/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250404.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Friday, April 4, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 68
Headlines
1051 FOOD CORP: Lopez et al. Sue Over Wage and Hour Law Violations
3CS2 LLC: Faces Rodriguez Class Suit Over Labor Law Breaches
3M COMPANY: Hayes Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
3M COMPANY: Hohnhorst Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
3M COMPANY: T. Harris Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
ACCELLION INC: Brown Seeks to Seal Portions of Class Cert Reply
ACELYRIN INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Alumis Inc
ACTINIUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
AHLSTROM RHINELANDER: Wins Bid to Compel Responses
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Class Suit Moved from State Ct. to N.D. Ga.
ANCIENT COSMETICS: Faces Class Suit Over Telemarketing Messages
APPLOVIN CORP: Brownback Sues Over Drop in Share Price
APRIA HEALTHCARE: Tisdale Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
B.D. HOLT: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Personal Info, Moran Says
BITFARMS LTD: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
BRICKLANE JERSEY: Acevedo Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
BYTEDANCE INC: Faces Class Suit Over Data Privacy Violations
CAPCHAPI: Has Until April 14 to File Bid to Stay Discovery
CARLTON MULTI: Saravia Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Valets
CIGNA HEALTH: Stewart Seeks Extension of Class Cert Briefing
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to May 15
COLORADO: Butts Files Suit in D. Colorado
CVS PHARMACY: Reply in Support of Class Cert Bid Due April 8
DAKINE INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Herrera Claims
DELIGHT RESTAURANT: Chapman Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Facilities
DFINITY FOUNDATION: Court Dismisses Fraud Class-Action Suit
DVN USA: Bishop Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Website
FCA US: More Time to File Class Cert Response Sought
FLAGGER FORCE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barlow et al. Allege
FMC CORP: Faces Class Action Suit Over Securities' Violations
FORD MOTOR: Unlawfully Demands Medical Reimbursement, O'Dell Claims
FTS USA: Omnibus Reorganization Agreement "Fraudulent," Monroe Says
GE APPLIANCES: Duvall Sues Over Defective Washer-Dryer Combo
GOOGLE LLC: Attridge Sues Over General Search Services Monopoly
HEARST TELEVISION: Court Denies Certification in Privacy Class Suit
HOLLISTER CO: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
HOUSE OF MANA: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Cole Says
INTERNATIONAL SURF: Periera Sues Over Online Store's Hidden Fees
JENSEN BEACH: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Feltzin Alleges
KIA AMERICA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Product Recall
LAFAYETTE FEDERAL: Lewis Files Suit in D. Maryland
LAFAYETTE FEDERAL: Mausteller Files Suit in D. Maryland
LAMPS PLUS INC: Doe Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
LAUREL HARRY: Janda Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice
LIGHTBOX JEWELRY: Faces Lewis Suit Over FTSA Violations
LINE APPAREL: Reynaga Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
LIPARI FOODS: Nix Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
LYMI INC: Mitchell Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
MANHATTAN ASSOCIATES: Faruqi Probes Potential Securities Claims
MARINE LAYER PBC: Ocampo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
MAXMARA RETAIL: Der-Gevorgian Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
MDL 3035: AMEC, Newport Settlement Gets Initial Nod
MGP INGREDIENTS: OECIMPF Suit Transferred to D. Kansas
MICHAELS STORES: Seeks to File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal
MT. HOLLY: Settles Emissions' Class Action Suit for $944,000
NASHVILLE, TN: Court Defers All Class Cert Deadlines
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Ding Alleges
NEW YORK, NY: Derisma Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
NEW YORK: Faces Engesser Suit Over Illegal Termination of Benefits
NEWPORT GROUP: Settlement in Russ Suit Gets Initial Nod
PENNSYLVANIA STATE EDUCATION: Sued Over Failure to Secure PII
PENNSYLVANIA TEACHER'S: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Data Breach
PERPETUA RESOURCES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set May 20
PHASE II: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Briggs Suit Says
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faubel Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection
POVISON USA: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Hampton Says
PRINX CHENGSHAN TIRE: Smith Suit Transferred to C.D. California
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Settles Vehicles Claims' Suit for $13.8MM
PROPERFOOD LLC: Rubin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
PROVANTAGE CORPORATE: Thompson Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Overtime
PURE HOCKEY LLC: Villaverde Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
RIPPLE LABS: Faces Securities Suit Over Unregistered XRP Sales
ROCKHARD CO: Ruiz and Durant Seek Proper OT Wages for Drivers
SAFEWAY INC: Margaretis Suit Removed to E.D. Wisconsin
SAN FRANCISCO C&C: Stewart Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
SANA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Drott Sues Over Misleading Public Statements
SANA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
SANTA FE TIVOLI: Schreiner Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
SATCO INC: Mulgado Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SECURITY USA: Beeks Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
SEGWAY INC: Faces Cicero Suit Over Defective Scooters
SHADE STORE: Crowder Seeks to Seal Class Cert Docs
SONIC.NET LLC: Filips Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SOUTHEAST SERIES: Carter Sues Over Failure to Secure Information
SPARK REVENUE: Faces Ferrell Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages
STATE FARM: Judge Dismisses Homeowners' Class Action Lawsuit
STEVEN SANDERS: Court Extends Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid
SULLIVAN ENTERTAINMENT: Tracks Consumers' Personal Data, Suit Says
SUN BUM SUNCARE: Mancera Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Reich Suit Removed to C.D. California
SYSCO CORPORATION: Luna Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
T-MOBILE US INC: Zajonc Suit Removed to N.D. California
TA3 INC: Wolf-Bond Suit Removed to C.D. California
TECH MAHINDRA: Boney Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
TECHNICOLOR CREATIVE: Faces Suit Over WARN Act Breaches
THERMO FISHER: Rickes Suit Removed to S.D. California
TRULIEVE HOLDINGS: Watt Files Suit in D. Arizona
TUESDAY MORNING: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
TWITTER INC: Must Oppose Bid for Class Certification by May 27
TZUMI ELECTRONICS: Martinez Files Suit in S.D. New York
ULTRA CLEAN: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
UNCLE JULIO'S: Keyso Suit Transferred to D. Maryland
UNITED STATES: Faces Class Suit Over Deportation's Lack of Notice
UNITED STATES: Fails to Properly Diagnose Illnesses, Glazier Says
VALET KING: Ortiz Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
VALLEY GUYS INC: Nava Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
VICTOR GARCIA: Turning Point Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
VITAS HEALTHCARE: Sarmiento Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
WALT DISNEY PARKS: Malone Suit Removed to C.D. California
WANRONG TRADING: Diaz Suit Removed to E.D. New York
WARNERMEDIA DIRECT: Eng Files Suit in S.D. New York
WASHINGTON DC: Court Junks Fischer Class Suit
WECTEC STAFFING: Pulsinelle Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
WESTMORELAND SAN JUAN: Bowers Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
WHY I AM LLC: Moretto Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
WILD WING CAFE: Crouse Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages Due
WORLDPANTRY.COM LLC: Villaverde Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
YERBA MATE CO: Morfin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
YES COMMUNITIES: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Burns Says
YIELD ENGINEERING: Aguilera Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Reinsurance Still Receives A&E Claims
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Land Defends Personal Injury Actions
*********
1051 FOOD CORP: Lopez et al. Sue Over Wage and Hour Law Violations
------------------------------------------------------------------
AGUSTIN HERNANDEZ LOPEZ ET AL., individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 1051 FOOD CORP ET AL.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-02377 (S.D.N.Y., March 21, 2025),
accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act of
1938, the New York Labor Law, and the "spread of hours" and
overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor.
The Plaintiffs were employed as pizza makers, food preparers,
cooks, a counter person, a cashier, and a dishwasher, at the
Defendants' restaurants. Allegedly, the Plaintiffs worked for
Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate
minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the
hours that they worked. In addition, the Defendants failed to
maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to
pay Plaintiffs appropriately for any hours worked, either at the
straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium, says
the suit.
The 1051 Food Corp operates fast-food restaurants located in
various neighborhoods in Bronx, NY. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Catalina Sojo, Esq.
CSM LEGAL, P.C.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
E-mail: catalina@csmlegal.com
3CS2 LLC: Faces Rodriguez Class Suit Over Labor Law Breaches
------------------------------------------------------------
LILLYANA RODRIGUEZ, On Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff v. 3CS2 LLC (d/b/a The Back Porch) and KEN
STRICKLER, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00693 (N.D. Tex., March 23,
2025) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) and Portal-to-Portal Pay Act.
The Plaintiff has been employed by The Back Porch from
approximately December 6, 2024 to present. Allegedly, The Back
Porch improperly shared tips earned by Plaintiff and other hourly
tip credit paid and tipped employees with non-tipped employees,
such as cooks, in violation of the FLSA.
The Back Porch is a restaurant and bar in Royse City, TX. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Allen R. Vaught, Esq.
VAUGHT FIRM, LLC
1910 Pacific Ave., Suite 9150
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (972) 707-7816
Facsimile: (972) 920-3933
E-mail: avaught@txlaborlaw.com
3M COMPANY: Hayes Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Film-Forming Foams
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alvin L. Hayes, 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-00951-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: Hohnhorst Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Aqueous Foams
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mike L. Hohnhorst, 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-00981-RMG
(D.S.C., Feb. 20, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluoro octane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further,
defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
thyroid disease and high cholesterol as a result of exposure to
Defendants' AFFF products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Hochman, Esq.
THE CLAIMBRIDGE PLLC
5411 McPherson Rd Ste. 110
Laredo, TX 78041
Phone: (956) 704-5187
Facsimile: (956) 368-1343
3M COMPANY: T. Harris Sues Over Exposure to Toxic Chemicals & Foams
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas 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-00948-RMG
(D.S.C., Feb. 20, 2025), is brought for damages for personal injury
resulting from exposure to aqueous film-forming foams ("AFFF")
containing the toxic chemicals collectively known as per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances ("PFAS"). PFAS includes, but is not
limited to, perfluorooctanoic acid ("PFOA") and perfluorooctane
sulfonic acid ("PFOS") and related chemicals including those that
degrade to PFOA and/or PFOS.
AFFF is a specialized substance designed to extinguish
petroleum-based fires. It has been used for decades by military and
civilian firefighters to extinguish fires in training and in
response to Class B fires.
The Defendants collectively designed, marketed, developed,
manufactured, distributed, released, trained users, produced
instructional materials, promoted, sold, and/or otherwise released
into the stream of commerce AFFF with knowledge that it contained
highly toxic and bio persistent PFASs, which would expose end users
of the product to the risks associated with PFAS. Further,
defendants designed, marketed, developed, manufactured,
distributed, released, trained users, produced instructional
materials, promoted, sold and/or otherwise handled and/or used
underlying chemicals and/or products added to AFFF which contained
PFAS for use in firefighting.
PFAS binds to proteins in the blood of humans exposed to the
material and remains and persists over long periods of time. Due to
their unique chemical structure, PFAS accumulates in the blood and
body of exposed individuals. PFAS are highly toxic and carcinogenic
chemicals. Defendants knew, or should have known, that PFAS remain
in the human body while presenting significant health risks to
humans.
The Defendants' PFAS-containing AFFF products were used by the
Plaintiff in their intended manner, without significant change in
the products' condition. Plaintiff was unaware of the dangerous
properties of the Defendants' AFFF products and relied on the
Defendants' instructions as to the proper handling of the products.
Plaintiff's consumption, inhalation and/or dermal absorption of
PFAS from Defendant's AFFF products caused Plaintiff to develop the
serious
medical conditions and complications alleged herein.
Through this action, Plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages arising out of the permanent and significant
damages sustained as a direct result of exposure to Defendants'
AFFF products at various locations during the course of Plaintiff's
training and firefighting activities. Plaintiff further seeks
injunctive, equitable, and declaratory relief arising from the
same, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff regularly used, and was thereby directly exposed to,
AFFF in training and to extinguish fires during his working career
as a military and/or civilian firefighter and was diagnosed with
Testicular Cancer as a result of exposure to Defendants' AFFF
products.
The Defendants are designers, marketers, developers, manufacturers,
distributors, releasers, instructors, promotors and sellers of PFAS
containing AFFF products or underlying PFAS containing chemicals
used in AFFF production.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chandler B. Duncan, Esq.
Andrew T. Kagan, Esq.
Elizabeth P. Kagan, Esq.
KAGAN LEGAL GROUP, LLC.
295 Palmas Inn Way, Suite 6
Humacao, PR, 00791
Phone: 939-220-2424
Facsimile: 939-220-2477
ACCELLION INC: Brown Seeks to Seal Portions of Class Cert Reply
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brown v. Accellion,
Inc.(RE ACCELLION, INC. DATA BREACH LITIGATION), Case No.
5:21-cv-01155-EJD (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order to consider whether portions of the Plaintiffs'
reply in support of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification
be sealed.
Pursuant to Local Rule 79-5(c), the Plaintiffs submit the
Declaration of Adam E. Polk, which identifies with particularity
the sealable portions of filed materials, as well as a proposed
order which lists in tabular format the portions of the Plaintiffs'
reply brief, certain associated exhibits, and the Korczyk Reply
Report that the Plaintiffs request to be sealed.
The information Plaintiffs seek to seal generally falls into three
categories:
-- personally identifiable information (PII) of Plaintiffs,
-- roadmaps to discover certain Plaintiffs' PII on the dark
web, and
-- irrelevant and prejudicial information concerning decades-
old criminal activity or financial difficulty.
Accordingly, the case stems from a data breach exposing the
Plaintiffs' information to criminal hackers, and involves
allegations of emotional distress, fraud, and identity theft,
further disclosure of the Plaintiffs' PII and information that
would lead would-be criminals directly to the source of the
Plaintiffs' personal information would compound the Plaintiffs'
harm and have a chilling effect on participation in this
litigation.
Accellion is a provider of on-demand secure file transfer
solutions.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 24, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=efOLtO at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam E. Polk, Esq.
Kyle P. Quackenbush, Esq.
Samhita Collur, Esq.
GIRARD SHARP LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 981-4800
Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
E-mail: apolk@girardsharp.com
kquackenbush@girardsharp.com
scollur@girardsharp.com
- and -
Krysta K. Pachman, Esq.
Michael Gervais, Esq.
Steven G. Sklaver, Esq.
Kevin R. Downs, Esq.
Madeline M. Yzurdiaga, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
1900 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1400
Los Angeles, CA 90067-6029
Telephone: (310) 789-3100
Facsimile: (310) 789-3150
E-mail: kpachman@susmangodfrey.com
mgervais@susmangodfrey.com
ssklaver@susmangodfrey.com
kdowns@susmangodfrey.com
myzurdiaga@susmangodfrey.com
ACELYRIN INC: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Alumis Inc
--------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"),
headquartered at the Empire State Building in New York City, is
investigating:
-- Acelyrin, Inc. (NASDAQ: SLRN), relating to the proposed merger
with Alumis Inc. Under the terms of the agreement, Acelyrin
stockholders will receive 0.4274 shares of Alumis common stock per
share of common stock owned. Acelyrin stockholders are expected to
own approximately 45% of the combined company.
Click link for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/acelyrin-inc-slrn/. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- 180 Degree Capital Corp. (NASDAQ: TURN), relating to the
proposed merger with Mount Logan Capital Inc. Under the terms of
the agreement, the estimated post-merger shareholder ownership
would be approximately 40% for current 180 Degree Capital
shareholders.
Click link for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/180-degree-capital-corp-turn/. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- Berkshire Hills Bancorp, Inc. (NYSE: BHLB), relating to the
proposed merger with Brookline Bancorp, Inc. Under the terms of the
agreement, Brookline Bancorp shares will be converted into the
right to receive 0.42 of a share of Berkshire Hills Bancorp common
stock.
Click link for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/berkshire-hills-bancorp-inc-bhlb/.
It is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- Maiden Holdings, Ltd. (NASDAQ: MHLD), relating to the proposed
merger with Kestrel Group LLC. Under the terms of the agreement,
each issued and outstanding common share of Maiden will be
converted into the right to receive one common share in the
combined company.
ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for April 29, 2025.
Click link for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/maiden-holdings-ltd-mhld/. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you
should talk to a lawyer and ask:
1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and
we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a
national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.
No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or
wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit
our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]
ACTINIUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP ("Scott+Scott"), an international
shareholder and consumer rights litigation firm, has filed a
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York against Actinium
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Actinium" or the "Company") (NYSE American:
ATNM), and certain of its former and current officers and/or
directors (collectively, "Defendants"). The Class Action asserts
claims under Secs. 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (15 U.S.C. Secs. 78j(b) and 78t(a)) and U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder (17 C.F.R.
Sec. 240.10b-5) on behalf of all persons other than Defendants who
purchased or otherwise acquired Actinium securities between October
31, 2022, and August 2, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and
were damaged thereby (the "Class"). The Class Action filed by
Scott+Scott is captioned: Kohil v. Actinium Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-02553.
LEAD PLAINTIFF DEADLINE ON MAY 26, 2025
Actinium is a late-stage biopharmaceutical company that develops
targeted radiotherapies, such as Iomab-B, to treat people who have
failed existing oncology therapies. Iomab-B is an
induction-and-conditioning agent used before bone marrow
transplants and has the potential to treat elderly relapsed or
refractory acute myeloid leukemia. Actinium evaluated Iomab-B in
the pivotal Phase 3 Sierra trial (the "Sierra Trial"), where the
drug met the primary endpoint of durable Complete Remission with
statistical significance (p
AHLSTROM RHINELANDER: Wins Bid to Compel Responses
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LUCAS ROUGEAU, et al., v.
AHLSTROM RHINELANDER, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-00546-wmc (W.D.
Wis.), the Hon. Judge Anita Marie Boor entered an order that:
1. The Defendants' motion to compel responses from the
plaintiffs is granted with modifications to some
requests.
2. Responses to defendant 3M's requests nos. 15 and 21 and
defendant Wausau and Ahlstrom's requests nos. 13–15 are
limited to the individual plaintiffs identified in the
personal injury claim.
3. The Defendants' unopposed motion to file a reply in support
of this motion to compel is granted.
Although the defendants are entitled to reasonable merits discovery
at this time, some of their requests are overly broad given the
nature of plaintiffs' claims.
All class claims are either property-based or for products
liability and unjust enrichment. By contrast, the personal injury
claim is brought only on behalf of nine individual plaintiffs.
In August 2023, six plaintiffs filed this case asserting claims on
behalf of a putative class of property owners in Oneida County,
Wisconsin. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that the
defendants, a group of corporations involved in running a papermill
in Oneida County, improperly disposed of or otherwise mismanaged
waste products containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS).
The Plaintiffs claimed that, due to the spread of PFAS in their
ground and surface water, they sustained damage to their property,
incurred expenses obtaining uncontaminated drinking water, and lost
use and enjoyment of their property.
In February 2024, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint naming
thirty-seven additional parties.
Ahlstrom Rhinelander is a fiber-based materials manufacturer,
specifically a paper mill located in Rhinelander, Wisconsin.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 21, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ygKVGA at no extra
charge.[CC]
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Class Suit Moved from State Ct. to N.D. Ga.
---------------------------------------------------------------
GLEICHMAN LAW FIRM, LLC, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated persons v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
25-C-01940-S7 was removed from the State Court of Gwinnett County,
State of Georgia, to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division on March 26, 2025.
The Northern District of Georgia Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:25-cv-01594-AT to the proceedings.
The Plaintiff seeks to certify a class action lawsuit against
Defendant, alleging breach of contract and violation of Georgia law
as to all policies issued by the Defendant within the past three
years.
The Defendant is a foreign insurance company incorporated in the
State of Illinois, doing business in the State of Georgia, with its
principal place of business in Northbrook, Illinois.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
James F. Taylor, III, Esq.
J. Lewis Glenn, Jr. , Esq.
FAIN, MAJOR, BRENNAN, SANFORD & HARDEE, P.C.
One Premier Plaza 5605
Glenridge Drive Suite 900
Atlanta, GA 30342
Telephone: (404) 688-6633
E-mail: Jtaylor@fainmajor.com
lglenn@fainmajor.com
ANCIENT COSMETICS: Faces Class Suit Over Telemarketing Messages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eric J. Troutman of Troutman Amin, LLP, in an article for The
National Law Review, reports that when people tell you the statute
of limitations for a TCPA violation is four years– we really mean
it.
Back on March 25, 2021 a company called Ancient Cosmetics allegedly
sent a marketing text message to a lady named Patrice Gonzalez.
At that time Tom Brady had just won a Super Bowl over the Chiefs,
that big ship Ever Given was still stuck in the Suez canal and the
Czar was still working in big law.
Yeah, that was a long time ago.
But just this week Ms. Gonzalez filed a TCPA class action lawsuit
against Ancient Cosmetics over the ancient text messages -- what
are the odds of that BTW? -- and its a great reminder to folks.
Compare!
What you do today in TCPAWorld has consequences for a long time to
come.
That means you need to be keeping records of consent–especially
if you are buying leads–for that entire time.
And yes people WILL sue you 3 years, 364 days after you allegedly
violate the TCPA.
Gross, right?
Let those who have ears to hear, hear. [GN]
APPLOVIN CORP: Brownback Sues Over Drop in Share Price
------------------------------------------------------
BEN BROWNBACK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. APPLOVIN CORPORATION; ADAM FOROUGHI; HERALD
CHEN; and MATTHEW STUMPF, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-02772 (N.D.
Cal., March 24, 2025) is a class action on behalf of persons and
entities that purchased or otherwise acquired AppLovin securities
between May 10, 2023 and February 25, 2025, inclusive, seeking to
pursue claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, throughout the Class
Period, the Defendants made materially false and misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.
Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors: (1) that
AppLovin's app segment relied on the systematic exploitation of
fraudulent advertising practices including 'clickjacking' and
'click spoofing'; (2) that AppLovin's advertising and e-commerce
program relied on intercepting and appropriating advertising
attribution credit; (3) that AppLovin employed a backdoor
installation scheme to force unwanted apps on customers; (4) that
as a result of the foregoing, AppLovin's revenue was falsely
inflated; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
The Company's share price fell $46.06, or 12.2 percent, to close at
$331 per share on February 26, 2025, on unusually heavy trading
volume.
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, the suit alleges.
AppLovin Corporation develops technologies that help businesses of
every size connect to their ideal customers. The company provides
end-to-end software and AI solutions for businesses to reach,
monetize, and grow their global audiences. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
Charles Linehan, Esq.
Pavithra Rajesh, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 201-9150
Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
Email: rprongay@glancylaw.com
clinehan@glancylaw.com
prajesh@glancylaw.com
APRIA HEALTHCARE: Tisdale Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANGELA TISDALE, an
individual; TERRENCE PRATT, an individual, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, v. APRIA HEALTHCARE LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company. Case No. 2:24-cv-09620-AH-PVC
(C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on April 23, 2025, will move the Court
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 23 for an order
certifying class action.
The Plaintiffs further will move the Court for an Order:
1. Certifying that this action is maintainable as a class
action;
2. Certifying the class of persons described in this motion as
the Plaintiffs' class; and
3. Certifying the Plaintiffs Angela Tisdale and Terrence Pratt
as the representatives of the class and his counsel of
record as Class Counsel for the Plaintiffs' class.
The Plaintiffs seek to certify the identical class, but for the
time period following the class certification date in Quintero.
This class is defined as:
"All persons who were provided as drivers to the Defendant
by Spoke Logistics, LLC, Fed Med Delivery, LLC and Johnson
Pickup & Delivery LLC, between Sept. 15, 2021 and the
present [the date of the anticipated court order certifying
the class] who worked in California and who were not paid as
W-2 employees by Apria."
Apria is a provider of home respiratory services and certain
medical equipment, including oxygen therapy, inhalation therapies,
sleep apnea treatment, and negative pressure wound therapy.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 24, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ijnnY0 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Alejandro P. Gutierrez, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ALEJANDRO P GUTIERREZ INC
2100 Hillcrest Drive
Ventura, CA 93001
Telephone: (805) 477-8373
E-mail: alex@apgutierrezlaw.com
- and -
Daniel J. Palay, Esq.
Brian D. Hefelfinger, Esq.
PALAY HEFELFINGER, APC
1746 S. Victoria Avenue, Suite 230
Ventura, CA 93003
Telephone: (805) 628-8220
Facsimile: (805) 765-8600
E-mail: djp@calemploymentcounsel.com
bdh@calemploymentcounsel.com
B.D. HOLT: Fails to Safeguard Customers' Personal Info, Moran Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
SCOTT MORAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. B.D. HOLT CO. and affiliated entities, d/b/a
HOLT GROUP, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-00302 (W.D. Tex., March 24,
2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence,
breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the
Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its
network systems following a data breach from December 26-27, 2024.
The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and
similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result,
the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was
compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown
and unauthorized third parties.
B.D. Holt Co., doing business as Holt Group, is a computer
accessories store owner and operator in San Antonio, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joe Kendall, Esq.
KENDALL LAW GROUP, PLLC
3811 Turtle Creek Blvd., Suite 825
Dallas, TX 75219
Telephone: (214) 744-3000
Facsimile: (214) 744-3015
Email: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW PA
One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
BITFARMS LTD: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, continues
to investigate potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Bitfarms (NASDAQ: BITF) resulting from allegations
that Bitfarms may have issued materially misleading business
information to the investing public.
So What: If you purchased Bitfarms securities you may be entitled
to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees or costs
through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm is
preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=36921 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.
What is this about: On December 9, 2024, after the market closed,
Bitfarms issued a press release entitled "Bitfarms Announces
Restatement of Previously Issued Financial Statements." In this
press release, Bitfarms announced that it had "determined that its
previously issued consolidated financial statements for the fiscal
years ended December 31, 2023 and 2022 [. . .] should be restated
to correct a material error in the classification of proceeds
derived from the sale of digital assets." Bitfarms further
announced that it is "also restating its financials to adjust for
an error in the accounting for the redemption of warrants in
2023."
On this news, Bitfarms' stock fell 6% on December 10, 2024.
Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS
Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class
action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4
each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438
million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was
named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's
attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contact Information:
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
case@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
BRICKLANE JERSEY: Acevedo Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
ALEX ACEVEDO, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. BRICKLANE JERSEY CITY LLC, SATINDER SHARMA
and AJIT BAINS, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-02018 (D.N.J., March
21, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages and overtime
compensation for Plaintiff, alleging that Defendants violated the
Federal Labor Standards Act and of the New Jersey State Wage and
Hour Law.
The Defendants knowingly and willfully failed to pay Plaintiff his
lawfully owed wage, at least the lawfully minimum wage, and
overtime compensation of one and one-half times his regular rate of
pay for all hours worked over 40 in a given workweek, as evidenced
by payroll records, pay stubs, and time sheets.
Headquartered in Jersey City, NJ, Bricklane Jersey City, LLC is
engaged in the food services industry. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
42 Broadway, 12th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 203-2417
Website: www.stillmanlegalpc.com
BYTEDANCE INC: Faces Class Suit Over Data Privacy Violations
------------------------------------------------------------
H.T., a minor, by and through her legal guardian, MILAGRO
ALMODOVAR, 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., Defendants, Case No. 0:25-cv-60572-XXXX (S.D. Fla., March 25,
2025) alleges violation of the Children's Online Privacy Protection
Act of 1998 and its implementing regulation, the Children's Online
Privacy Protection Rule.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants are
engaged in unlawful practice of permitting and encouraging
Plaintiff and children under the age of 18 to create user accounts
on the TikTok Application and www.tiktok.com, for the purpose of
collecting intimate, deeply intrusive data points about them, their
online behavior, and other Personally Identifiable Information.
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 the Defendants can serve them copious
amounts of behavioral advertising and/or share their information
with third parties, says the suit.
ByteDance Limited operates as a multinational internet technology
holding company. The Company operates a range of content platforms
that inform, educate, entertain, and inspire people. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
1 West Las Olas Blvd., Ste. 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 332-4200
Email: 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
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
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
Email: jalperstein@carellabyrne.com
CAPCHAPI: Has Until April 14 to File Bid to Stay Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Estevez v. Chinese
American Planning Council Home Attendant Program Inc. et al., Case
No. 1:24-cv-07069-JPC (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge John Cronan
entered an order granting the Defendants' request for leave to file
a motion to stay discovery.
The Defendants shall file the motion on or before April 14, 2025.
The Plaintiff shall file an opposition on or before May 5, 2025.
The Defendants may file a reply on or before May 16, 2025.
The Clerk of Court is directed to close Docket Number 31.
Chinese-American Planning provides personal care services to
medically disabled, aged, and physically handicapped people.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 21, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DR7Ovv at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C.K. Lee, Esq.
LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
148 West 24th Street, Eighth Floor
New York, NY 10011
Telephone: (212) 465-1180
Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
CARLTON MULTI: Saravia Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime for Valets
------------------------------------------------------------
JOSE SARAVIA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CARLTON MULTI SERVICES LLC, D/B/A VALET OF
AMERICA, and MINH QUANG TRUONG, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-01359
(S.D. Tex., March 24, 2025) is a class action against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendant as a valet from December
2020 until March 2025.
Carlton Multi Services LLC, doing business as Valet of America, is
a parking and transportation services provider in Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
P.O. Box 10099
Houston, TX 77206
Telephone: (713) 868-3388
Facsimile: (713) 683-9940
Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
CIGNA HEALTH: Stewart Seeks Extension of Class Cert Briefing
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JILL STEWART and MARIA C.
PLUMACHER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. CIGNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No.
3:22-cv-00769-OAW (D. Conn.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order granting motion for extensions of the deadlines for class
certification briefing set by the Court's Nov. 25, 2024, Minute
Order.
The Plaintiffs seek an extension of the briefing schedule to ensure
that neither party is prejudiced by the pending third-party
discovery issues nor the other pressing case-related obligations of
their counsel in other matters.
In particular, the Plaintiffs request that the deadline for the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification be moved from March 28,
2025, to July 1, 2025; the Defendant's response moved from May 29,
2025, to Sept. 2, 2025; and the Plaintiffs' reply moved from June
27, 2025, to Oct. 1, 2025.
The proposed extension of the class certification briefing schedule
serves the interests of justice. While it is arguably the
Plaintiffs who are prejudiced by the proposed delay, thorough
briefing of the factual and legal issues is, of course, critical to
this Court's consideration of the Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. As such, the Plaintiffs' proposal is also designed
to accommodate Cigna and its counsel as to the timing for Cigna's
opposition filing such that both parties are given adequate time to
brief these important issues.
Cigna offers health insurance plans such as medical and dental to
individuals and employers, international health insurance, and
Medicare.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 24, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5LToIg at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Elizabeth K. Acee, Esq.
BARCLAY DAMON LLP
545 Long Wharf Drive, Ninth Floor
New Haven, CT 06511
Telephone: (203) 672-2659
Facsimile: (203) 654-3260
E-mail: eacee@barclaydamon.com
- and -
Jason S. Cowart, Esq.
Andrew N. Goldfarb, Esq.
R. Miles Clark, Esq.
Alyssa Howard Card, Esq.
ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
485 Madison Avenue, 10th floor
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (212) 704-9660
Facsimile: (212) 704-4256
E-mail: jcowart@zuckerman.com
agoldfarb@zuckerman.com
- and -
Leslie Howard, Esq.
COHEN HOWARD, LLP
766 Shrewsbury Avenue, Suite 200
Tinton Falls, NJ 07724
Telephone: (732) 747-5202
E-mail: lhoward@cohenhoward.com
COLGATE-PALMOLIVE: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to May 15
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MIKHAIL GERSHZON, KRISTIN
DELLA, and JILL LIENHARD, on behalf of themselves, the general
public, and those similarly situated, v. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE COMPANY,
Case No. 3:23-cv-04086-JCS (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Joseph Spero
entered an order modifying case a follows:
Event Deadline New
Deadline
Deadline for Plaintiffs to file Apr. 10, 2025 May 15, 2025
the motion for class
certification and any expert
report(s) in support thereof:
Deadline for Defendant to oppose June 10, 2025 July 17, 2025
the motion for class certification
and produce any expert report(s)
in support of its opposition
Mediation Deadline: July 15, 2025 Aug. 19, 2025
Deadline for Plaintiffs to file Aug. 5, 2025 Sept. 9, 2025
the reply in support of motion
for class certification:
Deadline for Defendant to file Sept. 2, 2025 Oct. 7, 2025
any replies in support of its
Daubert motion(s) and any
opposition(s) to Plaintiffs'
Daubert motion(s):
Deadline for Plaintiffs to file Sept. 30, 2025 Nov. 4, 2025
any replies in support of its
Daubert motion(s):
Hearing on Plaintiffs' motion Nov. 19, 2025 Dec. 17, 2025
for class certification and any
Daubert motion(s):
Colgate-Palmolive specializes in the production, distribution, and
provision of household, health care, personal care, and veterinary
products.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 24, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=P9ysz3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Rajiv V. Thairani, Esq.
Marie A. McCrary, Esq.
GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP
100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 639-9090
Facsimile: (415) 449-6469
E-mail: seth@gutridesafier.com
marie@gutridesafier.com
rajiv@gutridesafier.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Kate T. Spelman, Esq.
Dean N. Panos, Esq.
JENNER & BLOCK LLP
515 South Flower Street, Suite 3300
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2054
Telephone: (213) 239-5100
Facsimile: (213) 239-5199
E-mail: kspelman@jenner.com
dpanos@jenner.com
COLORADO: Butts Files Suit in D. Colorado
-----------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against State of Colorado, et
al. The case is styled as Bernard Butts, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. State of Colorado; Jena
Griswold, in her official capacity as Colorado Secretary of State,
Case No. 1:25-cv-00990-NYW (S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Colorado -- https://www.colorado.gov/ -- is a state in the Western
United States. It is one of the Mountain states, sharing the Four
Corners region with Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Vaughan Cornish, Jr., Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT V. CORNISH, JR., PC
680 South Cache Street, Suite 100
P.O. Box 12200
Jackson, WY 83001
Phone: (307) 264-0535
Fax: (571) 290-6052
Email: rcornish@rcornishlaw.com
CVS PHARMACY: Reply in Support of Class Cert Bid Due April 8
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN DOE ONE, RICHARD ROE,
in his capacity as executor for JOHN DOE TWO, JOHN DOE SIX; and
JOHN DOE SEVEN, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated and for the benefit of the general public, v. CVS
PHARMACY, INC.; CAREMARK, L.L.C.; CAREMARK CALIFORNIA SPECIALTY
PHARMACY, L.L.C.; GARFIELD BEACH CVS, L.L.C.; CAREMARKPCS HEALTH,
L.L.C.; and DOES 1–10, inclusive, Case No. 3:18-cv-01031-EMC
(N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Edward Chen entered an order granting
the Parties' third joint motion regarding the briefing deadlines:
-- Reply in Support of Motion for April 8, 2025
Class Certification:
-- The Hearing on Motion for May 22, 2025
Class Certification remains
scheduled for:
On Jan. 16, 2025, the court entered the following briefing schedule
on Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.
On March 4, 2025, the Defendants inquired if Plaintiffs intend to
depose any expert from whom Defendants’ offered opinions in
opposition to the Motion for Class Certification.
CVS distributes pharmaceutical products.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 24, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Qbjz1D at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Alan M. Mansfield, Esq.
Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Esq.
Edith M. Kallas, Esq.
Henry C. Quillen, Esq.
C. Nicholas Dorman, Esq.
WHATLEY KALLAS, LLP
16970 W. Bernardo Dr., Suite 400
San Diego, CA 92127
Telephone: (858) 674-6641
Facsimile: (855) 274-1888
E-mail: amansfield@whatleykallas.com
jwhatley@whatleykallas.com
ekallas@whatleykallas.com
hquillen@whatleykallas.com
ndorman@whatleykallas.com
- and -
Benjamin Powell, Esq.
Ryan Mellino, Esq.
CONSUMER WATCHDOG
6330 San Vicente Blvd., Suite 250
Los Angeles, CA 90048
Telephone: (310) 392-0522
E-mail: ben@consumerwatchdog.org
ryan@consumerwatchdog.org
- and -
Jerry Flanagan, Esq.
SHERNOFF BIDART ECHEVERRIA,
LLP
600 S. Indian Hill Blvd.
Claremont, CA 91711
Telephone: (909) 621-4935
Facsimile: (909) 625-6915
E-mail: jflanagan@shernoff.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Enu Mainigi, Esq.
Craig D. Singer, Esq.
Grant A. Geyerman, Esq.
Benjamin W. Graham, Esq.
WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
680 Maine Ave., S.W.
Washington, DC 20024
Telephone: (202) 434-5000
Facsimile: (202) 434-5029
- and -
John J. Atallah, Esq.
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
555 South Flower Street, Ste. 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 972-4500
Facsimile: (213) 486-0065
DAKINE INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Herrera Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
EDERY HERRERA, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. DAKINE, INC. and DAKINE IP HOLDINGS LP,
Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-02335 (S.D.N.Y., March 21, 2025)
arises from Defendants' failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate their interactive website to be fully accessible to and
independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons.
The Defendants failed to make its website available in a manner
compatible with computer screen reader programs, depriving blind
and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods,
content, and services. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress
for Defendants' discriminatory conduct and asserts claims for
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York
State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law.
Dakine, Inc. offers the commercial website, https://dakine.com/, to
the public. The website allows all consumers to access goods and
services that include information about its outdoor clothing,
sportswear and sports equipment. [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
DELIGHT RESTAURANT: Chapman Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Facilities
------------------------------------------------------------------
RACHELLE CHAPMAN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. DELIGHT RESTAURANT GROUP LLC, and
DOES 1 to 25, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00168-EWH-RJK (E.D. Va.,
March 21, 2025) asserts violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act, and its implementing regulations.
The Plaintiff asserts that Defendants' facilities have excessive
sloping conditions. Thus, Defendants failed to ensure compliance
with the sloping requirements of the ADA's implementing
regulations. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings this class
action individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
wheelchair users to compel Defendants to (i) remediate all access
barriers within the parking areas of their facilities, and (ii)
modify its existing policies, practices and/or procedures to ensure
that its facilities comply with the ADA's implementing regulations'
excessive sloping requirements.
Delight Restaurant Group LLC owns, leases, and/or operates several
Wendy's restaurants in the states of Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, New
York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew B. Kaplan, Esq.
THE KAPLAN LAW FIRM
1100 N. Glebe Rd, Suite 1010
Arlington, VA 22201
Telephone: (703) 665-9529
E-mail: mbkaplan@thekaplanlawfirm.com
- and -
Jordan T. Porter, Esq.
NYE, STIRLING, HALE, MILLER & SWEET, LLP
33 West Mission Street, Suite 201
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (805) 963-2345
E-mail: jordan@nshmlaw.com
DFINITY FOUNDATION: Court Dismisses Fraud Class-Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Emily Harper, writing for Crypto Ninjas, reports that Dfinity was
sued in a class-action lawsuit, but a California judge later
dismissed the case, ruling that the claims were filed outside the
statute of limitations.
-- The plaintiffs, who accused Dfinity of market manipulation,
were initially represented by Roche Freedman but later replaced the
firm with Selendy Gay PLLC.
-- Though the case was dismissed, investors have a limited window
to amend their complaint.
Recently, the Dfinity Foundation, the creators of the Internet
Computer Protocol (ICP), claimed a major legal win. A federal judge
in California dismissed a class-action lawsuit that claimed the
sale of unregistered securities. The lawsuit, filed in August 2021
on behalf of investors who bought ICP tokens after May 10, 2021,
alleged that Dfinity artificially inflated the asset market and
token prices following the debut of the digital asset. The court
ruled in favor of Dfinity's argument that the public offering of
ICP tokens began in February 2017, making the lawsuit, filed in
August 2021, too late under the statute of repose.
Was the Dfinity ICP Lawsuit "Time-Barred"?
The case was "time-barred," as U.S. District Judge James Donato
ruled under the three-year statute of repose set by the Securities
Exchange Act. The statute of repose sets a strict time limit for
filing securities fraud claims, regardless of when investors
discover the alleged wrongdoing. This differs from the statute of
limitations, which is often based on when the plaintiff first
becomes aware of the violation. He determined that the lawsuit was
filed one year and six months after the allowed timeframe.
The plaintiffs—initially represented by the controversial law
firm Roche Freedman (now Freedman Normand Friedland LLP) and later
by Selendy Gay PLLC—did not counter Dfinity's statute of
limitations defense. Judge Donato viewed this lack of response as a
sufficient reason to dismiss the claims.
Unpacking Dfinity's ICP Token: Fraud Claims and Investor
Allegations
In addition to being barred by the statute of limitations, Judge
Donato also found the investors did not adequately prove their
claims of fraud. The investors contended that Dfinity founder
Dominic Williams "necessarily knew" about token distribution
issues by virtue of his position. But the court rejected that
argument as well, noting the fact that a company may be found to
have committed a wrongdoing does not automatically mean that any of
its employees were aware of such wrongdoing.
This section of the decision speaks to the question of
accountability that's an ongoing discussion in the crypto world.
The mouthpiece represents investors, including a large-scale
investor (a "whale"), and argues that while plunging token values
may drive investors to seek recourse, proving that founders and
executives acted with direct malfeasance is often a difficult
task.
This dismissal brings attention to the high standards needed to
prove violations of securities laws, including as it relates to
knowledge and intent. For fraud claims to succeed, plaintiffs must
demonstrate not only that misleading statements were made, but also
that the defendants had a deliberate intent to deceive investors.
Without solid evidence, courts are unlikely to rule in favor of
investors.
A Fractious Battle in Court and a Chance for Revisions
The decision closes a legal saga that has long been wracked by
controversy. The case has been delayed extensively following
allegations made against Kyle Roche, a former partner at Roche
Freedman. Roche is allegedly heard in a recorded conversation
bragging about litigation as a means of acquiring sensitive
information about crypto millionaires and billionaires.
While the judge dismissed the case, he granted investors a final
opportunity to amend their complaint by April 8. If they fail to
meet the deadline, the case may be permanently dismissed under
federal civil procedure rules.
Dfinity may have won, but the door is not completely closed yet.
Investors have not missed their chance to hone their arguments and
resurrect the suit.
Broader Implications for ICP and Crypto Lawsuits
The Dfinity case comes amid a wave of regulatory scrutiny and
litigation in the cryptocurrency sector. This effort fits with a
wider trend of regulators chasing crypto firms over alleged
securities violations.
The fate of Dfinity and related cases might be a harbinger for
other lawsuits that may help set the tone for how courts and
regulators better define and regulate digital assets in the future.
[GN]
DVN USA: Bishop Sues Over ADA Non-Compliant Website
---------------------------------------------------
CEDRIC BISHOP, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. DVN USA CORP., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-02337 (S.D.N.Y., March 21, 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.
According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to make its
website available in a manner compatible with computer screen
reader programs, depriving blind and visually-impaired individuals
the benefits of its online goods, content, and services.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings this class action 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.
Based in DVN USA Corp., operates the Dries Van Noten online retail
store, as well as the Dries Van Noten interactive website,
https://www.driesvannoten.com/en-us. The website sells clothing,
cosmetics & accessories. [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
FCA US: More Time to File Class Cert Response Sought
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mack et al v. FCA US
LLC,Case No. 2:24-cv-02990-SJB-SIL (E.D.N.Y.), the Parties ask the
Court to enter an order granting the joint request that the
deadline for filing those replies be extended to April 11, 2025.
-- Counsel for the Plaintiffs has conferred with FCA's counsel,
and FCA's counsel concurs in the relief sought.
-- The current deadline for Plaintiffs to file their Reply in
Support of their Motion for Class Certification and for
Defendant to file its Reply in Support of its Motion for
Summary Judgment is March 31, 2025.
FCA US LLC designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles.
The Company offers passenger cars, utility vehicles, mini-vans,
trucks and commercial vans.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 24, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fiPCzw at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
E. Powell Miller, Esq.
Dennis A. Lienhardt, Esq.
THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
950 West University Drive, Suite 300
Rochester, MI 48307
Telephone: (248) 841-2200
Facsimile: (248) 652-2852
E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com
dal@millerlawpc.com
FLAGGER FORCE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Barlow et al. Allege
--------------------------------------------------------------
LATONIA BARLOW, KENNITH SEARFOSS, TONYA DIDGET, and GERARD
SCHWEIGER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. FLAGGER FORCE, LLC, MICHAEL DONER, KAREN PARODY, MARK
BENDER, and KATHLEEN FABRIZI, Case No. 1:25-cv-00518-KMN (M.D. Pa.,
March 21, 2025), seeks to recover unpaid wages, including unpaid
straight time and overtime wages, under the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act of 1968, and the
Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law.
Allegedly, the Defendants uniformly denied wages and overtime pay
to Plaintiffs and other employees by refusing to properly pay them
for all hours worked before and after their paid scheduled work.
Among other things, Defendants did not accurately record and/or
preserve all time worked by their crew leaders, advanced crew
leaders, and field trainers, including Plaintiffs, and specifically
removed or did not include time these employees spent working prior
to and after their scheduled job assignments.
Headquartered in Hummelstown, PA, Flagger Force offers traffic
control services for public utility and road construction projects
in several states including Pennsylvania, Maryland, Ohio, and New
Jersey. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Martin J. Sobol, Esq.
SOBOL LAW GROUP, P.C.
1845 Walnut Street, 23rd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 988-0100
Facsimile: (215) 988-0193
E-mail: msobol@sobollaw.com
- and -
Colih Patrick Saltry, Esq.
SOBOL LAW GROUP, P.C.
1845 Walnut Street, 23rd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Telephone: (215) 988-0100
Mobile: (570) 862-0660
Facsimile: (215) 988-0193
E-mail: csaltry@sobollaw.com
FMC CORP: Faces Class Action Suit Over Securities' Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action securities lawsuit was filed against FMC Corporation
that seeks to recover losses of shareholders who were adversely
affected by alleged securities fraud between November 16, 2023 and
February 4, 2025.
CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
false statements and/or concealed that: (1) the Company's channel
management initiatives were not progressing as represented; (2)
faced with pricing pressure, the Company had made the decision not
to compete on prices and instead walk away from sales
opportunities; (3) the Company had inflated inventory in the
channels in "Latin America, including Brazil, Asia, including
India, as well as Canada and Eastern Europe;" and (4) as a result
of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in FMC Corporation stock during
the relevant time frame - even if you still hold your shares - go
to
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/fmc-corporation-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=138945&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]
FORD MOTOR: Unlawfully Demands Medical Reimbursement, O'Dell Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CHRISTOPHER O'DELL, as administrator of the estate of Bobby O'Dell,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. PLAN ADMINISTRATOR, FORD MOTOR COMPANY HEALTH CARE
PLAN, FORD MOTOR COMPANY HEALTH CARE PLAN, and VENGROFF WILLIAMS,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00579 (N.D. Ohio, March 24,
2025) is a class action against the Defendants for declaratory
judgment and injunctive relief, unjust enrichment, and civil
liability pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
The case arises from the Defendants' practice of repeatedly
demanding the Plaintiff to reimburse them for costs they paid for
medical expenses related to third-party injuring Mr. O'Dell in a
motor vehicle collision and for expenses paid related to Bobby
O'Dell's, the Plaintiff's deceased wife's, medical bills before she
passed away. The Defendants' persistent and unrelenting demands for
money that does not belong to them are not limited to Mr. O'Dell
individually. They extend to his late wife, and upon information
and belief, thousands more members of the Ford Motor Company Health
Care Plan. The Plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment that the
Defendants cannot seek such reimbursement, as well as a preliminary
injunction prohibiting the Defendants from doing so in the future,
absent a re-written contract, says the suit.
Vengroff Williams, Inc. is an insured accounts receivable
management company, with its principal place of business in
Florida. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Zachary C. Schaengold, Esq.
Cory D. Britt, Esq.
ROBBINS, KELLY, PATTERSON & TUCKER
312 Elm St., Suite 2200
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 721-3330
Email: zschaengold@rkpt.com
mgalasso@rkpt.com
- and -
Alexander J. Durst, Esq.
Paul R. Kerridge, Esq.
DURST KERRIDGE LLC
600 Vine St., Suite 1920
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 621-4999
Facsimile: (513) 621-0200
Email: alex@durst.law
paul@durst.law
FTS USA: Omnibus Reorganization Agreement "Fraudulent," Monroe Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
EDWARD MONROE, FABIAN MOORE, and TIMOTHY WILLIAMS, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. FTS
USA, LLC; UNITEK USA, LLC; UNITEK ACQUSITION, INC.; UNITEK FIBER
HOLDINGS, LLC; UNITEK FIBER, LLC; GW COMMUNICATION SOLUTIONS, LLC;
GRAYCLIFF ENTERPRISE SOLUTIONS, LLC; HUTCHINS TELECOM SOLUTIONS,
LLC; SDT SOLUTIONS, LLC; UNITEK SERVICES COMPANY, LLC; UNITEK
PAYROLL SERVICES, LLC; and WIRECOMM SYSTEMS (2008), INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00362-UNA (D. Del., March 24, 2025) is
a class action against the Defendants for constructive fraudulent
transfer, actual fraudulent transfer, and successor liability.
The case arises from the Omnibus Reorganization Agreement entered
by Defendants UniTek USA, LLC, UniTek Acquisition, Inc., UniTek
Fiber Holdings, LLC "Fiber Holdings", and UniTek Fiber, LLC, which
transferred all of USA's equity interests in seven entities, first,
to Acquisition, second, to Fiber Holdings, and third, to Fiber. All
four entities are insiders. The Plaintiffs initiated an underlying
lawsuit in 2008 in the Western District of Tennessee and a jury
ruled in favor of them and nearly 300 cable installers who were
employees of FTS and USA in 2011. On October 13, 2020, the district
court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs
in the amount of $2,002,965.05. Prior to this transfer, USA and the
Fiber Entities comprised assets of more than $100 million as
recently as December 31, 2020. Following this transfer, USA is no
longer operational and is not in possession of any assets. The
Plaintiffs bring this action to (1) void the Omnibus Reorganization
Agreement and return the assets transferred to USA; and (2) find
the Defendants jointly and severally liable for USA's debts under a
successor liability theory.
UniTek Acquisition, Inc. is a company that offers wireless
telecommunication services, headquartered in Pennsylvania.
UniTek USA, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of UniTek Acquisition,
Inc.
FTS USA, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of UniTek USA, LLC.
UniTek Fiber Holdings, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of UniTek
Acquisition, Inc.
UniTek Fiber, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of UniTek Fiber
Holdings, LLC.
GW Communication Solutions, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
UniTek Fiber, LLC.
Graycliff Enterprise Solutions, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
UniTek Fiber, LLC.
Hutchins Telecom Solutions, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
UniTek Fiber, LLC.
SDT Solutions, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of UniTek Fiber,
LLC.
UniTek Services Company, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of UniTek
Fiber, LLC.
UniTek Payroll Services, LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of UniTek
Fiber, LLC. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Carmella P. Keener, Esq.
COOCH AND TAYLOR, P.A.
The Brandywine Building
1000 N. West St., Suite 1500
P.O. Box 1680
Wilmington, DE 19810
Telephone: (302) 984-3816
Email: ckeener@coochtaylor.com
- and -
Rachhana T. Srey, Esq.
Anna P. Prakash, Esq.
Joshua R. O'Neill, Esq.
NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
4700 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 256-3200
Facsimile: (612) 215-6870
Email: srey@nka.com
aprakash@nka.com
joneill@nka.com
GE APPLIANCES: Duvall Sues Over Defective Washer-Dryer Combo
------------------------------------------------------------
MARK DUVALL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Plaintiff, GE APPLIANCES; and HAIER US
APPLIANCE SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-02794 (N.D.
Cal., March 25, 2025) alleges violation of the California Consumer
Legal Remedies Act, California False Advertising Law, California
Unfair Competition Law, and Song-Beverley Consumer Warranty Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant sells GE
Profile Ultrafast 2-in-1 Washer/Dryer Combo (the "Class Appliance"
or "Class Appliances") throughout California with defective lint
traps, causing the Class Appliance to suffer excessive lint buildup
along its condenser coils that is difficult to remove, greatly
diminishing the effectiveness of the dryer and leaving its contents
wet (the "Lint Trap defect" or "the Defect").
Despite its knowledge, GE Appliances has failed to issue a recall
of the inherently defective lint traps or reimburse Class Appliance
owners for the failure of this critical part. Instead, GE
Appliances denies there is a problem or ignores customer queries
from affected customers, says the suit.
GE Appliances designs and manufactures appliances for home
applications. The Company's products include kitchen and cooking
appliances, air conditioners, washers and dryers, small appliances
and electronics, and water products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert Mackey, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT MACKEY
16320 Murphy Road
Sonora, CA 95370
Telephone: (412) 370-9110
Email: bobmackeyesq@aol.com
-and-
Nicholas A. Migliaccio, Esq.
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO & RATHOD LLP
412 H St. NE, Suite 302
Washington, D.C. 20002
Telephone: (202) 470-3520
Facsimile: (202) 800-2730
Email: nmigliaccio@classlawdc.com
jrathod@classlawdc.com
GOOGLE LLC: Attridge Sues Over General Search Services Monopoly
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES ATTRIDGE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. GOOGLE LLC; ALPHABET, INC.; and XXVI
HOLDINGS INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-02775 (N.D. Cal., March
24, 2025) alleges violation of the Sherman Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants are
engaged in monopolizing of and maintaining their monopoly in the
general search services and general search text advertising markets
in the United States and for combining, conspiring and agreeing
with Apple, Inc. and the Android parties to maintain Google's
monopoly and restrain trade in those markets, sharing revenues and
dividing markets with them.
The complaint asserts that Defendants also use distribution
agreements with Apple, Inc. and the Android parties that contain
exclusionary default clauses, that impose a barrier to entry that
prevents Google's competition from gaining sufficient scale to
compete in the markets, enabling Google to extract, collect and
sell End User's search data to advertisers for billions of dollars,
with no compensation to End users, preventing End users from
monetizing their own data, while precluding competition and
Google's competitors from providing End-users with search products
that are more privacy protective and ad-free.
Google LLC operates as a global technology company specializes in
internet related services and products. The Company focuses on
web-based search and display advertising tools, search engine,
cloud computing, software, and hardware. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lingel H. Winters, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF LINGEL H. WINTERS
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
2900 Shasta Rd.
Berkeley, CA 94708
Email: sawmill2@aol.com
HEARST TELEVISION: Court Denies Certification in Privacy Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Melanie A. Conroy, Samih Eloubeidi of Pierce Atwood LLP, in an
article for The National Law Review, reports that on February 14,
2025, in Therrien v. Hearst Television, Inc., the District of
Massachusetts denied a motion for class certification due to the
plaintiff's failure to meet the implied ascertainability
requirement of Rule 23. The court concluded that the named
plaintiff's claims for unlawful disclosure of personally
identifiable information could not be maintained on a class-wide
basis because the proposed method for identifying proposed class
members was "administratively infeasible" and raised due process
concerns.
Therrien's Video Privacy Protection Act Claim Based on Geolocation
Data
Charles Therrien brought this case on his own behalf and other
similarly situated individuals against Hearst Television, Inc.
("HTV") for allegedly unlawfully disclosing his personally
identifiable information to third parties in violation of the Video
Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2710. The VPPA
prohibits a videotape service provider from knowingly disclosing
personally identifiable information concerning any of its
consumers.
HTV is a news and weather broadcaster that offers mobile phone apps
on which users can read articles and watch associated videos. The
apps collect users' geolocation data. To send push and email
updates, HTV utilizes Braze, a third-party
software-as-a-service-provider. Although users have the option to
enable or disable sharing geolocation data, when it is enabled,
users' geolocation data is shared with Braze.
In addition, HTV also uses Google Ad Manager to send targeted
advertisements to its apps' users. Like Braze, if a user has
enabled geolocation services, the geolocation data is shared with
Google.
Thus, Therrien claimed that, because his geolocation data was
shared with third parties, HTV violated the VPPA.
Therrien's Proposed Class Definition of Mobile App Users
Therrien sought certification for this class action claim, for
which he was required to establish the four threshold requirements
of Rule 23(a) -- numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy
-- as well as the two additional prerequisites of Rule 23(b)(3) –
predominance and superiority.
Although not one of the four threshold requirements of Rule 23(a),
ascertainability is an implicit requirement that a plaintiff also
must meet for class certification. Ascertainability requires that
the class is "currently and readily identifiable based on objective
criteria." Additionally, the plaintiff's proposed mechanism for
determining class members must be both administratively feasible
and protective of the defendant's Seventh Amendment and due process
rights.
To assess whether Therrien met the Rule 23 requirements, the court
scrutinized the proposed class definition. In the present case,
Therrien's proposed class was defined as, "All persons in the
United States that (i) downloaded one of the Class Apps onto their
mobile phone, (ii) enabled location permissions for the Class App
for at least 250 sessions over a period of at least one month, and
(iii) watched at least ten (10) videos between May 5, 2021, and
April 16, 2024 (the "Class Period")."
Courts considering class definitions will often assess the way the
definition has been drafted, but in this case, the court's analysis
did not turn on the drafting of the definition but on the validity
of Therrien's proposed mechanism for identifying class members.
Court's Critique of Therrien's Proposed Methodology and Denial of
Certification
For purposes of identifying class members, Therrien aimed to rely
on an expert witness's methodology using geolocation data. This
method would involve analyzing geolocation data points to generate
names of mobile app users, followed by testimony from each user
confirming that the information obtained belongs to them and is
accurate.
The court highlighted that this method would be administratively
infeasible and could potentially violate HTV's due process rights,
running afoul of In re Nexium Antitrust Litig. Expanding upon the
infeasibility of this method, the court noted that, for addresses
where there are multiunit apartment buildings with hundreds of
occupants, geolocation points could not be used to identify
specific unit numbers, and therefore specific users, of the HTV
apps.
Thus, the generated user data could not be used to differentiate
putative class members from other users, making it nearly
impossible to provide notice of a pending class action. Applying
the reasoning from In re Asacol Anitrust Litig., the court noted
that the proposed process would likely result in thousands of class
members waiting to provide testimony on individual issues, which
would predominate over common ones.
Moreover, the court explained that, although affidavits may be
sufficient for differentiating between individuals who were injured
and who were not injured, testimony used as part of a party's
affirmative case cannot be used to certify a class, "without
providing the defendant an opportunity to litigate its defenses."
Because the determination of whether HTV shared personally
identifiable information with Braze and Google is an essential
element of the VPPA claim, this information could not be used for
the purpose of fulfilling the ascertainability requirement.
Based on the foregoing administrative hurdles and due process
considerations, the court denied the motion for class
certification.
The court's analysis highlights the importance of a sound mechanism
for identifying class members and the potency of an
ascertainability challenge if defense counsel can effectively
illustrate practical challenges for the court.
More than anything, this case makes clear that it would be
imprudent for litigants to treat ascertainability as an
afterthought in their Rule 23(a) analysis because, as the holding
of this court illustrates, failing to meet ascertainability is
fatal for class certification within the First Circuit.
Finally, the decision in Hearst Television highlights that venue
can be outcome determinative in class action litigation, where
there is a persistent circuit court split on whether a class
representative must prove an administratively feasible method of
identifying absent class members as a precondition for class
certification under Rule 23, with the First Circuit aligned with
the Third and Fourth Circuits and the Second, Sixth, Seventh,
Eighth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits following a more permissive
standard.
Until the Supreme Court speaks on this division that is ripe for
review, litigants should continue to address ascertainability as a
critical issue at the certification stage. [GN]
HOLLISTER CO: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. Hollister Co., Defendant, Case No.
0:25-cv-01057 (D. Minn., March 21, 2025), accuses the Defendant of
violating the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective
communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and its implementing regulations as
well as asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota
Human Rights Act.
The case arises from Defendant's failure to make its website
accessible to Plaintiff and other individuals with visual
disabilities. Moreover, Defendant failed to provide its website’s
content and services in a manner that is compatible with auxiliary
aids.
Headquartered in New Albany, OH, Hollister Co. offers clothing and
accessories for sale on its website www.hollister.com. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
Jason Gustafson, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (763) 515-6110
E-mail: chad@throndsetlaw.com
pat@throndsetlaw.com
jason@throndsetlaw.com
HOUSE OF MANA: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Cole Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
MORGAN COLE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. HOUSE OF MANA UP, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-03153 (N.D. Ill., March 25, 2025) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://houseofmanaup.com, is not fully or equally accessible
to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff,
in violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
HOUSE OF MANA UP, LLC provides a one-stop shop for products
developed by 100% Hawaii-based entrepreneurs. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David B. Reyes, Esq.
EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
68-29 Main Street
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (630) 478-0856
Email: Dreyes@ealg.law
INTERNATIONAL SURF: Periera Sues Over Online Store's Hidden Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
ARIA PERIERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. INTERNATIONAL SURF VENTURES, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 2:25-cv-02552 (C.D. Cal., March 24, 2025) is a class
action against the Defendant for unjust enrichment, false and
misleading advertising, and violations of California's Unfair
Competition Law and California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
The case arises from the Defendant's use of surreptitiously tacking
on "Route Package Protection" fees on all orders placed on its
website without consumers' consent. According to the complaint, the
Defendant secretly adds this fee right before consumers complete
their purchase on its website. As a result of the Defendant's
unlawful practice, the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers
suffered damages, says the suit.
International Surf Ventures, LLC is a sporting goods manufacturer,
headquartered in Southlake, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW, PA
1925 Century Park E., Ste. 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (305) 975-3320
Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
JENSEN BEACH: Commercial Property Violates ADA, Feltzin Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
LAWRENCE FELTZIN v. JENSEN BEACH EQUITIES, LLC, Case No.
2:25-cv-14093 (S.D. Fla., March 26, 2025) is a class action lawsuit
brought by the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated mobility-impaired individuals alleging that
Defendant's Commercial Property violates the Americans with
Disabilities Act, seeking injunctive relief, attorneys' fees,
litigation expenses, and costs.
The Plaintiff visits the Commercial Property and businesses located
within the commercial property, to include a visit to the
Commercial Property and business located within the Commercial
Property on or about Feb. 11, 2025, and encountered multiple
violations of the ADA that directly affected his ability to use and
enjoy the Commercial Property.
The Defendant owns, operates, and oversees the Commercial Property,
its general parking lot/or and parking spots specific to the
business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq.
GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L.
350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 553-3464
E-Mail: bvirues@lawgmp.com
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
Telephone: (305) 350-3103
E-Mail: rdiego@lawgmp.com
ramon@rjdiegolaw.com
KIA AMERICA: Faces Class Action Suit Over Product Recall
--------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Eric Jasinski is suing Kia
America Inc. Jasinski claims Kia sold vehicles with defective
piston oil rings that can cause engine damage and fires.
The Kia class action was filed in a Pennsylvania federal court.
A new nationwide class action lawsuit claims Kia sold vehicles with
piston oil rings that were prone to causing engine damage and
fires.
Plaintiff Eric Jasinski filed the class action lawsuit against Kia
America Inc. on March 6 in a Pennsylvania federal court, alleging
violations of state and federal consumer laws.
According to the lawsuit, Kia sold more than 130,000 vehicles with
defective piston oil rings, which can cause engine damage and
fires. The vehicles, which include the 2021-2023 Kia Soul and
2021-2023 Kia Seltos, were recalled in February 2025, but the fix
offered by Kia is inadequate, the lawsuit claims.
Jasinski says he purchased a 2021 Kia Soul in June 2021, believing
it to be a high-quality vehicle. However, he was never informed of
any recalls or defects related to the oil ring system, despite
consistent visits to the dealership for routine maintenance, he
says.
Jasinski claims he would not have purchased the vehicle or would
have paid less for it had he known about the defect. He also says
he has been driving an unsafe vehicle due to the oil ring defect,
resulting in diminished value.
Kia recall leaves more questions than answers, class action says
The lawsuit claims Kia's recall, which involves replacing the
engine and installing piston-ring sensing noise software, does not
guarantee that the defect will be permanently resolved.
"Defendant's Recall is no more than a repeatedly ineffective waste
of time," the lawsuit says. "In all, Defendant's Recall leaves more
questions than answers regarding the Class Vehicles' safety and as
such results in a diminution in value for the vehicles in
question."
Jasinski is looking to represent anyone in the country who
purchased or leased a 2021-2023 Kia Soul or 2021-2023 Kia Seltos.
He is suing for breach of implied warranty of merchantability,
fraud by omission or fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment,
strict liability for design and manufacturing defects, and
violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
He is seeking certification of the class action, damages, fees,
costs and a jury trial.
Another recent case alleges that Hyundai and Kia sold vehicles with
defective fuel systems that can cause engine problems.
The plaintiff is represented by Stuart A. Carpey of Carpey Law,
P.C.
The Kia class action lawsuit is Jasinski v. Kia America, Inc., Case
No. 2:25-cv-01234, in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Pennsylvania. [GN]
LAFAYETTE FEDERAL: Lewis Files Suit in D. Maryland
--------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lafayette Federal
Credit Union. The case is styled as Carl Lewis, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Lafayette Federal
Credit Union, Case No. 8:25-cv-01006 (D. Md., March 27, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Non-Motor Vehicle.
Lafayette Federal Credit Union -- https://www.lfcu.org/ -- is a
not-for-profit financial institution, operating eight full-service
branch locations in the District of Columbia, Maryland and
Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Thomas Pacheco, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
900 West Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Phone: (212) 946-9305
Fax: (865) 522-0049
Email: tpacheco@milberg.com
LAFAYETTE FEDERAL: Mausteller Files Suit in D. Maryland
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lafayette Federal
Credit Union. The case is styled as Joseph Mausteller, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Lafayette Federal
Credit Union, Case No. 8:25-cv-01039 (D. Md., March 28, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Lafayette Federal Credit Union -- https://www.lfcu.org/ -- is a
not-for-profit financial institution, operating eight full-service
branch locations in the District of Columbia, Maryland and
Virginia.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jason S. Rathod, Esq.
MIGLIACCIO AND RATHOD LLP
412 H. St. NE
Washington, DC 20002
Phone: (202) 470-3520
Email: jrathod@classlawdc.com
LAMPS PLUS INC: Doe Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lamps Plus, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Jane Doe, an individial, on behalf of
herself and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Lamps Plus,
Inc., Cohen Michael, Flesh Daniel, Giangiacomo Damian, Case No.
25STCV09203 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 28, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
Lamps Plus, Inc. -- https://www.lampsplus.com/ -- is a privately
held corporation that designs, manufactures, and sells portable
lighting, fixture lighting, furniture, home décor items and a
variety of other related products.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David Cwiklo, Esq.
CWIKLO LAW FIRM
16133 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 950
Encino, CA 91436-2422
Phone: 818-719-8000
Fax: 818-719-9009
LAUREL HARRY: Janda Suit Dismissed w/o Prejudice
------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RONALD JANDA, v. LAUREL
HARRY, et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01075-KM-EW (M.D. Pa.), the Hon.
Judge Karoline Mehalchick will dismiss the complaint without
prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1915A for failure to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Janda will be granted leave to amend. An appropriate order shall
issue, the Court says.
Janda's complaint consists of a series of general statements about
the conditions of confinement within SCI-Dallas, allegations of
embezzlement by prior leaders within the DOC, and allegations of
deliberate indifference and medical negligence by "underpaid,
unqualified, evil medical staff," many of which appear to have only
affected other members of the putative class rather than Janda. It
is unclear from the complaint what conditions of confinement or
medical deliberate indifference have personally affected Janda or
how he was injured by the alleged actions.
The suit is a prisoner civil rights case filed pursuant to 42
U.S.C. section 1983. The Plaintiff Janda alleges violations of the
civil rights of himself and a putative class of other inmates at
the State Correctional Institution in Dallas, Pennsylvania and
throughout the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections ("DOC") based
on purportedly unconstitutional conditions of confinement and
deliberate in difference of medical staff.
After screening the amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section
1915A, the Court will deny Janda's request to certify a class and
dismiss his amended complaint without prejudice. Janda will be
granted leave to file a second amended complaint that is limited to
his individual claims.
A copy of the Court's memorandum dated March 21, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oRQ8Kf at no extra
charge.[CC]
LIGHTBOX JEWELRY: Faces Lewis Suit Over FTSA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------
ADAM LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. LIGHTBOX JEWELRY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
CACE-25-004075 (Fla. Cir., 17th Judicial, Broward Cty., March 21,
2025) for injunctive and declaratory relief, and damages for
violations of the Caller ID Rules of the Florida Telephone
Solicitation Act (FTSA).
Allegedly, the Defendant made text message sales calls that
promoted its products and violated the Caller ID Rules when it
transmitted to the recipients' caller identification services a
telephone number that was not capable of receiving telephone calls.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of a class
of persons similarly situated, seeks liquidated damages for each
violation.
Lightbox Jewelry,Inc. is registered as a foreign corporation that
manufactures and sells diamond jewelry. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
Shawn A, Heller, Esq.
SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
974 Howard Ave.
Dunedin, FL 34698
Telephone: (202) 709-5744
Facsimile: (866) 893-0416
E-mail: josh@sjlawcollective.com
shawn@sjlawcollective.com
LINE APPAREL: Reynaga Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Line Apparel, LLC.
The case is styled as Guadalupe Gabriela Reynaga, Leobardo Luna,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Line
Apparel, LLC, Does 1 through 100, Case No. 25STCV08718 (Cal. Super.
Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 26, 2025).
Line Apparel -- https://lineapparelllc.com/ -- is a fashion
designer that specializes in the design, product development, and
material sourcing.[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
LIPARI FOODS: Nix Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------
Theron Nix, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. LIPARI FOODS OPERATING COMPANY, LLC, Case No.
2:25-cv-10830-LJM-DRG (E.D. Mich., March 25, 2025), is brought
against Defendant 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 and those similarly situated are entitled to overtime
pay equal to 1.5 times their regular rate of pay for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours per week. The Plaintiff and those similarly
situated regularly worked in excess of 40 hours a week, and were
paid some overtime for those hours, but at a rate that did not
include Defendant's Attendance Bonus pay and other remuneration for
overtime rates as required by the FLSA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant from May 2022 through
December 2024.
The Defendant is a food distribution company that operates
warehouse depots in multiple states.[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 Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Phone: (248) 355-0300
Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com
LYMI INC: Mitchell Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Kyle Mitchell, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. LYMI INC., a foreign profit
corporation doing business as REFORMATION; HEY BUI LLC, a foreign
limited liability company doing business as REFORMATION; and DOES
1- 20, as yet unknown Washington entities, Case No. 25-2-06859-5
SEA was removed from the Superior Court of the State of Washington
for the County of King, to the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington on March 21, 2025, and assigned Case
No. 2:25-cv-00511.
The Plaintiff purports to allege, on behalf of himself individually
and on behalf of a putative class of individuals who applied to
work for Defendants in the State of Washington, one cause of action
pursuant to RCW for allegedly failing to disclose the wage scale or
salary range to be offered in Defendants' job postings.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Adam S. Belzberg, Esq.
Anne M. Dorshimer, Esq.
Emily L. Seibold, Esq.
STOEL RIVES LLP
600 University Street, Suite 3600
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: 206.624.0900
Facsimile: 206.386.7500
Email: adam.belzberg@stoel.com
anne.dorshimer@stoel.com
emily.seibold@stoel.com
MANHATTAN ASSOCIATES: Faruqi Probes Potential Securities Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Morningstar reports that Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national
securities law firm, is investigating potential claims against
Manhattan Associates, Inc. ("Manhattan Associates" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: MANH) and reminds investors of the April 28,
2025 deadline to seek the role of lead plaintiff in a federal
securities class action that has been filed against the Company.
Faruqi & Faruqi is a leading national securities law firm with
offices in New York, Pennsylvania, California and Georgia. The firm
has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for investors since
its founding in 1995. See www.faruqilaw.com.
As detailed below, the complaint alleges that the Company and its
executives violated federal securities laws by making false and/or
misleading statements and/or defendants provided investors with
material information concerning Manhattan Associates' expected
revenue for the fiscal year 2025. Defendants' statements included,
among other things, confidence in the Company's ability to forecast
guidance despite macroeconomic fluctuations, the growth potential
of their professional services offerings, and the ability for their
cloud revenue to drive revenue for its professional services.
On January 28, 2025, Manhattan Associates published its financial
results for the fourth quarter and full fiscal year 2024 and
announced reduced revenue guidance for the full fiscal year 2025.
The Company attributed its results and lowered guidance on the
"shift in professional services work to future periods . . . and to
a lesser extent, reduced customization and higher partner
utilization."
Following this news, the price of Manhattan Associates' common
stock declined dramatically from a closing market price of $295.10
per share on January 28, 2025, to $222.84 per share on January 29,
2025, a decline of about 24.49% in the span of just a single day.
The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the largest
financial interest in the relief sought by the class who is
adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees the
litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision to serve as a lead
plaintiff or not.
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP also encourages anyone with information
regarding Manhattan Associates' conduct to contact the firm,
including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and
others. [GN]
MARINE LAYER PBC: Ocampo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MARINE LAYER, PBC, et
al. The case is styled as Nicolette Ocampo, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. MARINE LAYER, PBC, DOES
1 TO 25, INCLUSIVE, Case No. CGC25623672 (Cal. Super. Ct., San
Francisco Cty., March 26, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Marine Layer -- https://www.marinelayer.com/ -- is a retail company
that specializes in selling clothing, furnishings, and accessories
for men, women, and children.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Wendy L.R. Miele, Esq.
TAULER SMITH LLP
626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: 213-927-9270
MAXMARA RETAIL: Der-Gevorgian Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against MAXMARA RETAIL LTD.
The case is styled as Thera Der-Gevorgian, an individual, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. MAXMARA RETAIL LTD,
Case No. 25STCV08515 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 24,
2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
Maxmara Retail Ltd. -- https://www.maxmara.com/ -- is an Italian
fashion business that markets upscale ready-to-wear clothing.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nazo Koulloukian, Esq.
KOUL LAW FIRM
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1710
Los Angeles, CA 90010-2003
Phone: 213-761-5484
Fax: 818-561-3938
Email: nazo@koullaw.com
MDL 3035: AMEC, Newport Settlement Gets Initial Nod
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit RE: AME Church Employee Retirement Fund
Litigation (MDL 3035), Case No. 1:22-md-03035 (W.D. Tenn.), the
Hon. Judge S. Thomas Anderson entered an order granting the
Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement with AMEC defendants and Defendant Newport Group, Inc.
The Court finds that the Rule 23 standard for preliminary approval
of the AMEC settlement and the Newport settlement is met.
Therefore, the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval is
granted.
The AMEC Defendants' partial motion to dismiss certain claims
against them in the Plaintiffs' second amended complaint is denied
as moot.
Newport's partial motion to dismiss certain claims against it in
Plaintiff's second amended complaint and partial motion to dismiss
AMEC's cross-claims are likewise denied as moot.
The Court finds that the UAW factors favor preliminary approval of
the settlement. Having made a determination of each of the Rule
23(e)(2) factors and the UAW factors, the Court concludes that it
will likely be able to approve the settlement under Rule 23(e)(2).
This multidistrict litigation concerns losses to a non-ERISA
retirement plan established by the African Methodist Episcopal
Church for its clergy and employees. Plaintiffs are current or
retired clergy of the church and have alleged a number of claims
under Tennessee law against the denomination, church officials,
third-party service providers to the plan, and other alleged
tortfeasors.
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=SY3NHI at no extra charge.[CC]
MGP INGREDIENTS: OECIMPF Suit Transferred to D. Kansas
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Operating Engineers Construction Industry
Miscellaneous Pension Fund, et al., individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. MGP Ingredients, Inc., David Colo,
David S. Bratcher, Brandon M. Gall, Case No. 1:24-cv-09685-JAV-RWL
was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas
on March 25, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02153-JWB-BGS to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Securities/Commodities.
MGP Ingredients, Inc. -- https://www.mgpingredients.com/ -- is an
American distilled spirits and food ingredients producer with
headquarters in Atchison, Kansas.[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
J. Emmett Logan, Esq.
K STINSON, LLP - WALNUT
1201 Walnut Street, Suite 2900
Kansas City, MO 64106
Phone: (816) 691-2745
Fax: (816) 412-1250
Email: Emmett.Logan@Stinson.com
MICHAELS STORES: Seeks to File Class Cert Opposition Under Seal
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NEZ VIZCARRA, individually
and on behalf of all others similar situated, v. MICHAELS STORES,
INC., Case No. 5:23-cv-00468-NW (N.D. Cal.), the Defendant asks the
Court to enter an order granting its administrative motion to file
under seal certain portions of Michaels' opposition to the motion
for class certification and certain exhibits in the Appendix of
evidence in support of opposition to motion for class
certification.
In particular, Michaels requests that the Court issue an order
authorizing the filing under seal of the following materials:
Document Portions To Be Filed Under Seal
Michaels Opposition Highlighted portions
Attachment A to Michaels Entire document
Opposition
Exhibit 3 to the Appendix Entire document
Exhibit 4 to the Appendix Entire document
Exhibit 5 to the Appendix Entire document
Exhibit 6 to the Appendix Entire document
Exhibit 12 to the Appendix Highlighted portions
Michaels seeks to seal only the minimum amount of information
necessary to protect its legitimate interests in confidentiality.
Declaration of Chloe G. Chung, section 3.
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 79-5, subsections (d) and (e),
Michaels has publicly filed a redacted copy of the Opposition and
Exhibit 12 to the Appendix, and exhibit covers reflecting that
Exhibits 3-6 to the Appendix and Attachment A to the Opposition are
being filed under seal. Unredacted copies of the documents are
being filed under seal as attachments to the Declaration of Chloe
G. Chung filed concurrently in support of Michaels Motion to Seal.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 24, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JnJPWl at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
P. Craig Cardon, Esq.
Benjamin O. Aigboboh, Esq.
Chloe G. Chung, Esq.
Tyler E. Baker, Esq.
SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4109
Telephone: (213) 620-1780
Facsimile: (213) 620-1398
E-mail: ccardon@sheppardmullin.com
ccardon@sheppardmullin.com
baigboboh@sheppardmullin.com
ashauer@sheppardmullin.com
MT. HOLLY: Settles Emissions' Class Action Suit for $944,000
------------------------------------------------------------
Michal Higdon, writing for Live5News, reports that a possible end
is in sight to a class-action lawsuit against a Berkeley County
aluminum manufacturer as a settlement of $944,000 has been
submitted in federal court.
The suit was filed against the Mt. Holly Century Aluminum plant
that's located off US-52 after multiple incidents that released
emissions into the air.
This all started in September of 2023 when there were four events
where 'alumina dust' was emitted from the plant. There were
complaints from hundreds of people who live in the area of that
white, gritty substance coating vehicles, plants, mailboxes --
really anything else outside in areas across Goose Creek.
A community meeting took place the next month to address those
concerns but many left the meeting feeling like their questions
regarding the harm of the emissions were not answered.
The class-action lawsuit was then filed in November of 2023.
Just last week, Century Aluminum was fined by the South Carolina
Department of Environmental Services for $360,000 for failing
emissions tests and EPA violations. Due to the nature of its
operations, Century Aluminum is subject to regulations by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. In addition to staying within
regulations, Century Aluminum was also required to conduct and
record daily pressure drop readings, monthly operation and
maintenance checks and annual internal inspections.
According to the consent order by SCDES, in the tests performed
between March 2021 and June 2023, Century Aluminum exceeded
emission limits more than a dozen times.
After three mediation sessions, in August and September of 2024 and
January of 2025, the parties reached a settlement of the
class-action property damage claims. The settlement documents state
Century Aluminum agreed to pay $944,000.
Elliotte Quinn with the Steinberg Law Firm, one of the plaintiffs'
attorneys on this case, says there will need to be additional
filings and court approval before this settlement will be final.
Century Aluminum declined to comment. [GN]
NASHVILLE, TN: Court Defers All Class Cert Deadlines
----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as INFINIUM BUILDERS LLC and
KE HOLDINGS LLC d/b/a ASCENT CONSTRUCTION, ENRIQUE SELMAN, and JEAN
LAFITTE BUILDERS LLC f/k/a JEAN LAFITTE DESIGNS LLC on Behalf of
Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, v. METROPOLITAN
GOVERNMENT OF NASHVILLE & DAVIDSON COUNTY, Case No. 3:23-cv-00924
(M.D. Tenn.), the Hon. Judge Trauger entered an order granting
Metro's motion for deferral of class certification motion.
Metro moves to defer all class certification motion deadlines until
after a ruling on Metro's pending motion for summary judgment.
Here, as stated in Metro's motion for summary judgment, none of the
named Plaintiffs has a justiciable claim. The motion raises the
threshold questions of standing, ripeness, and statute of
limitations.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 24, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LTFpgh at no extra
charge.[CC]
NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Ding Alleges
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES DING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-02416 (S.D.N.Y., March 24, 2025) is a class action against
the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard
sensitive information of its students and student-applicants.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Data Breach was a
direct result of the Defendant's failure to implement adequate and
reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to
protect consumers' PII from a foreseeable and preventable
cyber-attack.
The Defendant disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members
by, inter alia, intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or
negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to
ensure its data systems were protected against unauthorized
intrusions; failing to take standard and reasonably available steps
to prevent the Data Breach; and failing to provide Plaintiff and
Class Members prompt and accurate notice of the Data Breach.
The Plaintiff's and Class Members' identities are now at risk
because of Defendant's negligent conduct because the PII that
Defendant collected and maintained has been accessed and acquired
by data thieves.
New York University operates as an educational institution. The
University offers undergraduate and graduate degrees in arts and
sciences, business, dentistry, education, engineering, law,
medicine, nursing, pharmacy, and social work. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Vicki J. Maniatis, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
405 East 50th Street
New York, NY 10022
Telephone: (516) 491-4665
Email: vmaniatis@milberg.com
- and -
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
NEW YORK, NY: Derisma Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
HAURLTZ DERISMA, on behalf of himself, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly-situated, Plaintiff v. THE CITY OF NEW
YORK, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01576 (E.D.N.Y., March 21, 2025),
seeks for damages and other redress based upon Defendant's willful
violations of Plaintiff's rights guaranteed to him by the overtime
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendant willfully failed to pay Plaintiff all overtime wages
lawfully due to him under the FLSA, either in full or in a timely
manner. Throughout the relevant period, in addition to Plaintiff's
regular schedule of thirty-two hours per week, Defendant required
Plaintiff to work additional unscheduled back-to-back shifts,
ranging from sixteen to 23 hours each, for a total of approximately
88 hours of work in a week. Moreover, frequently, after Plaintiff's
shifts ended, on those instances when an inmate was unaccounted
for, Defendant required Plaintiff to remain on Rikers Island until
the missing inmate was accounted for. However, Defendant did not
pay Plaintiff for many of the unscheduled hours of his back-to-back
shifts that were all over forty in a workweek, and never paid him
for the time when he was required to remain on Rikers Island after
his shifts concluded. The Defendant did not pay Plaintiff for
either category of these hours at any rate of pay, much less at the
rate of one and one-half times his regular rate, says the suit.
The City of New York is a municipal corporation that oversees the
Department of Corrections and its various facilities across New
York City. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander T. Coleman, Esq.
Michael J. Borrelli, Esq.
BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
910 Franklin Avenue, Suite 205
Garden City, NY 11530
Telephone: (516) 248-5550
Facsimile: (516) 248-6027
- and -
Rachel Schulman, Esq.
RACHEL SCHULMAN, ESQ. PLLC
10 Bond Street # 143
Great Neck, NY 11021
Telephone: (917) 270-7132
E-mail: rachel@schulmanpllc.com
NEW YORK: Faces Engesser Suit Over Illegal Termination of Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------
LIZA ENGESSER, MARISOL GETCHIUS, GEETANJALI SEEPERSAUD by her Next
Friend SAVITRI SEEPERSAUD, and MARIA JAIME on her own behalf and as
Next Friend to Y.P.S. and C.P., individually and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated; BROOKLYN CENTER FOR INDEPENDENCE OF THE
DISABLED, and REGIONAL CENTER FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING, v. JAMES V.
MCDONALD, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of
Health, Case No. (March 26, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on
behalf of the Plaintiffs and all CDPAP participants to seek an
extension of the deadline and other relief, which will give
participants adequate time to work with Public Partnerships, LLC,
to complete the transition without putting their health or lives at
risk.
Accordingly, the Defendant's failure to provide sufficient time to
surmount barriers, as well as notice and an opportunity to be heard
before any loss of services, violates Plaintiffs' statutory and
Constitutional rights to timely and adequate notice of a
"reduction, suspension, or termination of benefits," as well as
continuing care, in violation of the Medicaid Act, and its
implementing regulations, and procedural due process rights
guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The Defendant created a transition process in which CDPAP
participants must initiate enrollment directly with PPL rather than
creating an auto-enrollment mechanism. Due to problems with PPL's
technology and systems, combined with informational, educational,
and language barriers, this process is difficult to navigate for
many CDPAP participants. Even among those who understand how to
complete the enrollment process, many are unable to enroll because
of errors in the PPL system (e.g., the names of the consumer and
their personal assistant being switched, or a participant's
Medicaid number being entered incorrectly in the PPL system), says
the suit.
Moreover, PPL simply lacks the capacity to handle the volume of
calls occurring in the final weeks of this extremely short
transition period. Many consumers and personal assistants are
unable to get through the PPL hotline to someone who can answer
their questions and complete their enrollment. 7. This transition
process began on Jan. 6, 2025, and the deadline to complete
transition is March 28, 2025. Beginning on April 1, 2025, no other
Fiscal Intermediary will be permitted to act in this capacity.
In April 2024, New York State enacted legislation that changes one
administrative element of CDPAP. Whereas previously, CDPAP
participants could choose among hundreds of entities called Fiscal
Intermediaries to act as their human resources and payroll function
to ensure that their in-home assistants are paid, the Legislature
mandated that starting on April 1, 2025, there can be only one
Fiscal Intermediary for the whole State. The contract to be the
single Fiscal Intermediary was awarded to PPL, a limited liability
company organized under the laws of Delaware with its principal
place of business in Georgia.
Plaintiffs Liza Engesser, Marisol Getchius, Geetanjali Seepersaud,
Maria Jaime, Y.P.S., and C.P., and all members of the class are
Medicaid consumers who have chronic illnesses and disabilities that
make them dependent on long-term home care services in order to
continue living in the community. All of them receive those
services through the Consumer Directed Personal Assistance Program,
which allows them to select and train the assistants who provide
care in their homes (Personal Assistants). They are now at
immediate risk of suspensions or terminations of their care in
violation of the Medicaid Act, the suit added.
The Defendant, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of
Health (DOH), is responsible for ensuring that CDPAP participants
transition from their prior Fiscal Intermediary to PPL without a
loss or suspension of services.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Lisa E. Cleary, Esq.
Caitlin A. Ross, Esq.
Emma Guido Brill, Esq.
PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP
1133 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10036-6710
Telephone: (212) 336-2000
Facsimile: (212) 336-2222
E-mail: lecleary@pbwt.com
kross@pbwt.com
ebrill@pbwt.com
- and -
Lisa Rivera, Esq.
Elizabeth Jois, Esq.
Julia Russell, Esq.
NEW YORK LEGAL ASSISTANCE GROUP
100 Pearl Street, 19th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 613-5093
E-mail: ejois@nylag.org
jrussell@nylag.org
NEWPORT GROUP: Settlement in Russ Suit Gets Initial Nod
-------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Russ et al., v. Newport
Group, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-01129-STA-jay (W.D. Tenn.),
the Hon. Judge S. Thomas Anderson entered an order granting the
Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement with AMEC defendants and Defendant Newport Group, Inc.
The Court finds that the Rule 23 standard for preliminary approval
of the AMEC settlement and the Newport settlement is met.
Therefore, the Plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval is
granted.
The AMEC Defendants' partial motion to dismiss certain claims
against them in the Plaintiffs' second amended complaint is denied
as moot.
Newport's partial motion to dismiss certain claims against it in
Plaintiff's second amended complaint and partial motion to dismiss
AMEC's cross-claims are likewise denied as moot.
The Court finds that the UAW factors favor preliminary approval of
the settlement. Having made a determination of each of the Rule
23(e)(2) factors and the UAW factors, the Court concludes that it
will likely be able to approve the settlement under Rule 23(e)(2).
This multidistrict litigation concerns losses to a non-ERISA
retirement plan established by the African Methodist Episcopal
Church for its clergy and employees. Plaintiffs are current or
retired clergy of the church and have alleged a number of claims
under Tennessee law against the denomination, church officials,
third-party service providers to the plan, and other alleged
tortfeasors.
On June 2, 2022, the Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred
the civil actions to this Court, finding that consolidation would
"serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the
just and efficient conduct of this litigation."
The case is consolidated in RE: AME CHURCH EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT FUND
LITIGATION, Lead Case No., 1:22–md–03035–STA–jay.
A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion and order dated March 24,
2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GZHbCJ at no extra charge.[CC]
PENNSYLVANIA STATE EDUCATION: Sued Over Failure to Secure PII
-------------------------------------------------------------
Janice Shanafelt, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. PENNSYLVANIA STATE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION (PSEA), Case
No. 1:25-cv-00522-JPW (M.D. Pa., March 21, 2025), is brought
arising out of the Defendant's failure to properly secure,
safeguard, encrypt, and/or timely and adequately destroy
Plaintiff's and Class members' sensitive personal identifiable
information (PII) that it had acquired and stored for its business
purposes.
According to a "Notice of Data Security Incident" posted on
Defendant's website, a data breach occurred on its network between
July 6, 2024 and February 18, 2025 (the "Data Breach"). Due to
Defendant's data security failures which resulted in the Data
Breach, cybercriminals were able to target Defendant's computer
systems and exfiltrate highly sensitive and personally identifiable
information and protected health information ("PHI") belonging to
Plaintiff and Class members. As a result of this Data Breach, the
Private Information of Plaintiff and Class members remains in the
hands of those cybercriminals.
The Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included
current and former members' PII and PHI, including Plaintiff's.
This Private Information included, but is not limited to: members'
full names, Social Security number, driver's license number, date
of birth, Account Number, Account PIN, Security Code, Password and
Routing Number, Payment Card Number, Payment Card PIN and Payment
Card Expiration Date, Passport Number, Taxpayer ID Number, Username
and Password, Health Insurance Information and Medical
Information.
The Data Breach was a direct result of Defendant's failure to
implement adequate and reasonable cybersecurity procedures and
protocols necessary to protect Plaintiff's and Class members'
Private Information with which it was entrusted for either
treatment or employment or both. As a result of the Data Breach,
Plaintiff and Class members have been exposed to a heightened and
imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. Plaintiff and Class
members must now and for years into the future closely monitor
their financial accounts to guard against identity theft, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff received notice of the Data Breach dated March 18,
2025.
The Defendant is a nonprofit corporation organized to "promote the
general educational welfare of the state, to protect and advance
the interests of its members, to foster professional zeal, and to
advance educational standards."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Liberato P. Verderame, Esq.
Marc H. Edelson, Esq.
EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP
411 S. State Street, Suite N300
Newtown, PA 18940
Phone: (215) 867-2399
Email: medelson@edelson-law.com
lverderame@edelson-law.com
PENNSYLVANIA TEACHER'S: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Data Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn M. Rattigan of Robinson & Cole LLP, in an article for The
National Law Review, reports that The Pennsylvania State Education
Association (PSEA) faces a class action resulting from a July 2024
data breach. The proposed class consists of current and former
members of the union as well as PSEA employees and their family
members. The lawsuit alleges that the union was negligent and
breached its fiduciary duty when it suffered a data breach that
affected Social Security numbers and medical information. The
complaint further alleges that the PSEA failed to implement and
maintain appropriate safeguards to protect and secure the
plaintiffs' data.
The union sent notification letters in February 2025 informing
members that the data acquired by the unauthorized actor contained
some personal information within the network files. The letter also
stated, "We took steps, to the best of our ability and knowledge,
to ensure that the data taken by the unauthorized actor was deleted
[. . .] We want to make the impacted individuals aware of the
incident and provide them with steps they can take to further
protect their information." The union also informed affected
individuals that they did not have any indication that the
information was used fraudulently.
The complaint alleges "actual damages" suffered by the plaintiff
related to monitoring financial accounts and an increased risk of
fraud and identity theft. Further, the complaint states that "the
breach of security was reasonably foreseeable given the known high
frequency of cyberattacks and data breaches involving health
information."
In addition to a claim of negligence, the class alleges that the
breach violates the Federal Trade Commission Act and the Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. The class is
demanding 10 years of credit monitoring services, punitive, actual,
compensatory, and statutory damages, as well as attorneys' fees.
[GN]
PERPETUA RESOURCES: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set May 20
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action
lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased
Perpetua Resources Corp. ("Perpetua" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
PPTA) securities between April 17, 2024, to February 13, 2025,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Perpetua investors have until May
20, 2025 to file a lead plaintiff motion.
IF YOU ARE AN INVESTOR WHO SUFFERED A LOSS IN PERPETUA RESOURCES
CORP. (PPTA), CONTACT THE LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH TO
PARTICIPATE IN THE ONGOING SECURITIES FRAUD LAWSUIT.
Contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to discuss your legal
rights by email at howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, by telephone at
(215) 638-4847 or visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com.
What Happened?
On February 13, 2025, Perpetua published an updated cash flow model
for its project of the restoration and redevelopment of an Idaho
mine, referred to as the Stibnite Gold Project, revealing
additional capital expenses of $952 million, more than 75% above
the original estimate presented to investors. The Company
attributed the price increase on increased costs on inflation,
indirect costs, higher mining costs, and direct decisions 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."
On this news, Perpetua's stock price fell $2.68, or 22.4%, to close
at $9.29 per share on February 14, 2025, thereby injuring
investors.
What Is The Lawsuit About?
The complaint filed in this class action 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, operations, and
prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors
that: (1) Perpetua's suggestion of a mere 10% to 20% increase in
cost for the Stibnite Gold Project fell well short of reality; (2)
the true impact of inflation, increased costs, and, most
importantly, decisions management made resulted in a drastic
increase in the initial capital expenditure required for the
Stibnite Gold Project; and (3) as a result, Defendants' positive
statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects
were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all
relevant times.
Contact Us To Participate or Learn More:
If you purchased Perpetua securities, have information or would
like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact us:
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith,
3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020,
Telephone: (215) 638-4847
Email: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com,
Visit our website at: www.howardsmithlaw.com.
This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some
jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.[GN]
PHASE II: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Briggs Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------
DEBRA BRIGGS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PHASE II d/b/a PUBLIC AGENCY RETIREMENT
SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. 8:25-cv-00572 (C.D. Cal., March 24,
2025) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to
properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its
customers.
According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, cybercriminals were
able to breach the Defendant's systems because the Defendant failed
to adequately train its employees and agents on cybersecurity,
failed to adequately monitor its agents, contractors vendors, and
suppliers in handling and securing the PII of Plaintiff, and failed
to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect
the Class's PII -- rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals.
The Defendant's failure to timely report the Data Breach made the
victims vulnerable to identity theft without any warnings to
monitor their financial accounts or credit reports to prevent
unauthorized use of their PII, says the sui.
Phase II d/b/a Public Agency Retirement Services provides
retirement services. The Company offers early retirement
incentives, pre-funding, alternatives to social security for part
time, seasonal and temporary employees, and leave reduction plans.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew G. Gunem, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
Email: agunem@straussborrelli.com
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faubel Sues Over Unlawful Debt Collection
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yolanda Faubel, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Case No.
1:25-cv-00313-EPG (E.D. Cal., March 14, 2025), is brought against
the Defendant for violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act ("FDCPA"), and of the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act ("RFDCPA"), for failing to cease and desist contact with
Plaintiff after a request in writing was sent by Plaintiff.
This is a case about a debt collector who kept trying to contact a
consumer after she legally invoked her right to have them stop and
then the debt collector made false statements in connection with
collection of a debt.
A debt collector violates the FDCPA when it, communicates with a
consumer after the consumer notifies in writing that they refuse to
pay or wish the debt collector to stop communicating. The Defendant
violated the FDCPA when it, among other qualifying actions and
omissions, willfully and without justification, communicated with
Plaintiff after Plaintiff notified Defendant in writing, via USPS
Certified Mail, that she refused to pay the debt, and that she
wished Defendant would stop communicating with her.
A debt collector violates the FDCPA when it uses any false,
deceptive, or misleading representation or means in connection with
the collection of any debt. The Defendant violated the FDCPA when
it, among other qualifying actions and omissions, willfully told
Plaintiff things that weren't true, like that it wasn't attempting
to collect a debt, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is a natural person who resides in Tulare County,
California.
The Defendant operated a nationwide debt collection business.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan L. McBride, Esq.
Jonathan Gil, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
2221 Camino Del Rio S Suite 101
San Diego, CA 92108
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
Email: ryan@kazlg.com
jonathan@kazlg.com
- and -
Michael F. Cardoza, Esq.
THE CARDOZA LAW CORPORATION
548 Market St., #80594
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: (415) 488-8041
Facsimile: (415) 651-9700
Email: Mike.Cardoza@cardozalawcorp.com
Lauren.Veggian@cardozalawcorp.com
POVISON USA: Web Site Not Accessible to the Blind, Hampton Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
PHYLLIS HAMPTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. POVISON USA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-03160 (N.D. Ill., March 25, 2025) alleges violation of the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web
site, https://povison.com, is not fully or equally accessible to
blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in
violation of the ADA.
The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the
Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that
the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind
and visually-impaired consumers.
Povison USA, Inc. is engaged in the design, manufacture and supply
of a wide range of furniture and equipment. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David B. Reyes, Esq.
EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC
68-29 Main Street
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (630) 478-0856
Email: Dreyes@ealg.law
PRINX CHENGSHAN TIRE: Smith Suit Transferred to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Garry Smith, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. PRINX CHENGSHAN TIRE NORTH AMERICA
INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00194 was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California on March 12,
2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02245-AH-MAA to
the proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract for Breach of
Contract.
Prinx Chengshan Tire North America (PCTNA) --
https://prinxtireusa.com/ -- is a part of Prinx Chengshan
(Shandong) Tire Co., Ltd, which focuses on designing,
manufacturing, and distributing commercial and consumer tires and
is one of the most influential tire enterprises in the world.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stuart A. Carpey, Esq.
CARPEY LAW, P.C.
600 W. Germantown Pike, Suite 400
Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462
Phone: (610) 834-6030
Fax: (610) 825-7579
- and -
John C. Bohren, Esq.
YANNI LAW APC
145 South Spring Street, Suite 850
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Phone: (619) 433-2803
Fax: (800) 867-6779
Email: yanni@bohrenlaw.com
- and -
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
POULIN WILLEY ANASTOPOULO LLC
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Phone: (803) 222-2222
Fax: (843) 494-5536
Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Jeanette H. Ho, Esq.
THOMAS, THOMAS AND HAFER, LLP
U. S. Steel Tower
600 Grant Street Suite 2600
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Phone: (412) 926-1449
Fax: (412) 697-7407
Email: jho@tthlaw.com
- and -
Kenneth T. Newman, Esq.
THOMAS, THOMAS AND HAFER, LLP
525 William Penn Pl, 37th Fl-Suite 3750
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Phone: (412) 697-7403
Fax: (412) 697-7407
Email: knewman@tthlaw.com
- and -
Steven H. Bergman, Esq.
RICHARDS BRANDT MILLER NELSON
111 East Broadway, Suite 400
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Phone: (801) 531-2000
Fax: (801) 532-5506
Email: steven-bergman@rbmn.com
PROGRESSIVE CASUALTY: Settles Vehicles Claims' Suit for $13.8MM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brittney Meredith-Miller, writing for PropertyCasualty360, reports
that four Progressive subsidiaries have agreed to pay a $13.8
million settlement in a New York class action suit accusing them of
undervaluing total loss vehicle claims. The defendants include
Progressive Casualty Company, Progressive Advanced Insurance
Company, Progressive Max Insurance Company and Progressive
Specialty Insurance.
The original suit was filed in the Southern District of New York in
October 2021. It alleges that the insurers determined the actual
cash value of totaled vehicle claims using reports prepared by
Mitchell International, Inc. Mitchell's valuations allegedly
included a "projected sold adjustment" deduction, which is
described as an adjustment based on consumer purchasing behavior,
which includes those who negotiate a different price than that at
which the vehicle is listed.
The suit explains: "These valuation reports purport to contain
values for comparable vehicles recently sold or for sale in the
claimant's geographic area. The reports also contain a purported
valuation for the loss vehicle based upon advertisements for
comparable vehicles listed in the report. The report then adjusts
the advertised prices of those comparable vehicles to account for
differences in equipment, mileage, and vehicle configuration."
Plaintiffs claim this adjustment allowed Progressive to "thumb the
scale" when calculating claim payouts. and the suit calls the use
of the projected sold adjustment "deceptive" and contrary to
appraisal standards.
"A negotiated price discount would be highly atypical and therefore
is not proper to include in determining actual cash value," the
suit continues. "The inclusion of this significant downward
adjustment purportedly to "reflect consumer purchasing behavior" is
particularly improper in the context of this action—insureds who
have suffered a total loss of their vehicle and need to procure a
replacement and have limited time to search out the illusory
opportunity to obtain the below-market deal Defendants assume
always exists without any explanation or support."
Progressive responded to the suit by claiming the New York
Superintendent of Insurance had approved the insurer's use of
Mitchell's services. They also defended the projected sold
adjustment as a valid method of valuation.
In addition to a settlement of $13.5 million, Progressive has also
agreed to pay $343,000 for attorney and litigation expenses. Each
of the seven plaintiffs in the case are expected to receive $3,000
plus individual lost wages and other out-of-pocket expenses up to a
combined $28,300. [GN]
PROPERFOOD LLC: Rubin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PROPERFOOD, LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Jonathan Rubin, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. PROPERFOOD, LLC, DOES 1
TO 20, Case No. CGC25623522 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty.,
March 21, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Business Tort."
Proper Food -- https://properfood.com/ -- is a fresh take on
takeaway – offering delicious, wholesome grab-and-go fare.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas Aaron Carlin, Esq.
PHILLIPS, ERLEWINE, GIVEN & CARLIN LLP
39 Mesa Street, Suite 201
San Francisco, CA 94129
Phone: 415-398-0900
Email: nac@phillaw.com
PROVANTAGE CORPORATE: Thompson Sues Over Unpaid Wages and Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------------
China A. Burnett Thompson, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. PROVANTAGE CORPORATE SOLUTIONS, LLC, a
foreign limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-00566 (D. Nev., March 27, 2025), is
brought for unpaid wages and overtime, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees, costs, and interest under Nevada Revised Statutes
("NRS") Chapter 608 and the federal Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA").
By calculating and paying overtime solely based on the hourly rate
of pay in effect, the Defendant systematically underpaid overtime
or otherwise incorrectly paid overtime to the Plaintiff and other
hourly non-exempt employees. Unless the Defendant calculates and
pays overtime based on the correct regular rate, which is not
evinced in the Plaintiff's records, the Defendant's underpayment of
overtime extends to any employee earning additional compensation
– such as Bonus, Drive Time and Late Drive - in a given pay
period beyond their hourly rate. the Defendant maintains an
unlawful company-wide policy of failing to calculate and pay
overtime based on the legally-mandated "regular rate." the
Plaintiff and Class Members worked over 8 hours per workday or over
40 hours per workweek without being paid overtime based on the
regular rate of pay, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff began working for the Defendant on September 16,
2020.
The Defendant specializes in providing "labor-intensive" services
to its retail store clients such as product merchandising, fixture
installation, and signage installation throughout the United
States, Canada, and Mexico.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel Mariner, Esq.
Jason Kuller, Esq.
RAFII & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
1120 N. Town Center Dr., Ste. 130
Las Vegas, NV 89144
Phone: 725.245.6056
Fax: 725.220.1802
Email: rachel@rafiilaw.com
jason@rafiilaw.com
PURE HOCKEY LLC: Villaverde Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PURE HOCKEY, LLC. The
case is styled as Amanda Villaverde, on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. PURE HOCKEY, LLC, Case No. CACE25004373 (Fla.
Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., March 27, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other."
Pure Hockey LLC -- https://www.purehockey.com/ -- operates as a
sporting goods wholesaler.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
974 Howard Ave.
Dunedin, FL 34698
Phone: (202) 709-5744
Fax: (866) 893-0416
Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com
RIPPLE LABS: Faces Securities Suit Over Unregistered XRP Sales
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sharon Kimathi, writing for Fintech Futures, reports that a new
class-action lawsuit has been filed against Ripple, its CEO Brad
Garlinghouse and its subsidiary XRP II, LLC.
The Block Crypto reports that the filing in the Middle District
Court of Florida on 25 January alleges that the defendants sold
"millions of dollars (or more)" of XRP without registering it
either with federal or Florida authorities.
"On numerous occasions, Defendants made public statements claiming
that XRP was not a security, when in fact it is," the lawsuit
claims. "Defendants actively concealed from investors the true
nature of XRP."
The lawsuit is filed by Tyler Toomey, a resident of Florida. Toomey
claims that he owned 135 XRP in November 2020 (worth about $100 at
the time) and sold it in two transactions in December 2020 at a
loss of about 50%.
To be sure, that is a negligible amount, but since the lawsuit is
class-action, other similarly situated XRP investors in Florida
could join Toomey in the case. "Plaintiff seeks to represent a
class defined as all persons or entities in the State of Florida
who purchased XRP," the lawsuit states.
This is not the first time the defendants are facing a class-action
lawsuit.
In 2018, investor Vladi Zakinov filed a case in California alleging
that XRP is a security controlled by Ripple. At the time, another
investor Ryan Coffey also filed a suit in California against the
defendants, alleging that XRP is a security.
After years of regulatory uncertainty, in December, the US
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) also sued Ripple, the CEO
and co-founder, Chris Larsen. The agency said it views XRP as a
security and alleged that the defendants engaged in unregistered
securities sales.
Ripple has maintained that XRP is not a security and has vowed to
fight the SEC charges.
Ripple and the SEC are set to meet for a pretrial conference on 22
February. Their joint letter describing the facts of the case is
due on 15 February.
The Block did not hear from Ripple after reaching out for comments
at the time of publication. [GN]
ROCKHARD CO: Ruiz and Durant Seek Proper OT Wages for Drivers
-------------------------------------------------------------
ORLANDO RUIZ AND OSCAR DURANT, JR., on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. ROCKHARD CO, LLC, ROCKHARD
HOLDINGS, LLC AND CARLOS R. ROMAN, INDIVIDUALLY, Defendants, Case
No. 1:25-cv-00427 (W.D. Tex., March 21, 2025) accuses the
Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Plaintiffs Orlando Ruiz and Oscar Durant, Jr. were employed as
delivery drivers by Defendants. Allegedly, Defendants failed to
compensate Plaintiffs for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in
a workweek as required by the FLSA.
Rockhard Co. LLC operates as transportation and logistics company
that transports gravel, topsoil and concrete in and around the
Round Rock, Texas area. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
WELMAKER LAW, PLLC
409 N. Fredonia, Suite 118
Longview, TX 75601
Telephone: (512) 799-2048
E-mail: doug@wemakerlaw.com
SAFEWAY INC: Margaretis Suit Removed to E.D. Wisconsin
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Shane Margaretis, individually and for others
similarly situated v. SAFEWAY INC., Case No. 2025CV30394 was
removed from the District Court for the State of Colorado, El Paso
County, to the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado on March 28, 2025, and assigned Case No.
1:25-cv-01014-JLK.
The Plaintiff asserts claims of violations of the Colorado Wage
Claim Act ("CWCA"), the Colorado Minimum Wage Act ("CMWA"), and
their implementing regulations ("COMPS Orders").[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian D. Gonzales, Esq.
BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC
2580 East Harmony Road, Suite 201
Fort Collins, CO 80528
Phone: 970.214.0562
Email: BGonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: 713-352-1100
Facsimile: 713-352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: 713-877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Jennifer S. Harpole, Esq.
Lukasz Gilewski, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
1900 Sixteenth Street, Suite 800
Denver, CO 80202
Phone: 303.629.6200
Fax: 303.629.0200
Email: jharpole@littler.com
lgilewski@littler.com
SAN FRANCISCO C&C: Stewart Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Stewart, and others similarly situated (as an aggrieved
employee and private attorney general) v. SAN FRANCISCO C&C dba
MEL'S DRIVE IN (form unknown) and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive,
Case No. 26STCV08292 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 21,
2025), is brought pursuant to California Labor Code as a result of
the Defendants' failure to pay wages and premium pay.
The Defendants required Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees to
clock out for both meal and rest breaks, yet they had to continue
working. When employes 1 16. forget to clock out for these breaks,
Defendants edit their time punches to make it look like lawful meal
and rest breaks were taken. In reality, Aggrieved Employees did not
have the opportunity to take meal and rest breaks, as there is no
system for coverage so customers can get adequate service while
employees take their breaks. Thus, Defendants failed to provide
meal and rest breaks and failed to pay premium pay in violation of
Labor Code.
The Defendant's practice of modifying time punches also resulted in
Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employes working off the clock, leading
to failure to pay minimum wages and overtime in violation of Labor
Code. Defendants failed to pay overtime and premium pay to
Plaintiff and the Aggrieved Employees at the correct regular rate.
It did not include all forms of compensation, including but not
limited to service charges.
As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants' unlawful acts,
Plaintiff has suffered, and continues to suffer, from loss of
earnings in amounts as yet unascertained, but subject to proof at
trial, and within the jurisdiction of this Court, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendants at Mel's Drive-In in Santa
Monica, California, from June 2018 through January 25, 2024 as a
server, and she was classified as non-exempt.
Mel's Drive-In has conducted business in Los Angeles County,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Amy S. Ramsey, Esq.
ADVANTAGE ADVOCATES, P.C.
21 Miller Alley
Pasadena, CA 91103
Phone: (626) 310-0100
Fax: (626) 310-0103
Email: aramsey@advantage-law.com
SANA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Drott Sues Over Misleading Public Statements
----------------------------------------------------------------
CARL JOHAN DROTT, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SANA BIOTECHNOLOGY, INC., STEVEN
D. HARR, and NATHAN HARDY, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00512 (W.D.
Wash., March 21, 2025), seeks to recover damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Securities and Exchange Commission's Rule 10b-5.
The Plaintiff brings this federal securities class action on behalf
of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than
Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Sana securities
between March 17, 2023 and November 4, 2024, both dates inclusive.
Allegedly, the Defendants overstated Sana's financial capacity to
maintain its current operations and advance its existing product
candidates. As a result, the Defendants' public statements were
materially false and/or misleading at all relevant times, says the
suit.
Headquartered in Seattle, WA, Sana is a biotechnology company that
develops cell engineering programs. The company's common stock
trades in an efficient market on the Nasdaq Stock Market under the
ticker symbol "SANA." [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Duncan C. Turner, Esq.
BADGLEY MULLINS TURNER PLLC
19910 50th Ave. W., Suite 103
Lynnwood, WA 98036
Telephone: (206) 621-6566
E-mail: dturner@badgleymullins.com
- and -
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
POMERANTZ LLP
600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: (212) 661-1100
Facsimile: (917) 463-1044
E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
ahood@pomlaw.com
SANA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action securities lawsuit was filed against Sana
Biotechnology, Inc. that seeks to recover losses of shareholders
who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between
March 17, 2023 and November 4, 2024.
CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
false statements and/or concealed that: (i) Sana was at significant
risk of having insufficient funds to maintain its current
operations and advance one or more of its product candidates; (ii)
SC291 in oncology, SC379, and SG299 were less promising than
defendants had led investors to believe; (iii) in order to preserve
cash and advance its more promising product candidates, Sana was
likely to decrease funding for and/or discontinue SC291 in
oncology, SC379, and SG299, as well as significantly reduce its
headcount; (iv) accordingly, defendants overstated Sana's financial
capacity to maintain its current operations and advance its
existing product candidates; and (v) as a result, defendants'
public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all
relevant times.
WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Sana Biotechnology, Inc.
stock during the relevant time frame -- even if you still hold your
shares -- go to
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/sana-biotechnology-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=138751&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]
SANTA FE TIVOLI: Schreiner Sues Over Unpaid Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Renee Schreiner, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. SANTA FE TIVOLI, INC., and SANTA FE WOODSTOCK LLC, and
JAMES DEMOS, individually, Case No. 7:25-cv-02505 (S.D.N.Y., March
26, 2025), is brought for damages and equitable relief based upon
violations that Defendants committed of Plaintiff's rights
guaranteed to her by: the minimum wage provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and provisions of the New York Labor Law
("NYLL") and the tip misappropriation under the FLSA and the NYLL.
For the duration of Plaintiff's employment period, Defendants
willfully failed to pay Plaintiff the wages lawfully due to her
under the FLSA and the NYLL, as Defendants paid Plaintiff below the
minimum wage rate based on their application of a tip credit to
Plaintiff's wages despite never providing her with a tip credit
notice. Additionally, Defendants violated the FLSA and NYLL by
misappropriating tips, as Defendants' owners and managers
unlawfully participated in the tip pool, and further violated the
NYLL by failing to furnish Plaintiff with accurate wage statements
on each payday, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-managerial server
for the Defendants' restaurant chain.
Santa Fe consists of at least three nominally distinct business
entities that operate as a single business entity doing business as
"Santa Fe," comprised of at least three restaurants in Woodstock,
Tivoli, and Kingston.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeffrey R. Maguire
STEVENSON MARINO LLP
445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 1500
White Plains, NY 10601
Phone: (212) 939-7229
- and -
Jarret Bodo, Esq.
KATZ MELINGER PLLC
370 Lexington Avenue, Suite 1512
New York, NY 10017
Phone: (212) 460-0047
Fax: (212) 428-6811
Email: jtbodo@katzmelinger.com
SATCO INC: Mulgado Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SATCO, INC. The case
is styled as Raul Gomez Mulgado, an individual and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. SATCO, INC., Case No. 25STCV09041
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 27, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
SATCO, Inc. -- https://www.satco-inc.com/ -- offers pallet and
container rentals.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David D. Bibiyan, Esq.
BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, P.C.
1460 Westwood Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90024
Phone: 310-438-5555
Email: david@tomorrowlaw.com
SECURITY USA: Beeks Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------
Luther Beeks, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
SECURITY USA, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-02398 (S.D.N.Y., March 24,
2025), is brought pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA")
and the New York Labor Law ("NYLL") that he and others similarly
situated are entitled to recover from Defendant unpaid overtime pay
of time and one-half for hours worked in excess of forty hours per
week due to Defendant's practice of not properly paying overtime,
as well as unpaid minimum wages and overtime due to Defendant's
practice of time shaving whereby the required employees to arrive
early and stay late, but only paid them for their scheduled hours.
On the occasions when Plaintiff did work in excess of 40 hours per
week, the hours Plaintiff worked over 40 hours per week were always
paid at his regular rate, approximately $18.25 per hour, never at
the required overtime rate of time and half, around $27 per hour.
Defendant knowingly and willfully failed to pay Plaintiff, FLSA
Collective Plaintiff, and the Class regular and overtime wages for
all hours worked due to Defendant's time-shaving practices. At all
relevant times, Plaintiff, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs and Class
members regularly worked over 40 hours per week, but Defendant
failed to pay them the proper overtime premium rate of one-and-half
times of their regular hourly rate for each hour exceeding 40 hours
per workweek in violation of FLSA and State wage laws, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as a security guard from
December 28, 2022 to the end of March 26, 2023.
The Defendant operates a security company which provides security
services to both commercial and residential sites.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mohammed Gangat, Esq.
LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT
675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810,
New York, NY 10017
Phone: 718-669-0714
Email: mgangat@gangatpllc.com
SEGWAY INC: Faces Cicero Suit Over Defective Scooters
-----------------------------------------------------
BARTON CICERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SEGWAY INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-00369-UNA (D. Del., March 25, 2025) alleges that the
Defendant manufactures and sells defective Segway Ninebot Max G30P
and Max G30LP KickScooters.
According to the complaint, after selling roughly 220,000 of its
popular Segway Ninebot Max G30P and Max G30LP KickScooters, the
Defendant announced a nationwide recall instructing its customers
to stop using them because the folding mechanism can fail and cause
the handlebars or stem to fold while the scooter is in use, posing
a fall hazard to consumers. Scores of consumers have been injured,
as the defect causes the Products to effectively collapse on
themselves when consumers are going roughly twenty miles per hour,
launching customers into traffic and the pavement.
Like Plaintiff, customers have routinely ended up in emergency
rooms around the country. And yet, Defendant refuses to refund its
customers a single cent, says the suit.
Segway Inc. develops, manufactures, and sells personal electric
transportation devices. The Company offers electric two-wheeled
transportation equipment used to provide transportation for people
and packages. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
R. Grant Dick IV, Esq.
Kevin D. Levitsky, Esq.
COOCH AND TAYLOR P.A.
1000 N. West Street, Suite 1500
Wilmington, DE 19801
Telephone: (302) 984-3800
Email: gdick@coochtaylor.com
klevitsky@coochtaylor.com
- and -
Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq.
SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC
166 Geary Str STE 1500-1507
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: 415-839-7077
Facsimile: (888) 410-0415
Email: yeremey@skclassactions.com
- and -
Joel D. Smith, Esq.
SMITH KRIVOSHEY, PC
867 Boylston Street 5 th Floor #1520
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 377-7404
Facsimile: (888) 410-0415
Email: joel@skclassactions.com
SHADE STORE: Crowder Seeks to Seal Class Cert Docs
--------------------------------------------------
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 enter an order granting motion to
consider whether the following The Shade Store materials should be
sealed.
The materials that Plaintiffs seek to file provisionally under seal
are identified in the following chart:
Document Portion(s) to Seal Designating Entity and
Reason(s) for Sealing
Plaintiffs' Redactions on The material redacted in the
Motion and Pages: 1, 3, 5, Motion has been designated
Memorandum and 11. "CONFIDENTIAL" or "HIGHLY
of Law in CONFIDENTIAL –ATTORNEYS'
Support of EYES ONLY" by The Shade
Class Store. The Plaintiffs are
Certification therefore not in a position
to place this information in
the public record.
Exhibit 1 to Redactions on The material redacted in the
Plaintiffs' Page: 155 Transcript has been
Motion in designated "CONFIDENTIAL" or
Support of "HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL –
Class ATTORNEYS' EYES ONLY" by The
Certification Shade Store. The Plaintiffs
are therefore not in a
position to place this
information in the public
record.
Shade Store is a home decoration products provider. The Company
offers custom shades, blinds, and drapery, as well as provides
design assistance.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 24, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qI37qF 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
SONIC.NET LLC: Filips Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SONIC.NET, LLC, et
al. The case is styled as Sean Filips, an individual, on behalf of
plaintiff, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v.
SONIC.NET, LLC, SONIC.NET HOLDINGS, INC., SONIC.NET, LLC, DOES 1 TO
50, INCLUSIVE, Case No. CGC25623710 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco
Cty., March 27, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints."
Sonic -- https://www.sonic.com/ -- is a telecommunications company
and internet service provider based in Santa Rosa, California,
acting as a competitive local exchange carrier in the San Francisco
Bay Area, Sacramento, and Los Angeles.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Shani Zakay, Esq.
ZAKAY LAW GROUP, APLC
5440 Morehouse Dr., Ste. 3600
San Diego, CA 92121-6720
Phone: 619-255-9047
Fax: 858-404-9203
Email: shani@zakaylaw.com
- and -
Perssia Pearl Razma, Esq.
JCL LAW FIRM, APC.
5440 Morehouse Dr., Ste. 3600
San Diego, CA 92121-6720
Phone: 619-599-8292
SOUTHEAST SERIES: Carter Sues Over Failure to Secure Information
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hunter Carter, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SOUTHEAST SERIES OF LOCKTON COMPANIES, LLC, Case No.
4:25-cv-00375 (E.D. Mo., March 25, 2025), is brought against
Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the
personally identifiable information that it collected and
maintained as part of its regular business practices, including
Plaintiff's and Class Members' names, dates of birth, medical
information, medical insurance information, and Social Security
numbers (collectively defined herein as "Private Information").
This class action arises out of the recent data breach ("Data
Breach") involving Defendant, a company that provides
employee-benefit management services to its clients. Current and
former employees of Defendant's clients are required to entrust
Defendant with sensitive, non-public Private Information, including
that of their family members ("Benefits Recipients"), without which
Defendant could not perform its regular business activities, in
order to obtain and facilitate employment benefits programs for
Defendant's clients. Defendant retains this information for at
least many years and even after the employee-benefit management
company relationship has ended.
By obtaining, collecting, using, and deriving a benefit from the
Private Information of Plaintiff and Class Members, Defendant
assumed legal and equitable duties to those individuals to protect
and safeguard that information from unauthorized access and
intrusion.
The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class
Members' Private Information––and failed to even encrypt or
redact this highly sensitive information. This unencrypted,
unredacted Private Information was compromised due to Defendant's
negligent and/or careless acts and omissions and its utter failure
to protect Benefits Recipients' sensitive data. Hackers targeted
and obtained Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information
because of its value in exploiting and stealing the identities of
Plaintiff and Class Members. The present and continuing risk of
identity theft and fraud to victims of the Data Breach will remain
for their respective lifetimes, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former Benefits
Recipients of Defendant's clients.
The Defendant is a company that provides employee-benefit
management services to its clients.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Phone: 305-479-2299
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
SPARK REVENUE: Faces Ferrell Suit Over Unwanted Text Messages
-------------------------------------------------------------
AMBER FERRELL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SPARK REVENUE, LLC, Case No. 6:25-cv-00093-SPS (E.D.
Okla., March 27, 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.
Through this action, the Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to halt
Defendant’s unlawful conduct which has resulted in intrusion into
the peace and quiet in a realm that is private and personal to
Plaintiff and the Class members.
The Plaintiff also seeks statutory damages on behalf of themselves
and members of the Class, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies.
The Plaintiff is a natural person entitled to bring this action
under the TCPA, and a citizen and resident of Miami-Dade County,
Florida. The Plaintiff is the regular user of the telephone number
that received the solicitations. The Plaintiff utilizes the
cellular telephone number that received the Defendant's telephone
solicitations for personal purposes and the number is Plaintiff's
residential telephone line and primary means of reaching Plaintiff
at home.
Spark offers advertising services. BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rachel Lawrence, Esq.
RACHEL LAWRENCE MOR P.C.
Landmark Towers West, Suite 1000
3555 N.W. 58th Street
Oklahoma City, OK 73112
Telephone: (813) 340-8838
E-mail: rmor@thelawgroupc.com
STATE FARM: Judge Dismisses Homeowners' Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew G. Simpson, writing for Insurance Journal, reports that a
federal judge has dismissed a proposed class action filed on behalf
of Pennsylvania homeowners who believe that State Farm undervalued
their property damage claims in its use of the Xactimate software
that is popular with insurers.
The lead plaintiffs, Jamie and Becky Belotti, sustained a fire loss
at their home in Duryea, Pennsylvania. Their complaint contains
counts for bad faith, fraud and deceptive business practices,
breach of contract, bad faith, and unfair trade practices. They
sought relief as a class action.
The homeowners maintained that State Farm wrongfully treated their
home damage repair as "new construction" when it should have used
Verisk Analytics' Xactimate numbers for "repair/reconstruction" and
the difference led to an alleged underpayment.
The plaintiffs did not contest that State Farm failed to pay for
the cost of repair and replacement of its losses with similar
construction. Rather the plaintiffs' concerns related to the
insurer's alleged failure to use a specific method of computation
concerning its assessment of their losses.
State Farm filed a motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss
all claims alleged, arguing that it had no contractual duty to use
a particular setting when estimating losses and it did not breach
its loss settlement obligations.
After the parties could not agree on a loss payment amount, they
entered into an appraisal process as called for in the policy. At
the time, the parties were approximately $200,000 apart in their
respective replacement cost estimates.
The appraisers selected by State Farm and the plaintiffs agreed
that the replacement cost estimate and the actual cash value
amounts for the plaintiffs' loss were $267,382 and $240,643
respectively. The appraisal award was not prepared using Xactimate
and did not use either Xactimate's "new construction" or
"Restoration/Service/Remodel" settings. State Farm paid the
plaintiffs the difference between its initial total payments and
the amount resulting from the appraisal process.
Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr., in the Middle District of
Pennsylvania, agreed with State Farm that its policy did not
require the insurer to use a specific computation method for loss
calculations. The judge also noted that the insurer agreed to an
appraisal process after the homeowners' public adjuster and the
insurer differed over the right amount and the insurer paid the
difference.
The judge said he could not identify any policy language that
"directly or indirectly" concerns any method of computation, "much
less" any language that requires a singular method of computation.
"The language of an insurance policy should not be stretched beyond
its plain meaning to create ambiguous terms," the judge commented.
Indeed, the court said, the reason that the policy does not include
a provision allowing the defendant to use the "new construction
model" for damages is because the policy is "wholly independent"
from a method of computation. The Belottis failed to provide any
additional information that indicates any potential ambiguity or
any additional general support for their contention that State Farm
breached the contract.
The fact that the parties' appraisers ultimately assigned a higher
value to the claim than State Farm's estimate does not mean State
Farm acted in bad faith, the judge also found.
The court granted State Farm's motion for summary judgment.
State Farm has faced other cases involving its calculation of
damages including one in California where it won dismissal and
another in Indiana where it lost summary judgment and the parties
settled before trial. [GN]
STEVEN SANDERS: Court Extends Time to Oppose Class Cert Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LATORIA GEORGE, on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated, v. STEVEN E. SANDERS,
in his official capacity as East Baton Rouge Parish Ward 3 District
2 Justice of the Peace, Case No. 3:25-cv-00168-JWD-EWD (M.D. La.),
the Defendant asks the Court to enter a Scheduling Order for the
purposes of pre-certification discovery, and grant:
1) an extension to oppose the Plaintiff's motion to certify the
class until such time that parties have had an opportunity
to conduct pre-certification, and
2) an extension of time to file responsive pleadings to the
Plaintiff's complaint until after this Honorable Court makes
a ruling on the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
The Defendant contends that a Scheduling Order allowing the parties
to conduct pre-certification discovery should be ordered by the
Court in order to enable the Court to decide on a developed record
whether each of Plaintiffs' putative claims are meets the
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and allow the Defendant to
prepare an adequate defense opposition to the class certification
by ascertaining the factual allegations made by the Plaintiff.
On Feb. 25, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint
against the Defendant alleging that 1) La. R.S. 13:2590(A)(2)-(3)
and La. R.S. 13:2590(B)(1) violate the Due Process Clause pursuant
to the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and
2) La. C.C.P., art. 4924(C) violates the Equal Protection Clause
pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment.
A copy of the Defendant's motion dated March 21, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=z4c94Z at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendant is represented by:
Liz Murrill, Esq.
Carey Tom Jones, Esq.
David Jeddie Smith, Jr., Esq.
Tanika L. Starks, Esq.
LOUISIANA DEPT. OF JUSTICE
Baton Rouge, LA 70802
Telephone: (225) 326-6000
Facsimile: (225) 326-6098
E-mail: JonesCar@ag.louisiana.gov
SmithDa@ag.louisiana.gov
StarksT@ag.louisiana.gov
SULLIVAN ENTERTAINMENT: Tracks Consumers' Personal Data, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
MARK GLINOGA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. SULLIVAN ENTERTAINMENT INC., SULLIVAN HOME
ENTERTAINMENT LIMITED, SULLIVAN ENTERTAINMENT INTERNATIONAL INC.,
and SULLIVAN ENTERTAINMENT GROUP INC, Case No.
3:25-cv-00707-GPC-SBC (S.D. Cal., March 26, 2025) alleges that the
Defendants utilized tracking tools to intercept and disclose
consumers’ search terms, video watching information, and
personally identifiable information (Sensitive Information) without
seeking or obtaining consumers' consent.
Accordingly , the Website's use of the Tracking Tools resulted in
violations of the Video Privacy Protection Act (VPPA), state and
federal wiretap statutes, and invasions into consumers' privacy.
The case is a class action brought on behalf of all persons who
subscribed to the Website and subsequently watched pre-recorded
video content on the Website.
The Website is in the business of the sale of prerecorded
audio-visual materials and offers users the option to subscribe to
the Website to buy, rent or download digital movies and TV series
by providing their email addresses.
GazeboTV owns and manages a video streaming website at
https://www.gazebotv.com/browse.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Adam M. Apton, Esq.
Mark S. Reich, Esq.
Colin A. Brown, Esq.
Alyssa Tolentino, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
1160 Battery Street East, Suite 100
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: 415-373-1671
Facsimile: 212-363-7171
E-mail: aapton@zlk.com
mreich@zlk.com
cbrown@zlk.com
atolentino@zlk.com
SUN BUM SUNCARE: Mancera Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Sun Bum Suncare, LLC.
The case is styled as Eve Mancera, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Sun Bum Suncare, LLC, Case No.
25CU013358C (Cal. Super. Ct., San Diego Cty., March 13, 2025).
Sun Bum Suncare, LLC -- https://www.sunbum.com/ -- is a
manufacturer of sun care products based in Encinitas,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Craig W. Straub, Esq.
CROSNER LEGAL, P.C.
9440 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 301
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Phone: (310) 496-5818
Email: craig@crosnerlegal.com
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Reich Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Leo Reich, an individual, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION
CO. OF ARIZONA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; DOES 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV04798 was removed from the
Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California on March 26,
2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02658.
The Plaintiff's putative class claims arise from allegations that
Defendant failed to comply with California's wage and hour laws in
compensating drivers as follows: failure to compensate for all
hours worked; failure to reimburse expenses; failure to provide
accurate wage statements; failure to pay overtime; failure to pay
wages when due; unfair business practices; and civil penalties
under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA).[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Paul S. Cowie, Esq.
John Ellis, Esq.
Luis F. Arias, Esq.
Alexis S. Cherry, Esq.
SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
A Limited Liability Partnership
Including Professional Corporations
Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4109
Phone: 415.434.9100
Facsimile: 415.434.3947
Email: pcowie@sheppardmullin.com
jellis@sheppardmullin.com
larias@sheppardmullin.com
acherry@sheppardmullin.com
SYSCO CORPORATION: Luna Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against SYSCO CORPORATION.
The case is styled as Valerie Rose Luna, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. SYSCO CORPORATION, Case No.
25PSCV00910 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 13, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
Sysco -- https://sysco.com/ -- is the world's largest broadline
food distributor, serving over 600,000 clients in various
fields.[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
T-MOBILE US INC: Zajonc Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Paula Zajonc, an individual, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. T-MOBILE US, INC.; and
DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 25CV110772 was removed from
the Superior Court of the State of California in the County of
Alameda, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on March 27, 2025, and assigned Case No.
3:25-cv-02860-PHK.
In her Complaint, Plaintiff alleges three causes of action against
Defendant for: Employment Discrimination under the Fair Employment
and Housing Act ("FEHA"); Wrongful Termination in Violation of
Public Policy; and Violation of California's Unfair Competition
Law, Bus. & Prof. Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Scott P. Jang, Esq.
Geoffrey R. Pittman, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
50 California Street, 9th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111-4615
Phone: (415) 394-9400
Facsimile: (415) 394-9401
Email: Scott.Jang@jacksonlewis.com
Geoffrey.Pittman@jacksonlewis.com
TA3 INC: Wolf-Bond Suit Removed to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Lauren Wolf-Bond, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. TA3, INC. and ROUTE APP, INC.,
Case No. 25STCV04719 was removed from the Superior Court of the
State of California in the County of Los Angeles, to the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
March 26, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02665.
In the Complaint, Plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief
individually based on allegations that Plaintiff did not know that
Route App's Shipping Protection fee was optional and that the fee
is at odds with representations that she would get free shipping.
Plaintiff asserts a breach of contract claim, and claims based on
alleged violations of California Business & Professional Code and
California Civil Code against Defendant.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Rodger R. Cole, Esq.
FENWICK & WEST LLP
Silicon Valley Center
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
Phone: 650.988.8500
Facsimile: 650.938.5200
Email: rcole@fenwick.com
- and -
Molly R. Melcher, Esq.
FENWICK & WEST LLP
555 California Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: 415.875.2300
Facsimile: 415.281.1350
Email: mmelcher@fenwick.com
TECH MAHINDRA: Boney Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Scott Boney, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. TECH MAHINDRA (AMERICAS), INC., Case
4:25-cv-00313 (E.D. Tex., March 27, 2025), is brought to recover
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").
The Defendant not only failed to compensate Plaintiff for his
overtime hours but also at times intentionally altered and reduced
his approved overtime hours on timesheets before payroll was
finalized, thereby depriving him of earned wages. The Plaintiff
regularly worked significant overtime due to a backlog of tickets
requiring urgent resolution. Pharmacist consultants, including
Plaintiff, were encouraged to work additional hours because of the
large number of outstanding tickets, and were promised that all
overtime would be paid. Defendant engaged in a systematic scheme of
encouraging employees, including pharmacists, to work overtime with
promises of approval while later manipulating timesheets to remove
or reduce overtime hours, thereby evading their obligations under
the FLSA and denying Plaintiff and similarly situated employees
their legally mandated wages, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendant as a W-2 employee
classified as a consultant, working remotely from South Carolina to
assist with Epic (medical/pharmacy records software) programming
and support issues to Defendant's operations in Plano, Texas.
TECH MAHINDRA (AMERICAS), INC. is a Delaware corporation with a
principal place of business in Plano, Texas.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel A. Noteware, Jr., Esq.
NOTEWARE LAW FIRM, P.C.
100 E. Ferguson, Suite 1206
Tyler, TX 75702
Phone: (903) 747-8245
Facsimile: (903) 730-5151
Email: dan@notewarelaw.com
TECHNICOLOR CREATIVE: Faces Suit Over WARN Act Breaches
-------------------------------------------------------
Jane Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TECHNICOLOR CREATIVE SERVICES USA, INC,
Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-02542 (C.D. Cal., March 21, 2025),
accuses the Defendant of violating the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act and the California Worker Adjustment
and Retraining Notification Act.
On or within 90 days of February 24, 2025, the Defendant made a
mass layoff by, unilaterally and without notice, permanently
terminating over 217 employees at the Facility, without 60 days'
advance written notice to employees, including Plaintiff. Moreover,
the Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees did not
receive the full protection afforded by the WARN Act and California
WARN Act, says the suit.
Headquartered in Culver City, CA, Technicolor Creative Services
USA, Inc. provides motion picture services including animation,
sound, mastering, versioning, and digital distribution. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Vess A. Miller (SBN 278020)
COHENMALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
Facsimile: (317) 636-2593
E-mail: vmiller@cohenmalad.com
- and -
Carly M. Roman, Esq.
STRAUSS BORELLI, PLLC
One Magnificent Mile
980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (972) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
E-mail: carly@straussborellli.com
THERMO FISHER: Rickes Suit Removed to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Scott Rickes, and individual, on behalf of
himself, all others similarly situated, and all other aggrieved
employees v. THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC INC., a Delaware corporation,
and DOES 1-20, inclusive, Case No. 24CU013384C 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-00690-GPC-JLB.
The Plaintiff asserts the following claims in the State Court
Action Complaint: Discrimination on the Basis of Age; Failure to
Prevent Discrimination; Wrongful Termination in Violation of Public
Policy; Failure to Provide Accurate Wage Statements; Failure to
Produce Copies of Wage Statements Upon Request; and Representative
Action For Civil Penalties Under California Private Attorneys
General Act.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Leo P. Norton, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS, P.C.
200 Spectrum Center Dr, Ste 500
Irvine, CA 92168
Phone: (949) 299-4130
Email: Leo.Norton@jacksonlewis.com
- and -
Lara P. Besser, Esq.
Gabriella S. Han, Esq.
JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
225 Broadway, Suite 1800
San Diego, CA 92101
Phone: (619) 573-4900
Facsimile: (619) 573-4901
Email: Lara.Besser@jacksonlewis.com
Gabriella.Han@jacksonlewis.com
TRULIEVE HOLDINGS: Watt Files Suit in D. Arizona
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Trulieve Holdings
Incorporated, et al. The case is styled as Erik Watt, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Trulieve Holdings
Incorporated, Trulieve Cannabis Corporation, Harvest Dispensaries,
Cultivations & Production Facilities LLC, Svaccha LLC, High Desert
Healing LLC, Medical Pain Relief Incorporated, Sherri Dunn LLC,
Pahana Incorporated, Nature Med Incorporated, Sweet 5 LLC, Green
Desert Patient Center of Peoria Incorporated, Ad LLC, Kwerles
Incorporated, Mohave Valley Consulting LLC, Abedon Saiz LLC, Byers
Dispensary Incorporated, Green Sky Patient Center of Scottsdale
North Incorporated, Cochise County Wellness LLC, Giving Tree
Wellness Center of Mesa Incorporated, Fort Mountain Consulting LLC,
Patient Care 301 Incorporated, Purplemed Incorporated, Case No.
2:25-cv-00962-SPL (D. Ariz., March 21, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Trulieve -- https://investors.trulieve.com/ -- is an industry
leading, vertically integrated cannabis company and multi-state
operator in the U.S., with established hubs in the Northeast,
Southeast, and Southwest, anchored by leading market positions in
Arizona, Florida, and Pennsylvania.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jamie Holz, Esq.
LUISI HOLZ LAW
161 N Clark St., Ste. 1600
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 639-4478
- and -
Laura Luisi, Esq.
GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP - CHICAGO, IL
77 W Wacker Dr., Ste. 3100
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: (312) 456-5201
Fax: (312) 456-8435
Email: luisil@gtlaw.com
- and -
Patricia N. Syverson, Esq.
FRANKEL SYVERSON PLLC - SAN DIEGO
9655 Granite Ridge Dr., Ste. 200
San Diego, CA 92123
Phone: (602) 598-4000
Email: patti@frankelsyverson.com
- and -
Ty Derek Frankel, Esq.
FRANKEL SYVERSON PLLC - PHOENIX
2375 E Camelback Rd., Ste 600
Phoenix, AZ 85016
Phone: (602) 598-4000
Email: ty@frankelsyverson.com
TUESDAY MORNING: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Tuesday Morning Corporation, Case No.
0:25-cv-01117-DSD-ECW (D. Minn., March 27, 2025), is brought
arising because Defendant's Website (www.tuesdaymorning.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 home goods and clothing for sale including,
but not limited to home décor, indoor and outdoor furnishings,
rugs, luggage, pet supplies, women's apparel, 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
TWITTER INC: Must Oppose Bid for Class Certification by May 27
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CAROLINA BERNAL STRIFLING
and WILLOW WREN TURKAL, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, v. TWITTER, INC., and X CORP., Case No.
4:22-cv-07739-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an
order the following schedule regarding class certification:
-- The Plaintiffs will submit their motion for class
certification and expert disclosures relating to class
certification on or before April 24, 2025;
-- The Defendants will submit their opposition to class
certification and class certification expert disclosures on or
before May 27, 2025;
-- The cut-off for class certification expert discovery will be
June 10, 2025;
-- The Plaintiffs will submit their reply in support of their
class certification motion on or before June 17, 2025.
Twitter, officially known as X since 2023, is a social networking
service.
A copy of the Court's order dated March 21, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wQ7LMC at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
Thomas Fowler, Esq.
LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000
Boston, MA 02116
Telephone: (617) 994-5800
Facsimile: (617) 994-5801
E-mail: sliss@llrlaw.com
tfowler@llrlaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Eric Meckley, Esq.
Brian D. Berry, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
2222 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
E-mail: eric.meckley@morganlewis.com
brian.berry@morganlewis.com
TZUMI ELECTRONICS: Martinez Files Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Tzumi Electronics,
Inc. The case is styled as Jason Martinez, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Tzumi Electronics, Inc.,
Case No. 7:25-cv-02578 (S.D.N.Y., March 28, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
Tzumi Electronics -- https://tzumi.com/ -- is a privately held
consumer electronics accessory manufacturer located in the heart of
New York City.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Philip John Furia, Esq.
SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC
85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Phone: (845) 483-7100
Fax: (888) 749-7747
Email: furiap@thesultzerlawgroup.com
ULTRA CLEAN: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------
A class action securities lawsuit was filed against Ultra Clean
Holdings, Inc. that seeks to recover losses of shareholders who
were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between May 6,
2024 and February 24, 2025.
CASE DETAILS: According to the complaint, defendants provided
investors with material information concerning the elevated demand
from Chinese original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and in the
general Chinese domestic market for Ultra Clean's products
throughout the fiscal year 2024. Defendants' statements included,
among other things, reports of increased demand for the Company's
products and services in the domestic Chinese market and reports of
increased revenue, including revenue doubling with no signs of
slowing down, due to the elevated demand in China for Ultra Clean's
products and services.
Defendants provided these overwhelmingly positive statements to
investors while, at the same time, disseminating materially false
and misleading statements and/or concealing material adverse facts
concerning the true state of the demand for Ultra Clean's products
and services in the domestic Chinese market; notably, that the
Company was facing a customer ramp issue with one of its critical
customers, as well as a combination of inventory and demand
corrections, which, ultimately, caused weakness for Ultra Clean in
China.
On February 24, 2025, Ultra Clean published fourth quarter and full
year 2024 fiscal results and hosted an associated earnings call,
where the Company's executives revealed that Ultra Clean was facing
"demand softness" in China. In particular, Ultra Clean was facing
decreased demand in China due to extended qualification timelines
and inventory absorption.
Investors and analysts reacted immediately to these revelations.
The price of Ultra Clean's common stock declined dramatically. From
a closing market price of $36.06 per share on February 24, 2025,
Ultra Clean's stock price fell to $25.90 per share on February 25,
2025, a decline of over 28% in the span a single day.
WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Ultra Clean stock during the
relevant time frame - even if you still hold your shares - go to
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/ultra-clean-holdings-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=139014&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]
UNCLE JULIO'S: Keyso Suit Transferred to D. Maryland
----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Audrey Keyso, Cyle Quick, Liv Wysocki, on
behalf of herself and all other similarly situated v. Uncle Julio's
Corporation, The Mexican Restaurant, Inc. doing business as: Uncle
Julio's Mexican from Scratch Restaurant Group, Case No.
4:24-cv-00670 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Maryland on March 27, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-01008-BAH to the
proceeding.
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.
The Mexican Restaurant, Inc. -- https://mexicanrestaurantsinc.com/
-- is a restaurant company operating four brands and 30+ locations
in four states.[BN]
UNITED STATES: Faces Class Suit Over Deportation's Lack of Notice
-----------------------------------------------------------------
D.V.D.; M.M.; E.F.D.; and O.C.G., Plaintiffs v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HOMELAND SECURITY; Kristi NOEM, Secretary, U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, in her official capacity; Pamela BONDI, U.S.
Attorney General, in her official capacity; and Antone MONIZ,
Superintendent, Plymouth County Correctional Facility, in his
official capacity, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-10676-BEM (D.
Mass., March 21, 2025) is a class action challenging the policy or
practice of the Department of Homeland Security of deporting, or
seeking to deport, Plaintiffs and proposed class members to a third
country -- a country never designated for removal -- without first
providing them with notice or opportunity to contest removal on the
basis that they have a fear of persecution, torture, and even death
if deported to that third country.
According to the complaint, DHS' policy or practice of failing to
afford the basic, minimal protections violates the Immigration and
Nationality Act, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act
of 1998, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the
treaty obligations of the United States.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is the federal agency
responsible for implementing and enforcing the INA. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Tomas Arango, Esq.
Trina Realmuto, Esq.
Kristin Macleod-Ball, Esq.
Mary Kenney, Esq.
NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LITIGATION ALLIANCE
10 Griggs Terrace
Brookline, MA, 02446
Telephone: (617) 819-4649
E-mail: trina@immigrationlitigation.org
- and -
Anwen Hughes, Esq.
HUMAN RIGHTS FIRST
75 Broad Street, 31st Floor
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 845-5244
E-mail: HughesA@humanrightsfirst.org
- and -
Matt Adams, Esq.
Leila Kang, Esq.
Aaron Korthuis, Esq.
Glenda M. Aldana Madrid, Esq.
NORTHWEST IMMIGRANT RIGHTS PROJECT
615 Second Avenue, Suite 400
Seattle, WA 98104
Telephone: (206) 957-8611
E-mail: matt@nwirp.org
UNITED STATES: Fails to Properly Diagnose Illnesses, Glazier Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BILLIE GLAZIER, et al., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. THE CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVE
TION (CDC), THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH (NIH), and THE JOINT
COMMISSION HEALTH CARE FACILITIES AND INSTITUTIONS TO BE NAMED
LATER IN DISCOVERY JOHN AND JANE DOES 1-INFINITY (PLACE HOLDER
DEFENDANTS TO BF INCLUDED LATER IN THE DISCOVERY PROCESS), et al.,
Case No. 1:25-cv-00240-RAH-KFP (M.D. Ala., March 27, 2025)
challenges the systematic failure of federal health agencies and
medical institutions to properly diagnose, treat, and address
parasitic symptoms, fungal and mold-related illnesses affecting a
large population of Americans.
According to the complaint, the practice of medical gaslighting has
replaced the patient centered approach nationally. The failure
constitutes a violation of the fundamental rights to life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness for all affected plaintiffs, says the
suit.
The Plaintiff brings this action to remedy violations of the
Administrative Procedure Act, the Public Health Service Act,
constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process,
fundamental human rights, the Patient Bill of Rights, and the
fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
The Defendants' actions and inactions have created a public health
crisis wherein individuals suffering from specific infectious
diseases are systematically denied testing, diagnostics, and
treatment, resulting in prolonged suffering, financial hardship,
social isolation, and in some cases, life-threatening conditions,
thereby violating their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness, asserts the suit.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is the national
public health agency of the United States. It is a United States
federal agency under the Department of Health and Human Services,
and is headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia.
The Plaintiff appears pro se.[BN]
VALET KING: Ortiz Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Jaime Ortiz and Carlos Suarez, on behalf of himself and other
similarly situated v. THE VALET KING LLC, THE VALET KING NY LLC and
JONATHAN FUDA, Case No. 2:25-cv-02021 (D.N.J., March 21, 2025), is
brought pursuant to the Federal Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and
of the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL"), arising from
Defendants' various willful and unlawful employment policies,
patterns and/or practices and to recover unpaid minimum wages and
overtime compensation for the Plaintiffs.
The Defendants maintained a policy and practice of requiring the
Plaintiffs and the FLSA collective employees to work more than 40
hours per week without providing them with any additional
compensation. The Defendants have systematically and willfully
violated the FLSA and NJWHL through their deliberate pattern and
practice of: failing to pay their employees, including Plaintiffs,
the statutory minimum wage; and failing to provide overtime
compensation at the rate of one and one-half times the regular
hourly rate for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek. The Defendants refused to record all of the time that the
Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals employed by the
Corporate Defendant worked, including the work performed in excess
of forty hours each week, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendants.
The Defendants owned and operated THE VALET KING LLC and THE VALET
KING NY LLC, a corporate entity principally engaged in the valet
services industry.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Lina Stillman, Esq.
STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C.
42 Broadway, 12t Floor
New York, NY 10004
Phone: (212) 203-2417
Web: www.StillmanLegalPC.com
VALLEY GUYS INC: Nava Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against VALLEY GUYS, INC. The
case is styled as Armando Nava, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. VALLEY GUYS, INC. AKA DOG HAUS, Case No.
25STCV08693 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 25, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
Valley Guys, Inc. also known as Doghaus -- https://doghaus.com/ --
is a restaurant chain that offers hormone and antibiotic free dogs,
sausages, burgers and chicken on King's Hawaiian Rolls.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638
Phone: 310-432-0000
Fax: 310-432-0001
Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
VICTOR GARCIA: Turning Point Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Victor Garcia. The
case is styled as Turning Point of Central California, Inc. v.
Victor Garcia, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly
Situated, Case No. VCU319022 (Cal. Super. Ct., Tulare Cty., March
10, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Non PI/PD/WD Tort."[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
VITAS HEALTHCARE: Sarmiento Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Vitas Healthcare
Corporation of California, et al. The case is styled as Jose
Sarmiento, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Vitas Healthcare Corporation of California d/b/a Vitas Healthcare,
Vitas HME Solutions, Inc., Case No. 25STCV08942 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Los Angeles Cty., March 26, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
Vitas Healthcare Corporation of California --
https://www.vitas.com/ -- is a For-Profit, Medicare Certified,
hospice care agency located in Riverside, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638
Phone: 310-432-0000
Fax: 310-432-0001
Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
WALT DISNEY PARKS: Malone Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Trisha Malone, and others similarly situated
v. WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS U.S., INC., DOES 1 through 50,
INSPIRE HEALTH ALLIANCE, LLC, DOES 51-100 inclusive, Case No.
30-2025-01459245 was removed from the Superior Court of the State
of California, County of Orange, to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California on March 21, 2025, and
assigned Case No. 8:25-cv-00562.
The Plaintiff asserts claims on her own behalf and on behalf of the
putative class members for alleged violations of: California common
law; the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act ("CMIA"); the
Unruh Civil Rights Act; the Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA");
and California Business and Professions Code.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Marjorie C. Soto Garcia, Esq.
McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
2049 Century Park East, Suite 3200
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3206
Phone: +310 277 4110
Facsimile: +310 277 4730
Email: mcsotogarcia@mwe.com
- and -
Kerry Alan Scanlon, Esq.
Jeremy M. White, Esq.
McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP
500 North Capitol Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20001-1531
Phone: +202 756 8000
Facsimile: +208 756 8087
Email: kscanlon@mwe.com
jmwhite@mwe.com
WANRONG TRADING: Diaz Suit Removed to E.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jose Enrique Ceron Diaz, on his own behalf
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. WANRONG TRADING
CORP.; TAI HE TRADING CORP,; WAN CHANG INC f/d/b/a C.M.J. XING INC;
YIANG SHAO a/k/a Yi Ang Shao; XIANG QI CHEN a/k/a Xiangqi Chen;
MINGREN XU a/k/a Ming Ren Xu; and TAOTAO REN a/k/a Tao Tao Ren,
Case No. 701158/2025 was removed from the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, Queens County, to the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York on March 21, 2025, and
assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-01575.
The Plaintiffs assert claims for violations of the U.S. Fair Labor
Standards Act.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Peter C. Godfrey, Esq.
Joshua Feinstein, Esq.
HODGSON RUSS LLP
605 3rd Ave. Suite 2300
New York, NY 10158
Phone: (212) 751-4300
Email: pgodfrey@hodgsonruss.com
jfeinstein@hodgsonruss.com
WARNERMEDIA DIRECT: Eng Files Suit in S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against WarnerMedia Direct,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as Sheldon C. Eng, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. WarnerMedia Direct,
LLC (d/b/a "Max," f/k/a "HBO Max"), Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc.,
Case No. 1:25-cv-02452-GHW (S.D.N.Y., March 25, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other Statutory Actions.
WarnerMedia Direct, LLC -- https://www.warnermedia.com/ -- operates
as a media company. The Company produces and distributes television
programs, films, games, and other entertainment contents.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael P. Canty, Esq.
LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
Phone: (212) 907-0700
Fax: (212) 883-7063
Email: mcanty@labaton.com
WASHINGTON DC: Court Junks Fischer Class Suit
---------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALAN E. FISCHER III, et
al., v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-00044-CRC
(D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Christopher Cooper entered an order
granting the District Defendants' motion to dismiss and the Federal
Defendants' motion to dismiss, deny the Plaintiff's motion for
leave to file amended complaint nunc pro tunc, and deny as moot the
Plaintiff's motion for extension of time to request class
certification and the Plaintiff's motion for class certification.
In sum, the Court will dismiss Fischer’s section 1983 claims
against MPD because it is non sui juris; against the District
itself and against the District officials in their official
capacities because Fischer failed to plead a theory of Monell
liability; and against the District officials in their individual
capacities because Fischer failed to plead constitutional
violations, and the officials are entitled to qualified immunity.
Thus, no constitutional claims against the District Defendants
remain.
Accordingly, because Fischer had not pled that the USCP officers at
the scene conspired with the MPD officers so that the USCP officers
were acting under color of District law, he cannot assert a section
1983 claim against them.
Accordingly, because Fischer has not alleged a conspiracy between
federal and state officers that renders the federal officers
conduct state action for purposes of section 1983, and because the
Court will not recognize a Bivens remedy against the officers, the
Court will dismiss Fischer's individual-capacity claims against
them. And, as noted, his official-capacity suits against them,
USCP, and the USCP Board are barred by sovereign immunity.
The Plaintiff Fischer was indicted on seven criminal
charges—including several violent felonies—due to his
participation in the riot that took place at the U.S. Capitol on
Jan. 6, 2021.
In January 2024, Fischer filed this lawsuit, purportedly on behalf
of himself and up to 10,000 others who were part of the crowd on
the West Plaza of the U.S. Capitol on January 6th.
Washington, DC, the U.S. capital, is a compact city on the Potomac
River, bordering the states of Maryland and Virginia. It’s
defined by imposing neoclassical monuments and buildings --
including the iconic ones that house the federal government's 3
branches: the Capitol, White House and Supreme Court. It's also
home to iconic museums and performing-arts venues such as the
Kennedy Center.
A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated March 24, 2025, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MhEeUa
at no extra charge.[CC]
WECTEC STAFFING: Pulsinelle Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Pulsinelle and Robert Johnson, individually and for others
similarly situated v. WECTEC STAFFING SERVICES, LLC, Case No.
2:25-cv-00405 (W.D. Pa., March 21, 2025), is brought under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act
(PMWA) and the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law (WPCL)
to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant.
The Plaintiffs and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more
than 40 hours a workweek. But the Defendant does not pay Plaintiffs
and the other Hourly Employees at least 1.5 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 Plaintiffs and
the other Hourly Employees non-discretionary bonuses that it fails
to include in these employees' regular rates of pay for the purpose
of calculating their overtime rates (Westinghouse's "bonus pay
scheme").
Westinghouse's bonus pay scheme violates the FLSA and PMWA by
failing to compensate Plaintiffs and the other Hourly Employees at
least 1.5 times their regular rates of pay—based on all
remuneration—for all hours worked in excess of 40 each workweek.
Likewise, Westinghouse's bonus pay scheme violates the WPCL by
depriving Plaintiffs and the other Hourly Employees of earned wages
on their regular paydays and/or following the termination of their
employment, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Senior Radiation
Protection Technician since January 2009.
WECTEC Staffing Services provides customer-focused solutions with
offerings ranging from high-volume and low-cost to specialized
niche solutions, never compromising on delivering best-in-class
customer service.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: 713-352-1100
Facsimile: 713-352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: 713-877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
- and -
Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
William F. Goodrich, Esq.
GOODRICH & GEIST PC
3634 California Ave.
Pittsburgh, PA 15212
Phone: 412-766-1455
Facsimile: 412-766-0300
Email: josh@goodrichandgeist.com
bill@goodrichandgeist.com
WESTMORELAND SAN JUAN: Bowers Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Bowers, individually and for others similarly situated v.
WESTMORELAND SAN JUAN MINING LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00316-KK-JMR
(D.N.M., March 28, 2025), is brought under the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) and New Mexico Minimum Wage Act (NMMWA) to recover
unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant.
Like the other Hourly Employees, the Plaintiff regularly worked
more than 40 hours a workweek. But the Defendant does not pay the
Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees for all the hours they
work. Instead, the Defendant requires the Plaintiff and the other
Hourly Employees to suit out in protective clothing and safety gear
necessary to safely perform their job duties, while on the
Defendant premises "off the clock."
And the Defendant requires the Plaintiff and the other Hourly
Employees to change out of and store their safety gear and
protective clothing, and wash-up, while on the Defendant's premises
"off the clock." But the Defendant does not pay the Plaintiff and
the other Hourly this "off the clock" time before and after their
shifts. the Defendant's off the clock policy violates the FLSA and
NMMWA by depriving the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees of
wages, including overtime wages for all hours, including overtime
hours, worked.
In addition to failing to pay the Plaintiff and the other Hourly
Employees for all hours worked, the Defendant also fails to pay
them overtime at the required premium rate for all overtime hours
worked. Specifically, the Defendant pays the Plaintiff and the
other Hourly Employees shift differentials it does not include in
their regular rates of pay for overtime purposes. (the Defendant's
"shift differential pay scheme").
The Defendant knows these shift differentials must be, but are not,
included in the Plaintiff' and the other Hourly Employees' regular
rates of pay for overtime purposes. the Defendant's shift
differential pay scheme violates the FLSA and NMMWA by depriving
the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees of overtime wages at
rates of at least 1.5 times their regular rates of pay--based on
all remuneration--for the hours they work in excess of 40 a
workweek, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for Westmoreland as an underground coal miner
in Westmoreland's San Juan Mine from approximately April 2019
through October 2022.
Westmoreland touts that it "has long been a cornerstone of
America's energy generation sector" with its San Juan Mine's
"annual production is exclusively devoted to PNM's adjacent, 924-MW
San Juan Generating Station."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: 713-352-1100
Facsimile: 713-352-3300
Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Phone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: 713-877-8065
Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com
WHY I AM LLC: Moretto Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Why I AM, LLC. The
case is styled as Guilherme Moretto, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Why I AM, LLC, Case No.
1:25-cv-21379-JEM (S.D. Fla., March 25, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Why I Am LLC is a business entity based in Doral, Florida.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Eric Berman, Esq.
1650 SE 17th Street 100
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
Phone: (865) 603-7365
Email: cberman@shamisgentile.com
- and -
Scott Edelsberg, Esq.
EDELSBERG LAW PA
1925 Century Park East Suite 1700
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Phone: (305) 975-3320
Email: scott@edelsberglaw.com
WILD WING CAFE: Crouse Sues Over Failure to Pay Wages Due
---------------------------------------------------------
Arica Crouse, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated v.
WILD WING CAFE, INC., and AXUM CAPITAL PARTNERS, LLC, Case No.
3:25-cv-00211 (W.D.N.C., March 25, 2025), is brought against the
Defendants to recover unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act (NCWHA)
stemming from Defendants' tip theft and failure to pay wages due.
Pursuant to Defendants' compensation and employment policies,
rather than pay Plaintiff and similarly situated servers and
bartenders an hourly wage that met or exceed the applicable hourly
minimum wage, Defendants took a "tip credit" and paid Plaintiff and
similarly situated servers and bartenders' wages less than the
applicable minimum wage required.
The Defendants did not notify Plaintiff of the tip credit policy.
The Defendants required servers to share tips with non-topped
employees, including managers, who were not included in the tip
pool. The Defendants also used the tip pool to cover restaurant
expenses including imbalances in the register at the end of a
shift. The Defendants' employment policy results in the unlawful
retention of tips and failure to pay wages due under the FLSA and
NCWHA.
The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and similarly
situated current and former servers and bartenders who elect to op
in pursuant to FLSA, to remedy violations of the FLSA wage and hour
provisions by Defendants, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Wild Wing Cafe from November 2023
until January 2025.
The Defendants own and operate an establishment known as Wild Wing
Cafe headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Scott C. Harris, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
900 W. Morgan Street
Raleigh, NC 27603
Phone: (919) 600-5003
Email: sharris@milberg.com
- and -
Mariya Weekes, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Phone: (786) 879-8200
Fax: (786) 879-7520
Email: mweekes@milberg.com
- and -
Philip J. Krzeski, Esq.
Elizabeth Orrick, Esq.
CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE PA
100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 1700
Minneapolis, MN 55401
Phone: (612) 339-7300
Fax: (612) 336-2940
Email: pkrzeski@chestnutcambronne.com
eorrick@chestnutcambronne.com
WORLDPANTRY.COM LLC: Villaverde Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against WORLDPANTRY.COM, LLC.
The case is styled as Amanda Villaverde, on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. WORLDPANTRY.COM, LLC, Case No. CACE25004358
(Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., March 27, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other."
WORLDPANTRY.COM, LLC -- https://www.worldpantry.com/ -- provides
leading, turn-key, digital commerce experiences offering end-to-end
services, including custom web-stores, predictive analytics, rapid
fulfillment and world class customer service.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
974 Howard Ave.
Dunedin, FL 34698
Phone: (202) 709-5744
Fax: (866) 893-0416
Email: josh@sjlawcollective.com
YERBA MATE CO: Morfin Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Yerba Mate Co.,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as James Morfin, Brandon Reid, as
individuals and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. The
Yerba Mate Co., Guayaki Sustainable Rainforest Products, Inc., Does
1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25CV114335 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Alameda Cty., March 12, 2025).
Sun Bum Suncare, LLC -- https://www.sunbum.com/ -- is a
manufacturer of sun care products based in Encinitas,
California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kenneth H. Yoon, Esq.
YOON LAW, APC
751 N. Fair Oaks Ave., Suite 102
Pasadena, California 91103
Phone: (213) 612-0988
Fax: (213) 947-1211
YES COMMUNITIES: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Burns Says
---------------------------------------------------------
JASMIN BURNS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. YES COMMUNITIES, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-00937-KAS (D. Colo., March 24, 2025) is an action against
the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard the
personally identifiable information that it collected and
maintained as part of its regular business practices, including
Plaintiff's and Class Members' names, driver's license numbers, and
Social Security numbers (collectively defined herein as "PII").
The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant failed to
adequately protect the Plaintiff's and Class Members PII––and
failed to even encrypt or redact this highly sensitive information.
This unencrypted, unredacted PII was compromised due to Defendant's
negligent and careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to
protect employees' sensitive data. Hackers targeted and obtained
the Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII because of its value in
exploiting and stealing the identities of Plaintiff and Class
Members. The present and continuing risk of identity theft and
fraud to victims of the Data Breach will remain for their
respective lifetimes.
In breaching its duties to properly safeguard employees' PII and
give employees timely, adequate notice of the Data Breach's
occurrence, the Defendant's conduct amounts to negligence and
recklessness and violates federal and state statutes, says the
suit.
Yes Communities, LLC owns and operates manufactured housing
communities. The Company offers a range of floor plans, the option
to lease or buy, and multiple approaches to financing, including
co-signer, second home purchasing, sub-prime credit, and FHA
government supported programs. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary M. Klinger, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON
PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (866) 252-0878
Email: gklinger@milberg.com
YIELD ENGINEERING: Aguilera Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against YIELD ENGINEERING
SYSTEMS, INC. The case is styled as Rosanna G. Aguilera, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated v. YIELD ENGINEERING
SYSTEMS, INC., Case No. 25STCV08706 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles
Cty., March 25, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
Yield Engineering Systems (YES) -- https://www.yes.tech/ -- is a
provider of surface and materials enhancement technology
solutions.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638
Phone: 310-432-0000
Fax: 310-432-0001
Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
Asbestos Litigation
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Reinsurance Still Receives A&E Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Everest Reinsurance Holdings, Inc., continues to receive claims
under expired insurance and reinsurance contracts asserting
injuries and/or damages relating to or resulting from environmental
pollution and hazardous substances, including asbestos, according
to the Company's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission.
Environmental claims typically assert liability for (a) the
mitigation or remediation of environmental contamination or (b)
bodily injury or property damage caused by the release of hazardous
substances into the land, air or water. Asbestos claims typically
assert liability for bodily injury from exposure to asbestos or for
property damage resulting from asbestos or products containing
asbestos.
The Company's reserves include an estimate of the Company's
ultimate liability for A&E claims. The Company's A&E liabilities
emanate from direct insurance business and Everest Re's assumed
reinsurance business. All of the contracts of insurance and
reinsurance, under which the Company has received claims during the
past three years, expired more than 20 years ago. There are
significant uncertainties surrounding the Company's reserves for
its A&E losses.
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=S4WhwX
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kaanapali Land Defends Personal Injury Actions
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kaanapali Land, LLC, as successor by merger to other entities, and
D/C having been named as defendants in personal injury actions
allegedly based on exposure to asbestos, according to the Company's
Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company states, "Cases against Kaanapali Land are allegedly
based on its prior business operations in Hawaii and cases against
D/C are allegedly based on sale of asbestos-containing products by
D/C's prior distribution business operations primarily in
California. Predicting the outcome of such claims and estimating
the costs and exposure requires the Company to make estimates,
assumptions, and judgments that could result in actual costs to be
materially different from such estimates."
A full-text copy of the Form 10-K is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rnFsFJ
*********
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 ***