/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250402.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Wednesday, April 2, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 66
Headlines
360 GLOBAL: Whitehead Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
3M COMPANY: Acker Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
3M COMPANY: Bailey Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Chapman Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Clowers Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Fujihara Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Geiss Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
ALLEGHENY HEALTH: Appeals Denied Arbitration Bid in WW Privacy Suit
ARCADE BELTS: Herrera Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
ASBURY THEOLOGICAL: Faces Pedersen Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
BANCORP INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Due May 16
BLACKROCK INC: Monitors Financial Data, Hacopian Suit Alleges
BOEING EMPLOYEES: Davis Sues Over Wage and Hour Violations
BP ENERGY: Mehl Appeals Consumer Suit Dismissal to 10th Circuit
BROOKLYN BEDDING: Phillips Suit Transferred to C.D. California
BUMBLE INC: Settlement Reached in Securities Suit
CENTRAL BUCKS: Cartee-Haring Files 3rd Cir. Appeal
CHASE FIRE: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, NYLL, Gonzalez Says
CHERRY HILL PROGRAMS: Kennard Suit Removed to S.D. California
CIGNA HEALTH: Whittemore Appeals Suit Dismissal to 1st Circuit
COMMERCIAL SPECIALTY: Silveira Sues Over Failure to Protect Data
COMPLETE PRO: Mendoza Suit Seeks Minimum Wages, OT Under FLSA
CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Yang Appeals Denied Bid for Altered Judgment
DECARBONIZATION PLUS: Faces Securities Suit over Merger Deal
DREW BOSTOCK: Vazquez Files Suit in W.D. Washington
DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery in Bitis Suit Ongoing
EMIRATES: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Farah Extended to May 30
ENCORE ENERGY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Due May 13
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Class Cert Bid Filing Due August 14
F&G ANNUITIES: Faces Miller Data Breach Suit
FATE THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Hadian Securities Class Suit
FMC CORPORATION: Faces MCERS Securities Suit in Pennsylvania
FRESHREALM INC: Mendez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
FUEGO SMOKE & VAPE: Dial Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
GBT US LLC: Ramirez Suit Removed to C.D. California
GOLDEN RIDGE INSURANCE: Bruck Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
GOOSEHEAD INSURANCE: Dollens Stockholder Class Suit Stayed
GRAIL INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class Suit
GRAND ISLE: Court Junks Bid to Modify Protective Order
GRUPO LAUMAN: Standing Order Entered in Fox Cable Class Action
GUISEPPE PAMPENA: Isaacson Files Suit in S.D. New York
HARTFORD FIRE: Wardworth Sues Over Insurance Adjusters' Unpaid OT
HELLO SUGAR: Deschamps-Goren Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Caccavale Bid for Pre-Motion Conference Tossed
HOLLISTER CO: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Agnone Suit Claims
HOME AWAY INC: Mecca Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
HOPEWELL FUND: Herring Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
HOVERTON LLC: Alvarez Files Suit in E.D. New York
HP INC: Court Approves Settlement in Printer Class Suit
HUD: MFHC Can File Reply in Support of Provisional Class Cert Bid
HYRECAR INC: Class Settlement in Baron Suit Gets Final Nod
ICF TECHNOLOGY: Class Status Conference Scheduled for June 24
J. DOER: Court Endorses Denial of McMillion Class Cert Bid
JACOBSEN CONSTRUCTION: Lilley Files Suit in D. Utah
JOHNSON SERVICE: Godbee Seeks OT Wages for Straight Time Employees
JOMASHOP INC: Faces Levin Suit Over False Reference Pricing
JUSTIN STURGILL: Little Suit Seeks Minimum Wages for Truck Drivers
KEN'S FOODS: Bid to Certify Conditional Class Partly OK'd
KRAFT HEINZ: Paper Sues Over Frozen Potato Products' Conspiracy
LAFAYETTE COLLEGE: Jin-Wolfson Seeks Prelim OK of Settlement
LENDINGTREE INC: Pierce Suit Transferred to D. Montana
MFS SUPPLY: Bid to Modify First Amended Complaint Tossed
MORGAN & MORGAN: Gugliuzza Suit Removed to S.D. Georgia
MRO MARYRUTH: Herrera Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
NATERA INC: Schneider Wins Bid to Certify Class
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Torres Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
NEW GENERATION: Granados Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
NEWMARK GROUP: Continues to Defend Sherman Act-Related Suit
NEWREZ LLC: Yates Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement
NOVA MEASURING: Nash Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
NOW OPTICS: Marous Seeks OK of Renewed Class Certification Bid
NRRM LLC: Faces Lindsey Class Suit Over Vehicle Service Contracts
OCUGEN INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Pennsylvania
ORTHOALASKA LLC: Class Settlement in Byers Suit Gets Final Nod
PENNYMAC LOAN: McLane Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, L.C. Says
QUANTUM-SI INC: Highscape Continues to Defend Farzad Class Suit
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Opposition
RESIDENT HOME: Esparza Suit Removed to C.D. California
SALLY BEAUTY: Rios Appeals Ruling Compelling Arbitration
SATORI LASER: S. R. Files Suit in E.D. New York
SAZERAC CO: Seeks to Seal Portions of Class Cert Bid Filing
SHADE STORE: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Extended to April 30
SHARI'S MANAGEMENT: Woebbeking Seeks Leave to Conduct Discovery
SHIRISH AND RANJAN: Civil Standing Order Entered in Apnar Suit
SKYC MANAGEMENT: Andujar Seeks Final Certification of Action
SLICE OF ITALY: Ray Seeks Conditional Cert of FLSA Collective
SOC LLC: Faces Zavala Suit Over Unpaid Wages for Security Officers
SPIRE GLOBAL: Court Stays Consolidated Securities Suit
STATE FARM: Parties Must File Status Report by April 7
SUCCESSFUL AGING: Mosley Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
SUNPOWER CORP: Steamfitters Fund Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir.
SUNRUN INC: Seeks to Seal Exhibits in Opposition to Class Cert Bid
T AND V PIZZA: Herrera Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA & NYLL
TAKEDA PHARMA: FWK Allowed Leave to File Opposition Sur-Reply
TAKEDA PHARMA: Premera Allowed to File Opposition Sur-Reply
TAKEDA PHARMA: Seeks to File Sur-reply in Opposition to Class Cert
TENNESSEE GAS: Class Cert. Filing in Bradish Amended to June 30
TERADATA CORP: Continues to Defend Ostrander Securities Class Suit
UNITED PARKS: Continues to Defend Burns Class Suit in Pennsylvania
UNITED STATES CELLULAR: Continues to Defend Stockholder Class Suit
UNITED STATES: Doe Suit Seeks to Certify Class
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Patterson Appeals Case Dismissal to 6th Cir.
UNITY SOFTWARE: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Calif.
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Cole Seeks Conditional Class Certification
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: Fails to Secure Athletes' Data, Suit Claims
UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO: Settlement in Martinez Gets Final Nod
WALGREEN CO: Polk Suit Removed to D. Oregon
WALMART INC: Gay Suit Removed to S.D. New York
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Court Narrows Claims in Costa SAC
WILD WILLIES: Visually Impaired Can't Access Website, Herrera Says
WILE INC: Herrera Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store
XEROX BUSINESS: Bid to Exclude Munson Expert Testimony Tossed
XPEL INC: Adishian Voluntarily Drops Securities Suit
*********
360 GLOBAL: Whitehead Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against 360 Global
Transportation, Inc. The case is styled as Dale Whitehead,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 360
Global Transportation, Inc., Does 1 through 100, Case No.
25CMCV00439 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 14, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
360 Global -- https://360globaltransportation.com/ -- has
established itself as a major player in the third party logistics
(3PL) business and offers a breadth of services designed to protect
your assets, improve your distribution efficiency.[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
3M COMPANY: Acker Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Acker, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, 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.), Case No. 2:25-cv-00980-RMG (D.S.C., Feb. 20,
2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluoro octane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further,
defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
thyroid disease and high cholesterol as a result of exposure to
Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Hochman, Esq.
THE CLAIMBRIDGE PLLC
5411 McPherson Rd Ste. 110
Laredo, TX 78041
Phone: (956) 704-5187
Facsimile: (956) 368-1343
3M COMPANY: Bailey Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
------------------------------------------------------------
Richard D. Bailey, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, 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.), Case No. 2:25-cv-00978-RMG
(D.S.C., Feb. 20, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluoro octane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further,
defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
thyroid cancer and high cholesterol as a result of exposure to
Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Hochman, Esq.
THE CLAIMBRIDGE PLLC
5411 McPherson Rd Ste. 110
Laredo, TX 78041
Phone: (956) 704-5187
Facsimile: (956) 368-1343
3M COMPANY: Chapman Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------
Norman B. Chapman, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a
DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND
COMPANY; KIDDE-FENWAL, 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.), Case No. 2:25-cv-00965-RMG
(D.S.C., Feb. 20, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluoro octane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further,
defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
thyroid disease, thyroid cancer, and kidney cancer as a result of
exposure to Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Hochman, Esq.
THE CLAIMBRIDGE PLLC
5411 McPherson Rd Ste. 110
Laredo, TX 78041
Phone: (956) 704-5187
Facsimile: (956) 368-1343
3M COMPANY: Clowers Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------
Beau Clowers, and others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BUCKEYE
FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN
PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DEEPWATER
CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.);
DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY;
KIDDE-FENWAL, 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.), Case No. 2:25-cv-00982-RMG (D.S.C., Feb. 20,
2025), is brought for damages for personal injury resulting from
exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF") containing the
toxic chemicals collectively known as per and polyfluoroalkyl
substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not limited to,
perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluoro octane sulfonic acid
("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that degrade to PFOA
and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further,
defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
thyroid disease and high cholesterol as a result of exposure to
Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Hochman, Esq.
THE CLAIMBRIDGE PLLC
5411 McPherson Rd Ste. 110
Laredo, TX 78041
Phone: (956) 704-5187
Facsimile: (956) 368-1343
3M COMPANY: Fujihara Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Fujihara, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY
(f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS
AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA,
INC.; BASF CORP., BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL
CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS,
INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.;
CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA INC., DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU
PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION;
E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; JOHNSON CONTROLS INC.,
KIDDE-FENWAL, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY;
NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP, 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.), Case No.
2:25-cv-00938-RMG (D.S.C., Feb. 20, 2025), is brought for damages
for personal injury resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming
foams ("AFFF") containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as
per and polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is
not limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further,
defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious
medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
Kidney Cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chandler B. Duncan, Esq.
Andrew T. Kagan, Esq.
Elizabeth P. Kagan, Esq.
KAGAN LEGAL GROUP, LLC.
295 Palmas Inn Way, Suite 6
Humacao, PR, 00791
Phone: 939-220-2424
Fax: 939-220-2477
3M COMPANY: Geiss Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Geiss, and other similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a
Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS
INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF
CORP., BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION;
CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.;
CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA,
INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA INC., DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE
NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU
PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; JOHNSON CONTROLS INC., KIDDE-FENWAL,
INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.;
PERIMETER SOLUTIONS LP, 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.), Case No. 2:25-cv-00940-RMG
(D.S.C., Feb. 20, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further,
defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious
medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
Testicular Cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chandler B. Duncan, Esq.
Andrew T. Kagan, Esq.
Elizabeth P. Kagan, Esq.
KAGAN LEGAL GROUP, LLC.
295 Palmas Inn Way, Suite 6
Humacao, PR, 00791
Phone: 939-220-2424
Facsimile: 939-220-2477
ALLEGHENY HEALTH: Appeals Denied Arbitration Bid in WW Privacy Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ALLEGHENY HEALTH NETWORK is taking an appeal from a court order
denying its renewed motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit
entitled W.W., on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Allegheny Health Network, Defendant, Case
No. 2:23-cv-01163-CCW, in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania.
On June 23, 2023, Plaintiff W.W. filed a putative class action
against Defendant Allegheny Health Network ("AHN"). The Plaintiff
contends that AHN unlawfully collected confidential health
information from users, who visited the AHN website, and then
disclosed their information to third parties, in violation of the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act and several Pennsylvania
state laws.
In response, AHN moved to compel arbitration pursuant to an
arbitration agreement appearing in AHN's Terms of Service, a link
to which appears on AHN's website. On May 16, 2024, the Court
denied without prejudice AHN's motion to compel arbitration and
ordered the parties to proceed to limited fact discovery on the
issue of arbitrability. Following fact discovery, AHN renewed its
Motion to Compel Arbitration, which the Plaintiff opposed.
According to Judge Christy Criswell Wiegand, the Arbitration
Agreement is unenforceable under Pennsylvania law because the
Plaintiff did not have actual or constructive notice. Merely
showing that the Plaintiff saw a set of terms several years ago is
insufficient to create a genuine dispute of material fact requiring
trial, Judge Wiegand said. Rather, viewing the facts in the light
most favorable to the Plaintiff, the Court found that he did not
have actual notice of the arbitration agreement in the Terms of
Service as they have appeared on AHN's website since December
2022.
For these reasons, the Court ruled that it will not compel
arbitration of the Plaintiff's claims, and AHN's Motion to Compel
Arbitration was denied.
The appellate case is captioned W.W., on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, vs. Allegheny Health Network, Case No.
25-1463, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit, filed on March 17, 2025. [BN]
Defendant-Appellant ALLEGHENY HEALTH NETWORK is represented by:
Justin J. Kontul, Esq.
Alex G. Mahfood, Esq.
REED SMITH LLP
225 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1200
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 288-3131
Facsimile: (412) 288-3063
Email: jkontul@reedsmith.com
amahfood@reedsmith.com
ARCADE BELTS: Herrera Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------
EDERY HERRERA, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ARCADE BELTS INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-02290 (S.D.N.Y., March 20, 2025) accuses the Defendant of
violating 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.
The case 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.
Headquartered in Olympic Valley, CA, Arcade Belts Inc. operates the
Arcade Belts online interactive website, https://arcadebelts.com,
which offers performance belts, as well as other types of goods.
[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
ASBURY THEOLOGICAL: Faces Pedersen Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW PEDERSEN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ASBURY THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, Case No.
5:25-cv-00086-KKC (E.D. Ky., March 21, 2025) is a class action suit
on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated victims as a
result of a recent cyberattack and data breach involving the
personally identifiable information suffered by Asbury.
Accordingly, between June 1, 2024, and June 6, 2024, an unknown and
unauthorized criminal actor gained access to Defendant's network
and exfiltrated, at a minimum, full names, and Social Security
numbers.
As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members
suffered injury and ascertainable losses in the form of the present
and imminent threat of fraud and identity theft, loss of the
benefit of their bargain, out-of-pocket expenses, loss of value of
their time reasonably incurred to remedy or mitigate the effects of
the attack, and the loss of, and diminution in, value of their
personal information.
Plaintiff Matthew Pederson is an individual citizen of North
Carolina and received a letter from Defendant notifying him of the
Data Breach on or around March 10, 2025. The Plaintiff Pederson's
data was exposed because he is a graduate and former student of
Asbury Theological Seminary.
Asbury Theological Seminary is a multi-denominational graduate
school of theology.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew E. Mize, Esq.
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Ave., Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
E-mail: amize@stranchlaw.com
gstranch@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
Leanna Loginov. Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A.
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Tel: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
lloginov@shamisgentile.com
BANCORP INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Due May 16
--------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP announces that purchasers or
acquirers of The Bancorp, Inc. (NASDAQ: TBBK) securities between
January 25, 2024 and March 4, 2025, both dates inclusive (the
"Class Period"), have until May 16, 2025 to seek appointment as
lead plaintiff of The Bancorp class action lawsuit.
Captioned Linden v. The Bancorp, Inc., No. 25-cv-00326 (D. Del.),
the Bancorp class action lawsuit charges The Bancorp and certain of
The Bancorp's top executives with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.
If you suffered substantial losses and wish to serve as lead
plaintiff of The Bancorp class action lawsuit, please provide your
information here:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases-the-bancorp-inc-class-action-lawsuit-tbbk.html
You can also contact attorneys J.C. Sanchez or Jennifer N. Caringal
of Robbins Geller by calling 800/449-4900 or via e-mail at
info@rgrdlaw.com.
CASE ALLEGATIONS: The Bancorp operates as the financial holding
company for The Bancorp Bank, National Association that provides
banking products and services in the United States.
The Bancorp class action lawsuit alleges that defendants throughout
the Class Period made false and/or misleading statements and/or
failed to disclose that: (i) The Bancorp had underrepresented the
significant risk of default or loss on its commercial real estate
bridge lending ("REBL") loan portfolio; (ii) The Bancorp's current
expected credit loss methodology was insufficient to account for
the provision and/or allowance of credit losses; (iii) as a result,
The Bancorp was reasonably likely to increase its provision for
credit losses; (iv) there were material weaknesses in The Bancorp's
internal control over financial reporting; (v) The Bancorp's
financial statements had not been approved by its independent
auditor; and (vi) consequently, The Bancorp's financial statements
could not be relied upon.
The Bancorp class action lawsuit further alleges that on March 21,
2024, Culper Research issued a report alleging that The Bancorp's
loan book is "rife with unsophisticated syndicated borrowers" who
were "coaxed by promises of generational wealth through passive
income" with "get rich quick" promises and that though The Bancorp
"blindly reassures investors that its book contains 'no substantial
risk of default or loss,'" in reality The Bancorp's "REBL portfolio
faces meaningful risks and will result in meaningful losses." On
this news, the price of The Bancorp stock fell more than 10%,
according to the complaint.
Then, on October 24, 2024, The Bancorp class action lawsuit alleges
that The Bancorp announced its third quarter 2024 financial
results, reporting net income of only $51.5 million and attributing
the results, in part, to "a new CECL [current expected credit
losses methodology] factor" to The Bancorp's analysis of REBL loans
classified as either special mention or substandard, "which
increased the provision for credit losses and resulted in an
after-tax reduction in net income of $1.5 million." On this news,
the price of The Bancorp stock fell more than 14%, according to the
complaint.
Finally, on March 4, 2025, The Bancorp disclosed that it had
"inappropriately filed its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2024" and the financial statements
from 2022 to 2024 should no longer be relied upon, explaining that
The Bancorp's auditors for those years "did not provide approval to
include [the] audit opinion . . . or [the] consent to the
incorporation by reference of their audit report in certain
registration statements," according to the complaint. The Bancorp
class action lawsuit alleges that on this news, the price of The
Bancorp stock fell further.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS: The Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act of 1995 permits any investor who purchased or acquired
The Bancorp securities during the Class Period to seek appointment
as lead plaintiff in The Bancorp class action lawsuit. A lead
plaintiff is generally the movant with the greatest financial
interest in the relief sought by the putative class who is also
typical and adequate of the putative class. A lead plaintiff acts
on behalf of all other class members in directing The Bancorp class
action lawsuit. The lead plaintiff can select a law firm of its
choice to litigate The Bancorp class action lawsuit. An investor's
ability to share in any potential future recovery is not dependent
upon serving as lead plaintiff of The Bancorp class action
lawsuit.
ABOUT ROBBINS GELLER: Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP is one of
the world's leading law firms representing investors in securities
fraud and shareholder litigation. Our Firm has been ranked #1 in
the ISS Securities Class Action Services rankings for four out of
the last five years for securing the most monetary relief for
investors. In 2024, we recovered over $2.5 billion for investors in
securities-related class action cases -- more than the next five
law firms combined, according to ISS. With 200 lawyers in 10
offices, Robbins Geller is one of the largest plaintiffs' firms in
the world, and the Firm's attorneys have obtained many of the
largest securities class action recoveries in history, including
the largest ever -- $7.2 billion -- in In re Enron Corp. Sec.
Litig. Please visit the page for more information:
https://www.rgrdlaw.com/services-litigation-securities-fraud.html
Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.
Services may be performed by attorneys in any of our offices.
Contact:
J.C. Sanchez, Esq.
Jennifer N. Caringal, Esq.
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900, San Diego, CA 92101
Tel: (800) 449-4900
info@rgrdlaw.com [GN]
BLACKROCK INC: Monitors Financial Data, Hacopian Suit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
ARMEN HACOPIAN-ARMEN and LUSINE HAYRAPETYAN v. BLACKROCK, INC. and
JOHN DOE ENTITY 1, Case No. 1:25-cv-02361 (S.D.N.Y., March 21,
2025) is a class action for Defendants' surreptitious electronic
monitoring, interception and collection of personal and financial
data of former employees and other individuals formerly associated
with BlackRock, including illegally monitoring their and their
family's personal trading accounts after their employment or other
work relationship with BlackRock has ended.
Mr. Hacopian is a former BlackRock employee. The Defendants
continued to monitor Mr. Hacopian's personal trading accounts after
BlackRock laid him off, along with the accounts of his wife, Ms.
Hayrapetyan, and their minor daughter. The Defendants monitored
Plaintiffs' eight personal trading accounts for almost a year
following Mr. Hacopian's separation from BlackRock. This monitoring
gave Defendants illegal access to Plaintiffs' sensitive financial
information and violated state and federal data and personal
privacy laws.
In addition, BlackRock's continued unlawful monitoring of
Plaintiffs’ personal financial accounts for nearly one year
following Mr. Hacopian's termination was in breach of BlackRock's
Personal Trading Policy (PTP), which applies to BlackRock employees
and other current workers. BlackRock's breach of the PTP caused an
approximately week-long delay in Mr. Hacopian receiving a deposit
of $5,000, as BlackRock continued to represent itself (falsely) to
financial institutions as Mr. Hacopian's employer with
authorization to approve his personal financial transactions,
alleges the suit.
BlackRock is an asset manager. The firm manages assets on behalf of
institutions and individuals worldwide through a variety of equity,
fixed income, cash management, and alternative investment products.
It has thousands of employees in the United States. It has offices
throughout the United States, Europe, Asia, Australia, and the
Middle East.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raymond Audain, Esq.
Catherine Anderson, Esq.
GISKAN SOLOTAROFF & ANDERSON LLP
90 Broad Street, 2nd Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 847-8315
E-mail: raudain@gslawny.com
syancey@gslawny.com
canderson@gslawny.com
BOEING EMPLOYEES: Davis Sues Over Wage and Hour Violations
----------------------------------------------------------
Tajanae Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BOEING EMPLOYEES' CREDIT UNION, a Washington Credit
Union; and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 25-2-05708-9 KNT (Wash.
Super. Ct., King Cty., Feb. 20, 2025), is brought pursuant to the
Washington Industrial Welfare Act ("IWA"), the Washington Minimum
Wage Act ("WMWA") and regulations promulgated by Washington State
against Defendants who are employers or co-employers of the
Plaintiff and others similarly situated, for engaging in a
systematic scheme of wage and hour violations against their current
and former hourly-paid non-exempt employees.
The Defendants failed to provide Plaintiff and other current and
former hourly-paid, non-exempt employees, with statutory ten-minute
rest periods, further failing at times to provide legally compliant
30-minute meal periods. At times, Defendants also required
non-exempt employees to work off-the-clock, during unpaid meal
periods and/or otherwise outside of scheduled shift times. At
times, Defendants also failed to compensate Plaintiff and other
similarly situated for missed, late, interrupted, and/or otherwise
noncompliant meal and rest periods.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a non-exempt employee from
December 2021 through September 2022.
The Defendants' business operates as a non-profit credit
union.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jamie K. Serb, Esq.
Zachary Crosner, Esq.
Michael R. Crosner, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL PC
92 Lenora Street, #179
Seattle, WA 98121
Phone: (866) 276-7637
Facsimile: (310) 510-6429
Email: jamie@crosnerlegal.com
zach@crosnerlegal.com
BP ENERGY: Mehl Appeals Consumer Suit Dismissal to 10th Circuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
RUSS MEHL, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing their lawsuit entitled Russ Mehl, et al., individually
and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
BP Energy Company, et al., Defendants, Case No.
6:24-CV-01073-DDC-ADM, in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Kansas.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, this is a
class action against the Defendants for violation of the Kansas
Consumer Protection Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants overcharged the price of
natural gas before Winter Storm Uri hit the State of Kansas in
February 2021. Further, as the price for natural gas skyrocketed,
the Defendants began to make force-majeure declarations in their
existing agreements with distributors to deliver the natural gas to
other distributors at the higher spot price. As a result, the
supply of gas throughout Winter Storm Uri did not significantly
change, nor did the Southern Start Central Gas Pipeline ever reach
a point where it could not deliver the volume of natural gas that
had been nominated by its customer-users or distributors. The
Plaintiffs accordingly bring these claims to recover damages as a
result of the Defendants' alleged unconscionable practices.
On May 31, 2024, the Defendants filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss,
which Judge Daniel D. Crabtree granted on Feb. 28, 2025. The
Plaintiffs' complaints in all five consolidated actions were
dismissed against all Defendants in their entirety with prejudice.
The court directed the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment for the
Defendants against the Plaintiffs consistent with his Order. The
Defendants' individual Motions to Dismiss were denied as moot.
Judgment was entered in favor of the Defendants. The Plaintiffs
will take nothing and the action was dismissed.
The appellate case is captioned Mehl, et al. v. BP Energy Company,
et al., Case No. 25-3049, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Tenth Circuit, filed on March 20, 2025. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants RUSS MEHL, et al., individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Jay F. Fowler, Esq.
Samuel Walenz, Esq.
FOULSTON SIEFKIN
1551 North Waterfront Parkway, Suite 100
Wichita, KS 67206
Telephone: (316) 267-6371
- and –
Scott C. Nehrbass, Esq.
Lee M. Smithyman, Esq.
James P. Zakoura, Esq.
FOULSTON SIEFKIN
7500 College Boulevard, Suite 1400
Overland Park, KS 66210
Telephone: (913) 498-2100
Defendants-Appellees BP ENERGY COMPANY, et al. are represented by:
Amanda Flug Davidoff, Esq.
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL
1700 New York Avenue, NW, Suite 700
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 956-7500
- and –
Michael P. Devlin, Esq.
Richard C. Pepperman, II, Esq.
SULLIVAN & CROMWELL
125 Broad Street
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 558-4000
- and –
Roman Panickar, Esq.
WALLACE SAUNDERS
10111 West 87th Street
P.O. Box 12290
Overland Park, KS 66212
Telephone: (913) 888-1000
- and –
Alan R. Pfaff, Esq.
WALLACE SAUNDERS
300 West Douglas Avenue, Suite 100
Wichita, KS 67202
Telephone: (316) 269-2100
- and –
Sean Gorman, Esq.
Kyle Alden Mason, Esq.
Andrew Zeve, Esq.
WHITE & CASE, LLP
609 Main Street, Suite 2900
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 496-9700
- and –
Casey L. Jones, Esq.
Brian White, Esq.
HINKLE LAW FIRM
1617 North Waterfront Parkway, Suite 400
Wichita, KS 67206
Telephone: (316) 267-2000
- and –
Alex Foulkes Grafton, Esq.
William R. H. Merrill, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY
1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 651-9366
- and –
Beatrice C. Franklin, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY
One Manhattan West, 50th Floor
New York, NY 10001
- and –
Stephen R. McAllister, Esq.
DENTONS
4520 Main Street, Suite 1100
Kansas City, MO 64111
Telephone: (816) 460-2400
- and –
Brent N. Coverdale, Esq.
SCHARNHORST AST KENNARD GRIFFIN
1100 Walnut Street, Suite 1950
Kansas City, MO 64106
Telephone: (816) 268-9400
- and –
Cameron E. Grant, Esq.
GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI
2300 Main Street, Suite 900
Kansas City, MO 64108
Telephone: (816) 303-0815
- and –
Creighton R. Magid, Esq.
DORSEY & WHITNEY
1801 K. Street NW, Suite 750
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 442-3000
- and –
Nicholas J. Boyle, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS
555 Eleventh Street, NW, Suite 1000
Washington, DC 20004
Telephone: (202) 637-2200
- and –
Tyler Heffron, Esq.
Shane A. Rosson, Esq.
TRIPLETT, WOOLF & GARRETSON
2959 North Rock Road, Suite 300
Wichita, KS 67226
Telephone: (316) 630-8100
- and –
Robert J. Malionek, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS
1271 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Telephone: (212) 906-1200
- and –
Nathan M. Saper, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS
355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 100
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 485-1234
- and –
Johanna Spellman, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS
330 North Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800
Chicago, IL 60611
- and –
David E. Bengtson, Esq.
STINSON
1625 North Waterfront Parkway, Suite 300
Wichita, KS 67206
Telephone: (316) 265-8800
- and –
Claire L. Chapla, Esq.
Chantale Fiebig, Esq.
Mark A. Perry, Esq.
WEIL GOTSHAL & MANGES
2001 M. St. NW, Ste. 600
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 682-7133
- and –
Elizabeth Y. Ryan, Esq.
WEIL GOTSHAL & MANGES
200 Crescent Court, Suite 300
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 746-7700
- and –
Bradley J. Benoit, Esq.
Stephen Burton Crain, Esq.
BRACEWELL
711 Louisiana Street, Suite 2300
Houston, TX 77002
Telephone: (713) 223-2300
- and –
Jeffrey D. Morris, Esq.
BERKOWITZ OLIVER
2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1200
Kansas City, MO 64108
Telephone: (816) 531-7007
BROOKLYN BEDDING: Phillips Suit Transferred to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Sean Phillips, Brynn Grossman, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Brooklyn Bedding
LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-03781-RFL was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on Feb. 20,
2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:25-mc-00001-SSS-DTB to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.
Brooklyn Bedding -- https://brooklynbedding.com/ -- designs and
ships mattresses directly to customers for a fraction of the price
of the big guys because the brand's state-of-the-art factory
located in Phoenix, Arizona.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonas Bram Jacobson, Esq.
Grace Bennett, Esq.
Simon Carlo Franzini, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER LLP
201 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Phone: (310) 656-7066
Email: jonas@dovel.com
grace@dovel.com
simon@dovel.com
BUMBLE INC: Settlement Reached in Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------
Bumble Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 28, 2025, that in late 2021 and early 2022,
four putative class action lawsuits were filed against the company
in Illinois alleging that certain features of the Bumble apps
violate the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA).
The parties reached a proposed class action settlement in these
lawsuits, which were consolidated on May 30, 2024. The settlement
was preliminarily approved on June 6, 2024, and the court entered a
final approval order as to the settlement on October 23, 2024.
These lawsuits allege that the apps used facial geometry scans in
violation of BIPA's authorization, consent, and data retention
policy provisions. Plaintiffs in these lawsuits seek statutory
damages, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, injunctive relief,
and (in one action) punitive damages.
Bumble's main operations are providing online dating and social
networking applications through subscription and in-app purchases
of products servicing North America, Europe and various other
countries around the world. Bumble Inc. provides these services
through websites and applications that it owns and operates.
CENTRAL BUCKS: Cartee-Haring Files 3rd Cir. Appeal
--------------------------------------------------
REBECCA CARTEE-HARING, et al. are taking an appeal from a court
order denying their motion for reconsideration in the lawsuit
entitled In re: Rebecca Cartee-Haring, et al., Case No.
2:20-cv-01995, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
a class action against Defendant Central Bucks School District for
violations of rights under the federal Equal Pay Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's alleged discrimination against
female teachers, including the Plaintiffs, by compensating male
teachers more favorably than female teachers under the Salary
Schedules.
On Nov. 8, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion in limine to preclude
the Plaintiffs from arguing their improper calculation of Equal Pay
Act damages, which Judge Michael M. Baylson granted on Jan. 10,
2025. The Court was advised by Magistrate Judge Arteaga that in a
recent settlement conference, the Plaintiffs have calculated their
damages and made a settlement demand of over $1 million each. The
Court finds no basis whatsoever of a possibility of appropriate
damages in this case being that high. The Court ordered the
Defendant to calculate, based on the legal authorities cited in
their motion, what the Defendant believes are the maximum damages
recoverable by each Plaintiff if the jury were to decide the case
in their favor, and file a memorandum stating these amounts.
On Jan. 13, 2025, Plaintiff Cartee-Haring filed a motion for
reconsideration of the Jan. 10 Order, which Judge Baylson denied on
Feb. 11, 2025.
The appellate case is captioned In re: Rebecca Cartee-Haring, et
al., Case No. 25-1477, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit, filed on March 20, 2025. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Petitioners REBECCA CARTEE-HARING, et al., individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented
by:
Edward S. Mazurek, Esq.
717 S. Columbus Boulevard
Philadelphia, PA 19147
Telephone: (267) 243-3393
Defendant-Respondent CENTRAL BUCKS SCHOOL DISTRICT is represented
by:
David W. Brown, Esq.
Michael I. Levin, Esq.
Anthony M. Petro, Esq.
LEVIN LEGAL GROUP
1800 Byberry Road
1301 Masons Mill Business Park
Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
Telephone: (215) 938-6378
CHASE FIRE: Fails to Pay Overtime Under FLSA, NYLL, Gonzalez Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MARTIN CASTILLO GONZALEZ, JHOSMAR MISAEL ROSALES YANEZ, and DANIEL
MARTINEZ NERI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CHASE FIRE PRODUCTS INC. and ARTEM PERCHENOK and
NATALIA PERCHENOK, as individuals, Case No. 1:25-cv-01583
(E.D.N.Y., March 21, 2025) alleges that the Defendants suffered
and permitted the Plaintiff and the Collective Class to work more
than 40 hours per week without appropriate overtime compensation
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.
The employees similarly situated are the collective class
consisting of:
" All persons who are or have been employed by the Defendants as
fire extinguisher technicians and installers, or other
similarly titled personnel with substantially similar job
requirements and pay provisions, who were performing the same
sort of functions for Defendants, other than the executive and
management positions, who have been subject to Defendants’
common practices, policies, programs, procedures, protocols and
plans including willfully failing and refusing to pay required
minimum and overtime wage compensation."
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants at Chase Fire Products
Inc., as a fire extinguisher technician and installer, while
performing other miscellaneous duties for the Defendants, from
March 2022 until December 2024. The Plaintiff was regularly
required to five (5) to six (6) days per week from that period.
The Defendants operate a construction company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
80-02 Kew Gardens Road, Suite 601
Kew Gardens, NY 11415
Telephone: (718) 263-9591
CHERRY HILL PROGRAMS: Kennard Suit Removed to S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Carolyn Kennard, an individual, on behalf of
herself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. CHERRY
HILL PROGRAMS, INC., a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 25CU007826C was removed from the Superior Court
of California, County of San Diego, to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California on March 20, 2025,
and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00652-BTM-VET.
On February 13, 2025, Plaintiff filed the Complaint against
Defendant in the State Court Action. While Defendant denies
Plaintiff's claims and intends to vigorously defend itself against
them, the Complaint nonetheless alleges nine causes of action
against Defendant for purported wage and hour law violations under
the California Labor Code and California Business and Professions
Code. The Complaint also alleges violations of the federal Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Matthew S. Disbrow, Esq.
HONIGMAN LLP
2290 First National Building
Detroit, MI 48226
Phone: 313-465-7372
Facsimile: 313-465-7373
Email: mdisbrow@honigman.com
CIGNA HEALTH: Whittemore Appeals Suit Dismissal to 1st Circuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
JAMIE WHITTEMORE is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing
her lawsuit entitled Jamie Whittemore, individually and on behalf
of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Cigna Health
and Life Insurance Company, Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-00206-LEW,
in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maine.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case
arises from the Defendant's categorical exclusion of prescription
medication for the treatment of obesity and the resultant
discrimination against people with the disability of obesity,
including the Plaintiff.
On Aug. 26, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's complaint, which Judge Lance E. Walker granted on Feb.
12, 2025.
Judge Walker opined that none of the allegations in the Plaintiff's
complaint plausibly support a finding that she is disabled merely
as a function of her body mass index (BMI), let alone that every
putative class member with a BMI of 30 or more is presumptively (or
as a matter of law) disabled. Nor does the Plaintiff's complaint
include allegations that would support a finding, based on any
facts, that the Defendant has ever regarded her (or any member of
the putative class) as disabled.
Judge Walker explains that disability is an essential requirement
of a disability discrimination claim, and without it, the Plaintiff
fails to state a claim of disability discrimination under the
Affordable Care Act. Accordingly, the Court granted the Motion to
Dismiss, and dismissed the case.
The appellate case is captioned Whittemore v. Cigna Health and Life
Insurance Company, Case No. 25-1248, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit, filed on March 19, 2025. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant JAMIE WHITTEMORE, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Eleanor Hamburger, Esq.
Richard E. Spoonemore, Esq.
SIRIANNI YOUTZ SPOONEMORE HAMBURGER PLLC
3101 Western Ave., Ste. 350
Seattle, WA 98121
Telephone: (206) 223-0303
(206) 223-0303
- and –
Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
Anna P. Prakash, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER PLLP
4700 IDS Center
80 S. 8th St.
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 256-3200
(612) 256-3291
- and –
Margaret M. O'Neil, Esq.
Jeffrey Neil Young, Esq.
SOLIDARITY LAW
9 Longmeadow Rd.
Cumberland Foreside, ME 04110
Telephone: (207) 590-1679
(207) 844-4243
Defendant-Appellee CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY is
represented by:
Brett J. Boskiewicz, Esq.
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
200 Clarendon St., 58th Fl.
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 535-5989
- and –
Byrne Joseph Decker, Esq.
MAYNARD NEXSEN
41 Hutchins Dr.
Bldg 3, 1st Fl.
Portland, ME 04102
Telephone: (207) 835-4029
- and –
Richard Diggs, Esq.
Richard W. Nicholson, Jr., Esq.
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
1 Vanderbilt Ave
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 547-5336
(212) 547-5337
COMMERCIAL SPECIALTY: Silveira Sues Over Failure to Protect Data
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rodney Silveira, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. COMMERCIAL SPECIALTY TRUCK HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No.
5:25-cv-00048-DCR (E.D. Ky., March 21, 2025), is brought arising
from Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data.
As such, Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal
identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information
("PHI")--together "PII/PHI"--about its current and former
employees. But Defendant lost control over that data when
cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer
systems in a data breach (the "Data Breach").
It is unknown for precisely how long the cybercriminals had access
to Defendant's network before the breach was discovered. In other
words, Defendant had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop,
or mitigate breaches of its systems—thereby allowing
cybercriminals unrestricted access to its current and former
employees' PII/PHI.
On information and belief, cybercriminals were able to breach
Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train
its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable
security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII/PHI. In
short, Defendant's failures placed the Class's PII/PHI in a
vulnerable position--rendering them easy targets for
cybercriminals, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a Data Breach victim, having received a breach
notice.
The Defendant is a specialty vehicle manufacturer based in
Cynthiana, Kentucky.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Andrew E. Mize, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Phone: (615) 254-8801
Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
amize@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS & BORRELLI PLLC
980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Phone: (872) 263-1100
Fax: (872) 263-1109
Email: sam@straussborrelli.com
raina@straussborrelli.com
COMPLETE PRO: Mendoza Suit Seeks Minimum Wages, OT Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
ALVINO MENDOZA MARTINEZ, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. COMPLETE PRO PAINTING LLC(d/b/a COMPLETE PRO
PAINTING), FRANK RUSSO, and JOHN DOE, Case No. 1:25-cv-01571
(E.D.N.Y., March 21, 2025) is a class action alleging that the
Defendants have maintained a policy and practice of requiring
Plaintiffs and other employees to work in excess of 40 hours per
week without providing the minimum wage and overtime compensation
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.
Plaintiff Mendoza and other members of the FLSA Class who are
and/or have been similarly situated, have had substantially similar
job requirements and pay provisions, and have been subject to
Defendants' common practices, policies, programs, procedures,
protocols and plans of willfully failing and refusing to pay them
the required overtime pay of one and one-half times his regular
rates for work in excess of 40hours per workweek under the FLSA.
The Plaintiffs seek a class action under Rule 23 and seek
certification of this action as a collective action on behalf of
themselves, individually, and all other similarly situated
employees and former employees of the Defendants.
The Defendants own, operate, and/or control a painting company
located at 330 Mounts Corner Dr., Freehold, New Jersey.[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
CONTEXTLOGIC INC: Yang Appeals Denied Bid for Altered Judgment
--------------------------------------------------------------
XIAOQUAN YANG, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
denying their motion for the Court to alter judgment in the lawsuit
entitled Yen Hoang, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ContextLogic, Inc., et
al., Defendant, Case No. 5:21-cv-03930-BLF, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is
a putative class action for violation of the Securities Act of 1933
("Securities Act") against Wish, certain of its officers and
directors, and underwriters of its Initial Public Offering ("IPO").
The Plaintiffs allege that, in its Registration Statement for its
IPO on Dec. 15, 2020, Wish omitted its "de-emphasized" advertising
spend and user acquisition efforts in emerging markets outside of
Europe and North America in 4Q 2020 and failed to warn the
investing public of the specific risk associated with its
de-emphasized efforts. The Plaintiffs allege that this omission and
the continued reduction in advertising spend into 1Q 2021 caused
Wish's stock value to drop by more than 29 percent after May 12,
2021.
On July 15, 2022, a Consolidated Class Action was filed by the
Plaintiffs alleging that the Defendants violated Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act").
On Sept. 16, 2022, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss with
prejudice, which Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted with leave to
amend on Mar. 10, 2023.
On Apr. 10, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint.
On June 9, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiffs' second amended complaint with prejudice.
On Dec. 22, 2023, Judge Freeman granted in part and denied in part
the Defendants' motion to dismiss with leave to amend.
On Feb. 15, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint,
which the Defendants moved to dismiss with prejudice on Apr. 5,
2024.
On Aug. 22, 2024, Judge Freeman granted the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the third amended complaint without leave to amend.
Judgment was entered in favor of the Defendants.
On Sept. 19, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to alter judgment,
which Judge Freeman denied on Feb. 12, 2025. The Court held that
the Plaintiffs have failed to identify a basis for the Court to set
aside the Judgment. The Court concluded that it correctly applied
the Ninth Circuit standard for negative causation in Section 11
cases in its Order dismissing the third amended complaint. Judge
Freeman pointed out that for over 30 years, the Ninth Circuit has
applied the "touches upon" standard in deciding whether a defendant
has established a loss causation defense for claims brought under
Section 11 of the Securities Act. Because the Court finds that
there is no clear error in its holding that the Defendants have met
their burden to establish negative causation under Ninth Circuit
precedent, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' request to set aside
its Judgment under Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.
The appellate case is captioned Yang, et al. v. ContextLogic, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 25-1805, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 19, 2025.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on March 24,
2025;
-- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due on March 28,
2025;
-- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on April 28, 2025;
-- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on June 6, 2025; and
-- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on July 7, 2025. [BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants XIAOQUAN YANG, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Jacob Alexander Goldberg, Esq.
ROSEN LAW FIRM, PA
101 Greenwood Avenue, Suite 440
Jenkintown, PA 19046
- and -
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
- and -
Robert Vincent Prongay, Esq.
Ex Kano Shirden Sams, II, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY, LLP
1925 Century Park, E., Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Defendants-Appellees CONTEXTLOGIC, INC., et al. are represented
by:
Brian Michael Lutz, Esq.
Michael J. Kahn, Esq.
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP
1 Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600
San Francisco, CA 94111
- and -
Kevin Papay, Esq.
Charlene S. Shimada, Esq.
Robert Henderson O'Leary, Esq.
MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP
1 Market Street Spear Street Tower
San Francisco, CA 94105
DECARBONIZATION PLUS: Faces Securities Suit over Merger Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
Solid Power, 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 December 3, 2024, two
purported stockholders filed a putative class action against the
former officers and directors of its subsidiary Decarbonization
Plus Acquisition Corporation III (DCRC), including Erik Anderson;
Riverstone Holdings, LLC; and related sponsors and entities in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware.
The lawsuit alleges breach of fiduciary duties and unjust
enrichment arising from the merger of Solid Power Operating, Inc.
with a subsidiary of DCRC and seeks to recover unspecified damages
and equitable relief. None of the company, its subsidiaries, or its
current officers or directors, except Mr. Anderson, is named as a
defendant. The defendants have demanded indemnification and
advancement of defense costs from the Company.
Solid Power is into solid-state battery technology and
manufacturing processes using a sulfide-based solid electrolyte
material, which replaces the liquid or gel electrolyte used in
traditional lithium-ion battery cells.
DREW BOSTOCK: Vazquez Files Suit in W.D. Washington
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Drew Bostock, et al.
The case is styled as Ramon Rodriguez Vazquez, on behalf of himself
as an individual and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Drew
Bostock, Seattle Field Office Director, Enforcement and Removal
Operations, United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE); Bruce Scott, Warden, Northwest ICE Processing Center; Kristi
Noem, Secretary, United States Department of Homeland Security;
United States Department of Homeland Security; Pamela Bondi,
Attorney General of the United States; Executive Office for
Immigration Review (EOIR); Sirce Owen, Acting Director, EOIR;
Tacoma Immigration Court, Case No. 3:25-cv-05240 (W.D. Wash., March
20, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Immigration Actions.
Drew Bostock is a Seattle Field Office Director.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Aaron Korthuis, Esq.
Glenda M. Aldana Madrid, Esq.
Leila Kang, Esq.
Matt Adams, Esq.
NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT (SEA)
615 2nd Ave. Ste. 400
Seattle, WA 98104
Phone: (206) 957-8611
Email: aaron@nwirp.org
glenda@nwirp.org
leila@nwirp.org
matt@nwirp.org
DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery in Bitis Suit Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------
Dun & Bradstreet Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report
for the annual period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 21, 2025, that
discovery is ongoing in the Batis class action in California.
On March 25, 2022, Plaintiff Odette R. Batis 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 California right of publicity statute,
California common law prohibiting misappropriation of a name or
likeness and California's Unfair Competition Law.
On June 30, 2022, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Complaint pursuant to California's anti-SLAPP statute.
On February 10, 2023, the District Court denied the motion to
dismiss. The decision was subject to an automatic right of appeal,
and the Company has appealed the matter to the Ninth Circuit.
On January 18, 2024, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district
court's determination that the anti-SLAPP statute does not apply.
On February 1, 2024, D&B filed a petition for rehearing or
rehearing en banc seeking to vacate the Ninth Circuit ruling.
Subsequently, on February 15, 2024, the Ninth Circuit issued an
order stating that the petition will be held in abeyance pending
the resolution of en banc rehearing of another similar case pending
before the Ninth Circuit, Martinez v. ZoomInfo Technologies, Inc.
("Martinez").
On March 1, 2024, the Ninth Circuit vacated the en banc rehearing
in the Martinez case and continued to hold D&B's Petition for
Rehearing in abeyance.
On July 8, 2024, the Ninth Circuit granted D&B's Petition for
Rehearing, withdrew its January 18, 2024 disposition and issued a
new opinion and order affirming the district court's determination
that the anti-SLAPP statute does not apply.
On July 30, 2024, a mandate was issued in the Ninth Circuit and the
case has returned to the District Court.
On September 27, 2024, the Company filed its Answer in the District
Court, denying liability and asserting affirmative defenses.
Discovery has now commenced in the District Court.
Dun & Bradstreet Holdings, Inc. is into consumer credit reporting,
collection agencies and is based in Jacksonville, Florida.
EMIRATES: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Farah Extended to May 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FARAH et al v. Emirates et
al., Case No. 1:21-cv-05786 (S.D.N.Y., Filed July 06, 2021), the
Hon. Judge Laura Taylor Swain entered an order granting letter
motion for extension of time to complete discovery.
The deadline to complete fact discovery is extended from March 24,
2025, to May 23, 2025.
The deadline for Plaintiffs to move for class certification is
extended from March 31, 2025, to May 30, 2025.
No further extensions shall be granted, the Court says.
The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (E.R.I.S.A.).[CC]
ENCORE ENERGY: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Due May 13
----------------------------------------------------------
Longview News-Journal reports that Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman &
Herz LLP announces the filing of a class action lawsuit against
enCore Energy Corp. (NASDAQ: EU). This lawsuit, filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas,
represents all individuals and entities who bought or acquired
enCore securities between March 28, 2024, and March 2, 2025. The
suit alleges that enCore made misleading statements and failed to
disclose crucial information regarding its financial health and
operational capabilities.
Lead plaintiff deadline is May 13, 2025.
This significant legal action follows enCore's announcement of a
substantial net loss of $61.3 million for fiscal year 2024 -- more
than double the previous year's loss. The company attributed this
to an inability to capitalize on certain exploratory and
development costs under U.S. GAAP accounting rules. Furthermore,
enCore revealed a "material weakness" in its internal financial
controls. This news caused a dramatic drop in enCore's stock price,
falling $1.17 per share, or 46.4%, to close at $1.35 per share on
March 3, 2025.
"Wolf Haldenstein will bring a class action lawsuit against enCore
Energy Corp. on behalf of those who suffered significant financial
losses due to the company's alleged misrepresentations," said a
Wolf Haldenstein spokesperson. "The lawsuit alleges that enCore's
misleading statements and omissions regarding its financial health
and internal controls, including a material weakness identified in
2024, directly contributed to a dramatic 46.4% drop in share price,
from a loss of $1.17 per share, and a substantial net loss of $61.3
million in 2024."
If you purchased enCore securities during the specified period and
believe you have suffered financial losses due to the alleged
misrepresentations, email classmember@whafh.com immediately to
learn more about your rights and potential involvement in this
class action.
The complaint alleges several key issues:
-- Ineffective Internal Controls: The lawsuit claims enCore
lacked effective internal controls over financial reporting.
-- Inaccurate Financial Reporting: The suit alleges that enCore's
inability to capitalize certain costs under GAAP was not adequately
disclosed, leading to a misrepresentation of its financial
position.
-- Substantially Increased Net Losses: The complaint states that
the undisclosed issues resulted in significantly higher net losses
than were publicly reported.
The class action lawsuit seeks to recover losses for those who
invested in enCore during the specified period, based on the
alleged misrepresentations and omissions. The legal team at Wolf
Haldenstein is dedicated to pursuing justice for affected
investors. For more information or to determine your eligibility,
please visit our website or contact the firm directly.at
classmember@whafh.com or (800) 575-0735.
Media Contact: Contact: Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
Gregory Stone, Director of Case and Financial Analysis Email:
classmember@whafh.comTel: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4774This
press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.
Wolf Haldenstein has experience in the prosecution of securities
class actions and derivative litigation in state and federal trial
and appellate courts across the country. The firm has attorneys in
various practice areas, and offices in New York, Chicago, Nashville
and San Diego. The reputation and expertise of this firm in
shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation. If you wish to discuss this action or have any
questions regarding your rights and interests in this case, please
immediately contact the firm. [GN]
EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Class Cert Bid Filing Due August 14
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALDON MARTINEZ, v. EQUIFAX
INFORMATION SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 8:24-cv-02609-TPB-LSG (M.D.
Fla.), the Hon. Judge Tom Barber entered a case management and
scheduling order as follows:
Third Party Joinder/Amend Pleading: March 14, 2025
Class Certification Motion: Aug. 14, 2025
Plaintiff Expert Disclosure: Sept. 15, 2025
Defendant Expert Disclosure: Oct. 15, 2025
Rebuttal Expert Disclosure: Oct. 29, 2025
Discovery Cut-Off: Jan. 5, 2026
Summary Judgment, Daubert, and other Feb. 5, 2026
Dispositive Motions:
Mediation: Dec. 16, 2025.
Pretrial Conference: June 15, 2026
Equifax offers financial, consumer and commercial data, and
analytical solutions.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 2, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gpKdAb at no extra
charge.[CC]
F&G ANNUITIES: Faces Miller Data Breach Suit
--------------------------------------------
F&G Annuities & Life, 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 F&G is a defendant
in a putative class action lawsuit that allege some customers'
personally identifiable information was disclosed due to a
vulnerability in the "MOVEit" file transfer software. F&G's vendor,
Pension Benefit Information, LLC (PBI), used the MOVEit software in
the course of providing audit and address research services to F&G
and many other corporate customers.
The case captioned "Miller v. F&G," No. 4:23-cv-00326 was filed
against F&G in the Southern District of Iowa on August 31, 2023.
Miller alleges that he is a F&G customer whose personally
identifiable information was disclosed in the MOVEit incident and
brings common law tort and implied contract claims. Plaintiff seeks
injunctive relief and damages. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and
injunctive relief and damages.
F&G is a provider of insurance solutions serving retail annuity and
life customers as well as institutional clients.
FATE THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Hadian Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Fate Therapeutics 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 5, 2025, that the Company
continues to defend itself from the Hadian securities class suit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California.
On January 20, 2023, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a
securities class action lawsuit against the Company and certain of
its officers captioned Hadian v. Fate Therapeutics, Inc. et al. in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
(the Securities Action).
On May 4, 2023, the court appointed a different purported
stockholder of the Company to serve as lead plaintiff in the
Securities Action.
On July 24, 2023, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
The amended complaint alleged that the Company violated the federal
securities laws by making allegedly false and/or misleading
statements and/or omissions in its public disclosures dating back
to August 2020 relating to its collaboration agreement with Janssen
Biotech, Inc. (the Janssen Agreement), potential product candidates
subject to the Janssen Agreement, and the termination of the
Janssen Agreement.
On September 22, 2023, it filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.
On September 19, 2024, the court granted its motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, with leave for plaintiff to file a second
amended complaint.
On October 18, 2024, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint alleging substantially similar facts and claims as in the
prior amended complaint.
It filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on
November 18, 2024, and briefing on the motion was completed on
January 21, 2025.
It intends to continue to vigorously defend against this action.
Fate Therapeutics, Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical
company dedicated to bringing off-the-shelf,
multiplexed-engineered, iPSC-derived natural killer and T-cell
product candidates to patients for the treatment of cancer and
autoimmune disease.
FMC CORPORATION: Faces MCERS Securities Suit in Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------
FMC Corporation 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 is facing a putative class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania filed on February 14, 2025 against FMC and
certain of its former and current executives captioned "Macomb
County Employees' Retirement System and Macomb County Retirement
Health Care Fund v. FMC Corporation, et al."
The complaint generally alleges that FMC made misrepresentations
regarding its business, operations, and prospects, including
allegations that the defendants failed to disclose: that channel
inventory management initiatives were not progressing as
anticipated; challenges arising from product pricing; and/or the
financial impact of cost-plus pricing arrangements with
distributors.
The complaints allege violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act, and seek unspecified damages and other relief
on behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired FMC stock during the period from November 16, 2023 to
February 4, 2025.
FMC Corporation is a global agricultural sciences company into
insecticides, herbicides and fungicide active ingredients and
product formulations for the agrochemicals/crop protection market.
FRESHREALM INC: Mendez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against FreshRealm, Inc. The
case is styled as Maria Isabel Mendez, an individual and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. FreshRealm, Inc., Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2025-0004362 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., March
26, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
FreshRealm -- https://freshrealm.com/ -- is a pioneering
Food-as-a-Service (FaaS) company that is revolutionizing the food
system.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
William C. Sung, Esq.
JUSTICE FOR WORKERS, P.C.
3600 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1815
Los Angeles, CA 90010-2622
Phone: 323-922-2000
Email: william@justiceforworkers.com
FUEGO SMOKE & VAPE: Dial Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Kathleen Dial, as personal representative of
the estate of Margaret P. Caldwell, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. FUEGO SMOKE & VAPE LLC, MANKI
INVESTMENTS LLC, HYWAZE LLC, OUTER LIMITS SALES TWO LLC, A&A SMOKE
SHOP LLC, PUFFZILLA LLC, and GIVNGO LLC, individually and as
representatives of a defendant class, and PLUTO BRANDS, LLC, GALAXY
GAS, LLC, DIMO HEMP LLC, FUSION INTERNATIONAL TRADING, LLC, UNITED
BRANDS, INC., SWEET AND SOUR HOLDINGS LLC, MONSTER GAS, INC., and
BAKING BAD GROUP, INC., Case No. 2025-CA-000960-O was removed from
the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Orange
County, Florida, to the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida on March 26, 2025, and assigned Case No.
6:25-cv-00551-WWB-UAM.
The Plaintiff's Complaint alleged that the nitrous oxide caused
Margaret P. Caldwell's death and either has caused harm or will
cause harm to "tens of thousands" of potential class members.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Mike Morgan, Esq.
John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
James D. Young, Esq.
Ronald Podolny, Esq.
Riya Sharma, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN
Complex Litigation Group
201 North Franklin Street 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Phone: (813) 223-5505
Email: mmorgan@forthepeople.com
JYanchunis@forthepeople.com
jyoung@forthepeople.com
Ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com
rsharma@forthepeople.com
- and -
Kenneth L. Minerley, Esq.
Ashley D. Adras, Esq.
MINERLEY FEIN, P.A.
1200 N. Federal Highway, Suite 420
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Phone: (561) 362-6699
Email: ken@minerleyfein.com
Ashley@minerleyfein.com
fileclerk@minerleyfein.com
kelley@minerleyfein.com
- and -
Zachary T. Broome, Esq.
BOWEN & SCHROTH, P.A.
600 Jennings Ave
Eustis, FL 32726-6147
Phone: 352-589-1414
Email: zbroome@bowenschroth.com
hadrid@bowenschroth.com
kdillinger@bowenschroth.com
- and -
Spencer H. Silverglate, Esq.
Shawn Y. Libman, Esq.
Adisbel Hernandez, Esq.
CLARKE SILVERGLATE, P.A.
5301 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 900
Miami, FL 33126
Phone: (305) 377-0700
Facsimile: (305) 377-3001
Email: ssilverglate@cspalaw.com
lyun@cspalaw.com
slibman@cspalaw.com
lyun@cspalaw.com
ahernandez@cspalaw.com
kmartinez@cspalaw.com
clandgraf@cspalaw.com
GBT US LLC: Ramirez Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Roberto Ramirez, an individual and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. GBT US LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company; and DOES 1 through 50, Case No. 25STCV03895 was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California in and
for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court
for the Central District of California on March 28, 2025, and
assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02751.
In his Complaint, Plaintiff asserts the following eight causes of
action on behalf of himself and a class of individuals he seeks to
represent: Minimum Wage Violations; Overtime Wage Violations; Meal
Period Violations; Rest Period Violations; Wage Statement
Penalties; Waiting Time Penalties; Failure to Reimburse Necessary
Business Expenses; and Unfair Competition, all in violation of the
California Labor Code, Wage Orders and Business & Professions
Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Benjamin J. Schnayerson, Esq.
Daniella J. Lee, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408
Phone: (213) 689-0404
Facsimile: (213) 689-0430
Email: Benjamin.Schnayerson@jacksonlewis.com
Daniella.Lee@jacksonlewis.com
GOLDEN RIDGE INSURANCE: Bruck Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Golden Ridge
Insurance Agency LLC. The case is styled as Bettina Bruck,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Golden Ridge Insurance Agency LLC, Case No. 0:25-cv-60588-DSL (S.D.
Fla., March 27, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Golden Ridge Insurance -- https://www.goldenridgeinsurance.com/ --
specializes in helping individuals over 65 find the best healthcare
plan to meet their unique needs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel E. Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN PA
400 NW 26th St.
Miami, FL 33127
Phone: (305) 469-5881
Email: rachel@kaufmanpa.com
- and -
Avi Robert Kaufman, Esq.
KAUFMAN P.A.
31 Samana Drive
Miami, FL 33133
Phone: (305) 469-5881
Email: kaufman@kaufmanpa.com
GOOSEHEAD INSURANCE: Dollens Stockholder Class Suit Stayed
----------------------------------------------------------
Goosehead Insurance 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 Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware has stayed the Dollens verified
stockholder class suit.
On November 10, 2022, a verified stockholder class action complaint
for declaratory relief, captioned Mickey Dollens v. Goosehead
Insurance, Inc., C.A. No. 2022-1018-JTL, was filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware, alleging certain corporate
governance documents adopted by the Company were invalid under
Delaware law.
On August 8, 2023, the parties entered into a proposed settlement
providing for certain non-monetary benefits to the class (i.e.,
revisions to the Company's Stockholder Agreement).
Additionally, the plaintiffs have petitioned the Court for
attorneys' fees and litigation expenses.
The matter is currently stayed. While there can be no assurance
regarding the ultimate outcome of the petition, the Company
believes a potential loss, if any, would not be material.
Goosehead Insurance Inc. is a rapidly growing independent personal
lines insurance agency.
GRAIL INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GRAIL 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 5, 2025, that the Company continues to defend
itself from a consolidated securities class suit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California.
On November 11, 2023, the first of three securities class action
complaints was filed against Illumina and certain of its current
and former executive officers in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California.
The first-filed case is captioned Kangas v. Illumina, Inc. et al.,
the second-filed case is captioned Roy v. Illumina, Inc. et al.,
and the third-filed case is captioned Louisiana Sheriffs' Pension &
Relief Fund v. Illumina, Inc. et al. (collectively, the "Actions").
The complaints generally allege, among other things, that
defendants made materially false and misleading statements and
omitted material facts relating to Illumina's acquisition of Grail.
The complaints seek unspecified damages, interest, fees, and costs.
On January 9, 2024, four movants filed motions to consolidate the
Actions and to appoint a lead plaintiff ("Lead Plaintiff Motions").
On April 11, 2024, the Court issued an order consolidating the
Actions into a single action (captioned in re Illumina, Inc.
Securities Litigation No. 23-cv-2082-LL-MMP), and appointed
Universal-Investment-Gesellschaft mbH, UI BVK
Kapitalverwaltungsgesellschaft mbH, and ACATIS Investment
Kapitalverwaltungsgesellschaft mbH as lead plaintiffs. (the "Lead
Plaintiffs").
On June 21, 2024, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint.
The amended complaint alleges that GRAIL, in addition to Illumina,
and certain of their respective current and former directors and
others violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 in connection with Illumina's acquisition of
GRAIL and disclosures concerning the same.
GRAIL has an indemnification obligation for certain current and
former directors and officers involved in the matter pursuant to
indemnification agreements entered into by these individuals and
GRAIL.
On September 13, 2024 the plaintiffs further amended the complaint.
On November 12, 2024, the Company and other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the second amended consolidated complaint.
On December 20, 2024, the Lead Plaintiffs filed their opposition to
the motion to dismiss.
The defendants' final reply brief was filed on February 3, 2025. No
hearing date has been set.
The Company denies the allegations in the complaints and intends to
vigorously defend the litigation.
GRAIL, Inc. operates as a biotechnology company. The Company
focuses on combining science, technology, and clinical studies to
reveal cancer at its beginnings. GRAIL offers its services in the
United States. Previously, a subsidiary of Illumina and spun-out on
June 24, 2024.
GRAND ISLE: Court Junks Bid to Modify Protective Order
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICTOR ORTIGUERRA, ET AL.,
V. GRAND ISLE SHIPYARD, LLC, ET AL., Case No. 2:22-cv-00309-CJB-EJD
(E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Eva Dossier entered an order denying the
Defendants' motion to modify the protective order.
Each of the factors weighs against granting Defendants' motion.
First, the documents that Defendants seek are "precisely the type
of documents at which the protective order was aimed " Second, the
Defendants' disagreement with certain aspects of the protective
order was not just foreseeable but subject to thorough litigation
before entry of the protective order.
Third, the parties have relied on the prior discovery ruling,
including by participating in discovery as to information related
to the humanitarian visas.
Fourth, the Rule 52(b) analysis confirms that good cause does not
support modification.
The Plaintiffs allege that their employment by the Defendants
involved violations of federal law, including the Trafficking
Victims Protection Act ("TVPA").
The Plaintiffs are welders and fitters from the Philippines who
came to the United States to work on oil rigs. The Plaintiffs sued
their employers, Grand Isle Shipyard, LLC and GIS, LLC, in this
Court, alleging that they were not paid minimum wage nor overtime
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
Grand Isle provides oilfield and construction services.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 21, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Jo5fzQ at no extra
charge.[CC]
GRUPO LAUMAN: Standing Order Entered in Fox Cable Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fox Cable Network
Services, LLC, et al., v. Grupo Lauman Holding, S. de R.L. de C.V.,
et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-02444-JFW-AS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
John Walter entered a standing order as follows:
The plaintiff shall promptly serve the Complaint in accordance with
Fed.R.Civ.P. 4 and shall file the proof(s) of service pursuant to
the Local Rules.
Lead trial counsel shall attend all proceedings before this Court
and all Local Rule 7-3, scheduling, status, and settlement
conferences.
Applications or Stipulations to Extend the Time to File any
Required Document or to Continue Any Date: No application or
stipulation to extend the time to file any required document or to
continue any date is effective unless and until the Court approves
it.
Grupo is a global telecommunications, broadcast, and media group.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 20, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Gp9E6F at no extra
charge.[CC]
GUISEPPE PAMPENA: Isaacson Files Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Guiseppe Pampena. The
case is styled as Walter Isaacson, Petitioner v. Guiseppe Pampena,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Respondent, Case No. 1:25-mc-00126 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2025).[BN]
The Petitioner is represented by:
Elizabeth A. McNamara, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP (NYC)
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
Phone: (212) 489-8230
Fax: (212) 489-8340
Email: lizmcnamara@dwt.com
HARTFORD FIRE: Wardworth Sues Over Insurance Adjusters' Unpaid OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LAURELL WARDWORTH, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HARTFORD FIRE INS. CO., Defendant,
Case No. 4:25-cv-00295 (E.D. Tex., March 21, 2025) is a class
action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as an Emergency Mitigation
Service Adjuster from in or about October 2019 until her
termination on or about September 20, 2024.
Hartford Fire Ins. Co. is an insurance company, with its principal
place of business in Connecticut. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kyla Gail Cole, Esq.
COLE LEGLER PLLC
3300 Oak Lawn Ave., Ste. 425
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 748-7777
Facsimile: (214) 748-7778
Email: kyla@nlcemployeelaw.com
- and -
Yusuf Buttar, Esq.
THE SANFORD FIRM
1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 15400
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (214) 717-6653
Facsimile: (214) 919-0113
Email: ybuttar@sanfordfirm.com
HELLO SUGAR: Deschamps-Goren Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hello Sugar LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Valerie Deschamps-Goren, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Hello Sugar LLC, Hello
Sugar Franchise LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-01017-DGC (S.D. Fla., March
27, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Hello Sugar -- https://www.hellosugar.salon/ -- is a professional
waxing salon.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Trinette G. Kent, Esq.
KENT LAW OFFICES
3219 E Camelback Rd., Ste. 588
Phoenix, AZ 85018
Phone: (480) 247-9644
Fax: (480) 717-4781
Email: tkent@kentlawpc.com
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO: Caccavale Bid for Pre-Motion Conference Tossed
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Caccavale, et al., v.
Hewlett-Packard Company, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-00974 (E.D.N.Y.,
Filed Feb. 21, 2020), the Hon. Judge Nusrat J. Choudhury entered an
order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for a pre-motion conference to
lift the stay in the action and reinstate class certification and
summary judgment motions and Defendants' response.
The case remains stayed pending the decision of the New York
Appellate Division, Second Department concerning the pending,
unopposed motion for leave to appeal the decision in Grant v. Glob.
Aircraft Dispatch, Inc. N.Y.S.3d, 223 A.D.3d 712, 2024 WL 172900
(2d Dept Jan. 17, 2024).
The nature of suit states labor litigation.
Hewlett-Packard, was an American multinational information
technology company. It was founded by Bill Hewlett and David
Packard in 1939 in a one-car garage in Palo Alto, California, where
the company would remain headquartered for the remainder of its
lifetime.[CC]
HOLLISTER CO: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Agnone Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PASQUALE AGNONE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Hollister, Co., Defendant, Case No.
2:25-cv-01537 (E.D.N.Y., March 20, 2025) arises from Defendant's
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired persons.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant has violated the basic
equal access requirements under the Americans with Disabilities
Act, the New York Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights
Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
Headquartered in New Albany, OH, Hollister, Co. owns and maintains
the website, Hollisterco.com, which provides consumers with access
to an array of apparel and accessories. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
HOROWITZ LAW, PLLC
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (718) 705-8706
Facsimile: (718) 705-8705
E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com
HOME AWAY INC: Mecca Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HOME AWAY, INC. The
case is styled as Hannah Mecca, on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated v. HOME AWAY, INC., THE PINES
RESORTS OF CALIFORNIA, LLC dba THE PINES RESORT, Case No. MCV094415
(Cal. Super. Ct., Madera Cty., Feb. 21, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment."
HomeAway -- https://www.homeaway.it/ -- was a vacation rental
marketplace.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas Han, Esq.
JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
751 N Fair Oaks Ave, Ste. 101
Pasadena, CA 91103
Phone: (818) 230-7502
Fax: (818) 230-7259
Email: dhan@justicelawcorp.com
HOPEWELL FUND: Herring Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Hopewell Fund. The
case is styled as Haeleigh Herring, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Hopewell Fund, Case No.
3:25-cv-00723-H-DDL (S.D. Cal., March 27, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Hopewell Fund -- https://www.hopewellfund.org/ -- is a public
charity that helps donors and social entrepreneurs launch new,
innovative social change projects without establishing a
nonprofit.[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
HOVERTON LLC: Alvarez Files Suit in E.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HOVERTON, LLC. The
case is styled as David Alvarez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. HOVERTON, LLC. d/b/a SWAGTRON, Case
No. 2:25-cv-01730 (E.D.N.Y., March 28, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
HOVERTON, LLC doing business as SWAGTRON -- https://swagtron.com/
-- is a leader in providing fun, innovative products such as
hoverboards, electric skateboards, unicycles, bicycles, scooters,
and drones with top notch customer support.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip J. Furia, Esq.
THE SULTZER LAW GROUP, P.C.
85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Phone: (845) 483-7100
Fax: (888) 749-7747
Email: furiap@thesultzerlawgroup.com
HP INC: Court Approves Settlement in Printer Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
James Bentley, writing for PC Gamer, reports that if you've been
annoyed that your HP printer doesn't work with non-HP ink and
toner, a recent class-action lawsuit settlement means you can
decline the update forcing the change, but only if you have a few
specific models.
With a 'long-term objective to make printing a subscription', HP
set in place 'dynamic security' systems that authenticate ink and
toner cartridges in your printer. The 'dynamic security' system
changed printer compatibility digitally to disallow some printers
from working with non-HP ink and toner. This means that some users
bought printers without those restrictions, only to find them added
in via an update, after purchase.
As reported by Ars Technica, this lawsuit was settled in August
2024, but only approved by the presiding Judge last week. The terms
of that settlement meant that HP wouldn't admit any wrongdoing and
wouldn't pay the customers impacted by the original 2020 update.
The catalyst for this lawsuit was a specific firmware update in
November 2020 that blocked a whole host of printers which the
lawsuit calls 'Class printers'. The lawsuit argues that "HP
wrongfully compels users of its printers to buy and use only HP ink
and toner supplies by transmitting firmware updates without
authorization to HP printers over the Internet that lock out its
competitors' ink and toner supply cartridges." It then further
makes the claim that HP's updates "act as malware".
As detailed in the HP dynamic security support page, "dynamic
security equipped printers are intended to work only with
cartridges that have new or reused HP chips or electronic
circuitry. The printers use the dynamic security measures to block
cartridges using non-HP chips or modified or non-HP electronic
circuitry."
As part of the lawsuit settlement, HP has agreed to pay $5,000 to
each of the two original class representatives, Mobile Emergency
Housing Corp and Performance Automotive & Tire Center. Finally, one
more plaintiff named David Justin Lynch was added to the complaint,
and will also receive $5,000. HP claims the pay the representatives
receive is "to compensate them for the services they performed on
behalf of the classes".
The upside to this settlement is that the class printers (which can
be found on the HP support page) can all choose to decline the
'dynamic security' update that makes this change, and therefore use
third-party ink. Only these printers, and those made before 2016
may decide to opt out of dynamic security measures. If you already
have the dynamic security measures on your printer, you can remove
it via a firmware update but only if you have printers from a
specific list that HP has laid out.
This all means that any printers made after 2016 and not included
in the settlement run the risk of having the same security measure
put in place to stop them from working with non-HP ink. Many
printers on the HP website specifically say 'dynamic security
enabled printer', meaning they only work with HP ink and toner.
If you've found cheaper third-party ink, you may want to check if
your printer is on the list. [GN]
HUD: MFHC Can File Reply in Support of Provisional Class Cert Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Massachusetts Fair Housing
Center, et al., v. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD), et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-30041 (D. Mass., Filed March 13,
2025), the Hon. Judge Richard G. Stearns entered an order granting
motion for leave to file reply in support of the Plaintiffs'
emergency motions for provisional class certification and for a
temporary restraining order.
The suit alleges violation of the Administrative Procedure Act.
HUD is one of the executive departments of the U.S. federal
government. It administers federal housing and urban development
laws.[CC]
HYRECAR INC: Class Settlement in Baron Suit Gets Final Nod
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ivan Baron v. HyreCar Inc.
et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-06918-FWS-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge
Fred Slaughter entered an order granting the motion for final
approval of class action settlement and plan of allocation and
granting in substantial part the motion for attorney fees and
reimbursement of litigation expenses.
The Fee Motion is granted in all respects except that the court
calculates the fee award by applying the percentage fee award after
deducting litigation and administration costs from the common fund,
for a total fee award of $567,994.63, and the court denies the Lead
Plaintiff's request for reimbursement of $10,000.
In sum, after analyzing the Rule 23(e)(2) factors, and taking into
consideration the factors the Ninth Circuit has provided to guide
the court's Rule 23(e)(2) analysis, the court concludes that the
Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate.
In the operative Second Amended Complaint, the Lead Plaintiff
brings claims against Defendants for (1) violation of Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5 against all Defendants, and (2)
violation of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against Furnari and
Brogi.
The SAC alleges, in summary, that HyreCar led by Brogi and Furnari,
used a conflicted third-party insurance adjuster to manipulate
HyreCar's earnings by concealing certain expenses and
under-accruing liability for its insurance reserves, resulting in
inaccurate financial statements. As a result of making false
earnings statements, HyreCar's stock value increased.
The Lead Plaintiff seeks to certify a class of:
"all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired
the publicly traded common stock of HyreCar Inc. from May 13,
2021 through Aug. 10, 2021, both dates inclusive, and were
damaged thereby."
HyreCar operates a car-sharing marketplace in the United States.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 7, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5Q9n13 at no extra
charge.[CC]
ICF TECHNOLOGY: Class Status Conference Scheduled for June 24
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TOMASELLO v. ICF
TECHNOLOGY, INC., et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-03759 (D.N.J., Filed
July 13, 2023), the Hon. Judge Madeline Cox Arleo entered an order
as follows:
-- A status conference is scheduled for June 24, 2025, at 2:00
p.m. For the conference.
-- No later than June 17, 2025, the parties shall file a joint
letter not to exceed five pages summarizing the status of the
case.
If any opt-in plaintiffs fail to respond to discovery request,
Defendants have leave to file the appropriate motion.
If the parties intend to file any dispositive or Daubert motions
upon the Court's decision on the pending class certification
motion, such motions shall be filed in accordance with Judge
Arleo's preferences.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
ICF is a streaming and processing service provider.[CC]
J. DOER: Court Endorses Denial of McMillion Class Cert Bid
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SKYLER McMILLION, v. J.
DOER, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01557-KES-SAB (E.D. Cal.), the Hon.
Judge Stanley Boone recommends that Plaintiff's motion for class
certification be denied.
The Plaintiff is a non-lawyer proceeding without counsel, and it is
well established that a layperson cannot ordinarily represent the
interests of a class. This rule becomes almost absolute when, as
here, the putative class representative is incarcerated and
proceeding pro se.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff simply cannot "fairly and adequately
protect the interests of the class," as required by Rule 23(a)(4)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Therefore, Plaintiff's
motion for class action must be denied.
The Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
civil rights complaint pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal
Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
A copy of the Court's recommendation dated March 5, 2025, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=t4iecR
at no extra charge.[CC]
JACOBSEN CONSTRUCTION: Lilley Files Suit in D. Utah
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Jacobsen Construction
Company, Inc. The case is styled as Brooke Lilley, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Jacobsen Construction
Company, Inc., Case No. 2:25-cv-00234-JNP (D. Utah, March 25,
2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract.
Jacobsen Construction (JCC) --
https://www.jacobsenconstruction.com/ -- is a company that provides
construction services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason R. Hull, Esq.
Anikka Hoidal, Esq.
MARSHALL OLSON & HULL PC
10 Exchange Pl., Ste. 350
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Phone: (801) 456-7655
Email: jhull@mohtrial.com
ahoidal@mohtrial.com
JOHNSON SERVICE: Godbee Seeks OT Wages for Straight Time Employees
------------------------------------------------------------------
DENISE GODBEE, individually and for others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. JOHNSON SERVICE GROUP, INC. (JSG), Case No.
1:25-cv-03033 (N.D. Ill., March 21, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid
wages and other damages from JSG under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.
According to the complaint, JSG employed Godbee as one of its
Straight Time Employees. The Defendant pays its Straight Time
Employees by the hour. The Straight Time Employees regularly work
more than 40 hours a workweek but JSG does not pay them proper
overtime wages. Instead, JSG pays its Straight Time Employees the
same hourly rate for all hours worked, including hours worked after
40 in a workweek, asserts the lawsuit.
Allegedly, JSG uniformly misclassifies its Straight Time Employees
as exempt from overtime. But JSG has never paid its Straight Time
Employees on a "salary basis" as required for any relevant overtime
exemption JSG might claim, the lawsuit adds.
JSG applies its straight time for overtime pay scheme to its
Straight Time Employees regardless of any allegedly individualized
differences. JSG's uniform straight time for overtime pay scheme
violates the FLSA by depriving the Straight Time Employees of the
"time and a half" overtime premiums they are owed for all hours
worked in excess of 40 in a workweek.
The putative collective of similarly situated employees is defined
as:
"All JSG employees who were paid the same hourly rate for all
hours worked, including hours worked in excess of 40 in a
workweek, at any time during the past 3 years through final
resolution of this action."
JSG is a staffing company that provides workers to numerous
industries, including the energy, nuclear, manufacturing, and
aerospace/aviation industries.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
Maureen A. Salas
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
77 W. Washington St., Suite 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 419-1008
E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
msalas@flsalaw.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
JOMASHOP INC: Faces Levin Suit Over False Reference Pricing
-----------------------------------------------------------
MADISON LEVIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. JOMASHOP, INC., a New York corporation, Case No.
2:25-cv-02523 (C.D. Cal., March 21, 2025) is a class action aims to
hold Jomashop liable for its unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent
business practice of advertising fictitious prices and
corresponding phantom discounts on nearly every product sold
through its website, www.Jomashop.com.
According to the complaint, this practice of false reference
pricing occurs when a retailer fabricates a fake regular, original,
and/or former reference price, and then offers an item for sale at
a deeply "discounted" price. The result is a sham price disparity
that misleads consumers into believing they are receiving a good
deal, thereby inducing them into making a purchase. Companies like
PLG drastically benefit from employing a false reference pricing
scheme and experience increased sales, the lawsuit says.
Plaintiff Levin is a citizen of the State of California and
resident of Los Angeles, County. He, in reliance on Jomashop's
false and deceptive pricing, purchased a "Seiko Quartz White Dial
Black Leather Ladies Watch" on Feb. 24, 2025, from Jomashop's
website.
Jomashop, through its website, offers high-end luxury goods, such
as clothing, watches, fragrances, and many other products to
California consumers.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin J. Cole, Esq.
W. Blair Castle, Esq.
KJC LAW GROUP, A.P.C.
9701 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1000
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (310) 861-7797
E-mail: kevin@kjclawgroup.com
JUSTIN STURGILL: Little Suit Seeks Minimum Wages for Truck Drivers
------------------------------------------------------------------
NICHOLAS LITTLE and JARED GORHAM, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. JUSTIN STURGILL TRUCKING, LLC and
JUSTIN STURGILL, and DUE RAGAZZI, LLC, and BRITTANY STURGILL, Case
No. 1:25-cv-00182-JPH (S.D. Ohio, March 21, 2025) seeks to recover
minimum wages and other wage payments from Plaintiffs
current/former employers, Defendants Sturgill Trucking, Due
Ragazzi, Justin Sturgill, and Brittany Sturgill, pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants have employed numerous
truck drivers who have not been paid the minimum wage for all hours
worked, and have further not been paid all wages owed to them. The
Defendants continue to employ numerous employees who are not paid
the minimum wage for all hours worked, and are further not being
paid all wages owed to them, asserts the lawsuit.
Plaintiff Little is a resident of Ohio and is a resident of this
judicial district. He is a former employee of the Defendants.
Plaintiff Gorham is also a resident of Ohio and is a resident of
this judicial district. He is a current employee of the
Defendants.
The Defendants operate trucking companies.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Matthew S. Okiishi, Esq.
FINNEY LAW FIRM LLC
4270 Ivy Pointe Blvd., Ste 225
Cincinnati, OH 45245
Telephone: (513) 943-6659
Facsimile: (513) 943-6669
E-mail: matt@finneylawfirm.com
KEN'S FOODS: Bid to Certify Conditional Class Partly OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID AUSTIN,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
KEN'S FOODS, INC., Case No. 4:24-cv-40040-MRG (D. Mass.), the Hon.
Judge Margaret Guzman entered an order granting in part the motion
to certify the conditional class.
The Court finds the Plaintiffs have met their "fairly lenient”
burden at the notice stage. However, the Court amends the class
definition to limit it to employees who were actually subject to
the policy of unpaid donning and doffing during the statutory
limitations period.
Accordingly, the Court conditionally certifies the following class:
'All current and former hourly employees who worked for Ken's
Foods, Inc. at any of its manufacturing facilities after March
6, 2021, and who were required to don and doff personal
protective equipment ("PPE") on the employer premises before
and after their shift without receiving compensation."
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant willfully violated the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and other laws by requiring
Austin and all others similarly situated to perform unpaid work
before and after their scheduled shifts.
Ken's Foods produces, packages, and retails salad dressings and
sauces.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 21, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=jLHmOr at no extra
charge.[CC]
KRAFT HEINZ: Paper Sues Over Frozen Potato Products' Conspiracy
---------------------------------------------------------------
PAPER PLATE LIC, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. THE KRAFT HEINZ CO.; LAMB WESTON HOLDINGS,
INC.; LAMB WESTON, INC.; LAMB WESTON BSW, LLC; LAMB WESTON/MIDWEST,
INC.; LAMB WESTON SALES, INC.; MCCAIN FOODS LIMITED; MCCAIN FOODS
USA, INC.; J.R. SIMPLOT CO.; CAVENDISH FARMS LTD; and CAVENDISH
FARMS, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-03032 (N.D. Ill., March 21, 2025)
contends that the Defendants acted in concert to fix, raise,
maintain, and stabilize the price of frozen french fries, hash
browns, tater tots, and other frozen potato products, in violation
of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
The Defendants control more than 97% of the $68 billion per
year-Frozen Potato Products market. To conceal their conspiracy,
Lamb Weston told its managers to communicate about competitor
pricing and business intelligence using texting instead of emails
to avoid creating emails that could be discovered in the event of
an antitrust investigation, the suit alleges.
The Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and in a representative
capacity on behalf of a Class of indirect purchasers of Frozen
Potato Products for end use and not for resale as frozen products,
under Section 1 of the Antitrust Act of 1890, and Sections 4 and 16
of the Clayton Antitrust Act, seek relief against the Defendants
for their conspiracy to fix prices of frozen potato products in the
United States from at least as early as January 1, 2021, through
the date by which the anticompetitive effects of their violations
of law shall have ceased, but in any case no earlier than the
present.
During the Class Period, the Plaintiffs each purchased Frozen
Potato Products, including at least Ore-Ida brand Frozen Potato
Products, indirectly from Defendants Kraft Heinz and Simplot in New
York and Florida, respectively, for end use and not for resale.
Kraft Heinz 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:
Matthew Hurst, Esq.
HEFFNER HURST
30 North LaSalle Street, 12th Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 346-3466
E-mail: mhurst@heffnerhurst.com
- and -
Ronen Sarraf, Esq.
Joseph Gentile, Esq.
SARRAF GENTILE LLP
10 Bond Street, Suite 212
Great Neck, NY 11021
Telephone: (516) 699-8890
Facsimile: (516) 699-8968
E-mail: ronen@sarrafgentile.com
joseph@sarrafgentile.com
LAFAYETTE COLLEGE: Jin-Wolfson Seeks Prelim OK of Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JULIA JIN-WOLFSON, v.
LAFAYETTE COLLEGE, Case No. 5:23-cv-04005-JMG (E.D. Pa.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23:
(1) Preliminarily approving the proposed Settlement on behalf
of the Settlement Class Members according to the terms of
the Stipulation of Settlement;
(2) Provisionally certifying, for purposes of the Settlement
only, the following Settlement Class:
"All Lafayette College students whose payment obligation of
tuition and/or fees was satisfied for the Spring 2020
semester, and who were enrolled in at least one in-person
on-campus class as of March 16, 2020."
Excluded from the Potential Settlement Class are all
Lafayette College students who received scholarships,
grants, or credits that equaled or exceeded their total
payment obligations to Lafayette for the Spring 2020
semester, or who were otherwise not obligated to make
contributions, payments or third-party arrangements towards
tuition or fees for the Spring 2020 semester;
(3) Preliminarily appointing Named Plaintiff Julia Jin-Wolfson
as Settlement Class Representative;
(4) Preliminarily appointing Nicholas A. Colella of Lynch
Carpenter, LLP, and Michael A. Tompkins and Anthony M.
Alesandro of Leeds Brown Law, P.C. as Class Counsel to act
on behalf of the Settlement Class and the Settlement Class
Representative with respect to the Settlement; and
(5) Approving the Parties' proposed settlement procedure,
including approving the Parties’ selection of RG/2 Claims
Administration LLC as Settlement Administrator and
approving the Parties’ proposed schedule.
Lafayette is a private liberal arts college in Easton,
Pennsylvania.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 21, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=o303b4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas A. Colella, Esq.
LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP
1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Telephone: (412) 322-9243
E-mail: NickC@lcllp.com
- and -
Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
Anthony M. Alesandro, Esq.
LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
One Old Country Road, Suite 347
Carle Place, NY 11514
Telephone: (516) 873-9550
E-mail: mtompkins@leedsbrownlaw.com
aalesandro@leedsbrownlaw.com
LENDINGTREE INC: Pierce Suit Transferred to D. Montana
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Linda Pierce, Nathan Thomas, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. LendingTree, Inc.,
Lendingtree, LLC, QuoteWizard.com, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00078 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of North Carolina, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Montana on March 20, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00032-BMM to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
LendingTree, Inc. -- https://www.lendingtree.com/ -- is an online
lending marketplace, founded in 1996 and headquartered in
Charlotte, North Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott C. Harris, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 West Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Phone: (919) 600-5000
Fax: (919) 600-5035
Email: sharris@milberg.com
MFS SUPPLY: Bid to Modify First Amended Complaint Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TERRENCE SHANAHAN,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
MFS SUPPLY LLC, an Ohio limited liability company; Case No.
8:23-cv-00475-JFB-MDN (D. Neb.), the Hon. Judge Michael Nelson
entered an order as follows:
1. The Plaintiff's amended motion for leave to modify file
first amended class action complaint and modify case
progression order is denied.
2. The Defendant's motion to compel, to deem admissions
admitted, and to enlarge the number of interrogatories to be
issued to the Plaintiff is denied.
3. A telephone conference to discuss case progression is set
before the undersigned magistrate judge on April 16, 2025,
at 10:30 a.m. Counsel shall use the WebEx Conference
Instructions to participate in the call.
The Court broadly construes Plaintiff's response to Defendant's
motion as a request to withdraw admissions. It is important to note
Plaintiff did serve responses to the Defendant's requests for
admissions, albeit three days late.
However, Defendant has made no showing of prejudice resulting from
a three-day delay in receipt of Plaintiff's responses. A brief
delay from expected the receipt of responses on a Friday to Monday
cannot have interfered with Defendant’s defense to this action on
the merits, and the Court is satisfied that withdrawal of
admissions will promote the presentation of the merits of the
action.
On Oct. 27, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a class action complaint
against the Defendant "to stop its illegal practice of sending
unsolicited telemarketing texts to the cellular telephones of
consumers whose phone numbers were registered on the Federal Do Not
Call Registry, and to obtain redress for all persons injured by
their conduct" under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA").
The Plaintiff's Complaint defines the proposed class as, "All
persons in the United States who: (1) from the last 4 years to
present (2) Defendant texted more than once in a 12-month period
(3) whose telephone numbers were registered on the Federal Do Not
Call registry for more than 30 days at the time the texts were
sent."
The Plaintiff seeks to amend the class definition as:
"All persons in the United States who: (1) are on the list
of Berkshire Hathaway Realtors obtained by MFS Supply LLC;
(2) whose telephone numbers were connected to cell phones;
(3) registered on the Federal Do Not Call registry; (4)
whose owners do not maintain any other residential telephone
numbers; and (5) do have separate telephone number(s) for
business purposes."
MFS Supply is a national distributor of property preservation
materials, multifamily renovation supplies, and real estate
equipment.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 21, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JBkm3k at no extra
charge.[CC]
MORGAN & MORGAN: Gugliuzza Suit Removed to S.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Mark Gugliuzza, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Morgan & Morgan, Jacksonville PLLC,
Seth Diamond, Case No. SPCV25-00202 was removed from the Superior
Court of Chatham County, Georgia, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Georgia on March 20, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-00064-LGW-BWC to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Morgan & Morgan -- https://www.forthepeople.com/ -- is America's
Largest Personal Injury Law Firm.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Rachel Catherine Bramblett, Esq.
BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS
Promenade Tower, 20th Floor
1230 Peachtree Street, NE
Atlanta, GA 30309
Phone: (404) 868-2044
Fax: (404) 868-2010
Email: rbramblett@bradley.com
MRO MARYRUTH: Herrera Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------------
EDERY HERRERA, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. MRO MARYRUTH, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02391 (S.D.N.Y.,
March 21, 2025) alleges that the Cedarville failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://www.maryruthorganics.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 is a visually-impaired and legally blind person, who
cannot use a computer without the assistance of screen-reading
software. Plaintiff is, however, a proficient JAWS screen-reader
user and uses it to access the Internet. Plaintiff has visited the
Website on separate occasions using the JAWS screen-reader.,
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 to the public. The
Website offers features which should allow all consumers to access
the goods and services offered by Defendant and which Defendant
ensures delivery of such goods and services throughout the United
States including New York State.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
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
NATERA INC: Schneider Wins Bid to Certify Class
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN HARVEY SCHNEIDER,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
NATERA, INC., STEVE CHAPMAN, MICHAEL BROPHY, MATTHEW RABINOWITZ,
and RAMESH HARIHARAN, Case No. 1:22-cv-00398-DAE (W.D. Tex.), the
Hon. Judge David Alan Ezra entered an order adopting the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation as the opinion of the Court and
granting the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class defined as:
"all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired Natera common stock between Feb. 27, 2020, and March
8, 2022, inclusive, and were damaged thereby."
The further entered an order that the Plaintiffs British Airways
Pension Trustees Limited and Key West Police & Fire Pension Fund
are appointed class representatives, that Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP and Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP are
appointed as class counsel, and that Nix Patterson, LLP is
appointed as liaison class counsel.
Finally, the Plaintiffs be ordered to provide notice to potential
class members through first-class U.S. mail. Pursuant to the
Scheduling Order entered in this case on Feb. 29, 2024, the Court
orders the parties to file a revised scheduling order substituting
exact dates for the deadlines set out in paragraphs 9-18 of this
order within 14 days of the date of this Order.
Judge Howell's findings to which there were no objections have been
considered by this Court and found to be neither clearly erroneous
nor contrary to law and thus they will also be adopted.
On June 4, 2024, the Plaintiffs moved for class certification.
On Aug. 16, 2024, the Defendants filed a response in opposition to
the motion.
Natera is a diagnostics company offering genetic testing related to
women's health, oncology, and organ health.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 21, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4foLKh at no extra
charge.[CC]
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Torres Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationstar Mortgage,
LLC. The case is styled as Gladys Torres, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC
D/B/A Rushmore Servicing, Case No. 2579CV00208 (Mass. Super. Ct.,
Hampden Cty., March 20, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Contract / Business Cases."
Nationstar doing business as Rushmore Servicing --
https://www.rushmoreservicing.com/ -- is one of the nation's
largest mortgage servicers and the largest non-bank mortgage
servicer in the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Morneau, Esq.
CONNOR AND MORNEAU, LLP
273 State St., 2nd Floor
Springfield, MA 01103
Phone: (413)455-1730
NEW GENERATION: Granados Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Granados, on behalf of themselves and all other persons
similarly situated v. FHP Contractor LLC, Froilan H. Pacheco, Case
No. e 2:25-cv-02019 (D.N.J., March 21, 2025) seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation as required by law,
and liquidated damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard Act, the
New Jersey Wage Payment Law, and the New Jersey Wage Theft Law.
The Plaintiff is a former employee of the FHP Contractor LLC. He
was paid $1,100 per week from June 2021 to June 2022, for a 65-
hour work week; $1,250 per week from June 2022 to August 4, 2023,
for a 65-hour work week; and $1,250 per week from August 28, 2023,
to December 2024, for a 63-hour work week. He performed tasks such
as installing windows, wood framing and doors.
The Plaintiff seeks to prosecute his FLSA claims as a collective
action on behalf of a collective group of persons defined as
follows:
"All persons who are or were formerly employed by the
Defendants in the United States at any time since March 2019,
to the entry of judgment in this case the "Collective Action
Period"), installing windows, wood framing and doors, who were
not paid statutory minimum wages and/or overtime compensation
at rates at least one-and-one-half times the regular rate of
pay for hours worked in excess of forty hours per workweek (the
"FLSA Collective Action Members").[BN]
FHP is based in Essex county in New Jersey. They operate in the
Construction industry, specifically in single family housing
construction.
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Samuel, Esq.
THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM
1441 Broadway, Suite 6085
New York, NY 10018
Telephone: (212) 563-9884
E-mail: michael@thesamuellawfirm.com
- and -
Reena Forst, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF REENA FORST
345 Union Street
Hackensack, New Jersey 07601
Telephone: (201) 568-5689
Facsimile: (201) 568-4479
E-mail: rforst@rflawfirm.com
NEWMARK GROUP: Continues to Defend Sherman Act-Related Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Newmark 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 Company continues to
defend itself from the Sherman Antitrust 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 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 Antitrust Act of 1890, as amended, 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
$5,000,000.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and in response, on May 31,
2023, plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action Complaint alleging
similar allegations as a basis for claims for breach of contract
and violation of the Sherman Act. Defendants moved to dismiss the
Amended Complaint.
On February 23, 2024, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint,
repleading claims for violation of federal antitrust laws and
challenging economic forfeiture and non-compete obligations as
violative of federal competition law.
On December 2, 2024, the District Court granted defendants' motion
to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. On December 16, 2024,
plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit.
The parties are in the process of briefing the appeal.
The Company continues to believe the lawsuit has no merit and that
the District Court's dismissal of the matter will be affirmed on
appeal. However, as with any litigation, the outcome cannot be
determined with certainty.
Newmark Group, Inc., and Newmark Holdings jointly own Newmark
Partners, L.P., the operating partnership, a service provider to
large institutional investors, global corporations, and other
owners and occupiers of commercial real estate that offers a
diverse array of integrated services that includes capital markets
(investment sales and commercial mortgage brokerage), agency
leasing, valuation and advisory, property management, business
rates, due diligence consulting and other advisory services
including multifamily lending and loan servicing, and flexible
workspace solutions for owners.
NEWREZ LLC: Yates Seeks Final Approval of Class Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as IRENE YATES, et al., v.
NEWREZ LLC d/b/a SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING, Case No.
8:21-cv-03044-TJS (D. Md.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order granting motion for final approval of settlement.
The Plaintiffs also request that the Court entered an order:
-- affirming the certification of the Settlement Class for
settlement purposes only,
-- affirming the appointment of Irene Yates and Alice Mejia as
Class Representatives,
-- affirming the appointment of Phillip Robinson, Scott Borison,
and Thomas Minton as Class Counsel,
-- retaining jurisdiction over this matter to resolve issues
related to interpretation, administration, implementation,
effectuation, and enforcement of the Settlement, and
-- granting the separate motion for Service Awards and Attorneys'
Fees and Costs.
On June 22, 2021, the Plaintiff Irene Yates initiated a class
action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Prince George's County,
alleging that Shellpoint violated various Maryland laws related to
the imposition and collection of property inspection fees by
Shellpoint's practice of imposing, charging, and collecting fees
from borrowers related to property inspections.
The Court also preliminarily certified the following Settlement
Class for settlement purposes only:
"All persons with residential mortgage loans secured by real
property in Maryland, which were serviced by Shellpoint, for
which Shellpoint imposed one or more Property Inspection
Fee(s) since January 2014."
The Settlement Class member transactions shall consist of two
subclasses:
Subclass A:
"All Settlement Class members whose Property Inspection Fee
claims were not tolled by the Oct. 30, 2020 class action
filing of Parker v. Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company Limited
Partnership et al, Case No. 8:20-cv-03581- ADC."
Subclass B:
"All Settlement Class members whose Property Inspection Fee
claims were tolled by the October 30, 2020 class action filing
of Parker v. Goldman Sachs Mortgage Company Limited
Partnership et al, Case No. 8:20-cv-03581-ADC."
The Settlement Agreement resolves the claims and provides for
Defendant to pay $1,216,000.00 for a common fund.
Newrez is a nationwide mortgage lender and servicer.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 21, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=01fr61 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Scott C. Borison, Esq.
BORISON FIRM LLC.
1400 S. Charles St.
Baltimore MD 21230
Telephone: (301) 620-1016
E-mail: scott@borisonfirm.com
- and -
Phillip R. Robinson, Esq.
CONSUMER LAW CENTER LLC
10125 Colesville Road, Suite 378
Silver Spring, MD 20901
Telephone (301) 448-1304
E-mail: phillip@marylandconsumer.com
- and -
Thomas J. Minton, Esq.
GOLDMAN & MINTON, P.C.
3600 Clipper Mill Rd., Suite 201
Baltimore, MD 21211
Telephone: (410) 783-7575
Facsimile: (410) 783-1711
E-mail: tminton@charmcitylegal.com
NOVA MEASURING: Nash Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nova Measuring
Instruments, Inc. The case is styled as Selinda Nash, individually,
and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. Nova
Measuring Instruments, Inc., Case No. 25CV112713 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Los Angeles Cty., Feb. 21, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
Southwest College Of Medical-Dental Assistants & Practical Nurses
is a legal entity registered under the law of State Nevada.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan M. Genish, Esq.
BLACKSTONE LAW
8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442
Phone: 855-786-6355
Fax: 855-786-6356
Email: jgenish@blackstonepc.com
NOW OPTICS: Marous Seeks OK of Renewed Class Certification Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RICHARD MAROUS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. NOW
OPTICS HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a STANTON OPTICAL, Case No.
9:24-cv-80702-RLR (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order granting renewed motion for class certification.
The Plaintiff moves under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and 23(b)(3) to:
(1) certify a class under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA");
(2) appoint him as Class Representative; and
(3) appoint his counsel as Class Counsel.
Accordingly, the Defendant indiscriminately sent over 2.4 million
text messages to advertise the rebranding of its stores and
encourage recipients to schedule eye exams.
The Defendant sent text messages to every person that had ever made
a purchase at any of its 150 stores around the country. It did so
without removing telephone numbers listed on the National
Do-Not-Call Registry, determining whether the individuals it was
texting had invited or provided permission to receive messages, or
checking whether the consumers had an existing business
relationship with Defendant.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff moves to certify the following class of
individuals who were sent the Defendant's text message
solicitations in violation of the TCPA's do-not-call provisions:
"All persons in the United States who, between Oct. 1, 2023
and Jan. 31, 2024, (1) received two or more text messages; (2)
where the person's cellular telephone number had been listed
on the National Do Not Call Registry for more than 30 days
prior to receipt of the first text message; (3) regarding the
rebranding, conversion and/or transition of My Eyelab to
Stanton Optical; and for whom the Defendant's records indicate
that the person (4) did not opt in to receive text messages;
and (5) had not made a purchase from Defendant during the
eighteen months immediately preceding the date of the second
text message."
The Defendant operates approximately 280 optometry stores
throughout the country under the Stanton Optical brand name which
offers over-the-counter vision supplements, eyeglasses, contact
lenses, sunglasses, and eye exams.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 21, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0MYTu2 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq.
HIRALDO P.A.
401 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1400
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 400-4713
E-mail: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com
- and -
Rachel Dapeer, Esq.
DAPEER LAW P.A.
520 S. Dixie Hwy, Suite 240
Hallandale Beach, FL 33009
Telephone: (954) 799-5914
E-mail: rachel@dapeer.com
NRRM LLC: Faces Lindsey Class Suit Over Vehicle Service Contracts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
APRIL LINDSEY-EVANS, BRENNA SEBEK, AND KEVIN SHEEHAN, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NRRM, LLC d/b/a
CARSHIELD, LLC, AMERICAN AUTO SHIELD, LLC, and DOES 1-100, Case No.
4:25-cv-00363 (E.D. Mo., March 21, 2025) is a class action on
behalf of the Plaintiffs and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated consumers who purchased Vehicle Service Contracts from
CarShield and administered by American Auto Shield, LLC, United
Service Protection, and various other DOE Defendants owned and/or
operated by American Auto Shield, LLC.
According to the complaint, the Defendants promise to offer
customers "the single most comprehensive vehicle protection
coverage for their vehicle." In particular, the Defendants
advertise that CarShield Vehicle Service Contracts provide
consumers with coverage equivalent to a manufacturer's warranty.
The Defendants advertise a "crystal clear" and timely claims
process where customers can use their chosen repair facility. The
Defendants further publicize that CarShield coverage allows
consumers to obtain automobile repairs at no cost. Specifically,
CarShield states that "with a service contract from CarShield, your
covered repair claims will be paid 100% by your administrator."
On June 3, 2020, the Plaintiff purchased a Vehicle Service Contract
from United (which was later acquired by American Auto Shield, LLC)
through its vendor CarShield for her 2010 Volkswagen Tiguan
vehicle, which bears Vehicle Identification No. WVGBV7AX3AW53650.
A Vehicle Service Contract is purchased separately from the sale of
a vehicle and a vehicle manufacturer’s warranty. It is designed
to provide additional warranty coverage beyond the terms of vehicle
manufacturer’s warranty. These Vehicle Service Contracts are sold
by the Defendant NRRM, LLC d/b/a CarShield, LLC, which "markets
vehicle service contracts administered by American Auto Shield,"
United Service Protection.
When consumers, including the Plaintiffs, file claims for repairs
under their CarShield Vehicle Service Contract, however, Defendants
do not deliver on their contractual obligations. The Defendants
take several weeks or months to render decisions on claims and have
denied repair coverage in violation of the contract.
As a result, consumers, including Plaintiffs, have incurred
out-of-pocket expenses while waiting for Carshield to render
decisions on their claims, lost the use of their vehicles while
waiting for a decision on their claims, have been forced to pay out
of pocket for repairs that Defendants agreed to cover, and
otherwise paid for a Vehicle Service Contract that does not provide
the promised coverage, says the suit.
American Auto Shield, LLC develops and administers Vehicle Service
Contracts, which are automobile service agreements in which "the
contract seller agrees to perform (or pay for) certain repairs or
services outlined in the contract."[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Domenica M. Russo, Esq.
Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR
KANE CONWAY & WISE. LLP
One U.S. Bank Plaza, Suite 1950
St. Louis, MO 63101
E-mail: drusso@peifferwolf.com
bwise@peifferwolf.com
- and -
Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
Matthew D. Schelkopf, Esq.
Joseph B. Kenney, Esq.
Juliette T. Mogenson, 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
OCUGEN INC: Continues to Defend Securities Suit in Pennsylvania
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ocugen 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 5, 2025, that the Company continues to defend
itself from a securities class suit in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
In April 2024, a securities class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and certain of its agents in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Case No.
2:24-cv-01500) that purported to state a claim for alleged
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on statements made by the
Company concerning the Company's previously-issued audited
consolidated financial statements for each fiscal year beginning
January 1, 2020 and its previously-issued unaudited condensed
consolidated financial statements for each of the first three
quarters in such years and the effectiveness of the Company's
disclosure controls and procedures during each such period.
The complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
and other costs.
In October 2024, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and
in December 2024, the Company filed a motion to dismiss.
In February 2025, the lead plaintiff filed an opposition to the
motion to dismiss, and the Company intends to file a reply in
support of the motion to dismiss by March 10, 2025.
The Company believes that the lawsuits are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend against them. OCUGEN, INC. operates as
a clinical stage biopharmaceutical company. The Company offers
products for improving the body's ability to regenerate healthy
cartilage, joint function, and prevention of degenerative diseases.
[BN]
ORTHOALASKA LLC: Class Settlement in Byers Suit Gets Final Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS BYERS,
individually, and on behalf of others similarly situated, v.
ORTHOALASKA, LLC, Case No. 3:23-cv-00242-SLG (D. Alaska), the Hon.
Judge Sharon Gleason entered an order granting the Plaintiffs'
unopposed motion for final approval of class action settlement:
1. The Court dismisses with prejudice all claims of the Class
against the Defendant in the Litigation, without costs and
fees except as explicitly provided for in the Settlement
Agreement.
2. The Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion for an award of
Attorneys' Fees. The Court awards Class Counsel one-third of
the Settlement Fund ($395,000) and $3,433.86 in
reimbursement of expenses to be paid according to the terms
of the Settlement Agreement. The Court awards the Class
Representatives, Thomas Byers, Karen Prestegard, and Skyler
Green, $2,500.00 each to be paid according to the terms of
the Settlement Agreement. The award is justified based on
their service to the Class.
2. Class Certification for Settlement Purposes Only. For
settlement purposes only, the Court certifies, solely for
purposes of effectuating the proposed Settlement, a
Settlement Class in this matter defined as follows:
"All individuals identified on the Settlement Class List
whose personal information may have been involved in the
Data Incident."
The Settlement Class includes approximately 162,000 people.
The Settlement Class specifically excludes: (1) the judge
presiding over the Litigation, and members of their direct
family; (2) the Defendant, its subsidiaries, parent
companies, successors, predecessors, and any entity in which
the Defendant or Defendant's parent companies have a
controlling interest and their current and former officer
and directors; and (3) Settlement and Class Members who
submit a valid Request for Exclusion prior to the Opt-Out
deadlines.
OrthoAlaska is an integrated group of orthopedic and rheumatology
providers in Alaska.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 21, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=34KZ6M at no extra
charge.[CC]
PENNYMAC LOAN: McLane Files Suit in Mass. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PennyMac Loan
Services, LLC. The case is styled as Ryan McLane, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. PennyMac Loan
Services, LLC, Case No. 2579CV00210 (Mass. Super. Ct., Hampden
Cty., March 20, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Contract / Business Cases."
Pennymac -- https://www.pennymac.com/ -- offers refinancing, home
buying, and equity access options with dedicated loan officers and
online application.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Morneau, Esq.
Alexander J. Rodriguez, Esq.
CONNOR AND MORNEAU, LLP
273 State St., 2nd Floor
Springfield, MA 01103
Phone: (413)455-1730
POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Fails to Secure Personal Info, L.C. Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
L.C., a minor, by and through their legal guardian, VIVIAN CABRERA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC. and BAIN CAPITAL, LP, Case No.
2:25-cv-02026 (D.N.J., March 21, 2025) arises from the Defendants'
failure to secure personal identifiable information of Plaintiff
and the members of the proposed Classes, including their names,
email addresses, phone numbers, social security numbers, medical
information (e.g., food allergies and learning disabilities), dates
of birth, reduced meal statuses (i.e., financial information),
demographic information, and student and staff identification
numbers.
On Jan. 9, 2025, PowerSchool publicly announced that it experienced
a breach of its national student information system (SIS) as a
result of a vulnerability (the Data Breach). Specifically, one or
more unauthorized parties were able to gain access to PowerSchool's
systems and data by accessing and using compromised credentials.
PowerSchool failed to discover its network vulnerability and the
unauthorized access to its systems until December 28, 2024.
Developing evidence suggests these parties may have gained access
to PowerSchool's even earlier, says the suit.
PowerSchool provides cloud-based education software for school
administrators. Headquartered in Folsom, California, PowerSchool
has an estimated 18,000 customers worldwide, including schools and
school districts ranging from kindergarten to twelfth grade levels.
In providing its services, PowerSchool created, collected, and
maintained the private information for Class Members.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI,
BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
QUANTUM-SI INC: Highscape Continues to Defend Farzad Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Quantum-Si 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 Highcape, the Company's
subsidiary, continues to defend itself from the Farzad class suit
in the Delaware Court of Chancery.
On May 16, 2024, a punitive class action lawsuit was filed in the
Delaware Court of Chancery, styled Farzad v. HighCape Capital, et
al. (the "Delaware Stockholder Litigation"). The Delaware
Stockholder Litigation asserts breach of fiduciary duty claims
against the former officers and directors of HighCape, including
Kevin Rakin, Matt Zuga, David Colpman, Robert Taub and Antony
Loebel, HighCape Capital Acquisition LLC and HighCape Capital L.P.,
aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty claims against
Foresite Capital Management, LLC and Dr. Rothberg, and unjust
enrichment claims against all defendants related to the Business
Combination.
The Delaware Stockholder Litigation complaint alleges that the
transactions contemplated by the Business Combination were a
product of an unfair process which was allegedly impacted by
conflicts of interest, resulting in mispricing of the Business
Combination. The complaint seeks, among other things, unspecified
damages and attorneys' fees and costs.
On July 29, 2024, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
Delaware Stockholder Litigation complaint.
On October 8, 2024, the plaintiff filed a motion to compel
discovery from the HighCape defendants.
Then, on October 25, 2024, the plaintiff and the HighCape
defendants met and conferred in an attempt to resolve the motion to
compel. The plaintiff's counsel also indicated they would be filing
an amended complaint in response to the motions to dismiss.
Quantum-Si, as part of the Business Combination, had previously
agreed to identify certain of the defendants related to actions
such as the Delaware Stockholder Litigation. There is no assurance
that defendants will be successful in the defense of the litigation
or that insurance will be available or adequate to fund any
potential settlement or judgment or the litigation costs of the
action.
Further, since the Quantum-Si has indemnified certain of the
defendants, there is no guarantee that insurance available to
Quantum-Si will be available or adequate to fund any potential
settlement or judgment or related costs associated with the
indemnified parties. At the time of this filing, the outcome of
this matter is not estimable or probable.
Quantum-Si Inc. is a Protein Sequencing Company.
REPUBLIC SERVICES: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Opposition
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CIS COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
v. REPUBLIC SERVICES, INC., et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00359-JAR
(E.D. Mo), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting
the Defendants an extension of seven days, up to and including
April 4, 2025, to file their opposition to the Plaintiff's motion
for class certification.
The Court recently amended the scheduling order to address certain
class certification-related deadlines based on deposition
scheduling. Defendants timely served their expert report on March
21.
Under the current schedule, Defendants’ deadline to file its
opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for class certification is March
28.
Since the Court's order, the undersigned counsel was pulled away by
personal matters, including his father’s funeral, and the press
of business, including five expert depositions in six business
days, which necessitates a short extension to finalize the briefing
and other papers on behalf of Defendants. Defendants therefore
request an extension of seven days, up to and until April 4, 2025,
to file the opposition.
The Defendants' counsel has contacted Plaintiff's counsel about
this extension, and Plaintiff’s counsel has consented.
Republic Services is a North American waste disposal company whose
services include non-hazardous solid waste collection, waste
transfer, waste disposal, recycling, and energy services.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 24, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ON0aab at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jonathan B. Potts, Esq.
Meridyth Andresen, Esq.
BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP
211 N. Broadway, Suite 3600
St. Louis, MO 63102
Telephone: (314) 259-2403
E-mail: jonathan.potts@bclplaw.com
RESIDENT HOME: Esparza Suit Removed to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Miguel Esparza doing business as:
www.nectarsleep.com, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Resident Home LLC, Case No. CVR12406948 was
removed from the Superior Court of CA, County of Riverside, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on Feb.
3, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-00289-DTB to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Resident Home -- https://www.residenthome.com/ -- offers
mattresses, bed frames, bedroom furniture & other bedding products
for every type of sleeper.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
David W. Reid, Esq.
Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS APC
4100 Newport Place Drive Suite 800
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Phone: (949) 706-6464
Fax: (949) 706-6469
Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com
dreid@pacifictrialattorneys.com
vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jeffrey B. Margulies, Esq.
Alexandra Marie Perez, Esq.
Yi Yang, Esq.
NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
555 South Flower Street 41st Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 892-9200
Fax: (213) 892-9494
Email: jeff.margulies@nortonrosefulbright.com
alexandra.perez@nortonrosefulbright.com
eva.yang@nortonrosefulbright.com
SALLY BEAUTY: Rios Appeals Ruling Compelling Arbitration
--------------------------------------------------------
IRIS RIOS is taking an appeal from a court order granting the
Defendants' motion to compel arbitration in her lawsuit entitled
Iris Rios, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Sally Beauty Supply, LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 8:24-cv-00912-JWH-JC, in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit,
which was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of
Orange, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, was brought against the Defendants for
alleged violation of the California Labor Code and California's
Business and Professions Code.
On Dec. 13, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to compel
arbitration, which Judge John W. Holcomb granted on Feb. 18, 2025.
The Plaintiff was directed to submit her individual claims to
arbitration pursuant to the Arbitration Agreement. The Plaintiff's
class claims were dismissed. The parties were directed to file
simultaneous supplemental briefing of no more than 15 pages each,
addressing whether the Plaintiff has Article III standing to pursue
representative Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) claims in the
Court.
The appellate case is captioned Rios v. Sally Beauty Supply, LLC,
et al., Case No. 25-1804, in the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 19, 2025. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant IRIS RIOS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, is represented by:
Farah Agharokh Mirabel, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF FARRRAH MIRABEL
1070 Stradella Road
Los Angeles, CA 90077
Defendants-Appellees SALLY BEAUTY SUPPLY, LLC, et al. are
represented by:
Spencer C. Skeen, Esq.
Marlene M. Moffitt, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC
4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92122
SATORI LASER: S. R. Files Suit in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Satori Laser Center
Corp.. The case is styled as S. R., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Satori Laser Center Corp., Case
No. 2:25-cv-01126 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 27, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Satori Laser -- https://www.satorilaser.com/ -- is the largest
laser center chain in Manhattan, Long Island, and Philadelphia,
offering top-tier solutions for laser hair removal.[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
Phone: (646) 837-7150
Email: aleslie@bursor.com
SAZERAC CO: Seeks to Seal Portions of Class Cert Bid Filing
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TERRY MYERS, and DAWN
OUTLAW, as individuals, on behalf of themselves, the general
public, and those similarly situated, v. SAZERAC COMPANY, INC.,
Case No. 3:23-cv-00522-EMC (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the
Court to enter an order granting its administrative motion to
maintain limited portions of the Plaintiffs' motion to certify
class, reply in support of class certification, and supporting
documents under seal.
Accordingly, Sazerac only seeks to maintain very limited portions
of the Plaintiffs' class certification filings under seal. As set
forth in the Magid Declaration, it is critical to continue keep
these portions of the filings under seal to prevent competitors
from gaining unfair insight into Sazerac’s business strategy and
competitive analyses, sales volume, and confidential consumer
information.
Sazerac is a privately held American alcoholic beverage company.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 19, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=U6SQN8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Kent J. Schmidt, Esq.
Creighton R. Magid, Esq.
DORSEY & WHITNEY LLP
600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 2000
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Telephone: (714) 800-1400
Facsimile: (714) 800-1499
E-mail: schmidt.kent@dorsey.com
magid.chip@dorsey.com
SHADE STORE: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Extended to April 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LEE FITZGERALD and
KATHERINE ADLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. THE SHADE STORE, LLC, Case No. 2:23-cv-01435-RSM (W.D.
Wash.), the Court entered an order granting stipulated motion for
extension of time.
Case Event Amended Deadline
Motion for Class Certification: March 26, 2025
Opposition to Motion for Class April 30, 2025
Certification, and Daubert Motions:
Reply in Support of Motion for Class May 28, 2025
Certification and Opposition to Daubert
Motions:
Reply in Support of Daubert Motions: June 18, 2025
The Shade Store is a provider of premium custom window treatments.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 21, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3UGiUC at no extra
charge.[CC]
SHARI'S MANAGEMENT: Woebbeking Seeks Leave to Conduct Discovery
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HEIDI WOEBBEKING,
individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. SHARI'S
MANAGEMENT CORPORATION; GATHER HOLDINGS GUARANTEE, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-01871-CL (D. Or.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an
order granting the Plaintiffs leave to conduct discovery under Rule
26(d)(l) without having conferred with defaulted Defendants under
Rule 26(f).
The Plaintiff Woebbeking moves the Court for leave to conduct
discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26( d)(l ).
Neither Defendant has appeared or otherwise defended this action
arising under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act
("WARN Act"), 29 U.S.C. sections 2101-2109, which the Plaintiff
brings on her own behalf and on behalf of a putative class of
Defendants' former employees who were laid off without the notice
required by the Act.
The Clerk has entered both Defendants' default. The Plaintiff now
seeks limited discovery of in support of class certification and to
determine her own and the putative class's damages. Undersigned
counsel certifies that, because no Defendant has appeared in this
case nor provided any notice of intent to appear, the conference
demanded by Local Rule 7-l(a)(l) before filing this motion has not
been possible.
The Plaintiff filed this action on November 12, 2024, seeking
damages for the Defendants' violations of the Act on her own behalf
and on behalf of a putative class of "all employees of Defendants
who were terminated pursuant to a mass layoff or plant closing (as
those terms are defined in the WARN Act) within 90 days of October
20, 2024."
Shari's Management owns and operates a chain of restaurants.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 3, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=K9y1iV at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nathan R. Ring, Esq.
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Michael C. Iadevaia, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
3100 W. Charleston Blvd., Ste. 208
Las Vegas, NV 89102
Telephone: (725) 235-9750
E-mail: nring@stranchlaw .com
gstranch@stranchlaw.com
miadevaia@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI, LLP
613 WiUiamson St., Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: (608) 237-1775
Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com
raina@straussborrelli.com
- and -
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
Natalie A. Lyons, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
Facsimile: (317) 636-2593
E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
nlyons@cohenandmalad.com
SHIRISH AND RANJAN: Civil Standing Order Entered in Apnar Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as THE SHIRISH AND RANJAN
TRIVEDI LIVING TRUST, et al., v. APNAR PHARMA LP, et al., Case No.
5:25-cv-00522-SSS-KES (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered a civil
standing order:
The plaintiff must promptly serve the complaint in accordance with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and must comply with Local Rule
5-3 with respect to all proofs of service.
Any answers filed in state court must be e-filed in this Court,
either as an exhibit to the Notice of Removal or as a separate
filing. Any pending motions must be re-noticed in accordance with
Local Rule 6-1.
The Court does not conduct telephonic hearings. By default, all
hearings, with the exception of hearings on motions in limine,
Final Pretrial conferences, and trials, must proceed remotely by
video appearance on Zoom, unless a request is made by the parties
to appear in person and this request is granted by the Court.
Motions must be filed in accordance with Local Rule 7. This Court
hears civil motions on Fridays beginning at 2:00 pm.
Apnar is a privately owned, rapidly growing pharmaceutical
company.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 5, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mYF65Q at no extra
charge.[CC]
SKYC MANAGEMENT: Andujar Seeks Final Certification of Action
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as VICTOR ANDUJAR, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, v. SKYC MANAGEMENT
LLC, 674 HOLDING LTD., SHIMON GREISMAN, GARY GARTENBERG, Case No.
1:23-cv-08764-MKV (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiff will move the Court for
an Order:
(i) granting final certification of FLSA collective action
pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 216(b);
(ii) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a), 16 and 21, granting
the Plaintiffs leave to amend the Complaint; and such
other and further relief as this Court deems just and
proper.
Sky Management offers real estate investment, management,
financing, and development services.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 20, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iewlcv at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marc A. Rapaport, Esq.
RAPAPORT LAW FIRM, PLLC
80 Eighth Avenue, Suite 206
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 382-1600
E-mail: mrapaport@rapaportlaw.com
SLICE OF ITALY: Ray Seeks Conditional Cert of FLSA Collective
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DYLAN RAY, Individually
and Behalf all others Similarly Situated, v. A SLICE OF ITALY
PIZZERIA-ROCK HILL INC. D/B/A FRATELLI RISTORANTE & PIZZERIA AND
JOSEPH CUTRONE, Case No. 0:24-cv-03683-CMC (D.S.C.), the Plaintiff
asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for conditional
class certification and to authorize notice to potential class
members, pursuant to section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) 29 U.S.C. section 216.
The Plaintiffs requests that the Court enter an order as follows:
(1) conditionally certifying a collective action consisting of
The Defendants' current and former Servers;
(2) directing the Defendants to provide names, phone numbers,
and emails for all potential class members;
(3) authorizing the proposed Notice attached as 'Exhibit 4' to
be emailed and mailed to potential Plaintiffs;
(4) authorizing the propose Notice attached as 'Exhibit 5' to
be sent via text message to potential Plaintiffs;
(5) allowing each individual up to 60 days from the date of
mailing and text message in which to return the Consent
Form to the Plaintiffs' counsel; and
(6) authorizing putative class members to opt in by using an
electronic signature.
The Plaintiffs file their memorandum in support of this Motion
herewith.
Fratelli is a casual restaurant serving traditional Italian dishes,
gourmet pizza & wine in a bistro-like setting.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 1, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=n5atUl at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marybeth Mullaney, Esq.
MULLANEY & MULLANEY, LLC
652 Rutledge Ave, Suite A
Charleston, SC 29403
Telephone: (843) 588-5587
E-mail: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net
SOC LLC: Faces Zavala Suit Over Unpaid Wages for Security Officers
------------------------------------------------------------------
ARTURO ZAVALA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SOC LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:25-cv-00912-DAD-SCR (E.D. Cal., March 21, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of the California Labor Code
including failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to pay
all hours worked, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to provide
meal breaks or compensation in lieu thereof, failure to authorize
and permit rest breaks or provide compensation in lieu thereof,
failure to provide accurate wage statements, and failure to timely
pay wages due during the course of employment and upon termination
of employment.
The Plaintiff worked as a regular special security officer and a
lieutenant security officer for the Defendants from on or around
June 15, 2019, until April 11, 2024.
SOC LLC is a company that owns and operates private security
services, doing business in California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Justin Hewgill, Esq.
EMPLOYEE JUSTICE LEGAL GROUP, PC
1001 Wilshire Blvd., 2nd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 900
Telephone: (213) 382-2222
Facsimile: (213) 382-2230
Email: jhewgill@ejlglaw.com
SPIRE GLOBAL: Court Stays Consolidated Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Spire Global Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K/A Report for the
fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2025, that the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia stayed a
consolidated securities class suit until the resolution of
Defendants' motion to dismiss.
On August 20, 2024, the Company and two of its executive officers
were named as defendants in a purported federal securities law
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, captioned Michal Bousso v. Spire
Global, Inc. et al., Court File No. 1:24-cv-1458.
On October 14, 2024, a second plaintiff filed a similar lawsuit
against the Company and three current or former executive officers,
also in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Virginia, captioned Kohei Tagawa v. Spire Global, Inc. et al.,
Court File No. 1:24-cv-1810.
On November 22, 2024, the court consolidated the Bousso Lawsuit and
the Tagawa Lawsuit, appointed Michal Bousso as lead plaintiff, and
renamed the case to "In re Spire Global, Inc. Securities
Litigation," Master File No. 1:24-cv-1458-MSN-WEF (the "Master
Securities Lawsuit").
December 23, 2024, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the
Master Securities Lawsuit, which alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act (and Rule 10b-5 thereunder),
arising from or relating to its announcements in August 2024 that
certain of its previously issued audited and unaudited financial
statements should not be relied upon.
Plaintiff alleges that the Company and the individual defendants
made false or misleading statements relating to (1) how revenue was
recognized for pre-space services for certain space contracts, and
(2) how costs for certain contracts were characterized.
The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired its common stock between May 11,
2022 and August 14, 2024. The plaintiff seeks damages and other
relief, including attorneys' fees and costs. The defendants are
vigorously defending this lawsuit.
On January 22, 2025, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint in its entirety. Briefing on Defendants' motion to
dismiss is scheduled to be completed by the end of February 2025,
and the motion is presently scheduled to be heard by the Court on
March 14, 2025.
By statute, discovery is stayed in the Master Securities Lawsuit
until the resolution of Defendants' motion to dismiss.
Spire Global is a provider of satellite data, analytics and
services. The Company operates a proprietary constellation of
multi-purpose nanosatellites and provides subscription access to
its data for a range of commercial applications such as shipping
vessel monitoring, aviation guidance, and weather forecasting.[BN]
STATE FARM: Parties Must File Status Report by April 7
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Nater v. State Farm Mutual
Automobile Insurance Co., Case No. 1:23-cv-01408 (C.D. Ill., Filed
Oct. 27, 2023), the Hon. Judge Jonathan E. Hawley entered an order
that because no motion for class certification was filed, the
parties are directed to file a status report by April 7, 2025.
The nature of suit states Telemarketing Act / Consumer Fraud
State Farm is a group of mutual insurance companies throughout the
United States with corporate headquarters in Bloomington,
Illinois.[CC]
SUCCESSFUL AGING: Mosley Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sheree Mosley, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated v. SUCCESSFUL AGING CARE NET, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-01536
(E.D. Pa., March 24, 2025), is brought against the Defendant,
seeking all available remedies under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968 ("PMWA"), the
Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law ("WPCL") and
Pennsylvania common law s a result of the Defendant's failure to
pay overtime wages.
The Plaintiff regularly worked in excess of 40 hours a week. Other
Caregivers work similar schedules and regularly work in excess of
40 hours a week. Other Caregivers similarly travel between multiple
clients' homes each day, use their personal vehicles to do so, and
incur mileage and fuel costs. Thus, Defendant required Caregivers
to complete this travel time off-the-clock and failed to pay
Caregivers' wages, including overtime wages, for travel time
between clients' homes during their regular workday. As a result,
Defendant routinely failed to pay Plaintiff and other Caregivers
all wages owed, including overtime wages for all hours worked over
40 hours each week.
The Plaintiff spent time traveling between clients' homes while
off-the-clock during her regular workday. Because Defendant did not
record or pay Plaintiff for the time spent traveling in between
clients' homes, Defendant did not pay Plaintiff overtime wages for
all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in the two workweeks of this
pay period, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as an in-home caregiver from
2014 until late 2022.
The Defendant is a provider of home healthcare and geriatric care
management services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Camille Fundora Rodriguez, Esq.
Michael J. Anderson, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
1818 Market Street, Suite 3600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 875-3000
Fax: (215) 875-4604
Email: crodriguez@bm.net
manderson@bm.net
- and -
Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
BERGER MONTAGUE PC
8241 La Mesa Blvd, Suite A
La Mesa, CA 91942
Phone: (215) 875-3063
Email: apiazza@bm.net
SUNPOWER CORP: Steamfitters Fund Appeals Suit Dismissal to 9th Cir.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
STEAMFITTERS LOCAL 449 PENSION & RETIREMENT SECURITY FUNDS is
taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendants' motion
to dismiss the lawsuit entitled Piotr Jaszczyszyn, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SunPower
Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:22-cv-00956-AMO, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was brought against the Defendants for violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
On Aug. 21, 2024, Steamfitters Local 449 Pension & Retirement
Security Funds filed a third amended consolidated class action
complaint, which the Defendants moved to dismiss on Oct. 11, 2024.
On Dec. 30, 2024, Defendant SunPower Corporation filed a motion for
joinder.
On Feb. 7, 2025, Steamfitters Local 449 Pension & Retirement
Security Funds filed a motion for extension of time to serve
foreign defendants.
On Feb. 14, 2025, Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin granted the
Defendants' motion to dismiss the third amended complaint with
prejudice. SunPower Corporation's motion for joinder was also
granted. The motion for extension of time to serve foreign
defendants was denied as moot.
The appellate case is captioned Steamfitters Local 449 Pension &
Retirement Security Funds v. SunPower Corporation, et al., Case No.
25-1831, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit, filed on March 20, 2025.
The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that:
-- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on March 25,
2025;
-- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due on March 28,
2025;
-- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on April 28, 2025;
-- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on June 6, 2025; and
-- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on July 7, 2025. [BN]
Defendants-Appellees SUNPOWER CORPORATION, et al. are represented
by:
Katherine Leigh Henderson, Esq.
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, PC
One Market Plaza, Spear Tower, Suite 3300
San Francisco, CA 94105
- and –
Ava K. Mehta, Esq.
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, PC
650 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
- and –
Dylan Grace Savage, Esq.
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, PC
1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10019
- and –
John C. Roberts, Jr., Esq.
WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, PC
701 5th Avenue, Suite 5100
Seattle, WA 98104
SUNRUN INC: Seeks to Seal Exhibits in Opposition to Class Cert Bid
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JEREMY LUCKAU, v. SUNRUN
INC., Case No. 4:25-cv-01661-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks
the Court to enter an order granting Sunrun's administrative motion
to seal exhibits to its opposition to the Plaintiff's motion for
class certification.
Sunrun presents the following compelling reasons for the Court to
seal the Exhibits. First, there are legitimate private and public
interests that warrant sealing the Exhibits. The unredacted
versions of the call transcripts include residential home
addresses. Second, if sealing is denied, call recipients may be at
risk of personal harm or identity theft.
Finally, there is no sufficient, less restrictive alternative to
sealing the Exhibits. First, Sunrun submits concurrently with this
Motion copies of the Exhibits with PII and SPI redacted for public
viewing. While this protects customers’ PII and SPI, Sunrun must
also share the unredacted transcripts of these calls with the Court
and Plaintiff’s counsel in accordance with the local rules.
Sunrun seeks to partially seal the following exhibits, which are
submitted in support of the Opposition:
Exhibit B to the Torres Declaration
Exhibit C to the Torres Declaration
The above exhibits are transcripts that contain PII and SPI,
including the call recipient’s home address.
Sunrun is an American provider of photovoltaic systems and battery
energy storage products, primarily for residential customers.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 20, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5oLTuR at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Lauri A. Mazzuchetti, Esq.
Glenn T. Graham, Esq.
KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP
One Jefferson Road, Floor 2
Parsippany, NJ 07054
Telephone: (973) 503-5900
Facsimile: (973) 503-5950
E-mail: lmazzuchetti@kelleydrye.com
ggraham@kelleydrye.com
T AND V PIZZA: Herrera Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA & NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------
JUAN HERRERA v. T AND V PIZZA CORP (DBA ANGELA'S PIZZERIA) and
VINCENT (VINNY) DIMAIO, individually, Case No. 1:25-cv-01580 (March
21, 2025)(E.D.N.Y., March 21, 2025) is a putative collective action
on behalf of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees
of the Defendants pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New
York Labor Law, and the Wage Theft Prevention Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendants were required to
compensate the Plaintiff with overtime pay at one and one-half the
regular rate for work in excess of 40hours per work week. However,
despite such mandatory pay obligations, Defendants willfully only
compensated Plaintiff at a rate of $18.18, $19.09, and $20.00 per
hour respectively, and failed to pay Plaintiff his lawful overtime
pay for that period from November 2023 until March 2025.
During this period, the Plaintiff worked well in excess of 40 hours
per workweek, as determined by the work schedule set by Defendant,
says the suit.
The Defendants owned and operated T and V Pizza Corp.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 203-2417
TAKEDA PHARMA: FWK Allowed Leave to File Opposition Sur-Reply
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FWK Holdings LLC, et al.,
v. Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd., et al., Case No.
1:21-cv-11057 (D. Mass., Filed June 25, 2021), the Hon. Judge Myong
J. Joun entered an order granting motion for leave to file a
sur-reply in support of opposition to end-payor Plaintiffs' motion
for Class Certification.
The nature of suit states Antitrust Litigation.
Takeda is a Japanese multinational pharmaceutical company.[CC]
TAKEDA PHARMA: Premera Allowed to File Opposition Sur-Reply
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Premera Blue Cross v.
Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited, et al., Case No.
1:23-cv-12918 (D. Mass., Filed Nov. 30, 2023), the Hon. Judge Myong
J. Joun entered an order granting motion for leave to file a
sur-reply in support of opposition to end-payor Plaintiffs' motion
for Class Certification.
The nature of suit states Antitrust Litigation.
Takeda is a Japanese multinational pharmaceutical company.[CC]
TAKEDA PHARMA: Seeks to File Sur-reply in Opposition to Class Cert
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Premera Blue Cross v.
Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited et al., (RE AMITIZA ANTITRUST
LITIGATION), Case No. 1:23-cv-12918-MJJ (D. Mass.), Takeda ask the
Court to enter an order granting motion for leave to file a
sur-reply in support of its opposition to end-payor plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.
Takeda requests that the Court grant this motion for leave to file
a fifteen page sur-reply by, the later of, (1) fourteen days after
this Court's ruling on this motion, or (2) April 10, 2025.
Takeda is an R&D-driven global biopharmaceutical company.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated March 19, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3RquIv at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Fred A. Kelly, Jr., Esq.
Joshua S. Barlow, Esq.
Andre Geverola, Esq.
Laura Shores, Esq.
Wallace Wu, Esq.
Assad Rajani, Esq.
Katie J.L. Scott, Esq.
Ada Añon, Esq.
Michael Sapiro, Esq.
Matthew Wilk, Esq.
Sam Sullivan, Esq.
ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
200 Clarendon Street
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 351-8052
E-mail: fkelly@haugpartners.com
jbarlow@haugpartners.com
andre.geverola@arnoldporter.com
laura.shores@arnoldporter.com
wallace.wu@arnoldporter.com
assad.rajani@arnoldporter.com
katie.scott@arnoldporter.com
ada.anon@arnoldporter.com
michael.saipro@arnoldporter.com
matthew.wilk@arnoldporter.com
sam.sullivan@arnoldporter.com
- and -
Michael F. Brockmeyer, Esq.
Ralph E. Labaton, Esq.
David Shotlander, Esq.
Aakruti Vakharia, Esq.
HAUG PARTNERS LLP
1667 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 292-1530
Facsimile: (202) 292-1531
E-mail: mbrockmeyer@haugpartners.com
rlabaton@haugpartners.com
dshotlander@haugpartners.com
avakharia@haugpartners.com
TENNESSEE GAS: Class Cert. Filing in Bradish Amended to June 30
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRADISH JOHNSON CO.,
LIMITED, individually and as representative of all those similarly
situated, V. TENNESSEE GAS PIPELINE COMPANY, LLC ET AL., Case No.
2:23-cv-07363-CJB-EJD (E.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Carl Barbier
entered an order granting second joint motion to amend scheduling
order for class certification:
1. Fact discovery related to class certification will close on
April 30, 2025.
2. Expert discovery related to class certification will close
on May 30, 2025.
3. The Plaintiff's motion for class certification must be filed
on or before June 30, 2025.
4. The Defendants' opposition to class certification must be
filed on or before July 31, 2025.
5. The Plaintiff's final witness and exhibit lists for the
class certification hearing must be filed on or before
Aug. 8, 2025.
6. The Defendants' final witness and exhibit lists for the
class certification hearing must be filed on or before Aug.
15, 2025.
7. The Parties will exchange demonstratives and exhibits to be
used at the class certification hearing one week before the
class certification hearing.
8. The Court will schedule a class certification hearing in
September 2025, or later, based on the Court's availability.
9. Post-hearing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of
law will be filed within 30 days of the class certification
hearing, or as set by the Court.
Tennessee Gas offers transportation, gathering, processing,
development, and management of natural gas.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 19, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nMkhrh at no extra
charge.[CC]
TERADATA CORP: Continues to Defend Ostrander Securities Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Teradata Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the annual
period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 21, 2025 that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Ostrander securities class suit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California.
On June 14, 2024, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed against the Company and certain of its officers in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California,
captioned Ostrander v. Teradata Corporation, No. 24-cv-01034 (S.D.
Cal.). The complaint asserts claims for alleged violations of
federal securities laws related to statements concerning the
Company's business and 2023 financial outlook for Total ARR and
Public Cloud ARR.
The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of certain persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's stock during the
period from February 13, 2023 to February 12, 2024 and seeks
unspecified damages and other relief.
On December 6, 2024, the lead plaintiff in the case filed an
amended complaint, after which the Company filed a motion to
dismiss on February 4, 2025.
Briefing on the motion is expected to conclude later in 2025.
The Company disputes the allegations in the amended complaint and
intends to defend the case vigorously.
Teradata Corporation is an American software company that provides
cloud database and analytics-related software, products, and
services.[BN]
UNITED PARKS: Continues to Defend Burns Class Suit in Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------------
United Parks & Resorts 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 Company
continues to defend itself from the Burns class suit in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
On July 27, 2022, a purported class action was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
against the Company captioned Quinton Burns individually and Next
Friend of K.B., a minor v. SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc. and
SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment LLC, Civil Case No. 2:22-cv-09941.
The complaint states the putative class consists of Quinton Burns
and K.B. Burns and similarly situated Black people.
Plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint adding an additional
seven adult and seven minor class representative plaintiffs in
which they allege the class consists of themselves and similarly
situated minority persons and also disclosed an additional 89
families and 125 children represented by Plaintiffs' counsel who
are allegedly members of the purported class (the "First Amended
Complaint").
The First Amended Complaint alleges the Company engaged in
disparate treatment of class members based on their race and in so
doing violated the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and Pennsylvania common
law. The First Amended Complaint seeks compensatory and punitive
damages and attorneys' fees and costs as well declarative and
injunctive relief.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss all counts and a motion to
strike certification of the class.
The Court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice as to the
negligent training and hiring claims, without prejudice as to the
negligent supervising claim, and denied the motion as to the 42 USC
1981 and negligence per se claims.
The plaintiffs sought certification of their class and to amend the
operative complaint to reassert the negligent supervising claim.
The Company filed a motion to strike class certification and a
motion for summary judgment as to all claims. The court denied
plaintiffs' motion for class certification and granted the
Company's motion for summary judgment in part. In particular, while
the court allowed the plaintiffs to reassert their negligent
supervising claims, the court granted summary judgment with regard
to all eight individual plaintiffs as to those claims. As to the
alleged violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the court
granted summary judgment against two of the eight plaintiffs,
leaving six individual plaintiffs with such claims.
The Company intends to continue to defend the case vigorously
should the Plaintiffs file an appeal. While there can be no
assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of the matter, the Company
believes a potential loss, if any, would not be material.
United Parks & Resorts Inc is an American theme park and
entertainment company headquartered in Orlando, Florida.[BN]
UNITED STATES CELLULAR: Continues to Defend Stockholder Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
United States Cellular Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the annual period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 21, 2025 that the
Company continues to defend itself from a putative stockholder
class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.
On May 2, 2023, a putative stockholder class action was filed
against TDS and UScellular and certain current and former officers
and directors in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.
An Amended Complaint was filed on September 1, 2023, which names
TDS, UScellular, and certain current UScellular officers and
directors as defendants, and alleges that certain public statements
made between May 6, 2022 and November 3, 2022 (the potential class
period) regarding, among other things, UScellular's business
strategies to address subscriber demand, violated Section 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The plaintiff seeks to represent a class of stockholders who
purchased TDS equity securities during the potential class period
and demands unspecified money damages.
UScellular is a wireless telecommunications service provider that
purportedly operates in 21 states that collectively represent a
total population of 32 million.
UNITED STATES: Doe Suit Seeks to Certify Class
----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SVITLANA DOE, et al., v.
KRISTI NOEM, in her official capacity as Secretary of Homeland
Security, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-10495-IT (D. Mass.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a class that
is defined as:
a) "All individuals with pending applications to sponsor a
beneficiary for any humanitarian parole process, including
U4U, CHNV, FRP, MPIP, and CAM, which applications are
subject to the January 20 Huffman memo and subsequent
actions by Defendants to pause or otherwise terminate the
processing of such applications" (the "Sponsor Subclass");
and
b) "All individuals who have received humanitarian parole
through already established humanitarian parole processes,
such as the U4U, CHNV, OAW, FRP, MPIP, and CAM parole
processes, with any pending applications for any additional
immigration benefit, which applications are subject to the
"administrative hold" set out in the February 14 Davidson
memorandum, the January Higgins Directive, and other
subsequent actions by the Defendants to pause or otherwise
terminate the processing of such applications" (the
"Immigration Benefits Subclass").
The Plaintiffs would exclude from the class definition any
individuals or groups who choose to opt out of the class in order
to seek relief in separate litigation.
The Plaintiffs also request that the Court appoint the undersigned
as class counsel and the Proposed Class Representatives as class
representatives.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 21, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LFxXRa at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Esther H. Sung, Esq.
Karen C. Tumlin, Esq.
Hillary Li, Esq.
Laura Flores-Perilla, Esq.
Brandon Galli-Graves, Esq.
JUSTICE ACTION CENTER
Los Angeles, CA 90027
Telephone: (323) 450-7272
E-mail: esther.sung@justiceactioncenter.org
karen.tumlin@justiceactioncenter.org
hillary.li@justiceactioncenter.org
laura.flores-perilla@justiceactioncenter.org
brandon.galli-graves@justiceactioncenter.org
- and –
Anwen Hughes, Esq.
HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST
75 Broad St., 31st Fl.
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 845-5244
E-mail: HughesA@humanrightsfirst.org
- and -
Justin B. Cox, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN B. COX
JAC Cooperating Attorney
Hood River, OR 97031
Telephone: (541) 716-1818
E-mail: justin@jcoxconsulting.org
- and -
John A. Freedman, Esq.
Daniel B. Asimow, Esq.
Robert Stout, Esq.
Sarah Elnahal, Esq.
Laura Shores, Esq.
Katie Weng, Esq.
H. Tiffany Jang, Esq.
ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
601 Massachusetts Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20001-3743
Telephone: (202) 942-5316
Facsimile: (202-942-5999
E-mail: john.freedman@arnoldporter.com
daniel.asimow@arnoldporter.com
rob.stout@arnoldporter.com
sarah.elnahal@arnoldporter.com
laura.shores@arnoldporter.com
katie.weng@arnoldporter.com
tiffany.jang@arnoldporter.com
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Patterson Appeals Case Dismissal to 6th Cir.
----------------------------------------------------------------
ERIC L. PATTERSON is taking an appeal from court orders in the
lawsuit entitled Eric L. Patterson, individually and on behalf of
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UnitedHealth
Group, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00378, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
The lawsuit, which was removed from Cuyahoga County Court of Common
Pleas to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio,
was brought against the Defendants for alleged violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).
On Mar. 3, 2023, the Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Plaintiff's complaint Or, in the alternative, to strike class
allegations.
On Mar. 24, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case
to state court.
On Jan. 9, 2025, Judge J. Philip Calabrese denied the Plaintiff's
motion to remand and granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss.
On Feb. 6, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a motion to alter/amend
judgment, which Judge Calabrese denied on Feb. 12, 2025.
The appellate case is captioned Eric Patterson v. UnitedHealth
Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 25-3175, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on March 17, 2025. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant ERIC L. PATTERSON, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN
60 S. Park Place
Painesville, OH 44077
Telephone: (440) 352-3391
- and –
Benjamin Pfouts, Esq.
8401 Chagrin Road, Suite 18
Chagrin Falls, OH 44023
Telephone: (440) 337-0083
Defendants-Appellees UNITEDHEALTH GROUP, INC., et al. are
represented by:
Noah G. Lipschultz, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON
80 S. Eighth Street, Suite 1300
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 630-1000
- and –
James Palmer Smith, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON
127 Public Square, Suite 1600
Cleveland, OH 44114
Telephone: (216) 696-7600
- and –
Wesley E. Stockard, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON
3344 Peachtree Road, N.E., Suite 1200
Atlanta, GA 30326
Telephone: (404) 233-0330
UNITY SOFTWARE: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Unity Software Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
annual period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 21, 2025 that the Company
continues to defend itself from a putative securities class suit in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.
On July 6, 2022, a putative securities class action complaint was
filed in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California
against the Company and certain of its executives (the "Securities
Class Action"). The complaint was amended on March 24, 2023, and
captioned In re Unity Software Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
5:22-cv-3962 (N.D. Cal.).
On May 25, 2023, all defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.
The plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motions to dismiss on
July 26, 2023. The Company filed a response to the plaintiffs'
opposition on September 1, 2023. On March 15, 2024, the court
granted the Company's motion to dismiss the complaint, and on April
12, 2024, the plaintiffs' filed a second amended complaint.
The Company has moved to dismiss the amended complaint.
The plaintiffs have filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss,
and the Company has filed a response to the plaintiff's opposition.
A hearing on the motion to dismiss was held on February 5, 2025,
and the Company is awaiting the ruling.
The operative complaint names as defendants Unity, its former Chief
Executive Officer, former Chief Financial Officer, and former
General Manager of Operate Solutions, as well as Unity
shareholders, Sequoia Capital, Silver Lake Group, and David
Helgason.
The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and alleges that the Company and
its executives made false or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose issues with the Company's product platform and the likely
impact of those issues on the Company's fiscal 2022 guidance.
The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons and
entities (other than the defendants) who acquired Unity securities
between May 11, 2021 and May 10, 2022, and requests unspecified
damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and an award of
attorneys' fees and costs.
The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend the case.
Unity Software creates and operates an interactive real-time 3D
content platform. The Company's platform provides software
solutions to create, run, and monetize interactive, real-time 2D
and 3D content for mobile phones, tablets, PCs, consoles, and
augmented and virtual reality devices. One of the tools on the
Company's product platform is the Audience Pinpointer, a user
acquisition service which uses real-time user valuation at the time
of an ad request.[BN]
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Cole Seeks Conditional Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATRINA COLE on Behalf of
Herself and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE/BLUMENTHAL, INC. and CHOICE HEALTH MANAGEMENT
SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00576-TDS-JEP (M.D.N.C.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order conditionally certifying
the following FLSA Collective Class:
"All non-exempt hourly paid patient care employees that worked
at a facility managed by Choice Health Management Services,
LLC at any time between July 11, 2021 and May 31, 2024 that
were subject to an automatic meal period deduction and worked
in at least of the following job titles: Certified Nursing
Assistant, Food and Nutrition Services Staff, Hospitality
Aide, Licensed Practical Nurse, LPN Coordinator, Medication
Technician, Memory Care Certified Nursing Assistant, Nurse
Aide in Training, Patient Care Coordinator, Personal Care
Aide, QAPI Nurse, Registered Nurse, Resident Care Director,
Restorative Aide, RN Supervisor, Temporary CNA, Temporary LPN,
and Wound Care Nurse."
Universal Health is a Medicare and Medicaid Certified skilled
nursing facility in Greensboro, NC.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 21, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wn9uo8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Wilson Fong, Esq.
HENSEL LAW, PLLC
Greensboro, NC 27438
Telephone: (336) 218-6466
Facsimile: (336) 218-6467
E-mail: will.fong@hensellaw.com
- and -
John Neuman, Esq.
SOSA-MORRIS NEUMAN, PLLC
4151 Southwest Freeway, Suite 515
Houston, TX 77027
Telephone: (281) 885-8844
Facsimile: (281) 885-8813
E-mail: JNeuman@smnlawfirm.com
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: Fails to Secure Athletes' Data, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JANE DOE 1, and JANE DOE 2, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. MATTHEW WEISS; the REGENTS
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN; the UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN; KEFFER
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2:25-cv-10806-RJW-DRG (E.D. Mich., March 21, 2025) is a class
action against the Defendants for violations of the Computer Fraud
and Abuse Act, Stored Communications Act, Title IX, Civil Rights
Under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, the Michigan Compiled Law, failure to
train and supervise, invasion of privacy intrusion upon seclusion,
gross negligence, negligent hiring, negligent training, negligent
supervision, negligent entrustment, negligent retention, trespass
to chattels, common law, and conversion.
The case arises from the Regents' and Keffer's failure to consider
or implement any security measures to protect the personal,
private, and intimate images and information of the Plaintiffs and
similarly situated athletes. As a result of the Regents' and
Keffer's failures, Defendant Weiss accessed the personal, private,
and intimate images and information entrusted to the Regents and
Keffer by the Plaintiffs and others similar to them. The Plaintiffs
and thousands of others have had their privacy illegally invaded,
suit says.
The University of Michigan is a public university in Michigan.
Keffer Development Services, LLC is a provider of software
solutions, headquartered in Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Parker Stinar, Esq.
Mike Grieco, Esq.
STINAR GOULD GRIECO & HENSLEY, PLLC
101 N. Wacker Dr., Floor M, Suite 100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 728-7444
Email: parker@sgghlaw.com
UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO: Settlement in Martinez Gets Final Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as HALEY MARTINEZ, et al., v.
UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO, Case No. 3:20-cv-01946-RBM-VET (S.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Ruth Bermudez Montenegro entered an order:
-- granting the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of the
class action settlement
-- granting in part the Plaintiffs' motion for an award of
attorney's fees and reimbursement of expenses to class counsel
and service awards to the class representatives.
Accordingly, the Court orders as follows:
1. Subject to the exceptions in Section 1.29 of the Settlement
Agreement, the Court certifies the following Settlement
Class:
"all enrolled students at USD who paid tuition, the Student
Wellness fee and/or course fees to USD, or who were credited
with having paid such tuition and/or Mandatory Fees to USD
for the Spring 2020 term/semester, subject to the seven
exclusions."
2. The Court finally approves the Settlement Amount of
$1,400,000 as a non-reversionary settlement payment to
settle and resolve all claims in the action by or on behalf
of the Settlement Class against the Defendant.
3. The Court finally approves Leeds Brown Law, P.C., The
Sultzer Law Group, P.C., The Golan Firm PLLC, Shegerian &
Associates, Inc., and Francis Mailman Soumilas, P.C., as
adequate Class Counsel and awards Class Counsel $275,000 in
attorneys' fees and $295,804.67 in costs.
4. The Court finally approves the Plaintiffs Chavarria, Holden,
and Sheridan as adequate Class Representatives and awards
$5,000 in service awards to each of the three Class
Representatives, for a total of $15,000.
5. The Court approves the payment to the Settlement.
The University of San Diego is a private Catholic research
university in San Diego, California.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 21, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pitIhC at no extra
charge.[CC]
WALGREEN CO: Polk Suit Removed to D. Oregon
-------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Michelle Polk, individually and for others
similarly situated v. WALGREEN CO., an Illinois corporation, Case
No. 25CV04148 was removed from the Marion County Circuit Court, to
the United States District Court for the District of Oregon on
March 20, 2025, and assigned Case No. 6:25-cv-00473-AA.
The Plaintiffs' First Cause of Action, Failure to Timely Pay All
Wages, alleges that Walgreens violated ORS 653.455 by allegedly
failing to pay Plaintiff and Putative Class Members additional
compensation related to alleged changes in their work schedules in
violation of ORS 653.455. The Plaintiffs' Second Cause of Action,
Interference with Oregon Predictive Work Scheduling, alleges that
Walgreens violated ORS 653.470 by allegedly threatening Plaintiff
and Putative Class Members if they refused to work additional hours
or shifts. The Plaintiffs' Third Cause of Action, Failure to Timely
Pay Earned Wages Upon Termination, alleges that Walgreens violated
ORS 652.140 because Walgreen Co. allegedly did not pay Plaintiffs
or Putative Class Members all wages due by the deadline set forth
in the statute.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Karen L. O'Connor, Esq.
Ryan S. Kunkel, Esq.
STOEL RIVES LLP
760 SW Ninth Avenue, Suite 3000
Portland, OR 97205
Phone: 503.224.3380
Facsimile: 503.220.2480
Email: karen.oconnor@stoel.com
ryan.kunkel@stoel.com
WALMART INC: Gay Suit Removed to S.D. New York
----------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Dolores Gay, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. WALMART INC., Case No. 74988/2024
was removed from the Supreme Court, County of Westchester, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on March
20, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 7:25-cv-02326-PMH to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Walmart Inc. -- https://corporate.walmart.com/ -- is an American
multinational retail corporation that operates a chain of
hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores in the
United States and 23 other countries.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
August T. Horvath, Esq.
FOLEY HOAG LLP
1301 Avenue of the Americas, 25th Floor
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (212) 812-0344
Fax: (212) 812-0399
Email: ahorvath@foleyhoag.com
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Court Narrows Claims in Costa SAC
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as STACY COSTA, et al, v.
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION, Case No. 1:24-cv-00188-MN (D. Del.), the
Hon. Judge Noreika entered an order granting in part and denying in
part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the second amended class
action complaint.
The Court finds that Plaintiffs have adequately stated a claim for
breach of the implied warranty of merchantability and will deny
Whirlpool's motion to dismiss on those count.
Here, the Plaintiffs allege that they were the end-users of the
refrigerators purchased from third-party retailers and thus "are
exempt from [the privity] requirement as they were the true
consumers of the product." Accordingly, Whirlpool's motion to
dismiss the North Carolina class claims for lack of privity will be
denied.
In summary then, the Arizona, Tennessee, and Florida subclasses
cannot maintain a claim for lack of privity, but the Illinois and
North Carolina class claims may proceed.
Because there are only 14 Named Plaintiffs here, the Court will
dismiss the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act (MMWA) claim.
The Complaint alleges that Whirlpool and its retail partners issued
"false and misleading advertisements" about the refrigerators'
features on consumer-facing websites and in retail stores.
Whirlpool is a global designer, manufacturer, retailer, and
marketer of home appliances, with brands such as KitchenAid,
Maytag, and Jenn-Air.
A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated March 21, 2025, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EsjYVO
at no extra charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Scott M. Tucker, Esq.
Timothy N. Mathew, Esq.
Zachary P. Beatty, Esq.
Alex M. Kashurba, Esq.
Marissa N. Pembroke, Esq.
CHIMICLES SCHWARTZ KRINER & DONALDSON-SMITH LLP
Wilmington, DE
- and -
Peter Bradford deLeeuw, Esq.
DELEEUW LAW LLC
Wilmington, DE
- and -
Daniel C. Levin, Esq.
Nicholas J. Elia, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
Philadelphia, PA
- and -
D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
Sara Watkins, Esq.
ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES,
Pittsburgh, PA
- and -
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP,
Washington, DC
The Defendant is represented by:
Bartholomew J. Dalton, Esq.
Michael C. Dalton, Esq.
DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.A.
Wilmington, DE
- and -
Andrew M. Unthank, Esq.
Jennifer Simon, Esq.
WHEELER TRIGG O'DONNELL LLP
Denver, CO
WILD WILLIES: Visually Impaired Can't Access Website, Herrera Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
EDERY HERRERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WILD WILLIES BRAND LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-02392 (S.D.N.Y., March 21, 2025) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York
City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible
to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website,
https://www.wild-willies.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.
Wild Willies Brand 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
WILE INC: Herrera Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store
-----------------------------------------------------------
EDERY HERRERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. WILE, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-02336 (S.D.N.Y., March 21, 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://wilewomen.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, says the suit.
The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause
a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and
procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to
blind and visually impaired individuals.
Wile, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in New
York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
XEROX BUSINESS: Bid to Exclude Munson Expert Testimony Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as TIFFANY HILL, individually
and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, v. XEROX BUSINESS
SERVICES, LLC, et al. Case No. (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John
Coughenour entered an order as follows:
-- The Plaintiff's motion to exclude Dr. Boedeker's expert
testimony is granted as to Sensitivities 2 and 3, and denied
as to the rest.
Furthermore, Mr. Boedeker is ordered to submit a
supplemental report that recalculates the compliance and
damages numbers under Sensitivity 1 consistent with the
methodology set out in Section II.A.2.ii. The Defendants
shall submit this supplemental report to the Court within 14
days of this Order. The Plaintiff shall have seven (7) days
to submit a rebuttal report and another five (5) days to
file a FRE 702/Daubert motion. The Plaintiff's FRE
702/Daubert motion, if filed, must be narrowly tailored to
address only the opinions in Mr. Boedeker's supplemental
report. Lastly, if filed, the motion must follow the
briefing schedule set out in LCR 7(d)(2) (14-Day Motions).
-- The Defendants' motion to exclude Dr. Munson's expert
testimony is denied.
However, Dr. Munson is ordered to submit a supplemental
report that diposes of the proportional method for applying
offsets, incorporates discretionary bonuses, and
recalculates damages accordingly per the Court's
reasoning in Sections II.A.3.ii and II.B.3.ii. The Plaintiff
shall submit this supplemental report to the Court within 14
days of this Order. The Defendants shall have seven (7) days
to submit a rebuttal report and another five (5) days to
file a FRE 702/Daubert motion. The Defendants' FRE
702/Daubert motion, if filed, must be narrowly tailored to
address only the opinions in Dr. Munson's supplemental
report. Lastly, if filed, the motion must follow the
briefing schedule set out in LCR 7(d)(2) (14-Day Motions).
-- The Court grants Rule 56(f) judgment sua sponte in favor of
the Plaintiff as to the issue of the Defendants' noncompliance
with MWA.
-- The Court denies the cross-motions for summary judgment.
-- Within 30 days of this Order, the parties shall submit a joint
status report (JSR) explaining (1) whether this case will be
ready for bench trial on June 9, 2025, and (2) what
outstanding issues remain to be decided at trial. The parties
are not to argue the issues in the JSR except for where there
is a dispute as to the actual existence of an issue. The JSR
will not be a substitute for the pretrial order.
Xerox sells and services digital black and white copiers, color
copiers, duplicators, facsimile equipment, printers, and scanners.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 21, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6MFXBf at no extra
charge.[CC]
XPEL INC: Adishian Voluntarily Drops Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------
XPEL, 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 8, 2024, a
securities class action complaint, "Greg Adishian v. XPEL, Inc.,
et. al.," case number 5:24-cv-00873, was filed against the company
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
Texas. The complaint named as defendants the company and certain of
its officers for making false and misleading statements regarding
the Company's financial outlook.
On December 23, 2024, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this case
without prejudice.
XPEL, Inc. is a supplier of protective films, coatings and related
services primarily to the automobile aftermarket, new car
dealerships and automobile original equipment manufacturers.
*********
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 ***