. to E.D. Pa. ------------------------------------------------------------- The case styled MICHAEL RACHAU, individually and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CF MEDICAL, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-04609, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on March 7, 2025. The Clerk of the Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01257-NIQA to the proceeding. This action arises out of Defendant's unauthorized disclosure of the confidential personal information, Personally Identifying Information of Plaintiff and approximately 626,396 proposed Class Members via a February 2024 cyber-attack and Defendant's failure to reasonably mitigate against the imminently foreseeable risk of such an attack. CF Medical, LLC operates under the name "Capio" which provides healthcare services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph B. Alonso, Esq. Daniel H. Wirth, Esq. ALONSO & WIRTH 1708 Peachtree Street, Suite 303 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (678) 928-4472 E-mail: jalonso@alonsowirth.com dwirth@alonsowirth.com - and - J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC The Freedom Center 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com CHANGE HEALTHCARE: C & B Pharmacy Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota ------------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as C & B Pharmacy Inc. d/b/a Hospital Discount Pharmacy, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated v. Change Healthcare, Inc., CVS Pharmacy Inc., Case No. 5:25-cv-00293 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on March 18, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:25-cv-01008-DWF-DJF to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of Contract. Change Healthcare Inc. -- https://www.changehealthcare.com/ -- is a provider of revenue and payment cycle management that connects payers, providers, and patients within the U.S. healthcare system.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew J. Sill, Esq. Tara Tabatabaie, Esq. SILL LAW GROUP, PLLC 1101 N. Broadway Ave., Suite 102 Oklahoma City, OK 73103 Phone: (405) 509-6300 Fax: (800) 978-1345 Email: msill@fulmersill.com ttabatabaie@fulmersill.com - and - Jacob D. Diesselhorst, Esq. MAPLES, DIX & DIESSELHORST 15401 North May Avenue Edmond, OK 73013 Phone: (800) 539-0652 Fax: (405) 513-5005 Email: Jacob@mndlawfirm.com CHICAGO: In Cordova, Class of Impounded Vehicle Owners Certified ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, EMELIDA CORDOVA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, Defendant, Case No. 19-12345 (N.D. Ill.), Chief Judge Timothy A. Barnes of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois (i) granted the Plaintiffs' Third Amended Motion to Certify Class and Motion to Appoint Class Representatives and Class Counsel and (ii) denied the City's Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony of Randall McCathren. The Plaintiffs, residents of Chicago, allege that the City impounded their vehicles for unpaid vehicle infraction fines between January 1, 2013, and June 19, 2019. After their vehicles were impounded, each plaintiff filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. They claim that the City violated the automatic stay and turnover provisions of the Bankruptcy Code by refusing to release their vehicles unless they paid a lump sum that often exceeded the vehicles' fair market value. The Complaint includes four counts against the City of Chicago, each alleging violations related to the treatment of Chapter 13 debtors' vehicles under the Bankruptcy Code: Count I: Plaintiffs seek a declaration that the City violated the turnover provisions of the Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. Section 542(a)). They request an order for the City to stop depriving Chapter 13 debtors of their vehicles, along with compensatory damages, attorney's fees, and litigation costs. Count II: Plaintiffs allege that the City violated the automatic stay provisions that prevent the creation, perfection, or enforcement of liens against property of a bankruptcy estate (11 U.S.C. Section 362(a)(4)). They seek similar relief as in Count I, including an order to stop vehicle deprivation and compensation for damages and costs. Count III: This count asserts that the City violated the automatic stay against collecting, assessing, or recovering prepetition debts from debtors (11 U.S.C. Section 362(a)(6)). Plaintiffs again seek an order to halt the City's actions, along with compensatory damages, attorney's fees, and litigation costs. Count IV: Plaintiffs claim that the City violated the automatic stay regarding the setoff of debts owed to the debtor (11 U.S.C. Section 362(a)(7)). They request an order for the City to cease its actions, as well as compensatory damages, attorney's fees, and litigation costs. Overall, the Complaint aims to address the City's alleged unlawful actions against Chapter 13 debtors and to secure appropriate legal remedies. Additionally, the Plaintiffs seek actual and punitive damages, attorney fees, and litigation costs, as well as the value of their lost property. They intend to represent a class of over 1,000 individuals who experienced similar violations by the City. The case has seen several procedural developments, including multiple amendments to the complaint and a contentious certification motion. The Plaintiffs identified seven potential class representatives: Cordova, Tevida Nocentelli, Christopher Campbell, Brandon Brown, Ira Haymore, Breonca Hyles, and Annie Williams. However, the court noted that Haymore had passed away and was withdrawn from the list. In their Certification Motion, the Plaintiffs seek certification of a class of all persons who meet the following definition: "All persons whose motor vehicles were impounded by the City of Chicago under City of Chicago Municipal Code Sections 9-100-120 or 2-14-132, other than for a drug use-related offense, between January 1, 2013 and June 19, 2019, who filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois during the period of impoundment, who demanded the release of their vehicle after filing their petition for voluntary bankruptcy, and who were deprived by City of Chicago of the use or possession of their motor vehicle after the demand for release was made." The City of Chicago opposed the certification, arguing that the Plaintiffs did not meet the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which governs class actions. The City contended that the claims of the proposed class representatives were not typical of the class and that individual issues would predominate over common questions. Chief Judge Barnes reviewed the key factors for class certification under Rule 23(a) and found that the Plaintiffs met the requirements: (i) Numerosity was established by identifying over 1,000 potential class members whose vehicles were wrongfully withheld after filing for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, making it impractical to include everyone in a single case. (ii) Commonality was shown through shared legal and factual questions about the City's refusal to release impounded vehicles after bankruptcy filings, with the court emphasizing that these claims stemmed from the same unlawful practices. (iii) Typicality was satisfied because the claims of the class representatives reflected the same core issues as those affecting the larger group, with all members impacted similarly by the City's actions. (iv) Adequacy was confirmed, as the class representatives were deemed capable of protecting the class' interests, and their counsel had the necessary experience to handle the case effectively. The City raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest among the proposed class representatives, particularly regarding their willingness to waive certain claims. However, the court determined that these concerns did not undermine the adequacy of representation, as the proposed class definition was narrow and focused on shared issues. Beyond the requirements of Rule 23(a), the court also assessed the predominance and superiority factors outlined in Rule 23(b)(3). The judge concluded that common legal and factual questions outweighed individual issues, affirming that a class action was the most effective method for resolving the claims. The court underscored the vulnerability of the proposed class members, many of whom were low-income individuals in bankruptcy, which rendered individual litigation impractical. Additionally, the court considered the City's objections regarding the qualifications of the plaintiffs' expert witness, Randall McCathren, who was brought in to testify on damages. The City sought to exclude his testimony, arguing it was unreliable and that McCathren lacked the necessary qualifications. Nevertheless, the Court found McCathren's methodology to be sound and relevant, allowing his testimony to be included in the proceedings. In conclusion, Judge Barnes determined that the plaintiffs met the criteria for class certification as outlined in Rule 23(a), Rule 23(b), and Rule 23(g). While acknowledging the case's imperfections, he emphasized the importance of not allowing minor issues to obstruct the certification process, in accordance with the Seventh Circuit's guidance. Judge Barnes clarified that this ruling does not address the merits of the case; rather, it reinforces that certification is mandatory if the Rule 23 standards are satisfied, regardless of the potential for the case to fail on its merits. Consequently, he concluded that the case meets the necessary requirements and must be certified. Ultimately, Chief Judge Barnes granted the Plaintiffs' motion to certify the class, allowing the case to proceed as a class action. This ruling highlights the Court's recognition of the systemic issues faced by low-income individuals in bankruptcy and the significance of collective legal action to address these challenges. A copy of the Court's Memorandum Decision is available at https://tinyurl.com/8zce3xx6 from PacerMonitor.com. CINCINNATI CASUALTY: Bid to Dismiss Schoening Suit Partly Granted ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Douglas R. Cole of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western Division, issued an Opinion and Order granting in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit titled SCHOENING INVESTMENT, LP, Plaintiff v. THE CINCINNATI CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00137-DRC (S.D. Ohio). This putative class action concerns a commercial property insurance policy and a not uncommon grievance--an insured's belief that its insurance policy entitles it to more money from its insurer than it received. Plaintiff Schoening Investment, LP, is a limited partnership whose partners all reside in Florida. It owned a commercial structure located at 4304 Poplar Level Road, in Louisville, Kentucky 40213 (the Property). Defendant The Cincinnati Casualty Company is an Ohio company with its principal place of business in Cincinnati, Ohio, that sells property insurance coverage for buildings and structures (among other things) in Arizona and Kentucky (among other places). Schoening purchased and regularly paid premiums on an insurance policy from Cincinnati Casualty for the Property (the Policy). Specifically, Schoening alleges (on behalf of itself and a putative class of insureds in Kentucky and Arizona) that Cincinnati Casualty breached its insurance policy by undervaluing an actual cash value (ACV) payment it made to Schoening after Schoening suffered a covered partial structural loss to one of its properties. By partial structural loss, the Court (and Schoening) means structural damage where estimated repair costs are lower than estimated replacement costs. Importantly, though, Judge Cole notes, Schoening contends that Cincinnati Casualty breached its contract in one very specific way. According to Schoening, the policy at issue does not allow Cincinnati Casualty to deduct any amount for depreciation from the otherwise-applicable ACV payments that would be due for partial structural losses. And that depreciation-based shortfall in ACV-based payments for partial structural losses is the only shortfall that Schoening alleges. That is, Schoening specifically disclaims any challenge to how Cincinnati Casualty calculated the underlying ACV payment amount itself (i.e., before depreciation is deducted), and any challenge to how Cincinnati Casualty calculates the amount of depreciation. Rather, all Schoening challenges here is whether the insurer is entitled to deduct depreciation from such payments at all. Cincinnati Casualty, not surprisingly, says that Schoening misreads the policy. In fact, Cincinnati Casualty contends that the policy terms are sufficiently unambiguous on the depreciation issue that the Court should dismiss the lawsuit. As discussed in this Opinion and Order, the Court agrees with Cincinnati Casualty. While the policy at issue may be ambiguous on various fronts--including as to how to calculate ACV before depreciation is deducted--it unambiguously allows Cincinnati Casualty to deduct depreciation from ACV-based payments for partial structural losses under the coverage at issue, Judge Cole opines. Accordingly, the Court grants in part Defendant The Cincinnati Casualty Company's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint or Alternatively to Strike Class Allegations, and dismisses with prejudice Schoening's Complaint. Resolving the pending motion requires the Court to undertake two distinct inquiries. First, the Court must determine which law applies. Then, armed with that law, the Court must determine whether Schoening has stated a plausible breach of contract claim under the Policy. Here, the Court concludes that the answer to the first question is "Kentucky law," and that under Kentucky law the answer to the second question is "no." Judge Cole opines that Kentucky law applies and holds that the interpretation of unambiguous terms in an insurance policy is a matter of law. In seeking dismissal, Cincinnati Casualty initially points to two shortcomings in Schoening's allegations relating to Schoening's conduct in making the underlying insurance claim. The insurer claims that each of these shortcomings dooms Schoening's breach of contract claim. First, Cincinnati Casualty argues that its payment obligation under the Optional Coverage "did not arise" because Schoening does not allege that it actually repaired or replaced the property. Second, the insurer argues that Schoening also fails to allege that it elected to receive an ACV-based payment under the Replacement Cost Provision, and that this is independently fatal to Schoening's claim. The Court finds the first argument irrelevant and affirmatively disagrees with the second. But that is not the end of the story, Judge Cole says. Cincinnati Casualty separately argues that the Policy unambiguously allows it to deduct depreciation from ACV-based payments under the Replacement Cost Provision. On this front, the Court agrees with the insurer. In support of its motion to dismiss, Cincinnati Casualty also argues that Schoening lacks constitutional standing to bring Arizona-based claims and, alternatively, moves to strike Schoening's class allegations by relying on Rule 23 predominance arguments. Cincinnati Casualty's standing argument, which it bases on Article III's requirements, and which, to be clear, concerns Schoening's standing to sue on behalf of putative Arizona claimants, not Schoening's standing to sue on its own claim, is likely misguided, Judge Cole holds, citing Generation Changers Church v. Church Mut. Ins. Co., 693 F. Supp. 3d 795, 803–07 (M.D. Tenn. 2023). And its Rule 23 arguments are likely premature, Judge Cole adds. But because neither argument involves a threshold jurisdictional inquiry (as no one suggests that Schoening lacks Article III standing as to Schoening's own claims), the Court need not resolve these arguments before addressing the merits. And the Court's finding that Schoening's claims lack merit as a matter of Kentucky law then forecloses the Court's need to consider these alternative arguments. All told, the Court finds that, under the unambiguous Policy language, Cincinnati Casualty may deduct depreciation of materials from ACV calculations when evaluating partial structural loss claims. The Optional Coverage under the Policy provides only two valuation methods--replacement cost and ACV. The latter, ACV, "means replacement cost less a deduction that reflects depreciation, age, condition and obsolescence." Judge Cole explains that replacement cost is payment "without deduction for depreciation." And unless and until an insured repairs or replaces a covered property, the replacement-cost based measure is not available to that insured, Judge Cole points out. Schoening's proposed reading would effectively grant insureds an entitlement to replacement cost coverage, which is inconsistent with the Policy's terms. For these reasons, the Court grants in part Defendant The Cincinnati Casualty Company's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint or Alternatively to Strike Class Allegations. The Court dismisses with prejudice the Plaintiff's Complaint because the Court's determination results as a matter of law, meaning no amendment to the Complaint could cure the deficiency. Accordingly, the Court directs the Clerk to enter judgment and terminate this case on its docket. Finally, the Court denies in part as moot Cincinnati Casualty's alternative Motion to Strike Class Allegations. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/muyvwdjk from PacerMonitor.com. CIRCLE K STORES: Morris Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Circle K Stores Inc. The case is styled as Stephen Morris, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated v. Circle K Stores Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-00629-BEN-AHG (S.D. Cal., March 18, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Circle K -- https://www.circlek.com/ -- is a convenience store and gas station chain offering a wide variety of products for people on the go.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq. LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Phone: (754) 444-7539 Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com CIRCLE K: Filing of Class Cert. Bid in Hughes Due June 16 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Hughes v. Circle K Stores, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-01071 (C.D. Ill., Filed Feb. 9, 2024), the Hon. Judge Michael M. Mihm entered an order setting Plaintiff's filing of Class Certification Motion by June 16, 2025. -- The Defendant to file its Response by July 16, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Circle K owns and operates convenience stores.[CC] COLECTIVO COFFEE: Cazares Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------------- Amelia Cazares, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Colectivo Coffee Roasters, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00241-SCD (E.D. Wis., March 17, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's 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 is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services Broken Trophies provides to their non-disabled customers through https://colectivo.com (hereinafter "Colectivo.com" or "the website"). 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 Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's website, Colectivo.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Colectivo Coffee Roasters' policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Colectivo Coffee Roasters provides to the public a website known as Colectivo.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view a variety of products, including light, medium, and dark roast coffees, decafs, cold brews, teas, grinders, brewing devices, and filters, drinkware like mugs and tumblers, and merch items.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: (630)-478-0856 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law COMERICA BANK: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by May 5 -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAULA SPARKMAN, v. COMERICA BANK, et al, Case No. 4:23-cv-02028-DMR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Donna Ryu entered a second amended case management and pretrial order: -- Jury trial will begin on Nov. 3, 2025. -- Opposition to class certification motion shall be filed by May 5, 2025. -- Reply to class certification motion shall be filed by May 19, 2025. -- Hearing on motion for class certification: June 12, 2025 -- A pretrial conference shall be held on Oct. 15, 2025. Comerica offers saving and current account, investment, financial services, online banking, and loan facilities. A copy of the Court's order dated March 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WjuJUq at no extra charge.[CC] COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER: Horn Suit Removed to D. Connecticut ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Roseanne Horn, Carolyn Piercey, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Community Health Center, Inc., Case No. MMX-CV25-6044523-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 17, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00388 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 Plaintiffs 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 COMPASS HEALTH: Mckinley Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Compass Health, Inc. The case is styled as Sharron Mckinley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Compass Health, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-21268-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 18, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Compass Health Systems -- https://compasshealthnetwork.org/ -- is a mental health treatment organization with clinics in Florida, Colorado and South Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Manuel Santiago Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Blvd Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com - and - Rachel N. Dapeer, Esq. DAPEER LAW, P.A. 20900 NE 30th Ave., Ste. 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Phone: (305) 610-5223 Email: rachel@dapeer.com CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY: Herrera Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ Edery Herrera, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY, ST. PAUL, Case No. 1:25-cv-02206 (S.D.N.Y., March 18, 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.csp.edu, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen reading software to read website content using the computer. CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY, ST. PAUL, operates the CSP 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 COOKWARE COMPANY: Faces Stone Suit Over Unlawful Express Warranties ------------------------------------------------------------------- KATHLEEN STONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE COOKWARE COMPANY (USA), LLC d/b/a GREENPAN, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-02013 (C.D. Cal., March 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of California's Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act and California's Unfair Competition Law. The Defendant manufactures consumer goods which are advertised and accompanied by express warranties. The Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act explicitly requires that "a manufacturer, distributor, or retail seller shall not make an express warranty with respect to a consumer good that commences earlier than the date of delivery of the good." However, the Defendant commences their express warranties on the date of purchase, not on the date of delivery, as required by the law. As a result of this unlawful and deceitful business practice, consumers who receive their goods after the date of purchase, such as online shoppers, do not receive the full benefit of their warranty. These consumers are short-changed the full value of their warranties. Furthermore, the Defendant unfairly benefit by saving themselves the added time and expense that would be required to properly track and administer their warranties were they to commence on the date of delivery, says the suit. The Cookware Company (USA), LLC, d/b/a GREENPAN, is a global cookware manufacturer.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan McBride, Esq. Jonathan Gil, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio S, Suite 101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ryan@kazlg.com jonathan@kazlg.com - and - Adib Assassi, Esq. Veronica Cruz, Esq. ASSASSI & CRUZ LAW FIRM. PC 1100 W. Town & Country Road, Suite 1250 Orange, CA 92868 Telephone: (800) 500-0301 Facsimile: (800) 500-0301 E-mail: adib@aclegalteam.com veronica@aclegalteam.com COUNTY OF WAYNE, MI: Bid to Dismiss Claims in Bell Suit Denied -------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned Melisa Bell, Stephanie Wilson, and Robert Reeves, Plaintiffs v. County of Wayne, Defendant, Case No. 5:20-cv-10288-JEL-EAS (E.D. Mich.), Judge Judith E. Levy of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, issued an Opinion and Order denying the Defendant's motion to dismiss the claims of Plaintiff Robert Reeves. Before the Court is Defendant County of Wayne's Motion to Dismiss the Claims of Plaintiff Robert Reeves for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and/or for Judgment on the Pleadings ("Second Motion to Dismiss"). On May 11, 2020, Plaintiffs Melisa Bell, Stephanie Wilson, and Robert Reeves filed an amended class action complaint against the Defendant, alleging that Wayne County's policies and practices related to civil forfeiture are unconstitutional. Judge Levy notes that since the case was filed, Plaintiff Melisa Ingram married and changed her name to "Melisa Bell." The case caption has been updated, accordingly. On Aug. 30, 2024, the Defendant filed the Second Motion to Dismiss. The Plaintiffs responded and the Defendant replied. The Court held a hearing on the Second Motion to Dismiss on Dec. 12, 2024. For the reasons set forth in the Opinion and Order, the Court denies the Defendant's Second Motion to Dismiss. In "early 2019," Reeves purchased a 1991 Chevrolet Camaro. That July, a man with whom Reeves sometimes works asked him to visit a job site where he was clearing rubbish. The man had a skid-steer loader (that police believed was stolen) at the site and wanted to know if Reeves knew how to operate it. Reeves demonstrated how to use the equipment and the two men planned to meet the next day to begin their work. After Reeves left the site, police officers detained him and seized his car, two cell phones, and $2,280 in cash. He was not arrested for alleged theft of the skid-steer loader at the time of his detention and seizure or while his car remained impounded. On July 26, 2019, Reeves received a Notice of Seizure and Intent to Forfeit, which stated that his property was subject to forfeiture under the Omnibus Forfeiture Act (the "OFA"). For more than six months afterwards, Reeves attempted to call numbers listed on the notice dozens of times to obtain his car after it had been impounded. He eventually hired an attorney, but employees of the Vehicle Seizure Unit and Wayne County Prosecutor's Office refused to speak with his attorney. Mr. Reeves filed the original complaint in this action in February 2020. The day after Reeves filed this case, the Wayne County Prosecutor's Office wrote to a state taskforce--the Western Wayne Criminal Investigation Forfeiture Unit--instructing it to release Reeves' property. His property was released shortly thereafter. In May 2020, Reeves was arrested for possession of stolen property and released on bond. A state court dismissed the charges for lack of probable cause. Prosecutors then refiled charges. The state court again dismissed the charges (Ingram v. Wayne Cnty., 81 F.4th 603, 620 (6th Cir. 2023)). Reeves asserts that these arrests were in retaliation and an attempt to stall this lawsuit. On July 1, 2020, the Defendant filed its Motion to Abstain or Stay, or in the Alternative, Motion to Dismiss the Claims Asserted by Plaintiff Robert Reeves ("First Motion to Dismiss"). On Sept. 30, 2021, presiding Judge Arthur J. Tarnow declined to abstain or stay the case but dismissed most counts asserted by Reeves. The counts that survived were Count IV, which alleges Fourteenth Amendment due process violations, and Count IX, which alleges damages for those violations. The Defendant filed a motion for reconsideration. The case was reassigned to Judge George Caram Steeh, who denied the motion for reconsideration. The Sixth Circuit heard an interlocutory appeal concerning Count IV, in which the Plaintiffs, including Reeves, alleged that the Defendant's failure to provide prompt post-seizure hearings violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. On Aug. 31, 2023, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's September 2021 decision and held that "Wayne County was required to provide a prompt post-seizure hearing for plaintiffs' personal vehicles." However, the Supreme Court reversed the Sixth Circuit in May of 2024 by stating that "[t]he Constitution requires a timely forfeiture hearing; the Constitution does not also require a separate preliminary hearing," citing Culley v. Marshall, 601 U.S. 377, 381 (2024). This case was reassigned to Judge Levy in August 2024. Over four years after the First Motion to Dismiss, the Defendant filed the Second Motion to Dismiss, arguing that (1) Reeves lacks standing, and thus, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction; (2) his due process claim fails after Culley; and (3) he failed to properly invoke state remedies before filing his lawsuit. In their response, the Plaintiffs assert that Reeves has standing and that Culley does not preclude two of Reeves' allegations that the Defendant's policies and practices violate due process. As set forth in the Opinion and Order, Judge Levy finds that Reeves has established standing, and he has a viable Fourteenth Amendment claim after Culley. Additionally, Reeves did not have adequate statutory remedies. Judge Levy opines that the Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that the Defendant had a determinative role in whether the car was released, and the delay in proceedings without releasing the vehicle is traceable to the Defendant. Since the Defendant only disputes the traceability element of standing, and Reeves has established the remaining two prongs, the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case. The Court denies the Defendant's argument for dismissal based on Culley undermining Count IV. Judge Levy explains that Count IV encompasses a viable legal theory that not only survives but was reaffirmed as a cause of action in Culley: whether the Defendant violated Reeves' due process rights by unreasonably delaying his civil forfeiture proceedings. Under the relevant standard to determine whether the delay was unreasonable, the Court finds that Reeves has pled sufficient factual matter to render the claim plausible. Reeves may, therefore, advance his claim that the alleged delay of over six months violated his due process rights. At this stage, when taking all of the Plaintiff's well-pleaded factual allegations as true, the Court finds that at least three of the four factors under Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530 (1972), weigh in favor of Reeves, and he has, thus, pled sufficient facts to render his due process claim in Count IV plausible. Therefore, the Court allows Reeves to advance his claim that the alleged delay violated his due process rights, and the Defendant's arguments for dismissal based on Culley fail. Judge Levy also finds, among other things, that Reeves has demonstrated that Sections 4705(1) and (4) (Mich. Comp. Laws 600.4705) were inapplicable or inadequate to address his constitutionally protected interest in a timely forfeiture proceeding because there was no underlying civil forfeiture or criminal proceeding. The Court, therefore, denies the Second Motion to Dismiss on the basis that he had adequate state remedies. When car owners like Reeves have their property seized, the Court points out that they have a constitutional right to a timely forfeiture hearing. But in Wayne County, the Plaintiff alleges that he entered a twilight zone where his car was impounded for many months without the County taking any action to initiate a civil forfeiture proceeding or provide him with an opportunity to pursue the return of his property. The Court holds that Reeves has sufficiently alleged standing through his alleged injury from the delay in proceedings; his Count IV claim survives Culley; and there was no adequate process to move the County to initiate a civil forfeiture proceeding or otherwise initiate a judicial process to retrieve his property. For these reasons, the Court denies the Second Motion to Dismiss. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/4w97f8vf from PacerMonitor.com. CROSS COUNTRY: Blocker Sues Over Unpaid Minimum and Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ Shautauqua Nekita Blocker, on behalf of herself and other current and former employees v. CROSS COUNTRY HEALTHCARE, INC. dba CROSS COUNTRY LOCUMS; THE TEEN PROJECT, INC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV07627 (Cal. Supper. Ct., March 17, 2025), is brought under the California Labor Code as a result of the Defendants' failure to pay minimum and overtime wages. The Defendants violated the California Labor Code due to their failure to pay wages for all hours worked at minimum wage and all overtime hours worked at the overtime rate of pay; failure to authorize or permit all legally required and/or compliant meal periods or pay meal period premium wages; failure to authorize or permit all legally required and/or compliant rest periods or pay rest period premium wages; indemnification for all necessary expenditures or losses incurred by employees in direct consequence of discharging their duties; statutory penalties for failure to timely pay earned wages during employment; statutory penalties for failure to provide accurate wage statements; statutory waiting time penalties in the form of continuation wages for failure to timely pay employees all wages due upon separation of employment, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants in an hourly position at Defendants' location in Los Angeles County from October 1, 2024 until November 1, 2024. CROSS COUNTRY HEALTHCARE, INC. dba CROSS COUNTRY LOCUMS., is authorized to do business within the State of California and is doing business in the State of California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joseph Lavi, Esq. Vincent C. Granberry, Esq. Matthew J. Gustin, Esq. LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP 8889 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90211 Phone: (310) 432-0000 Facsimile: (310) 432-0001 Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com vgranberry@lelawfirm.com mgustin@lelawfirm.com CVS HEALTH: Osterhaus Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Circuit ----------------------------------------------------------- OSTERHAUS PHARMACY, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing its lawsuit entitled Osterhaus Pharmacy, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CVS Health Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-01539-JJT, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendants for alleged violation of the Sherman Act. The Plaintiffs allege in the complaint that the Defendants denied pharmacies access to the Defendants' network of Medicare Part D beneficiaries to fill and dispense their prescriptions unless the pharmacies also enter a second transaction involving a performance program that compels the pharmacies to pay fees for the "opportunity" to provide other performance-related services. On Dec. 22, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration. On Sept. 5, 2024, the Defendants filed another motion to compel arbitration. On Jan. 21, 2025, the Defendants filed a motion to strike. On Feb. 12, 2025, Judge John J. Tuchi entered an Order granting the Defendants' motions to compel and denying their motion to strike. The Court held that the three provisions of the parties' arbitration agreement are substantively unconscionable. However, these provisions are severable. The remainder of the arbitration agreement is enforceable. The parties will, therefore, proceed to arbitration. Judge Tuchi noted that the Supreme Court recently overturned a long line of Ninth Circuit cases and held that "[w]hen a federal court finds that a dispute is subject to arbitration, and a party has requested a stay of the court proceeding pending arbitration, the court does not have discretion to dismiss the suit on the basis that all the claims are subject to arbitration," citing Smith v. Spizzirri, 601 U.S. 472, 475-76 (2024). That holding is vitally important to the parties' appellate rights, as an order compelling arbitration and staying the action is not immediately appealable, but an order compelling arbitration and dismissing the action is, he opined. Here, the Defendants have not requested a stay and instead have affirmatively requested a dismissal. Therefore, the Court will dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims, Judge Tuchi ruled. Accordingly, the Court denied the Defendants' Motion to Strike, and granted both of the Defendants' Motions to Compel Arbitration. The parties directed the parties to submit this matter to arbitration pursuant to the terms of their arbitration agreements, except that the unenforceable provisions of the agreements identified here will not be enforced. The Court also dismissed the case without prejudice and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate this matter. The appellate case is captioned Osterhaus Pharmacy, Inc., et al. v. CVS Health Corporation, et al., Case No. 25-1467, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 7, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on March 12, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Opening Brief is due on April 16, 2025; and -- Appellee's Appeal Answering Brief is due on May 16, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants OSTERHAUS PHARMACY, INC., et al., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, is represented by: Joshua P. Davis, Esq. Julie A. Pollock, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE, PC 505 Montgomery Street, Suite 625 San Francisco, CA 94111 - and – Kyla Jenny Gibboney, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP 601 California Street, Suite 1505 San Francisco, CA 94108 - and – F. Paul Bland, Jr., Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE, PC 1001 G. Street, NW Suite 400 East Washington, DC 20001 - and – John Roberti, Esq. ZAIGER LINDEN ROBERTI, LLC 1629 K. Street, NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 - and – Beth Ellen Terrell, Esq. Amanda M. Steiner, Esq. Blythe H. Chandler, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP, PLLC 936 N. 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 - and – Kevin D. Neal, Esq. Kenneth Noel Ralston, Esq. GALLAGHER & KENNEDY, PA 2575 E. Camelback Road, Suite 1100 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Defendants-Appellees CVS HEALTH CORPORATION, et al. are represented by: Shelton L. Freeman, Esq. FREEMAN LAW PLLC 4248 North Craftsman Court, Suite 100 Scottsdale, AZ 85251 CVS PHARMACY: Hearing on Class Cert Bid Due May 22 -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOE ONE, RICHARD ROE, in his capacity as executor for JOHN DOE TWO, JOHN DOE SIX; and JOHN DOE SEVEN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated and for the benefit of the general public, v. CVS PHARMACY, INC.; CAREMARK, L.L.C.; CAREMARK CALIFORNIA SPECIALTY PHARMACY, L.L.C.; GARFIELD BEACH CVS, L.L.C.; CAREMARKPCS HEALTH, L.L.C.; and DOES 1–10, inclusive, Case No. 3:18-cv-01031-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting third joint motion re: briefing deadlines on plaintiffs’ motion for class certification: On Jan. 16, 2025, the court entered the following briefing schedule on the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Opposition to Class Certification: February 28, 2025 Reply in Support of Motion for Class Certification: March 28, 2025. Hearing on Motion for Class Certification is May 22, 2025. Because Ms. Butler's deposition is not occurring until April 1, the Plaintiffs have requested (and Defendants do not oppose) revising the briefing deadline for the Plaintiffs' reply brief from March 28, 2025, to April 8, 2025, a week after the Butler deposition. The hearing date would remain unchanged. CVS distributes pharmaceutical products. A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Ll30oh at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Alan M. Mansfield, Esq. Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Esq. Edith M. Kallas, Esq. Henry C. Quillen, Esq. C. Nicholas Dorman, Esq. WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP 16970 W. Bernardo Dr., Suite 400 San Diego, CA 92127 Telephone: (858) 674-6641 Facsimile: (855) 274-1888 E-mail: amansfield@whatleykallas.com jwhatley@whatleykallas.com ekallas@whatleykallas.com hquillen@whatleykallas.com ndorman@whatleykallas.com - and - Benjamin Powell, Esq. Ryan Mellino, Esq. CONSUMER WATCHDOG 6330 San Vicente Blvd., Suite 250 Los Angeles, CA 90048 Telephone: (310) 392-0522 E-mail: ben@consumerwatchdog.org ryan@consumerwatchdog.org - and - Jerry Flanagan, Esq. SHERNOFF BIDART ECHEVERRIA, LLP 600 S. Indian Hill Blvd. Claremont, CA 91711 Telephone: (909) 621-4935 Facsimile: (909) 625-6915 E-mail: jflanagan@shernoff.com The Defendants are represented by: Enu Mainigi, Esq. Craig D. Singer, Esq. Grant A. Geyerman, Esq. Benjamin W. Graham, Esq. WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP 680 Maine Ave., S.W. Washington, DC 20024 Telephone: (202) 434-5000 Facsimile: (202) 434-5029 - and - John J. Atallah, Esq. FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 555 South Flower Street, Ste. 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 972-4500 Facsimile: (213) 486-0065 DELAWARE NORTH: Fact Discovery in Hookano Class Suit Due July 21 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jason Mico Hookano v. Delaware North Companies, Incorporated et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-07880-FMO-RAO (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando Olguin entered an order as follows: 1. All fact discovery shall be completed no later than July 21, 2025. The court does not bifurcate discovery. 2. All expert discovery shall be completed by Oct. 6, 2025. 3. The parties must serve their Initial Expert Witness Disclosures no later than Aug. 4, 2025. 4. Rebuttal Expert Witness Disclosures shall be served no later than Sept. 3, 2025. 4. The parties shall complete their settlement conference before a private mediator no later than July 21, 2025. 5. Any motion for class certification shall be filed no later than Nov. 5, 2025 and noticed for hearing regularly under the Local Rules. 6. The court will set dates and deadlines for summary judgment, trial, the pretrial conference, and the parties' pretrial filings after the resolution of the motion for class certification. Delaware North serves gaming, parks, resorts, restaurants and catering, specialty retail, sports, and travel industries. A copy of the Court's order dated March 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PzcTYs at no extra charge.[CC] DELTA AIR LINES: Goodyear Seeks to Extend Fact Discovery Period --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUKAS GOODYEAR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DELTA AIR LINES, Case No. 1:23-cv-05712-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) and Local Rule 26.2(B) to extend the fact discovery period by 60 days up to and including Friday, June 20, 2025. A brief Memorandum in Support of his Motion, and Declaration of Daniel R. Ferri are filed contemporaneously. Delta Air is a major airline in the United States headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, operating nine hubs. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5paCGw at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Levitt, Esq. Daniel R. Ferri, Esq. Anna Claire Skinner, Esq. Madeline E. Hills, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 214-7900 Facsimile: (312) 253-1443 E-mail: alevitt@dicellolevitt.com dferri@dicellolevitt.com askinner@dicellolevitt.com - and - Jonathan Palmer, Esq. KNIGHT PALMER, LLC 1360 Peachstreet Street, N.E., Suite 1201 Atlanta, GA 30309 Telephone: (404) 228-4822 Facsimile: (404) 228-4821 E-mail: jpalmer@knightpalmerlaw.com DISA GLOBAL: Chappell Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII -------------------------------------------------------- Edward Chappell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DISA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-01278 (S.D. Tex., March 18, 2025), is brought against Defendant, for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's information network, including without limitation, names, Social Security numbers, (these types of information, inter alia, being thereafter referred to, collectively, as "personally identifiable information" or "PII"). The Plaintiff and Members of the Class have suffered significant injury and damages due to the Data Breach permitted to occur by DISA, and the resulting misuse of their Personal Information and fraudulent activity, including monetary damages including out-of-pocket expenses, including those associated with the reasonable mitigation measures they were forced to employ, and other damages. Plaintiff and the Class also now forever face an amplified risk of further misuse, fraud, and identity theft due to their sensitive Personal Information falling into the hands of cybercriminals because of the tortious conduct of Defendant. The Defendant's "disclosure" amounts to no real disclosure at all, as it fails to inform, with any degree of specificity, Plaintiff and Class Members of the Data Breach's critical facts. Without these details, Plaintiff's and Class Members' ability to mitigate the harms resulting from the Data Breach has been severely diminished. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's failure to implement and to follow basic security procedures, Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information now appears to be in the hands of cybercriminals. The Plaintiff and Class Members are now at a significantly increased and certainly impending risk of fraud, identity theft, misappropriation of health insurance benefits, intrusion of their health privacy, Private Information being disseminated on the dark web, and similar forms of criminal mischief, risk which may last for the rest of their lives, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former clients of Defendant. DISA Global Solutions, Inc. is a foreign for profit corporation, organized in Delaware with its corporate headquarters in Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: T. J. Jesky, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF T. J. JESKY 205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 810 Chicago, IL 60601-5902 Phone: 312-894-0130, Ext. 3 Fax: 312-489-8216 Email: tj@jeskylaw.com - and - J. Gerard Stanch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com DISA GLOBAL: White Sues Over Failure to Secure and Safeguard PII ---------------------------------------------------------------- Theodore White, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. DISA GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-01288 (S.D. Tex., March 19, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected personally identifiable information stored within Defendant's information network, including without limitation, names, Social Security numbers, (these types of information, inter alia, being thereafter referred to, collectively, as "personally identifiable information" or "PII"). On April 22, 2024, DISA became aware of a data security incident, which resulted in unauthorized access to certain personal and/or protected information maintained by DISA, resulting in the unauthorized disclosure of the Personal Information of Plaintiff and the Class Members, including names, and Social Security numbers, and other protected information (the "Data Breach"). The Plaintiff and Members of the Class have suffered significant injury and damages due to the Data Breach permitted to occur by DISA, including monetary damages including out-of-pocket expenses, including those associated with the reasonable mitigation measures they were forced to employ, and other damages. Plaintiff and the Class also now forever face an amplified risk of misuse, fraud, and identity theft due to their sensitive Personal Information falling into the hands of cybercriminals because of the tortious conduct of Defendant, says the complaint. The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former clients of Defendant. DISA Global Solutions, Inc. is a foreign for profit corporation, organized in Delaware with its corporate headquarters in Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: T. J. Jesky, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF T. J. JESKY 205 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 810 Chicago, IL 60601-5902 Phone: 312-894-0130, Ext. 3 Fax: 312-489-8216 Email: tj@jeskylaw.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. Amina A. Thomas, Esq. COHEN & MALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 636-6481 Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com athomas@cohenandmalad.com - and - J. Gerard Stanch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com DISH DBS: Continues to Defend Jones 401(k) Class Suit in Colorado ----------------------------------------------------------------- Dish DBS Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Jones 401(k) class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. On December 20, 2021, four former employees filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against DISH Network, DISH Network's Board of Directors, and DISH Network's Retirement Plan Committee alleging fiduciary breaches arising from the management of our 401(k) Plan. The putative class, comprised of all participants in the Plan on or after January 20, 2016, alleges that the Plan had excessive recordkeeping and administrative expenses and that it maintained underperforming funds. On February 1, 2023, a Magistrate Judge issued a recommendation that the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint be granted, and on March 27, 2023, the district court judge granted the motion. As permitted by the Court's order, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April 10, 2023, which is limited to allegations regarding the alleged underperformance of the Fidelity Freedom Funds. On November 7, 2023, a Magistrate Judge issued a recommendation that the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint be denied as to the duty to prudently monitor fund performance, but be granted as to the duty of loyalty and, on November 27, 2023, the district court judge entered an order adopting the recommendation. On March 1, 2024, by stipulation, the plaintiffs dismissed their claims against the Board of Directors and the Retirement Plan Committee, leaving DISH Network as the sole defendant. On April 30, 2024, pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the Court certified the proposed plaintiff class. On October 30, 2024, pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the Court stayed the litigation pending a mediation. DISH Network intends to vigorously defend this case. DISH Network cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages. DISH DBS Corporation is a holding company and an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of DISH Network Corporation. It offers pay-TV services under the "DISH" brand and the "SLING" brand. It also design, develop and distribute receiver systems and provide digital broadcast operations, including satellite uplinking/downlinking, transmission and other services to third-party pay-TV providers. DISH DBS: Continues to Defend Lingam Securities Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Dish DBS Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Lingam securities class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. On March 23, 2023, a securities fraud class action complaint was filed against DISH Network and Messrs. Ergen, Carlson and Orban in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint was brought on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of DISH Network's securities during the February 22, 2021 to February 27, 2023 class period. In general, the complaint alleged that DISH Network's public statements during that period were false and misleading and contained material omissions, because they did not disclose that DISH Network allegedly maintained a deficient cybersecurity and information technology infrastructure, were unable to properly secure customer data and DISH Network's operations were susceptible to widespread service outages. In August 2023, the Court appointed a new lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel, and, on October 20, 2023, they filed an amended complaint that abandoned the original allegations. In their amended complaint, plaintiffs allege that, during the class period, the defendants concealed problems concerning the 5G network buildout that prevented scaling and commercializing the network to obtain enterprise customers. The amended complaint added as individual defendants James S. Allen, DISH Network's Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer; John Swieringa, DISH Network's President, Technology and Chief Operating Officer; Dave Mayo, DISH Network's former Executive Vice President of Network Development; Marc Rouanne, DISH Network's former Executive Vice President and Chief Network Officer; and Stephen Bye, DISH Network's former Executive Vice President and Chief Commercial Officer. After the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs filed a further amended complaint, asserting the same theory, on February 23, 2024. The new complaint drops Erik Carlson, John Swieringa, Paul Orban and James Allen as individual defendants. DISH Network intends to vigorously defend this case. DISH Network cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages. DISH DBS Corporation is a holding company and an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of DISH Network Corporation. It offers pay-TV services under the "DISH" brand and the "SLING" brand. It also design, develop and distribute receiver systems and provide digital broadcast operations, including satellite uplinking/downlinking, transmission and other services to third-party pay-TV providers. DISH DBS: Continues to Defend Owen-Brooks Data Breach Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dish DBS Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 19, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Owen-Brooks data breach class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. On May 9, 2023, Susan Owen-Brooks, an alleged customer, filed a putative class action complaint against DISH Network, its parent, in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. She purports to represent a nationwide class of all individuals in the United States who allegedly had private information stolen as a result of the February 23, 2023 Cybersecurity Incident (and a North Carolina statewide subclass of the same individuals). Since that filing, ten additional putative class action complaints have been filed in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, purporting to represent the same nationwide class of people, and Owen-Brooks has filed an amended complaint. On August 2, 2023, the Court issued an order consolidating the first ten cases (the eleventh was dismissed) and, on November 16, 2023 and January 16, 2024, the plaintiffs filed consolidated amended class action complaints. On September 27, 2024, the Court granted DISH Network's motion to dismiss the First Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint as to eight of the eleven named plaintiffs and as to certain causes of action. On October 29, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed the operative Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, which deletes the allegations as to the dismissed plaintiffs and causes of action, leaving three named plaintiffs and causes of action for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and declaratory judgment. DISH Network intends to vigorously defend this case. DISH Network cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the suit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages. DISH DBS Corporation is a holding company and an indirect, wholly-owned subsidiary of DISH Network Corporation. It offers pay-TV services under the "DISH" brand and the "SLING" brand. It also design, develop and distribute receiver systems and provide digital broadcast operations, including satellite uplinking/downlinking, transmission and other services to third-party pay-TV providers. DONALD TRUMP: Alishea Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALISHEA KINGDOM, et al., v. DONALD J. TRUMP, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00691-RCL (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge entered an order certifying the following class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(1) and/or (b)(2): "All persons who are or will be incarcerated in the custody of BOP who are or will be diagnosed with gender dysphoria or meet the criteria for a gender dysphoria diagnosis and who are receiving, or would receive, gender-affirming health care absent such care being proscribed by EO 14168 and the Implementing Memoranda." The Plaintiff contends that proposed class readily satisfies the requirements of Rule 23. Numerosity is present because, according to the BOP, there are approximately 2,000 people identified as transgender who are incarcerated in federal prisons, who are threatened by the challenged actions. The proposed class satisfies Rule 23(b)(1) because separate actions by individual plaintiffs would create a risk of inconsistent standards of conduct for defendants and adjudications that would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the interests of others not before the court. And the proposed class satisfies Rule 23(b)(2) because Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class. The Plaintiffs also request that the Court appoint the Plaintiffs Alishea Kingdom, Solo Nichols, and Jas Kapule as class representatives; and appoint the undersigned as class counsel. Donald John Trump is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who is the 47th president of the United States. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KzVvi7 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David C. Fathi, Esq. Maria V. Morris, Esq. Elisa C. Epstein, Esq. Corene T. Kendrick, Esq. Li Nowlin-Sohl, Esq. Leslie Cooper, Esq. Shana Knizhnik, Esq. James D. Esseks, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 915 15th Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 393-4930 E-mail: dfathi@aclu.org mmorris@aclu.org eepstein@aclu.org ckendrick@aclu.org lnowlin-sohl@aclu.org lcooper@aclu.org sknizhnik@aclu.org jesseks@aclu.org - and - Michael Perloff, Esq. Aditi Shah, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 529 14th Street NW, Suite 722 Washington, DC 20045 Telephone: (202) 457-0800 E-mail: mperloff@acludc.org ashah@acludc.org - and - Shawn Thomas Meerkamper, Esq. Megan Z. F. Noor, Esq. Lynly S. Egyes, Esq. Milo Inglehart, Esq. TRANSGENDER LAW CENTER Oakland, CA 94612 Telephone: (510) 587-9696 E-mail: shawn@transgenderlawcenter.org megan@transgenderlawcenter.org lynly@transgenderlawcenter.org milo@transgenderlawcenter.org DONALD TRUMP: Seeks to Vacate TRO in JGG Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.G.G., et al., v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00766-JEB (D.D.C.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to vacate temporary restraining order. The Universal TRO Is Overbroad and Unconstitutional. If nothing else, this Court should dissolve the sweeping injunction premised on provisional certification of a nationwide class. AEA jurisprudence limiting the courts to habeas review sharply contrasts with the universal TRO this Court issued with respect to the members of the provisionally certified class with no habeas claims before the Court. On March 15, 2025, the Court issued two orders that together enjoined—on a nationwide basis—the removal of aliens associated with Tren de Aragua ("TdA"), a designated foreign terrorist organization ("FTO"), under the Alien Enemies Act ("AEA"). On March 15, 2025, the Plaintiffs, five nationals of Venezuela who claim to fear removal under the Proclamation, filed this putative class-action complaint along with a motion for a temporary restraining order. In their complaint, Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the Defendants’ actions are contrary to the AEA and the INA. Hours after the complaint was filed, without the actual Proclamation and without hearing from the Government, the Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion and ordered that "Defendants shall not remove any of the individual Plaintiffs from the United States for 14 days absent further Order of the Court." Second Minute Order (Mar. 15, 2025). The Government appealed the district court’s first order and filed an emergency motion to stay it A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cWNZ4C at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Pamela J. Bondi, Esq. Todd Blanche, Esq. Emil Bove, Esq. Chad Mizelle, Esq. Yaakov M. Roth, Esq. Drew C. Ensign, Esq. August E. Flentje, Esq. Erez Reuveni, Esq. Brian C. Ward, Esq. Patrick Glen, Esq. Christina P. Greer, Esq. August E. Flentje, Esq. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, CIVIL DIVISION OFFICE OF IMMIGRATION LITIGATION Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044 Telephone: (202) 514-3309 E-mail: August.Flentje@usdoj.gov DUN & BRADSTREET: DeBose Class Suit Discovery Ongoing in Ohio ------------------------------------------------------------- Dun & Bradstreet Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 21, 2025, that discovery is ongoing for DeBose class suit in Ohio. On January 17, 2022, Plaintiff Rashad DeBose filed a Class Action Complaint against the Company, alleging that the Company used the purported class members’ names and personas to promote paid subscriptions to the Company's Hoovers product website without consent, in violation of the Ohio right of publicity statute and Ohio common law prohibiting misappropriation of a name or likeness. On March 30, 2022, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint. The Court has heard oral argument on the motion to dismiss on September 12, 2024 and the parties are awaiting a decision. Discovery is ongoing. Dun & Bradstreet Holdings, Inc. is into consumer credit reporting, collection agencies and is based in Jacksonville, Florida. ECHOPARK AUTOMOTIVE: Completion of Discovery Due May 21 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEPHEN GERNY, JR., et al., v. ECHOPARK AUTOMOTIVE, INC., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-06045-JLR (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge James Robart entered Rule 16(b) and Rule 23(d)(2) scheduling order regarding class certification motion: Deadline to complete discovery on class May 21, 2025 certification (not to be construed as a bifurcation of discovery): Deadline for Plaintiffs to file motion for June 20, 2025 class certification (noted on the 28th day after filing and service of the motion pursuant to Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(d)(4)). EchoPark provides a service to buy used cars from customers, offering a quick and straightforward process to get a quote. A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=G0hAaU at no extra charge.[CC] ENDURANCE DEALER: Cooper et al. Sue Over Denial of Repair Coverage ------------------------------------------------------------------ JESSICA COOPER, DANIEL KUJAWA, PHILIP RINELLA, MELISSA RUMPF, and MATTHEW WILDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ENDURANCE DEALER SERVICES, LLC, and ENDURANCE WARRANTY SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-02919 (N.D. Ill., March 19, 2025) arises from Defendants' delay and denial of Plaintiffs' claims for repair coverage. The Defendants advertise and market to consumers full coverage for repair claims that are approved in minutes, However, when consumers, including Plaintiffs, file claims for repairs under their respective Vehicle Service Contracts, Defendants do not deliver on their contractual obligations. Defendants take several weeks or months to render decisions on claims and have denied repair coverage without any contractual basis. As a result, consumers, including Plaintiffs, have incurred out-of-pocket expenses while waiting for Endurance to render decisions on their claims, lost complete use of their vehicles while waiting for a decision on their claims, have been forced to pay out of pocket for auto repairs, says the suit. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all other consumers who purchased Vehicle Service Contracts from Endurance, bring this action for breach of contract, fraudulent concealment, fraudulent inducement, fraudulent misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and for violations of Michigan's Consumer Protection Act, New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act, Ohio's Consumer Sales Practices Act, Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, and the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer Protection Act. Headquartered in Northbrook, IL, Endurance Dealer Services, LLC is a limited liability company that advertises, markets, sells, and administers vehicle service contracts. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Elizabeth A. Fegan FEGAN SCOTT LLC 150 S. Wacker Dr., 24th Floor Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (312) 741-1019 Facsimile: (312) 264-0100 E-mail: beth@feganscott.com - and - Jonathan D. Lindenfeld, Esq. FEGAN SCOTT LLC 305 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (332) 216-2101 Facsimile: (312) 264-0100 E-mail: jonathan@feganscott.com - and - Joseph G. Sauder, Esq. Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq. Joseph B. Kenney, Esq. Juliette T. Kaestner, Esq. SAUDER SCHELKOPF LLC 1109 Lancaster Avenue Berwyn, PA 19312 Telephone: (888) 711-9975 Facsimile: (610) 421-1326 E-mail: jgs@sstriallawyers.com mds@sstriallawyers.com jbk@sstriallawyers.com jtm@sstriallawyers.com EQUITYEXPERTS.ORG LLC: Seeks to Stay Lewis Proceedings ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KIMBERLI LEWIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. EQUITYEXPERTS.ORG, LLC, Case No. (E.D.N.C.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order staying all proceedings pending resolution of the motion for reconsideration. Accordingly, while the parties are half-way into litigation in the case, uneven or inappropriate treatment or interpretation of the Certification Order and scope of proofs could lead to disastrous consequences for all parties, and a stay of this case pending the ruling most appropriately limits the prejudice to the parties. Most importantly, a stay in this case will be a judicious and efficient use of both the Court's and the parties' resources as the pending motions and forthcoming rulings, coupled with the present and pending deadlines, are all interrelated, and the scope of one determines the scope of the other. By staying deadlines, it promotes consistent rulings and also limits having to "undo" incorrect actions. Equity timely filed its Motion for Reconsideration of the Certification Order at ECF 89, and Plaintiff has timely filed her Response in Opposition at ECF 90. Equity's Reply comes due on Feb. 24, 2025, and Equity relies upon and refers the Honorable Court to those filings for a more complete analysis of perceived issues which Equity believes that clarification or reconsideration is warranted. Still pending is also Plaintiff's Motion to Amend the Complaint at ECF 78, which was filed subsequent to the Motion for Class Certification at ECF 56. Equityexperts.org offers community association recovery solutions, collection technology and legal services. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated Feb. 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=huBZeY at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Katrina M. DeMarte, Esq. DEMARTE LAW PLLC 39555 Orchard Hill Pl, Ste 600 Novi, MI 48375 Telephone: (313) 509-7047 E-mail: Katrina@demartelaw.com EUROSTAR INC: Louder Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against EUROSTAR, INC. The case is styled as Shandreika Latoya Louder, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated v. EUROSTAR, INC., Case No. 25STCV07673 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 17, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Eurostar Industries Inc. -- http://www.eurostarinc.com/-- is one of the industry's leading European Auto Parts Warehouse Distributors in North America, supplying over 5000 types of PREMUM quality O.E., OEM & aftermarket parts for European automobiles.[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 EXPRESS FASHION: Dalton Sues Over Website's ADA Non-Compliance -------------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Express Fashion Operations, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-01030-JRT-JFD (D. Minn., March 19, 2025) accuses the Defendant of violating the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations. The case arises because Defendant's website is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision. In addition to her claim under the ADA, the Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks relief including an injunction requiring Defendant to make its website accessible to Plaintiff and the putative class. Headquartered in Columbus, OH, Express Fashion Operations, LLC owns and operates the website, www.express.com, which offers clothing and accessories for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 E-mail: chad@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com EXTO INC: Harris Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Arkansas ------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Exto Inc. The case is styled as Derrance Harris, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Exto Inc. doing business as: Atlas, Case No. 4:25-cv-00268-DPM (E.D. Ark., March 18, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Exto Inc. doing business as Atlas -- https://www.atlasfin.com/ -- is a provider of a credit card service platform for consumers.[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 - and - Jason Michael Ryburn, Esq. RYBURN LAW FIRM 650 South Shackleford Road, Suite 231 Little Rock, AR 72211 Phone: (501) 228-8100 Email: jason@ryburnlawfirm.com EYERHAEUSER NR: Barrios Suit Removed to W.D. Texas -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Oswaldo Barrios, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated v. INSTALLATION SQUAD, LLC; MASTEC NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC; BERNARDO NAPOLES and ANGEL RINCON, Case No. 2025CI01513 was removed from the 57th Judicial District Court of Bexar County, Texas, to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas on March 18, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-00291. In his Petition, Plaintiff alleges Defendants collectively violated the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") by not paying Plaintiff and "others similarly situated" overtime pay. Additionally, Plaintiff alleges Defendants breached a contract with Plaintiff by not paying him the proper compensation. Plaintiff further alleges Defendants violated the Texas Payday Law by making unauthorized deductions from his compensation.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Nicole S. LeFave, Esq. Kimberly Kauffman, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 100 Congress Avenue, Suite 1400 Austin, TX 78701 Phone: 512.982.7250 Facsimile: 512.982.7248 Email: nlefave@littler.com kkauffman@littler.com FANTASIA TRADING: Stains Sues Over Unwanted Telemarketing Calls --------------------------------------------------------------- CASSIDY STAINS, individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FANTASIA TRADING LLC D/B/A ANKER INNOVATIONS LIMITED, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00544-DMS-JLB (S.D. Cal., March 7, 2025) is a putative class action brought against the Defendant pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, to promote its goods and services, the Defendant engages in telemarketing text messages at unlawful times. Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt Defendant's 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. Fantasia Trading LLC, d/b/a Anker Innovations Limited, is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters located in Ontario, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerald D. Lane Jr. THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI 1515 NE 26th Street Wilton Manors, FL 33305 Telephone: (754) 444-7539 E-mail: gerald@jibraellaw.com FCA US: Class Settlement in White Suit Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA WHITE, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 4:21-cv-11696-SDK-DRG (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Shalina Kumar entered an order granting the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement and appointment of co-lead class counsel. 1. The Court conditionally certifies, for settlement purposes only, the following Settlement Class: "All individuals who purchased or leased in the United States a Dodge Grand Caravan built between Jan. 1, 2017 and Dec. 31, 2017." Excluded from the Settlement Class are: FCA US; any affiliate, parent, or subsidiary of FCA US; any entity in which FCA US has a controlling interest; any officer, director, or employee of FCA US; any successor or assign of FCA US; and any judge to whom this Action is assigned, his or her spouse; individuals and/or entities who validly and timely opt-out of the settlement; and current or former owners of Class Vehicles who previously released their claims in an individual settlement with FCA US relating to the Action. 2. The Court directs that pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(2), a Fairness Hearing will be held on Sept. 16, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. 3. The Court appoints Kelly Mayor as Class Representative for the Settlement Class. FCA US is an automobile manufacturers in the United States, headquartered in Auburn Hills, Michigan. It is the American subsidiary of the multinational automotive company Stellantis. A copy of the Court's order dated March 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hQidrj at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 West University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 - and - W. Daniel "Dee" Miles III, Esq. BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, AL 36104 - and - Richard D. McCune, Esq. David C. Wright, Esq. Mark I. Richards, Esq. MCCUNE LAW GROUP, APC 3281 East Guasti Road, Suite 100 Ontario, CA 91761 - and - Adam J. Levitt, Esq. John E. Tangren, Esq. DICELLO LEVITT LLP Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor Chicago, IL 60602 The Defendant is represented by: Stephen A. D'Aunoy, Esq. KLEIN THOMAS LEE & FRESARD 100 N. Broadway, Ste. 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 FLORIDA CRYSTALS: Merrell Sues Over Sugar Products' False Ad ------------------------------------------------------------ MACY MERRELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FLORIDA CRYSTALS CORPORATION and FANJUL CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-02264-SVK (N.D. Cal., March 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of warranty, unjust enrichment, and violations of the California False Advertising Law, the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, and the Unfair Competition Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants label and advertise Florida Crystals products as "Farming to Help Save the Planet" with farms that "help fight climate change [and] build healthy soils." The Defendants bolster these claims with similar misrepresentations on their sugar products' packaging as well as on misrepresentations on their sugar products' packaging as well as on consumer-targeted websites and social media, touting Florida Crystals' supposed commitment to fighting climate change and protecting the environment through programs like regenerative farming and using barn owls to control rodent populations. Through this aggressive marketing campaign, the Defendants have comprehensively branded Florida Crystals and its sugar products as the eco-friendly sugar option in the United States, intentionally appealing to the millions of American sugar consumers who care about how their shopping habits impact the environment and climate change, says the suit. Through false and deceptive marketing of their sugar products, the Defendants have violated multiple California consumer protection statutes as well as the common law. By lying to consumers about Florida Crystals' carbon footprint and its success in helping to "save the planet," Defendants have wrongfully induced Plaintiff Merrell and other consumers to buy -- or pay more for -- their green-packaged sugar products instead of competing sugar products that either make no false greenwashing claims or in fact employ the available green harvesting method that environmentalists nationwide and Glades residents have been advocating for years, the suit asserts. Florida Crystals Corp. is a fully integrated cane sugar company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq. Bahar Sodaify, Esq. Benjamin J. Fuchs, Esq. Kiryl Karpiuk, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Highway Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Facsimile: (213) 788-4070 E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com bsodaify@clarksonlawfirm.com bfuchs@clarksonlawfirm.com kkarpiuk@clarksonlawfirm.com FLYWHEEL ENERGY: Eubanks Appeals Summary Judgment Order to 8th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- LARRY W. EUBANKS, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendants' motions for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled Larry W. Eubanks, et al., individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Flywheel Energy Production LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:21-cv-00329-LPR, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the Van Buren County Circuit Court to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, is brought against the Defendants for breach of contract. On Nov. 20, 2024, Defendant Flywheel Energy Production LLC filed a motion for summary judgment. On Dec. 31, 2024, Defendant XTO Entergy Inc. filed a motion for summary judgment. On Feb. 4, 2025, Judge Lee P. Rudofsky granted the Defendants' motions for summary judgment. The Court concluded that none of the Plaintiffs' arguments are novel or persuasive. Accordingly, the Defendants did not violate any statute, and they did not breach their lease agreement. The Defendants are entitled to summary judgment on all of the Plaintiffs' claims. Judgment was entered in favor of the Defendants on all claims brought against them in this case. The appellate case is captioned Larry Eubanks, et al. v. Flywheel Energy Production LLC, et al., Case No. 25-1463, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on March 7, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appendix is due on April 16, 2025; -- Appellant's brief is due on April 16, 2025; and -- Appellee's brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants LARRY W. EUBANKS, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: William Thomas Crowder, Esq. Thomas P. Thrash, Esq. THRASH LAW FIRM 1101 Garland Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 374-1058 - and – Melvin Edward Morgan, Esq. Nathan St. John Morgan, Esq. MORGAN LAW FIRM 244 Highway 65 North, Suite 5 Clinton, AR 72031 Telephone: (501) 745-4044 Defendants-Appellees FLYWHEEL ENERGY PRODUCTION LLC, et al. are represented by: Julie DeWoody Greathouse, Esq. Samuel McLelland, Esq. Gregory Alan Perkins, Esq. PPGMR LAW, PLLC P.O. Box 3446 Little Rock, AR 72203 Telephone: (501) 603-9000 - and – Robert M. Honea, Esq. HARDIN & JESSON 5000 Rogers Avenue, Suite 500 Fort Smith, AR 72903 Telephone: (479) 452-2200 - and – Elizabeth Tiblets, Esq. K & L GATES 301 Commerce Street, Suite 3000 Fort Worth, TX 76102 Telephone: (817) 347-5037 FLYWHEEL ENERGY: Oliger Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 8th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- DARRELL OLIGER, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendant's motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled Darrell Oliger, et al., co-trustee of the Darrell and Carol Oliger Revocable Trust dated June 19, 2007, individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Flywheel Energy Production LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:20-cv-01146-LPR, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the Arkansas Circuit Court, Conway County, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, is brought against the Defendant for breach of contract. On Nov. 20, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which Judge Lee P. Rudofsky granted on Feb. 3, 2025. The Court concluded that none of the complaint's arguments are novel or persuasive. Accordingly, the Defendant did not violate any statute, and it did not breach a lease agreement. The Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on all of the claims. The appellate case is captioned Darrell Oliger, et al. v. Flywheel Energy Production LLC, Case No. 25-1428, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on March 7, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants DARRELL OLIGER, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: William Thomas Crowder, Esq. Thomas P. Thrash, Esq. THRASH LAW FIRM 1101 Garland Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 374-1058 - and – Melvin Edward Morgan, Esq. Nathan St. John Morgan, Esq. MORGAN LAW FIRM 244 Highway 65 North, Suite 5 Clinton, AR 72031 Telephone: (501) 745-4044 Defendant-Appellee FLYWHEEL ENERGY PRODUCTION LLC is represented by: Samuel McLelland, Esq. Gregory Alan Perkins, Esq. PPGMR LAW, PLLC P.O. Box 3446 Little Rock, AR 72203 Telephone: (501) 603-9000 FTD LLC: Faces Pulbrook Suit Over Hidden Floral Delivery Fees ------------------------------------------------------------- TAYLOR PULBROOK, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FTD, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-02253 (N.D. Cal., March 5, 2025) is a proposed class action seeking monetary damages, restitution, and injunctive and declaratory relief from the Defendant arising from its use of deceptive addition of hidden fees which unfairly inflates the prices of floral deliveries over and above the advertised prices. According to the complaint, when consumers purchase flowers for delivery through FTD's website, FTD prominently advertises pricing that is drastically altered by the time the payment screen populates. On the payment screen consumers are surprised with surreptitiously added "Delivery Fee" to their online floral delivery. The assessment of these fees is deceptive and unfair, since, a) FTD advertised one price for floral deliveries, only to later disclose a higher, different price later in the checkout process; and b) the Fees are in actuality simply the price of ordering flowers for delivery. FTD misrepresents the actual costs of purchasing floral deliveries to consumers including Plaintiff. By unfairly obscuring its true costs, FTD deceives consumers and gains an unfair upper hand on competitors that fairly disclose their true prices and fees, the suit alleges. FTD, LLC is an online floral delivery company headquartered in Chicago, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, P.A. 1925 Century Park E, #1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com - and - Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq. KALIEL GOLD PLLC 1100 15th Street NW, 4th Floor Washington, D.C. 20005 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: jkaliel@kalielpllc.com - and - Sophia Goren Gold, Esq. KALIEL GOLD PLLC 490 43rd Street, No. 122 Oakland, CA 94609 Telephone: (202) 350-4783 E-mail: sgold@kalielgold.com GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Court Stays Fox Suit ---------------------------------------- Genworth Financial, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2025, that in March 2024, that its indirect wholly-owned subsidiary Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance company (GLAIC), was served with a putative class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the State of California, Sacramento County, captioned "James Fox, individually and on behalf of the class v. Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Co." The action was removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on April 3, 2024. On May 8, 2024, the company answered the complaint and on October 15, 2024, the court granted the motion to stay the action pending final determination of an appeal in a related case. Plaintiff, the holder of a lapsed California GLAIC life insurance policy, seeks to represent a class of current and former California GLAIC policyholders and beneficiaries whose policies were allegedly wrongfully terminated. The complaint alleges that GLAIC wrongfully terminated hundreds of California life insurance policies by failing to provide the policyholders with the notices and grace periods mandated by the contract and by the California Insurance Code as interpreted by the California Supreme Court in McHugh v. Protective Life Ins. Co. The complaint asserts causes of action for breach of contract, violation of the California Insurance Code, unfair competition and bad faith, and it seeks, inter alia, declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory damages, restitution, attorneys’ fees and costs. Genworth Holdings, Inc. (formerly known as Genworth Financial, Inc.) is a financial services company based in Richmond VA. On April 1, 2013, Genworth Holdings completed a holding company reorganization pursuant to which Genworth Holdings became a direct, 100% owned subsidiary of a new public holding company that it had formed. The new public holding company was incorporated in Delaware on December 5, 2012, in connection with the reorganization, and was renamed Genworth Financial, Inc. upon the completion of the reorganization. GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Faces Consolidated Suit in Virginia ------------------------------------------------------- Genworth Financial, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2025, that in June 2023, Genworth Financial was named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit in the United States District court for the Eastern District of Virginia captioned "Delilah King, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Genworth Financial, Inc." On October 4, 2023, the Joint Panel on Multidistrict Litigation issued an order consolidating this action before a single federal judge in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. All defendants, including the Genworth entities, filed a joint motion to dismiss the complaints on July 23, 2024. Oral argument on this motion occurred on October 9, 2024. On December 12, 2024, as relevant to Genworth, the court denied the motion. On February 4, 2025, several defendants, including the Genworth entities, filed a second motion to dismiss the complaints. The action relates to the data security events involving the "MOVEit" file transfer system which PBI Research Services, a third-party vendor, uses in the performance of its services where Genworth life insurance companies uses PBI to, among other things, satisfy applicable regulatory obligations to search various databases to identify the deaths of insured persons under life insurance policies, and to identify the deaths of long-term care insurance and annuity policies which can impact premium payment obligations and benefit eligibility. Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of Genworth long-term care insurance policyholders and agents whose data was accessed or potentially accessed by the MOVEit cybersecurity incident, alleging that Genworth breached its purported duty to safeguard their sensitive data from cybercriminals. The complaint asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, invasion of privacy, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Virginia Personal Information Breach Notification Act and the Virginia Consumer Protection Act, and it seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, restitution, attorneys' fees and costs. Genworth Holdings, Inc. (formerly known as Genworth Financial, Inc.) is a financial services company based in Richmond VA. On April 1, 2013, Genworth Holdings completed a holding company reorganization pursuant to which Genworth Holdings became a direct, 100% owned subsidiary of a new public holding company that it had formed. The new public holding company was incorporated in Delaware on December 5, 2012, in connection with the reorganization, and was renamed Genworth Financial, Inc. upon the completion of the reorganization. GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Faces Kaplan Suit over Insurance Policy ----------------------------------------------------------- Genworth Financial, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2025, that on January 17, 2025, its indirect Genworth Life Insurance Company (GLIC), and various American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) entities were named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia captioned "Sharon R. Kaplan and Richard A. Kaplan on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Genworth Life Insurance Co. et al." The complaint alleges that the Genworth and AARP defendants violated the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act by affirmatively misrepresenting and failing to adequately disclose information regarding the pricing structure and likelihood of rate increases for the "My Future My Plan 2" series of long-term care insurance policies. The complaint further alleges that the defendants breached the terms of the relevant insurance contracts by increasing premiums because of the policies’ inflation protection component and by acting unreasonably in violation of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The complaint seeks, among other things, monetary damages and civil penalties. Genworth Holdings, Inc. (formerly known as Genworth Financial, Inc.) is a financial services company based in Richmond VA. On April 1, 2013, Genworth Holdings completed a holding company reorganization pursuant to which Genworth Holdings became a direct, 100% owned subsidiary of a new public holding company that it had formed. The new public holding company was incorporated in Delaware on December 5, 2012, in connection with the reorganization, and was renamed Genworth Financial, Inc. upon the completion of the reorganization. GIVAUDAN FLAVORS: Joint Status Letter Due April 21 -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RIVERA v. GIVAUDAN FLAVORS CORPORATION, Case No. 2:23-cv-21387 (D.N.J., Filed Oct. 23, 2023), the Hon. Judge Michael E. Farbiarz entered an order that the parties shall continue to engage in pre-class certification discovery and explore settlement. -- A joint status letter is due by April 21, 2025. -- A Telephone Status Conference is scheduled for April 28, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Givaudan manufactures and sells fragrances and flavor products.[CC] GOOD DOG: Faces Rounds Suit Over Unlawful Labor Practices --------------------------------------------------------- ADA ROUNDS and SHAYLA BROOKS, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GOOD DOG BAD DOG MANAGEMENT LLC d/b/a ATLANTA CANDYLAND, a Domestic Limited Liability Company, HAROLD JOSEPH BROCKHOEFT, an individual, ANDRE SPRIGGS, an individual, and TAUHEED K. EPPS, an individual, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01250-WMR (N.D. Ga., March 7, 2025) is a class action brought by the Plaintiffs seeking from the Defendants unpaid wages, including kick-backs, liquidated damages, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Tip Income Protection Act. The essence of Plaintiffs' claims are that Defendants: (a) misclassified Plaintiffs as independent contractors rather than employees; (b) failed to pay them at least the federal minimum wage for each hour they worked; (c) failed to pay them at least one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for each hour they worked over 40 hours in a given workweek, constituting a violation of the overtime wage provisions of the FLSA; and (d) seized their tips in violation of TIPA and the FLSA. The Plaintiffs are all current or former exotic dancers who worked at Defendants' adult entertainment club, Candyland, located in Atlanta, Georgia. Good Dog Bad Dog Management LLC, d/b/a ATLANTA CANDYLAND, is an adult entertainment club in Atlanta, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jordan P. Rose, Esq. Carlos V. Leach, Esq. Jordan P. Rose, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1560 N. Orange Ave., Suite 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 423-5864 E-mail: cleach@theleachfirm.com jrose@theleachfirm.com ppalmer@theleachfirm.com - and - Michael Akemon, Esq. THE RICHARDS LAW GROUP P.O. Box 360295 Decatur, GA 30036 Telephone: (404) 289-6816 Facsimile: (404) 795-0727 E-mail: mutepe.akemon@richardslegal.com GOODRX INC: Prnrx Sues Over Illegal Price-Fixing Scheme ------------------------------------------------------- PRNRX PROFESSIONAL PHARMACY INC., on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOODRX, INC.; GOODRX HOLDINGS, INC.; CVS CAREMARK CORP.; EXPRESS SCRIPTS, INC.; MEDIMPACT HEALTHCARE SYSTEMS, INC.; and NAVITUS HEALTH SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01918 (C.D. Cal., March 5, 2025) is an antitrust class action seeking to put a stop to Defendants' illegal price-fixing scheme, which targets independent pharmacies like Plaintiff. According to the complaint, Defendants GoodRx and four leading pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs, namely Caremark, Express Scripts, MedImpact, and Navitus, -- are ostensibly competitors for pharmacy reimbursements when patients fill prescriptions for generic medications. But rather than compete, GoodRx and the PBM Defendants agreed to artificially suppress prescription drug reimbursement rates paid to independent pharmacies, and to increase fees charged to pharmacies, on all GoodRx-related transactions. This conspiracy has caused harm to independent pharmacies throughout the United States, says the suit. The Defendants' collusive agreement to fix the price of pharmacy reimbursements for generic medicine is per se illegal under the federal antitrust laws. The Defendants may not accomplish this forbidden price-fixing activity by passing their pricing information through an algorithm -- especially not an algorithm maintained and operated by a horizontal competitor, the suit alleges. GoodRx, Inc. provides drug price comparison and pharmacy information services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey A Koncius, Esq. Lisa Freeman, Esq. KIESEL LAW LLP 8648 Wilshire Boulevard Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2910 Telephone: (310) 854-4444 Facsimile: (310) 854-0812 E-mail: koncius@kiesel.law freeman@kiesel.law - and - Blaine Finley, Esq. FINLEY PLLC 1455 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 20004 Telephone: (281) 723-7904 E-mail: bfinley@finley-pllc.com GRACE THAI: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Galicia Suit Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- LUIS GALICIA , individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GRACE THAI INC. (d/b/a GRACE THAI), GRACE THAI 2 INC. (d/b/a GRACE THAI II), TUI SAENGSUWAN , and MARISSA SAENGSUWAN, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01529 (E.D.N.Y., March 19, 2025) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff Galicia was employed by Defendants from approximately September 2020 until on or about April 2022. He regularly worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate overtime compensation for any of the hours that he worked over 40 each week. Among other things, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate records of hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which he had to work over 10 hours a day. Grace Thai Inc. owns, operates and/or controls two Thai restaurants located in Elmhurst, NY and Ridgewood, NY. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 GRAND DESIGN: Auble Suit Over Defective Recreational Vehicles ------------------------------------------------------------- MATTHEW AUBLE, LEO CRITCHFIELD, MICHAEL CROTEAU, MICHAEL O'NEAL, DANIEL PEABODY, GARY PFEIFFER, and JIM RIEBER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WINNEBAGO INDUSTRIES, INC. and GRAND DESIGN RV, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00240 (S.D. Ind., March 19, 2025) seeks to stop Defendants' illegal and deceptive profiteering related to the defective recreational vehicles. Allegedly, the frame that was designed and installed on model year 2020-2023 Grand Design RVs was defective and not sufficiently capable of tolerating the weight and stress of typical RV use, diminishing the value of each RV it sold by at least tens of thousands of dollars and often rendering the RVs unusable and and/or uninhabitable. Headquartered in Middlebury, IN, Grand Design RV, LLC manufactures towable fifth wheels, toy-haulers, and travel trailers. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Suare, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: (317) 636-6481 E-mail: ltoops@cohenmalad.com - and - James Bilsborrow, Esq. Aaron Freedman, Esq. WEITZ & LUXENBERG, PC 700 Broadway New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 558-5500 E-mail: jbilsborrow@weitzlux.com afreedman@weitzlux.com GREAT LAKES: Seventh Cir. Affirms Summary Judgment in Dawson Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit entitled MEREDITH D. DAWSON, Plaintiff-Appellant v. GREAT LAKES EDUCATIONAL LOAN SERVICES, INC. and GREAT LAKES HIGHER EDUCATION CORPORATION, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 22-2189 (7th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirms the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Great Lakes. The matter was argued on Jan. 18, 2023, and decided on March 13, 2025, before Circuit Judges David F. Hamilton, Candace Jackson-Akiwumi and John Z. Lee. The appeal is from the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, Case No. 3:15-cv-00475 (Chief Judge James D. Peterson)). Plaintiff Meredith Dawson brought this class action against Great Lakes Educational Loan Services, Inc. and Great Lakes Higher Education Corporation (collectively, "Great Lakes"), alleging that Great Lakes had improperly capitalized interest on student loans after certain forbearance periods, thereby, increasing the loan balances. This, she asserts, violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), and constituted actionable negligence under Wisconsin tort law. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Great Lakes, concluding that Dawson had failed to present any evidence of a RICO violation and that Great Lakes had already redressed any damages resulting from its purportedly tortious activity. The Panel affirms. Ms. Dawson also brought a breach-of-contract claim against the United States Department of Education and RICO claims against several individual Great Lakes employees. The district court dismissed Department of Education and entered summary judgment in favor of the Great Lakes employees. Dawson has not challenged these decisions on appeal. Great Lakes is a loan servicer that provides administrative services to lenders of student loans. As part of its duties, Great Lakes places a borrower's loan in forbearance when the circumstances warrant. This suspends the borrower's obligation to make payments on the loan but does not stop interest on the loan from accruing. When Great Lakes places a loan into or out of forbearance, it notes the status change in its computer-automated loan servicing system. One of Great Lakes's customers is the United States Department of Education (DOE), which owns most of the student loans in the country. Great Lakes's contract with DOE requires it to comply with all agency regulations, including those addressing interest capitalization--the practice by which a lender adds the amount of unpaid accrued interest on a loan to the loan's principal balance. Interest capitalization increases a loan's outstanding principal, as well as the interest the borrower has to pay (which, of course, is based on the principal amount). For some time, Great Lakes's computerized loan servicing system capitalized accrued interest after certain forbearance periods for DOE-owned student loans (the parties call the forbearance periods at issue here "B-9 Forbearances"). In other words, Great Lakes rolled the unpaid interest that had accumulated before and during a B-9 Forbearance into the principal of the loan once the loan came out of forbearance. In May 2012, DOE had instructed its loan servicers, including Great Lakes, to create two new types of forbearances that did not trigger interest capitalization. This led Great Lakes to revise its capitalization rules and, in the process, cease interest capitalization after B-9 Forbearances. According to Great Lakes, these modifications were largely completed by April 2014 and finished in August 2015. Ms. Dawson had federal student loans serviced by Great Lakes that had been subject to B-9 Forbearance. Noticing the capitalization of interest after the forbearance period, she filed this lawsuit on July 31, 2015. Approximately a year later, DOE informed Great Lakes that some of its capitalization practices after B-9 Forbearance periods had violated agency regulations (although Dawson asserts that Great Lakes knew this far earlier). In January 2017, Great Lakes proposed a "remediation project" to DOE to correct these errors. Under this proposal, Great Lakes would deduct all accrued interest and any financial transactions that occurred from the date of the first erroneous capitalization. It then would recalculate the principal amount without the errors and reapply the financial transactions that it had deducted, essentially "rebuilding" the loans as though the improper capitalizations never occurred. DOE approved Great Lakes's proposal in August 2017, and Great Lakes began the project shortly thereafter. There were about 137,000 borrowers affected by Great Lakes's B-9 Forbearance capitalization errors, and Great Lakes recalculated each of their loan balances as part of its remediation efforts. Great Lakes completed the remediation project in August 2018. By the time the remediation project was finished, the district court had already certified the class as to liability, and Great Lakes moved for summary judgment. It argued, in part, that the remediation project had fully redressed any damages class members might have experienced as a result of its alleged negligence. The district court disagreed because, in its view, Great Lakes had not met its burden to prove that it had mitigated the class's damages completely. Moreover, the district court certified the class as to damages (as well as liability) based upon evidence from Dawson's expert that Great Lakes's capitalization errors had increased the class's loan balances by approximately $28.8 million. The district court, however, did grant summary judgment to Great Lakes on the RICO claims (Dawson v. Great Lakes Educ. Loan Servs., Inc., No. 15-cv-475, 2021 WL 1174726, at *20 (W.D. Wis. Mar. 29, 2021)). The case was set to proceed to trial on the negligence claims, but by then, Great Lakes had offered substantial evidence in the form of expert attestations that its remediation project had addressed whatever damages the class may have suffered due to the improper capitalization. Because Dawson did not offer any experts to contest these opinions and it was unclear how she intended to challenge this evidence at trial, the district court invited another round of summary judgment motions, this time solely on the issue of damages. The parties then filed cross-motions for summary judgment, with Great Lakes once more relying on its remediation project and Dawson arguing that the class was entitled to $6.6 million--the amount by which Dawson believed the remediation project fell short. This time, the district court agreed with Great Lakes and granted summary judgment in its favor with one exception: the court kept the claim alive for those borrowers who had overpaid by five dollars or less but were never reimbursed. Given the relatively small amount that remained at issue, the court solicited the parties' views on how to proceed. In response, Great Lakes argued that Dawson could not adequately represent the surviving borrowers as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4) because she did not fall within this group. As such, Great Lakes proposed that the court exclude these borrowers from the class. The court agreed, removed them from the class, and entered summary judgment in Great Lakes's favor. Ms. Dawson now appeals, arguing that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to Great Lakes on the negligence and RICO claims. She also challenges the class notice as well the court's handling of various case management issues throughout this litigation. The Court of Appeals reviews de novo the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Great Lakes, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Dawson and construing all reasonable inferences in her favor. The district court granted summary judgment to Great Lakes on the state law negligence claims because, it reasoned, although Dawson had provided evidence that the capitalization errors increased the class members' debt by $28.8 million, Great Lakes had provided unrebutted evidence that its remediation project removed those errors from class members' accounts. The Court of Appeals believes that the district court got it right. The court's decision hinged on its conclusion that Great Lakes could not have foreseen at the time of the alleged negligence that it would have to apply DOE's new capitalization rules when it remediated the loans. And, while Dawson does not contest this conclusion, the Panel's own review of the record confirms the district court's determination. The Panel finds that Dawson fails to demonstrate that the balance increases undermine Great Lakes's remedial efforts. Ms. Dawson also brought RICO claims under 18 U.S.C. Section 1964(c), alleging violations of 18 U.S.C. Section 1962(c) based on the same loan servicing errors that formed the basis of the negligence claims. The district court granted summary judgment to Great Lakes as to these claims, concluding that Dawson had not presented any facts from which a reasonable jury could find a RICO violation. The Panel finds that the typical corporate structure, where a wholly-owned subsidiary acts on behalf of and for the benefit of its parent company, is insufficient to support RICO liability. Accordingly, summary judgment in favor of Great Lakes on the RICO claims was proper. Ms. Dawson's remaining arguments focus on the district court's management of this case. As Dawson sees it, the district court approved a class notice that violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c), as well as the class members' due process rights. Her argument (though not entirely clear) appears to take aim at the notice's failure to expressly discuss the remediation project. The Panel finds that Dawson's objections to the notice are unpersuasive. The Panel also finds that Dawson has not pointed to a single instance where the district court abused its discretion. Although Dawson provides other instances of the district court's supposed abuses, the Panel finds her arguments are meritless. The Panel points out that its review of this long, complicated lawsuit reveals a district court that was fair and measured to both sides. This was true even when the court was forced, on multiple occasions, to entreat both parties to comply with the court's rules, support their legal arguments with relevant authority, and avoid "inflammatory language." For these reasons, the Court of Appeals affirms. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3f69n4aj from PacerMonitor.com. HEALTHCARE REVENUE: Santos Can Seal Renewed Class Cert Bid ---------------------------------------------------------- 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 the Plaintiff's unopposed motion to seal renewed motion for class certification and exhibits. The Court cautions the parties that material designated confidential pursuant to the Stipulated Protective Order does not automatically render the material sufficient to be filed under seal pursuant to Local Rule 5.4(b). Indeed, Local Rule 5.4(b) requires a party seeking to file information or documents under seal to set forth "the factual and legal basis for departing from the policy that Court filings are public" and describe "with as much particularity as possible" the information or documents to be sealed. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Healthcare Revenue provides collection services to health care sector.[CC] HEARST TELEVISION: Bid to Certify Class in Saunders Suit Tossed --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Saunders et al v. Hearst Television, Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-10998 (D. Mass., May 5, 2023), the Hon. Judge Richard G. Stearns entered an order: -- denying motion to certify class; and -- denying motion for discovery. Mr. Therrien's renewed motion for class certification and to reopen discovery denied without prejudice to be renewed after the court's ruling on the motion for summary judgment. The clerk will schedule a hearing on the motion for summary judgment for the second or third week of April. Hearst Television is a broadcasting company in the United States owned by Hearst Communications, made up of a group of television and radio stations, and the Hearst Media Production Group, a distributor of programming in broadcast syndication.[CC] HERC RENTAL: Class Cert Bid Filing in Ramirez Due March 20, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAMIREZ, v. HERC Rental, Inc., Case No. 4:24-cv-04160-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered a case management and pretrial scheduling order Non-expert discovery cutoff: Dec. 19, 2025 Disclosure of expert reports: all experts, retained and non-retained, must provide written reports compliant with FRCP 26(a)(2)(b) Opening: Jan. 30, 2026 Rebuttal: Feb. 20, 2026 Expert discovery cutoff: March 6, 2026 Class certification motion to be March 20, 2026 filed by: Herc offers aerial, compaction and paving, pumping, climate control, earthmoving, and power generation equipment on rental basis. A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gMKE7G at no extra charge.[CC] HONDA MOTOR: Class Cert Bid Filing in Spencer Extended to Sept. 30 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Spencer v. Honda Motor Corp., Ltd., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00988 (E.D. Cal., Filed June 2, 2021), the Hon. Judge Troy L. Nunley entered extending the deadline for the Plaintiff to file his motion for class certification to Sept. 30, 2025. The nature of suit states contract product liability. Honda is a Japanese multinational conglomerate automotive manufacturer.[CC] HWAREH.COM INC: Court Narrows Claims in Zarif Suit -------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHAHNAZ ZARIF, v. HWAREH.COM, INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00565-BAS-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Cynthia Bashant entered an order granting in part and denying in part motion to dismiss. The Court denies Defendant's motion to dismiss this action for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2). In addition, the Court grants in part Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims for lack of plausibility under Rule 12(b)(6). Specifically, the Court: 1. Grants the request to dismiss Plaintiff's first claim for violation of the Wiretap Act with leave to amend. 2. Denies the request to dismiss Plaintiff's second claim for violation of California's Invasion of Privacy Act, California Penal Code section 631. 3. Grants the request to dismiss Plaintiff's third claim for violation of California's Confidentiality of Medical Information Act with leave to amend. 4. Grants the request to dismiss Plaintiff's fourth claim for violation of the California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 with leave to amend. 5. Grants the request to dismiss Plaintiff's fifth claim for violation of California's Computer Data Access and Fraud Act. 6. Denies the request to dismiss Plaintiff's sixth claim for violation of California's Invasion of Privacy Act, California Penal Code section 638.51. If Plaintiff wishes to file a Fourth Amended Complaint, she must do so no later than March 5, 2025. The Plaintiff may not add any new claims or parties without leave of court. The Defendant shall respond to any amended pleading no later than March 19, 2025. Should the Plaintiff decide not to amend, the Defendant shall file its answer to the Third Amended Complaint no later than March 19, 2025. The Plaintiff Shahnaz Zarif brings this putative class action arising out of her use of Defendant’s online pharmacy, which markets and ships medications to California. She alleges Defendant surreptitiously captured sensitive information without her consent. In March 2023, the Plaintiff visited HealthWarehouse.com to search for "prescription medications for herself, her infant, and her elderly father." Hwareh.com is licensed as a non-resident pharmacy in California. The pharmacy markets "physical products to California residents via its website"- HealthWarehouse.com—and sells "physical products including prescription drugs and other health care items on its website." A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eMUToi at no extra charge.[CC] INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL: Continues to Defend Giraudon Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Innovative Industrial Properties Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2025, that the Company continues to defend the Giraudon securities class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. On January 17, 2025, a second federal securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers. The case was named Alain Giraudon, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc., Alan D. Gold, Paul E. Smithers, David Smith and Ben Regin, Case No. 1:25-cv-00182-RDB, and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The lawsuit was purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of its common stock and alleges that the Company and certain of its officers made false or misleading statements regarding its business in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, SEC Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. According to the filed complaint, the plaintiff is seeking an undetermined amount of damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs and other relief on behalf of the putative classes of all persons who acquired shares of the Company's common stock between February 27, 2024 and December 19, 2024. It is possible that similar lawsuits may yet be filed in the same or other courts that name the same or additional defendants. The Company intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. is an internally-managed real estate investment trust focused on the acquisition, ownership and management of specialized industrial properties leased to experienced, state-licensed operators for their regulated cannabis facilities. INNOVATIVE INDUSTRIAL: Continues to Defend Mallozzi Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Innovative Industrial Properties Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 21, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Mallozzi securities class suit in the United States District Court for the District of New York. On April 25, 2022, a federal securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its officers. The case was named Michael V. Mallozzi, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc., Paul Smithers, Catherine Hastings and Andy Bui, Case No. 2-22-cv-02359, and was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The lawsuit was purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of its common stock and alleges that the Company and certain of its officers made false or misleading statements regarding its business in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), SEC Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. According to the filed complaint, the plaintiff is seeking an undetermined amount of damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs and other relief on behalf of the putative classes of all persons who acquired shares of the Company's common stock between May 7, 2020 and April 13, 2022. On September 29, 2022, an Amended Class Action Complaint was filed under the same Case Number, adding as defendants Alan D. Gold and Benjamin C. Regin, and asserting causes of action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the Amended Class Action Complaint, the plaintiff is seeking an undetermined amount of damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs and other relief on behalf of the putative classes of all persons who acquired shares of the Company's common stock between August 7, 2020 and August 4, 2022. On December 1, 2022, defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint. On September 19, 2023, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Class Action Complaint without prejudice. On October 19, 2023, a Second Amended Class Action Complaint was filed under the same Case Number, and asserted causes of action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the Second Amended Class Action Complaint, the plaintiff is seeking an undetermined amount of damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs and other relief on behalf of the putative classes of all persons who acquired shares of the Company's common stock between August 7, 2020 and August 4, 2022. On December 18, 2023, defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint; on February 1, 2024, plaintiff responded with their opposition to defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint; and on March 1, 2024, defendants replied to plaintiff's response. On September 25, 2024, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint with prejudice. On September 30, 2024, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the court's dismissal of the Second Amended Class Action Complaint with prejudice. On December 9, 2024, plaintiff filed their opening appellate brief with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On January 23, 2025, defendants filed their appellate brief. It is possible that similar lawsuits may yet be filed in the same or other courts that name the same or additional defendants. It intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously. Innovative Industrial Properties, Inc. is an internally-managed real estate investment trust focused on the acquisition, ownership and management of specialized industrial properties leased to experienced, state-licensed operators for their regulated cannabis facilities. INOTIV INC: Plaintiffs Lose Bid for Class Certification ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Re Inotiv Inc Securities Litigation, Case No. 4:22-cv-00045-PPS-JEM (N.D. Ind.), the Hon. Judge Philip Simon entered an order: -- denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and appointment of Class Representative and Class Counsel, and -- granting the Plaintiff leave to re-file the motion following the stay. Inotiv provides nonclinical and analytical drug discovery and development services, research models and related products and services. A copy of the Court's order dated March 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vg8erc at no extra charge.[CC] INTAKE DESK: Teman Sues Over Unsolicited Telemarketing Calls ------------------------------------------------------------ EMILY TEMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. INTAKE DESK LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-10647 (D. Mass., March 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant is engaged in a practice of calling the telephone numbers of consumers, including the Plaintiff, in an attempt to promote its products and services without prior express written consent. The Plaintiff's telephone number has been listed on the National Do Not Call Registry since August of 2003, but she still received a lot of telemarketing calls from the Defendant over several months in 2023. As a result of the Defendant's conduct, the Plaintiff and Class members were harmed, says the suit. Intake Desk LLC is a limited liability company doing business in Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, PC 350 Lincoln Street, Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Telephone: (617) 485-0018 Facsimile: (508) 318-8100 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com INTEGRITY FARM: Venegas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against INTEGRITY FARM LABOR, INC. The case is styled as Hector Venegas, on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INTEGRITY FARM LABOR, INC., Case No. BCV-25-100962 (Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., March 17, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited." 3rd Street Youth Center & Clinic -- https://3rdstyouth.org/ -- offers primary, physical and sexual health care for youth, ages 12 to 27.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Allen V. Feghali, Esq. Kane Moon, Esq. Mariam Ghazaryan, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 725 South Figueroa St., 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-232-3128 Fax: 213-232-3125 Email: afeghali@moonlawgroup.com kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com JAGUAR LAND: Court Denies Bid to Dismiss Warranty Claims in Joyce ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the case Sharon Joyce, et al. v. Jaguar Land Rover North America, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-04281 (D.N.J.), Judge Michael E. Farbiarz of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey issued an opinion and order denying in part Jaguar Land Rover's motion to dismiss warranty-related claims. Plaintiffs, a group of Jaguar I-Pace owners, filed a putative class action lawsuit against Jaguar Land Rover, alleging that their vehicles suffered from battery system defects that caused performance issues, including failure to start. They claimed that Jaguar Land Rover was aware of the defect but failed to provide an adequate fix, violating state and federal warranty laws. According to the Second Amended Complaint, Jaguar Land Rover attempted to address the issue through a software update, which plaintiffs argue did not fully resolve the battery failures. Plaintiffs asserted that they overpaid for their vehicles due to the defect and that Jaguar Land Rover failed to honor its warranty obligations. Judge Farbiarz reviewed the motion to dismiss and ruled as follows: 1. Plaintiffs have standing to sue under a "benefit-of-the-bargain" theory. The court found that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that the defect diminished the value of their vehicles, constituting economic harm under Article III standing requirements. 2. Claims under state and federal warranty laws were upheld. The court denied the motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and relevant California and Texas warranty statutes, ruling that Jaguar Land Rover’s alleged failure to honor its warranty could proceed as a legal claim. 3. The court rejected the argument that warranty claims were preempted by federal law. Jaguar Land Rover contended that the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act) preempted plaintiffs’ claims. However, the court ruled against preemption, citing a savings clause in the Safety Act that explicitly preserves state warranty claims. 4. Texas law notice requirement was satisfied. The court rejected the argument that plaintiffs failed to provide proper pre-suit notice under Texas law, stating that the repeated repair attempts and direct requests to Jaguar Land Rover were sufficient notification. Prudential mootness was not applied. The court declined to dismiss the case based on Jaguar Land Rover's voluntary buyback program for certain models, ruling that further factual development was necessary. With the motion to dismiss denied in part, the Court has ordered the parties to meet and confer on a case schedule. The parties must file a proposed scheduling order within 30 days, outlining the next procedural steps in the litigation. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/42aepd54 from PacerMonitor.com. JERNIGAN CAPITAL: $12MM Class Settlement to be Heard on May 29 -------------------------------------------------------------- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP issued a statement regarding the Jernigan Securities Litigation: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In re JERNIGAN CAPITAL, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION Master File No. 1:20-cv-09575-JLR-KHP This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS. CLASS ACTION SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY AND PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION TO: ALL HOLDERS OF JERNIGAN CAPITAL, INC. ("JERNIGAN" OR THE "COMPANY") COMMON STOCK AS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2020, THE RECORD DATE FOR ELIGIBILITY TO VOTE ON THE GOING-PRIVATE TRANSACTION WHEREBY AFFILIATES OF NEXPOINT ADVISORS, L.P. ACQUIRED JERNIGAN'S OUTSTANDING PUBLICLY TRADED COMMON STOCK FOR $17.30 PER SHARE IN CASH (THE "TRANSACTION"), WHOSE SHARES WERE SOLD FOR $17.30 IN THE TRANSACTION (THE "CLASS") THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE COURT. IT IS NOT JUNK MAIL, AN ADVERTISEMENT, OR SOLICITATION FROM A LAWYER. PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY. YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY PROCEEDINGS IN THE LITIGATION. PLEASE NOTE THAT IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE PROCEEDS OF THE SETTLEMENT DESCRIBED IN THIS NOTICE. TO CLAIM YOUR SHARE OF THE SETTLEMENT PROCEEDS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A VALID PROOF OF CLAIM AND RELEASE FORM ("PROOF OF CLAIM") POSTMARKED OR SUBMITTED ONLINE ON OR BEFORE JUNE 10, 2025. YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a hearing will be held on May 29, 2025, at 1:00 p.m. ET, before the Honorable Jennifer L. Rochon, at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007-1312, to determine whether: (1) the proposed settlement (the "Settlement") of the above-captioned action, as set forth in the Stipulation of Settlement ("Stipulation"), for $12,000,000 in cash should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) the Judgment as provided under the Stipulation should be entered with prejudice; (3) to award Lead Counsel attorneys' fees and expenses out of the Settlement Fund (as defined in the Notice of Pendency and Proposed Settlement of Class Action ("Notice"), which is discussed below), and, if so, in what amounts; (4) to award Lead Plaintiff for representing the Class out of the Settlement Fund and, if so, in what amount; and (5) the Plan of Allocation should be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate. IF YOU HELD JERNIGAN COMMON STOCK ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2020, THE RECORD DATE FOR ELIGIBILITY TO VOTE ON THE TRANSACTION, AND SOLD SHARES IN THE TRANSACTION, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LITIGATION, INCLUDING THE RELEASE AND EXTINGUISHMENT OF CLAIMS YOU MAY POSSESS RELATING TO YOUR HOLDINGS OF JERNIGAN COMMON STOCK. To share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must establish your rights by submitting a Proof of Claim by mail (postmarked no later than June 10, 2025) or electronically via the website (no later than June 10, 2025). Failure to submit your Proof of Claim by June 10, 2025, will subject your claim to rejection and preclude you from receiving any of the recovery in connection with the Settlement. If you are a member of the Class and do not request exclusion therefrom as instructed, you will be bound by the Settlement and any judgment and releases entered in the Action, including, but not limited to, the Judgment, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim. If you have not received a copy of the Notice, which more completely describes the Settlement and your rights thereunder (including your right to object to the Settlement), and a Proof of Claim, you may obtain these documents, as well as a copy of the Stipulation (which, among other things, contains definitions for the defined terms used in this Summary Notice) and other settlement documents, online at www.JerniganSecuritiesSettlement.com, or by writing to or calling: Jernigan Securities Settlement Claims Administrator c/o Verita Global P.O. Box 301135 Los Angeles, CA 90030-1135 Telephone: 1-833-419-4863 Inquiries should NOT be directed to Defendants, the Court, or the Clerk of the Court. Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice or for a Proof of Claim, may be made to Lead Counsel: ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP Ellen Gusikoff Stewart 655 West Broadway Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: 1-800-449-4900 settlementinfo@rgrdlaw.com IF YOU DESIRE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE CLASS, YOU MUST SUBMIT A REQUEST FOR EXCLUSION SUCH THAT IT IS POSTMARKED BY MAY 8, 2025, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. ALL MEMBERS OF THE CLASS WHO HAVE NOT REQUESTED EXCLUSION FROM THE CLASS WILL BE BOUND BY THE SETTLEMENT EVEN IF THEY DO NOT SUBMIT A TIMELY PROOF OF CLAIM. IF YOU ARE A CLASS MEMBER, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT, THE PLAN OF ALLOCATION, AND THE REQUEST BY LEAD COUNSEL FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND EXPENSES, AND/OR THE AWARD TO LEAD PLAINTIFF FOR REPRESENTING THE CLASS. ANY OBJECTIONS MUST BE FILED WITH THE COURT AND SENT TO LEAD COUNSEL AND DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL BY MAY 8, 2025, IN THE MANNER AND FORM EXPLAINED IN THE NOTICE. DATED: February 19, 2025 BY ORDER OF THE COURT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK JM FAMILY: Faces Rivera Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------ CARMEN MARIBEL RIVERA, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JM FAMILY CHILD DAY CARE LLC (d/b/a JM FAMILY CARE), and JOSE MARTE, Case No. 1:25-cv-01930 (S.D.N.Y., March 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law and overtime wage order respectively codified at N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs., including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiff Rivera worked for the Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without receiving the applicable minimum wage or appropriate compensation for the hours over 40 per week that she worked. Rather, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of her hours worked, failed to pay her the applicable minimum wage, and failed to pay her appropriately for any hours worked over 40, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff Rivera the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which Plaintiff Rivera had to work over 10 hours a day, the suit alleges. Plaintiff Rivera was employed by Defendants as a day care worker from approximately 2018 until on or about December 9, 2024. JM Family Care is a child day care center owned by Jose Marte which is located in Bronx, New York.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace Esq. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 JOHNSON HEALTH: Soto Sues Over Defective Training Cycles -------------------------------------------------------- Raymond Soto, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Johnson Health Tech North America Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01240 (E.D. Pa., March 7, 2025) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff seeking to remedy various violations of law in connection with Defendant's manufacturing, marketing, advertising, selling, warranting, and servicing of the training cycles. According to the complaint, the Class Cycles' adjustable seat can unexpectedly lower while in use, posing a fall hazard to the rider. The Defendant purports, through its advertising, labeling, marketing, and packaging, to create an express warranty that the Class Cycles are safe for their intended use. The Defendant breached express warranties about the Class Cycles and their qualities because the Class Cycles contained defects rendering them unsafe for their intended use, says the suit. In 2023, the Plaintiff purchased his CXP-03 model Matrix Cycle in Chicago, Illinois. On January 30, 2025, Defendant recalled the Class Cycles. In total, this Recall included over 12,885 cycles produced by Defendant. Johnson Health Tech North America Inc.designs, manufactures, markets, distributes, services, repairs, and sells training cycles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Stuart A. Carpey, Esq. CARPEY LAW, P.C. 600 W. Germantown Pike, Suite 400 Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 Telephone: (610) 834-6030 Facsimile: (610) 825-7579 E-mail: scarpey@carpeylaw.com KRAFT HEINZ: Philbrook Sues Over Potato Product Price-Fixing ------------------------------------------------------------ KERRY PHILBROOK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE KRAFT HEINZ CO.; LAMB WESTON HOLDINGS, INC.; LAMB WESTON, INC.; LAMB WESTON BSW, LLC; LAMB WESTON/MIDWEST, INC.; LAMB WESTON SALES, INC.; MCCAIN FOODS LIMITED; MCCAIN FOODS USA, INC.; J.R. SIMPLOT CO.; CAVENDISH FARMS LTD; and CAVENDISH FARMS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-02331 (N.D. Ill., March 5, 2025) is an action on behalf of the Plaintiff and in a representative capacity on behalf of a Class of indirect purchasers of Frozen Potato Products for end use and not for resale as frozen products under Section 1 of the Antitrust Act of 1890 and Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Antitrust Act, as well as State antitrust and trade regulation statutes, and common law unjust enrichment. The case is brought against the Defendants for their conspiracy to fix prices of for frozen french fries, hash browns, tater tots, and other frozen potato products ("Frozen Potato Products") in the United States from at least as early as January 1, 2021, through the date by which the anticompetitive effects of their violations of law shall have ceased, but in any case no earlier than the present. According to the complaint, the Defendants abused their collective market power by conspiring to and actually overcharging the End Payer Class for their Frozen Potato Products, unjustly enriching themselves at the expense of members of the End Payer Class. The Defendants were able to successfully implement lockstep price increases and collusively increase prices because the industry is structurally susceptible to collusion, says the suit. The Plaintiff and members of the End Payer Class whom she seeks to represent overpaid for Frozen Potato Products by reason of Defendants' price fixing conspiracy. The Kraft Heinz Co. is an American multinational food company formed by the merger of Kraft Foods Group, Inc. and the H.J. Heinz Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Vincent Briganti, Esq. Sitso Bediako, Esq. Peter A. Barile III, Esq. Nicole Veno, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (914) 997-0500 Facsimile: (914) 997-0035 E-mail: vbriganti@lowey.com sbediako@lowey.com pbarile@lowey.com nveno@lowey.com - and - Robert J. Bonsignore, Esq. BONSIGNORE TRIAL LAWYERS PLLC 23 Forest Street Medford, MA 02155 Telephone: (781) 856-7650 E-mail: rbonsignore@classactions.us KRISTI NOEM: Bid for Preliminary Injunction Continued to April 28 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as United Farm Workers, et al v. Kristi Noem, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00246 (E.D. Cal., Filed Feb. 26, 2025), the Hon. Judge Jennifer L. Thurston entered an order that motion for preliminary injunction currently set for April 11, 2025, has been continued to April 28, 2025. The nature of suit states Civil Rights.[CC] L & W SUPPLY: Chenevert Suit Removed to C.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kaliph Chenevert, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, and as an aggrieved employee pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA") v. L & W SUPPLY CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; AMERICAN BUILDERS & CONTRACTORS SUPPLY CO., INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2501423 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on March 17, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-00709. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts twelve causes of action for: Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Unpaid Overtime; Unpaid Minimum Wages; Non-Compliant Wage Statements and Failure to Maintain Payroll Records; Wages Not Timely Paid Upon Termination; Failure to Timely Pay Wages During Employment; Failure to Provide Reporting Time Pay; Unreimbursed Business Expenses; Claim for Civil Penalties for Violations of California Labor Code, pursuant to PAGA; Unlawful Business Practices; and Unlawful Business Practices.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Alexander M. Chemers, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: 213-239-9800 Facsimile: 213-239-9045 Email: zander.chemers@ogletree.com LA CARRETA: Property Has Architectural Barriers, Pardo Says ----------------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LA CARRETA ENTERPRISES RE HOLDINGS LLC and LA CARRETA ENTERPRISES INC. d/b/a LA CARRETA RESTAURANT, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-21072 (S.D. Fla., March 7, 2025) is an action for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff Pardo is an individual with disabilities as defined by and pursuant to the ADA and uses a wheelchair to ambulate. He often visits the commercial property and businesses located within the commercial property in order to avail himself of the goods and services offered there. The Plaintiff found the commercial property and commercial restaurant business located within the commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the commercial property and commercial restaurant business located within the commercial property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises. The complaint alleges that 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. La Carreta Enterprises Re Holdings LLC owns and operates the commercial property located in Doral, Florida.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez. Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 E-mail: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com LEAD DOG: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response in Slendak ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Russell Andrew Slendak, individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, v. Lead Dog Pizza, Inc. and John W. Eckburg, Case No. 3:24-cv-03988-MGL (D.S.C.), the Defendants ask the court to enter an order granting them a 12-day extension of time to respond to the Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify a class action. The Defendants request that the Court grant their Motion and allow Defendants up to and through March 31, 2025 to respond to Plaintiffs' Motion to Conditionally Certify a Collective Action and Facilitate Notice under 29 U.S.C. section 216(B). The action involves allegations that Defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), as well as an attempt of class certification relating to the FLSA claim. On March 5, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Conditionally Certify a Collective Action and Facilitate Notice under 29 U.S.C., requesting that the Court grant conditional certification of the collective action and authorize initial and subsequent Court-supervised Notices to all current and former pizza delivery drivers employed by Defendants. Lead Dog is a franchise with Domino's Pizza. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QljvEw at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Hannah D. Stetson, Esq. Reginald W. Belcher, Esq. TURNER PADGET GRAHAM & LANEY, PA Columbia, SC 29202 Telephone: (803) 254-2200 E-mail: hstetson@turnerpadget.com rbelcher@turnerpadget.com LEAFFILTER NORTH: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against LeafFilter North, LLC. The case is styled as Chet Michael Wilson, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. B LeafFilter North, LLC., Case No. 5:25-cv-00522-JRA (N.D. Ohio, March 17, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. LeafFilter provides gutter replacement, cleaning, and repairs in addition to installing gutter guards.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian T. Giles, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN T. GILES 1470 Apple Hill Road Cincinnati, OH 45230 Phone: (513) 379-2715 Email: Brian@gileslenox.com LEGACY PROFESSIONALS: Starns Balks at Unprotected Personal Info --------------------------------------------------------------- KRISTIN STARNS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEGACY PROFESSIONALS LLP, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02476 (N.D. Ill., March 7, 2025) arises 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. This class action arises out of a 2024 data breach of documents and information stored on the computer network of Legacy, a third-party company handling employee benefits such as insurance plans. As a result of Legacy's 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. Through this Complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of themself and all similarly situated individuals whose private information was accessed during the data breach. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief, seeking redress for Legacy's unlawful conduct. Legacy Professionals LLP is a full-service accounting firm with principal place of business in Westchester, Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary E. Mason, Esq. Danielle L. Perry, Esq. Lisa A. White, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: gmason@masonllp.com dperry@masonllp.com lwhite@masonllp.com LEMME INC: Robins Balks at GLP-1 Daily Supplements' False Ads ------------------------------------------------------------- CHRISTINA ROBINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEMME INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01938 (S.D.N.Y., March 9, 2025) alleges that Defendant misleadingly, inaccurately, and deceptively advertises and markets Lemme GLP-1 Daily supplement brand to consumers, including Plaintiff, in violation of the New York General Business Law. On their website lemmelive.com, the Defendant markets and sells "Lemme GLP-1 Daily" capsules. The advertisements falsely claim that supplementing naturally occurring GLP-1 using Lemme GLP-1 Daily reduces hunger and causes weight loss. To the contrary, the studies show that after taking Eriomin for four months, participants failed to show any decrease in body weight, body-mass index, or waist/hip ratio. The Defendant's misleading claims about Lemme GLP-1 Daily are not just on their website. On Lemme's Instagram page, Lemme cofounder Scott Huck claims that increasing natural GLP-1 with Lemme GLP-1 Daily promotes fat loss + reduces hunger, the suit alleges. By falsely advertising that consumers purchasing Lemme GLP-1 Daily will see hunger and weight loss benefits from the supplement's alleged increase in GLP-1 levels, the Defendant has allegedly violated the state law, the suit asserts. Lemme Inc. is an e-commerce platform that sells and delivers supplements, capsules, and tinctures.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas D. Warren, Esq. Dan Terzian, Esq. WARREN TERZIAN LLP 222 N Pacific Coast Hwy, Ste 2000 Los Angeles, CA 90245-5614 Telephone: (213) 410-2620 E-mail: tom.warren@warrenterzian.com dan.terzian@warrenterzian.com LENNAR HOMES: Heymann Suit Removed to M.D. Florida -------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Brian Heymann and Steve Swchwartz, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. LENNAR HOMES, LLC, LEN-CG SOUTH, LLC, LEN OT HOLDINGS, LLC, and LENNAR CORPORATION, was removed from the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit, in and for Osceola County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on March 17, 2025, and assigned Case No. 6:25-cv-00466. The Plaintiffs sue Defendants for Injunctive Relief – Prohibiting Future Profit from Club Membership Fee (Count I), Equitable Relief and Damages (Count II), and violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA") (Count III). Plaintiffs also seek recovery of reasonable attorney's fees and costs.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: D. Matthew Allen, Esq. Alicia Whiting Bozich, Esq. Kevin P. McCoy, Esq. CARLTON FIELDS, P.A. 4221 W. Boy Scout Blvd., Suite 1000 Tampa, FL 33607-5780 Phone: (813) 223-7000 Fax: (813) 229-4133 Email: awhiting@carltonfields.com sdupre@carltonfields.com mallen@carltonfields.com kmccoy@carltonfields.com bwoolard@carltonfields.com nihorak@carltonfields.com zishmail@carltonfields.com LHNH LAVISTA: Has 30 Days to Complete Document Production --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEXANDER LANZ, et al., v. LHNH LAVISTA LLC, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-05344-LMM (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Leigh Martin May entered an order giving the Defendants 30 days from the entry of the Order to complete their document production. The Court also extended the Plaintiffs' deadline to move for class certification 45 days. The Defendants have since kept Plaintiffs and the Court apprised of their progress in completing their document production. The Plaintiffs are, therefore, agreeable to one final extension of Defendants' deadlines. The Plaintiffs have communicated to the Defendants that they will not consent to any further extensions. In consideration of the same, and pursuant to an agreement reached by the parties and believing good cause exists, the Court hereby amends the deadlines set forth in the March 10, 2025, Order as follows: A copy of the Court's order dated March 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CRTEvE at no extra charge.[CC] LINCARE INC: Court Certifies Two Classes in Morris TCPA & FTSA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case, JANET MORRIS, Plaintiff, v. LINCARE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 8:22-cv-2048-CEH-AAS (M.D. Fla.), Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted Morris' motion for class certification. The case involves allegations that Lincare violated consumer protection laws by making unsolicited robocalls to individuals without prior consent. Janet Morris, acting on behalf of herself and similarly affected individuals, filed a lawsuit under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the Florida Telephone Solicitations Act (FTSA). She alleged that Lincare, Inc. placed prerecorded sales calls to consumers without obtaining their express written consent. According to Morris, she began receiving these calls in September 2020, despite never providing the company with her phone number or consent to be contacted. She further asserted that the calls were marketing solicitations aimed at promoting Lincare's products and services rather than healthcare-related communications. Lincare opposed class certification, arguing that individual consent issues made the case unsuitable for a class action. The company claimed that some consumers may have consented to these calls through agreements with American HomePatient, Inc., a company later acquired by Lincare. Despite this defense, the court ruled that Morris had sufficiently demonstrated that common issues of law and fact predominated, making class certification appropriate. On February 25, 2025, the court ruled in favor of Morris, granting her motion for class certification. The court determined that: i. Morris met the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, establishing that the case should proceed as a class action. ii. Common legal and factual issues outweighed individual differences, making class certification appropriate. iii. Lincare's argument regarding prior consent was insufficient, as Morris presented evidence that a large number of affected individuals never provided explicit permission for the calls. Appellate Decision The Court formally recognized two classes in the case, allowing the lawsuit to proceed as a class action: TCPA Class: All persons within the United States whose cellular telephone number was provided to Defendant by American HomePatient, Inc., and who, within the four years prior to the filing of this lawsuit, received one or more prerecorded voice calls, on their cellular telephone, requesting a return call to Defendant. FTSA Class: All persons with a Florida area code whose cellular telephone number was provided to Defendant by American HomePatient, Inc., and who, since July 1, 2021 through the filing of this lawsuit, received one or more prerecorded calls, on their cellular telephone, requesting a return call to Defendant. The Court approved Janet Morris as the Class Representative and her counsel, Manuel S. Hiraldo and the law firm of Hiraldo, P.A., as the Class Counsel. As part of this ruling, the parties are directed to confer on a class notice plan and issues that may arise associated with the administration of the class, including the form and content of the notice and the establishment of an opt-out period and procedure. They shall advise the Court of these efforts and whether there are issues that require the Court's resolution. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/6wxshpuu from PacerMonitor.com. LOCKHEED MARTIN: Fezer et al. Sue Over Alleged ERISA Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- KARL FEZER, VU-TIMOTHY NGUYEN, JOHN HOLMES, STEVEN KAY, STEWART SIMON MILLION-PEREZ, DANIEL ESCAMILLA, individually, and as representatives of a class of participants in and beneficiaries of the Lockheed Martin Corporation Salaried Savings Plan, the Lockheed Martin Corporation Performance Sharing Plan for Bargaining Employees, and the Lockheed Martin Corporation Capital Accumulation Plan, and derivatively for those Plans, Plaintiffs v. LOCKHEED MARTIN CORPORATION and LOCKHEED MARTIN INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Case No. 8:25-cv-00908-GLS (D. Md., March 19, 2025) alleges violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. As the 401(k) plans' sponsor, Lockheed has obligations to the participants and beneficiaries of its ERISA plans. Prudent selection of the funds that serve as investment options, based solely on the interests of participants and beneficiaries, is a critical duty of 401(k) plan fiduciaries. However, rather than relying on independent investment professionals to fulfill these obligations, Defendants Lockheed and its wholly-owned-subsidiary Lockheed Martin Investment Management Company chose a "DIY" approach. The Defendants thus violated their fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty to more than 140,000 beneficiaries of their 401(k) retirement plans. They did so by selecting and maintaining LMIMCo as the 401(k) plans manager, and by selecting, maintaining, and offering LMIMCo's own chronically under-performing, high-cost TDFs as investment options in their 401(k) plans, says the suit. Lockheed Martin is a defense and aerospace manufacturer headquartered in Bethesda, MD. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Cyril V. Smith, Esq. Aaron S.J. Zelinsky, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER 100 East Pratt Street, Suite 2440 Baltimore, MD 21202-1009 Telephone: (410) 949-1145 E-mail: csmith@zuckerman.com azelinsky@zuckerman.com - and - Jason S. Cowart, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER 485 Madison Avenue, 19th Floor New York, NY 10022-5862 Telephone: (646) 746-8840 E-mail: JCowart@zuckerman.com - and - Christopher R. MacColl, Esq. ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER 2100 L Street, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20037-1525 Telephone: (202) 778-1849 E-mail: CMacColl@zuckerman.com - and - Don Bivens, Esq. Teresita T. Mercado, Esq. DON BIVENS PLLC 15169 N Scottsdale Rd Suite 205 Scottsdale, AZ 85254 Telephone: (602) 762 2661 E-mail: Don@donbivens.com Teresita@donbivens.com LOYA CASUALTY: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by April 18 ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE MARROQUIN and JUAN GONZALEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LOYA CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 5:23-cv-00927-SPG-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sherilyn Garnett entered an order granting joint stipulation to amend scheduling order regarding deadline for opposition and reply for motion for class certification and hearing date as follows: 1. The deadline for Defendant to file its opposition to the motion for class certification shall be April 18, 2025; 2. The deadline for the Plaintiff to file its Reply in support of the motion for class certification shall be May 9, 2025; 3. The hearing on the Motion for Class Certification and Joint Motion for Summary Judgment shall be continued to May 21, 2025, at 1:30 p.m.; and The Defendant sells insurance. A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YagD4u at no extra charge.[CC] M JEWELERS: Sperber Sues Over Deceptive "Sale" Prices ----------------------------------------------------- Ryan Sperber, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. The M Jewelers, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-02029 (C.D. Cal., March 7, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for breach of contract, breach of express warranty, quasi-contract/unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation, and violations of the California's False Advertising Law, Consumer Legal Remedies Act, and Unfair Competition Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant lists purported regular prices and advertises purported limited time sales offering steep discounts from those listed regular prices, for example "50% OFF." The Defendant uses countdown clocks to represent that its sales are limited-time and on the verge of ending. Far from being time-limited, however, steep sitewide discounts on Defendant's products are always available, says the complaint. As a result, everything about Defendant's price and purported discount advertising is false. The list prices Defendant advertises are not actually Defendant's regular prices, because Defendant's products are always available for less than that. The purported discounts Defendant advertises are not the true discount the customer is receiving, and are often not a discount at all. Nor are the purported discounts limited time -- quite the opposite, they are always available, says the suit. The Plaintiff brings this case for herself and the other customers who purchased The M Jewelers Products. The M Jewelers, Inc. manufactures, distributes, markets, and sells jewelry and accessories. The M Jewelers sells its products directly to consumers online, through its website, TheMJewelersNY.com, and in a handful of brick and-mortar stores.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Simon Franzini, Esq. Christin Cho, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: simon@dovel.com christin@dovel.com MACY'S INC: Forbes Sues Over Absence of Lie Detector Test Notice ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey Forbes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Macy's, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 25-0749BLS (Mass. Sup., Suffolk County, March 19, 2025) alleges violations of Massachusetts General Laws. In or around April 2024, while located in Massachusetts, the Plaintiff applied to work as an At Your Service Center Associate at Defendant's store in Saugus, MA. In or around April 2024, while located in Massachusetts, Plaintiff also applied to work as an Asset Protection Security Guard at Defendant's store in Burlington, MA. However, in his Macy's Massachusetts-based job applications, the Plaintiff was not provided the notice of his rights concerning lie detector tests that is required by Massachusetts General Laws, says the suit. Headquartered in New York, NY, Macy's Inc. operates as a department store chain. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David S. Godkin, Esq. James E. Kruzer, Esq. BIRNBAUM & GODKIN, LLP 1 Marina Park Drive, Suite 1410 Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 307-6100 E-mail: godkin@birnbaumgodkin.com kruzer@bimbaumgodkin.com - and - Joseph I. Marchese, Esq. Matthew A. Girardi, Esq. Julian C. Diamond, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Facsimile: (212) 989-9163 E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com - mgirardi@bursor.com jdiamond@bursor.com MDL 2479: Court Reinstates Skippers' Class Action Against CareFirst ------------------------------------------------------------------- In MATTHEW SKIPPER, et al. v. CAREFIRST BLUECHOICE, INC., No. 2479, September Term, 2023 (Md. Ct. Spec. App.), Judge Michele D. Hotten of the Appellate Court of Maryland reversed the Circuit Court for Prince George's County's dismissal of a class action lawsuit, allowing plaintiffs to proceed with claims over delayed insurance reimbursement. The plaintiffs, Matthew and Jamie Skipper, filed a class action lawsuit against CareFirst, challenging the insurer's refusal to cover a fertility treatment expense. The Skippers sought reimbursement for embryo thawing, a procedure they argued was medically necessary for in-vitro fertilization (IVF) and covered under their insurance policy. The dispute arose when CareFirst denied coverage for the procedure, forcing the Skippers to pay $900 out of pocket. After prolonged administrative challenges, CareFirst reimbursed the amount but refused to pay pre-judgment interest. The Skippers pursued litigation, arguing that CareFirst’s payment did not fully satisfy their claim and that the case remained viable as a class action. The Circuit Court for Prince George's County dismissed the Skippers' claims, reasoning that the reimbursement mooted their individual claim and left them without standing to seek class certification. The Maryland Appellate Court reversed the lower court's dismissal of the Skippers' lawsuit and remanded the case for further proceedings. The court ruled that: i. The Skippers retained standing because CareFirst's reimbursement did not include pre-judgment interest. The court ruled that loss of use of funds is a cognizable injury, and pre-judgment interest is a valid element of damages. ii. CareFirst's payment did not moot the class action, as the Skippers had not yet had a reasonable opportunity to seek class certification, citing Frazier v. Castle Ford, Ltd., which prevents defendants from preemptively "picking off" lead plaintiffs. iii. Pre-judgment interest is valid in contract cases, even if the principal amount was reimbursed before judgment. The ruling cited Buxton v. Buxton, affirming that loss of use of funds is a distinct injury, and interest serves to compensate for that loss. iv. Maryland Rule 2-604(a) does not bar pre-judgment interest on a paid judgment, rejecting the lower court’s reasoning that reimbursement alone made the plaintiffs whole. The appellate court ruled that allowing a defendant to escape liability for interest would deprive plaintiffs of full compensation. A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/3ww46ne3 from PacerMonitor.com. MDL 3062: Parties in Antitrust Suit Must Confer Class Cert Sched ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit Re: CROP PROTECTION PRODUCTS LOYALTY PROGRAM ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 1:23-md-03062 (M.D.N.C., Filed Feb. 6, 2023), the Hon. Judge Thomas D. Schroeder entered an order directing directs the Parties to meet and confer and prepare a proposed schedule for filing and briefing any request for class certification. In addition, the Parties should discuss potential schedules for expert discovery. The Parties should prepare a Joint Report with any joint or competing proposals, and the Joint Report should be filed by March 28, 2025, for further consideration by the Court. The suit alleges violation of the Sherman-Clayton Act.[CC] MEDICAL PROPERTIES: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in NY ------------------------------------------------------------------- Medical Properties Trust Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2025, that the Company continues to defend a federal securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On September 29, 2023, the Company and certain of its executives were named as defendants in a putative federal securities class action lawsuit filed by a purported stockholder in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:23-cv- 08597). The complaint seeks class certification on behalf of purchasers of our common stock between May 23, 2023 and August 17, 2023 and alleges false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions in connection with certain transactions involving Prospect. This class action complaint was amended on October 30, 2024 and alleges that it made material misstatements or omissions in connection with certain transactions involving Prospect. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on January 14, 2025. Medical Properties is a real estate investment trust that invests in healthcare facilities subject to NNN lease. MEDICAL PROPERTIES: Securities Class Suit Pending in N.D. Ala. -------------------------------------------------------------- Medical Properties Trust Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2025, that a securities class suit is pending before the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. On April 13, 2023, the Company and certain of its executives were named as defendants in a putative federal securities class action lawsuit alleging false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions resulted in artificially inflated prices for its common stock, filed by a purported stockholder in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama (Case No. 2:23-cv-00486). The complaint seeks class certification on behalf of purchasers of our common stock between July 15, 2019 and February 22, 2023 and unspecified damages including interest and an award of reasonable costs and expenses. This class action complaint was amended on September 22, 2023 and alleges that it made material misstatements or omissions relating to the financial health of certain of its tenants. On September 26, 2024, the Court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice, and the plaintiff thereafter moved the Court to alter its judgment. That motion has been fully briefed and is currently pending before the Court. Medical Properties is a real estate investment trust that invests in healthcare facilities subject to NNN lease. MEMORIAL HOSPITAL: Callan Sues Over Failure to Secure PHI & PII --------------------------------------------------------------- Elisha Callan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. MEMORIAL HOSPITAL AND MANOR AUXILIARY, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00046-LAG (M.D. Ga., March 17, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the protected health information ("PHI") and other personally identifiable information ("PII") of its patients and/or employees, including, but not limited to: full names, Social Security Numbers, dates of birth, health insurance information, and medical treatment information. On November 2, 2024, Defendant detected unusual activity that disrupted access to its network and determined that Plaintiff's personal information--which was entrusted to Defendant on the mutual understanding that Defendant would protect it against unauthorized disclosure--was accessed and exfiltrated in a data breach (hereafter referred to as the "Data Breach"). The mechanism of the cyberattack and potential for improper disclosure of Plaintiff's data was a known risk to Defendant, and thus, Defendant was on notice that failing to take steps necessary to secure the information from those risks left the data in a dangerous condition. The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to implement reasonable safeguards to protect PHI/PII from a foreseeable and preventable risk of unauthorized disclosure. Had Defendant implemented administrative, technical, and physical controls consistent with industry standards and best practices, it could have prevented the Data Breach. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit individually, and on behalf of all those similarly situated, to address Defendant's inadequate data protection practices, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was a patient at Memorial Hospital and Manor. Memorial Hospital and Manor Auxiliary, Inc., is a nonprofit corporation that maintains a principal place of business located in Decatur County, Georgia.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andre Belanger, Esq. Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: (803) 222-2222 Fax: (843) 494-5536 Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com andre.belanger@poulinwilley.com MONOLITHIC POWER: Continues to Defend Waterford Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Monolithic Power Systems Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Waterford Twp. securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington. On February 4, 2025, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of its executives. The lawsuit is captioned Waterford Twp. Gen. Emps. Ret. Sys. v. Monolithic Power Systems, Inc., et al., No. 25-cv-220 (W.D. Wash.), and alleges that it violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making material misstatements or omissions relating to its business, including with respect to its business relationship with Nvidia. The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of damages as well as attorneys’ fees and other relief. The Company believes the lawsuit is meritless and intend to defend against it vigorously. Based in San Jose, Calif., Monolithic Power Systems Inc. designs, develops, and markets proprietary, advanced analog and mixed-signal semiconductors for large and high growth markets. MOSAIC CO: Continues to Defend Cruz Class Suit in Florida --------------------------------------------------------- Mosaic Co. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Cruz class suit in the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in Hillsborough County, Florida. On August 27, 2020, a putative class action complaint was filed in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in Hillsborough County, Florida against the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Mosaic Global Operations Inc., and two unrelated co-defendants. The complaint alleges claims related to elevated levels of radiation at two manufactured housing communities located on reclaimed mining land in Mulberry, Polk County, Florida, allegedly due to phosphate mining and reclamation activities occurring decades ago. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, including punitive damages, injunctive relief requiring remediation of their properties and a medical monitoring program funded by the defendants. On October 14, 2021, the court substantially granted a motion to dismiss it filed late in 2020, with leave for the plaintiffs to amend their complaint. On November 3, 2021, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and in response, Mosaic filed a motion to dismiss that complaint with prejudice on November 15, 2021. On December 23, 2021, plaintiffs opposed that motion and Mosaic replied to that opposition on January 26, 2022. On April 6, 2022, the court heard argument on the motions to dismiss filed by Mosaic and each other co-defendant. In late March 2023, the court denied Mosaic's motions to dismiss. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend this matter. The Mosaic Company is a producer and marketer of concentrated phosphate and potash crop nutrients. The Company is a single-source supplier of phosphate and potash-based crop nutrients and animal feed ingredients. MOSCOT.COM LLC: Jones Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- CLAY LEE JONES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOSCOT.COM, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01843 (S.D.N.Y., March 5, 2025) is a civil rights action against Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website, www.moscot.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. On June 8, 2024, the Plaintiff visited Defendant's website to purchase sunglasses. Despite Plaintiff's efforts, however, the Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations, which effectively barred Plaintiff from having an unimpeded shopping experience, says the suit. 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. 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. MOSCOT.COM, LLC operates the website that offers eyewear, including both prescription glasses and sunglasses.[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 MOTOWN DELI: Faces Reyes Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------- MIGUEL ANGEL NABOR REYES, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOTOWN DELI GROCERY CORP. (d/b/a MOTOWN DELI GROCERY), RICHIE ASAIDI, and MOE ASAIDI, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01863 (S.D.N.Y., March 5, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, and for violations of the New York Labor Law, and the "spread of hours" and overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor, including applicable liquidated damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs. The complaint asserts that Defendants' failure to pay minimum and overtime wages, failure to provide required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which the Plaintiff worked over 10 hours, failure to provide written wage notice, failure to furnish accurate wage statements, failure to pay on a regular weekly basis, and breach of contract by failing to pay Plaintiff the entire amount of the sums of money they borrowed. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants at Motown Deli Grocery from approximately December 2019 until July 1, 2024. Motown Deli Grocery Corp. owns, operates, and controls a deli, located in Bronx, New York under the name "Motown Deli Grocery."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 MOVEMENT MORTGAGE: Standing Order in Davis Class Suit Entered ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CANDICE DAVIS, v. MOVEMENT MORTGAGE, LLC, et al. Case No. 2:25-cv-01530-WLH-MAR (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Wesley Hsu entered a standing order as follows: 1. The Plaintiff(s) shall promptly serve the Complaint in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and file the proofs of service pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 4(l). 2. Counsel for the plaintiff must immediately serve the Order on all parties, including any new parties to the action. 3. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(3), L.R. 5-4, and General Order 10-07, counsel shall electronically file (e-file) all filings. 4. All discovery matters are referred to the assigned United States Magistrate Judge. 5. If this action is a putative class action, the parties are to act diligently and begin discovery immediately, so that the motion for class certification can be filed expeditiously. Movement Mortgage offers mortgage solutions for re-financing and buying homes. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 25, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aqcQSL at no extra charge.[CC] MSB SCHOOL DISTRICT: Land Suit Seeks to Certify Parent Subclass --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as L. SHANE LAND and CHRISTI ANGELO, individually and as the parents of T.L., a minor child, on behalf of themselves all those similarly situated, v. MATANUSKA-SUSITNA BOROUGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, DAVID RUSSELL, ANGELA SNOW, and LAURA KELLY, Case No. 3:23-cv-00272-SLG (D. Alaska), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order certifying the Parent Subclass, defined as: "All parents and legal guardians of current MSBSD students with an identified disability who have been restrained or secluded." The Plaintiff contends that the members of the Parent Subclass are so numerous, far exceeding 40 individuals, that joinder of all members is impracticable as required under Rule 23(a)(1). The Plaintiffs L. Shane Land, Christi Angelo, and T.L., a minor child, filed this lawsuit on Dec. 4, 2023, challenging the Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District's ("MSBSD") use of restraint and seclusion on students with disabilities. Matanuska-Susitna Borough School District is a school district based in the city of Palmer, Alaska. A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=P5HY6m at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Goriune Dudukgian, Esq. Nicholas Feronti, Esq. Aneliese Palmer, Esq. NORTHERN JUSTICE PROJECT, LLC 406 G Street, Suite 207 Anchorage, AK 99501 Telephone: (907) 308-3395 Facsimile: (866) 813-8645 E-mail: gdudukgian@njp-law.com nferonti@njp-law.com apalmer@njp-law.com The Defendants are represented by: Megan N. Sandone, Esq. JERMAIN DUNNAGAN & OWENS, P.C. 111 West 16th Avenue, Suite 203 Anchorage, AK 99501 Telephone: (907) 563-8844 MYLAN NV: $73.5MM Class Settlement to be Heard on May 9 ------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS If you purchased EpiPen(R) or generic EpiPen directly from the manufacturer, you may receive a payment from a $73.5 million class action settlement. KPH Healthcare Services, Inc. v. Mylan N.V., Case No. 2:20-cv-02065-DDC-TJJ (District of Kansas) This is not a recall, safety, or other similar notice. No one is claiming that EpiPen is unsafe or ineffective. For more information and to file a claim, visit www.EpiPenDPPSettlement.com. WHAT DOES THE SETTLEMENT PROVIDE? A proposed settlement ("Settlement") has been reached in a class action lawsuit alleging that Mylan N.V., Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Mylan Specialty L.P. (together, "Mylan") entered into an improper market allocation agreement with Pfizer, Inc., King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (n/k/a King Pharmaceuticals LLC) and Meridian Medical Technologies, Inc. (collectively, "Pfizer"), and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. ("Teva") that delayed the launch of generic EpiPen and extended Mylan's and Pfizer's alleged monopoly over the epinephrine autoinjector market. Under the settlement, Mylan agreed to pay $73,500,000 into a settlement fund ("Settlement Fund") for the Direct Purchaser Settlement Class. Mylan strongly denies that it violated any laws and contends that its actions enhanced competition and did not cause Class Members any injury. The Class claims against Pfizer were resolved by an earlier settlement. The Court granted final approval of that settlement on July 9, 2024. The separate Settlement that is the subject of this Notice is only with Mylan and resolves only the claims against Mylan. WHO IS INCLUDED? People or entities who purchased EpiPen(R) or generic EpiPen directly from Mylan or Teva, for resale, at any time during the period from March 13, 2014, until the date on which the Court entered the Preliminary Approval Order, February 6, 2025. Excluded from the Class are Defendants and their officers, directors, management, employees, predecessors, subsidiaries, and affiliates, and all federal governmental entities. HOW CAN YOU GET A PAYMENT? If you submitted a claim in the Pfizer Settlement in this case, you do not have to submit another claim to receive a payment in this Settlement. However, you have the opportunity to submit supplemental information if you wish to do so. If you did not submit a claim and you are a member of the Class, you must submit a Claim Form online at www.EpiPenDPPSettlement.com or by mail to get paid in this settlement. You may have received a Claim Form. If not, a Claim Form is available at www.EpiPenDPPSettlement.com. See the Claim Form for instructions on how to submit a claim. If the Court approves the Settlement, claims will be paid after any appeals are resolved. The deadline to postmark or submit your claim online at www.EpiPenDPPSettlement.com or by email to info@EpiPenDPPSettlement.com is May 29, 2025. YOUR OTHER LEGAL RIGHTS AND OPTIONS OBJECT You may write to the Court about why you object to the Settlement, the request for attorneys' fees, reimbursement of expenses and costs, and/or the plan of allocation. If you object to the Settlement, you are still a member of the Class and you must file a claim to receive a payment. Objections must be filed with the Court and received by the parties on or before April 11, 2025. OPT OUT You may write to the Settlement Administrator and exclude yourself from the Class. Exclusion allows you to file your own lawsuit. If you exclude yourself, you will not receive any payment and will not be bound by the releases contained in the Settlement. The exclusion deadline is April 11, 2025. DO NOTHING If you already submitted a claim in the Pfizer Settlement in this lawsuit and do not wish to submit supplemental information, you do not need to do anything to receive a payment from the Mylan Settlement. If you HAVE NOT previously submitted a claim, you will not receive any payment. You will, however, still be bound by the releases contained in the Settlement and will not be able to file or continue to pursue your own lawsuit. The Court scheduled a final approval hearing for May 9, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. Central Time to consider whether the settlement and plan of allocation are fair, reasonable, and adequate, as well as any objections to the settlement, the plan of allocation, and any request for attorneys' fees, and reimbursement of expenses and costs. You do not need to attend, but you or your attorney can do so at your own expense. For more information about the Settlement and your options, please visit www.EpiPenDPPSettlement.com or call 1-866-778-6568. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Class Cert Bid Fling in Nelson Due Sept. 2 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BETSY NELSON, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC d/b/a Mr. Cooper, and CENLAR AGENCY, INC. d/b/a Cenlar FSB, Case No. 6:23-cv-03339-MDH (W.D. Mo.), the Hon. Judge Douglas Harpool entered a first amended scheduling order – class certification as follows: 1. All class-related discovery is to commence immediately and Be completed by Sept. 2, 2025. All Motions related to Class Discovery shall be filed by Sept. 2, 2025. 2. The Plaintiff shall file all motions seeking class certification by Sept. 2, 2025. 3. The Defendant shall file any responsive motions objecting to class certification by Sept. 30, 2025. 4. The Plaintiff's reply brief regarding class certification to be filed by Oct. 21, 2025. 5. The Plaintiff will designate any expert witnesses as to class certification by June 12, 2025, and produce them for deposition by July 17, 2025. The Defendants will designate any expert witnesses as to class certification by July 31, 2025, and produce them for deposition by Sept. 2, 2025. Nationstar is a home loan servicer. A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CO84Pm at no extra charge.[CC] NEW BENEVIS: McMillan Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime ----------------------------------------------------------- HILLARY MCMILLAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW BENEVIS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01174-AT (N.D. Ga., March 5, 2025) is a collective action complaint against the Defendant seeking all relief available under the Fair Labor Standards Act, on behalf of Plaintiff and all current and former individuals who worked at any of Defendant's locations in the United States. During all relevant times, the Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as an office manager from September 2021 until November 2023, at Defendant's offices located in Jackson and Tupelo, Mississippi. Pursuant to Defendant's policy and pattern or practice, the Defendant did not pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees proper overtime wages for hours they worked for its benefit in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, says the suit. New Benevis, Inc. provides administrative and business support services to Benevis branded practices.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel Berlin Benjamin, Esq. BEAL SUTHERLAND BERLIN & BROWN LLC 2200 Century Parkway NE, Suite 100 Atlanta, GA 30345 Telephone: (404) 476-5305 E-mail: rachel@beal.law - and - Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq. Alan L. Quiles, Esq. SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A. 622 Banyan Trail, Suite 200 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Telephone: (561) 447-8888 E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com aquiles@shavitzlaw.com NEW YUNG: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Xia Suit Due March 31 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Xia, et al., v. New Yung Wah Carrier LLC, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-04475 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Aug. 9, 2021), the Hon. Judge Hector Gonzalez entered an order granting request for an extension of the deadline to refile class certification motion: -- The Plaintiffs shall refile their March 31, 2025 motion seeking to certify a class on or before: -- The Defendants shall file their April 30, 2025 opposition on or before: -- The Plaintiffs shall file their May 14, 2025 reply on or before: The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Defendant operates a trucking company.[CC] NEWELL BRANDS: June 12 Claim Form Submission Deadline Set --------------------------------------------------------- Simpluris, Inc., Fund Administrator for the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, issued a statement regarding the Newell Brands Fair Fund and Plan of Distribution. NOTICE OF FAIR FUND DISTRIBUTION PLAN In the Matter of Newell Brands Inc., and Michael B. Polk Administrative Proceeding File No. 3-21766 For more information, visit www.NewellBrandsFairFund.com The United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") has settled administrative proceedings (the "Order") against Newell Brands Inc. ("Newell") and Michael B. Polk ("Polk") (collectively, the "Respondents"). In the Order, the SEC found that between October 28, 2016, and November 1, 2017, Newell took undisclosed actions, approved by Polk, that increased Newell's core sales growth rate, but were unrelated to Newell's actual sales. Newell disclosed these figures using "core sales growth" and "core sales" financial measures, which are not part of the Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP") standards. The SEC found that Newell's statements to investors were misleading and violated Securities Act Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3); various rules under Exchange Act Sections 13(a) and 13(b), and Rule 100(b) of Regulation G. The SEC ordered the Respondents to pay $12,610,000 in civil money penalties to the Commission. The SEC also created a Fair Fund, pursuant to Section 308(a) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, so that the penalties collected can be distributed to harmed investors (the "Fair Fund"). The Fair Fund will be paid out according to the Plan of Distribution ("Plan"). A summary of the eligibility criteria and claims process is below. Full details are available at www.NewellBrandsFairFund.com. You may also request a copy of the Plan from the Fund Administrator via email at info@NewellBrandsFairFund.com or by calling 866-675-2320. Who is eligible to receive a payment from the Fair Fund? To receive a payment, you must have: 1. purchased Newell common stock between October 28, 2016, and November 1, 2017; 2. approved transactions that calculate to at least $10.00 of Recognized Loss under the Plan; 3. not been an Excluded Party under the Plan; 4. submitted a valid Claim Form. How do I submit a Claim? The easiest way to submit a claim is online at the Newell Brands Fair Fund website: www.NewellBrandsFairFund.com. Claim Forms completed online must be submitted on or before 11:59 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on June 12, 2025. If you are unable to submit a Claim Form online, you may request a copy of the paper Claim Form from the Fund Administrator via email at info@NewellBrandsFairFund.com or by calling 866-675-2320. You may also download a copy of the Claim Form to print from: www.NewellBrandsFairFund.com. Claim Forms submitted via mail must be sent to the address provided on the Claim Form and postmarked (or if not sent by U.S. Mail, then received) by June 12, 2025. The Fund Administrator will send a Determination Notice advising each Eligible Claimant who timely submitted a Claim Form of their eligibility determination and will provide a calculation of the claimant's Recognized Loss. The Fund Administrator may consider disputes of an Eligible Claimant's Recognized Loss calculation if timely submitted in accordance with the Plan. This notice is a summary. For more information, visit www.NewellBrandsFairFund.com NEWPORT GROUP: Class Settlement in Carmichael Gets Initial Nod -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARMICHAEL, JR. et al v. HARRIS et al, Case No. 1:22-cv-01127 (W.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge S. Thomas Anderson entered an order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement with AMEC defendants and Defendant Newport Group, Inc. The Court finds that the Rule 23 standard for preliminary approval of the AMEC settlement and the Newport settlement is met. Therefore, the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval is granted. The AMEC Defendants' partial motion to dismiss certain claims against them in the Plaintiffs' second amended complaint is denied as moot. Newport's partial motion to dismiss certain claims against it in Plaintiff's second amended complaint and partial motion to dismiss AMEC's cross-claims are likewise denied as moot. The Court finds that the UAW factors favor preliminary approval of the settlement. Having made a determination of each of the Rule 23(e)(2) factors and the UAW factors, the Court concludes that it will likely be able to approve the settlement under Rule 23(e)(2). This multidistrict litigation concerns losses to a non-ERISA retirement plan established by the African Methodist Episcopal Church for its clergy and employees. Plaintiffs are current or retired clergy of the church and have alleged a number of claims under Tennessee law against the denomination, church officials, third-party service providers to the plan, and other alleged tortfeasors. On June 2, 2022, the Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the civil actions to this Court, finding that consolidation would "serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation." The case is consolidated in RE: AME CHURCH EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND LITIGATION, Lead Case No., 1:22–md–03035–STA–jay. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion and order dated March 24, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=cGoLj0 at no extra charge.[CC] NEWREZ LLC: Allegedly Inflate Borrowers' Balances, Tuttle Says -------------------------------------------------------------- GREGORY TUTTLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEWREZ, LLC d/b/a SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING, and TERWIN MORTGAGE TRUST 2005-3SL, by U.S. Bank National Association as Trustee, Case No. 1:25-cv-00223 (M.D.N.C., March 20, 2025) concerns the decision by Shellpoint and its predecessor in interest, Specialized Loan Servicing, LLC, to allegedly inflate borrowers' balances on long-dormant second mortgages through unfair, deceptive, and unconscionable means. In the lead up to the Great Recession, mortgage lenders targeted prospective homebuyers by offering loans that required no downpayment. These lending arrangements typically involved two loans: a primary mortgage that covered approximately 80 percent of the home's appraised value; and a second "piggyback" mortgage that operated as a functional downpayment to cover the remaining sales price. By design, the second mortgage overextended borrowers, resulting in the mass foreclosures that caused the Great Recession. The Plaintiff built and moved into his home in Yadkin County in 1999. In January 2005, he refinanced his home using an 80/20 mortgage arrangement. Shortly after refinancing his home, in March 2005, SLS acquired the servicing rights to the Plaintiff's second mortgage. SLS later merged with Shellpoint following an acquisition by Shellpoint's parent company in 2024, says the suit. However, under its standard policies and procedures, Shellpoint's predecessor SLS stopped sending Plaintiff monthly statements on his second mortgage in or around August 2006, the month before Plaintiff filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The second mortgage was discharged and charged off following Plaintiff's bankruptcy. At the time of Plaintiff's bankruptcy, the Truth in Lending Act and its enacting regulation, "Regulation Z," did not require servicers to send statements to mortgages discharged through bankruptcy, the suit asserts. But in April 2018, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau changed Regulation Z to require that statements be sent even to those whose debt was discharged so long as the debtor still retained an interest in the underlying property that was subject to foreclosure, as Plaintiff did here. SLS even acknowledged this change in correspondence sent to Plaintiff at the time of the regulation changes. Despite SLS's knowledge of the new regulations, SLS did not start sending monthly statements to borrowers whose loans had been discharged in bankruptcy, including the Plaintiff. Plaintiff Tuttle is a natural person residing in Yadkinville, North Carolina. Newrez is a limited liability company organized under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business in South Carolina. Shellpoint is the successor-in-interest to SLS by virtue of the acquisition of SLS by Shellpoint's parent company, Rithm Capital, and the merger of SLS with Shellpoint, effective May 1, 2024. Defendant Terwin Mortgage Trust 2005-3SL is a statutory trust organized under the laws of Delaware.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rashad Blossom, Esq. Blossom Law PLLC 301 S. McDowell St., Suite 1103 Charlotte, NC 28204 Telephone: (704) 256-7766 Facsimile: (704) 486-5952 E-mail: rblossom@blossomlaw.com - and - Kristi C. Kelly, Esq. Casey S. Nash, Esq. Matthew G. Rosendahl, Esq. Kelly Guzzo, PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7572 Facsimile: (703) 591-0167 E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com casey@kellyguzzo.com matt@kellyguzzo.com OPENAI INC: Tremblay Seeks to Quash Subpoenas Issued to Charlotte ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Paul Tremblay, et al, v. OpenAI, Inc., OpenAI, L.P., OpenAI OpCo, L.L.C., OpenAI GP, L.L.C., OpenAI, Case No. 1:25-mc-00118 (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs seeks to quash the subpoenas issued to Charlotte Seedy Literary Agency, Aragi, Inc., Burnes & Clegg, Inc., The Wylie Agency, Inc., Vicky Bijur Literary Agency, Dan Strone, Don Congdon Associates, Inc., Watkins/Loomis Agency, Inc., Howard Morhaim Literary Agency, Inc., Inkwell Management LLC, and Curtis Brown Ltd. The subpoenas arise out of a highly contentious class action pending in the Northern District of California alleging class-wide copyright infringement claims against OpenAI and related entities. These subpoenas are the latest effort by OpenAI to "use the discovery process, at least in part, to engage one another in a warfare of sorts, that is, by attempting to fashion certain discovery disputes in order to harass one another’s flanks as might be the case during a game of chess or on a medieval battlefield." After not getting the result, it wanted through its request to compel documents from Plaintiffs in the Northern District of California, OpenAI is now attempting an end-run around that Court's ruling by serving subpoenas on Plaintiffs' agents, nonparties to the underlying litigation, seeking the same documents. This is plainly improper -- it is fundamental of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that parties to litigation may not unduly burden nonparties. And seeking documents from a nonparty that it could have sought from an adverse party is definitionally undue burden under Rule 45. For that reason alone, the subpoenas should be quashed, asserts the suit. The Plaintiffs are authors asserting copyright infringement claims on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated individuals against the Generative AI company OpenAI. The Plaintiffs allege that OpenAI and related entities used their copyrighted material to train its large language models, including those that underly ChatGPT, without Plaintiffs' consent, credit, or compensation. In training the models, OpenAI unlawfully accessed and used pirated data, including copies of Plaintiffs' copyrighted works, to train its LLMs. OpenAI has asserted, among other defenses, that its use of Plaintiffs' works falls under the "fair use" exception, the suit contends. OpenAi, Inc. is a generative artificial intelligence company.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Christopher J. Hydal, Esq. Christopher K. L. Young, Esq. Melissa R. Tribble, Esq. JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, LLP. 601 California Street, Suite 1505 San Francisco, CA 94108 Telephone: (415) 500-6800 Facsimile: (415) 395-9940 E-mail: chydal@saverilawfirm.com cyoung@saverilawfirm.com mtribble@saverilawfirm.com OPW FUELING: Bid to Reconsider Sched. Order in Canales Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ovis Matamoros Canales, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. OPW Fueling Components LLC, Case No. 5:22-cv-00459-BO-RJ (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Robert Numbers, II entered an order denying OPW's motion for reconsideration of the Scheduling Order. -- But it grants the motion as to the request for a Protective Order. It excludes information on individuals who are not parties from Phase I discovery. The court Canales's position to be substantially justified, so each party must bear their own costs. The court agrees with OPW. The requested discovery is not germane to Phase I issues because it relates to individuals who are not yet parties. Canales's memorandum in support of his motion for conditional certification bolsters this conclusion. It does not rely on the wages of other employees, nor suggest they are necessary, to establish any of the relevant factors. Id. Instead, he states that the time worked and wages due are not significant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) determination. OPW argues that the information is irrelevant and says it will not (and cannot) rely on such information in their response to the class certification motion. And since Canales has moved for class certification, even if the materials were relevant, requiring production at this time is disproportional to the needs of the case. So the court finds merit to OPW's motion. It will allow a Protective Order excluding from Phase I discovery information on individuals who are not parties to the case. The Plaintiff Canales has sued his OPW, for violating his rights under the FLSA and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act. OPW designs and manufactures fueling equipment. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=l8tYJ9 at no extra charge.[CC] PAULA'S CHOICE: Bid for Clarification in Vargison Suit OK'd in Part ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the lawsuit captioned JESSE VARGISON, et al., individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PAULA'S CHOICE, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00342-TL (W.D. Wash.), Judge Tana Lin of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, Seattle, grants in part and denies in part Paula's Choice's motion for clarification. The matter is before the Court on Defendant Paula's Choice, LLC's "Motion for Clarification Regarding January 30, 2025 Order." Having reviewed the motion, the Plaintiffs' response, Paula's Choice's reply, and the relevant record, the Court grants in part and denies in part Paula's Choice's motion. The lawsuit is a putative class action brought by 107 Plaintiffs against Defendant Paula's Choice, a manufacturer and purveyor of skincare products, and two retailers that sell Paula's Choice products, Defendants Sephora USA and THG Beauty USA. At issue is the veracity of Paula's Choice's representations that its products are "cruelty-free" and "never tested on animals," and consumers' reliance on those representations. On Oct. 15, 2024, Paula's Choice filed a motion to compel arbitration and to stay litigation as to eight specific Plaintiffs: Julia Bartholomew-King, Paige Bridges, Dalit Cohen, Joella Erriquez, Bridget Froelich, Maura McCartan, Dawn van der Steeg, and Kristiana Wright. On Nov. 19, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to Paula's Choice's motion, and on Dec. 20, 2024, Paula's Choice filed a reply. In its reply, Paula's Choice added Plaintiff Samantha Simmons as a ninth Plaintiff whom the Court should compel to arbitrate her claims against the company. On Jan. 30, 2025, the Court issued an order that granted in part and held in abeyance in part Paula's Choice's motion to compel arbitration and stay litigation. In its Order, the Court found that three of the Plaintiffs at issue--Cohen, Froelich, and McCartan--were obliged to arbitrate their claims against Paula's Choice. These Plaintiffs, the Court found, had "made at least one additional purchase on the Paula's Choice website after Paula's Choice filed its motion to compel arbitration." The Court reasoned that, "As Named Plaintiffs in this case, and specifically as the subjects of the instant motion to compel, these three Plaintiffs were put on notice of the existence of the arbitration agreement (and their acceptance thereof upon making a purchase) when Paula's Choice raised the issue in the ongoing litigation." But as to the other five Plaintiffs, who were the original subjects of the motion to compel arbitration, the Court could not make a determination based on the record before it and, pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, held the motion in abeyance pending the outcome of a trial on the arbitrability of these Plaintiffs' claims. The Order did not discuss the arbitrability of Plaintiff Simmons's claims. On Feb. 13, 2025, Paula's Choice filed the instant motion, asserting that the Court's prior order "did not address whether Ms. Simmons also is compelled to arbitrate" and "request[ing] confirmation that Ms. Simmons is compelled to arbitrate her claims for the same reason that the referenced three Named Plaintiffs . . . must arbitrate theirs--'post-motion purchases' obviously demonstrating assent" to Paula's Choice's arbitration agreement. On Feb. 19, 2025, the Plaintiffs filed a response in opposition to Paula's Choice's "request" and on Feb. 26, 2025, Paula's Choice filed a reply. Plaintiff Simmons made purchases on the Paula's Choice website after Defendant Paula's Choice filed its Motion to Compel but before it filed its Reply. The issue here is whether a valid agreement to arbitrate exists between Paula's Choice and Plaintiff Simmons. For the purpose of deciding this motion, Judge Lin says the central texts are Paula's Choice's Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings as to Certain Named Plaintiffs, Paula's Choice's reply in support of that motion, and the Court's Order denying the motion in part and holding it in abeyance in part. Simply put, Judge Lin explains, Plaintiffs Cohen, Froelich, and McCartan were specifically named in Paula's Choice's motion to compel arbitration; Plaintiff Simmons was not. The motion provided Plaintiffs Cohen, Froelich, and McCartan with extensive notice as to the ramifications of their acceptance of the arbitration agreement in the company's updated terms of use. Thus, when Plaintiffs Cohen, Froelich, and McCartan made their "post-motion purchases" on the Paula's Choice website, they did so with full knowledge that the updated terms of use included an arbitration agreement with a class-action waiver that applied to their existing claims. Put another way, Paula's Choice's motion to compel specifically targeted the eight Plaintiffs named in the motion and directly provided them with an advisory about their class-action rights vis-a-vis the arbitration agreement. Plaintiff Simmons did not receive such an advisory, because Paula's Choice only sought to compel Plaintiff Simmons to arbitrate her claims in its reply brief. She was not specifically targeted in the motion, and she was not directly provided with the advisory. Paula's Choice provided evidence demonstrating that Plaintiff Simmons had indeed made purchases on the company's website after it filed its motion to compel the other eight Plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims. But prior to making those purchases, Plaintiff Simmons had not received the same notice regarding her rights as a class member that Plaintiffs Cohen, Froelich, and McCartan received by dint of their being the subjects of the motion to compel. Therefore, Judge Lin holds, Plaintiff Simmons was not similarly situated to the other three Plaintiffs, and it is, thus, inappropriate to compel her to arbitrate her claims on the same basis. Hence, the Court denies Paula's Choice's request that Plaintiff Simmons be compelled to arbitrate her claims. Accordingly, the Court orders: (1) Defendant Paula's Choice's "Motion for Clarification Regarding January 30, 2025 Order" is granted; this Order provides the requested clarification; and (2) Defendant Paula's Choice's request that Plaintiff Simmons be compelled to arbitrate her claims is denied. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/3wvrmdc8 from PacerMonitor.com. PENNSYLVANIA STATE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Thompson Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- DOMINIQUE THOMPSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PENNSYLVANIA STATE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00507-JPW (M.D. Pa., March 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, unjust enrichment, breach of implied contract, and breach of confidence. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach detected on or around July 6, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Pennsylvania State Education Association is a professional association, headquartered in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 Facsimile: (412) 231-0246 Email: gary@lcllp.com jerry@lcllp.com - and - Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq. Mark Svensson, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: cmaccarone@zlk.com msvensson@zlk.com PENNSYLVANIA STATE: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Smith Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PENNSYLVANIA STATE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION, Case No. 1:25-cv-00513-JPW (M.D. Pa., March 20, 2025) arises out of a cyberattack and data breach involving PSEA, which collected and stored certain personally identifiable information and private health information of the Plaintiff and Class Members, all of whom had PII and/or PHI on PSEA servers. Accordingly, once it was entrusted with safeguarding Class Members' PII, PHI and other sensitive data, PSEA assumed a non-delegable duty to ensure that this information was reasonably kept safe from the foreseeable event of a data security incident. PSEA breached that duty, alleges the suit. In a letter dated March 17, 2025, PSEA acknowledged having "experienced a security incident on or about July 6, 2024." In September of 2024, certain websites reported that PSEA’s servers had been hacked by the Rhysida ransomware group. PSEA reported to the Maine Attorney General that the Data Breach affected 517,487 individuals. The information includes at a minimum Class Members' dates of birth, driver's license or state IDs, Social Security numbers, account numbers, account PINs, security codes, passwords and routing numbers, payment card numbers, payment card PINs and payment card expiration dates, passport numbers, taxpayer ID numbers, usernames and passwords, health insurance information and medical information. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and all those similarly situated to address PSEA's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' PII and PHI that it collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information was unsecured and left open to the unauthorized access of any unknown third party. Plaintiff Smith is an adult individual and citizen of Pennsylvania. He resides in Jersey Shore, Pennsylvania, which is in Lycoming County. He is a long-time member of the PSEA. On March 18, 2025, Mr. Smith received a "Notice of Data Security Incident" from PSEA via email. The Plaintiff and the proposed Class are current and former members and employees of PSEA, as well as relatives of PSEA employees. PSEA describes itself as "community of education professionals who make a difference in the lives of students every day." PSEA claims to have 178,000 members, who "are teachers, education support professionals, higher education staff, nurses in health care facilities, retired educators, and college students preparing to become teachers."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Benjamin F. Johns, Esq. Samantha E. Holbrook, Esq. SHUB JOHNS & HOLBROOK LLP Four Tower Bridge 200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400 Conshohocken, PA 19428 Telephone: (610) 477-8380 E-mail: bjohns@shublawyers.com sholbrook@shublawyers.com - and - Bart D. Cohen, Esq. BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (267) 973-4855 E-mail: bcohen@baileyglasser.com PHONE LCD: Court Stays Proceedings in Bilir Suit ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as FARUK BILIR, et al., v. PHONE LCD PARTS LLC, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-13643-ES-MAH (D.N.J.), the Hon. Judge Michael Hammer entered an order that: 1. This case shall be referred to mediation pursuant to Local Civil Rule 301.1. 2. Ms. Desha L. Jackson, Esq. will serve as the mediator. 3. Proceedings in this action are stayed for a period of 90 days from the entry of this Order. 4. The pending motion for class certification is administratively terminated. 5. On or before March 24, 2025, counsel for the parties shall contact Ms. Jackson to arrange the logistics and date for the mediation, as well as the submission of any pre- mediation materials that Ms. Jackson may require. 6. On or before June 17, 2025, if the matter is not dismissed as settled by then, the parties shall file a joint letter informing the Undersigned of the status of the mediation. The Defendant is a wholesale supplier of iPhone, iPad, Samsung and other cellphone repair parts in USA. A copy of the Court's order dated March 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jh1Vo5 at no extra charge.[CC] POGI BEAUTY: Williams Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- MILTON WILLIAMS, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. POGI BEAUTY LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01864 (S.D.N.Y., March 5, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://www.onesizebeauty.com/, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on February 22, 2025, in an attempt to purchase a Primer For Perfection High-Performance Primer Trio from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. Due to the inaccessibility of Defendant's website, blind and visually-impaired consumers such as Plaintiff, who need screen-readers, cannot fully and equally use or enjoy the goods, and services Defendant offers to the public on its website. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Pogi Beauty LLC operates the website that offers makeup and skincare products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal POMMES FRITES: Cole Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website -------------------------------------------------------- Morgan Cole, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Pommes Frites Candle Co., Case No. 1:25-cv-02790 (N.D. Ill., March 17, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's 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 is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to services Fat Boy's Burrito provides to their non-disabled customers through https://pfcandleco.com (hereinafter "Pfcandleco.com" or "the website"). 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 Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA"). Because Defendant's website, Pfcandleco.com, is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Pommes Frites Candle's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. Pommes Frites Candle provides to the public a website known as Pfcandleco.com which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view candles, diffusers, sprays, car fragrance and bundles.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Phone: 917-437-3737 Email: mcohen@ealg.law PRIMARY ARMS: McQueen Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Kenneth McQueen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. PRIMARY ARMS, LLC, was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on March 17, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01427. Based on these allegations, Plaintiff brings claims against Defendant for violations of Pennsylvania's Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act ("WESCA") and Pennsylvania's Uniform Firearms Act ("UFA").[BN] The Defendant is represented by: J. Craig Buchan, Esq. Matthew C. Cecconi, Esq. MCAFEE & TAFT A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Two West Second Street, Suite 1100 Tulsa, OK 74103 Phone: (918) 587-0000 Facsimile: (918) 574-3193 Email: craig.buchan@mcafeetaft.com matthew.cecconi@mcafeetaft.com PROGRESSIVE DIRECT: Filing for Class Cert in Wensel Due Nov. 24 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAZMYN WENSEL and ALEXANDR TARASENKO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. PROGRESSIVE DIRECT INSURANCE COMPANY, an Ohio corporation, and PROGRESSIVE NORTHWESTERN INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 4:24-cv-00400-AKB (D. Idaho), the Hon. Judge Amanda Brailsford entered a scheduling order as follows: 1. All dispositive motions and motions for punitive damages, must be filed within (30) days following the Court's ruling on a motion for class certification. 2. Motions to amend the pleadings, except for allegations of punitive damages, and motions to join parties must be filed on or before May 19, 2025. 3. The parties have chosen to participate in mediation. ADR must be held by Feb. 23, 2026. 4. All fact discovery must be completed by Nov. 17, 2025. 5. The Plaintiff shall move for class certification by: Nov. 24, 2025. 6. The Defendant's opposition brief and any supporting papers shall be filed by: Feb. 6, 2026. 7. The Plaintiff's reply brief and any supporting papers shall be filed by: March 30, 2026. Progressive Direct underwrites auto, fire, marine, and casualty insurance. A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=q8xpFz at no extra charge.[CC] PROGRESSIVE NORTHWESTERN: Jury Trial Modified to May 19 ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIK KNIGHT, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. PROGRESSIVE NORTHWESTERN INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:22-cv-00203-JM (E.D. Ark.), the Hon. Judge James Moody Jr. entered an order modifying Final Scheduling Order to reflect that the jury trial before United States District Judge James M. Moody Jr. will commence at 9:15 a.m. on May 19, 2025, in the Richard Sheppard Arnold United States Courthouse, Courtroom No. 4A, 500 West Capitol, Little Rock, Arkansas. Progressive offers auto, commercial auto, motorcycle, personal watercraft, boat, RV, snowmobile and Segway insurance. A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yanOzr at no extra charge.[CC] PROMENADE GROUP: Jones Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- CLAY LEE JONES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROMENADE GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01839 (S.D.N.Y., March 5, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website, www.bloomnation.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. On June 1, 2024, the Plaintiff visited Defendant's website to purchase flowers (Rose Bouquet). Despite his efforts, however, he was denied a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations, which effectively barred Plaintiff from having an unimpeded shopping experience. 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. Promenade Group, Inc. operates the website that offers floral arrangements and same-day delivery service.[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 REBEL RAGS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Jones Says --------------------------------------------------------- CLAY LEE JONES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REBEL RAGS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01841 (S.D.N.Y., March 5, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.rebelrags.net, 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. On September 3, 2024, the Plaintiff visited Defendant's website to purchase a hat (Ole Miss Mid Pro Snapback Cap). Despite his efforts, however, the Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations, which effectively barred Plaintiff from having an unimpeded shopping experience. 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, the suit contends. 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. Rebel Rags, LLC operates the website that offers Ole Miss merchandise, including apparel, accessories, and collectibles.[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 REWIND HAIR: Espinal Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------- FRANGIE ESPINAL, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. REWIND HAIR COLOR, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01932 (S.D.N.Y., March 7, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://rewindit10.com/ to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on February 25, 2025, in an attempt to purchase a Hair Color Medium Blonde from Defendant and to view the information on the website, she encountered multiple access barriers that denied her a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. She was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Rewind Hair Color, LLC operates the website that offers hair care products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal RISEUP FINANCIAL: Newell Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against RISEUP FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC. The case is styled as Jourey Newell, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. RISEUP FINANCIAL GROUP, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01402-JFM (E.D. Pa., March 17, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. RiseUp Financial Group LLC -- https://riseupfinancial.com/ -- markets unsecured personal loans on behalf of third-party licensed lenders.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy C. Jackson, Esq. BOWER LAW ASSOCIATES, PLLC 403 South Allen Street, Suite 210 State College, PA 16801 Phone: (814) 234-2626 Fax: (814) 237-8700 Email: jjackson@bower-law.com ROBERT LUNA: Stewart Suit Seeks Class Certification --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KEVIN STEWART, and JUAN CARLOS VAZQUEZ, v. ROBERT LUNA, SHERIFF, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-04641-ODW-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on April 14, 2025, will request the Court an Order granting class certification and appointment of class counsel pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=csXDLi at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeff Dominic Price, Esq. JDP PC 23465 Civic Center Wy. Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (310) 451-2222 E-mail: jdp@jdpfirm.com The Defendants are represented by: Justin Clark, Esq. LAWRENCE BEACH ALLEN & CHOI, PC 150 S. Los Robles Ave., Ste. 660 Pasadena, CA 91101 SABAL HOMES: Homeowners Sue Over Building Code Violations --------------------------------------------------------- THE COMMONS AT GRAND OAKS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., and CURTIS BAYNES & ALISON LYNCH BAYNES, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SABAL HOMES, LLC, SAB 012 LLC f/k/a SABAL HOMES AT GRAND OAKS, LLC, and JOHN DOES 1 THROUGH 50, Defendants, Case No. 2025CP1001520 (Ct. Com. Pl., 9th Judicial, March 19, 2025) seeks to recover monetary damages from the Defendants for negligence, gross negligence, recklessness, wantonness, willfulness, and breach of implied warranties with respect to their duties in the development, marketing and sale of Grand Oaks, as well as their duties to construct Grand Oaks free from defects and in accordance with all applicable building and dwelling codes. Allegedly, Grand Oaks has numerous construction deficiencies, building code violations, deviations from manufacturer installation requirements and substantial resulting damage. Moreover, the violations of applicable building codes are negligence per se and evidence of gross negligence, says the suit. Headquartered in Charleston County, South Carolina, Sabal Homes, LLC develops and constructs single-family homes. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jesse A. Kirchner, Esq. Matthew S. Byzet, Esq. 15 Middle Atlantic Wharf Charleston, SC 29401 Telephone: (843) 937-8000 Facsimile: (843) 937-4200 E-mail: jesse@tktlawyers.com matt@tktlawyers.com SARDIS COMMUNITY: Willingham Seeks OT Pay for Nursing Personnel --------------------------------------------------------------- JENEIVOUS WILLINGHAM, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SARDIS COMMUNITY NURSING HOME, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00084-MPM-JMV (N.D. Miss., March 20, 2025) challenges the Defendant's violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was paid on an hourly basis through the entirety of her employment. The Plaintiff and all other CNAs, LPNs, and RNs (collectively Nursing Personnel) frequently worked more than 40 hours per week. The Defendant instituted a policy whereby it deducted thirty minutes per day from all its Nursing Personnel for an unpaid break. The Defendant instructed Plaintiff and all its Nursing Personnel to clock out at the start of this thirty-minute break and clock back in after thirty minutes had passed, says the suit. However, if Plaintiff and all other Nursing Personnel did not clock out for the break, Defendant automatically deducted thirty minutes from each employee's time. There were many occasions on which Plaintiff did not clock out for her break because she was unable to stop working. Despite not clocking out because Plaintiff did not stop working, Defendant would automatically deduct thirty minutes from Plaintiff’s time. Likewise, when Plaintiff attempted to take her thirty-minute break and clocked out, she would be unable to do so because her job responsibilities would require her to perform tasks during this thirty-minute window, the suit asserts. Plaintiff Willingham worked for Sardis Community Nursing Home, LLC until October of 2024. The Defendant operates a skilled nursing facility in Panola County, Mississippi. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a certified nursing assistant.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: William "Jack" Simpson, Esq. SIMPSON, PLLC 100 South Main Street Booneville, MS 38829-0382 Telephone: (662) 913-7811 Facsimile: (662) 728-1992 E-mail: jack@simpson-pllc.com SELECT REHABILITATION: Must Oppose Class Cert. Bid by May 30 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTINE MCLAUGHLIN, CRYSTAL VANDERVEEN, JUSTIN LEMBKE, and SCOTT HARDT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. SELECT REHABILITATION, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00059-HES-MCR (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Harvey Schlesinger entered an order that: 1. "Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel Plaintiffs' Amended Second Request for Production of Records and ESI" is granted as to Requests for Production ("RFP") 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, and 12 in their entirety and as to RFP 7 to the extent it requests communications about overtime and off-the-clock work. 2. "Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion to Compel Re: Plaintiffs' Amended First Request for Production" is GRANTED as to RFPs 3, 6-7, 11, 16, 22-27, 32, 39, 41, 44, 48-49, 56, 60-62 in their entirety, granted as to RFP 54 to the extent it seeks contact information for supervisors who Select no longer employs, and denied as to RFPs 4, 5, 34, 40, 45, and 50. 3. Select must produce any outstanding information responsive to the RFPs approved in paragraphs 1 and 2 above by March 31, 2025. 4. On March 31, 2025, the parties must submit a joint letter on the status of discovery; 5. The Court will hold in abeyance "Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Defendant to Better Respond to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories and For Order Overruling Objections." 6. "Defendants' Motion for Leave to Depose Declarants" is granted to the extent that Select may depose of the absent class members who submitted declarations in support of Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. 7. Select must depose the absent class members by April 30, 2025. 8. Select must file its opposition to class certification by May 30, 2025. 9. Plaintiffs will file a reply in further support of their motion for class certification within 14 days after Select files its opposition. Select provides comprehensive therapy services. A copy of the Court's order dated Feb. 26, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=N0kGF9 at no extra charge.[CC] SMART ERP SOLUTIONS: Faces Diaz Suit Over Private Data Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- ALFREDO DIAZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SMART ERP SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-02652 (N.D. Cal., March 19, 2025) arises 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. The Plaintiff and the proposed Class members bring this class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information that was impacted in a data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed on March 1, 2025. The Defendant's investigation on the data breach determined that an unauthorized third-party gained access to defendant’s network between July 3, 2024, and July 13, 2024. Moreover, the Defendant failed to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information had been subject to the unauthorized access by an unknown third party and precisely what specific type of information was accessed, says the suit. Headquartered in Pleasanton, CA, Smart ERP Solutions, Inc. is an information technology and software provider specializing in business applications. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Srourian, Esq. SROURIAN LAW FIRM, P.C. 468 N. Camden Dr., Suite 200 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (213) 474-3800 Facsimile: (213) 471-4160 E-mail: daniel@slfla.com SOJERN INC: Crano Sues Over Unlawful Interception of Communications ------------------------------------------------------------------- Suellen Crano, individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals v. SOJERN, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 3:25-cv-02600 (N.D. Cal., March 17, 2025), is brought against the Defendants violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act ("CIPA") and other California laws as a result of unlawful intercepting of communications. This is a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of all California residents who have booked a hotel room in a hotel that is part of an illicit web tracking marketing enterprise run by Sojern. Sojern's web tracking enterprise illicitly tracks hotel guest's guest records across the internet without consent, and then uses that information to send direct solicitations--all unbeknownst to the guests. Sojern is eavesdropping on communications sent and received by Plaintiff and Class Members to hotels, including communications that contain sensitive and confidential "guest records," says the complaint. The Plaintiff used Sojern's marketing technology on its website, Hilton.com. Sojern, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located in San Francisco, California.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert G. Loewy, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT G. LOEWY, P.C. 20 Enterprise, Suite 310 Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 Phone: (949) 468-7150 Email: rloewy@rloewy.com - and - Eric S. Dwoskin, Esq. DWOSKIN WASDIN LLP 433 Plaza Real, Ste. 275 Boca Raton, FL 33432 Phone: 561-849-8060 Email: edwoskin@dwowas.com SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Faces Coburn Suit over Merger Deal with Boeing ------------------------------------------------------------------ Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2025, that on January 9, 2025, a purported stockholder filed a putative class action lawsuit against Spirit, its President and CEO, Patrick M. Shanahan and its directors in the Delaware Court of Chancery captioned "Coburn v. Shanahan, C.A." No. 2025-0029-LWW, alleging that the company directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose certain information and requests an order compelling additional disclosures and damages, among other relief. As of February 21, 2025, already five lawsuits challenged the merger of Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc., The Boeing Company and Sphere Acquisition Corp. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Boeing) had been filed on behalf of purported stockholders. Spirit AeroSystems Holdings is one of the world's largest non-original equipment manufacturer manufacturers of aerostructures, serving markets for commercial airplanes, military platforms and business/regional jets and also serves the aftermarket for commercial and military platforms. SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Faces Johnson Suit over Merger with Boeing -------------------------------------------------------------- Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2025, that on January 15, 2025, a purported stockholder filed a lawsuit against Holdings and its board of directors in the Supreme Court of the State of New York captioned "Johnson v. Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. et al.," No. 650254/2025, alleging that the proxy statement/prospectus relating to the merger of Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc., The Boeing Company and Sphere Acquisition Corp. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Boeing) failed to disclose certain material information and asserts claims against all defendants under New York common law for negligent misrepresentation and concealment and negligence. It sought injunctive relief enjoining the vote on said merger and other remedies. As of February 21, 2025, already five lawsuits challenging the merger of Spirit and Boeing had been filed on behalf of purported stockholders. Spirit AeroSystems Holdings is one of the world's largest non-original equipment manufacturer manufacturers of aerostructures, serving markets for commercial airplanes, military platforms and business/regional jets and also serves the aftermarket for commercial and military platforms. SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Faces Murphy Suit over Merger Deal ------------------------------------------------------ Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2025, that on August 29, 2024, a purported stockholder filed a lawsuit against the company and its board of directors in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York captioned "Murphy v. Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. et al.," Docket No. 1:24-cv-06539, alleged, among other things, that the Registration Statement failed to disclose certain allegedly material information in violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. As of February 21, 2025, already five lawsuits challenged the merger of Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc., The Boeing Company and Sphere Acquisition Corp. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of Boeing) had been filed on behalf of purported stockholders. Spirit AeroSystems Holdings is one of the world's largest non-original equipment manufacturer manufacturers of aerostructures, serving markets for commercial airplanes, military platforms and business/regional jets and also serves the aftermarket for commercial and military platforms. SPIRIT AEROSYSTEMS: Shareholder Suit over Disclosures Settled ------------------------------------------------------------- Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2025, that on January 22, 2025, following mediation and while the motion to dismiss remained pending, the parties to a private securities class action lawsuit entered into a binding term sheet to settle all claims. On May 3, 2023, said suit was filed against the company, its former Chief Executive Officer, Tom Gentile III, and its Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Mark J. Suchinski. An Amended Complaint was filed on December 19, 2023, and a Second Amended Complaint was filed, with leave of the court, on March 12, 2024. On May 13, 2024, the company filed a motion to dismiss. The lawsuit was brought on behalf of certain purchasers of securities of the company, who allege purported misstatements and omissions concerning alleged faulty production controls and alleged quality and safety issues. The specific claims in the Securities Class Action include violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder against all defendants, and violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages. Spirit AeroSystems Holdings is one of the world's largest non-original equipment manufacturer manufacturers of aerostructures, serving markets for commercial airplanes, military platforms and business/regional jets and also serves the aftermarket for commercial and military platforms. SPS TECHNOLOGIES: Regan Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as John Regan and Tom Regan, individually and on behalf of their business Hillside Auto Service Incorporated, and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals and businesses v. SPS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, and PRECISION CASTPARTS CORP., Case No. 02906 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-01458. The Plaintiffs allege injuries and damages as a result of a fire which occurred on February 17, 2025 at a facility operated by SPS located at 301 Jenkintown, Pennsylvania (the "SPS Facility"). The Complaint asserts claims by three plaintiffs: John Regan, Tom Regan, and Hillside Auto Service Incorporated ("Hillside Auto"), a business jointly owned by John and Tom Regan. Hillside Auto is allegedly located less than a mile from the SPS complex while Plaintiffs John and Tom Regan allege that they are citizens of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.[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 SSP AMERICA: Carr Sues Over Alleged ERISA Breaches -------------------------------------------------- Natasha Carr, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SSP America, Inc.; SSP America, Inc. 401(k) Savings Plan, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00911-JJT (D. Ariz., March 19, 2025) alleges that Defendants have failed to comply with the terms of the 401(k) Savings Plan and the Employee Income Security Act of 1974 and have breached their fiduciary duties to Plaintiff and putative class members by failing to collect and remit both employee and employer contributions, and failing to make required disclosures and provide documents and information required by ERISA. Among other things, the Defendants have been unjustly enriched through their failure to remit employee and employer contributions to the Plan. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks for declaratory, injunctive and other equitable relief to enforce her rights and remedy violations of the Plan and ERISA. SSP America, Inc. operates restaurants, bars, cafes, lounges and convenience retail outlets. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ty D. Frankel, Esq. FRANKEL SYVERSON PLLC 2375 E. Camelback Road, Suite 600 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Telephone: (602) 598-4000 E-mail: ty@frankelsyverson.com - and - Patricia N. Syverson FRANKEL SYVERSON PLLC 9655 Granite Ridge Drive, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92123 Telephone (602) 598-4000 E-mail: patti@frankelsyverson.com - and - Susan Martin, Esq. Jennifer Kroll, Esq. Michael M. Licata, Esq. Martin & Bonnett, P.L.L.C. 4647 N. 32nd Street, Suite 185 Phoenix, AZ 85018 Telephone: (602) 240-6900 E-mail: smartin@martinbonnett.com jkroll@martinbonnett.com mlicata@martinbonnett.com STATEBRIDGE CO: Rutto FDCPA Suit Removed to W.D.N.C. ---------------------------------------------------- The case styled JUDY RUTTO, f/k/a Judy Tawuo, on behalf of herself and all similarly situated consumers, Plaintiff v. STATEBRIDGE COMPANY, LLC, BCMB1 TRUST, by Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, as Trustee, and SUBSTITUTE TRUSTEE SERVICES, INC., Defendants, Case No. 25CV002638-590, was removed from the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina, to the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte Division on March 7, 2025. The Clerk of the Court for the Western District of North Carolina assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00162-MOC-SCR to the proceeding. The Plaintiff has alleged four causes of action under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Statebridge Company, LLC is a servicer of debt.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jeffrey A. Bunda, Esq. HUTCHENS LAW FIRM LLP 6239 Fairview Road, Suite 315 Charlotte, NC 28210 Telephone: (704) 362-9255 Facsimile: (704) 362-9301 E-mail: jeff.bunda@hutchenslawfirm.com STERLING HEIGHTS: Faces Blanding Suit Over Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------- MAYIA BLANDING, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STERLING HEIGHTS OPCO, LLC, D/B/A MEDILODGE OF STERLING HEIGHTS, and THE MEDILODGE GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-10769-TGB-KGA (E.D. Mich., March 19. 2025) arises from Defendants' practices and policies of failing to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees for all hours worked, including meal periods during which they performed work and were not completely relieved from duty. The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were classified by Defendants as non-exempt and paid an hourly wage. They regularly worked more than 40 hours per workweek. However, they were not provided bona fide meal periods during which they were completely relieved from duty. In addition, the Defendants have a practice and policy of automatically deducting 30 minutes from Plaintiff's and other similarly situated employees' pay each day for a meal period. As a result, the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees were denied significant amounts of overtime compensation. Sterling Heights OPCO, LLC operates nursing and rehabilitation facilities in Michigan. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lori M. Griffin, Esq. Matthew S. Grimsley, Esq. Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq. THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC The Heritage Building, Suite 250 34555 Chagrin Boulevard Moreland Hills, OH 44022 Telephone: (216) 696-5000 Facsimile: (216) 696-7005 E-mail: lori@lazzarolawfirm.com matthew@lazzarolawfirm.com anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com STILLFRIED CORP: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Battle Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- ANDRE BATTLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Stillfried Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02877 (N.D. Ill., March 19, 2025), arises from Defendant's 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 Plaintiff browsed and intended to make an online purchase of a chair on Defendant's website. Despite his efforts, however, the Plaintiff was denied a shopping experience like that of a sighted individual due to the website's lack of a variety of features and accommodations. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies, practices, and procedures to that Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Headquartered in New York, NY, Stillfried Corporation provides to the public a website known as Stillfried.com, which offers furniture, lighting, and home accessories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Uri Horowitz, Esq. 14441 70th Road Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 705-8706 Facsimile: (718) 705-8705 E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com TAPESTRY INC: Must Oppose Class Cert Bid by August 22 ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Carlos Ayala, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Tapestry, Inc.; Kate Spade LLC dba Kate Spade New York; Stuart Weitzman; Does 1 through 20, Inclusive, Case No. 3:24-cv-01052-BAS-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order approving the following briefing schedule: -- The Defendants' opposition to the Plaintiff's class certification motion will be due on Aug. 22, 2025. -- The Plaintiff's reply in support of his class certification motion will be due on Sept. 19, 2025. -- The hearing on the Plaintiff's class certification motion shall be October 3, or another date agreeable to the Court. -- The Parties have submitted a joint stipulation requesting that the Court set a deadline for Plaintiff to file his class certification motion by July 25, 2025. Tapestry is an American multinational fashion holding company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AUXhlF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq. Zachary T. Gershman, Esq. Rayne A. Brown, Esq. LEBE LAW, APLC 777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor Los Angeles, CA 90021 Telephone: (213) 444-1973 E-mail: Jon@lebelaw.com Zachary@lebelaw.com Rayne@lebelaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Gregory W. Knopp, Esq. Laura Vaughn, Esq. PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 557-2900 Facsimile: (310) 557-2193 E-mail: gknopp@proskauer.com lvaughn@proskauer.com TDS TELECOM: Mott Seeks Approval of Revised Notice and Consent -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KENNETH MOTT, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. TDS Telecom Service LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00185-RMR-STV (D. Colo.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting unopposed motion to approve revised notice and consent to join form. The Plaintiff submits that these materials address the Court's concerns, and asks that the Court approve distribution of Exhibits B, D, and E. The Plaintiff Ken Mott, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, moves for approval of the revised notice documents pursuant to the Court's initial Order on conditional certification. The Defendant does not oppose this motion. Based on the Court's guidance, Plaintiff's Counsel revised the mail notice and the email notice; no changes were made to the text message notice. TDS provides telephone voice and data communications services. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=VjRD7z at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel S. Brome, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, LLP 235 Montgomery St., Suite 810 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (877) 448-0492 Facsimile: (415) 277-7238 E-mail: dbrome@nka.com TECTON CAFE: Underpays Restaurant Staff, Gonzalez Suit Alleges -------------------------------------------------------------- JAIME GONZALEZ and ANDRES FUENTES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. TECTON CAFE INC. (d/b/a ESTANCIA 460) and STACY SOSA, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-02288 (S.D.N.Y., March 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation, failure to provide a written wage notice, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to reimburse business expenses, unlawful tip deductions, and failure to timely pay wages. Plaintiffs Gonzalez and Fuentes were employed as cooks and delivery workers at the Estancia 460 restaurant from approximately 2018 until on or about January 19, 2025, and from approximately May 2018 until on or about January 2, 2025, respectively. Tecton Cafe Inc. is the owner and operator of an Argentinian restaurant named Estancia 460, located at 460 Greenwich St., New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Michael Faillace, Esq. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 TICKETMASTER LLC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Hidden Junk Fees --------------------------------------------------------------- A new proposed class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleges that Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. and its ticketing subsidiary Ticketmaster LLC use "bait-and-switch" tactics by advertising deceptively low ticket prices online, only to tack on hefty fees near the end of checkout. Four plaintiffs -- hailing from California, Florida, New York, and Illinois -- brought the complaint on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, accusing the ticketing giant of misleading consumers with "hidden junk fees" that inflate overall costs and lead to unfair profits. "The scale of the defendants' malfeasance is enormous," the complaint says, pointing to Live Nation Entertainment's own boasting of having sold more than 300 million tickets in 2023 alone in that year's earnings report. "The scale of Defendants' malfeasance is enormous. In 2023, Live Nation, through Ticketmaster LLC, collected fees on 329 million tickets. "Extrapolated over the proposed class period, Defendants have collected unfair and deceptive fees through their drip pricing practices on as many as 1 billion tickets." "Ticketmaster's unfair and deceptive purchase flow violates the rights of consumers across the country." According to the 56-page complaint, Ticketmaster's primary deception involves what is often called "drip pricing." Plaintiffs allege that consumers are initially shown an artificially low ticket price, only to discover large, mandatory fees as they finalize their purchase. By the time the true price of the ticket is revealed -- which includes service fees, facility charges, and processing fees -- plaintiffs say consumers are so far along in the checkout process and facing a short "countdown clock" that they feel pressured to complete the purchase, even if the final price is significantly higher than the originally advertised figure. The complaint characterizes this practice as a classic "bait and switch." The "bait," say plaintiffs, comes in the form of a low, attention-grabbing ticket cost, while the "switch" occurs at checkout, when "exorbitant" fees are added to that base price. Notably, the suit cites statements from Live Nation itself acknowledging that "it is no more difficult" to show all-in pricing at the beginning of a transaction than it is to show it only at checkout. Growing Scrutiny of "Hidden Junk Fees" The complaint points out that "junk fees" have become a national talking point, condemned at the federal level by the White House and scrutinized by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). While the FTC is set to implement new trade rules banning certain kinds of hidden fees, the plaintiffs say Ticketmaster's current practice remains deceptive and causes widespread harm. Plaintiffs also highlight that in some states where new legislation bars ticket sellers from advertising only a partial ticket price, Ticketmaster has begun showing so-called "all-in" pricing. Yet for events outside of those specific jurisdictions, consumers around the country often still see the lower "base" price without the required fees displayed upfront. The complaint notes that California consumers have found themselves hit by hidden fees when buying tickets to events in other states, despite California's own efforts to combat such practices. Dark Patterns and the Countdown Clock One striking aspect of the lawsuit is the allegation that Ticketmaster's website and mobile app employ "digital dark patterns" to further manipulate consumers into finalizing a purchase at an inflated cost. These include: -- Countdown Timers: A ticking clock during checkout, which the complaint says pressures buyers to hurry, fearing they could lose selected seats if time runs out. -- Pop-Up Warnings: Messages that claim "tickets are selling fast" or "this event is almost sold out," creating a false sense of urgency. -- Obscured Fees: A design that hides the exact amount of fees until the final screen. Even then, details of each fee may be visible only if a user clicks a small dropdown arrow. The complaint alleges these mechanisms leave consumers little opportunity to pause, compare, or rethink their choices. Laws Cited in the Complaint The lawsuit asserts claims under multiple state consumer protection statutes, including: -- California: Alleged violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and False Advertising Law (FAL). -- New York: Alleged violations of New York's Arts & Cultural Affairs Law, as well as General Business Law §§ 349 and 350. -- Illinois: Alleged violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act. -- Florida: Alleged violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Seeking Damages and an Injunction The four plaintiffs -- Michelle Madrigal (California), Helen Pantuso (Florida), Jessica Tempest (New York), and Tracey Sunde (Illinois) -- request that the court certify the lawsuit as a class action on behalf of all similarly affected U.S. consumers. They seek damages, restitution, and other forms of relief, including an injunction that would require Ticketmaster to display all mandatory fees at the outset of the purchase process. The complaint points to Ticketmaster's market dominance, stating that it sold fees on "329 million tickets in 2023" and alleging that many fans have "no choice" but to purchase through the platform for certain events, where venue or promoter exclusivity exists. Ticketmaster and Live Nation have not yet issued a public response to the complaint. While the lawsuit remains in an early stage, the filing references the Ninth Circuit's recent decision (Heckman v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.) finding parts of Ticketmaster's arbitration provision unconscionable. According to plaintiffs, this means consumers are not bound to private individual arbitrations, leaving the door open for a potential class-action trial. [GN] TIGER PLUMBING: Exploits Senior Citizens with Inflated Prices ------------------------------------------------------------- JONAH SHAWGO as Administrator, on behalf of THE ESTATE OF RICK LEE SHAWGO, Plaintiff v. TIGER PLUMBING, HEATING, AIR CONDITIONING & ELECTRICAL SERVICES, d/b/a TIGER SERVICES, TIGER PLUMBING SERVICES, LLC, TIGER HEATING and AIR CONDITIONING SERVICES, INC., TIGER ELECTRICAL SERVICES, LLC, and ALLY FINANCIAL, INC., d/b/a ALLY LENDING, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00321 (S.D. Ill., March 7, 2025) arises from the Defendants' unlawful scheme to exploit vulnerable senior citizens, including Plaintiff Shawgo, by misrepresenting the cost of plumbing services and coercing customers into unfair financing arrangements. According to the complaint, the Defendants, through duplicative and misleading means, conveyed an artificially inflated price for plumbing services. Tiger Plumbing then steered elderly customers toward financing through Ally Financial, Inc., despite knowing the transactions were predicated on fraudulent misrepresentations. The Defendants' conduct constitutes elder financial exploitation under Illinois law, fraud in the inducement, and a pattern of racketeering activity in violation of both the Illinois Street Gang and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Law and the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, says the suit. The Plaintiff, the Estate of Mr. Shawgo, is the duly opened and appointed estate of Mr. Shawgo, a resident of Monroe County who was fraudulently induced into an overpriced plumbing service and financing agreement. Tiger Plumbing, Heating, Air Conditioning and Electrical Services d/b/a Tiger Services, is an Illinois corporation engaged in the business of providing plumbing services to consumers in Illinois, including Monroe County.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles J. Baricevic, Esq. CHATHAM & BARICEVIC 107 West Main Street Belleville, IL 62220 Telephone: (618) 233-2200 Facsimile: (618) 233-1589 E-mail: cj@chathamlaw.org TRADE DESK: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due April 21 ------------------------------------------------------------ Leading securities law firm Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP announces that a lawsuit has been filed against The Trade Desk, Inc. (NASDAQ: TTD) and certain of the Company's senior executives for potential violations of the federal securities laws. If you invested in Trade Desk, you are encouraged to obtain additional information by visiting https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/the-trade-desk-inc. Investors have until April 21, 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 Trade Desk common stock. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California and is captioned United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers & Allied Workers Local Union No. 8 WBPA Fund v. The Trade Desk, Inc., et al., No. 25-cv-01396. Why was Trade Desk Sued for Securities Fraud? Trade Desk is an advertising technology company that offers ad buyers the ability to create and manage data-driven digital advertising campaigns across ad formats and channels. The complaint alleges that during the relevant period, Trade Desk stated it was seeing "massive benefits" surrounding the launch of its next-generation platform, Kokai, and that although it was "already seeing the results of Kokai performance today," it was "just getting started." In truth, when these statements were made, Trade Desk was experiencing execution challenges rolling out Kokai, which delayed the rollout and negatively impacted the Company's business operations and revenue growth. The Stock Declines as the Truth is Revealed On February 12, 2025, after market hours, Trade Desk reported its fourth quarter 2024 financial results. The company reported disappointing revenue of $741 million, well below its guidance of "at least" $756 million in revenue. During the same-day earnings call, the company admitted that "Kokai rolled out slower than we anticipated" as the company was still "trying to understand what the customer needs." On this news, the price of Trade Desk stock fell over 30% during the course of trading on February 13, 2025, from a closing price of $122.23 per share on February 12, 2025. For more information, visit https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/the-trade-desk-inc. What Can You Do? If you invested in Trade Desk 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/the-trade-desk-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/the-trade-desk-inc [GN] TRADE DESK: Gunderson Stockholder Suit Briefing Still Not Set ------------------------------------------------------------- Trade Desk Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 21, 2025, that the Gunderson stockholder class suit briefing not yet set. On October 4, 2024, a stockholder filed a class action complaint in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware alleging claims for breach of contract against the Company and breach of fiduciary duties against its directors, in connection with its reincorporation from Delaware to Nevada. Gunderson v. The Trade Desk, Inc., No. 2024-1029 (Del. Ch.). On October 24, 2024, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The complaint sought, among other things, an order declaring that its conversion required approval by a supermajority of its stockholders and an order enjoining the November 14, 2024 stockholder vote on the proposed conversion. On October 28, 2024, the parties completed expedited briefing on cross motions for partial summary judgment regarding the causes of action asserted in the original complaint, and the court heard oral argument on the motions on October 30, 2024. On November 6, 2024, the court granted the defendants' summary judgment motion and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion, finding that the conversion did not require supermajority approval of its stockholders, and that the defendants did not breach their fiduciary duties by disclosing that the conversion required a vote of a simple majority of its stockholders. The plaintiff chose not to appeal. The case is now proceeding as to the plaintiff's remaining claims that its directors breached their fiduciary duties because its reincorporation to Nevada was substantively and procedurally unfair, and that the transaction is not subject to the business judgment rule because it was not subject to approval by a special committee of the board or by a majority of the disinterested stockholders. The defendants have moved to dismiss, but no briefing schedule has been set. Trade Desk is a technology company that operates a self-service, cloud-based platform targeted at advertisers. The Company's platform integrates with inventory, publisher, and data partners to provide ad buyers with the ability to create, manage and optimize data-driven digital advertising campaigns across ad formats and channels.[BN] TRADE DESK: Pension Fund Sues Over 33% Drop in Share Price ---------------------------------------------------------- NEW ENGLAND TEAMSTERS PENSION FUND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE TRADE DESK, INC., JEFFREY T.GREEN, LAURA SCHENKEIN, and SAMANTHA JACOBSON, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01936 (C.D. Cal., March 5, 2025) is a securities class action is brought on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Trade Desk Class A common stock between May 9, 2024 and February 12, 2025, inclusive, under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On June 6, 2023, approximately one year before the start of the Class Period, Trade Desk introduced Kokai, its new and enhanced media buying and analytics demand-side platform, an intermediary facilitating the placement of advertisements between advertisers (the demand side) and publishers (the supply side). According to the complaint, the Defendants made materially false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts about Trade Desk's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose that: (i) Trade Desk was experiencing significant performance issues with the Kokai platform that were negatively impacting customer adoption; (ii) Trade Desk was deliberately slowing the pace of its Kokai rollout to maximize short-term profits; (iii) competition from Amazon and other competing platforms was taking substantial market share away from Trade Desk; (iv) Trade Desk's engineering and sales teams were not adequately structured to support the Kokai rollout and fend off mounting competition; and (v) as a result of the forgoing, Defendants' positive statements about its business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked reasonable basis at all relevant times. The truth about the Company's unsuccessful Kokai rollout and its loss of market share to competing platforms was revealed to the market on February 12, 2025. On this news, Trade Desk's stock price fell $40.31 per share, or 33 percent, to close at $81.92 per share on February 13, 2025. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's stock, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. The Trade Desk, Inc. is a Ventura, California-based technology company that operates a cloud-based digital platform that helps advertisers place ads on websites, podcasts, and streaming services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Reed R. Kathrein, Esq. Lucas E. Gilmore, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 300 Berkeley, CA 94710 Telephone: (510) 725-3000 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 E-mail: reed@hbsslaw.com lucasg@hbsslaw.com - and - Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 301 North Lake Avenue Pasadena, CA 91101 Telephone: (213) 330-7150 Facsimile: (213) 330-7152 E-mail: christopherp@hbsslaw.com - and - Francis P. McConville, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 E-mail: fmcconville@labaton.com TRINITY BROADCASTING: Discloses Viewing Info to Meta, Allen Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- KELLY ALLEN and CHRISTOPHER THOMPSON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. TRINITY BROADCASTING OF TEXAS, INC. d/b/a TRINITY BROADCASTING NETWORK, Case No. 8:25-cv-00537 (C.D. Cal., March 20, 2025) alleges that the Defendant knowingly disclosed to Meta information which identified the audio visual materials its subscribers requested or obtained from its website. The Plaintiffs bring this class action against TBN to protect the privacy rights granted to them under federal law, rights Defendant violated by knowingly disclosing its subscribers' personally identifiable information to Meta. Accordingly, when subscribers request or obtain audio visual materials on the platform, the Defendant discloses their video-watching activity to Meta by specifically identifying the audio visual materials subscribers request and/or obtain. The Defendant allegedly discloses subscribers' activity through Meta's advertising technologies which are designed to improve Defendant's advertising campaigns on Meta's platforms. These technologies are the Meta Pixel (enhanced by Meta's Automatic Advanced Matching technology) and the Conversions API. The Defendant purposely installed the Meta Pixel on its website domain to disclose its subscribers' video-watching behavior to Meta. TBN communicates its subscribers' video-watching behavior to Meta through transmissions which include two distinct data points, inextricably linked within a single transmission of information to Meta, says the suit. On behalf of themselves and all similarly situated subscribers of Defendant, the Plaintiffs seek an order enjoining Defendant from further unauthorized disclosures of subscribers' PII; awarding liquidated damages in the amount of $2,500 per violation, attorneys' fees, and costs; and granting any other preliminary or equitable relief the Court deems appropriate. The Plaintiffs subscribes to the Defendant's Website. The Defendant operates TBNplus.com through which it surveils its subscribers' viewing behavior and knowingly discloses their PII to third parties including Meta. Specifically, TBN, through its website shares its subscribers' PII via the Meta Pixel (enhanced with Advanced Matching) and CAPI.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Gillian L. Wade, Esq. Marc A. Castaneda, Esq. WADE KILPELA SLADE, LLP 1 Riverfront Pl., Ste. 745 North Little Rock, AR 72114 Telephone: (501) 417-6445 E-mail: gwade@waykayslay.com marc@waykayslay.com - and - Allen Carney, Esq. Samuel Randolph Jackson Joseph Henry (Hank) Bates, III, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC One Allied Drive, Suite 1400 Little Rock, AR 72202 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 Facsimile: (501) 312-850 acarney@cbplaw.com E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com sjackson@cbplaw.com TRU BLISS ORGANICS: Iwamoto Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tru Bliss Organics LLC. The case is styled as Austin Iwamoto, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tru Bliss Organics LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00884-SHD (D. Ariz., March 17, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. truBLISS -- https://trubliss.com/ -- is an Arizona regulated licensed medical and recreational marijuana dispensary in Mesa, Arizona.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E Las Olas Blvd., Suite 120 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Phone: (954) 533-4092 Email: meisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com UE LINE: Misclassifies Delivery Drivers, Morris Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------- TEVIN MORRIS and WILBUR O'NEAL DAVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. UE LINE, INC. and EUGEN UNTILA, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-02352 (N.D. Ill., March 5, 2025) is an action brought on behalf of current and former delivery drivers challenging the Defendant's unlawful practice of misclassifying its drivers as independent contractors. The Plaintiffs contend that, although they and other delivery drivers were classified by UE Line as independent contractors, they were, in fact, employees of UE Line. The Plaintiffs also contend that Defendant Eugen Untila is individually liable by virtue of his role within UE Line, creating and overseeing UE Line's unlawful classification and compensation practices. The Plaintiffs further allege that, as a result of UE Line's policies, illegal deductions were made from their and other delivery drivers' wages in violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act. They assert, in the alternative, that UE Line unlawfully required them and others similarly situated to incur expenses that should have properly been borne by UE Line. Plaintiffs Morris and Davis worked for UE Line as truck drivers, making deliveries in Illinois and other states between approximately January and February 2025. UE Line, Inc. is a trucking company in Illinois.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Bradley Manewith, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 5 Revere Drive, Suite 200 Northbrook, IL 60062 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: bmanewith@llrlaw.com - and - Harold Lichten, Esq. Olena Savytska, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Ste. 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Telephone: (617) 994-5800 Facsimile: (617) 994-5801 E-mail: hlichten@llrlaw.com osavytska@llrlaw.com UNITED NETWORK: Randall Seeks to File Reply Under Seal ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY RANDALL, v. UNITED NETWORK FOR ORGAN SHARING; CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER, Case No. 2:23-cv-02576-MEMF-MAA (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting application for leave to file under seal documents in connection with his reply in support of motion for class certification. The Plaintiff applies to file these documents under seal for the sole reason that they have been designated "Confidential" by Cedars pursuant to the parties' Stipulated Protective Order. The Plaintiff does not believe any of these documents may properly be filed under seal. There is a strong presumption in favor of the public accessibility of court records. In conclusion, the Plaintiff files the instant application to seal because the materials were previously designated confidential by Defendant Cedars. However, the documents concern an important public issue and neither contain patient health information nor confidential business information. For these reasons, the Plaintiff respectfully requests the Court deny the application to seal these documents. United Network is a private, non-profit organization that manages the organ transplant system in the U.S. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qGG00j at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Matthew L. Venezia, Esq. George B. A. Laiolo, Esq. Andrew R. Iglesias, Esq. ELLIS GEORGE LLP 2121 Avenue of the Stars, 30th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 274-7100 Facsimile: (310) 275-5697 E-mail: mvenezia@ellisgeorge.com glaiolo@ellisgeorge.com aiglesias@ellisgeorge.com - and - David J. Ko, Esq. Daniel P. Mensher, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P. 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3400 Seattle, Washington 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Facsimile: (206) 623-3384 E-mail: dko@kellerrohrback.com dmensher@kellerrohrback.com UNITED STATES OIL FUND: Consolidated Securities Suit Ongoing ------------------------------------------------------------ United States Oil Fund, LP disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2025 that a consolidated class action "In re: United States Oil Fund, LP Securities Litigation," Civil Action No. 1:20-cv-04740 against USCF Investments, Inc. and United States Oil Fund, LP (USO) are pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York under the caption. On June 19, 2020, USCF, USO, John P. Love, and Stuart P. Crumbaugh were named as defendants in a putative class action filed by purported shareholder Robert Lucas. The court thereafter consolidated the Lucas class action with two related putative class actions filed on July 31, 2020 and August 13, 2020, and appointed a lead plaintiff. On November 30, 2020, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting claims under the Exchange Act and challenges statements in registration statements that became effective on February 25, 2020 and March 23, 2020 as well as subsequent public statements through April 2020 concerning certain extraordinary market conditions and the attendant risks that caused the demand for oil to fall precipitously, including the COVID-19 global pandemic and the Saudi Arabia-Russia oil price war. Said complaint purports to have been brought by an investor in USO on behalf of a class of similarly-situated shareholders who purchased USO securities between February 25, 2020 and April 28, 2020 and pursuant to the challenged registration statements and seeks to certify a class and to award the class compensatory damages at an amount to be determined at trial as well as costs and attorney's fees. The United States Oil Fund, LP is a commodity pool that issues limited partnership interests traded on the NYSE Arca, Inc. It grants full management control to its general partner, United States Commodity Funds LLC. US BANCORP: 401(k) Savings Plan Class Gets Certification -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANA L. DIONICIO and ALEJANDRO M. WESAW, individually, and as a representative of a Class of Participants and Beneficiaries of the U.S. Bank 401(k) Savings Plan, v. U.S. Bancorp, et al., Case No. 0:23-cv-00026-PJS-DLM (D. Minn.), the Hon. Judge Patrick Schiltz entered an order certifying the following class consisting of: "All participants and beneficiaries of the U.S. Bank 401(k) Savings Plan (excluding the Defendants or any participant/beneficiary who is a fiduciary to the Plan) beginning Jan. 5, 2017, and running through the date of judgment." The Court further entered an order: -- Appointing the Plaintiffs as Class representatives; and -- Appointing Walcheske & Luzi, LLC as Class counsel. U.S. Bancorp is an American multinational financial services firm. A copy of the Court's order dated March 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8OX7Kh at no extra charge.[CC] VALSOFT CORP: Faces Smith Suit Over Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------- SCOTT SMITH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VALSOFT CORPORATION, INC. d/b/a ALLTRUST NETWORKS and ASPIRE USA, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00420 (E.D. Va., March 7, 2025) seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it caused Plaintiff and similarly situated persons as a result of a data breach of Defendant's inadequately protected computer network. On February 14, 2024, AllTrust detected suspicious activity on the computer network of its subsidiary Aspire, indicating a data breach on Defendant's network. Based on a subsequent forensic investigation, AllTrust determined that cybercriminals infiltrated Aspire's inadequately secured computer environment and thereby gained access to AllTrust's data files between February 12, 2024, and February 15, 2024. As a result of the data breach, the Plaintiff and Class members have already suffered damages. For example, now that their personal information has been released into the criminal cyber domains, Plaintiff and Class members are at imminent and impending risk of identity theft. Additionally, the Plaintiff and Class members have already lost time and money responding to and mitigating the impact of the data breach, which efforts are continuous and ongoing, says the suit. Valsoft Corporation, Inc., d/b/a AllTrust Networks, is a software and services provider for check cashing and alternate financial services solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lee A. Floyd, Esq. Justin M. Sheldon, Esq. BREIT BINIAZAN, PC 2100 East Cary Street, Suite 310 Richmond, VA 23223 Telephone: (804) 351-9040 Facsimile: (804) 351-9170 E-mail: Lee@bbtrial.com Justin@bbtrial.com - and - William B. Federman, Esq. Tanner R. Hilton, Esq. FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD 10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue Oklahoma City, OK 73120 Telephone: (405) 235-1560 E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com trh@federmanlaw.com VEERUP VENTURES: Herrera Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- EDERY HERRERA, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. VEERUP VENTURES, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02291 (S.D.N.Y., March 20, 2025) alleges that the Cedarville failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website, https://ladybugpotions.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibiting discrimination against the blind. Accordingly, the Defendant's policy and practice to deny Plaintiff, along with other blind or visually-impaired users, access to Defendant's Website, and to therefore specifically deny the goods and services that are offered thereby. Due to Defendant's failure and refusal to remove access barriers to its Website, Plaintiff and visually-impaired persons have been and are still being denied equal access to Defendant's numerous goods, services and benefits offered to the public through the Website, asserts the suit. The 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. The Defendant offers the commercial website wherein features allow all consumers to access the goods and services offered by Defendant and which Defendant ensures delivery of such goods and services throughout the United States including New York State. The goods and services offered by Defendant's Website include information about Defendant's: wellness supplements, as well as other types of goods, pricing, terms of service, refund, privacy policies and internet pricing specials.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal VISION SERVICE: Class Settlement in Schmidt Wage Suit Wins Final OK ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the case of MICHAEL SCHMIDT, on behalf of himself and the Class and Collective members, Plaintiffs, v. VISION SERVICE PLAN, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-2400-CSK (E.D. Cal.), Judge Carolyn K. Delaney of the U.S. The District Court for the Eastern District of California (i) granted the Plaintiff's renewed motion for final approval of the class and collective action settlement and (ii) granted in part his renewed motion for attorneys' fees and costs. The lawsuit involved allegations by Plaintiff Michael Schmidt and other nonexempt employees against Defendants Vision Service Plan, VSP Global Inc., Marchon Eyewear, Inc., VSP Optical Group, Inc., and Eyefinity, Inc. The Plaintiffs claimed that defendants violated federal and California wage and hour laws, including the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), California Labor Code, and Business and Professions Code, by failing to pay proper minimum and overtime wages and failing to provide meal and rest breaks. The class action, brought by customer service representatives and similar employees alleging unpaid off-the-clock work, was resolved through mediation with Scott Markus, resulting in a settlement agreement on January 4, 2022, later amended on December 8, 2023. Judge Delaney reviewed the settlement and ruled that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e) and provided a total settlement fund of $3,450,000. After deducting attorneys' fees, litigation costs, and other administrative expenses, the net amount available to the affected employees was estimated at $2,133,300. A significant element of the decision was the adjustment of the attorneys' fees. While the initial request had been for $1,150,000, the court approved fees totaling $862,500—roughly 25% of the overall settlement value—to ensure that the fees remained in line with standard legal benchmarks. In addition to the fee adjustment, the Court granted a service award to Plaintiff Schmidt, reducing his request from $15,000 to $10,000. This award recognized his role and effort as the class representative. Settlement administration costs were set at $26,700 to be paid to the ILYM Group, while PAGA penalties amounting to $100,000 were allocated with $75,000 directed to the California Labor and Workforce Development Agency and the remaining $25,000 distributed among the PAGA Group Members. Judge Delaney reaffirmed the appointment of (i) Schmidt as the Class Representative for the California Class and Opt-In Plaintiffs and (ii) Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky LLP and Shavitz Law Group, P.A. as the Class Counsel. The decision also underscored the effectiveness of the notice process. The Court confirmed that all class members had been adequately notified of the settlement, with only one individual choosing to opt out—ensuring that no further claims could be pursued by that individual. Moreover, the high participation rate and the lack of any objections from class members were clear indicators of the settlement's broad acceptance and support. Throughout her review, Judge Delaney weighed several key factors, including the challenges associated with proving damages and obtaining class certification, as well as the risk and expense that continued litigation would have imposed on all parties involved. Ultimately, she concluded that the settlement provided a balanced resolution that met the needs of the class while preserving the integrity of the legal process. A final distribution under the settlement was also outlined: on average, California Class Members are expected to receive a gross recovery of approximately $1,694, while opt-in plaintiffs are slated to receive about $701 each. Notably, the largest individual payment will exceed $4,472. Beyond the financial awards, the Court took additional steps to prevent future litigation by permanently barring settlement class members and the LWDA from pursuing any further claims against the defendants covered under this settlement. With these measures in place, Judge Delaney dismissed the case with prejudice and directed the Clerk of the Court to close the action, marking the final resolution of this lengthy class action lawsuit. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated March 3, 2025, is available at https://tinyurl.com/3852ss5j from PacerMonitor.com. VOLATO INC: Court Certifies Class in Gray Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LOUANN GRAY & JENNIFER NICHOLS, ON THEIR OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF THOSE SIMILARLY SITUATED, v. VOLATO, INC. & VOLATO GROUP, INC., Case No. 3:24-cv-00952-WWB-PDB (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Patricia Barksdale entered an order: -- denying without prejudice the Plaintiffs' motions to substitute Jennifer Nichols with Khea Trevana and Michael Rickets, and -- certifying a class and approve class representatives, class counsel, and notice. Any renewed motion to certify a class and approve class representatives, class counsel, and notice must be filed by March 31, 2025. Volato operates as a private jet company. A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=F6NhGr at no extra charge.[CC] WEBER DISTRIBUTION: Bid to Compel Arbitration in Ortiz Suit Denied ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case, ADAN ORTIZ, Plaintiff, v. WEBER DISTRIBUTION, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. B329739, Super. Ct. No. 22STCV36847 (Cal. Ct. App.), Judges Dorothy Kim, Lamar Baker, and Presiding Judge Brian Hoffstadt of the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District, Division Five, denied Weber Distribution's appeal to compel arbitration in a workplace dispute with former employee Ortiz. The ruling affirms a Los Angeles County Superior Court decision, which found that Ortiz was exempt from arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) due to his involvement in interstate commerce. Adan Ortiz, a former forklift operator at Weber Distribution's San Bernardino warehouse, filed a whistleblower retaliation lawsuit in November 2022, alleging that Weber violated California Labor Code, Section 1102.5. Ortiz claimed that his employment was wrongfully terminated after he reported workplace misconduct. Upon hiring, Ortiz had signed an arbitration agreement, which Weber later cited in its motion to compel arbitration in February 2023. The company argued that the FAA governed the agreement, requiring Ortiz to settle his claims through arbitration rather than litigation. Ortiz, however, contested the motion, arguing that his job duties involved sorting, organizing, and preparing goods for shipment to various states and countries. His role, he asserted, was an integral part of the interstate supply chain, making him exempt from arbitration under the FAA's transportation worker exemption outlined in Section 1. Weber countered that Ortiz's responsibilities were limited to warehouse operations and did not directly involve transporting goods across state lines. Therefore, according to Weber, Ortiz did not meet the criteria for the FAA exemption and should be required to resolve the dispute in arbitration. Each side presented extensive arguments regarding the scope of Ortiz's job responsibilities and the applicability of the FAA exemption to his role within the company. The Los Angeles County Superior Court ruled in Ortiz's favor, denying Weber's motion to compel arbitration. The court found that Ortiz's job duties contributed directly to the movement of goods in interstate commerce, placing him within the FAA's transportation worker exemption. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court's ruling, holding that: i. Ortiz was engaged in interstate commerce because his role as a warehouse employee involved handling goods destined for out-of-state shipment, making him exempt under the FAA. ii. The arbitration agreement was governed by the FAA, meaning California's arbitration laws (CAA) could not be used to enforce arbitration where the FAA exemption applied. iii. Weber's arguments regarding Ortiz's job scope were insufficient to overcome the well-established standard that workers involved in the logistics and supply chain can qualify as transportation workers under the FAA. With the appellate court's decision affirming Ortiz's exemption from arbitration, the case will proceed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, where litigation on the whistleblower retaliation claims will continue. A full-text copy of the court's decision is available at https://tinyurl.com/4avh3huz from PacerMonitor.com. WEIGHTLESS MEDICAL: Discloses Privates Info, Nozil Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------- PHARAH NOZIL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WEIGHTLESS MEDICAL LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01251-LKE (E.D.N.Y., March 5, 2025) is a class action lawsuit brought under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act on behalf of all persons who have visited the website, joinweightcare.com, and purchased prescription Glucagon-like peptide-1 weight loss medication. According to the complaint, when consumers visit the website, they are first directed to, "Select Your Weight Loss Program," whereby they purchase subscription weight loss medication. Then, they "Connect With A WeightCare Doctor Online." Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and members of the putative class, as they were making their purchases in real-time, the Defendant disclosed their personally identifiable information and protected health information to third parties such as Meta Platforms, Inc. for targeted advertising purposes. The Plaintiff therefore brings this action for legal and equitable remedies resulting from Defendant's illegal actions. Weightless Medical LLC is an online provider of prescription GLP-1 weight loss medication.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Alec M. Leslie, 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: aleslie@bursor.com - and - Stephen A. Beck, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 701 Brickell Ave., Suite 2100 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 330-5512 Facsimile: (305) 676-9006 E-mail: sbeck@bursor.com WESTREET FEDERAL: Johnson Suit Removed to N.D. Oklahoma ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Bradley Johnson and Nicholas Easter, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. WESTREET FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, Case No. CJ-2025-709 was removed from the District Court of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma on March 17, 2025, and assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-00124-CDL. The Plaintiffs' Class Action Petition purports to state claims for breach of contract, including the breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; violation of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E and unjust enrichment.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: J. Craig Buchan, Esq. Matthew C. Cecconi, Esq. MCAFEE & TAFT A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Two West Second Street, Suite 1100 Tulsa, OK 74103 Phone: (918) 587-0000 Facsimile: (918) 574-3193 Email: craig.buchan@mcafeetaft.com matthew.cecconi@mcafeetaft.com - and - Andrew J. Morris, Esq. MCAFEE & TAFT A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION Eighth Floor, Two Leadership Square 211 North Robinson Ave. Oklahoma City, OK 73102 Phone: (405) 235-9621 Facsimile: (405) 235-0439 Email: andrew.morris@mcafeetaft.com WESTWIND SCHOOL: Bhattacharya Suit Removed to D. Arizona -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Anant Bhattacharya, Jennifer Bummer, Kevin Chapa, Azia Charles, Shawn Day, Blake Falls, Adela Gallegos, Norbertha Garcia, Rick Gonzalez, Chris Hall, Cameron James, Lok Sum Ida Lau, Joshua Lim, Daniel Madison, Sawyer Mills, Young Noh, Emily Pagano, Jacklyn Pope, Felicia Ragsdale, Jackie Taylor, Paige Texas, Jenesis Tucker, Jon Watkins, Jonathan Wizard, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Westwind School of Aeronautics Phoenix LLC doing business as: United Aviate Academy, Case No. CV2025-006742 was removed from the Maricopa County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona on March 19, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00923-SHD to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Westwind School of Aeronautics is a high quality, part 141 flight training school in Phoenix Arizona.[BN] The Plaintiffs is represented by: David Kendell TeSelle, Esq. BURG SIMPSON ELDREDGE HERSH & JARDINE PC 40 Inverness Dr. E Englewood, CO 80112 Phone: (602) 777-7000 Email: dteselle@burgsimpson.com The Defendant is represented by: Bradley Lynn Dunn, Esq. Melissa Victoria Smith, Esq. HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP - PHOENIX, AZ 2375 E Camelback Rd., Ste. 410 Phoenix, AZ 85016 Phone: (602) 631-4400 Email: bdunn@hinshawlaw.com msmith@hinshawlaw.com WEYERHAEUSER NR: Audelo Suit Removed to E.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ruben Audelo, individually, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. WEYERHAEUSER NR COMPANY and DOES 1 TO 50, Case No. 24CV-0206069 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Shasta, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on March 17, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-at-00358. On January 27, 2025, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Class Action and PAGA Complaint for Damages against Defendant and various Doe Defendants (hereinafter, the "FAC"). The FAC asserts 14 causes of action: failure to pay all wages including minimum and overtime wages; unpaid meal period premiums; unpaid rest period premiums; failure to provide recovery periods; failure to produce wage statements; failure to produce personnel records; failure to produce signed records; failure to implement heat prevent and maintain legal temperature controls; failure to provide accurate wage statements; failure to pay waiting time penalties; failure to reimburse necessary business expenses; violation of California's quota laws; unfair business practices under the Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); and enforcement of the PAGA.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Gabriel Huey, Esq. Stacey Chiu, Esq. K&L GATES LLP 10100 Santa Monica Blvd, 8th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: +1 310 552 5000 Facsimile: +1 310 552 5001 Email: gabriel.huey@klgates.com stacey.chiu@klgates.com WHITESTONE HOME: Williams Sues Over Mattresses' Deceptive Labels ---------------------------------------------------------------- MELISSA WILLIAMS and HELEN COLBY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. WHITESTONE HOME FURNISHINGS, LLC, d/b/a SAATVA, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01527 (E.D.N.Y., March 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, and state consumer protection statutes, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's false, deceptive, and misleading advertising, labeling, and marketing of Saatva adult mattress products. The Defendant markets the products to consumers as "nontoxic," "safe," "natural," "ecofriendly" and "chemical-free." The Defendant also uses third-party "certifications" to market itself as a sustainable company and to further assure consumers that the products are safe and environmentally sound. Despite these representations, the Defendant's mattresses are made with materials that are associated with health and environmental concerns such as polyester fiber, viscoelastic polyurethane, and rayon fiber. Had the Plaintiffs known the truth, they would not have purchased the products or would have paid less for them, says the suit. Whitestone Home Furnishings, LLC, doing business as Saatva, is a manufacturer of mattress products, with a principal place of business in New York. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Kim E. Richman, Esq. RICHMAN LAW & POLICY 1 Bridge Street, Suite 83 Irvington, NY 10533 Telephone: (914) 693-2018 Email: krichman@richmanlawpolicy.com WHOLE FOODS: Bautista Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against WHOLE FOODS MARKET, INC. The case is styled as Deborah Bautista, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WHOLE FOODS MARKET, INC., Case No. CGC25623364 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., March 17, 2025). The case type is stated as "Business Tort." Whole Foods Market, Inc. -- https://wholefoodsmarket.com/ -- is an American multinational supermarket chain headquartered in Austin, Texas, which sells products free from hydrogenated fats and artificial colors, flavors, and preservatives.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig W. Straub, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Phone: (310) 496-5818 Email: craig@crosnerlegal.com WHOLESOME STORY: Vegetarian Capsule Deceptively Labeled, Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ MIKA KODAIRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WHOLESOME STORY, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-02456 (C.D. Cal., March 20, 2025) alleges that the front labels of the Wholesome Story Products prominently advertise a certain dosage amount, for example, "1000 mg," the truth, however, is that each capsule does not contain the advertised dosage amount in violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair Competition Law, and False Advertising Law. According to the complaint, the front labels also advertise the number of capsules included in each Product, for example, 90 vegetarian capsules. Reasonable consumers are led to believe that each capsule contains the advertised dosage amount, for example, 1000 mg of spearmint in each capsule. Instead, each capsule contains only a fraction of the advertised dosage and consumers must ingest two, three, or four capsules to achieve the advertised dosage. As a result, consumers grossly overpay for the Products, receiving only half, a third, or a quarter of the advertised value while paying the full purchase price. The Plaintiff read and relied upon the Defendant's advertising when purchasing the Wholesome Story Spearmint 1000 mg product and was damaged as a result, asserts the suit. The Plaintiff brings further causes of action for breach of express and implied warranties, negligent misrepresentation, intentional misrepresentation/fraud, and quasi-contract/unjust enrichment. The Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendant to (a) cease marketing the Products using the complained misleading and unlawful tactics, (b) destroy all misleading deceptive, and unlawful materials, (c) conduct a corrective advertising campaign, (d) restore the amounts by which it has been unjustly enriched, and (e) pay restitution damages and punitive damages, as allowed by law. The Defendant makes, distributes, sells, and markets a wide variety of dietary supplements under the brand name Wholesome Story. The products at issue include the following, in any size, count, or variation: -- Wholesome Story Spearmint 1000 mg -- Wholesome Story Inositol (Myo-Inositol) 2000 mg -- Wholesome Story Melatonin 10 mg -- Wholesome Story Berberine 1500 mg; and -- Wholesome Story Women's Probiotic & Postbiotic 20 Billion CFU.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lilach H. Klein, Esq. Michael T. Houchin, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 E-mail: lilach@crosnerlegal.com mhouchin@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com WINGED NUTRITION: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Herrera Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ EDERY HERRERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WINGED NUTRITION LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02250 (S.D.N.Y., March 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://wingedwellness.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Winged Nutrition LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal ZYNEX INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due May 19 --------------------------------------------------------- Robbins LLP informs stockholders that a class action was filed on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Zynex, Inc. (NASDAQ: ZYXI) securities between March 13, 2023 to March 11, 2025. Zynex is a medical device manufacturer that produces and markets electrotherapy devices for use in pain management and physical rehabilitation. For more information, submit a form, email attorney Aaron Dumas, Jr., or give us a call at (800) 350-6003. The Allegations: Robbins LLP is Investigating Allegations that Zynex, Inc. (ZYXI) Inflated its Revenue and Filed False Claims According to the complaint, during the class period, defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Zynex shipped products, including electrodes, in excess of need; (2) that, as a result of this practice, the Company inflated its revenue; (3) that the Company's practice of filing false claims drew scrutiny from insurers, including Tricare; and (4) that, as a result, it was reasonably likely that Zynex would face adverse consequences, including removal from insurer networks and penalties from the federal government. On March 11, 2025, Zynex reported its fourth quarter and full year 2024 financial results, revealing a significant revenue "shortfall" in the quarter "due to slower than normal payments from certain payers." Zynex further revealed "Tricare has temporarily suspended payments as they review prior claims." Tricare is the health insurance program for the U.S. military. On this news, Zynex's stock price fell $3.59 per share, or 51.3%, to close at $3.41 per share on March 12, 2025. What Now: You may be eligible to participate in the class action against Zynex, Inc. Shareholders who want to serve as lead plaintiff for the class must file their papers with the court by May 19, 2025. A lead plaintiff is a representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. You do not have to participate in the case to be eligible for a recovery. If you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class member. All representation is on a contingency fee basis. Shareholders pay no fees or expenses. About Robbins LLP: A recognized leader in shareholder rights litigation, the attorneys and staff of Robbins LLP have been dedicated to helping shareholders recover losses, improve corporate governance structures, and hold company executives accountable for their wrongdoing since 2002. [GN] ZYNEX INC: Faces Tuncel Class Action Suit Over Stock Price Drop --------------------------------------------------------------- LEVENT TUNCEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ZYNEX, INC., THOMAS SANDGAARD, and DANIEL MOORHEAD, Case No. 1:25-cv-00913 (D. Colo., March 20, 2025) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Zynex securities between March 13, 2023 to March 11, 2025, inclusive, pursuing claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On June 4, 2024, medical journal STAT published a report on Zynex entitled "How a device maker inundated pain patients with unwanted batteries and surprise bills." The report claimed Zynex engaged in an "oversupplying scheme" by sending inordinate amounts of monthly supplies like electrode pads and batteries in order to "bill insurers for thousands of dollars more than it otherwise could." The report further revealed that, as a result of this practice, insurers were "kicking the company out of network." On this news, Zynex's stock price fell $0.50 per share, or 5%, to close at $9.35 per share on June 4, 2024, on unusually heavy trading volume. On March 11, 2025, after the market closed, Zynex reported its fourth quarter and full year 2024 financial results, revealing a significant revenue "shortfall" in the quarter "due to slower than normal payments from certain payers." Zynex further revealed "Tricare has temporarily suspended payments as they review prior claims." Tricare is the health insurance program for the U.S. military. On this news, Zynex's stock price fell $3.59 per share, or 51.3%, to close at $3.41 per share on March 12, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects, says the suit. Specifically, the Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that Zynex shipped products, including electrodes, in excess of need; (2) that, as a result of this practice, the Company inflated its revenue; (3) that the Company's practice of filing false claims drew scrutiny from insurers, including Tricare; (4) that, as a result, it was reasonably likely that Zynex would face adverse consequences, including removal from insurer networks and penalties from the federal government; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. 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, the suit further alleges. Plaintiff Tuncel purchased Zynex securities during the Class Period, and suffered damages as a result of the alleged federal securities law violations and false and/or misleading statements and/or material omissions. Zynex is a medical device manufacturer that produces and markets electrotherapy devices for use in pain management and physical rehabilitation. The Company's products are small, battery powered electronic devices which deliver electric pulses via wires and electrode pads. The Individual Defendants are officers of the company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Pavithra Rajesh, Esq. Rebecca Dawson, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 E-mail: rdawson@glancylaw.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 ***