/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250403.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Thursday, April 3, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 67
Headlines
3M COMPANY: D. Harris Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Gadd Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Gorman Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Grimm Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Guidry Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: Harkness Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces Class Suit Over Heavy Metals in Similac
ACCESS OHIO: Randolph Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
ADVANCED TREE CARE: Cantoran Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
ADVENTIST HEALTH: Alexis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ALLIANCE HEMP: Long Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
ALN MEDICAL MANAGEMENT: Myers Files Suit in D. Nebraska
ALPHABET INC: Shareholder Class Action Suit Dismissed in Part
AMAZON.COM INC: Romero Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington
AMERICAN RENAL: Jolicoeur Sues Over Unprotected Sensitive Data
ANOTHER BROKEN: Santana Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
ATRIUS HEALTH: Doe Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
AUDUBON FIELD: Hardy FLSA Suit Transferred to S.D. Texas
AUTOBASE INC: Lalor Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York
BANCORP INC: Linden Sues Over Precipitous Decline in Market Value
BANCROFT HEALTH: Pennington Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
BANKERS HEALTHCARE: Laccinole Files FCRA Suit in N.D. New York
BATTERIES PLUS: Cazares Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
BEENVERIFIED LLC: Collins Files Suit in S.D. New York
BLUE CHICKEN: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Agnone Says
BLUE SHIELD: Andrews Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
BLUE SHIELD: Murillo Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
BLUE SHIELD: Wasserman Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
BOBBY BUKA: Herrera Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
BOHME LLC: Hassid Sues Over Unlawful Private Data Sharing to TikTok
BPREP VANTAGE: Fogy Suit Removed to S.D. California
BYTEDANCE INC: H.T. Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Data
BYTEDANCE INC: Illegally Collects Tiktok Users' Info, Suit Says
CALIFORNIA CRYOBANK: Fails to Protect Personal Info, J.L. Says
CALIFORNIA CRYOBANK: Jines Sues Over Alleged Private Data Breach
CANNON COCHRAN: Barbour Suit Removed to N.D. California
CARDINAL HEALTH: Sandoval Suit Removed to C.D. California
CASABLANCA FOODS: Herrera Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
CCFI COMPANIES: Magdaleno Suit Removed to E.D. California
CDHA MANAGEMENT: Figueroa Files Suit in Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas
CHARLES SCHWAB: Atachbarian Sues Over Failure to Pay Interest
CHARLES SCHWAB: Bueno Sues Over Failure to Pay Interest
CITIZENS DISABILITY: Settles TCPA Class Action Suit for $320,000
COASTAL WELL: Edgell Seeks to Recover Proper Overtime Wages
COMMONWEALTH FEDERAL: Discloses Personal Info to Google, Suit Says
COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER: Torres Suit Removed to D. Connecticut
CONSTELLIS LLC: Hernandez Suit Removed to C.D. California
CONVERSE INC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
CRAYVIN INC: Gonzales Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
CREATIVE PRIVATE LABEL: Valadez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
CROCS INC: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Suit Over Hey Dude
CROCS INC: Shah Sues Over Securities Exchange Act Breach
CVB INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Platform Beds Recall
CVS PHARMACY: Hernandez Suit Removed to S.D. California
DAMENZO'S INC: Garcia et al. Sue Over Unlawful Pay Scheme
EAGLE TECH: Dunlap Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
EIGHT SLEEP: Faces Chopra Class Suit Over Unlawful Pricing
ELLIOT GROUP SALES: Olinger Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Georgia
FAM HOSPITALITY: Roberts Sues to Recover Unpaid Tips
FEDEX GROUND: Atteberry Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
FENIX INTERNET: Brunner Sues Over Deceptive Outsourcing
FIRST STUDENT: Purnell Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
FLAGSHIP RESTAURANT: Lippold Sues Over to Recover Wages
FOOT LOCKER INC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
FORIS DAX: Bishop Sues Over Website's ADA Noncompliance
GEICO: Filing for Class Cert Bid in See Suit Due June 19, 2026
GENE BY GENE: Bonneau Sues Over Disclosure of Genetic Information
GOOGLE LLC: Faces Attride Over General Search Services Monopoly
GOSH ENTERPRISES: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Henry Alleges
GREDE HOLDINGS: Higgins Files Suit in E.D. Michigan
GRIDHAWK LLC: Baker Sues Over Unlawful Bonus Pay Scheme
GRIECO CHEVROLET: Faces Hindi Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
IFIT HEALTH: Settles Treadmill Class Action for $2.4 Million
INSPIRIT DEVELOPMENT: GMF 157 Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
INTERNATIONAL RECOVERY: Ausch Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
INTRASYSTEMS LLC: Herman Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
ISAGENIX INTERNATIONAL: Hodgin Suit Removed to C.D. California
JERVOIS GLOBAL: Kadoo Pty Ltd et al. Allege Securities Law Breaches
JHON SALAZAR: Orozco Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Overtime
JOHN'S PRO TREE: Reyes Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Plaintiffs Filed an Amended Class Lawsuit
KATHLEEN HOCHUL: Porter Suit Removed to N.D. New York
KERATIN HOLDINGS: Calcano Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
KOPPERS PERFORMANCE: Brown Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
L'OREAL USA: Silva Sues Over Benzoyl Peroxide Containing Products
LIVE NATION: Agrees to Settle Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit
LOS BANOS WOOD: Tenorio Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
MATT WEISS: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Personal Info Access
MICHIGAN: Class Suit Settlement Final Hearing Set April 24
NATIONAL STUDENT: Gottlieb Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
NAUTICA RETAIL: Dalton Sues Over Website's ADA Violations
NEBRASKA BOOK: Degroot Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
NEW YORK, NY: Court Dismisses L.T. Class Suit
NEW YORK, NY: Lewis Suit Seeks Class Certification
NEWPORT GROUP: Settlement in Wade Suit Gets Initial Nod
NICHOLAS MALWITZ: Conejo Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
NISSAN NORTH: Cars Have Door Lock Defect, Khalifa Suit Alleges
NORTH-EAST DECK: Faces Wage Class Action Suit in E.D. Pa.
NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES: Faces Class Suit Over Supplements' False Ads
OFF LEASH: Ashworth Allowed Leave to Conduct Discovery
PENNSYLVANIA STATE EDUCATION: Minarchick Files Suit in Pa. Ct.
PERPETUA RESOURCES: Barnes Sues Over Securities Law Violations
PERPETUA RESOURCES: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
POST CONSUMER: Court Narrows Claims in Landry Suit
POST CONSUMER: Faces Class Suit Over Rachael Ray Nutrish Pet Foods
PREMIER NUTRITION: Appeals Damages Award Ruling in Montera Suit
PREMIER NUTRITION: Appeals Montera Suit Ruling to Supreme Court
PRINCESS POLLY: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hippe Alleges
RDK RESTAURANT: Pretrial Management Order Entered in Mullins Suit
REALTY WHOLESALERS: Piper Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
RESIDENT HOME: Molloy Sues Over Deceptive Pricing Practices
RETIREMENT LIVING: Pittman Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
ROUNDY'S SUPERMARKETS: Wargolet Suit Removed to E.D. Wisconsin
SHADE STORE: Crowder Seeks to Certify Class Action
SIX LITTLE PEACHES: Feltzin Sues Over Discriminative Property
SMART ROOF: Magnanelli Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
TENASKA MARKETING: Deutscher Appeals Suit Dismissal to 10th Circuit
TRINITY PETROLEUM: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Lacy Says
UAB QBIT: Mashkevich Suit Seeks Provisional Class Certification
ULTRA CLEAN: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit
UNITED STATES: Faces Class Suit Over Unlawful Deportation
UNITED STATES: Violates Anti-Discrimination Laws, Suit Says
UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO: Settles COVID Class Action for $1.4MM
URGENT HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Jenkins Says
VERY PRODUCTS: Donnahoo Suit Removed to C.D. California
VICTORIA'S SECRET: Agrees to Settle Missouri Sales Tax Class Suit
*********
3M COMPANY: D. Harris Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Harris, 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-00947-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
Facsimile: 939-220-2477
3M COMPANY: Gadd Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Gadd, 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-00939-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
Facsimile: 939-220-2477
3M COMPANY: Gorman Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
------------------------------------------------------------
Brian L. Gorman, 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-00959-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 thyroid disease 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: Grimm Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Grimm, 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-00941-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
Facsimile: 939-220-2477
3M COMPANY: Guidry Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen M. Guidry, 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-00942-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
Renal 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
3M COMPANY: Harkness Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Harkness, 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-00944-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
Facsimile: 939-220-2477
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces Class Suit Over Heavy Metals in Similac
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action lawsuit accuses Abbott Laboratories of failing to warn
consumers that some of its Similac powdered infant formulas contain
harmful levels of arsenic, cadmium, lead and mercury.
According to the 85-page lawsuit, the manufacturer has
intentionally concealed that certain Similac products contain or
risk containing heavy metals, which are known to pose health risks
to humans -- particularly infants and toddlers. The suit alleges
the company has misled consumers into believing the items are safe
and made with high-quality, nutritious ingredients because their
packaging and marketing materials contain no warning about the
potential presence of harmful substances.
As the case tells it, recent testing revealed the presence of heavy
metals in the following Similac infant formula products:
-- Similac Pro-Advance;
-- Similac 360 Total Care;
-- Similac Soy Isomil;
-- Similac Advance OptiGRO Powder, Milk-Based;
-- Similac NeoSure; and
-- Similac Total Comfort.
"Testing from 2022 and 2023, which includes [Abbott Laboratories']
own testing as well as [the plaintiffs'] testing, shows that at
least one heavy metal was present in all but two of the 121 samples
tested, meaning only 1.65% had non-detectable levels of any Heavy
Metals," the class action suit relays.
Although no maximum allowable level has been established for these
heavy metals in infant formulas, the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration has set the maximum contaminant level for arsenic
and cadmium in bottled water at 10 and five parts per billion
(ppb), respectively, the complaint says.
In spite of this, laboratory tests indicated that certain Similac
products contained arsenic levels as high as 59.3 ppb and cadmium
levels as high as 11.4 ppb, the filing contends.
In addition, testing indicated that some of the infant formulas
contained up to 3.6 ppb of lead, an "extremely toxic" substance
whose harms "cannot be reversed or remediated," the Similac lawsuit
claims.
Per the suit, the analysis also showed that certain products
contained mercury levels as high as 10.1 ppb, even though the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency has set a maximum allowable level
for the substance in drinking water at two ppb.
It has been well established by government agencies and medical
experts that there are "no known safe levels of heavy metals," the
case charges. According to the complaint, infants and toddlers are
particularly vulnerable to the toxic effects of these substances
because of their small size and developing brains and nervous
systems. Even when trace amounts are found in food products such as
Similac infant formulas, the heavy metals can cause serious damage
to brain development because they accumulate in the body over time,
the filing asserts.
The lawsuit claims the manufacturer has "knowingly chose[n]" not to
disclose to consumers that its infant formulas potentially contain
arsenic, cadmium, lead or mercury, despite the recognized health
risks to babies and toddlers.
"Based on the messaging and overall impression communicated by the
packaging and the material nondisclosures, no reasonable consumer
could expect or understand that the Infant Formulas contained or
risked containing Heavy Metals, especially in these circumstances
because the developmental and physical risks created by ingestion
of Heavy Metals by infants are well recognized," the case argues.
The complaint alleges that reasonable consumers would not have
purchased the Similac products at issue had they known the items
potentially contained substances hazardous to their child's
health.
The lawsuit looks to represent all individuals who, since March 7,
2019, purchased the infant formulas listed on this page for
household use and not for resale. [GN]
ACCESS OHIO: Randolph Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Randolph, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. ACCESS OHIO, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00314-ALM-EPD (S.D.
Ohio, March 26, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for the
Defendant's willful failure to pay the Plaintiff overtime wages as
well as failure to comply with all other requirements of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA"), and the Ohio Prompt Pay Act
("OPPA").
The Plaintiff is entitled to timely paid overtime compensation at
the rate of one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for
the hours they worked in excess of 40 each workweek. The Plaintiff
worked more than 40 hours in one or more workweeks. Defendant was
aware that the Plaintiff, the FLSA Collective, and State Law Class
worked overtime hours, but Defendant did not fully and properly pay
them in accordance with the minimum requirements of the FLSA and
state law for all of their compensable overtime hours worked due at
the correct overtime rates as a result of the companywide
policies/practices, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff works as a Licensed Practical Nurse ("LPN") at one of
Defendant's facilities.
The Defendant provides comprehensive primary care and behavioral
health care and a full spectrum of related mental healthcare
services at facilities located in Ohio, West Virginia, and Western
Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel I. Bryant, Esq.
BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
4400 N. High St., Suite 310
Columbus, OH 43214
Phone: (614) 704-0546
Facsimile: (614) 573-9826
Email: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com
- and -
Esther E. Bryant, Esq.
BRYANT LEGAL, LLC
3450 W Central Ave., Suite 370
Toledo, OH 43606
Phone: (419) 824-4439
Facsimile: (419) 932-6719
Email: Ebryant@bryantlegalllc.com
- and -
Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
Kevin M. McDermott II, Esq.
SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
11925 Pearl Rd., Suite 308
Strongsville, Ohio 44136
Phone: (216) 912-2221
Email: jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com
rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com
kmcdermott@ohiowagelawyers.com
ADVANCED TREE CARE: Cantoran Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Manuel Andreu Cantoran, Carlos Mariaca Espinoza, Ignacio
Salinas Leandro, Alfonso Aguilar Martinez, Jose Luis Mariaca
Moreno, Benedicto Navarro, Juan Pablo Hernandez Olvera, Victor H.
Montesinos Pantiga, and Esteban Rodriguez Reyes, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated v. ADVANCED TREE CARE,
INC., an Illinois corporation, and MICHAEL BRAMUCCI, an individual,
Case No. 1:25-cv-03279 (N.D. Ill., March 27, 2025), is brought
arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the
Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), for Defendants' failure to pay
Plaintiffs, and other similarly situated employees, overtime
compensation for hours worked over 40 in a workweek.
Based on their schedules, Plaintiffs regularly worked between at
least 47.5 hours and 55 hours in individual workweeks throughout
their terms of employment with Defendants. At all times relevant,
Defendants paid Plaintiffs on an hourly basis including the
following rates: $15.00 to $21.00 per hour for groundmen, and
$21.00-$30.50 per hour for tree climbers and drivers.
Until late-February, 2025, Defendants did not compensate
Plaintiffs, and other non-exempt hourly workers, at one and
one-half times their regular hourly rates of pay for hours worked
in excess of 40 in individual workweeks. Until late-February, 2025,
Defendants never paid Plaintiffs, and other non-exempt hourly
employees, an overtime premium when they worked more than 40 hours
in a workweek. Until late-February, 2025, Defendants paid all of
Plaintiffs' hours, including overtime compensable hours, at their
straight-time hourly rates of pay.
In order to conceal their failure to pay overtime compensation,
Defendants paid Plaintiffs' wages with off-payroll company checks.
In addition, Defendants misclassified Plaintiffs and other
non-exempt workers as independent contractors, they failed to
include Plaintiffs in their quarterly federal and State of Illinois
agency reports, and they failed to pay agency taxes and other
contributions on behalf of Plaintiffs. In violation of the statutes
and implementing regulations of the FLSA and IMWL, the Defendants
failed to create, maintain, and preserve complete and accurate
payroll records for Plaintiffs and other non-exempt employees, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiffs are current and former tree climbers, tree trimmers,
drivers, ground workers and other non-exempt laborers of
Defendants' tree care business.
Advanced Tree Care, Inc. is an Illinois corporation that is located
in Lincolnshire, Illinois and is engaged in selling and providing
tree care services including, among other things, tree trimming and
disposal, application of fertilizers, chemicals and pest control
products, and related services to residential and commercial
customers throughout the greater northeastern Illinois region.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy M. Nolan, Esq.
NOLAN LAW OFFICE
53 W. Jackson Blvd., Ste. 1137
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (312) 322-1100
Email: tnolan@nolanwagelaw.com
ADVENTIST HEALTH: Alexis Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Adventist Health
Systems/West. The case is styled as Gwen Alexis, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Adventist Health
Systems/West, Case No. 25STCV08899 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles
Cty., March 26, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
Adventist Health -- https://www.adventisthealth.org/ -- is a
faith-based, nonprofit, integrated health system serving more than
90 communities on the West Coast and Hawaii with over 400 sites of
care, including 26 acute care facilities.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher J. Hamner, Esq.
HAMNER LAW OFFICES, APLC
26565 Agoura Rd., Ste. 200
Calabasas, CA 91302-1990
Phone: 888-416-6654
Email: chamner@hamnerlaw.com
ALLIANCE HEMP: Long Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Alliance Hemp Company
LLC. The case is styled as Nicole Long, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. Alliance Hemp Company LLC, Case
No. 2025-10816-CICI (Fla. Cir. Ct., Volusia Cty., March 14, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Civil - Circuit."
Alliance Hemp Co. -- https://alliancehempco.com/ -- creates
remarkable high end quality CBD products.[BN]
ALN MEDICAL MANAGEMENT: Myers Files Suit in D. Nebraska
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against ALN Medical
Management, LLC. The case is styled as Robert Myers, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. ALN Medical
Management, LLC, National Spine and Pain Centers, LLC, Case No.
8:25-cv-00224-SMB-JMD (D. Neb., March 27, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions for Right
to Privacy Act.
ALN Medical Management, LLC is a healthcare-focused company that
provides revenue cycle management, medical billing, collections,
and IT services to physicians and medical clinics.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
Domenica M. Russo, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE LLP
One US Bank Plaza, Suite 1950
St. Louis, MO 63101
Phone: (314) 833-4827
Email: bwise@peifferwolf.com
- and -
Christian T. Williams, Esq.
Brian E. Jorde, Esq.
DOMINA LAW GROUP
2425 South 144th Street
Omaha, NE 68144-3267
Phone: (402) 734-0635
Fax: (402) 734-0104
Email: cwilliams@dominalaw.com
bjorde@dominalaw.com
- and -
Eduard Korsinsky, Esq.
Mark K. Svensson, Esq.
LEVI, KORSINSKY, LLP LAW FIRM - NEW YORK
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Phone: (202) 363-7500
Fax: (866) 367-6510
Email: ek@zlk.com
msvensson@zlk.com
ALPHABET INC: Shareholder Class Action Suit Dismissed in Part
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Scarcella, writing for Reuters, reports that Alphabet's Google
(GOOGL.O), convinced a federal judge in San Francisco to dismiss
part of a lawsuit that accused the tech giant of misleading
investors about its digital advertising practices and user privacy
protections.
In a ruling, on Monday, U.S. District Judge Rita Lin said the
shareholders in their proposed class action did not adequately
support their claim Google made false statements on its website
about its practices.
Lin said the plaintiffs could move ahead with their claim that a
2020 written statement that Alphabet chief executive officer Sundar
Pichai made to Congress was false.
The shareholders, who sued Google in 2023, contend Google had
rigged online advertising to favor bids from Google-owned platforms
or through a network agreement that Meta's (META.O), Facebook had
with Google.
The lawsuit alleged Google committed securities fraud through
public statements that characterized the ad market and its
auction-based system for selling ads as highly competitive.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs did not immediately respond to a request
for comment.
Google in a statement on Tuesday said it "runs a fair first-price
auction, no matter where the bid comes from." The company has
denied, any wrongdoing.
March 23's order said the investors had not proven Google acted
with the necessary "state of mind" in some statements.
Lin said a company does not commit securities fraud "every time
there is a significant error somewhere on its website that is
inconsistent with facts known to the CEO."
"Under plaintiffs' theory, Pichai's role as CEO makes him the de
facto 'maker' of every single statement on Google's website. This
is not the law," Lin wrote.
Google is defending against other lawsuits challenging its digital
advertising practices.
A U.S. judge in Virginia presided over a trial last year in a case
brought by the U.S. Department of Justice and a group of states,
but has not yet ruled. Google has denied the allegations.
The case is AMI -- Government Employees Provident Fund Management
Company v. Alphabet Inc. et al, U.S. District Court, Northern
District of California, No. 3:23-CV-01186-RFL.
For plaintiffs: Jeremy Lieberman and Emma Gilmore of Pomerantz
For defendants: Boris Feldman and Doru Gavril of Freshfields [GN]
AMAZON.COM INC: Romero Suit Transferred to W.D. Washington
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Mayra Romero, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Amazon.com Inc., Case No.
3:24-cv-02273-H-DTF was removed from the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington on March 24, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00548-JNW to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Amazon.com, Inc., doing business as Amazon --
https://www.amazon.com/ -- is an American multinational technology
company engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising,
digital streaming, and artificial intelligence.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jessica Rose Pfeiff, Esq.
Joshua Brandon Swigart, Esq.
Spencer L. Pfeiff, Esq.
SWIGART LAW GROUP APC
2221 Caminio Del Rio South, Suite 308
San Diego, CA 92108
Phone: (866) 219-3343
Email: jessica@swigartlawgroup.com
josh@swigartlawgroup.com
spencer@swigartlawgroup.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jennifer J. Nagle, Esq.
Robert W. Sparkes, III, Esq.
K&L GATES LLP (MA)
One Congress St., Ste. 2900
Boston, MA 02114
Phone: (617) 951-9197
Email: jennifer.nagle@klgates.com
robert.sparkes@klgates.com
- and -
Kevin S. Asfour, Esq.
K&L GATES LLP
10100 Santa Monica Blvd., 8th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 552-5000
Fax: (310) 552-5001
Email: kevin.asfour@klgates.com
- and -
Loly G. Tor, Esq.
K&L GATES LLP
One Newark Center, Tenth Floor
Newark, NJ 07102
Phone: (973) 848-4026
Fax: (973) 848-4001
Email: loly.tor@klgates.com
AMERICAN RENAL: Jolicoeur Sues Over Unprotected Sensitive Data
--------------------------------------------------------------
STEEVENSON JOLICOEUR, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AMERICAN RENAL MANAGEMENT LLC
d/b/a INNOVATIVE RENAL CARE, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00322
(M.D. Tenn., March 29, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to
safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected
health information of its patients.
The complaint asserts that such failure resulted in an unauthorized
access to its information systems on or around February 21, 2024
through March 1, 2024, and the compromise and unauthorized
disclosure of that private information.
The Plaintiff now brings causes of action against Defendant for
negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty and breach
of implied contract, seeking an award of monetary damages,
resulting from Defendant's failure to adequately protect their
highly sensitive private information.
American Renal Management LLC is a healthcare services provider
headquartered in Franklin, TN. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
- and -
David K. Lietz, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
5335 Wisconsin Ave., NW, Suite 440
Washington, DC 20015
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
E-mail: dlietz@milberg.com
- and -
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
Leanna A. Loginov, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE First Avenue, Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
lloginov@shamisgentile.com
ANOTHER BROKEN: Santana Sues Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Santana, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. ANOTHER BROKEN EGG OF AMERICA, LLC, Case No.
0:25-cv-60580-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 26, 2025), is brought the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), Florida Minimum Wage Act ("FMWA")
against Defendant for failure to pay Servers federal and state
minimum wages during the relevant time period.
The Defendant committed federal and state minimum wage violations
because it: miscalculated the federal overtime rate for Plaintiff
and similarly situated Servers; compensated Servers at the reduced
wage for tipped employees, but failed to provide Plaintiff and all
others similarly situated with statutory notice of taking a tip
credit; required Plaintiff and all others similarly situated to
more than occasionally perform improper types, and/or excessive
amounts, of non-tipped jobs, and non-serving duties, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a Server at the Another
Broken Egg restaurant.
The Defendant had at least two or more employees engaged in
commerce or in the production of goods for commerce commerce.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jordan Richards, Esq.
Michael Miller, Esq.
USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS
JORDAN RICHARDS PLLC
1800 SE 10th Ave., Suite 205
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Phone: (954) 871-0050
Email: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
michael@usaemploymentlawyers.com
- and -
Jonathan S. Minick, Esq.
JONATHAN S. MIN P.A.
169 E. Flagler St. suite 1600
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: (786) 441-8909
Email: jminick@jsmlawpa.com
ATRIUS HEALTH: Doe Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as John Doe and Jane Doe, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. ATRIUS HEALTH, INC.,
Case No. 2384CV02704-BLS1 was removed from the Superior Court
Department of the Trial Court Business Litigation Session, to the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on
March 21, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-10670.
The Complaint included a claim for relief under the Massachusetts
Wiretap Act (the "Massachusetts Wiretap Act") as well as four other
state law claims, all of which were predicated on Atrius' alleged
use of technologies on its public website, www.atriushealth.org
(the "Website").[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Anthony E. Fuller, Esq.
Kayla H. Ghantous, Esq.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
125 High Street, Suite 2010
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: (617) 371-1000
Facsimile: (617) 371-1037
Email: anthony.fuller@hoganlovells.com
kayla.ghantous@hoganlovells.com
- and -
Allison Holt Ryan, Esq.
Adam A. Cooke, Esq.
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
Columbia Square
555 Thirteenth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20004
Phone: (202) 637-5600
Facsimile: (202) 637-5910
Email: allison.holt-ryan@hoganlovells.com
adam.a.cooke@hoganlovells.com
AUDUBON FIELD: Hardy FLSA Suit Transferred to S.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Joshua Hardy, Individually and for Others
Similarly Situated v. Audubon Field Solutions, LLC, Audubon
Engineering Company, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00826 was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas on March 26,
2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-01382 to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
Audubon -- https://auduboncompanies.com/ -- is a leading provider
of engineering, procurement, construction (EPC), consulting,
fabrication, and technical field services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John C. Enochs, Esq.
Betsy J. Barnes, Esq.
MORRIS BART, P.L.C.
601 Poydras Street, 24th Floor
New Orleans, LA 70130
Phone: (504) 526-1087
Fax: (833) 277-4214
Email: jenochs@morrisbart.com
bbarnes@morrisbart.com
AUTOBASE INC: Lalor Files FLSA Suit in E.D. New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Autobase Inc., et al.
The case is styled as Donald Lalor, on behalf of himself and all
other persons similarly situated v. Autobase Inc., Donna Labella,
Case No. 2:25-cv-01658-AMD-AYS (E.D.N.Y., March 25, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
AutoBase currently provides motorist assistance and traffic
incident management services in 9 states across the Midwest, South
and Northeast regions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew John Farnworth, Esq.
ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC
490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277
Hauppauge, NY 11788
Phone: (631) 257-5588
Email: mfarnworth@romerolawny.com
BANCORP INC: Linden Sues Over Precipitous Decline in Market Value
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Linden, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated v. THE BANCORP, INC., DAMIAN M. KOZLOWSKI, and PAUL
FRENKIEL, Case No. 1:25-cv-00326-UNA (D. Del., March 14, 2025), is
brought for violations of the Federal Securities Laws as a result
of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous
decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff
and other Class members have suffered significant losses and
damages
Then, on October 24, 2024, after the market closed, the Company
announced its third quarter 2024 financial results in a press
release for the period ended September 30, 2024, reporting $51.5
million in net income. On this news, the Company's share price fell
$7.95, or 14.47%, to close at $47.01 per share on October 25, 2024,
on unusually heavy trading volume.
On March 4, 2025, after the market closed, Bancorp disclosed that
its "financial statements for the fiscal years ended December 31,
2022 through 2024 as shown in the Annual Report should no longer be
relied upon." On this news, the Company's share price fell $2.34,
or 4.38%, to close at $51.25 per share on March 5, 2025, on
unusually heavy trading volume.
Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to
investors: that Bancorp had underrepresented the significant risk
of default or loss on its REBL loan portfolio; that the Company's
current expected credit loss methodology was insufficient to
account for the provision and/or allowance of credit losses; that,
as a result of the foregoing, the Company was reasonably likely to
increase its provision for credit losses; that there were material
weakness in its internal control over financial reporting; that its
financial statements had not been approved by its independent
auditor; that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
financial statements could not be relied upon; and that, as a
result of the foregoing, Defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased Bancorp securities during the Class
Period.
Bancorp is a financial holding company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan M. Ernst, Esq.
BIELLI & KLAUDER, LLC
1204 N. King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: (302) 803-4600
Email: rernst@bk-legal.com
- and -
Rebecca Dawson, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
230 Park Ave, Suite 358
New York, NY 10169
Phone: (213) 521-8007
Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
Email: rdawson@glancylaw.com
- and -
Howard G. Smith, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
Bensalem, PA 19020
Phone: (215) 638-4847
Facsimile: (215) 638-4867
BANCROFT HEALTH: Pennington Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bancroft Health Group
Inc. The case is styled as Kaytiana Marcia Pennington, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bancroft Health
Group Inc., Case No. 25CV114215 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.,
March 11, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
Bancroft -- https://www.bancroft.org/ -- is a close-knit community
of individuals, friends and families, dedicated staff, community
members and corporate partners.[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
BANKERS HEALTHCARE: Laccinole Files FCRA Suit in N.D. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bankers Healthcare
Group, LLC. The case is styled as Christopher Laccinole, on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. Bankers Healthcare
Group, LLC doing business as: BHG Financial, Case No.
5:25-cv-00367-FJS-TWD (N.D.N.Y., March 25, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.
Bankers Healthcare Group, LLC -- https://bhgfinancial.com/company
-- provides loan solutions to individuals and businesses.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian R. Goodwin, Esq.
GOODWIN LAW FIRM
332 Cadman Dr.
Williamsville, NY 14221
Phone: (585) 353-7084
Fax: (585) 215-0073
Email: brian@goodwin-lawfirm.com
BATTERIES PLUS: Cazares Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Cazares, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Batteries Plus, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00441-NJ (E.D.
Wis., March 25, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons
throughout the United States with equal access to services Broken
Trophies provides to their non-disabled customers through
https://batteriesplus.com (hereinafter "Batteriesplus.com" or "the
website"). The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its
website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered,
and in conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the
"ADA").
Because Defendant's website, Batteriesplus.com, is not equally
accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates
the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change
in Batteries Plus' policies, practices, and procedures to that
Defendant's website will become and remain accessible to blind and
visually-impaired consumers. This complaint also seeks compensatory
damages to compensate Class members for having been subjected to
unlawful discrimination, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using the
computer.
Batteries Plus provides to the public a website known as
Batteriesplus.com which provides consumers with access to an array
of goods and services, including, the ability to view batteries,
chargers, lighting, generators and lighting equipment.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Reyes, Esq.
EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC
68-29 Main Street,
Flushing, NY 11367
Phone: (630)-478-0856
Email: Dreyes@ealg.law
BEENVERIFIED LLC: Collins Files Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BeenVerified, LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Frederick B. Collins, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. BeenVerified, LLC, The
Lifetime Value Co. LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02577 (S.D.N.Y., March 28,
2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
BeenVerified -- https://www.beenverified.com/ -- is a background
check company that provides consumer initiated criminal background
and people search services through its website for profit as well
as its mobile application.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Ignatius Marchese, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (646) 837-7410
Email: jmarchese@bursor.com
BLUE CHICKEN: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Agnone Says
------------------------------------------------------------
PASQUALE AGNONE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE BLUE CHICKEN CORPORATION, Defendant,
Case No. 2:25-cv-01538 (E.D.N.Y., March 20, 2025) arises from
Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
website, https://www.paperplatenyc.com, to be fully accessible to
and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons.
The Defendant's website contains significant access barriers that
make it difficult if not impossible for blind and visually-impaired
customers to use the website. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks
a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's policies,
practices, and procedures so that Defendant's website will become
and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. The
Plaintiff also seeks damages to compensate him and the Class
members for having been subjected to unlawful discrimination.
The Blue Chicken Corporation is a restaurant chain that owns and
maintains the website which offers information about the
restaurant's services at its physical location in Great Neck, NY.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Uri Horowitz, Esq.
14441 70th Road
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (718) 705-8706
Facsimile: (718) 705-8705
E-mail: Uri@Horowitzlawpllc.com
BLUE SHIELD: Andrews Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Faalon Andrews, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. California Physicians Service
doing business as: Blue Shield of California, Case No.
3:24-cv-06241 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia on March 26, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-01592-TWT to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Securities/Commodities.
California Physicians' Service, doing business as Blue Shield of
California -- https://www.blueshieldca.com/ -- operates as a
non-profit organization and is one of the largest insurers in the
state and provides health insurance products and services to
approximately 4.8 million members.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey Ostrow, Esq.
Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA
One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (305) 529-8858
Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
cardoso@kolawyers.com
- and -
Amber Love Schubert, Esq.
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
2001 Union St Ste 200
San Francisco, CA 94123
Phone: (415) 788-4220
Fax: (415) 788-0161
Email: aschubert@sjk.law
- and -
Robert R. Ahdoot, Esq.
AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
2600 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 500
Burbank, CA 91505
Phone: (310) 474-9111
Fax: (310) 474-8585
Email: rahdoot@ahdootwolfson.com
BLUE SHIELD: Murillo Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Alexandra Murillo, on behalf of herself, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, on behalf of W.A., on
behalf of her minor child H.A. v. California Physicians Service
doing business as: Blue Shield of California, Case No.
3:24-cv-06633 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia on March 26, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-01593-TWT to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Breach
of Fiduciary Duty.
California Physicians' Service doing business as Blue Shield of
California http://www.blueshieldca.com/-- is a mutual benefit
corporation and health plan founded in 1939 by the California
Medical Association.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amber Love Schubert, Esq.
Daniel L.M. Pulgram, Esq.
Robert C. Schubert, Esq.
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
2001 Union St Ste 200
San Francisco, CA 94123
Phone: (415) 788-4220
Fax: (415) 788-0161
Email: aschubert@sjk.law
dpulgram@sjk.law
rschubert@sjk.law
BLUE SHIELD: Wasserman Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Ann Wasserman, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. California Physicians Service
doing business as: Blue Shield of California, Case No.
3:24-cv-09320 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia on March 26, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-01591-TWT to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property for Breach
of Fiduciary Duty.
California Physicians' Service doing business as Blue Shield of
California http://www.blueshieldca.com/-- is a mutual benefit
corporation and health plan founded in 1939 by the California
Medical Association.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amber Love Schubert, Esq.
SCHUBERT JONCKHEER & KOLBE LLP
2001 Union St Ste 200
San Francisco, CA 94123
Phone: (415) 788-4220
Fax: (415) 788-0161
Email: aschubert@sjk.law
- and -
Ben Barnow, Esq.
BARNOW AND ASSOCIATES, P.C.
205 W. Randolph Street, Suite 1630
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 621-2000
Email: b.barnow@barnowlaw.com
BOBBY BUKA: Herrera Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------
EDERY HERRERA, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. BOBBY BUKA M.D. PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, Case No.
1:25-cv-02465 (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2025) alleges that the
Cedarville failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its
interactive website, https://www.thedermspecs.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,
https://www.thedermspecs.com/, to the public. The Website offers
features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and
services offered by Defendant and which Defendant ensures delivery
of such goods and services throughout the United States including
New York State.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
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
BOHME LLC: Hassid Sues Over Unlawful Private Data Sharing to TikTok
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MILAN HASSID, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BOHME LLC, a Utah limited liability company;
and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
2:25-cv-02492 (C.D. Cal., March 20, 2025) accuses the Defendant
Bohme LLC of violating the California Trap and Trace Law.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has installed on its
website software created by TikTok in order to identify website
visitors. The said software gathers device and browser information,
geographic information, referral tracking, and url tracking by
running code or "scripts" on the website to send user details to
TikTok. However, Defendant did not obtain Plaintiff's and Class
Members' express or implied consent to be subjected to data sharing
with TikTok for the purposes of fingerprinting and
de-anonymization.
Headquartered in Draper, UT, Bohme LLC owns, operates, and/or
controls www.bohme.com, an online platform that sells women's
clothing, accessories, and footwear. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Tauler, Esq.
Narain Kumar, Esq.
TAULER SMITH LLP
626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 927-9270
E-mail: rtauler@taulersmith.com
nkumar@taulersmith.com
BPREP VANTAGE: Fogy Suit Removed to S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Giorgio Fogy, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. BPREP VANTAGE POINTE LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company, BROOKFIELD PROPERTIES MULTIFAMILY LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company, and DOES 1-100; Case No.
25CU007189C was removed from the Superior Court for the State of
California in and for the County of San Diego, to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California on March 14,
2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00622-TWR-VET.
The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts six claims against Defendants:
breach of contract; breach of implied warranty of habitability;
breach of implied covenant of quiet enjoyment; violation of the
Unfair Business Practices Act; violations of California Bus. &
Prof. Code; private nuisance; and negligence.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Aaron T. Winn, Esq.
Courtney L. Baird, Esq.
Deanna J. Lucci, Esq.
DUANE MORRIS LLP
750 B Street, Suite 2900
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: 619-744-2200
Fax: 619-744-2201
Email: atwinn@duanemorris.com
clbaird@duanemorris.com
djlucci@duanemorris.com
BYTEDANCE INC: H.T. Sues Over Unlawful Collection of Data
---------------------------------------------------------
H.T., A Minor, by and through her legal guardian, Milagro
Almodovar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. BYTEDANCE, INC.; BYTEDANCE LTD.; TIKTOK LTD.; TIKTOK
INC.;TIKTOK PTE. LTD.; and TIKTOK U.S. DATA SECURITY, INC., Case
No. 2:25-cv-14095-AMC (S.D. Fla., March 25, 2025), is brought
arising out of Defendants' unlawful practice of permitting and
encouraging Plaintiff and children under the age of 18 to create
user accounts on the TikTok Application ("App") and
www.tiktok.com), for the purpose of collecting intimate, deeply
intrusive data points about them, their online behavior, and other
Personally Identifiable Information ("PII").
The Defendants have knowingly collected this PII and other
intrusive data points without the children's parents' knowledge or
consent. Defendants utilize this unlawfully collected PII to
provide personally curated content that will keep children engaged
with the Platform, so that Defendants can serve them copious
amounts of behavioral advertising and/or share their information
with third parties.
Indeed, Defendants know that the Platform is an attractive social
media destination for children. Nonetheless, Defendants have a
history of knowingly allowing children under the age of 18 to
create and use accounts on the Platform without their parents'
knowledge or consent, have collected extensive data from those
children, and have failed to comply with parents' requests to
delete their children's accounts and PII.
The Defendants have breached, and continue to breach, their
statutory and common law obligations to Plaintiff, minor children,
and the parents of minor children by, inter alia: collecting PII
and other sensitive personal data from Plaintiff and minor
children; failing to design and monitor their App and Website in a
way that safeguards Plaintiff and minor children from being able to
create, use and maintain an account without verifiable parental
consent; failing and/or refusing to directly notify parents of the
types of information Defendant constantly collects online from its
minor users; failing and/or refusing to inform parents how
Defendants utilize the information they collect from its minor
users; and failing and/or refusing to obtain verifiable consent
from parents to collect, use, disclose, and/or sell their
children's PII and/or other sensitive data, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff Milagro Almodovar is the mother of H.T., a minor who
used TikTok. Plaintiff is a citizen of the state of Florida.
TikTok operates one of the world's largest social media platforms
that reaches millions of Americans under the age of 18.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW, P.A.
One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: 954-525-4100
Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
cardoso@kolawyers.com
- and -
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
Jordan M. Steele, Esq.
William J. Manory, Esq.
CARELLA BYRNE CECCHI OLSTEIN BRODY & AGNELLO
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068-1739
Phone: (973) 994-1700
Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
jsteele@carellabyrne.com
wmanory@carellabyrne.com
- and -
Jason H. Alperstein, Esq.
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
2222 Ponce De Leon Blvd.
Miami, FL 33134
Phone: (973) 994-1700
Email: jalperstein@carellabyrne.com
BYTEDANCE INC: Illegally Collects Tiktok Users' Info, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
J.R., A Minor, by and through his legal guardian, SAL RIVERA,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. BYTEDANCE, INC.; BYTEDANCE LTD.; TIKTOK LTD.; TIKTOK
INC.;TIKTOK PTE. LTD.; and TIKTOK U.S. DATA SECURITY, INC., Case
No. 8:25-cv-00730 (M.D. Fla., March 25, 2025) arises out of the
Defendants' unlawful practice of permitting and encouraging
Plaintiff and children under the age of 18 to create user accounts
on the TikTok Application (App) and www.tiktok.com (Website), for
the purpose of collecting intimate, deeply intrusive data points
about them, their online behavior, and other Personally
Identifiable Information.
TikTok operates one of the world's largest social media platforms
that reaches millions of Americans under the age of 18.
Accordingly, the Defendants have knowingly collected this PII and
other intrusive data points without the children's parents'
knowledge or consent. The Defendants utilize this unlawfully
collected PII to provide personally curated content that will keep
children engaged with the Platform, so that Defendants can serve
them copious amounts of behavioral advertising and/or share their
information with third parties.
The Platform's user base is disproportionately made up of children.
From the outset, Defendants considered U.S. teens a "golden
audience." Indeed, Defendants know that the Platform is an
attractive social media destination for children. Nonetheless,
Defendants have a history of knowingly allowing children under the
age of 18 to create and use accounts on the Platform without their
parents' knowledge or consent, have collected extensive data from
those children, and have failed to comply with parents' requests to
delete their children's accounts and PII.
In fact, the conduct forced the United States to file a complaint
against Musical.ly and Musical.ly Inc.,2 alleging that Defendants'
were unlawfully collecting and using the PII of children in their
operation of their free online video-sharing app, says the suit.
Plaintiff Sal Rivera is the father of J.R., a minor who used
TikTok. Plaintiff is a citizen of the state of Florida.
The Defendants are a series of interconnected companies that
operate the TikTok social media platform. Defendant ByteDance Ltd.
is the parent company that oversees the entire conglomerate.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
cardoso@kolawyers.com
- and -
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
Jordan M. Steele, Esq.
William J. Manory, Esq.
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI,
BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
jsteele@carellabyrne.com
wmanory@carellabyrne.com
- and -
Jason H. Alperstein, Esq.
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI,
BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
2222 Ponce De Leon Blvd.
Miami, FL 33134
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
E-mail: jalperstein@carellabyrne.com
CALIFORNIA CRYOBANK: Fails to Protect Personal Info, J.L. Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
J.L., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. CALIFORNIA CRYOBANK, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-02611 (C.D.
Cal., March 25, 2025) alleges that the Defendant failed to protect
the highly sensitive information with which it was trusted,
compromising the personal and medical information of, at minimum,
thousands of patients and donors (the Data Breach), as announced on
March 14, 2025.
According to the complaint, the Defendant fails to comply with
basic industry standards to protect information systems. To
maintain competitive advantage, California Cryobank prominently
promises "your privacy is our top concern", "we are obligated by
mutual agreements to maintain the anonymity and privacy of the
donor, offspring, and parent/recipient" and "California Cryobank
recognizes the concerns regarding the rights to privacy and
confidentiality on the part of the sperm donor, all parents, and
the child."
As a provider of reproductive services, California Cryobank assists
a wide range of individuals and families, including those facing
infertility or members of the LGBTQ+ community seeking
donor-conceived children. Services include providing donor sperm,
egg storage, and artificial insemination.
To provide these reproductive services, California Cryobank
recruits sperm donors who undergo a rigorous application process
requiring physical examinations that include screening for
infectious disease, genetic screening, examination of family
history, and further evaluations in order to participate in the
sperm donor program. To become a sperm donor for California
Cryobank, as well as to receive reproductive services like egg and
embryo storage, donors and clients are required to entrust
California Cryobank with their highly sensitive and personally
identifiable information and personal health information, says the
suit.
Plaintiff J.L. is a natural person currently residing in Illinois.
However, Plaintiff was a citizen and resident of California when he
did business with Defendant and provided it with his Private
Information.
California Cryobank is a full-service sperm bank that provides
frozen donor sperm and offers a variety of specialized reproductive
services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
Yana Hart, Esq.
Bryan P. Thompson, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
22525 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90265
Telephone: (213) 788-4050
Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
yhart@clarksonlawfirm.com
bthompson@clarksonlawfirm.com
CALIFORNIA CRYOBANK: Jines Sues Over Alleged Private Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
JESSE JINES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CALIFORNIA CRYOBANK LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:25-cv-02482 (C.D. Cal., March 20, 2025) arises from Defendant's
failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of
its patients.
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' sensitive personal information
was targeted, compromised and unlawfully accessed due to the data
breach that occurred between April 20, 2024 and April 22, 2024.
However, Defendant only began sending data breach notice to victims
in or about March 2025. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings this
class action lawsuit on behalf all those similarly situated to
address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members'
Private Information that it collected and maintained, and for
failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and
other Class Members that their information had been subject to the
unauthorized access by an unknown third party and precisely what
specific type of information was accessed. The Plaintiff also
asserts claims for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust
enrichment, and for violations of the California Confidentiality of
Medical Information Act.
Based in Los Angeles, CA, California Cryobank LLC operates sperm
donation clinics with locations across the United States. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John J. Nelson, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
280 S. Beverly Drive
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (858) 209-6941
E-mail: jnelson@milberg.com
CANNON COCHRAN: Barbour Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Joseph Christopher Barbour, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated v. CANNON COCHRAN MANAGEMENT
SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE
COMPANY, an Illinois corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Case No. C25-00410 was removed from the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Contra Costa, to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on March 24,
2025, and assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-02778.
The Plaintiff alleges that he and the members of the class have
been damaged by virtue of CCMSI's failure to pay overtime, provide
meal and rest periods, failure to pay the minimum wage, failure to
timely pay wages, failure to pay wages during employment, failure
to provide accurate wage statements, failure to pay accrued
vacation benefits, and the derivative unfair competition claim
under Business & Professions Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jeffrey M. Cohon, Esq.
GARRELL COHON KENNEDY, LLP
550 S. Hope Street, Suite 460
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Phone: (213) 647-0730
Fax: (213) 647-0732
Email: jcohon@gckllp.com
CARDINAL HEALTH: Sandoval Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jose Luis Sandoval, an individual and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. CARDINAL HEALTH 200,
LLC; a Delaware limited liability company; CARDINAL HEALTH 110,
LLC, an Indiana limited liability company; CARDINAL HEALTH 108,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; CARDINAL HEALTH 414,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; CARDINAL HEALTH 100,
LLC, an Indiana limited liability company; CARDINAL HEALTH 119,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; CARDINAL HEALTH 201,
INC, a Delaware corporation; DANIEL RUIZ, an individual; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. CIVSB2434865 was removed from the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Bernardino, to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on March 26, 2025, and assigned Case No.
5:25-cv-00777.
On November 19, 2024 the Plaintiff filed an unverified Class Action
Complaint against Defendants which set forth the following twelve
causes of action: Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Pay
Minimum Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide
Rest Periods; Waiting Time Penalties; Wage Statement Violations;
Failure to Timely Pay Wages; Failure to Indemnify; Failure to Pay
Interest on Deposits; Violation of Labor Code; Violation of Quota
Laws; and Unfair Competition.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Adam Y. Siegel, Esq.
Orlando Arellano, Esq.
Rebecca Kim, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 2800
Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408
Phone: (213) 689-0404
Email: Adam.Siegel@jacksonlewis.com
Orlando.Arellano@jacksonlewis.com
Rebecca.Kim@jacksonlewis.com
CASABLANCA FOODS: Herrera Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
EDERY HERRERA, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated v. CASABLANCA FOODS LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02425 (S.D.N.Y.,
March 25, 2025) alleges that the Cedarville failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://mina.co/, 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, https://mina.co/, 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
CCFI COMPANIES: Magdaleno Suit Removed to E.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Marilyn Magdaleno, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated v. CCFI COMPANIES, LLC; and DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. CV2025-0376 was removed from the
California Superior Court for the County of Yolo, to the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of California on
March 21, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00914-DAD-SCR.
In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges eleven causes of action against
Defendant: Failure to Pay Wages for All Hours Worked at Minimum
Wage in Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages for
Daily Overtime Worked and/or Failure to Pay Overtime Wages at the
Proper Overtime Rate of Pay in Violation of Labor Code; Failure to
Authorize or Permit Meal Periods in Violation of Labor Code;
Failure to Authorize or Permit Rest Periods in Violation of Labor
Code; Failure to Indemnify Employees for Employment Related
Losses/Expenditures in Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Pay
Wages for Accrued Paid Sick Days at the Regular Rate of Pay
Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Provide Complete and Accurate
Wage Statements in Violation of Labor Code; Failure to Timely Pay
All Earned Wages and Final Paychecks Due at the Time of Separation
of Employment in Violation of Labor Code; and Unfair Business
Practices in Violation of Business and Professions Code
Sections.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael J. Nader, Esq.
Spencer S. Turpen, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2800
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-840-3150
Facsimile: 916-840-3159
Email: michael.nader@ogletree.com
spencer.turpen@ogletree.com
CDHA MANAGEMENT: Figueroa Files Suit in Pa. Ct. of Common Pleas
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against CDHA Management, LLC,
et al. The case is styled as Christina Figueroa, as parent and
natural guardian for A.A., A.F., and A.A., on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. CDHA Management, LLC; Spark DSO,
LLC d/b/a CHORD SPECIALTY DENTAL PARTNERS, Case No. 250303720 (Pa.
Ct. of Common Pleas, March 27, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Negligence."
CDHA Management, LLC and Spark DSO, LLC, now operating as Chord
Specialty Dental Partners, is a multi-specialty Dental Support
Organization (DSO).[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kevin Fay, Esq.
GOLOMB LEGAL, P.C.
One Logan Square 130 N. 18th Street, #1600
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (215) 608-9645
Fax: (215) 735-2211
CHARLES SCHWAB: Atachbarian Sues Over Failure to Pay Interest
-------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Atachbarian, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. CHARLES SCHWAB & CO. INC.; and DOES 1-25, inclusive,
Case No. 24STCV07480 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 14,
2025), is brought to remedy harms caused by Schwab's intentional
misrepresentations regarding its cash sweep accounts, and its
failure to pay "reasonable" interest rates to its customers with
retirement accounts in its cash sweep programs, in breach of its
fiduciary and contractual duties, including its duty of loyalty and
candor.
Schwab paid Plaintiff and proposed Class members unreasonably low
interest rates, particularly given the recent high interest rate
environment, enabling it and its Affiliated Banks to reap huge
profits from the spread, at the expense of its customers, and
failed to disclose, among other things, that it and its Affiliates
were earning far higher interest and compensation than that being
paid to customers through interest in their cash sweep account.
Schwab's reckless and intentional misconduct breaches its fiduciary
and contractual obligations to its customers. Therefore, Plaintiff
brings this class action on behalf of himself and a Class defined
herein to remedy the harm Schwab's wrongdoing has caused.
In failing to set and pay "reasonable" rates of interest for its
customers in the cash sweep programs, Schwab unfairly increased its
own profits at customers' expense, particularly when the interest
rate environment is significantly higher than the rates set for the
customers. In the meantime, Schwab failed to disclose this to its
customers, falsely indicating that it was paying a "reasonable"
rate of interest on retirement accounts, and failing to disclose to
customers that it was using the spread to, for instance, help
finance its transaction with TD Bank ("TD").
Schwab further failed to adequately disclose in any of the
applicable customer agreements, the actual rates of interest being
paid to customers, the rate of interest being earned by it and its
Affiliated Banks, and the profit that Schwab and its Affiliated
Banks were earning on customers' uninvested monies, especially
because they were paying these customers unreasonably low rates of
interest, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff possesses a Schwab Roth Contributory Individual
Retirement Account.
Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. is a California corporation with its
principal place of business in Westlake, Texas and is a broker
dealer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy J. Burke, Esq.
THE BURKE LAW FIRM
1001 Wilshire Blvd., #2187
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: 310-984-7199
Fax: 310-602-6589
Email: tim.burke@burke-law-firm.com
CHARLES SCHWAB: Bueno Sues Over Failure to Pay Interest
-------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth L. Bueno, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. CHARLES SCHWAB & CO. INC.; and DOES 1-25, inclusive,
Case No. 24STCV07480 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 11,
2025), is brought to remedy harms caused by Schwab's intentional
misrepresentations regarding its cash sweep accounts, and its
failure to pay "reasonable" interest rates to its customers with
retirement accounts in its cash sweep programs, in breach of its
fiduciary and contractual duties, including its duty of loyalty and
candor.
Schwab paid Plaintiff and proposed Class members unreasonably low
interest rates, particularly given the recent high interest rate
environment, enabling it and its Affiliated Banks to reap huge
profits from the spread, at the expense of its customers, and
failed to disclose, among other things, that it and its Affiliates
were earning far higher interest and compensation than that being
paid to customers through interest in their cash sweep account.
In failing to set and pay "reasonable" rates of interest for its
customers in the cash sweep programs, Schwab unfairly increased its
own profits at customers' expense, particularly when the interest
rate environment is significantly higher than the rates set for the
customers. In the meantime, Schwab failed to disclose this to its
customers, falsely indicating that it was paying a "reasonable"
rate of interest on retirement accounts, and failing to disclose to
customers that it was using the spread to, for instance, help
finance its transaction with TD Bank ("TD").
Schwab further failed to adequately disclose in any of the
applicable customer agreements, the actual rates of interest being
paid to customers, the rate of interest being earned by it and its
Affiliated Banks, and the profit that Schwab and its Affiliated
Banks were earning on customers' uninvested monies, especially
because they were paying these customers unreasonably low rates of
interest.
Schwab's reckless and intentional misconduct breaches its fiduciary
and contractual obligations to its customers. Therefore, Plaintiff
brings this class action on behalf of herself and a Class defined
herein to remedy the harm Schwab's wrongdoing has caused, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff possesses a Schwab Roth Contributory Individual
Retirement Account.
Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. is a California corporation with its
principal place of business in Westlake, Texas and is a broker
dealer.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy J. Burke, Esq.
THE BURKE LAW FIRM
1001 Wilshire Blvd., #2187
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: 310-984-7199
Fax: 310-602-6589
Email: tim.burke@burke-law-firm.com
CITIZENS DISABILITY: Settles TCPA Class Action Suit for $320,000
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that a $320,000
settlement has been reached to resolve a class action lawsuit that
alleged Citizens Disability unlawfully placed prerecorded calls to
consumers' telephones without prior consent.
The court-approved website for the Citizens Disability class action
settlement can be found at CitizensDisabilityTCPALitigation.com.
The deal covers a class of approximately 3,412 United States
residents who answered one or more prerecorded calls from Citizens
Disability made from the Pipes.ai calling platform between November
8, 2019 and October 25, 2023, where at the time of the call, the
organization's only lead source for the call recipient was
GrantsAssistanceForYou.com.
According to the official Citizens Disability settlement website,
class members who submit a timely, valid claim form online or by
mail by May 22, 2025 will be eligible to receive a pro-rated cash
payout from the deal.
You can file a claim form online on this page. You will need to
provide either the phone number at which you received Citizens'
call(s) or your unique ID, which can be found on the personalized
settlement notice you should have received by mail or email
informing you about the deal.
Alternatively, you may download a PDF claim form or contact the
settlement administrator to request a paper copy to return by
mail.
Eligible class members are entitled to receive equal shares of what
remains of the $320,000 settlement fund after payment of attorneys'
fees, service awards and administration costs, the settlement
agreement says. Individual payout amounts will depend on the total
number of valid claims that are ultimately filed, the website
relays.
The terms of the Citizens Disability settlement were preliminarily
approved by the court on January 31, 2025. A hearing is scheduled
for June 3, 2025, at which United States District Judge K. Michael
Moore will decide whether to grant final approval to the terms of
the deal. Cash payments will be issued to eligible class members
only if the settlement receives ultimate court approval, the site
notes.
The Citizens Disability class action lawsuit, filed in October
2023, claimed the Social Security disability advocacy group
violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by
placing prerecorded calls without first obtaining recipients'
express written consent. The class action suit argued that the
unlawful calls were a "nuisance" and invaded consumers'
privacy.[GN]
COASTAL WELL: Edgell Seeks to Recover Proper Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
RICHARD EDGELL, JR., individually and for others similarly situated
v. COASTAL WELL SERVICE LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00389 (W.D. Pa.,
March 20, 2025) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection
Law.
The Defendant employed Plaintiff Edgell as a floor hand and derrick
hand in and around Greene County, Pennsylvania from approximately
October 2022 until January 2023 and again from June 2024 until
January 2025. The Plaintiff and the other hourly employees
regularly work more than 40 hours a workweek. However, Defendant
does not pay Plaintiff and the other hourly employees at least one
and a half times their regular rates of pay--based on all
remuneration -- for all hours they work in excess of 40 a workweek.
Instead, the Defendant pays them non-discretionary bonuses that it
fails to include in these employees’ regular rates of pay for
overtime purposes, says the suit.
Headquartered in Mt. Morris, Greene County, Pennsylvania, Coastal
Well Service LLC provides well services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
William F. Goodrich, Esq.
GOODRICH & GEIST, PC
3634 California Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA 15212
Telephone: (412) 766-1455
Facsimile: (412) 766-0300
E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com
bill@goodrichandgeist.com
COMMONWEALTH FEDERAL: Discloses Personal Info to Google, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
Christen Allen-Hayen and Ethan Hayen, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. COMMONWEALTH FEDERAL CREDIT UNION
a/k/a COMMONWEALTH CREDIT UNION, Case No. 3:25-cv-00014-GFVT (E.D.
Ky., March 24, 2025) is a class action to address the alleged
Defendant's illegal, and widespread practice of disclosing --
without consent -- the Non-public Personal Information and
Personally Identifiable Financial Information (Personal and
Financial Information) of Plaintiffs and the proposed Class Members
to third parties, including Google, LLC and possibly others
(collectively the Third Parties).
Accordingly, the Commonwealth CU is a large financial institution
which had record asset growth, ending at $2.2 billion in total
assets” at the end of 2023.3 Commonwealth CU "offers
personalized, accessible financial services" to its customers,
including via its Digital Banking.
To provide these services, Commonwealth CU operates and encourages
its customers to use its website, www.ccuky.org, on which customers
can access their account information, Commonwealth CU's financial
services, and apply for financial products like credit cards.
Despite its unique position as a trusted credit union, Commonwealth
CU used its Website to blatantly collect and disclose Consumers'
and Customers' Personal and Financial Information to Third Parties
uninvolved in the provision of financial services -- entirely
without their knowledge or authorization, the lawsuit asserts.
The Plaintiffs seeks to remedy these harms and brings causes of
action of Negligence; Negligence Per Se; Invasion Of Privacy
(Intrusion Upon Seclusion); Breach Of Express And Implied Contract;
Unjust Enrichment (As Alternative To Contract Claims); Bailment;
Violation of the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act; Declaratory
Judgment; Violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act;
Violation of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act; Violation
of Title II of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act; Violation
of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act; and Violation of the Indiana
Wiretap Act.
The Plaintiffs bring this action, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, for damages and equitable relief. The
Plaintiff Christen Allen-Hayen is a natural person and citizen of
Kentucky, where she intends to remain.
Commonwealth CU is a state chartered credit union organized and
existing under the laws of the State of Kentucky, with a
headquarters in Frankfort, Kentucky.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew E. Mize, Esq.
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Emily E. Schille, Esq.*
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
E-mail: amize@stranchlaw.com
gstranch@stranchlaw.com
eschiller@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
Amina A. Thomas, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
athomas@cohenandmalad.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI, PLLC
980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IN 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
E-mail: sam@straussborrelli.com
raina@straussborrelli.com
COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER: Torres Suit Removed to D. Connecticut
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Gustavo Flores Torres, individually and on
behalf of those similarly situated v. Community Health Center,
Inc., Case No. MMX-CV25-6044546-S was removed from the Connecticut
Superior Court, Judicial District of Middlesex at Middletown, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut on March
26, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00490-VDO to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Community Health Center, Inc. (CHC) -- https://www.chc1.com/ -- has
been building a world-class primary healthcare system for uninsured
and underinsured populations.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sergei Lemberg, Esq.
LEMBERG LAW, LLC
43 Danbury Road
Wilton, CT 06897
Phone: (203) 653-2250
Fax: (203) 653-3424
Email: slemberg@lemberglaw.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Philip H. Bieler, Esq.
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP - NY
45 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10111
Phone: (212) 847-2868
Fax: (212) 589-4201
Email: pbieler@bakerlaw.com
CONSTELLIS LLC: Hernandez Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Ruben Hernandez, an individual and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. CONSTELLIS, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company; OMNIPLEX WORLD SERVICES CORPORATION, a
Virginia Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
25STCV04178 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on March 21,
2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02508.
The Plaintiff's Complaint asserted 7 purported causes of action
for: Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages;
Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Periods;
Waiting Time Penalties; Wage Statement Violations; and Unfair
Competition.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Sabrina A. Beldner, Esq.
Andrew W. Russell, Esq.
David Szwarcsztejn, Esq.
Charles J. Ureña, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS LLP
1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 315-8200
Facsimile: (310) 315-8210
Email: sbeldner@mcguirewoods.com
arussell@mcguirewoods.com
dszwarcsztejn@mcguirewoods.com
curena@mcguirewoods.com
CONVERSE INC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Converse Inc., Case No. 0:25-cv-01094 (D. Minn., March
25, 2025), is brought arising because Defendant's Website
(www.converse.com) is not fully and equally accessible to people
who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the
general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication
and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In
addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a
companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act
(MHRA).
The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is
responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning
the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her
experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past
year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff
found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that
deny screen reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to
important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its
sighted Website users.
Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to
access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or
shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant
offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and
operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully
accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with
vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class
have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to
be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to
provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is
compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore
disabled under the ADA.
The Defendant offers clothing and accessories for sale including,
but not limited to, shoes, tops, bottoms, jackets, sweatshirts,
accessories and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason Gustafson, Esq.
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
Jason Gustafson (#0403297)
80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (763) 515-6110
Email: jason@throndsetlaw.com
pat@throndsetlaw.com
chad@throndsetlaw.com
CRAYVIN INC: Gonzales Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Crayvin Inc. The case
is styled as Patrice Gonzales, individually and on behalf of all
those similarly situated v. Crayvin Inc. doing business as: Ancient
Cosmetics, Case No. 3:25-cv-00683-AGS-KSC (S.D. Cal., March 24,
2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Crayvin Inc. doing business as Ancient Cosmetics --
https://ancientcosmeticz.com/ -- offers an all natural vegan skin
care beauty line.[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
CREATIVE PRIVATE LABEL: Valadez Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joanne Valadez, Individually, and on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated v. CREATIVE PRIVATE LABEL, LLC and JEFF SPENCE,
Individually, Case No. 2:25-cv-02340 (W.D. Tenn., March 25, 2025),
is brought for unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees, costs, declaratory relief, and other
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
The Defendants employed Plaintiff and other similarly situated
hourly paid employees who similarly were not compensated for all
their compensable overtime as required by the FLSA. The Defendants
had a time-keeping system to record the compensable work time of
Plaintiff and those similarly situated during all times material.
The Plaintiff and those similarly situated performed work for
Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week within weekly pay periods
during all times material without being compensated at the
applicable FLSA overtime compensation rate of pay for such overtime
hours.
The Defendants have had a common plan, policy, and practice of
failing to compensate Plaintiff and those similarly situated for
rest breaks of less than 20 minutes for each of their respective
shifts. The Defendants knew and were aware at all relevant times
they were not compensating Plaintiff and those similarly situated
for all their overtime hours at the applicable FLSA overtime
compensation rates of pay within weekly pay periods during all
times material to this action.
The Defendants willfully and, with reckless disregard to
established FLSA requirements, failed to pay Plaintiff and those
similarly situated the applicable overtime compensation rates of
pay owed them within weekly pay periods during all times relevant
herein, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked as hourly-paid employees for Defendants
during
the relevant statutory period.
The Defendants own and operate a private label facility in Memphis,
Tennessee.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
J. Joseph Leatherwood, Esq.
Joshua Autry, Esq.
Cooper P. Mays, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN AND BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Phone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
jbryant@jsyc.com
jleatherwood@jsyc.com
cmays@jsyc.com
CROCS INC: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Suit Over Hey Dude
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Garner, writing for Footwear News, reports that the Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP law firm is wrapping up the preliminary
stages of its class action case against Crocs Inc.
In the lawsuit, the firm is alleging that Crocs misled investors
following its 2022 acquisition of Hey Dude by concealing
information that negatively impacted the company's financial
results, allegedly leading to an inflated price.
"[Crocs] misled investors by concealing the fact that the strong
revenue growth exhibited by the company's Hey Dude brand following
its acquisition in Feb. 2022, was largely driven by a conscious
decision on the part of Crocs management to aggressively stock its
third-party wholesaler pipeline with Hey Dude products, regardless
of the level of retail demand being experienced by those
wholesalers," the complaint stated. "[Crocs] pursued this
overstocking strategy despite assurances to investors by Andrew
Rees, the company's chief executive officer, that Crocs would not
play the game of forcing inventory into [wholesalers] and getting
them overstocked."
As a result, the complaint alleges that the company reported Hey
Dude revenue numbers in 2022 that were not indicative of actual
retail demand for Hey Dude shoes and, over the longer term, were
entirely unsustainable.
"After the company's retail partners began to destock this excess
inventory, defendants further misled investors by concealing that
waning product demand for Hey Dude shoes would further impact the
company's financial results," the complaint said.
The lawsuit further said that investors began to learn the truth
about the nature and unsustainability of Hey Dude's revenue growth
on April 27, 2023, when Rees revealed during the company's first
quarter 2023 earnings call that much of Hey Dude's revenue growth
in 2022 was attributable to efforts to stock the company's
wholesale partners with Hey Dude products and was not necessarily
indicative of actual downstream retail sales.
On this news, the complaint said that the price of Crocs common
stock declined $23.46 per share, or nearly 16 percent, from a close
of $147.78 per share on April 26, 2023, to close at $124.32 per
share on April 27, 2023.
The lawsuit then outlines several other alleged actions by Crocs
that led to further losses by shareholders. Ultimately, the
complaint stated that as a result of Crocs' alleged wrongful acts
and omissions, and the significant decline in the market value of
the company's common stock pursuant to the revelation of the
alleged fraud, the plaintiffs have suffered "significant damages."
FN has reached out to Crocs for comment.
In February, Crocs, Inc. reported consolidated revenues in the
fourth quarter of fiscal 2024 were $990 million, an increase of 3.1
percent from $960.1 million the same time last year. Net income in
the quarter was $368.9 million, up from $253.6 million the prior
year period, and diluted earnings per share were $6.36, a 52.9
percent increase from $4.16 last year.
By brand, the Crocs label's revenues once again drove Q4's strong
results, with sales up 4.0 percent to $762 million. These results
reflected a 5.0 percent increase in direct-to-consumer to $447
million and a 2.7 increase in wholesale to $315 million in the
period.
Revenues for the Hey Dude brand in Q4 were flat against the same
time last year at $228 million, which reflected a 7.2 percent
increase to $133 million in DTC and a 8.6 percent decrease to $95
million in wholesale. [GN]
CROCS INC: Shah Sues Over Securities Exchange Act Breach
--------------------------------------------------------
Neil Shah, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. CROCS, INC., ANDREW REES, ANNE MEHLMAN, and SUSAN
HEALY, Case No. 1:25-cv-00356-UNA (D. Del., March 21, 2025), is
brought on behalf of a class of all persons and entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Crocs common stock or call options
between November 3, 2022, and October, 28 2024, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and SEC Rule 10b-5,
promulgated thereunder.
During the Class Period, Defendants misled investors by concealing
the fact that the strong revenue growth exhibited by the Company's
HEYDUDE brand following its acquisition in February 2022, was
largely driven by a conscious decision on the part of Crocs
management to aggressively stock its third-party wholesaler
pipeline with HEYDUDE products, regardless of the level of retail
demand being experienced by those wholesalers. Defendants pursued
this overstocking strategy despite assurances to investors by
Defendant Andrew Rees, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, that
Crocs would not "play the game of forcing inventory into
wholesalers and getting them overstocked."
As a result, unbeknownst to investors, the Company reported HEYDUDE
revenue numbers in 2022 that were not indicative of actual retail
demand for HEYDUDE shoes and, over the longer term, were entirely
unsustainable. Moreover, after the Company's retail partners began
to destock this excess inventory, Defendants further misled
investors by concealing that waning product demand for HEYDUDE
shoes would further impact the Company's financial results.
Investors began to learn the truth about the nature and
unsustainability of HEYDUDE's revenue growth on April 27, 2023,
when Defendant Rees revealed during the Company's first quarter
2023 earnings call that much of HEYDUDE's revenue growth in 2022
was attributable to efforts to stock the Company's wholesale
partners with HEYDUDE products and was not necessarily indicative
of actual downstream retail sales. On this news, the Company's
stock price fell $23.46 per share, or 15.9%, from a close of
$147.78 per share on April 26, 2023, to close at $124.32 per share
on April 27, 2023.
This Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as
well as failed to disclose material adverse facts, about the
Company's business and operations. Specifically, Defendants
misrepresented and/or failed to disclose: the nature and
sustainability of HEYDUDE's revenue growth by concealing that 2022
revenue growth was driven, in large part, by the Company's efforts
to stock third-party wholesalers and retailers following the
February 2022 acquisition of HEYDUDE; that as the Company's retail
partners began to destock this excess inventory, waning product
demand further negatively impacted the Company's financial results;
and that, as a result, Defendants' representations about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false
and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the
significant decline in the market value of the Company's securities
pursuant to the revelation of the fraud, Plaintiff and other
members of the Class (defined below) have suffered significant
damages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff purchased or otherwise acquired Crocs call options at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.
Crocs, a Delaware corporation with its principal executive offices
in Broomfield, Colorado, is a casual lifestyle footwear brand.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan M. Ernst, Esq.
BIELLI & KLAUDER, LLC
1204 N. King Street
Wilmington, DE 19801
Phone: (302) 803-4600
Email: rernst@bk-legal.com
- and -
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
Email: CLinehan@glancylaw.com
- and -
Howard G. Smith, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112
Bensalem PA 19020
Phone: (215) 638-4847
Facsimile: (215) 638-4867
CVB INC: Faces Class Action Suit Over Platform Beds Recall
----------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that mattress and
bedroom furniture retailer Lucid faces a proposed class action
lawsuit after approximately 137,000 platform beds were recalled in
September 2024 due to an apparent fall and injury risk.
The 22-page lawsuit was filed after the United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced a recall of Lucid
platform beds with upholstered square tufted headboards, sold in
twin, full, queen, king and California king sizes. According to the
CPSC's September 19 announcement, the products were recalled
because the frames can sag, break or collapse during use, posing
fall and injury hazards to consumers.
The class action suit says that as of the recall announcement,
defendant CVB, Inc. -- which does business as Lucid -- had received
245 reports of the platform beds sagging, breaking or collapsing,
causing 18 injuries.
Per the case, the recalled beds were sold in multiple colors and
have wooden support beams, wooden support legs and a white federal
law label located on the back of the headboard that reads, "Made
For: CVB INC, 1525 W 2960 S, LOGAN, UT 84321." The products were
sold in-store or online by major retailers such as Amazon, Bed Bath
& Beyond, Belk, Home Depot, Target, Macy's, Wayfair and Walmart
between September 2019 and April 2024, the complaint shares.
The filing contends that Lucid misrepresented the safety of the
platform beds, which the case alleges are "entirely worthless"
because they "cannot be used without risk of serious injury."
In addition, the Lucid lawsuit argues the recall is insufficient
because it does not refund consumers. Instead, the suit says, the
company has offered a replacement bed frame, which a customer can
obtain only after disassembling their own bed, writing "recalled"
on the support rails, sending photographs of the product to Lucid's
email address, and waiting for the defendant to approve the request
and issue a new frame.
Moreover, the recall notice fails to explain how a replacement bed
frame will be safer than the original product, the case asserts.
"Consumers understandably seek safe products when it comes to large
items like furniture, especially products in which consumers plan
to sleep; the inherent risk of danger associated with this product
and the supposed 'remedy' of disassembling the bed and reassembling
the bed with another frame, does not make aggrieved or damaged
consumer whole," the complaint states.
The New York plaintiff claims that she, like other reasonable
consumers, would not have purchased the bed frame had she known it
could be a safety hazard.
The lawsuit looks to represent all United States residents who,
during the applicable statute of limitations period, purchased a
recalled platform bed for personal use and not for resale. [GN]
CVS PHARMACY: Hernandez Suit Removed to S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Gina Hernandez, an individual an on behalf of
others similarly situated v. CVS PHARMACY, INC., a Rhode Island
corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25CU007802C
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California on March 24, 2025, and assigned
Case No. 3:25-cv-00694-W-DDL.
The Plaintiff's First Cause of Action for Violation of California
Labor Code (overtime) alleges that Defendant "failed to pay
overtime wages owed to Plaintiff and the other Class Members" and
therefore "Plaintiff and the other Class Members are entitled to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, as well as interest, costs,
and attorneys' fees." The Plaintiff's Second Cause of Action for
Violation of California Labor (meal periods) alleges that Defendant
"required Plaintiff and the other Class Members to miss their meal
periods and to take meal periods that were late, shortened, or
interrupted, and failed to compensate Plaintiff and the other Class
Members the full meal period premium for missed, shortened, late,
or interrupted meal periods" and therefore "Plaintiff and the other
Class Members are entitled to recover one additional hour of pay at
the employee's regular rate of compensation for each workday that
the meal period was not provided."[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jennifer B. Zargarof, Esq.
Anahi Cruz, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
300 South Grand Avenue
Twenty-Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
Phone: +1.213.612.2500
Fax: +1.213.612.2501
Email: jennifer.zargarof@morganlewis.com
anahi.cruz@morganlewis.com
DAMENZO'S INC: Garcia et al. Sue Over Unlawful Pay Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------
EDGAR GUSTAVO ROCHA GARCIA, JUAN MANUEL GARCIA-NUNEZ, MIGUEL ANGEL
GARCIA-SOTO, RAMIRO DE JESUS JIMENEZ, VALENTIN MEDEL LAZCANO,
SERGIO GARCIA NUNEZ, JUAN ANTONIO GARCIA SOTO, and TEOFILO CAMPOS
TORRES, all individuals, on behalf of themselves and all other
plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiffs v.
DAMENZO'S, INC., an Illinois corporation d/b/a DAMENZO'S PIZZA &
RESTAURANT, DAMIANO MANNINO, a/k/a DOMINICK MANNINO, an individual,
ANA G. MANNINO, an individual, and FRANCESCA L. RAFFAELLI, an
individual, Case No. 1:25-cv-02981 (N.D. Ill., March 20, 2025)
arises under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law, and the Chicago Minimum Wage and Paid Sick Leave
Ordinance for Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiffs, and other
similarly situated employees, overtime compensation for hours
worked over 40 in a workweek.
The Plaintiffs are current non-exempt employees of the Defendants.
Allegedly, Defendants did not compensate Plaintiffs, and other
non-exempt cooks, pizza makers, food preparers and kitchen staff
employees, at one and one-half times their regular hourly rates of
pay for hours worked in excess of 40 in individual workweeks.
Moreover, in order to conceal their failure to pay overtime
compensation, the Defendants imposed a dual wage payment scheme on
Plaintiffs and other non-exempt employees in which they paid for
only a portion of the work hours performed by check, and paid for
the remainder of Plaintiffs' and other non-exempt employees' work
hours with unreported cash, the suit alleges.
Damenzo's, Inc. does business as Damenzo's Pizza & Restaurant
located on West Taylor Street in Chicago, IL. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Timothy M. Nolan, Esq.
NOLAN LAW OFFICE
53 W. Jackson Blvd., Ste. 1137
Chicago, IL 60604
Telephone: (312) 322-1100
E-mail: tnolan@nolanwagelaw.com
EAGLE TECH: Dunlap Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
WARD DUNLAP, individually and for others similarly situated v.
EAGLE TECH CONSULTANTS LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00680-X (N.D. Tex.,
March 20, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid wages and other damages
from Defendant pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiff Dunlap worked for Eagle Tech as a CAD drafter from
approximately June 2022 until September 2024. Allegedly, Eagle Tech
failed to pay Plaintiff overtime for the hours he worked in excess
of 40 in a workweek.
Eagle Tech Consultants, LLC is a staffing agency headquartered in
Dallas, TX. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
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
EIGHT SLEEP: Faces Chopra Class Suit Over Unlawful Pricing
----------------------------------------------------------
TUSHAR CHOPRA and BRIAN DELSHAD, on behalf of themselves and all
other persons similarly situated v. EIGHT SLEEP INC., Case No.
5:25-cv-02808-SVK (N.D. Cal., March 25, 2025) concerns deceptive
representations and omissions made by the Defendant through its
misleading and unlawful pricing, sales, and discounting practices
on its website, https://www.eightsleep.com/, which directly violate
a California statute and deceive the reasonable consumer
Defendant Eight Sleep sells and markets mattresses, mattress
covers, and other bedding products online through the Eight Sleep
website. Specifically, Eight Sleep markets itself as a luxury brand
that sells luxury mattresses and mattress covers meant to regulate
the temperature of individuals sleeping on its products. However,
unlike a true luxury brand, Eight Sleep lists all of its products
as having continuous discounts ranging between $50 – $200 off.
Moreover, these discounts are actually false discounts intended to
induce customers into purchasing their products, as the products
are never actually sold at the higher strikethrough reference
prices listed next to the "sale" price, asserts the lawsuit.
Accordingly, the products at issue are all goods that have been
offered at any time on Eight Sleep's website, at a sale or
discounted price from a supposedly higher reference price. The
Defendant's website lists various items on sale or discount, and
picture a stricken supposedly former or prevailing market price
next to the "sale" price.
However, the former or prevailing market price listed next to the
sales price is not actually the former or prevailing market price
at which the product was sold in the previous three months.
Instead, it is a false or inflated price used to trick consumers
into believing they are receiving a discount on their purchase. It
is false because the item has not been listed for sale or sold on
the website in the previous three months at the listed former
price, the lawsuit adds.
EIGHT SLEEP INC. is an American company that develops products for
sleep fitness.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles R. Toomajian III, Esq.
Caleb LH Marker, Esq.
Jessica M. Liu, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
1100 IDS Center
80 South 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 341-0400
Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
E-mail: charles.toomajian@zimmreed.com
caleb.marker@zimmreed.com
jessica.liu@zimmreed.com
- and -
Winston S. Hudson, Esq.
JENNINGS & EARLEY PLLC
500 President Clinton Avenue, Suite 110
Little Rock, AR 72201
Telephone: (601) 270-0197
E-mail: chris@jefirm.com
tyler@jefirm.com
winston@jefirm.com
ELLIOT GROUP SALES: Olinger Files FDCPA Suit in M.D. Georgia
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Elliot Group
Sales Training LLC. The case is styled as Damion Olinger,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The
Elliot Group Sales Training LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-00110-CDL (M.D.
Ga., March 25, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
The Elliott Group -- https://elliott247.com/ -- is the fastest
growing sales training company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
26 Grand Georgian Ct.
Cartersville, GA 30121
Phone: (305) 479-2299
Fax: (786) 623-0915
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
FAM HOSPITALITY: Roberts Sues to Recover Unpaid Tips
----------------------------------------------------
Alyssa Roberts, individually and for others similarly situated v.
FAM HOSPITALITY GROUP, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-01340 (S.D. Tex.,
March 21, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid tips and other
damages from the Defendant under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA").
The Defendant operated a mandatory tip pool. The Defendant allowed
managers and supervisors to keep a portion of Roberts and the
Tipped Workers' tips. The Plaintiff brings this collective action
to recover the unpaid tips and other damages owed to her and to
other Tipped Workers, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for FAM Hospitality from April 2024 until
March 2025 as a bartender.
FAM Hospitality operates restaurants and provides bartending
services throughout Texas and Colorado.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Carl A. Fitz, Esq.
FITZ LAW PLLC
3730 Kirby Drive, Ste. 1200
Houston, TX 77098
Phone: (713) 766-4000
Email: carl@fitz.legal
FEDEX GROUND: Atteberry Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Shawnee Atteberry, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM,
INC., inclusive, Case No. 2025CH01469 was removed from the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois County Department, Chancery
Division, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on March 26, 2025, and assigned Case No.
1:25-cv-03234.
This case is purportedly brought as a civil class action for
damages and/or penalties under the Illinois Genetic Information
Privacy Act ("GIPA"), 410 Illinois Compiled Statute ("ILCS") 513,
by Plaintiff on behalf of herself and other putative class action
members and against FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., a company
that no longer exists, having been merged into Federal Express
Corporation ("FedEx") effective June 1, 2024.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jessica D. Causgrove, Esq.
FISHER & PHILLIPS LLP
10 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3450
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 260-4758
Email: jcausgrove@fisherphillips.com
FENIX INTERNET: Brunner Sues Over Deceptive Outsourcing
-------------------------------------------------------
M. Brunner and J. Fry, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Fenix Internet, LLC and Fenix International
Limited Case No. 1:25-cv-03244 (N.D. Ill., March 26, 2025), is
brought against the Defendants due to schemes involving the
deceptive outsourcing of the job of interacting with Fans, as well
as other functions, to third-party "management" agencies
Despite the fact that OnlyFans' success is built on a promise of
"direct" connections and "authentic" relationships, OnlyFans
knowingly facilitates schemes in which Fans are duped into paying
to have personal interactions with Creators that are not
"authentic" at all. These schemes involve the deceptive outsourcing
of the job of interacting with Fans, as well as other functions, to
third-party "management" agencies.
Thus, while OnlyFans encourages Creators to engage in direct
messaging with their Fans, and even states in a blog with tips to
build a Creator's fanbase that "many successful creators carve out
time just to interact with fans -- writing and responding to DMs,"
many Fans who pay to receive personal messages from Creators in
fact receive messages from third-party companies--strangers--posing
as the Creators.
OnlyFans knows about these arrangements between Creators and third
party companies. But instead of curtailing these practices,
OnlyFans facilitates the continued deception of its Fans. Not only
are Fans harmed by this deception, but Creators are, too. Since
OnlyFans holds its platform out as a place for authentic
relationships, those Creators that use the platform as promised
face a potential harm as Fans may begin to shy away from the site
as the practice becomes better known, uncertain as to whether they
are actually engaging in the authentic communications they paid to
receive.
Meanwhile, OnlyFans knows or has reason to know that its highest
earning Creators engage third-party companies to interact with
Fans, but deceptively continues to hold itself out to users as a
platform for building "authentic relationships"—duping Fans into
believing that they are interacting with the Creators themselves,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs created OnlyFans accounts.
OnlyFans runs a subscription-based social media platform that has
grown exponentially in recent years.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrea R. Gold, Esq.
Shana Khader, Esq.
David A. McGee, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI, LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 1010
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 973-0900
Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
Email: agold@tzlegal.com
skhader@tzlegal.com
dmcgee@tzlegal.com
- and -
Keith T. Vernon, Esq.
TIMONEY KNOX, LLP
1717 K Street NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (215) 646-6000
Facsimile: (215) 591-8246
Email: kvernon@timoneyknox.com
- and -
Andrew W. Knox, Esq.
TIMONEY KNOX, LLP
400 Maryland Drive
Fort WA, PA 19034
Phone: (215) 646-6000
Facsimile: (215) 591-8246
Email: aknox@timoneyknox.com
- and -
Troy M. Frederick, Esq.
Beth A. Frederick, Esq.
FREDERICK LAW GROUP PLLC
836 Philadelphia Street
Indiana, PA 15701
Phone: (724) 801-8555
Fax: (724) 801-8358
Email: TMF@FrederickLG.com
BAF@FrederickLG.com
- and -
David M. Ferris, Esq.
Brian R. Charville, Esq.
FERRIS & CHARVILLE, LLC
118 Turnpike Road, Suite 300
Southborough, MA 01772
Phone: (508) 281-5600
Facsimile: (508) 229-0356
Email: david@ferrisdevelopment.com
bcharville@ferrisdevelopment.com
- and -
Jonathan Shub, Esq.
SHUB JOHNS & HOLBROOK, LLC
Four Tower Bridge
200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Phone: (610) 477-8380
Email: jshub@shublawyers.com
- and -
Robert B. Carey, Esq.
Leonard W. Aragon, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
11 West Jefferson, Suite 1000
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Phone: (602) 840-5900
Email: rob@hbsslaw.com
leonarda@hbsslaw.com
FIRST STUDENT: Purnell Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Latasha Purnell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. First Student, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-00193-DRC (S.D.
Ohio, March 26, 2025), is brought arising under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of unpaid one and one half times
their regular rate of pay for all time spent working in excess of
40 hours in a given workweek.
The Plaintiff and the Collective Members regularly worked in excess
forty hours in a given workweek. However, Defendant failed to pay
Plaintiff and the Collective Members one and one-half times their
regular rate of pay for their work which was in excess of forty
hours in any given workweek. Additionally, Plaintiff and the
Collective Members were paid non-discretionary bonuses. However,
Defendant failed to include these non-discretionary bonuses in
Plaintiff's and the Collective Members' regular rates of pay for
the purposes of computing overtime. As a result, Defendant failed
to pay all legally required overtime owed to Plaintiff and the
Collective Members, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a non-exempt hourly
employee from October 1, 2019 through the present.
The Defendant contracts with schools across the country to provide
bus-transportation students for their students.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael L. Fradin, Esq.
8401 Crawford Ave. Ste. 104
Skokie, IL 60076
Phone: 847-986-5889
Facsimile: 847-673-1228
Email: mike@fradinlaw.com
- and -
James L. Simon, Esq.
SIMON LAW CO.
11 1/2 N. Franklin Street
Chagrin Falls, Ohio 44022
Phone: (216) 816-8696
Email: james@simonsayspay.com
FLAGSHIP RESTAURANT: Lippold Sues Over to Recover Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Cameron Lippold, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. FLAGSHIP RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, Case No.
1:25-cv-03128 (N.D. Ill., March 24, 2025), is brought against
Defendant for failure to comply with provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), and
Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA"), seeking to
recover minimum and overtime wages for certain hours worked for
himself and all Servers and Bartenders who worked for Defendant.
The Defendant violated the FLSA's provision on minimum and overtime
wages by attempting to take a tip credit against the applicable
federal wage requirement without providing Plaintiff with the
required tip credit notice under federal law. The Defendant failed
to provide Plaintiff and members of the putative collective with
the appropriate tip credit notice within the past 3 years.
The Defendant therefore forfeits any tip credit under federal law
and owes each Server and Bartender federal minimum wages and
federal overtime wages for each hour of work they performed within
the past 3 years in time periods in which Defendant failed to
comply with the tip credit notice requirements. The Plaintiff and
members of the putative collective are entitled to receive at least
the following federal overtime premiums when they worked over 40
hours in a workweek, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant to work as a Server and
Bartender at the Naperville location on August 20, 2021.
The Defendant is a hospitality group that owns and operates a chain
of restaurants in Illinois called Blue Sushi Saki Grill.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jordan Richards, Esq.
Patrick Solberg, Esq.
USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS
JORDAN RICHARDS PLLC
1800 SE 10th Ave., Suite 205
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Phone: (954) 871-0050
Email: jordan@jordanrichardspllc.com
patrick@usaemploymentlawyers.com
FOOT LOCKER INC: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Foot Locker, Inc. d/b/a Champs Sports, Case No.
0:25-cv-01104 (D. Minn., March 26, 2025), is brought arising
because Defendant's Website (www.champssports.com) (the "Website"
or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to
people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both
the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective
communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing
regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also
asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human
Rights Act (MHRA).
The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is
responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning
the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her
experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past
year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff
found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that
deny screen reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to
important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its
sighted Website users.
Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to
access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or
shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant
offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and
operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully
accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with
vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class
have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to
be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to
provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is
compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore
disabled under the ADA.
The Defendant offers sports apparel for sale including, but not
limited to, footwear, shirts, pants, sweatshirts, accessories and
more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason Gustafson, Esq.
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
Jason Gustafson (#0403297)
80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (763) 515-6110
Email: jason@throndsetlaw.com
pat@throndsetlaw.com
chad@throndsetlaw.com
FORIS DAX: Bishop Sues Over Website's ADA Noncompliance
-------------------------------------------------------
CEDRIC BISHOP, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. FORIS DAX, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-02292 (S.D.N.Y., March 20, 2025) arises from Defendant's
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive
website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by
Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons.
The Plaintiff has been denied the full use and enjoyment of the
facilities, goods, and services of Defendant's interactive website
while attempting to access the website from his home in New York,
NY. Accordingly, Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's
unlawful conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New
York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business
Law.
Headquartered in Tyler, TX, Foris Dax, Inc. operates the Crypto
online retail stock and crypto trading platform,
https://crypto.com/us. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
GEICO: Filing for Class Cert Bid in See Suit Due June 19, 2026
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as See v. Government
Employees Insurance Company (GEICO), et. al., Case No.
2:21-cv-00547 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Feb. 2, 2021), the Hon. Judge Pamela
K. Chen entered an order additionally adopting the proposed
discovery schedule as follows:
-- The deadline to complete fact discovery related to class
certification is December 19, 2025.
-- The Plaintiffs' expert reports for class certification are
due by February 13, 2026.
-- The Defendants' expert reports for class certification are
due by April 17, 2026.
-- Depositions of experts for class certification are due by May
29, 2026.
-- The deadline for Plaintiffs to move for class certification
is June 19, 2026.
-- Deadline for Defendants to oppose class certification is July
31, 2026.
-- The deadline for Plaintiffs to reply in support of motion for
class certification is Aug. 31, 2026.
The nature of suit states insurance contract.
GEICO is an American auto insurance company headquartered in Chevy
Chase, Maryland.[CC]
GENE BY GENE: Bonneau Sues Over Disclosure of Genetic Information
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Byrd Bonneau, and Robbie Burgess individually and on behalf
of a class of similarly situated individuals v. GENE BY GENE, LTD.
d/b/a FAMILYTREEDNA, a Texas limited company, Case No.
3:25-cv-00504-AR (D. Ore., March 25, 2025), is brought against the
Defendant for its violations and to obtain redress for persons
injured by its conduct as a result of the Defendant's practice of
disclosing its customers' genetic information to third parties
without first obtaining consent violates the Genetic Statutes.
Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs and Defendant's consumers, Defendant
utilizes tracking pixels and similar tracking technologies on its
Website that discloses its customers' genetic information with
third parties, including disclosing that a specific individual has
undergone genetic testing. Genetic information about a person,
including the fact that someone underwent genetic testing, is among
the most confidential and sensitive information in our society, and
the mishandling of such information can have serious consequences,
including heightened risks for discrimination in the workplace,
denial of insurance coverage and data exposures leading to
irreversible privacy harms.
Specifically, Defendant integrated Facebook's tracking pixel, the
Meta Pixel, into its Website. The Meta Pixel allows companies, like
Defendant, to build detailed profiles about their visitors by
collecting information about how they interact with their websites,
and then use the collected information to serve them highly
targeted advertising.
As a result, Defendant is illegally disclosing individuals'
identities and their confidential genetic information. Such
information, including their identity and the fact that they are an
individual who has undergone genetic testing, is exactly the kind
of information explicitly protected under the above-mentioned
Genetic Statutes. The Defendant disclosed Plaintiffs' and members
of the Classes' genetic information to Facebook in order to better
create targeted advertisements based on the information Plaintiffs
and the members of the Classes shared with Defendant through their
interactions with Defendant's Website, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs purchased one of Defendant's genetic testing kits
for personal use.
FamilyTreeDNA is a commercial genetic testing company who offers
genetic analysis to individuals for genealogical purposes.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steve D. Larson, Esq.
STOLL STOLL BERNE LOKTING & SHLACHTER P.C.
209 SW Oak Street, Suite 500
Portland, OR 97204
Phone: (503) 227-1600
Facsimile: (503) 227-6840
Email: slarson@stollberne.com
GOOGLE LLC: Faces Attride Over General Search Services Monopoly
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES ATTRIDGE, in behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. GOOGLE LLC; ALPHABET, INC.; XXVI HOLDINGS INC., Case
No. 4:25-cv-02775-DMR (N.D. Cal., March 24, 2025) arises from
Google's alleged unlawful maintenance of its monopoly and illegal
conspiracy, combination, and agreements with Apple and the Android
OEMs and wireless carriers to monopolize and maintain Google's
monopoly in the markets for general search services and general
text advertising in violation of the Sherman Act.
Accordingly, Google has entered into exclusive agreements with
Apple, paying Apple billions of dollars to be the default search
engine on Apple's devices, and exclusive agreements with the
Android OEMs and wireless carriers (the Android parties) to protect
Google's monopoly, by paying the Android parties billions of
dollars for Google to be the exclusive search engine on their
devices, restricting distribution of rival search engines and
excluding Google's competition.
The suit seeks to recover damages, treble damages, and to obtain
injunctive, and equitable relief under section 16 of the Clayton
Act (15 U.S.C. section 26) against Defendants Google LLC, and its
parent Alphabet, Inc., for violations of Sections 1 & 2 of the
Sherman Act.
The Plaintiff' claims that Defendants violated the California
Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and for Disgorgement of Unjustly
Earned Profits-Unjust Enrichment are based on the supplemental,
ancillary jurisdiction of this Court.
Plaintiff Attridge is a resident of Littleton, Colorado and is an
End-user of Google general search services and participates in the
Google general search text ads market by receiving such ads.
Members of the End-user class are End-Users of Google general
search services and domiciled in various states, including the
State of California.
The Plaintiff bring this action under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure Rule 23, on behalf of himself and a class defined as
follows:
"All End-Users, including consumers and business End Users in
the United States, who used Google’s general search services
for their own end use since Jan. 1, 2015, to and including the
filing of this Complaint."
Excluded from the class are the Defendants, competitors of the
Defendants, any co-conspirators of Defendants, the Defendants'
predecessors, successors, parent, subsidiaries, affiliates,
officers and directors, federal and state government entities
and agencies, cities, counties, and other municipalities, and
any judge, justice or judicial officer presiding over this
matter and members of their immediate family.
Google is a subsidiary of Defendants XXVI Holdings Inc., which is a
subsidiary of Defendants Alphabet Inc., a publicly traded company
incorporated and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware
and headquartered in Mountain View, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lingel H. Winters, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF LINGEL H. WINTERS
2900 Shasta Rd.
Berkeley, CA 94708
E-mail: sawmill2@aol.com
GOSH ENTERPRISES: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Henry Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
CONSTANCE HENRY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Gosh Enterprises, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-03145 (N.D.
Ill., March 25, 2025) contends that the Defendant failed to design,
construct, maintain, and operate their website,
https://bibibop.com, to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired
persons, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Accordingly, the Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired
persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods
and services Timbuk2 Designs provides to their non-disabled
customers through the website. The Defendant's denial of full and
equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products
and services offered, and in conjunction with its physical
locations, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under ADA.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read
website content using her computer. The Plaintiff uses the terms
"blind" or "visually-impaired" to refer to all people with visual
impairments who meet the legal definition of blindness in that they
have a visual acuity with correction of less than or equal to 20 x
200.
Bibibop.com provides to the public a wide array of services, price
specials and other programs offered by Gosh Enterprises. Gosh
Enterprises specializes in Asian cuisine.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Davis B. Reyes, Esq.
EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
68-29 Main Street,
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (630) 478-0856
E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law
GREDE HOLDINGS: Higgins Files Suit in E.D. Michigan
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Grede Holdings LLC.
The case is styled as Russell Higgins, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Grede Holdings LLC, Case No.
2:25-cv-10831-NGE-CI (E.D. Mich., March 25, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I.
Grede Holdings LLC -- https://grede.com/ -- operates as a business
unit of Metaldyne. Grede is a full-service supplier of innovative
metal components to the transportation and industrial markets.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Emily E. Hughes, Esq.
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM
950 W. University Drive, Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Phone: (248) 841-2200
Email: eeh@millerlawpc.com
epm@millerlawpc.com
GRIDHAWK LLC: Baker Sues Over Unlawful Bonus Pay Scheme
-------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES BAKER, individually and for others similarly situated v.
GRIDHAWK LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00130 (N.D. Ind., March 20, 2025)
arises from Defendant's bonus pay scheme that violates the Fair
Labor Standards Act and Kentucky Wage and Hour Act.
The Defendant employed Plaintiff Baker as a lead damage technician
from approximately November 2022 until December 2024. The Plaintiff
and the other hourly employees regularly work more than 40 hours a
workweek. However, the Defendant does not pay them at least one and
a half times their regular rates of pay -- based on all
remuneration -- for all hours they work in excess of 40 a workweek.
In addition, the Defendant pays them with non-discretionary bonuses
that do not include their regular rates of pay for the purpose of
calculating their overtime rates, says the suit.
Gridhawk LLC is a Texas limited liability company headquartered in
Crown Point, IN. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
WERMAN SALAS P.C.
77 W. Washington St., Suite 1402
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (312) 419-1008
Facsimile: (312) 419-1025
E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- 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
GRIECO CHEVROLET: Faces Hindi Suit Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
JIBRAEL HINDI individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. GRIECO CHEVROLET FORT LAUDERDALE LLC, Case No.
0:25-cv-60565-WPD (S.D. Fla., March 25, 2025) contends that the
Defendant promotes and markets its merchandise, in part, by sending
unsolicited text messages to wireless phone users, in violation of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt the Defendant's
unlawful conduct, which has resulted in the intrusion upon
seclusion, invasion of privacy, harassment, aggravation, and
disruption of the daily life of Plaintiff and members of the
Classes.
The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of Plaintiff
and members of the Classes, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies.
In January, February, and March 2025, the Plaintiff received
multiple unsolicited phone calls from Defendant and subsequently
requested to opt-out of the Defendant's phone calls by providing
Defendant with a verbal stop instruction. The Defendant ignored
Plaintiff's requests and continued calling Plaintiff on March 12,
2025, March 13, 2025, and March 15, 2025, asserts the lawsuit.[BN]
The Plaintiff brought the case on behalf of the classes defined
as:
-- IDNC Class
All persons within the United States who, within the four
years prior to the filing of this lawsuit through the date of
class certification, received two or more phone calls and/or
text messages within any 12-month period, from or on behalf
of Defendant, regarding Defendant’s goods, services, or
properties, to said person’s residential telephone number,
after communicating to Defendant that they did not wish to
receive phone calls or text messages by replying to the calls
and/or messages with a “stop” or similar opt-out
instruction."
-- DNC Class
"All persons in the United States who from four years prior
to the filing of this action through the date of class
certification (1) Defendant, or anyone on the Defendant's
behalf, (2) placed more than one phone call and/or text
message call within any 12-month period; (3) where the
person's telephone number that had been listed on the
National Do Not Call Registry for at least thirty days; (4)
regarding Defendant’s property, goods, and/or services; (5)
who did not purchase or transact business with Defendant
during eighteen months immediately preceding the date of the
first call or message; and (6) who did not contact Defendant
during the three months immediately preceding the date of the
first call or message with an inquiry about a product, good,
or service offered by Defendant."
Grieco sells and services Acura, Toyota, Chevrolet, Mazda, Genesis,
Mercedes-Benz, Ford, BMW, Hyundai, Honda, and Nissan vehicles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zane C. Hedaya, Esq.
Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
Faaris K. Uddin, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI
1515 NE 26th Street,
Wilton Manors, FL 33305
Telephone: (813) 340-8838
E-mail: zane@jibraellaw.com
gerald@jibraellaw.com
faaris@jibraellaw.com
IFIT HEALTH: Settles Treadmill Class Action for $2.4 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
iFIT Health & Fitness agreed to a $2.4 million class action lawsuit
settlement to resolve claims that it misrepresented the horsepower
of NordicTrack and ProForm treadmills.
The NordicTrack and ProForm settlement benefits consumers who
purchased a NordicTrack or ProForm treadmill between Nov. 22, 2015,
and Jan. 15, 2020.
According to the class action lawsuit, iFIT misrepresented the
continuous horsepower of its NordicTrack and ProForm treadmills.
Consumers claim they would not have purchased the treadmills or
would have paid less for them if they knew the truth about the
products' horsepower.
iFIT Health & Fitness is a fitness equipment company that sells
NordicTrack and ProForm products.
iFIT has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $2.4 million
class action settlement to resolve the allegations.
Under the terms of the NordicTrack and ProForm settlement, class
members can choose between a treadmill maintenance kit valued at
$30 or a treadmill mat valued at $69.
As an alternative to the two above options, class members can
instead receive subscription benefits for iFIT's workout and
wellness service. These services are valued at $39 per month.
New subscribers can receive three months of iFIT's highest tier of
membership subscription. Current subscribers can receive two months
of iFIT's highest tier of membership subscription.
Class members who own treadmills that do not include an integrated
tablet/controller can receive four months of iFIT's Train
membership subscription if they are current subscribers or five
months of iFIT's Train membership subscription if they are new
subscribers.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is May 15, 2025.
The final approval hearing for the iFIT settlement is scheduled for
Aug. 25, 2025.
To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid
claim form by June 12, 2025.
Who's Eligible
Consumers who purchased a NordicTrack or ProForm treadmill between
Nov. 22, 2015, and Jan. 15, 2020.
Potential Award
Up to $186 in non-monetary benefits
Proof of Purchase
Serial number or proof of purchase for each treadmill
Claim Form
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
06/12/2025
Case Name
Barclay, et al. v. iFIT Health & Fitness Inc., et al., Case No.
0:19-cv-02970-ECT-DJF, in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota
Final Hearing
08/25/2025
Settlement Website
iFITTreadmillSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
iFIT Settlement Claims Administrator
c/o Atticus Administration
P.O. Box 64053
St. Paul, MN 55164
info@iFITTreadmillSettlement.com
(888) 345-4348
Class Counsel
W.B. Markovits
Terence R. Coates
Justin C. Walker
MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO LLC
Karl L. Cambronne
Bryan L. Bleichner
Christopher Renz
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE P.A.
Nathan Prosser
HELMUTH & JOHNSON PLLC
Defense Counsel
Courtney E. Ward-Reichard
Amanda M. Cialkowski
Cortney G. Sylvester
NILAN JOHNSON LEWIS P.A.
Terry E. Welch
Austin Riter
Kade N. Olsen
PARR BROWN GEE & LOVELESS P.C. [GN]
INSPIRIT DEVELOPMENT: GMF 157 Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Inspirit Development
and Construction LLC, et al. The case is styled as GMF 157 LP, on
behalf of itself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Inspirit Development and Construction LLC, et al., Case No.
651670/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., March 26, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
INSPIRIT DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION, LLC is a Home Improvement
Contractor business in New York.[BN]
INTERNATIONAL RECOVERY: Ausch Files FDCPA Suit in E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against International
Recovery Associates, Inc. The case is styled as Rachel Ausch,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
International Recovery Associates, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-01159-VMS
(E.D.N.Y., Feb. 28, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.
International Recovery Associates -- https://www.iraweb.com/ -- is
a third party debt collection agency.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Phone: (201) 282-6500
Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
INTRASYSTEMS LLC: Herman Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Robin Herman, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. INTRASYSTEMS, LLC, ALLEGHENY
HEALTH NETWORK, Case No. 1:25-cv-10204 was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on March
27, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00428-NR to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
INTRASYSTEMS -- https://www.intrasystems.com/ -- provides a wide
range of comprehensive services for the full lifecycle of IT
projects subject to international standards.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John P. Kristensen, Esq.
KRISTENSEN LAW GROUP
120 Santa Barbara Street Suite C9
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Phone: (805) 837-2000
Email: john@kristensen.law
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer R. O'Shea, Esq.
WINGET, SPADAFORA & SCHWARTZBERG, LLP
45 Broadway
New York, NY 10006
Phone: (617) 943-3919
Email: oshea.j@wssllp.com
- and -
Peter K. Levitt, Esq.
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
One Courthouse Way
Boston, MA 02210
Phone: (617) 748-3355
- and -
Pietro A. Conte, Esq.
DONNELLY CONROY & GELHAAR
260 Franklin Street, Suite 1600
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: (617) 720-2880
Email: pac@dcglaw.com
ISAGENIX INTERNATIONAL: Hodgin Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Noah Hodgin, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. ISAGENIX INTERNATIONAL LLC;
ISAGENIX WORLDWIDE, INC.; SHARRON WALSH, SIMON DAVIES; JIM DUNLAP;
JIM COOVER; KATHY COOVER; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No.
30-2025-01460970-CU-OE-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Orange, to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
March 27, 2025, and assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-00616.
The Complaint alleges 10 causes of action against defendants in
connection with the core allegation (which defendants deny) that,
under California law, Plaintiff was misclassified as an independent
contractor: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime
wages; failure to provide rest periods; failure to provide meal
periods; failure to timely pay wages during employment; failure to
pay all wages at separate of employment; failure to keep payroll
records; failure to provide accurate wage statements; failure to
reimburse business expenses; and unfair competition.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Lawrence B. Steinberg, Esq.
William M. Miller, Esq.
Kalley R. Aman, Esq.
BUCHALTER, A Professional Corporation
1000 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1500
Los Angeles, CA 90017-1730
Phone: (213) 891-0700
Fax: (213).896-0400
Email: lsteinberg@buchalter.com
wmiller@buchalter.com
kaman@buchalter.com
JERVOIS GLOBAL: Kadoo Pty Ltd et al. Allege Securities Law Breaches
-------------------------------------------------------------------
KADOO PTY LIMITED (Australian Company Number 050 142 820), as
trustee for the B&D Family Trust and BINVID PTY LTD (Australian
Company Number 071 348 291) ATF B&D superannuation fund,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. JERVOIS GLOBAL LIMITED (ADMINISTRATORS APPOINTED)
(JRV); MILLSTREET CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LLC; BRYCE ANDREW CROCKER;
PETER BRENDAN JOHNSTON; BRIAN ANTHONY KENNEDY; MICHAEL CALLAHAN;
DAVID ISSROFF; DANIELA CHIMMISSO DOS SANTOS; JERVOIS MINING USA
LIMITED, FORMATION HOLDINGS US INC, JERVOIS SUOMI HOLDING OY,
JERVOIS FINLAND OY, JERVOIS AMERICAS LLC, JERVOIS JAPAN INC,
JERVOIS TEXAS LLC; JOHN DOES BEING THE DIRECTORS OF JERVOIS MINING
USA LIMITED, Case No. 1:25-cv-02293 (S.D.N.Y., March 20, 2025)
alleges violations of U.S. federal securities laws, Australian
securities laws, Canadian securities laws and other laws.
The Plaintiffs bring this class action for derivative claims for
breaches of directors' duties and shareholder oppression under the
laws of Australia and Nevada. This action arises from
misstatements, omissions, and other conduct perpetrated by
Defendants. These actions and omissions, among other things, caused
an artificial inflation of the company's stock price. The
Defendants have attempted to recapitalize Jervois Global Limited.
Despite significant effort to do so over time, and despite a
questionable need to do so, the attempt has been made without
shareholder disclosure, knowledge and/or approval. As a
consequence, and direct result of the extensive efforts of the
Defendants, the equity of the shareholders of Jervois Global
Limited is to be allegedly, and imminently, extinguished, says the
suit.
Based in Australia, Jervois Global Limited is engaged in the
exploration, development, and production of mineral properties
including cobalt and nickel. The company is publicly listed on
stock exchanges in the
United States, Australia and Canada. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ryan McCrosson, Esq.
Laura Keily, Esq.
RS MCCROSSON LLP
8888 Keystone Crossing STE
Indianapolis, IN 07640
Telephone: (917) 744-9850
E-mail: ryan.mccrosson@rsmccrosson.com
JHON SALAZAR: Orozco Sues Over Unpaid Wages for Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------
William Medina Orozco and Alejandro Galicia, on behalf of
themselves and others similarly situated v. JHON E. SALAZAR a/k/a
JOHN SALAZAR, DIEGO GOMEZ, WILLIAM MANTILLA, THIAGO GARCIA, RAICES
COLOMBIANAS CORP. d/b/a RAICES COLOMBIANAS RESTAURANT, INCA PAISA
II CORP. d/b/a INCA PAISA and INCA PAISA III CORP. d/b/a INCA
PAISA, Case No. 1:25-cv-01682 (E.D.N.Y., March 26, 2025), is
brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New
York Labor Law ("NYLL") for unpaid wages for overtime work
performed, unpaid spread of hours wages for each day Plaintiffs
worked ten or more hours; unpaid minimum wages; liquidated damages
for failure to pay overtime premium and spread of hours pay;
liquidated damages for failure to furnish Plaintiff a notice and
acknowledgment at the time of hiring; attorneys' fees, interest,
and all costs and disbursements associated with this action.
The Defendants has and operated under a decision, policy and plan,
and under common policies, programs, practices, procedures,
protocols, routines and rules of willfully failing and refusing to
pay the Plaintiffs and Class Plaintiffs at one and one half times
the minimum wage for work in excess of 40 hours per workweek, and
willfully failing to keep records required by the FLSA even though
the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs have been and are entitled to
overtime. The Defendants willfully, regularly and repeatedly failed
to pay Plaintiffs and the Class at the required overtime rate of
one and a half times the federal minimum wage for hours worked in
excess of 40 hours per workweek, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendants.
The Defendants operate three restaurants/bars located in Queens
County that offer classic Colombian and Colombian/Peruvian fusion
cuisine.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Marcus Monteiro, Esq.
MONTEIRO & FISHMAN LLP
91 N. Franklin Street, Suite 108
Hempstead, NY 11550
Phone: (516) 280.4600
Facsimile: (516) 280.4530
Email: mmonteiro@mflawny.com
JOHN'S PRO TREE: Reyes Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Esteban Rodriguez Reyes, an individual, on behalf of himself and
all other plaintiffs similarly situated, known and unknown v.
JOHN'S PRO TREE SERVICE, INC., an Illinois corporation d/b/a PRO
TREE SERVICE, and JOHN BAIO, an individual, Case No. 1:25-cv-03360
(N.D. Ill., March 28, 2025), is brought arising under the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law
("IMWL"), for Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiff overtime
compensation for hours worked over 40 in a workweek.
Based on his schedule, the Plaintiff regularly worked sixty (60) or
more in individual workweeks during the months of March through
October from 2020 through 2023. The Defendants did not compensate
Plaintiff and other tree climbers, tree trimmers, drivers and
non-exempt laborers at one and one-half times their regular hourly
rate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 in individual work
weeks. The Defendants paid Plaintiff's overtime compensable hours
at his straight-time hourly rate of pay. In violation of the
statutes and implementing regulations of the FLSA and IMWL, the
Defendants failed to create, maintain, and preserve complete and
accurate payroll records for Plaintiff and other non-exempt
employees, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked as a tree climber, tree trimmer and driver at
Defendants' Pro Tree Service from the spring of 2020 through
October, 2023.
John's Pro-Tree Service, Inc. is engaged in selling and providing
tree care services including, among other things, tree trimming and
disposal, land clearing, and related services to residential and
commercial customers throughout Northeast Illinois and Northwest
Indiana.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy M. Nolan, Esq.
NOLAN LAW OFFICE
53 W. Jackson Blvd., Ste. 1137
Chicago, IL 60604
Phone: (312) 322-1100
Email: tnolan@nolanwagelaw.com
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Plaintiffs Filed an Amended Class Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Groom Law Group, Chartered, in an article for JDSupra, reports that
on March 10, 2024, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in a
much-followed putative class action lawsuit against Johnson &
Johnson ("J&J") alleging that the plan fiduciaries for J&J's group
health plan violated ERISA by mismanaging its self-funded health
plan's prescription drug benefit.
Several days after the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in the
J&J litigation, the same plaintiffs' counsel team filed a
substantially similar complaint against another large employer,
JPMorganChase & Co. ("JPMorgan").
Groom's key takeaways regarding the J&J amended complaint and the
trajectory of health plan fee litigation are as follows:
-- The amended complaint in the J&J litigation attempts to remedy
the deficiencies underlying the district court's prior decision
dismissing the case due to lack of Article III standing.
-- To the extent the district court finds that one or both
plaintiffs in the J&J case have sufficiently alleged Article III
standing, the district court will need to turn to the substance of
the allegations and address whether the amended complaint at least
plausibly alleges an ERISA fiduciary breach.
-- With the recent filing of the complaint against JPMorgan, the
J&J case is now one of three putative class actions -- filed by the
same team of plaintiffs' counsel -- where current or former plan
participants have alleged that employers mismanaged their
self-funded health plans' prescription drug benefit.
-- The J&J case may be a test case for a potential wave of
additional putative class actions by health plan participants
against employers based on alleged mismanagement of health plan
fees and expenses. It seems likely that additional cases may be
filed -- especially if one or more of these filed cases survive a
motion to dismiss.
A detailed discussion of these developments follows.
The J&J Amended Complaint
As we previously described in detail, last year plaintiff Anne
Lewandowski filed a lawsuit against J&J alleging that the plan
fiduciaries mismanaged the prescription drug benefit of the
company's employer-sponsored health plan, resulting in economic
harm in the form of higher premiums and out-of-pocket costs.
The district court dismissed the case because none of the
plaintiff's alleged injuries satisfied the requirements of Article
III standing, i.e., (i) an injury-in-fact, (ii) that was caused by
the employer's alleged ERISA violation, and (iii) is redressable by
the court.
Ms. Lewandowski, along with a second plaintiff, filed an amended
complaint which attempts to address the deficiencies identified in
the district court's opinion.
Higher Premiums
The district court previously held that plaintiff's alleged injury
due to the payment of higher premiums, higher deductibles, higher
coinsurance, and higher copays, and lower wages or limited wage
growth for employees was "at best" speculative and hypothetical
because (i) the plaintiff failed to allege that the employer's
conduct resulted in the payment of higher premiums and (ii) the
plaintiff failed to assert allegations comparing the premiums
charged by the J&J plan to those charged by other plans.
The amended complaint attempts to cure this deficiency by trying to
tie higher prescription drug costs to higher premium contributions
for plan participants. Specifically, the amended complaint
alleges:
-- J&J aimed to maintain a "consistent ratio" of employer and
employee contributions to the plan. The amended complaint cites
data showing that the employee contribution rate, as a percentage
of total plan spending, remained relatively consistent over a
nine-year time period. The plaintiffs use this alleged fact to
claim that the amount employees pay in premiums is therefore "tied
directly" to the plan's actual and projected costs, including
prescription drug costs.
-- Numerous government and independent studies support the
conclusion that employees pay higher premiums as a result of
inflated prescription drug costs. The amended complaint
specifically highlights a recent Federal Trade Commission report
finding that over time "inflated drug costs" "result in higher
premiums."
-- 85% of premium costs for large plans such as the J&J plan is
"attributable to prescription drug outlays and other healthcare
expenditures."
GROOM INSIGHT:
-- The amended complaint attempts to link higher premium costs to
J&J's alleged mismanagement of the plan's prescription drug benefit
by pointing out that participants generally paid the same
percentage of the plan's total costs each year. However, the
amended complaint does not allege that J&J used, or the terms of
the plan required it to use, a rigid formula of employer versus
employee contributions when calculating the amount of premiums
charged to employees – i.e., there is no allegation J&J was
required to charge participants premiums that amounted to fixed
percentage of plan costs.
-- The amended complaint cites secondary sources that generally
link higher prescription drug costs to higher employee premiums.
Those sources are not specific to the expenses incurred by the J&J
plan.
-- Whether the court is swayed by this argument remains to be
seen. Nonetheless, employers may be able to guard against such an
assertion by ensuring that the employee contribution is set, and
communicated, as a fixed dollar amount rather than as a percentage
or ratio of the plan costs.
-- The amended complaint does not address the district court's
observation that the complaint failed to compare the premiums
charged by the J&J plan to those charged by other plans.
Higher Out-of-Pocket Costs
The district court previously held that Ms. Lewandowski's alleged
injury due to higher out-of-pocket costs was not redressable. This
was due in large part to J&J's demonstration that Ms. Lewandowski
would have hit the plan's maximum limit on out-of-pocket expenses
based on her medical expenses alone (aside from prescription drug
costs). As a result, Ms. Lewandowski's out-of-pocket costs would
have been the same even if she paid less for the drugs identified
in the complaint.
The amended complaint alleges that in 2023, Ms. Lewandowski paid
higher out-of-pocket amounts for certain prescription drugs before
she hit the plan's out-of-pocket maximum. Further, the amended
complaint alleges that Ms. Lewandowski suffered a reduction in her
cash position when she paid more out-of-pocket for those
prescription drugs. The amended complaint also added a new
plaintiff to the lawsuit. The new plaintiff alleges to have paid a
higher copay amount for a generic drug in comparison to various
benchmarks. Further, unlike Ms. Lewandowski, the new plaintiff
alleges that he did not hit the plan's out-of-pocket maximum for
the years at issue.
GROOM INSIGHT:
-- Ms. Lewandowski's allegation that she suffered a reduction in
her cash position when paying out-of-pocket for prescription drugs
is a new theory of injury that has yet to be addressed by the
district court. To the extent the plaintiff is successful in
establishing standing based on this theory, this would be unwelcome
news for employers and plan fiduciaries as the class of affected
participants that could seek redress via these types of claims
would be materially increased.
-- The addition of the second plaintiff appears to be a direct
response to the district court's concerns regarding the
redressability of Ms. Lewandowski's alleged out-of-pocket injury
given that she hit the plan's out-of-pocket maximum based on her
medical expenses alone and in this respect appears to be a hedge on
the likelihood that the district court will agree with the
plaintiffs' cash position theory.
-- The differences in the claims experience of the plaintiffs
underscores the individualized nature of the alleged injuries at
issue. These differences may make it challenging for plaintiffs to
obtain class certification in this case and other health plan fee
cases.
What's Next?
We anticipate the defendants in the J&J case will again file a
motion to dismiss – this time seeking to dismiss the amended
complaint. As before, we expect J&J to challenge whether the
amended allegations adequately allege Article III standing, as well
as whether the amended complaint plausibly alleges a claim for
relief. To the extent the district court finds that one or both
plaintiffs have alleged Article III standing, the district court
will need to address whether the employer was acting as an ERISA
fiduciary when setting premiums and selecting and managing the
plan's pharmacy benefit manager and/or the pleading standard
applicable to excessive fee claims in the context of a health
plan.
The resolution of the anticipated motion to dismiss will likely
have an impact on the trajectory of health plan fee litigation,
i.e., whether we see a wave of similar putative class actions filed
by health plan participants against employers or whether the
plaintiffs' bar pivots in how it approaches excessive fee cases in
the health plan context.
Indeed, just days after the plaintiffs in the J&J case filed the
amended complaint, the same team of plaintiffs' counsel filed a new
complaint against another large employer, JPMorgan, asserting
substantially similar allegations related to the employer's
purported mismanagement of its self-funded health plan's
prescription drug benefit. This case was filed on March 13, 2025 in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.
Like the amended complaint filed in the J&J case, the plaintiffs in
this new complaint against JPMorgan allege:
-- The plan overpaid for specific prescription drugs. Like the
J&J plaintiffs, the complaint challenges the plan's use of a
traditional PBM pricing arrangement. The plaintiffs in this new
complaint similarly target the prices of generic specialty and
generic non-specialty drugs. Some of the same drugs are used as
examples in both complaints.
-- The employer maintained a "consistent ratio" of employer and
employee contributions to the plan such if total plan costs were
lower, employee contributions would have been lower.
JPMorgan failed to implement several cost-saving recommendations
from two organizations in which it is a member.
-- Like the second plaintiff recently added to the J&J case, the
plaintiffs in this new complaint allege that they did not reach the
plan's cap on out-of-pocket expenses.
-- The plan's expenses were paid using funds from an
employer-sponsored trust and are therefore plan assets, which must
be used for the exclusive benefit of the plan's participants and
their beneficiaries.
This is an area of litigation that is continuing to develop. We are
monitoring plaintiffs’ evolving theories of liability in these
cases.[GN]
KATHLEEN HOCHUL: Porter Suit Removed to N.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Eric Porter, Gianna Weber, Kimberly Walsh,
Daphne Beard, and Olesya Girich, and John and Jane Does 1-20 on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Claimants v.
KATHLEEN HOCHUL, in her personal capacity; HOWARD ZUCKER, in her
personal capacity; MARY BASSETT, in her personal capacity, the NEW
YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK,
ROBERT CORONA, in his official capacity as Chief Executive Officer
of Upstate University Hospital; CAROL GRIMES, in her official
capacity as Chief Executive Officer of Stony Brook University
Hospital; DAVID H. BERGER, in his official capacity as Chief
Executive Officer of University Hospital at Downstate; SATISH K.
TRIPATHI, in his official capacity as President of the University
of Buffalo; and JOHN B. KING, JR. (Chancellor of SUNY), Case No.
010057/2024 was removed from the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, to the United States District Court for the Northern District
of New York on March 26, 2025, and assigned Case No.
5:25-cv-00381-BKS-TWD.
In the verified claim, Claimants alleges that Defendants violated
Plaintiff's rights under federal statute by discriminating against
them on account of religion.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Gigi E. Meyers, Esq.
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, OF COUNSEL
300 South State Street – Suite 300
Syracuse, NY 13202
Phone: (315) 448-4800
KERATIN HOLDINGS: Calcano Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marcos Calcano, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. KERATIN HOLDINGS LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02562
(S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for
its failure 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 denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website,
https://keratincomplex.com/, including all portions thereof or
accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's
Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired
consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent
injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies,
practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become
and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers.
By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible
with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and
visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods,
content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled
individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma
among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who
requires screen-reading software to read website content using his
computer.
KERATIN HOLDINGS LLC, operates the Keratin Complex online retail
store, as well as the Keratin Complex interactive Website and
advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and
throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Danalgottlieb@aol.com
Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
KOPPERS PERFORMANCE: Brown Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kurtis Brown, individually, and on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated v. KOPPERS PERFORMANCE CHEMICALS, INC. d/b/a
Koppers, Inc., and KOPPERS, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-02330 (W.D.
Tenn., March 25, 2025), is brought against Defendants as a
multi-plaintiff action under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
to recover unpaid overtime compensation and other damages owed to
Plaintiffs and other similarly situated chemical plant employees,
otherwise known as potential Plaintiffs.
The Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to pay Plaintiffs, and
potential plaintiffs for all hours worked over 40 within weekly pay
periods at one and one-half times their regular hourly pay rate.
Like the potential plaintiffs, the Plaintiff regularly worked more
than 40 hours in a week. The Defendants did not pay for all hours
the Plaintiff and potential plaintiffs worked.
The Defendants automatically deducted 1 hour per shift from the
Plaintiff and potential plaintiffs' work time for so-called meal
breaks. However, the Defendants fails to provide the Plaintiff and
potential plaintiffs with bona fide meal breaks. Instead, the
Defendants requires the Plaintiff and potential plaintiffs to
remain on-duty throughout their shifts, continue to conduct work
duties, operate machinery, and subject them to interruptions,
including during their unpaid "meal breaks." Koppers'
auto-deduction policy violates the FLSA by depriving Plaintiff and
potential plaintiffs of overtime pay for all overtime hours worked,
says the complaint.
The Plaintiff has been directly employed by the Defendants as a
non-exempt hourly-paid chemical plant worker.
The Defendants own and operate a chemical plant in Millington,
Tennessee.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
J. Joseph Leatherwood, Esq.
Joshua Autry, Esq.
Cooper P. Mays, Esq.
JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER, HOLT, OWEN AND BRYANT
262 German Oak Drive
Memphis, TN 38018
Phone: (901) 754-8001
Facsimile: (901) 754-8524
Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
jbryant@jsyc.com
jleatherwood@jsyc.com
jautry@jsyc.com
L'OREAL USA: Silva Sues Over Benzoyl Peroxide Containing Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marilyn Silva, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. L'OREAL USA, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-02007 (D.N.J.,
March 21, 2025), is brought on behalf of all others similarly
situated, who purchased Defendant's Recalled La Roche-Posay
Effaclar Duo Product (the "Product") because it contains Benzoyl
Peroxide ("BPO") which can degrade into benzene, a known
carcinogen.
The Product is formulated, designed, manufactured, advertised,
sold, and distributed by Defendant or its agents to consumers,
including Plaintiff, across the United States. The Product was
manufactured by Defendant, distributed to other corporations and
then sold to consumers across the United States. The Product was
sold directly online to consumers through the company's website and
could also be purchased online through other retailers, such as
Amazon and Walmart, as well as retail stores such as Sephora, among
other places.
Through marketing and sale, Defendant represented that the Product
is safe and effective for its intended use as a treatment for acne.
At the time of her purchase, Defendant did not notify Plaintiff and
similarly situated consumers, that the benzoyl peroxide contained
in the product could degrade into the dangerous carcinogen,
benzene, through the product labels, instructions, other packaging,
advertising, or in any other manner, in violation of the state and
federal law.
The Plaintiff purchased the Product while lacking the knowledge
that the Product could expose her to a known carcinogen and harm
those who use the Product, thus causing serious harm to those who
use such Products. Because Plaintiff and all consumers purchased
the worthless and dangerous Product, which they purchased under the
presumption that the Product was safe, they have suffered Losses,
says the complaint.''
The Plaintiff purchased the Product on approximately 20 occasions
over the past three years, including the lot recently recalled by
L'Oreal.
L'OREAL, INC. is the largest subsidiary of the L'Oreal Group which
promotes itself as the world's leading beauty company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip Furia, Esq.
SULTZER & LIPARI
85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
Poughkeepsie, New York 12601
Phone: (845) 483-7100
Email: furiap@thesultzerlawgroup.com
- and -
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Phone: (803) 222-2222
Fax: (843) 494-5536
Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com
cmad@poulinwilley.com
LIVE NATION: Agrees to Settle Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Scarcella, writing for Reuters, that entertainment giant Live
Nation (LYV.N), opens new tab has agreed to pay $20 million to
settle a shareholder lawsuit accusing it of making misleading
statements about industry competition and compliance with antitrust
laws, artificially boosting its stock price.
A proposed class action settlement was filed on Friday, March 21,
in the federal court in Riverside, California, and requires a
judge's approval.
Shareholders sued Live Nation in August 2023, alleging it violated
U.S. securities provisions by failing to disclose material
information about regulatory risks the company was facing, and also
cooperation with governmental investigations.
The plaintiffs alleged Live Nation's anti-competitive business
practices, including retaliating against ventures that spurned its
subsidiary Ticketmaster, were the true source of business growth.
Live Nation and attorneys for the shareholders did not immediately
respond to requests for comment.
Live Nation denied any wrongdoing in agreeing to settle. In a court
filing, it said it was settling "solely to eliminate the
uncertainty, burden, and expense of further protracted
litigation."
Lawyers for the proposed class, estimated to include thousands of
shareholders, in a filing called the proposed settlement "fair,
reasonable and adequate."
They said the settlement followed "hard-fought litigation and arm's
length negotiations."
The plaintiffs' lawyers said the settlement recovers about 3% of
the maximum estimated damages of $743 million. They said the
percentage falls within the range of other court-approved
securities class action settlements.
The attorneys said they would ask U.S. District Judge Kenly Kiya
Kato to award them up to 33.3% in legal fees from the settlement
fund, or about $6.7 million.
A preliminary settlement approval hearing is scheduled for April
24.
Live Nation is defending against a consumer antitrust lawsuit in
federal court in Los Angeles accusing it and Ticketmaster of
charging artificially high ticket prices. In federal court in
Manhattan, Live Nation is fighting related claims from the U.S.
Justice Department and some states.
The company has denied the allegations in those cases.
The case is Brian Donley et al v. Live Nation Entertainment, U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, No.
2:23-cv-06343-KK-AS.
For plaintiffs: Phillip Kim and Joshua Baker of The Rosen Law Firm;
and Ex Kano Sams II and Garth Spencer of Glancy Prongay & Murray
For defendants: Melanie Blunschi, Morgan Whitworth and Jason Hegt
of Latham & Watkins [GN]
LOS BANOS WOOD: Tenorio Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Lorena Rodriguez Tenorio and Jorge Nazareno Castro, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. LOS BANOS WOOD,
LLC, a California Limited Liability Corporation; OLD DURHAM WOOD,
INC., a California Corporation; RANDY MICHAEL MCLAUGHLIN, an
individual; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25CV00852
(Cal. Super. Ct., Butte Cty., Feb. 28, 2025), is brought against
the Defendants for all unpaid wages, unpaid overtime, denied and
non-compliant rest and meal periods, inaccurate wage statements,
and waiting time penalties.
Current and former nonexempt employees who were not compensated for
all their hours worked, were required to work overtime and double
time hours without overtime premium pay, were not provided with
legally compliant meal and rest breaks, not provided accurate wage
statements, not paid all wages owed upon separation from
employment, were required to incur business expenses without full
reimbursement, and DEFENDANTS failed to maintain accurate time and
payroll records, in violation of California law and the applicable
Wage Orders. As a result of these violations, DEFENDANTS are also
liable for various other penalties under the Labor Code, and for
violation of the Unfair Business Practices Act ("UCL"), Business
and Professions Code, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants.
LOS BANOS WOOD, LLC is and has been a California Limited Liability
Corporation that focuses on processing and selling firewood.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Virginia Villegas, Esq.
Felicia Goldstein, Esq.
Paul Grant-Villegas, Esq.
THE VILLEGAS LAW FIRM, APC
1388 Sutter St., Suite 903
San Francisco, CA 94109
Phone: (415) 989-8000
Fax: (415) 989-8028
MATT WEISS: Faces Class Suit Over Illegal Personal Info Access
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Florio, writing for NBC Sports, reports former Ravens and
Michigan assistant Matt Weiss faces 24 criminal counts arising from
allegedly unauthorized access to computers and aggravated identity
theft. Michigan and Weiss face a class-action lawsuit arising from
Weiss's alleged misbehavior.
Via NBC News, two women (a former Michigan gymnast and a former
Michigan soccer player) have sued the school for failure to
supervise and monitor Weiss.
Their lawsuit alleges that Weiss and the other parties (including
Keffer Development Services, which managed confidential
information) violated the plaintiffs' Title IX protections, their
civil rights, and civil laws arising from legal standards including
the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
"The recklessness and negligence and misconduct of the Regents, the
University, and Keffer in these respects enabled Weiss to target
female college athletes to obtain their private and sensitive
information without authorization, including but not limited to
Plaintiffs," the civil complaint alleges.
Weiss allegedly began to access personal and intimate photographs
and videos from female athletes in 2015. Prosecutors allege that
Weiss accessed information regarding more than 150,000 athletes.
Weiss was a graduate assistant at Stanford when Jim Harbaugh
arrived as the head coach in 2007. After two years with Jim
Harbaugh, Weiss took a job as the assistant to Ravens head coach
John Harbaugh. Weiss then moved through a variety of positions
through 2020.
He rejoined Jim Harbaugh, at Michigan, in 2021 as the team's
quarterbacks coach. In 2022, Weiss served as co-offensive
coordinator and quarterbacks coach. He was abruptly fired in
January 2023 following a university investigation of computer
access crimes.
Neither the Ravens nor the Chargers (where Jim Harbaugh now works)
responded to requests for comment from PFT. Although the alleged
behavior was unrelated to Weiss's Ravens employment, he absolutely
would have been subject to league scrutiny and discipline under the
Personal Conduct Policy -- if he had been working for an NFL team
when these allegations came to light. [GN]
MICHIGAN: Class Suit Settlement Final Hearing Set April 24
----------------------------------------------------------
michigan.gov reports that a judge presiding over a class action
lawsuit against the Michigan Unemployment Insurance Agency (UIA)
has delayed by one month a final hearing to approve a proposed $55
million settlement agreement.
The new hearing in Saunders v Unemployment Ins. Agency et al.
before Chief Judge Brock Swartzle of the Michigan Court of Claims
is scheduled for 1 p.m. April 24, 2025, at the Michigan Court of
Appeals courtroom in the Hall of Justice at 925 W. Ottawa, in
Lansing. Members of the class action lawsuit can attend the hearing
and anyone who opposes the final settlement will be allowed to
address the judge about their concerns.
The preliminary settlement between UIA and affected parties affects
more than 23,000 Michiganders who say they were wrongly asked by
the agency to repay pandemic-era unemployment benefits before
determining whether a claimants' protests or appeals were submitted
on time or at all. Under the preliminary settlement, the average
award per lawsuit member is just over $1,400.
The deadline to join the lawsuit was Dec. 20, 2024, and the
independent claims administrator is no longer accepting new
participants. Questions about the preliminary settlement should be
directed to the claims administrator by calling 1-866-499-4565 or
emailing info@bwclassactions.com. A website has at
bwclassactions.com has more information.
As part of the litigation process, Judge Swartzle ordered UIA to
stop collecting all established overpayments on unemployment
benefits claims -- even those not related to the class action
lawsuit – that were filed since March 1, 2020. The judge will
decide when to order claimants to pay back money to UIA.
Under the preliminary settlement agreement, UIA does not admit
liability in the case. Workers who joined the settlement agree to
release all claims against the UIA or can opt out.
Creating solutions for Michigan's workers
The settlement addresses one of the issues that emerged on a wave
of claims filed under federal programs during the COVID-19 national
public health crisis. UIA has created a number of innovative
solutions and helpful tools to guide workers along their
unemployment journey. Among those tools are:
-- The UIA Claimant Roadmap, a six-step guide to applying for and
understanding benefits. The roadmap is an easy-to-follow,
user-friendly resource that can be found at
Michigan.gov/UIAClaimantRoadmap.
-- Online Coaching Sessions, which are web-based group sessions
led by UIA staff on topics such as filing a first-time claim,
understanding a Monetary Determination letter, the protest and
appeals process, and seeking work and registration requirements.
The First-time Filer session is also available in Spanish.
-- A comprehensive website of resources for federal workers who
have recently been terminated from their jobs.
Michigan.gov/FederalWorkerHelp has guidance for filing for
unemployment benefits, searching for a new job, or accessing
community aid programs.
-- An expanded 14-day window to schedule in-person, phone, or
virtual appointment times at Michigan.gov/UIA.
-- The UIA Community Connect program to provide hands-on help for
workers navigating the unemployment insurance application process.
Staff across the state also connect workers and employers to UIA's
outreach and education resources.
-- Renovations at UIA Local Offices in Grand Rapids, Lansing,
Saginaw, and Sterling Heights to create an improved user experience
and make security upgrades.
-- The addition of six more advocates to the Advocacy Program to
provide free legal help to workers and employers with appeals of
UIA redeterminations.
Modernizing, transforming the UIA
The new and expanded tools are part of a broad transformation of
UIA into a national model for fast, fair, and fraud-free service.
Other changes include:
-- The UIA Economic Dashboard, a deep dive into underlying trends
in unemployment insurance in Michigan. Data provides a rich
understanding of the impacts of unemployment across industries,
occupations, and communities, and provides insights into which
sectors are experiencing layoffs, claimant demographics, and the
regions most affected. Access the dashboard at
Michigan.gov/UIAEconomicDashboard.
-- A coalition of thought leaders from the labor, business, and
jobless advocate communities as part of the UIA Modernization
Workgroup to provide insight on significant improvements in how the
agency can better serve Michigan workers and employers.
-- The Employer Help Center, a plain language guide answers
employers' questions on unemployment tax and claim issues and UIA
programs. The innovative Help Center can be found at
Michigan.gov/UIAEmployerHelpCenter.
-- A redesigned Michigan.gov/UIA website to be optimized for
reading on mobile phones or tablets. The website offers answers to
frequently asked questions, resources and toolkits. You can also
browse UIA's library of helpful instructional videos on YouTube.
-- A Legal and Compliance Bureau to leverage collaborative
anti-fraud practices to pursue bad actors who steal taxpayer
money.
-- Extension through June 2025 for nearly 80 limited-term
employees in the Fraud and Investigations Division.
-- New ethics and security clearance policies for employees and
contractors.
-- Partnerships with the Michigan Department of Attorney General,
and local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies to stop
fraud. Since March 2020, 166 criminals have been charged with
unemployment fraud, 125 convicted, and 107 sentenced to prison and
ordered to pay restitution.
-- Perfect scores for the five years in a row from the USDOL for
employer audits in 2019-23, meeting the reasonable assurance of
quality benchmark.
-- A robust UI Trust Fund that totals more than $2.8 billion (and
growing). Weekly benefits are paid to workers from the Trust Fund,
which is supported by taxes on employers. [GN]
NATIONAL STUDENT: Gottlieb Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sean Gottlieb, v. National
Student Data Loan System, Kelly Shefler – Aidvantage, Case No.
1:24-cv-03644-TSC (D.D.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter
an order:
-- certifying class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, and
-- appointing counsel to represent the Plaintiff as there are
extraordinary circumstances.
The case presents a systemic failure by the Defendants, in the
miscalculation and misreporting of federal student loan balances.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's conduct violates the terms
of the class action settlement agreement entered in Sweet v.
Cardona, No. 3:19-cv-03674 (N.D. Cal.), the lawsuit asserts.
The Plaintiff seeks certification of the following class:
"All federal student loan borrowers whose loans have been
inaccurately calculated, serviced, or reported by NSLDS and
Kelly Shefler - Aidvantage in violation of the settlement
terms of Sweet v. Cardona, No. 3:19-cv03674 (N.D. Cal.)."
The Plaintiff is a federal student loan borrower whose aggregate
loan balances have been materially miscalculated and misreported by
the Defendant, resulting in financial injury, inaccurate credit
reporting, and violations of rights under federal law.
National Student is the U.S. Department of Education's (ED) central
database for Federal Student Aid.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 21, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KcXR1h at no extra
charge.
The Plaintiff appears pro se.[CC]
NAUTICA RETAIL: Dalton Sues Over Website's ADA Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Nautica Retail USA LLC, Defendant, Case No.
0:25-cv-01046-ECT-ECW (D. Minn., March 20, 2025) accuses the
Defendant of violating the general non-discriminatory mandate and
the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services
requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act Plaintiff also
asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human
Rights Act.
The case arises from Defendant's failure to make its website fully
accessible to, and independently usable by, Plaintiff and other
individuals with vision-related disabilities.
Headquartered in Lyndhurst, NJ, Nautica Retail USA LLC owns and
maintains the website, www.nautica.com, which offers clothing and
accessories for sale. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason Gustafson, Esq.
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER LAW OFFICE, LLC
80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (763) 515-6110
E-mail: jason@throndsetlaw.com
pat@throndsetlaw.com
chad@throndsetlaw.com
NEBRASKA BOOK: Degroot Suit Seeks to Certify Two Classes
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER DEGROOT, and
STEVEN SHOWALTER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. NEBRASKA BOOK COMPANY, INC.; NEBRASKA BOOK HOLDINGS,
INC.; CONCISE CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LP; AB LENDING SPV I, LLC, d/b/a
MOUNTAIN RIDGE CAPITAL, Case No. 4:23-cv-03041-JMG-MDN (D. Neb.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion to
certify the "WARN Class," defined as:
"All employees of the Defendants (NBC, NBH, Concise Capital,
and Mountain Ridge, acting as a single entity or joint
employer), who were terminated pursuant to a mass layoff or
plant closing (as those terms are defined in the WARN Act)
within 90 days of March 1, 2023.
Based on their claims under the Nebraska Wage and Payment
Collection Act ("NWPCA"), the Plaintiffs also move to certify the
"NWPCA Class," defined as:
"All employees of Defendants (NBC, NBH, Concise Capital, and
Mountain Ridge, acting as a single entity, joint employer, or
entity liable under the NWPCA), within the applicable statute
of limitations period under the NWPCA, who were terminated and
were not paid their accrued but unused paid time off as wages
upon termination."
The Plaintiffs additionally seek to be appointed as class
representatives and appoint the undersigned as class counsel.
Nebraska Book Company, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Nebraska
Book Holdings, Inc., which also includes PrismRBS, Campus Store
Design, and Campus Advisory Services. NBC was Founded in 1915 with
a single college store near the University of Nebraska campus.[CC]
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 24, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Z2WRfg at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Michael C. Iadevaia, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS, & GARVEY, PLLC
223 Rosa Parks Ave. Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
miadevaia@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Daniel H. Friedman, Esq.
FRIEDMAN LAW OFFICES, PC, LLO
3800 Normal Blvd., Suite 200
Lincoln, NE 68501
Telephone: (402) 476-1093
E-mail: dfriedman@friedmanlaw.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
TURKE & STRAUSS LLP
613 Williamson St., Suite 201
Madison, WI 53703
Telephone: (608) 237-1775
Facsimile: (608) 509-4423
E-mail: sam@turkestrauss.com
raina@turkestrauss.com
- and -
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
Amina A. Thomas, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
E-mail: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
athomas@cohenandmalad.com
NEW YORK, NY: Court Dismisses L.T. Class Suit
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as L.T., Individually and as
Next Friend to Her Child, C.T., et al., v. NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT
OF EDUCATION, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-09826-MMG (S.D.N.Y.), the
Hon. Judge Margaret Garnett entered an order as follows:
-- granting Defendants' motion to dismiss,
-- denying as moot the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, subclass certification, and a preliminary
injunction.
-- directing the Clerk of directed to CLOSE the case.
On Nov. 6, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed this action. On Feb. 9, 2024,
the Plaintiffs filed the FAC, alleging that New York City law and
regulations purport to limit public school attendance, and
accordingly, the provision of FAPE, until the end of the school
year in which a student turns 21 or upon the receipt of a high
school diploma, in contravention of the IDEA, Section 504, and
Section 1983, and that the Defendants have applied those
regulations to deny the Plaintiffs' children a FAPE between the end
of the school year in which they turn 21 and their 22nd birthday.
The New York City Department of Education is the department of the
government of New York City that manages the city's public school
system. The City School District of the City of New York is the
largest school system in the United States, with over 1.1 million
students taught in more than 1,800 separate schools.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 24, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=S53zkf at no extra
charge.[CC]
NEW YORK, NY: Lewis Suit Seeks Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAYMOND LEWIS and AARON
ORTEGA On Behalf of Themselves and all Others Similarly Situated,
v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-09460-DLC
(S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order
certifying case to proceed as a class action on behalf of the
following Classes:
1) New Admissions Class A:
"All new admission COVID 19-negative, asymptomatic pre-trial
detainees quarantined at EMTC from Sept. 20, 2021, through
June 18, 2024, who were denied all opportunities for
meaningful outdoor and indoor exercise for greater than 14
consecutive days."
2) New Admissions Class B:
"All new admission COVID 19-negative, asymptomatic pre-trial
detainees quarantined at EMTC from Sept. 20, 2021, through
June 18, 2024, who were denied all opportunities for
meaningful outdoor and indoor exercise for 10-14 consecutive
days."
3) Housing Class:
"All pre-trial detainees housed at EMTC on a non-quarantine
basis from Sept. 1, 2023, through June 18, 2024, who were
denied all opportunities for meaningful outdoor exercise for
greater than 30 consecutive days."
New York City comprises 5 boroughs sitting where the Hudson River
meets the Atlantic Ocean.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 21, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DjNCCw at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Steven J. German, Esq.
Joel M. Rubenstein, Esq.
GERMAN RUBENSTEIN LLP
19 West 44th Street, Suite 1500
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (212) 704-2020
Facsimile: (212) 704-2077
NEWPORT GROUP: Settlement in Wade Suit Gets Initial Nod
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wade, et al., v. Newport
Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01126 (W.D. Tenn.), he Hon.
Judge S. Thomas Anderson entered an order granting the Plaintiffs'
motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement with
AMEC defendants and Defendant Newport Group, Inc.
The Court finds that the Rule 23 standard for preliminary approval
of the AMEC settlement and the Newport settlement is met.
Therefore, the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval is
granted.
The AMEC Defendants' partial motion to dismiss certain claims
against them in the Plaintiffs' second amended complaint is denied
as moot.
Newport's partial motion to dismiss certain claims against it in
Plaintiff's second amended complaint and partial motion to dismiss
AMEC's cross-claims are likewise denied as moot.
The Court finds that the UAW factors favor preliminary approval of
the settlement. Having made a determination of each of the Rule
23(e)(2) factors and the UAW factors, the Court concludes that it
will likely be able to approve the settlement under Rule 23(e)(2).
This multidistrict litigation concerns losses to a non-ERISA
retirement plan established by the African Methodist Episcopal
Church for its clergy and employees. Plaintiffs are current or
retired clergy of the church and have alleged a number of claims
under Tennessee law against the denomination, church officials,
third-party service providers to the plan, and other alleged
tortfeasors.
On June 2, 2022, the Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred
the civil actions to this Court, finding that consolidation would
"serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the
just and efficient conduct of this litigation."
The case is consolidated in RE: AME CHURCH EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND
LITIGATION, Lead Case No., 1:22–md–03035–STA–jay.
A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion and order dated March 24,
2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=kQydDC at no extra charge.[CC]
NICHOLAS MALWITZ: Conejo Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ADRIAN CONEJO, CHRISTOPHER
ASHMORE, JASON MACK, MIGUEL ACOSTA, JEFFREY MARTIN, DAVID
KELSCH-HAGHIRI, REBECCA HAMPTON, RACHEL CALDWELL, ALFONSO BARAJAS,
ANGEL LOUGH, COLE TIMIAN, MARQUIVAS AVEREY CRAWFORD, CODY PITTSER,
AND DANIEL GARZA, in their individual capacities and on behalf of
others similarly situated, v. NICHOLAS ("NIC") MALWITZ, an
individual, Case No. 1:24-cv-00232-CNS-NRN (D. Colo.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting motion for Rule
23 class certification:
The Plaintiffs also request that the Court enter an order:
-- designating the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives,
-- designating Plaintiffs' counsel as Class Counsel, and
-- providing for the issuance of judicial Notice.
The proposed class consists of:
"all individuals, aside from the Defendant Malwitz and his
immediate family, who worked for Steel Huggers, LLC and
Defendant Malwitz and are Plaintiffs in this action and/or
were identified in the Steel Huggers bankruptcy filings as
being owed unpaid wages."
In the case, initially five individuals filed an action against
Defendant Nicholas Malwitz, alleging that they were owed unpaid
wages and related damages for work performed at Steel Huggers, LLC,
which was and is subject to a bankruptcy stay and that Defendant
Malwitz was their joint "employer" pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) and Colorado Wage Claim Acts.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 24, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=hk9R2z at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Penn A. Dodson, Esq.
ANDERSONDODSON, P.C.
14143 Denver West Pkwy., Suite 100-50
Golden, CO 80401
Telephone: (212) 961-7639
E-mail: penn@andersondodson.com
NISSAN NORTH: Cars Have Door Lock Defect, Khalifa Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
DEENA KHALIFA, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-02777-AGT
(N.D. Cal., March 24, 2025) arises from Nissan's long-standing
concealment of a uniform latent defect in the door lock actuators
of several vehicle models: the 2013-25 Altima, 2014-25 Rogue, and
2013-25 Sentra.
Accordingly, when the door lock defect manifests, the power door
locks fail to operate correctly, resulting in doors flying open
during operation, spontaneous and unintended locking or unlocking
of doors, and/or an inability for passengers to open the doors at
all.
As a result of the defect, consumers have reported being trapped
inside their vehicles, often having to crawl out of windows to free
themselves. In multiple other reports, the door locking mechanism
and automatic windows have malfunctioned simultaneously,
eliminating the window as an emergency exit and requiring the use
of force to rescue trapped occupants, asserts the lawsuit.
On March 13, 2020, Plaintiff Khalifa purchased a new model year
2020 Nissan Rogue from San Leandro Nissan, an authorized Nissan
dealership located in San Leandro, California. The Plaintiff
Khalifa purchased the vehicle for personal, family, and/or
household purposes.
Nissan designed, engineered, developed, manufactured, fabricated,
assembled, equipped, tested or failed to test, inspected or failed
to inspect, repaired, retrofitted or failed to retrofit, failed to
recall all affected Class Vehicles, labeled, advertised, promoted,
marketed, supplied, distributed, wholesaled, and/or sold the Class
Vehicle, including the Class Vehicles purchased by the Plaintiff,
the lawsuit adds.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
Yana Hart, Esq.
Mark Richards, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
22525 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90265
Tel: (213) 788-4050
E-mail: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
yhart@clarksonlawfirm.com
mrichards@clarksonlawfirm.com
NORTH-EAST DECK: Faces Wage Class Action Suit in E.D. Pa.
---------------------------------------------------------
The Edelson Lechtzin LLP law firm filed a lawsuit on behalf of
construction workers who allege that their employer, North-East
Deck & Steel Supply, failed to pay them prevailing wages on public
works projects and required them to perform off-the-clock tasks
that resulted in unpaid overtime.
What are "prevailing wages"?
Prevailing wages are the minimum hourly rate that companies working
on publicly funded construction projects must pay workers in a
particular geographic area.
Public works projects funded by $25,000 or more of state funds are
subject to Pennsylvania's Prevailing Wage Act. Public works
projects that receive more than $2,000 in federal funds are subject
to the Davis-Bacon Act.
When a contractor is awarded a public works project subject to the
PWA or the DBA, the contractor agrees that it will pay its workers
in accordance with prevailing wage laws.
What are the plaintiffs' claims?
The Class Action Complaint, filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, asserts claims
under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), 29 U.S.C.
Secs. 201, et seq., the Pennsylvania Prevailing Wage Act, 43 P.S.
Sec. 165-1, et seq., and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment Collection
Law, 43 P.S. Sec. 260.1, et seq. Plaintiffs also assert common law
causes of action for breach of contract, restitution, and unjust
enrichment.
How did this happen?
A prevailing wage schedule is generated in conjunction with every
public works project. The prevailing wage schedule sets forth each
job classification and the hourly wage applicable to that job for
the Project.
The plaintiffs claim that North-East has engaged in a "systematic
and clandestine scheme" of wage theft by misclassifying jobs
performed by the company's employees. In this case, both plaintiffs
worked as crane operators and should have been paid under the job
classification for such work. However, North-East shortchanged the
plaintiffs by paying them the lower hourly rate for iron workers.
North-East paid the fringe benefits portion of the plaintiffs'
wages as though they were independent contractors, in violation of
the prevailing wage laws. By misclassifying the plaintiffs as
non-employee independent contractors, North-East avoided paying its
portion of payroll taxes on the fringe benefit component of the
plaintiffs' hourly wages.
Finally, the Complaint alleges that North-East refused to pay
Plaintiffs and similarly situated prevailing wage workers for any
time over forty (40) hours per week, even though the company was
aware that the plaintiffs spent a minimum of two-and-a-half hours
per week performing pre-shift safety checks, which should have been
paid at an overtime rate. Instead, the company required the
plaintiffs to perform this essential work entirely off-the-clock.
The case is Lipinski et al. v. North-East Deck & Steel Supply LLC,
case number 5:25-cv-01467, in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania. [GN]
NUTRAMAX LABORATORIES: Faces Class Suit Over Supplements' False Ads
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Amy Lynn Stewart filed a
class action lawsuit against Nutramax Laboratories Consumer Care
Inc.
Why: Stewart claims Nutramax falsely advertises its Cosamin joint
pain supplements as being able to provide relief from joint pain.
Where: The Nutramax class action was filed in Florida federal
court.
A new class action lawsuit alleges Nutramax Laboratories Consumer
Care Inc. falsely advertises its Cosamin joint pain supplements as
being able to provide relief from joint pain.
Plaintiff Amy Lynn Stewart claims Nutramax falsely advertises its
Cosamin DS, Cosamin ASU, Cosamin Sport and Cosamin Muscle & Joint
supplements as being able to provide joint comfort and relief from
pain.
Stewart argues Nutramax misled consumers into paying a premium for
the Cosamin supplements by claiming they are "scientifically
proven" to help promote joint comfort by protecting cartilage.
"These claims are false and misleading," the Nutramax class action
says.
Stewart wants to represent a nationwide class and Florida subclass
of consumers who purchased the Cosamin supplements.
Benefits of Cosamin supplements not supported by science, class
action says
Stewart claims Nutramax knew or should have known that its Cosamin
supplements were falsely advertised as being able to provide relief
for joint pain.
"Defendant's representations concerning the Products are unfair,
unlawful and fraudulent and have the tendency or capacity to
deceive or confuse reasonable consumers," the Nutramax class action
states.
Stewart accuses Nutramax of violating the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act. She demands a jury trial and requests
declaratory and injunctive relief and an award of compensatory,
statutory and punitive damages for herself and all class members.
In 2013, a federal panel centralized three class action lawsuits
accusing Nutramax of falsely advertising the benefits of its
Cosamin DS and Cosamin ASU, which contain glucosamine and
chondroitin.
The plaintiff is represented by William Wright and Kelly Mata of
The Wright Law Office P.A.
The Nutramax class action lawsuit is Stewart v. Nutramax
Laboratories Consumer Care Inc., Case No. 6:25-cv-00253, in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
Orlando Division. [GN]
OFF LEASH: Ashworth Allowed Leave to Conduct Discovery
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BETH SARVER ASHWORTH, v.
OFF LEASH K9 TRAINING CENTRAL FLORIDA LLC, Case No.
6:24-cv-01858-CEM-LHP (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Leslie Hoffman
Price entered an order granting Plaintiff's motion for leave to
take discovery.
The Plaintiff shall have 90 days from the date of this Order to
conduct class certification and damages related discovery.
On or before expiration of this deadline, the Plaintiff shall file
a motion for default judgment.
The Plaintiff Beth Sarver Ashworth instituted this action on Oct.
16, 2024, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated,
alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
("TCPA").
Despite proper service on Oct. 25, 2024, the Defendant Off Leash K9
Training Central Florida LLC has not appeared in this case. On
Plaintiff's motion, Clerk's default was entered against the
Defendant on Jan. 14, 2025.
Off Leash offers High-Level Obedience Dog Training for all Dogs
regardless of size, age, or breed.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 24, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fV6uIr at no extra
charge.[CC]
PENNSYLVANIA STATE EDUCATION: Minarchick Files Suit in Pa. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Pennsylvania State
Education Association. The case is styled as Gregory Minarchick,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Pennsylvania
State Education Association, Case No. 2025-CV-02481 (Pa. Ct. of
Common Pleas, Dauphin Cty., March 24, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Miscellaneous - Civil."
Pennsylvania State Education Association (PSEA) --
https://www.psea.org/ -- is a community of education professionals
who make a difference in the lives of students every day.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick Howard, Esq.
1650 Market St, Fl 52
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7390
PERPETUA RESOURCES: Barnes Sues Over Securities Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCISCO BARNES, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PERPETUA RESOURCES CORP., JONATHAN
CHERRY, and JESSICA LARGENT, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00160-DKG
(D. Idaho, March 20, 2025), seeks to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The Plaintiff brings this federal securities class action on behalf
of all investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Perpetua
securities between April 17, 2024, to February 13, 2025, inclusive.
Throughout the said period, Defendants provided overwhelmingly
positive statements to investors while, at the same time,
disseminating materially false and misleading statements and/or
concealing material adverse facts concerning the true cost of the
Stibnite Gold Project; notably, the true impact of inflation and
undisclosed decisions Defendants had made or were otherwise
contemplating which had resulted in a drastic increase in projected
initial capital expense. Such statements absent these material
facts caused Plaintiff and other shareholders to purchase
Perpetua's securities at artificially inflated prices.
Perpetua Resources Corp. is a development-stage company engaged in
acquiring mining properties. The company's common stock traded on
the NASDAQ Stock Market under the symbol "PPTA." [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jaren Wieland, Esq.
MOONEY WIELAND WARREN
512 W. Idaho Street, Suite 103
Boise, ID 83702
Telephone: (208) 401-9219
E-mail: jaren.wieland@mooneywieland.com
- and -
Adam M. Apton, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 363-7500
E-mail: aapton@zlk.com
PERPETUA RESOURCES: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action securities lawsuit was filed against Perpetua
Resources Corp. that seeks to recover losses of shareholders who
were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between April
17, 2024 and February 13, 2025.
CASE DETAILS: According to the complaint, defendants provided
investors with material information concerning Perpetua's expected
initial capital expenditure for the Stibnite Gold Project.
Defendants' statements included, among other things, minimization
of the impact of inflation and other potential sources for
increased capital expenditure costs for the project.
On February 13, 2025, Perpetua published an updated cash flow model
for the Stibnite Gold Project, unveiling additional capital
expenses of $952 million, a more than 75% increase from the
original figures presented to investors and well beyond the
suggested 10-20% increase contemplated by defendants. The Company
attributed these increased costs on inflation, indirect costs,
higher mining costs, and direct decisions defendants made with
respect to the project, including the choice to change the design
of the electrical poles from timber to steel and the decision to
"buy-and-build instead of lease the oxygen plant."
Following this news, the price of Perpetua's common stock declined
dramatically. From a closing market price of $11.97 per share on
February 13, 2025, Perpetua's stock price fell to $9.29 per share
on February 14, 2025, a decline of about 22.39% in the span of just
a single day.
WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Perpetua Resources Corp.
stock during the relevant time frame - even if you still hold your
shares - go to
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/perpetua-resources-corp-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=138436&wire=1
to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or
obligation to participate.
WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP
has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities
litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars
for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning
high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing
investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70
employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi &
Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top
50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the
United States. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Ed Korsinsky, Esq.
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
https://zlk.com/ [GN]
POST CONSUMER: Court Narrows Claims in Landry Suit
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALEX LANDRY, individually
and on behalf of all other similarly situated current citizens of
Illinois and the United States, v. POST CONSUMER BRANDS, LLC, Case
No. 3:24-cv-01661-SPM (S.D. Ill.), the Hon. Judge Stephen McGlynn
entered an order granting the Defendant's request to take judicial
notice and granting in part and denying in part its motion to
dismiss.
-- Counts II and V of the Plaintiff Alex Landry's complaint are
dismissed with prejudice.
-- Counts I, III-IV, and VI survive dismissal and shall proceed
into class discovery.
-- The Court will set a scheduling conference via a separate
order.
The Court has the authority "to take judicial notice of government
websites." Accordingly, Post's Request for Judicial Notice is
granted.
Because Landry stated a claim under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act ("ICFA"), he also stated a claim
for unjust enrichment. Therefore, the unjust enrichment claim
survives.
The Court, in accordance with Seventh Circuit precedent and the
decisions of other courts within this Circuit, agrees that the
predominance question is best suited for a determination at the
class certification stage, and thus declines to make a Rule 23
determination at this time.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 24, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YWwRuX at no extra
charge.[CC]
POST CONSUMER: Faces Class Suit Over Rachael Ray Nutrish Pet Foods
------------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Sevak Krikorian has filed
a class action lawsuit against Post Consumer Brands LLC.
Why: Krikorian claims Post Consumer Brands falsely advertises its
Rachael Ray Nutrish pet food products as being preservative-free.
Where: The Rachael Ray pet food class action lawsuit was filed in
California federal court.
A new nationwide class action lawsuit claims Post Consumer Brands
falsely advertises its Rachael Ray Nutrish pet food products as
being preservative-free.
Plaintiff Sevak Krikorian claims Post Consumer Brands falsely
advertises the Rachael Ray pet food products as containing no
artificial preservatives when they actually contain artificially
produced citric acid.
Krikorian wants to represent a nationwide class and California
subclass of consumers who purchased Rachael Ray pet food products
within the past four years.
Rachael Ray pet food class action claims consumers were misled
"Defendant knows that consumers are willing to pay more for
natural, healthy products, and advertises the Products with the
intention that consumers rely on the Challenged Representations
made on the front of the Products packaging," the Rachael Ray pet
food class action says.
Krikorian alleges Post Consumer Brands' alleged misconduct allowed
it to maintain an unfair competitive advantage over its "lawfully
acting" competitors.
Krikorian claims Post Consumer Brands is guilty of unjust
enrichment and breach of express warranty and violated California's
Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law and Consumers Legal
Remedies Act.
Krikorian demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and
injunctive relief and an award of compensatory, statutory and
punitive damages for himself and all class members.
It's the latest in a string of class action lawsuits alleging
companies have falsely advertised pet food as natural. These
allegations target Merrick Pet Care, together with Mars Petcare
and Wellness Pet Company for containing multiple synthetic
ingredients.
Do you believe the allegations made in this pet food class action
lawsuit? Let us know in the comments.
The plaintiffs are represented by Valter Malkhasyan and Erik
Pogosyan of Malk & Pogo Law Group LLP.
The Rachael Ray pet food class action lawsuit is Krikorian, et al.
v. Post Consumer Brands LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-02122, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California. [GN]
PREMIER NUTRITION: Appeals Damages Award Ruling in Montera Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
PREMIER NUTRITION COMPANY, LLC is taking an appeal from a court
order in the lawsuit entitled Mary Beth Montera, Plaintiff, v.
Premier Nutrition Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
3:16-cv-06980-RS, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated New York
consumers, brought this class action suit against the Defendant for
alleged violations of Sections 349 and 350 of the New York General
Business Law (GBL) in connection with its promotion and marketing
of Joint Juice, a line of joint health dietary supplements.
Mary Beth Montera, representing the class, sought an aggregated
statutory damages award based on both statutes, amounting to $550
per violation, for a total award of approximately $91 million.
Premier raised a substantive due process challenge to that award.
At that point, the Ninth Circuit had not yet addressed whether
aggregated statutory damages awards were subject to constitutional
limits, and if so, how to evaluate those challenges. Based on the
limited appellate guidance and analogizing to cases reducing
punitive damages, Montera's statutory damages award was reduced to
$50 per violation for a total of approximately $8.3 million.
Montera now contends she and the other purchasers are entitled to
an award of $83,124,500, or $500 per violation under GBL Sec. 350.
Premier re-raised its constitutional challenge to the award,
advancing a new argument based on the legislative history of the
relevant New York statutes. Because Montera would be barred from
seeking class-wide statutory damages in New York state court,
Premier concludes the class is entitled to only actual damages.
The Court ruled that the class is entitled to some statutory
damages, but $83 million is so large as to violate Premier's right
to substantive due process. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs were
awarded $8,312,450 in statutory damages.
The appellate case is captioned Montera, et al. v. Premier
Nutrition Company, LLC, Case No. 25-1743, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 17, 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 31,
2025;
-- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on April 29, 2025;
-- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on June 9, 2025; and
-- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on July 8, 2025. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellee MARY BETH MONTERA, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
Leslie E. Hurst, Esq.
Thomas Joseph O'Reardon, II, Esq.
BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON LLP
501 West Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 338-1100
- and -
Eugene G. Iredale, Esq.
IREDALE AND YOO, APC
105 West F. Street, 4th Floor
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 233-1525
Defendant-Appellant PREMIER NUTRITION COMPANY, LLC, formerly known
as Joint Juice, Inc., is represented by:
Chad M. Drown, Esq.
Aaron Daniel Van Oort, Esq.
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH, LLP
90 S. 7th Street, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 766-7000
(612) 766-8138
- and -
David Belcher, Esq.
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH, LLP
1800 Century Park East, Suite 1500
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 203-4000
PREMIER NUTRITION: Appeals Montera Suit Ruling to Supreme Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
PREMIER NUTRITION COMPANY, LLC is taking an appeal from a court
order in the lawsuit entitled Mary Beth Montera, Plaintiff, v.
Premier Nutrition Corporation, Defendant, Case No.
3:16-cv-06980-RS, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated New York
consumers, brought this class action suit against the Defendant for
alleged violations of Sections 349 and 350 of the New York General
Business Law (GBL) in connection with its promotion and marketing
of Joint Juice, a line of joint health dietary supplements.
Mary Beth Montera, representing the class, sought an aggregated
statutory damages award based on both statutes, amounting to $550
per violation, for a total award of approximately $91 million.
Premier raised a substantive due process challenge to that award.
At that point, the Ninth Circuit had not yet addressed whether
aggregated statutory damages awards were subject to constitutional
limits, and if so, how to evaluate those challenges. Based on the
limited appellate guidance and analogizing to cases reducing
punitive damages, Montera's statutory damages award was reduced to
$50 per violation for a total of approximately $8.3 million.
Montera contended that she and the other purchasers are entitled to
an award of $83,124,500, or $500 per violation under GBL Sec. 350.
Premier re-raised its constitutional challenge to the award,
advancing a new argument based on the legislative history of the
relevant New York statutes. Because Montera would be barred from
seeking class-wide statutory damages in New York state court,
Premier concluded the class is entitled to only actual damages.
Judge Richard Seeborg held that the class is entitled to some
statutory damages, but $83 million is so large as to violate
Premier's right to substantive due process. Accordingly, the
Plaintiffs were awarded $8,312,450 in statutory damages.
On Mar. 17, 2025, Premier appealed Judge Seeborg's Order awarding
statutory damages of $8.3 million on remand to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On the same day, Premier filed a
petition for a writ of certiorari.
The appellate case is captioned Premier Nutrition Corporation,
formerly known as Joint Juice, Inc., Petitioner vs. Mary Beth
Montera, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Case No. 25-999, in the Supreme Court of United States,
filed on March 20, 2025. [BN]
Plaintiff-Respondent MARY BETH MONTERA, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Timothy G. Blood, Esq.
BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON LLP
501 West Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 338-1100
Email: tblood@bholaw.com
Defendant-Petitioner PREMIER NUTRITION COMPANY, LLC, formerly known
as Joint Juice, Inc., is represented by:
Aaron Daniel Van Oort, Esq.
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH, LLP
90 S. 7th Street, Suite 2200
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 766-8138
Email: aaron.vanoort@faegredrinker.com
PRINCESS POLLY: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hippe Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
XINYUE HIPPE, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Princess Polly USA, Inc., Case No. 0:25-cv-60565-WPD
(S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2025) sues the Defendant for its failure to
design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website,
https://us.princesspolly.com, to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired per-sons under the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
When visiting the Website, the Plaintiff contends that using JAWS,
encountered these specific accessibility issues:
-- Images on the website had inappropriate and unclear
alternative text. The Plaintiff could not receive accurate
information from the non-text element of content; and
-- Heading hierarchy was not properly defined, and there were
missing heading levels. As a result, quick navigation through
headings on the website did not help the Plaintiff effectively
find the content and understand the logical structure of the
home page.
The Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer frustration and
humiliation as a result of the discriminatory conditions present on
the Defendant's Website. These discriminatory conditions con-tinue
to contribute to the Plaintiff's sense of isolation and
segregation, the suit contends.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Us.princesspolly.com provides to the public a wide array of the
goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by
Princess Polly USA.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Davis B. Reyes, Esq.
EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
68-29 Main Street
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (630) 478-0856
E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law
RDK RESTAURANT: Pretrial Management Order Entered in Mullins Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DERICK MULLINS, v. RDK
RESTAURANT CORP. and 180 SPEING LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01044-PAE-BCM
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding
general pretrial management:
Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery must be
initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set by
the Court.
Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting
discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for
such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule
37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. It is
the Court's practice to decide discovery disputes at the Rule 37.2
conference, based on the parties' letters, unless a party requests
or the Court requires more formal briefing. Absent extraordinary
circumstances, discovery applications made later than 30 days prior
to the close of discovery may be denied as untimely.
For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion conferences
are not required but may be requested where counsel believe that an
informal conference with the Court may obviate the need for a
motion or narrow the issues.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 21, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5tN5X3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
REALTY WHOLESALERS: Piper Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Kyle Piper, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. REALTY WHOLESALERS, INC., a Florida
for-profit corporation, and WEINTRAUB & WEINTRAUB, P.A., a Florida
professional association, Case No. 25-001922 was removed from the
Circuit Court of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for
Broward County, Florida, to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida on March 21, 2025, and assigned
Case No. 0:25-cv-60542-DSL.
The Plaintiff instituted the civil action on February 11, 2025 by
filing a Complaint for Violations of the Real Estate Settlement
Practices Act ("RESPA"). The Plaintiffs causes of action are: Count
I Violation of 12 USC Section 2607, Count II; Violation of 12 USC
Section 2608, Count III; Violation of Florida Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act Section 501.21, and Count IV Unjust Enrichment
against Codefendant Weintraub.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jeffrey B. Shalek, Esq.
ATTORNEY FOR REALTY WHOLESALERS, INC.
3020 NE 32nd Avenue, Suite 226
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl 33308
Phone: (954) 408-2060
Primary Email: jeffshalek@gmail.com
RESIDENT HOME: Molloy Sues Over Deceptive Pricing Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------
Regina Molloy, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. RESIDENT HOME, LLC, Case No. 25STCV06804
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 10, 2025), is brought
against Defendant for its false and deceptive pricing practices in
connection with its sale of mattresses, bedding and furniture on
its website www.sienasleep.com ("Website") and affiliated
websites.
The Defendant advertised fake and inflated comparison reference
prices to deceive customers into a false belief that the sale price
is a deeply discounted bargain price. For example, anyone visiting
the Website on a given day would see an advertisement displaying
"Up To 50% Off' on mattresses. 10 The mattresses were then offered
for sale with a stricken value alongside the purported 11 sale
offer. In doing so, Defendant misled its customers into believing
that they were receiving a significant discount from Defendant's
ordinary price for mattresses.
This is deception because the mattresses were rarely, if ever, sold
for the stricken amount. Further, Defendant is a direct-to-consumer
business that manufacturers its mattresses and sells them through
the Website and affiliated websites. Accordingly, Defendant cannot
justifiably claim that another retailer has sold that mattress for
the crossed-out reference price.
In other words, Defendant's advertised "sales" were not really
sales at all. They were a misrepresentation that Defendant repeated
over and over. The reference prices on Defendant's Website and
affiliated websites were fake. They were not original, regular,
retail, or former prices. They were inflated prices posted to lure
unsuspecting customers into jumping at a fictitious "bargain" and
intended to mislead customers into believing that the value of the
mattress they were buying was higher than reality. That is,
Defendant engaged in this deceptive advertising and pricing scheme
to give customers the false impression that they were getting a
deal or bargain when in reality they were being swindled by fake
sales and promotions. Defendant exacerbated this deception by
advertising that its purported sales were limited in time, where in
reality the same or substantially similar "sales" were offered
continuously or almost continuously, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff accessed the Website and made her purchase from Los
Angeles County, California and received her mattress in Los Angeles
County, California.
The Defendant sells mattresses under the brands Siena, Nectar,
Dreamcloud, Awara, and Cloverlane.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew C. Wolf, Esq.
Lauren VanDenburg, Esq.
TURNER HENNINGSEN WOLF & VANDENBURG, LLP
707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 3700
Los Angeles, CA 9001 7
Phone: 323-653-3900
Fax: 323-653-3021
Email: mwolf@thwvlaw.com
lvandenburg@thwvlaw.com
RETIREMENT LIVING: Pittman Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------
Imani Pittman, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. RETIREMENT LIVING MANAGEMENT OF STANDALE, LLC d/b/a
GREEN ACRES OF STANDALE, Case No. 1:25-cv-00335-JMB-MV (W.D. Mich.,
March 27, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other
relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
The Plaintiff's most recent base hourly rate of pay was $16.00. In
addition to the base rate of pay, Defendant incorporated various
types of routine and non-discretionary pay into their payment
structure. For example, Defendant paid employees shift differential
pay. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, Plaintiff
was not earning a consistent and properly calculated overtime wage
that included shift differential pay and other remuneration in the
regular rate for proper overtime calculation. As non-exempt
employees, Defendant's hourly employees were entitled to full
compensation for all overtime hours worked at a rate of 1.5 times
their "regular rate" of pay, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from June 2024 through
January 2025 as a direct care worker.
The Defendant owns and manages retirement and assisted living
communities throughout Michigan.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jesse L. Young, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600
Kalamazoo, MI 49007
Phone: (269) 250-7500
Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com
- and -
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Town Square
Southfield, MI 48076
Phone: (248) 355-0300
Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com
ROUNDY'S SUPERMARKETS: Wargolet Suit Removed to E.D. Wisconsin
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jason Wargolet, on behalf of himself and
those similarly situated v. ROUNDY'S SUPERMARKETS, INC., and DOES
1-10, Case No. 2025-CV-000777 was removed from the Circuit Court of
Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, to the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Wisconsin on Feb. 28, 2025, and
assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00622-TWR-VET.
The Plaintiff alleges that "Roundy's operates approximately 100
Pick n' Save and Metro Market stores across Wisconsin," and "labels
on items sold in Pick 'n Save and Metro Market stores across the
state exaggerated the amount of food or product contained –
overcharging customers by an average of $1.44 per item from 2022 to
2023, and during other periods."[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Bruce A. McMullen, Esq.
Mary Wu Tullis, Esq.
BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, P.C.
165 Madison Avenue, Suite 2000
Memphis, TN 38103
Phone: 901.526.2000
Fax: 901.577.2303
Email: bmcmullen@bakerdonelson.com
mtullis@bakerdonelson.com
- and -
Emery K. Harlan, Esq.
Carlos Pastrana, Esq.
MWH LAW GROUP LLP
735 N. Water Street, Suite 610
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Phone: (414) 436-0353
Facsimile: (414) 436-0354
Email: emery.harlan@mwhlawgroup.com
carlos.pastrana@mwhlawgroup.com
SHADE STORE: Crowder Seeks to Certify Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHARON CROWDER, JOEL
LUMIAN, ROBERT SMITH, AMANDA GOLDWASSER, and MARK ELKINS, each
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE
SHADE STORE, LLC, Case No. 5:23-cv-02331-NC (N.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify class action.
The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class and subclasses:
"All Class Members who received a trade discount (the "trade
discount" subclass)."
"All Class Members who received a discount available to the
general public (i.e., any discount other than a trade
discount) (the "public discount" subclass)."
Excluded from the Class are persons who received a full
refund on their purchase, or who purchased The Shade Store
products in question for resale. Also excluded are any Judge
or Magistrate presiding over this case, Defendant and its
employees or affiliates, anyone who opts out, anyone who has
previously released their claims, and the Plaintiffs' and
Defendant's counsel and experts.
The Plaintiffs also move for their appointment as class
representatives and for the appointment of Dovel & Luner LLP as
class counsel.
The Plaintiffs are all customers who bought window treatment
products from The Shade Store at a supposed discount. All were
deceived by The Shade Store's fake discounts. They assert claims
under section 1770(a)(13) of the California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act (CLRA) and section 17501 of the California's False
Advertising Law (FAL), both of which specifically prohibit fake
discounting.
Shade Store sells custom window treatments such as shades, drapes,
and blinds.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 24, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=32mQQG at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Simon Franzini, Esq.
Martin Brenner, Esq.
DOVEL & LUNER, LLP
201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (310) 656-7066
Facsimile: (310) 656-7069
E-mail: simon@dovel.com
martin@dovel.com
SIX LITTLE PEACHES: Feltzin Sues Over Discriminative Property
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Feltzin, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated v. SIX LITTLE PEACHES, LLLP, Case No. 9:25-cv-80378-XXXX
(S.D. Fla., March 21, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the
Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by
denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods,
services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations
of the commercial property.
Although over 30 years have passed since the effective date of
Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities
accessible to individuals with disabilities. The Plaintiff found
the Commercial Property and the business located within the
commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff
encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property and
the business located within the commercial property and wishes to
continue his patronage and use of the premises.
The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in
violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and
businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to
access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each
denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial
Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA.
The barriers to access have likewise posed a risk of injury(ies),
embarrassment, and discomfort to Plaintiff and others similarly
situated.
The Defendants have discriminated against the individual Plaintiff
by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or
accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located
therein, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate.
SIX LITTLE PEACHES, LLLP, owns, operates, and oversees the
Commercial Property, its general parking lot/or and parking spots
specific to the business therein, located in Palm Beach County,
Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq.
GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L.
350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200
Coral Gables, Fl 33134
Phone: (305) 553-3464
Primary Email: bvirues@lawgmp.com
Secondary Emails: aquezada@lawgmp.com
jacosta@lawgmp.com
- and -
Ramon J. Diego, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A.
5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103
Miami, FL, 33155
Phone: (305) 350-3103
Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com
SMART ROOF: Magnanelli Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------
Jena Magnanelli, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. SMART ROOF LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00519 (E.D. Va., March
25, 2025), is brought for unpaid overtime in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA") and the Virginia Overtime Wage
Act ("VOWA"), and unpaid regular wages under the Virginia Wage
Payment Act ("VWPA").
The Plaintiff contends Defendant has violated and continue to
violate the FLSA and VOWA by having the following policy and
practice: Not including bonuses, commissions, or similar forms of
incentive pay in calculating overtime rates paid to Plaintiff and
similarly situated employees (the "Overtime Rate Policy"). This
policy and practice of Defendant resulted and results in Plaintiff
and similarly situated employees receiving less overtime wages than
they are entitled to receive under the FLSA and VOWA. The
Defendant's policies and/or practices comprising the alleged
violations are ongoing, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a resident of Virginia who was employed by
Defendant in Virginia as a Project Design Scheduling Coordinator
from March 2023 to January 27, 2025.
The Defendant is a roofing and solar company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Timothy Coffield, Esq.
COFFIELD PLC
106-F Melbourne Park Circle
Charlottesville, VA 22901
Phone: (434) 218-3133
Fax: (434) 321-1636
Email: tc@coffieldlaw.com
TENASKA MARKETING: Deutscher Appeals Suit Dismissal to 10th Circuit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ELI DEUTSCHER, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order
dismissing their lawsuit entitled Eli Deutscher, et al.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Tenaska Marketing Ventures, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 6:23-CV-01249-DDC-ADM, in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Kansas.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit
was brought against the Defendants for alleged violation of the
Kansas Consumer Protection Act (KCPA).
According to the complaint, the Defendants profiteered from Winter
Storm Uri in February 2021 within the meaning of the KCPA because
they unjustifiably and substantially: (a) increased the price they
charged for natural gas by more than 25 percent than the price at
which natural gas was available before the disaster; (b) charged
prices for natural gas during the disaster that was 25 percent more
than the price at which natural gas was readily obtainable by other
consumers; and (c) charged unjustifiably high prices for natural
gas that were not attributable to any additional costs that
Defendants incurred in connection with the sale of the product or
service.
On Feb. 28, 2025, Judge Daniel D. Crabtree entered a Memorandum and
Order dismissing all five consolidated actions against all the
Defendants in their entirety with prejudice. The Court concluded
that the Plaintiffs' claims are aimed directly at transactions
occurring in the wholesale natural gas market. Congress has
designated Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) as having
exclusive jurisdiction over the wholesale market. And Congress has
granted FERC authority to enforce policies that police rates and
market manipulation in that field. The Plaintiffs' claims thus fall
into a field that Congress intended FERC and FERC alone to occupy.
As a result, the Natural Gas Act (NGA) preempts the Plaintiffs'
claims here. The Court dismissed them with prejudice.
The Court directed the Clerk of the Court to enter judgment for the
Defendants against the Plaintiffs consistent with its Order.
The appellate case is captioned Deutscher, et al. v. Tenaska
Marketing Ventures, et al., Case No. 25-3052, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, filed on March 21, 2025.
[BN]
Plaintiffs-Appellants ELI DEUTSCHER, et al., individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by:
Jay F. Fowler, Esq.
Jacob Thomas Schmidt, 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 TENASKA MARKETING VENTURES, et al. are
represented by:
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
- and –
Megan Carroll, Esq.
DENTONS
233 South Wacker Drive, Suite 5900
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 876-8000
- and –
Alex Foulkes Grafton, 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
TRINITY PETROLEUM: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Lacy Says
------------------------------------------------------------
AMBER LACY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. TRINITY PETROLEUM MANAGEMENT, LLC AND RIMROCK RESOURCE
OPERATING, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00959-KAS (D. Colo., March 25,
2025) alleges that the Defendants failed to properly secure and
safeguard the Plaintiff's and other similarly situated persons
first and last name and Social Security Number (the private
information) from hackers.
On March 13, 2025, Trinity filed official notice of a hacking
incident with the Office of the Texas Attorney General. On February
13, 2025, Trinity also sent out data breach letters to individuals
whose information was compromised as a result of the hacking
incident (the Notice).
Based on the Notice filed by the company, on October 14, 2024,
Trinity detected unusual activity on some of its computer systems.
In response, the company launched investigation. The Trinity
investigation revealed that between October 10 and October 14,
2024, an unauthorized party had access to certain company files
containing the Private Information that Trinity stored on behalf of
its Clients (the Data Breach).
Yet, Trinity waited four months to notify its Clients and the
public that they were at risk. As a result of this delayed
response, the Plaintiff and "Class Members" (defined below) had no
idea for four months that their Private Information had been
compromised, and that they were, and continue to be, at significant
risk of identity theft and various other forms of personal, social,
and financial harm. The risk will remain for their respective
lifetimes.
The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included
highly sensitive data that represents a gold mine for data thieves,
including but not limited to, first and last name and Social
Security Number that Trinity collected and maintained on behalf of
Rimrock's customers, says the suit.
Trinity, based in Denver, CO, is an energy services company
specializing in oil and gas accounting, land management, and
regulatory compliance solutions, that provides services to
companies nationwide.
Rimrock is an operations management company that supervises
investments made during the exploration, acquisition, and
development of minerals in the Midwest.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500
New York, NY 10151
Telephone: (212) 532-1091
E-mail: tbean@sirillp.com
UAB QBIT: Mashkevich Suit Seeks Provisional Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL MASHKEVICH, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. UAB QBIT
FINANCIAL SERVICE; BYTECHIP LLC d/b/a QBIT and QBITPAY; and YUJUN
WU a/k/a MICHAEL WU, Case No. 5:25-cv-02565-PCP (N.D. Cal.), the
Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting motion for
provisional class certification.
The Plaintiff requests that the Court grant the Motion for
Provisional Class Certification, enter the proposed order submitted
herewith, and grant all other just and appropriate relief.
The Plaintiff has met the prerequisites of Rule 23, and this Court
should provisionally certify the class by granting the proposed
order attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Here for purposes of entering a preliminary injunction, the Court
should provisionally certify the following class:
"All persons and entities who, at the suggestion of the
Scammers or individuals acting under the Scammers' instruction
or control, transferred cryptocurrency into one or more of the
cryptocurrency wallets identified in Appendix A [to the
Complaint] and whose funds were deposited into the THGTen
Destination Wallet."
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 21, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=L3s1SE at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Vijay J. Rajagopal, Esq.
KURICHETY LAW PC
179 McKnight Drive, Suite 6
Laguna Beach, CA 92651
Telephone: (217) 390-2505
E-mail: vijay@kurichetylaw.com
- and -
Michael Kozlowski, Esq.
ESBROOK PC
321 N. Clark Street Suite 1930
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 319-7682
E-mail: michael.kozlowski@esbrook.com
ULTRA CLEAN: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Ultra
Clean Holdings, Inc. ("Ultra Clean" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
UCTT). The lawsuit alleges that Defendants misled investors
regarding demand for Ultra Clean's products and services in the
domestic Chinese market throughout the 2024 fiscal year.
If you bought shares of Ultra Clean between May 6, 2024 and
February 24, 2025, and you suffered a significant loss on that
investment, you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by
contacting Corey D. Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by
toll-free telephone at (888) 508-6832 or you may visit the firm's
website at www.holzerlaw.com/case/ultra-clean-holdings/ to learn
more.
The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the
case is May 23, 2025.
Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law
firm for 2021, 2022, and 2023, dedicates its practice to vigorous
representation of shareholders and investors in litigation
nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative
litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys
have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of
dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate
misconduct. More information about the firm is available through
its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm.
Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this
promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney
responsible for its content.
CONTACT:
Corey Holzer, Esq.
(888) 508-6832 (toll-free)
cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN]
UNITED STATES: Faces Class Suit Over Unlawful Deportation
---------------------------------------------------------
Human Rights First reports that on March 23, 2025, four individuals
with final removal orders filed a national class action in federal
district court in Boston, Massachusetts. The lawsuit challenges the
Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) policy of deporting
noncitizens to countries the government never raised as possible
countries of removal during their immigration proceedings, without
any notice or the opportunity to contest removal due to a fear of
persecution, torture, and even death if deported. The lawsuit also
challenges a secret, February 18, 2025 directive instructing DHS
officers to review the cases of individuals previously released
from immigration detention -- including those who have complied
with the terms of their release for years and even decades -- for
re-detention and removal to a third country. The court set a
hearing on a motion for emergency relief in Boston. Plaintiffs are
represented by National Immigration Litigation Alliance (NILA),
Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP), and Human Rights
First.
DHS has long failed to implement a uniform system to ensure that
individuals are provided notice and an opportunity to apply for
protection before DHS deports a person to a previously unidentified
country. Now, as DHS is under pressure from the Trump
administration to carry out mass deportations, there has been a
dramatic escalation of cases in which individuals are re-detained
and then deported to previously unidentified countries without
notice or opportunity to raise a fear claim. A covert directive
dated February 18, 2025, which was recently leaked to the press,
encourages officers to re-detain people with final orders who could
not be removed, including those who had won protection from the
immigration court. DHS's actions -- including the directive --
place an untold number of noncitizens at imminent risk of
deprivation of liberty and deportation to countries in which they
may be in serious danger, all without the basic procedural
protections of notice and opportunity to present a fear-based
claim.
The four plaintiffs, who are from Cuba, Honduras, Ecuador, and
Guatemala, seek to represent a nationwide class of similarly
situated individuals at risk of re-detention and deportation to a
third country. One of the plaintiffs, O.C.G., who won protection
from deportation to Guatemala, already has been deported to Mexico,
even though he testified in court that he had had been targeted and
raped in Mexico and even though DHS advised the court it was not
seeking to designate Mexico as a country of removal. In Mexico,
authorities gave him the Hobson's choice of languishing in
detention in a country where he had been persecuted, or being
deported to back to persecution in Guatemala. He currently remains
in hiding in Guatemala.
In addition to seeking nationwide certification, the lawsuit seeks
an order declaring DHS's actions in violation of the law, enjoining
the agency from failing to provide notice and an opportunity to
present any fear-based claims, and enjoining the February 18, 2025
re-detention directive.
"Notice and the opportunity to be heard are cornerstones of due
process, deeply rooted in the U.S. justice system. The government's
flagrant violation of its legal obligations is placing noncitizens
at risk of persecution, torture, and even death. But it also should
be deeply concerning to everyone who believes in fair process,"
said Trina Realmuto, Executive Director for NILA.
"We are demanding that DHS operate within the law," said Matt
Adams, legal director for NWIRP. "DHS may not simply ignore the
orders issued by the immigration court providing protection and
remove our clients and proposed class members to another country
without first providing an opportunity to return to court if
necessary."
"The United States is committed by treaty and statute not to send
people to countries where they would suffer persecution or
torture," said Anwen Hughes, Director of Legal Strategy for Refugee
Programs at Human Rights First. "The only way to ensure this does
not happen is to give people notice and an opportunity to raise any
fear claims." [GN]
UNITED STATES: Violates Anti-Discrimination Laws, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
A group of federal employees targeted for dismissal because of
their involvement in diversity, equity and inclusion activities has
filed a class action complaint against the Trump administration.
The complaint alleges that the ongoing mass firings unlawfully
target federal employees based on their perceived political views,
infringe on their First Amendment rights and violate
anti-discrimination laws by disproportionally affecting workers who
are not white men.
The complaint was filed before the Merit Systems Protection Board,
an independent federal agency, by the American Civil Liberties
Union, Democracy Forward and two law firms. It was filed on behalf
of Mahri Stainnak, a 16-year federal employee who was working at
the Office of Personnel Management when they were dismissed as part
of President Donald Trump's executive order to eliminate DEI
programs from the federal government.
According to the complaint, Stainnak had been working as director
of OPM's Talent Innovation Group -- a position that was not
DEI-related -- upon receiving a "Reduction In Force" notice citing
Trump's executive order. Stainnak had previously held the position
of deputy director OPM's Office of DEIA.
The complaint alleges the federal government is violating the
"Reduction in Force" system by firing Stainnak and other employees
for their past work or activities instead of eliminating actual
roles related to DEI. In doing so, the complaint said the Trump
administration's orders "betrays their partisan political goals by
targeting employees, not positions, for RIFs."
Some employees were targeted for participating in employee resource
groups or DEI trainings, rather than their current roles, the
complaint said. It cites Trump's past remarks calling DEI work part
of "leftist ideology" and a "woke" political agenda as evidence
that the government is for their "presumed political affiliation."
A spokesperson for the Justice Department, named as a defendant in
the complaint, did not immediately reply to request for comment.
The complaint before the Merit System Protection Board, an
independent federal agency, is a required step for exhausting
administrative procedures before eventually filing a civil lawsuit
in federal court, said Kelly Dermody of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Bernstein and Mary Kuntz of Kalijarvi, Chuzi, Newman & Fitch PC,
the attorneys representing the workers.
The complaint identifies three other federal employees, currently
on administrative leave, who will be added to the complaint when
their dismissals officially take effect next month. Dermody and
Kuntz said the complaint will continue to be amended to add more
federal workers as their dismissals take effect.
Dermody and Kuntz said their investigation and interviews with
employees indicate that the firings disproportionally affected
workers who are women, people of color and LGBTQ in violation of
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits employment
discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex and national
origin.
The complaint demands that the government provide a list of
employees who were placed on leave or fired because of the DEI
executive order, along with their race and gender. [GN]
UNIVERSITY OF SAN DIEGO: Settles COVID Class Action for $1.4MM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dorian Hargrove, writing for CSB8, reports that The University of
San Diego is paying $1.4 million to settle a class action lawsuit
filed by students who said they did not receive the education they
were promised due to COVID-19 and the transition to virtual
learning.
The university agreed to the settlement in November of last year.
However, the case was officially closed in March 2025.
A group of USD students filed their consolidated lawsuit in April
2021, claiming the private university didn't live up to its
contract with students, and profited from limiting resources that
were not permitted during the pandemic. The students claimed that
virtual learning impacted their education and prevented them from
earning wages that they could have earned through in-person
learning.
The $1.4 million will cover attorney's fees, administration, and
filing fees, leaving a little more than $766,000 for the students
who joined the lawsuit.
According to court documents and the class action website, the
University of San Diego denies the allegations made in the
lawsuit.
"After several years of contentious litigation, including
substantial motion practice, exhaustive discovery, expert
discovery, expert reports, pre-trial submissions, and thoroughly
evaluating the claims and defenses of this action, the Parties
reached a resolution through arm's-length negotiations," reads one
court document.
University of San Diego's decision to settle comes as universities
throughout the country grapple with similar class action dilemmas.
Much like the University of San Diego, some agreed to settle their
cases instead of incurring the legal costs of fighting them.
Late last year, George Washington University paid $5.4 million to
end its class action lawsuit, while Penn State paid $17 million to
settle its lawsuit.
A spokesperson for the University of San Diego told CBS 8 that the
university "worked hard during the pandemic to maintain its high
educational standards during a very difficult time. We firmly
believe that we delivered a strong academic product and deny any
allegations to the contrary. The lawsuit is one of many filed
against universities and colleges across the country by class
action lawyers. We decided to settle to focus our full attention on
our mission." [GN]
URGENT HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper OT Wages, Jenkins Says
---------------------------------------------------------
Maria Jenkins, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Urgent Health Solutions, PLLC, d/b/a Urgent
Doc and Michael G. Iversen, Individually, Defendants, Case No.
9:25-cv-00097-MJT (E.D. Tex., March 20, 2025) asserts claims
arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.
Plaintiff Jenkins has been jointly employed by Defendants from June
2022 through present as an hourly registered nurse, family nurse
practitioner. As a result of the Defendants' illegal practices, the
Defendants' hourly employees were not properly paid overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek, says the
suit.
Urgent Health Solutions, PLLC operates multiple urgent care clinics
that operate under the assumed name "Urgent Doc." [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David G. Langenfeld, Esq.
LEICHTER LAW FIRM
1602 East 7th Street
Austin, TX 78702
Telephone: (512) 495-9995
Facsimile: (512) 482-0164
E-mail: david@leichterlaw.com
VERY PRODUCTS: Donnahoo Suit Removed to C.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Brian Donnahoo, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. A VERY PRODUCTS CORPORATION, a
California corporation; DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No.
30-2025-01457348-CU-NP-CXC was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Orange, to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
March 27, 2025, and assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-00609.
In his putative class action complaint, Donnahoo alleges that Avery
was the victim of a data security incident. Less than two weeks
after receiving Avery's letter, Donnahoo filed his complaint and
asserted the following causes of action against Avery: Negligence
(Count I), Negligence Per Se (Count II), Breach of Implied Contract
(Count III), Unjust Enrichment (Count IV), Violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law (Count V), and Violation of
California's Customer Records Act (Count VI).[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael D. Murphy, Esq.
FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
Constellation Place
10250 Constellation Boulevard, Suite 900
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: 310.598.4150
Facsimile: 310.556.9828
Email: mdmurphy@foxrothschild.com
VICTORIA'S SECRET: Agrees to Settle Missouri Sales Tax Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Victoria's Secret agreed to a class
action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it charged Missouri
customers too much sales tax on out-of-state purchases.
The Victoria's Secret settlement benefits Missouri residents who
purchased at least one physical product from Victoria's Secret
through the company's website between May 18, 2016, and May 18,
2023, where the product was shipped from a location outside of
Missouri and a tax rate higher than the vendor's use tax rate was
applied to the purchase.
Plaintiffs in the Victoria's Secret class action lawsuit claim the
company charged some Missouri customers more state tax than they
should have for products purchased on the company's website that
were shipped from locations outside the state. The plaintiffs claim
this violated Missouri law and caused financial injury to
shoppers.
Victoria's Secret is a lingerie and personal care retailer with
locations around the country and an online retail presence.
Victoria's Secret has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay
an undisclosed sum to resolve the Missouri sales tax class action
lawsuit.
Under the terms of the Victoria's Secret settlement, class members
will receive an automatic payment based on the amount of vendor's
use tax that would have applied to their qualifying purchases.
Payment amounts will vary depending on the amount of money
originally charged, the number of class members eligible for a
refund and the total amount of money available to the settlement
class. No payment estimates are available at this time.
Any funds remaining in the settlement fund after distribution will
be donated to the Crime Victim Center of St. Louis or another
non-profit organization. The remaining funds will not revert to
Victoria's Secret.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is May 16, 2025.
The final approval hearing for the Missouri sales tax settlement is
scheduled for June 2, 2025.
No claim form is required to benefit from the settlement, and a
notification will be automatically sent by email. Class members who
do not exclude themselves will automatically receive a settlement
payment.
Who's Eligible
Consumers who made a qualifying purchase from Victoria's Secret
between May 18, 2016, and May 18, 2023, where the company
calculated the tax due on their purchase and shipped the product
from a location outside of Missouri to a Missouri address.
Potential Award
Varies.
Proof of Purchase
N/A
Exclusion Deadline
05/16/2025
Case Name
Lizama v. Victoria's Secret Stores LLC, et al., Case No.
21SL-CC0221, in the Missouri Circuit Court of St. Louis County
Final Hearing
06/02/2025
Settlement Website
MOTaxSettlementVictoriasSecret.com
Claims Administrator
Victoria's Secret Missouri Tax Settlement
c/o Rust Consulting – 8783
P.O. Box 2599
Faribault, MN 55021-9599
info@MOTaxSettlementVictoriasSecret.com
(877) 873-0020
Class Counsel
Daniel J. Orlowsky
ORLOWSKY LAW LLC
Adam M. Goffstein
GOFFSTEIN LAW LLC
Defense Counsel
Jonathan B. Potts
BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP [GN]
*********
S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N
Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T.
Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L.
Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.
Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.
This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.
Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.
The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000.
*** End of Transmission ***