/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250414.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, April 14, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 74 Headlines 1 HOTEL SF: Swanson Suit Removed to N.D. California AGENUS INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in MA ALN MEDICAL: Fails to Secure Clients' Personal Info, Reed Says AMAZON.COM: Sealing Procedure OK'd in Brown Suit AMAZON.COM: Sealing Procedure OK'd in De Coster Suit AMERICA PAC: Doe Sues Over Breach of Contract AMPY ENTERPRISES: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property AUTODESK INC: Continues to Defend Barkasi Securities Class Suit BARRETT BUSINESS: Fails to Remit ERC Interest, McDonogh Suit Claims BAY AREA: Thomas Files Employment Suit in California State Court CAPITAL ONE: Fact Discovery Due Sept. 1 CIGNA GROUP: Filing for Class Cert. in Snyder Due April 22, 2026 CINTAS CORP: Dyer Appeals ERISA Suit Settlement Approval to 6th Cir CITIZENS & NORTHERN CORP: Continues to Defend Goldovsky Class Suit CLIPPER REALTY: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due May 8 COOPER INTERCONNECT: Court Conditionally Certifies Class in Ott CREDITNINJA LENDING: Appeals Remand Order in Silva Suit to 9th Cir. CRYO-CELL INT'L: Lehr Drops False Advertising Claims DANIELLE OUTLAW: Plaintiffs Must File TAC by April 21 DC CENTER: Silvestre Files FLSA Class Suit in E.D.N.Y. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Seeks to Stay Class Cert Bid Briefing DONALD TRUMP: Immigration Detainees Seek TRO over Summary Removal DONALD TRUMP: J.G.G Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class DSW SHOE WAREHOUSE: Da Silva Suit Removed to N.D. California ENZO BIOCHEM: Settlement in Louis Class Suit for Final OK ENZO BIOCHEM: Settlement in Sgambati Suit for Court OK ERICSSON INC: Court Certifies Rule 23 Class in Gutierrez Suit ESTEE LAUDER: Class Certification Order Entered in Securities Suit FCA US: Class Cert. Ruling Held in Abeyance FLURRY INC: Agrees to Settle Flo App Class Suit for $3.5MM FLY E-BIKE: Chimicles Investigates Potential Class Action Claims G.SKILL INTERNATIONAL: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Hurd Suit GILEAD SCIENCES: Class Suit over Drug Side Effects Ongoing GLOBAL SECURITY: Faces Jones Wage-and-Hour Suit in W.D. Va. GOOGLE LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing Revised to Nov. 8 GREGORY GREENLEE: Beasley Requests Recusal of Judge Starr GROVEHOUSE HOSPITALITY: Faces Mendez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. HAIN CELESTIAL: Howard Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 9th Cir. HAMILTON-RYKER: 6th Circuit Split in Overtime Exemption Case HAPPY SOCKS: Hernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website HART MIRACLE: Pardo Sues Over Disabled's Equal Access to Property HUMANA INC: Bid to Dismiss Expert Testimony in TCPA Suit Denied IGLOO PRODUCTS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Fingertip Injuries J&I CORDON: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Response J&I CORDON: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response J. DOERER: Judge Recommends Class Cert Denial in Benoite Suit LIVING PROOF HEALTH: McAlpin Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania LONGVIEW MEDICAL: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response LOWE'S COMPANIES: Masry Suit Removed to N.D. California MAISON SOLUTIONS: Continues to Defend Green Securities Class Suit MAISON SOLUTIONS: Continues to Defend Kim Securities Class Suit MAJOR ENERGY: Continues to Defend Glikin Variable Rate Class Suit MANITOBA: First Nations Sue Over Poor Child Welfare System MARRIOTT INT'L: Court Vacates Deadlines, Hearings in Cahill METAGENOMI INC: Continues to Defend Vreeland Class Suit METROPOLITAN OPERA: Class Settlement in Tuteur Gets Final Nod MICROGENICS CORP: Moreland Must File Opposition Papers by April 15 MINERAL RESOURCES: Faces Class Action Suit Over Tax Scandals MODIVCARE INC: Continues to Defend Kalera Securities Class Suit MONEYLION TECHNOLOGIES: Overcharges Loan Borrowers, Lowe Claims MONSANTO COMPANY: Michaels Sues Over Roundup's Effect on Health MYRIAD GENETICS: Settles Consolidated Shareholder Suit NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Arbitration Bid Denial in 'Gibson' Appealed NATIONAL PUBLIC: Standing Order Entered in Zhang Class Suit NATIONAL STUDENT: Gottlieb Loses Class Certification Bid NEUMORA THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach NORDSTROM INC: Gilbert Sues Over Unfair and Unlawful Merger NUSCALE POWER: Continues to Defend Tucker Class Suit in Delaware OMOI INC: Henry Sues Over Website's Access Barriers to the Blind ORIGINAL BTC: Wee-Ellis Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store PARAGON 28: Continues to Defend Ellington Class Suit in Colorado PARAGON 28: Continues to Defend Tiedt Class Suit in Colorado PEACH AND LILY: Visually Impaired Can't Access Website, Miller Says PLAYAGS INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class Suit POTBELLY CORP: Settlement in WEPOA Class Suit for Final OK QUAKER OATS: Settlement Class in Kessler Gets Initial Certification SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Court Sends Price-Fixing Case to Arbitration SERAPHINA THERAPEUTICS: Bishop Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website SHOE CITY: Pittman Suit Seeks Blind Users' Equal Access to Website SKYNAIL BY SUGAR: Edwards Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. SMART ERP: Faces Newson Personal Injury Suit in N.D. Calif. SPRECKELS SUGAR: Castro's Bid for Class Certification Tossed STATE FARM: Ellis Suit Seeks Leave to File Class Reply Brief STRAFFORD PUBLICATIONS: Class Cert Bid Deadline Suspended T-MOBILE USA: Claimants Received Payouts in Data Breach Suit TASKUS INC: Continues to Defend Lozada Class Suit in New York TASKUS INC: Forsberg Class Suit Stayed THRIVING MIND: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $900,000 TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Gosse Appeals FDCPA Suit Dismissal to 3rd Cir. TRIVEST PARTNERS: Must Produce Withheld Docs, Hall Asserts UNITED PARCEL: Filing for Renewed Class Cert Bid Due June 20 UNITED STATES: Simmons Sues Over Money Powers' Delegation to Banks VERITAS INVESTMENTS: Matamoros Files Labor Suit in Cal. State Court VIA RENEWABLES: Continues to Defend Amburgev Stockholder Class Suit VIA RENEWABLES: Continues to Defend Taylor Class Suit in Delaware VICOR CORP: Continues to Defend Pouladian Stockholder Class Suit WELLS FARGO: Judge Dismisses ERISA Class Action Lawsuit WILDLIFE CONSERVATION: Settles Bronx Zoo Class Suit for $900,000 WOODSTREAM CORPORATION: Bid to Seal Trade Secrets Docs OK'd WORLD TRAVEL: Casillas Suit Removed to S.D. California ********* 1 HOTEL SF: Swanson Suit Removed to N.D. California --------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Sara Swanson, an individual and other similarly situated v. 1 HOTEL SF, L.L.C., a limited liability company; 1 HOTEL SF HOLDINGS, L.L.C., a limited liability company; SH GROUP OPERATIONS, L.L.C., a limited liability company; TR MISSION MANAGEMENT, LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1-100 inclusively, Case No. CGC-24-620818 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on April 1, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-02994. The Plaintiff's Superior Court Action alleges causes of actions for: disability discrimination; disability harassment; retaliation; failure to accommodate; failure to engage in good faith interactive process; violation of Labor Code Section 1102.5; and failure to take reasonable steps to prevent harassment and retaliation.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jonathan S. Rosenberg, Esq. David Fishman, Esq. Janet S. SOULTANIAN, Esq. BALLARD ROSENBERG GOLPER & SAVITT, LLP 15760 Ventura Boulevard, Eighteenth Floor Encino, CA 91436 Phone: (818) 508-3700 Facsimile: (818) 506-4827 Email: jrosenberg@brgslaw.com dfishman@brgslaw.com jsoultanian@brgslaw.com AGENUS INC: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in MA ----------------------------------------------------------- Agenus Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a securities class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. In September 2024, a putative securities class action lawsuit was commenced in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (the "Court") naming as defendants Agenus and three of its current officers. The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, by making false and misleading statements and omissions of material fact related to the efficacy and commercial prospects of botensilimab and balstilimab. The plaintiff seeks to represent all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Agenus securities between January 23, 2023, and July 17, 2024. The plaintiff seeks damages and interest, and an award of costs, including attorneys' fees. The Company is unable to estimate a range of loss, if any, that could result were there to be an adverse decision in this action. Agenus Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology company in Lexington, Massachusetts. [BN] ALN MEDICAL: Fails to Secure Clients' Personal Info, Reed Says -------------------------------------------------------------- CAMERON REED, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALN MEDICAL MANAGEMENT LLC and BETHANY MEDICAL CENTER, PA, Defendants, Case No. 4:25-cv-03067 (D. Neb., March 25, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, third-party beneficiary, unjust enrichment, and invasion of privacy. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and protected health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within ALN's network systems following a data breach beginning on or around March 2024. The Defendants 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. ALN Medical Management LLC is a provider of outsourced revenue cycle management services, with a principal place of business in Lincoln, Nebraska. Bethany Medical Center, PA is a healthcare provider, with a principal place of business in High Point, North Carolina. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. Leanna A. Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com lloginov@shamisgentile.com AMAZON.COM: Sealing Procedure OK'd in Brown Suit ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER BROWN, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:22-cv-00965-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John Chun entered an order granting the following procedure for filing and sealing in connection with Plaintiffs' Opposition to Amazon's Motion and Amazon's Reply, subject to the Court's approval. 1. Pursuant to LCR 5(g)(2), the Plaintiffs will provisionally file under seal its opposition brief, declarations, exhibits, and all other evidence and declarations on which Plaintiffs rely which contain material designated Confidential or Highly Confidential-Attorneys' Eyes Only by Amazon. 2. Pursuant to LCR 5(g)(2), Amazon will provisionally file under seal its reply brief, declarations, exhibits, and all other evidence and declarations on which Amazon rely which may contain material designated Confidential or Highly Confidential-Attorneys' Eyes Only. 3. Within five business days of the filing of Amazon's Reply Papers, pursuant to LCR 5(g), the Parties will meet and confer and, as appropriate, file (1) public versions of the Opposition Papers and the Reply Papers, with necessary redactions, and (2) corresponding motion(s) to seal pursuant to LCR 5(g)(3). The Party seeking to maintain material under seal (or under redaction) shall be the movant for purposes of any such motion(s) to seal associated with the Parties' Supplemental Papers. Accordingly, in order to ensure that such materials are treated appropriately under Amazon's request and the applicable protective order, and to reduce burdens on the Court, the Parties, pursuant to LCR 7(d)(1) and 10(g), and their respective counsel, stipulate and agree to the following procedure for filing and sealing in connection with Plaintiffs' Opposition to Amazon's Motion and Amazon's Reply, subject to the Court's approval. Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Court's order dated April 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WhzScr at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq. Anne F. Johnson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com barbaram@hbsslaw.com annej@hbsslaw.com - and - Zina G. Bash, Esq. Jessica Beringer, Esq. Shane Kelly, Esq. Alex Dravillas, Esq. KELLER POSTMAN LLC 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500 Austin, TX, 78701 Telephone: (512) 690-0990 E-mail: zina.bash@kellerpostman.com Jessica.Beringer@kellerpostman.com shane.kelly@kellerpostman.com ajd@kellerpostman.com The Defendant is represented by: John A. Goldmark, Esq. MaryAnn Almeida, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 Facsimile: (206) 757-7700 E-mail: SteveRummage@dwt.com JohnGoldmark@dwt.com MaryAnnAlmeida@dwt.com - and - Karen L. Dunn, Esq. William A. Isaacson, Esq. Amy J. Mauser, Esq. Martha L. Goodman, Esq. Kyle Smith, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 2001 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1047 Telephone: (202) 223-7300 Facsimile: (202) 223-7420 E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com wisaacson@paulweiss.com amauser@paulweiss.com ksmith@paulweiss.com mgoodman@paulweiss.com AMAZON.COM: Sealing Procedure OK'd in De Coster Suit ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELIZABETH DE COSTER, et al., on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated, v. AMAZON.COM, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:21-cv-00693-JHC (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge John Chun entered an order granting the following procedure for filing and sealing in connection with Plaintiffs' Opposition to Amazon's Motion and Amazon's Reply, subject to the Court's approval. 1. Pursuant to LCR 5(g)(2), the Plaintiffs will provisionally file under seal its opposition brief, declarations, exhibits, and all other evidence and declarations on which Plaintiffs rely which contain material designated Confidential or Highly Confidential-Attorneys' Eyes Only by Amazon. 2. Pursuant to LCR 5(g)(2), Amazon will provisionally file under seal its reply brief, declarations, exhibits, and all other evidence and declarations on which Amazon rely which may contain material designated Confidential or Highly Confidential-Attorneys' Eyes Only. 3. Within five business days of the filing of Amazon's Reply Papers, pursuant to LCR 5(g), the Parties will meet and confer and, as appropriate, file (1) public versions of the Opposition Papers and the Reply Papers, with necessary redactions, and (2) corresponding motion(s) to seal pursuant to LCR 5(g)(3). The Party seeking to maintain material under seal (or under redaction) shall be the movant for purposes of any such motion(s) to seal associated with the Parties' Supplemental Papers. Accordingly, in order to ensure that such materials are treated appropriately under Amazon's request and the applicable protective order, and to reduce burdens on the Court, the Parties, pursuant to LCR 7(d)(1) and 10(g), and their respective counsel, stipulate and agree to the following procedure for filing and sealing in connection with Plaintiffs' Opposition to Amazon's Motion and Amazon's Reply, subject to the Court's approval. Amazon.com is engaged in e-commerce, cloud computing, online advertising, digital streaming, and artificial intelligence. A copy of the Court's order dated April 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pt74fa at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Barbara A. Mahoney, Esq. Anne F. Johnson, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com barbaram@hbsslaw.com annej@hbsslaw.com - and - Zina G. Bash, Esq. Jessica Beringer, Esq. Shane Kelly, Esq. Alex Dravillas, Esq. KELLER POSTMAN LLC 111 Congress Avenue, Suite 500 Austin, TX, 78701 Telephone: (512) 690-0990 E-mail: zina.bash@kellerpostman.com Jessica.Beringer@kellerpostman.com shane.kelly@kellerpostman.com ajd@kellerpostman.com The Defendant is represented by: John A. Goldmark, Esq. MaryAnn Almeida, Esq. DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP 920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300 Seattle, WA 98104-1610 Telephone: (206) 622-3150 Facsimile: (206) 757-7700 E-mail: SteveRummage@dwt.com JohnGoldmark@dwt.com MaryAnnAlmeida@dwt.com - and - Karen L. Dunn, Esq. William A. Isaacson, Esq. Amy J. Mauser, Esq. Martha L. Goodman, Esq. Kyle Smith, Esq. PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON & GARRISON LLP 2001 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1047 Telephone: (202) 223-7300 Facsimile: (202) 223-7420 E-mail: kdunn@paulweiss.com wisaacson@paulweiss.com amauser@paulweiss.com ksmith@paulweiss.com mgoodman@paulweiss.com AMERICA PAC: Doe Sues Over Breach of Contract --------------------------------------------- John Doe, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMERICA PAC, GROUP AMERICA, LLC, and ELON MUSK, Case No. 2:25-cv-01691 (E.D. Pa., April 1, 2025), is brought for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law (WPCL) violations against Defendants. In October 2024, Defendants offered payment, initially $47 and later increased to $100, to any registered voter in Pennsylvania who signed America PAC's petition to support the First and Second Amendments. The Defendants also offered a payment, initially $47 and later increased to $100, for each successful referral of a registered voter in Pennsylvania who signed the America PAC petition. The Plaintiff and Class Members accepted Defendants' offers by signing or successfully referring Pennsylvania registered voters to the America PAC petition. The Defendants have since failed to pay Plaintiff and Class Members in full for their signatures and referrals. The Defendants are thus liable to Plaintiff and Class Members, says the complaint. The Plaintiff John Doe is an adult individual residing in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. America PAC is a political action committee with a principal place of business in Austin, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. Thomas Fowler, Esq. Jeremy E. Abay, Esq. LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C. 729 Boylston Street, Suite 2000 Boston, MA 02116 Phone: (617) 994-5800 Email: sliss@llrlaw.com tfowler@llrlaw.com jabay@llrlaw.com AMPY ENTERPRISES: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property --------------------------------------------------------- Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated v. AMPY ENTERPRISES, INC. A/K/A MAK FRY MANAGEMENT LLC D/B/A MCDONALDS RESTAURANT #18735, Case No. 1:25-cv-21506-KMW (S.D. Fla., April 1, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the commercial property and restaurant and bar business within the commercial property. Although well over 32 years have passed since the effective date of Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities. The Plaintiff found the Commercial Property and the business located within the commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property and the business located within the commercial property and wishes to continue his patronage and use of the premises. The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that is in violation of the ADA at the subject commercial restaurant property. The barriers to access at Defendant's commercial restaurant property has each denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the commercial restaurant property, and in addition has endangered his safety in violation of the ADA. The barriers to access, has likewise posed a risk of injury(ies), embarrassment, and discomfort to Plaintiff, and others similarly situated. The Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing threat of discrimination from the Defendant's non-compliance with the ADA with respect to the described commercial restaurant property, including but not necessarily limited to the allegations of this Complaint, says the complaint. The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate. AMPY ENTERPRISES, INC. A/K/A MAK FRY MANAGEMENT LLC D/B/A MCDONALDS RESTAURANT #18735, owned and operated a commercial restaurant property.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Miami, FL 33144 Phone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com AUTODESK INC: Continues to Defend Barkasi Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Autodesk Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending January 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Barkasi securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On April 24, 2024, Michael Barkasi filed a purported federal securities class action complaint in the Northern District of California against Autodesk, its Chief Executive Officer, Andrew Anagnost, and its former Chief Financial Officer, Deborah L. Clifford. The complaint, which was filed shortly after Autodesk's announcement of the Internal Investigation, generally alleges that the defendants made false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. On July 10, 2024, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff in the action, and an amended complaint was filed on September 16, 2024. The action purports to be brought on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities between February 23, 2023 and April 16, 2024, and seeks unspecified damages and other relief. On November 25, 2024, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. At this stage, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the amount of any possible financial loss that could result from this matter. Autodesk is a technology/software company based out of San Francisco, California. BARRETT BUSINESS: Fails to Remit ERC Interest, McDonogh Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- MCDONOGH INDUSTRIES, INC., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BARRETT BUSINESS SERVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-05258 (W.D. Wash., March 25, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of Washington's Consumer Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful practice of failing to remit and keeping for its own benefit the interest payments the Internal Revenue Service paid out on the Plaintiff's and the putative Class members' Employee Retention Credit refunds when it knew the interest payments were the Plaintiff's and the Class members' rightful property. As a result of the Defendant's actions, the Plaintiff and the Class have suffered informational injury and economic damages. McDonogh Industries, Inc. is a company that provides maintenance services based in Maryland. Barrett Business Services, Inc. is a professional employer organization based in Washington. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laura R. Gerber, Esq. Michael D. Woerner, Esq. Andrew N. Lindsay, Esq. KELLER ROHRBACK LLP 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3400 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-1900 Email: lgberber@kellerrohrback.com mwoerner@kellerrohrback.com alindsay@kellerrohrback.com - and - James C. Bradley, Esq. Nina Fields Britt, Esq. Caleb M. Hodge, Esq. ROGERS PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN, LLC 1037 Chuck Dawley Blvd., Bldg. A Post Office Box 1007 Mount Pleasant, SC 29465 Telephone: (843) 727-6500 Email: jbradley@rpwb.com nfields@rpwb.com chodge@rpwb.com - and - Timothy C. Bailey, Esq. BAILEY JAVINS & CARTER, LC 213 Hale Street Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 345-0346 Email: tbailey@bjc4u.com BAY AREA: Thomas Files Employment Suit in California State Court ---------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bay Area Community Services, Inc. The case is captioned as DONNETTA JENISE THOMAS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BAY AREA COMMUNITY SERVICES, INC., Case No. 25CV115157 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., March 17, 2025). An initial case management conference is set for July 15, 2025, before Judge Somnath Raj Chatterjee. The Plaintiff brings employment suit against the Defendant. Bay Area Community Services, Inc. is a provider of health and social services based in California. [BN] CAPITAL ONE: Fact Discovery Due Sept. 1 --------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned re: Capital One Financial Corporation, Affiliate Marketing Litigation, Case No. 1:25-cv-00023-AJT-WBP (E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Anthony Trenga entered an order that the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, if any, shall be filed 30 days after the Court issues an order on the Defendants' motion to dismiss, with any opposition thereto due within 14 days, and the reply to be filed seven (7) days thereafter. The Court further entered an order that: -- Any Rule 702 Motions related to the Motion for Class Certification shall be filed 44 days after the Court issues an order on the Defendants' motion to dismiss, with any opposition thereto due within 14 days, and the reply due seven (7) days thereafter; -- The Court will schedule a hearing on the Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and any related Motions in a forthcoming order; -- Fact discovery shall close on Sept. 1, 2025; -- Expert discovery shall close on Oct. 1, 2025; -- Any motions for summary judgment shall be filed by Oct. 15, 2025; -- The Court will hold a hearing on any motions for summary judgment on Nov. 12, 2025 at 10:00 a.m. Capital One is a diversified bank that offers a broad array of financial products and services to consumers, small businesses and commercial clients. A copy of the Court's order dated April 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NC5LTA at no extra charge.[CC] CIGNA GROUP: Filing for Class Cert. in Snyder Due April 22, 2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Snyder, et al., v. Cigna Group, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01451 (D. Conn., Filed Nov. 2, 2023), the Hon. Judge Omar A. Williams entered an order granting motion for extension of time and finding as moot joint motion for status conference. -- Fact discovery must be complete on or before Feb. 27, 2026. -- Plaintiff's motion for class certification will be due on or before April 22, 2026. -- Any response thereto will be due on or before June 22, 2026. -- Any reply brief will be due on or before Aug. 24, 2026. -- All interim discovery deadlines may be amended by the parties without court approval. The nature of suit states Diversity-Insurance Contract.[CC] CINTAS CORP: Dyer Appeals ERISA Suit Settlement Approval to 6th Cir ------------------------------------------------------------------- RICHARD DYER is taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Raymond Hawkins, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Cintas Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-1062, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs bring the action pursuant to Section 409 and Section 502(a)(2) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). On June 3, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses and named Plaintiffs' case contribution awards, which Judge Jeffery P. Hopkins granted on Feb. 18, 2025. On Feb. 20, 2025, the Court entered final approval and judgment. The Court held that the parties' settlement embodied in the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The operative complaint and all claims asserted therein in the action are dismissed with prejudice. The appellate case is captioned Raymond Hawkins, et al. v. Cintas Corporation, et al., Case No. 25-3213, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, filed on March 25, 2025. [BN] CITIZENS & NORTHERN CORP: Continues to Defend Goldovsky Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Citizens & Northern Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending January 31, 2025 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Goldovsky class suit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. On March 27, 2024, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the US District Court for the Western District of Texas by investors in a purported Ponzi scheme operated by two individuals, one of whom maintained accounts at C&N Bank. The plaintiffs have sued C&N Bank, along with another bank, and additional law firm and accounting firm defendants. The case is styled Goldovsky, et al. v. Rauld, et al. Plaintiffs have asserted claims against C&N Bank and the other bank for aiding and abetting alleged violations of the Texas Securities Act, and additional claims against the legal and accounting professionals for statutory fraud, common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and knowing participation in breach of fiduciary duty. C&N Bank has filed motions to dismiss the case for wont of personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The Plaintiffs have responded to those motions. Plaintiffs have filed an application for certification of the suit as a class action. The court has stayed the motions to dismiss pending consideration of the class action certification application. Following depositions of the four plaintiffs on issues germane to class action certification, C&N Bank and each of the other defendants have filed briefs in opposition to the plaintiff's class certification motion. A hearing on the motion for class certification took place on February 18, 2025. A ruling on class certification is pending. Based on the information available to the Corporation, the Corporation does not believe at this time that a loss is probable in this matter, nor can a range of possible losses be determined. Citizens & Northern Corporation is a bank holding company, headquartered in Wellsboro, Pennsylvania. CLIPPER REALTY: Opposition to Class Cert Bid Due May 8 ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sanchez v. Clipper Realty, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-08502-KPF (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Katherine Polk Failla entered an order as follows: (i) The Plaintiffs' summary judgment and class certification motions are due on or before April 9, 2025; (ii) The Defendants' cross-motion and opposition to class certification is due on or before May 8, 2025; (iii) The Plaintiffs' response and reply is due on or before May 22, 2025; (iv) The Defendants' reply is due on or before May 29, 2025. Clipper operates as a real estate investment company. A copy of the Court's order dated April 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aS8AMq at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert A. Kansao, Esq. LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC 148 WEst 24th Street, Eighth Floor New York, NY 10011 Telephone: (212) 465-1180 Facsimile: (212) 465-1181 E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com COOPER INTERCONNECT: Court Conditionally Certifies Class in Ott --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DALETTE OTT and LOIRA SANCHEZ, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. COOPER INTERCONNECT, INC., a corporation; EATON CORPORATION, a corporation; POWER DISTRIBUTION INC., a corporation; JOSLYN SUNBANK COMPANY, LLC, a limited liability company; SURE POWER, INC., a corporation; EATON AEROSPACE LLC, a limited liability company; COOPER BUSSMAN, LLC, a limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:23-cv-04501-SPG-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett entered an order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement. The Court grants the Plaintiffs' motion to (1) conditionally certify the class as defined in the Settlement Agreement; (2) appoint the Plaintiffs Dalette Ott and Loira Sanchez as class representatives; and (3) appoint the Wilshire Law Firm as Class Counsel. The Court denies the Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the proposed Settlement Agreement and PAGA Settlement, without prejudice. The Court also denies without prejudice the Plaintiffs' request to schedule a final fairness hearing, appoint an Administrator, and approve the proposed Class Notice. Within 21 calendar days from this Order, the Parties shall submit a revised motion for preliminary approval that addresses the deficiencies identified in this order. The Settlement Agreement defines the Class to be "all individuals who were employed by Defendants in the State of California and classified as non-exempt employees during the Class Period." The Class Period is defined as "the period from April 25, 2019, to Oct. 14, 2024, or the date of preliminary approval, whichever is earlier." On April 25, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed their class action complaint in Ventura County Superior Court, alleging eight causes of action. On Aug. 14, 2024, the parties participated in private mediation with Monique Ngo-Bonnici, an experienced class action mediator. Cooper Interconnect is a manufacturer of connector and cable assembly products. A copy of the Court's order dated March 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=aQewMU at no extra charge.[CC] CREDITNINJA LENDING: Appeals Remand Order in Silva Suit to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- CREDITNINJA LENDING, LLC, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order in the lawsuit entitled Joseph Silva, Plaintiff, v. CreditNinja Lending, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-01870-MMA-AHG, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Diego to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, is brought against the Defendants for alleged violation of the California Business and Professions Code. On Nov. 1, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to state court, which the Defendants opposed on Nov. 19, 2024. On Jan. 13, 2025, Judge Michael M. Anello entered tentative rulings granting the Plaintiff's motion to remand. On Mar. 12, 2025, the Court affirmed its tentative rulings. The Clerk was directed to send a certified copy of the minute entry and tentative rulings to the San Diego Superior Court. The Clerk was further directed to close the case. The appellate case is captioned Silva v. CreditNinja Lending, LLC, et al., Case No. 25-1928, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 25, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Respondent JOSEPH SILVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Thomas D. Warren, Esq. WARREN TERZIAN LLP 30799 Pinetree Road, Suite 345 Pepper Pike, OH 44124 - and – Dan Terzian, Esq. Erick Kees Kuylman, Esq. WARREN TERZIAN, LLP 222 N. Pacific Coast Highway, Suite 2000 Los Angeles, CA 90245 Defendants-Petitioners CREDITNINJA LENDING, LLC, et al. are represented by: Scott M. Pearson, Esq. Benjamin G. Shatz, Esq. MANATT, PHELPS & PHILLIPS, LLP 2049 Century Park, E, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 CRYO-CELL INT'L: Lehr Drops False Advertising Claims ---------------------------------------------------- Cryo-Cell International, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2025, that class action allegations in the complaint styled "Lindsey Lehr v. Cryo-Cell International, Inc.," (Case No. 50-2023-CA-000091, January 6, 2023) filed in the Circuit Court for Palm Beach County, Florida, was dropped on January 18, 2024. Said class action named the company as defendant and asserting claims on behalf of a putative class of individuals who entered agreements with the company for umbilical cord blood storage services since May 2018. A final hearing on the plaintiff's remaining individual claims and on the company's counterclaim is scheduled for September 2025. The complaint alleged that the company's advertising does not accurately represent the value and efficacy of its services and asserted claims (and sought unspecified damages) under Florida law. On March 14, 2023, the Company removed the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Case No. 9:23-cv-80405-AMC), and on March 21, 2023, moved to compel arbitration and stay the case. On October 10, 2023, the court granted the company's motion to compel arbitration and stayed the case. On October 27, 2023, the plaintiff filed a demand for arbitration and statement of claims with the American Arbitration Association, and on January 18, 2024, the plaintiff filed an amended statement of claims dropping her class action allegations against the company. On March 19, 2024, the company filed an answering statement and counterclaim in response to the plaintiff's claims. Cryo-Cell International, Inc. is a blood and organ bank company based in Florida. DANIELLE OUTLAW: Plaintiffs Must File TAC by April 21 ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CHRISTOPHER FLACCO, WINTON SINGLETARY, v. DANIELLE OUTLAW, CHARLES RAMSEY, RICHARD ROSS, JR., KEVIN BETHEL, MICHAEL ZACCAGNI, PEDRO RODRIGUEZ, ALBERT D'ATTILIO, Case No. 2:24-cv-04374-MAK (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Kearney entered an order as follows: 1. The Plaintiffs to file a third amended Complaint no later than April 21, 2025 through which they can add the City of Philadelphia for discovery purposes only as we cannot add parties without a pleading consistent with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; 2. Motions for class certification to be filed no later than June 16, 2025 with Responses due on later than June 30, 2025; and 3. Motions for decertification, summary judgment and/or under F.R.E. 702 shall be filed no later than Aug. 8, 2025 with Responses filed no later than Aug. 22, 2025. A copy of the Court's order dated March 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uCTPxM at no extra charge.[CC] DC CENTER: Silvestre Files FLSA Class Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against DC Center Inc., et al. The case is captioned as ELIZA SILVESTRE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DC CENTER INC., et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-01485-MMH (E.D.N.Y., March 17, 2025). The Plaintiff brings class action against the Defendants for alleged violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. DC Center Inc. is a company based in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Faillace, Esq. MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. 60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540 New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 317-1200 Facsimile: (212) 317-1620 Email: michael@faillacelaw.com DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Seeks to Stay Class Cert Bid Briefing ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOHAMED MEDHI ZORGANI, et al., v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Case No. 1:17-cv-02360-EGS-MAU (D.D.C.), the Defendants asks the Court to enter an order to stay briefing on the Plaintiffs' motion to certify class, filed March 31, 2025, until the Court rules on the District's summary judgment motion. The District plans to file its motion for summary judgment in accordance with the April 14, 2025 deadline set by the Court's March 13, 2025 Minute Order. The Defendants assert that there is good cause to issue the stay. First, the proposed stay supports the efficient administration of litigation. The Court's ruling on the District's dispositive motion could moot the class certification issue by depriving the putative class representative of standing. Second, the Plaintiffs' decision to file the Class Certification Motion after the close of discovery and such that three major briefing deadlines now fall due on April 14, 2025, prejudices the District by: (1) depriving it of an opportunity to be heard as to the briefing schedule; and (2) imposing a burdensome, overlapping briefing schedule that was neither considered nor approved by the Court at the February 4, 2025 post-discovery status conference, or otherwise. Finally, the Plaintiffs should not be rewarded for their years-long delay in filing for class certification by permitting this gamesmanship of deadlines to the prejudice of the District. Zorgani received a traffic ticket on May 24, 2014, which he claims he paid with a late fee on July 30, 2014. On Aug. 21, 2014, the District Department of Motor Vehicles allegedly suspended Zorgani's driver’s license under its automatic suspension policy, which allegedly then automatically suspended driver’s licenses after a certain date, regardless of whether the underlying ticket was paid. District of Columbia is a compact city on the Potomac River, bordering the states of Maryland and Virginia. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=W36Vm8 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Brian L. Schwalb, Esq. Chad Copeland, Esq. Charles J. Coughlin, Esq. Christopher Pantel, Esq. Tyler Gerstein, Esq. 400 6th Street, NW    Washington, DC 20001   Telephone: (202) 746-7693 E-mail: christopher.pantel@dc.gov DONALD TRUMP: Immigration Detainees Seek TRO over Summary Removal ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.G.G., et al., v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00766-JEB (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting emergency application for a temporary restraining order (TRO). Accordingly, the Plaintiffs and the proposed class are imminent danger of being removed tonight or early tomorrow morning under the Alien Enemies Act -- and the Court permanently losing jurisdiction. Pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the All Writs Act, Plaintiffs-Petitioners and the proposed class apply for a temporary restraining order against Defendants-Respondents ("Defendants"). The Plaintiffs are civil immigration detainees who are at substantial risk of immediate, summary removal from the United States pursuant to use of the Alien Enemies Act, 50 U.S.C. section 21 et seq. against a non-state actor for the first time in the country’s history. The Defendants' invocation and application of the Alien Enemies Act also violates the Immigration and Nationality Act, statutes providing protection for people seeking humanitarian relief, and due process. In the absence of a temporary restraining order, Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable injury, and the balance of hardships and the public interest favor relief. Critically, moreover, if Plaintiffs are removed to the custody of another country, this Court will lose jurisdiction. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=01JGiE at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lee Gelernt, Esq. Daniel Galindo, Esq. Ashley Gorski, Esq. Omar C. Jadwat, Esq. Hina Shamsi, Esq. Patrick Toomey, Esq. Sidra Mahfooz, Esq. Noelle Smith, Esq. Oscar Sarabia Roman, Esq. Arthur B. Spitzer, Esq. Scott Michelman, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 549-2660 E-mail: lgelernt@aclu.org dgalindo@aclu.org agorski@aclu.org ojadwat@aclu.org hshamsi@aclu.org ptoomey@aclu.org smahfooz@aclu.org nsmith@aclu.org osarabia@aclu.org aspitzer@acludc.org smichelman@acludc.org - and - Somil B. Trivedi, Esq. Bradley Girard, Esq. Michael Waldman, Esq. Sarah Rich, Esq. Skye Perryman, Esq. DEMOCRACY FORWARD FOUNDATION Washington, DC 20043 Telephone: (202) 448-9090 Facsimile: (202) 796-4426 E-mail: strivedi@democracyforward.org bgirard@democracyforward.org mwaldman@democracyforward.org srich@democracyforward.org sperryman@democracyforward.org DONALD TRUMP: J.G.G Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as J.G.G., et al., v. DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as President of the United States, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-00766-JEB (D.D.C.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order certifying a proposed Class under Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2), appointing the Plaintiffs as Class Representatives, and appointing class counsel. The Plaintiffs seek to certify the following nationwide class under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2): "All noncitizens who were, are, or will be subject to the Alien Enemies Act Proclamation and/or its implementation." The proposed class readily satisfies the requirements of Rule 23 The Plaintiffs are several noncitizens from Venezuela who are detained at El Valle Detention Center in Texas and who, upon information and belief, are at imminent risk of removal under the issued, or soon to be issued, Proclamation. The Plaintiffs are representative of other noncitizens subject to Defendants' removal scheme. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=c0ncrj at no extra charge. Donald John Trump is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who is the 47th president of the United States. A member of the Republican Party, he served as the 45th president from 2017 to 2021.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lee Gelernt, Esq. Daniel Galindo, Esq. Ashley Gorski, Esq. Omar C. Jadwat, Esq. Hina Shamsi, Esq. Patrick Toomey, Esq. Sidra Mahfooz, Esq. Noelle Smith, Esq. Oscar Sarabia Roman, Esq. Arthur B. Spitzer, Esq. Scott Michelman, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 549-2660 E-mail: lgelernt@aclu.org dgalindo@aclu.org agorski@aclu.org ojadwat@aclu.org hshamsi@aclu.org ptoomey@aclu.org smahfooz@aclu.org nsmith@aclu.org osarabia@aclu.org aspitzer@acludc.org smichelman@acludc.org - and - Somil B. Trivedi, Esq. Bradley Girard, Esq. Michael Waldman, Esq. Sarah Rich, Esq. Skye Perryman, Esq. DEMOCRACY FORWARD FOUNDATION Washington, DC 20043 Telephone: (202) 448-9090 Facsimile: (202) 796-4426 E-mail: strivedi@democracyforward.org bgirard@democracyforward.org mwaldman@democracyforward.org srich@democracyforward.org sperryman@democracyforward.org DSW SHOE WAREHOUSE: Da Silva Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Maria Vitoria Oliveira Da Silva, an individual, on behalf of herself, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v. DSW SHOE WAREHOUSE, INC., a Corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25-CIV-01340 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, for the County of San Mateo, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on March 31, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-02950. The Plaintiff has styled this action as a class action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 382. Her complaint alleges nine purported causes of action, all of which are brought on behalf of the purported class. The nine causes of action are as follows: Unfair Competition in Violation of California Business & Professions Code; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages in Violation of California Labor Code; Failure to Pay Overtime Wages in Violation of California Labor Code; Failure to Provide Required Meal Periods in Violation of California Labor Code and the Applicable IWC Wage Order; Failure to Provide Required Rest Periods in Violation of California Labor Code and the Applicable IWC Wage Order; Failure to Provide Accurate Itemized Statements in Violation of California Labor Code; Failure to Reimburse Employees for Required Expenses in Violation of California Labor Code; Failure to Provide Wages When Due in Violation of California Labor Code; and Failure to Pay Sick Page Wages in Violation of California Labor Code."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Brian C. Sinclair, Esq. Peter Hering, Esq. RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP 18575 Jamboree Road, 9th Floor Irvine, CA 92612 Phone: 714-641-5100 Facsimile: 714-546-9035 Email: bsinclair@rutan.com phering@rutan.com ENZO BIOCHEM: Settlement in Louis Class Suit for Final OK --------------------------------------------------------- Enzo Biochem Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2025, that the Louis class suit settlement is for final court approval in 2025. Louis v. Enzo Biochem, Inc. et al., Index No. 653281/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) This is a putative class action pending in state court alleging various harms stemming from the April 2023 data incident. The complaint seeks to certify a class of New York citizens. The complaint brings claims of negligence; negligence per se; breach of duty; breach of implied contract; breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and violations of New York's Deceptive Acts and Practices § 349. The Company has filed a motion to stay this action pending the resolution of the EDNY Federal Action, and the motion remains pending. The Company anticipates that the case will be dismissed once the settlement in the EDNY Federal Action receives final approval from the court, likely sometime in 2025. Enzo Biochem, Inc., is a manufacturer and supplier of a portfolio of thousands of antibodies, genomic probes, assays, biochemicals, and proteins based in New York. ENZO BIOCHEM: Settlement in Sgambati Suit for Court OK ------------------------------------------------------ Enzo Biochem Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q Report for the quarterly period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2025, that the Sgambati class suit settlement is for final court approval in 2025. Maria Sgambati et al., v. Enzo Biochem, Inc., et al., Index No. 619511/2023 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) This is a putative class action pending in state court alleging various harms stemming from the April 2023 data incident. The complaint seeks to certify a class of New York residents. The complaint brings claims of negligence; negligence per se; breach of implied covenant and good faith and fair dealing; breach of duty; breach of implied contract; and violations of New York's Deceptive Acts and Practices § 349. The Company has filed a motion to stay this action pending the resolution of the EDNY Federal Action, and the motion was granted by the court. The Company anticipates that the case will be dismissed once the settlement in the EDNY Federal Action receives final approval from the court, likely sometime in 2025. Enzo Biochem, Inc., is a manufacturer and supplier of a portfolio of thousands of antibodies, genomic probes, assays, biochemicals, and proteins based in New York. ERICSSON INC: Court Certifies Rule 23 Class in Gutierrez Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Josue Gutierrez v. Ericsson Inc., et al., Case No. 5:23-cv-01665-GW-SHK (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge George Wu entered an order that: -- certifies the proposed class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) for purposes of settlement; -- grants the Motion for Final Approval of the Settlement which provides for $1,350,000 as a Gross Settlement Amount, as well as the Employer's Share of Payroll Taxes; -- awards the Class Representative a Service Award of $5,000; -- awards Class Counsel $337,500 in fees; and -- awards Class Counsel $23,426.59 in costs. The Plaintiff shall prepare a final order/judgment incorporating the above provisions. On June 22, 2023, Gutierrez filed suit in the Superior Court of California, Riverside County, accusing Ericsson of various California Labor Code wage related violations. The parties have agreed to the certification of the following class for purposes of settlement only: "All persons who worked for Defendant as a non-exempt employee reporting to a California work location during the Class Period." The Class Period is "June 22, 2019 through October 8, 2024." Ericsson operates as a provider of telecommunications equipment and related services. A copy of the Court's order dated March 14, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4yeFSH at no extra charge.[CC] ESTEE LAUDER: Class Certification Order Entered in Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit re The Estee Lauder Co., Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:23-cv-10669-AS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Arun Subramanian entered a class certification order as follows: -- The Court will hold a pretrial conference on April 17, 2025, at 2:30 PM in Courtroom 15A, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007. -- Absent leave of Court obtained by letter-motion filed before the conference, all pretrial conferences must be attended by the attorney who will serve as Lead Trial Counsel. -- Prior to the conference, the parties shall meet and confer on the schedule for discovery, class-certification, and summary judgment. The parties should submit a joint schedule to the Court by April 15, 2025. -- If needed, the parties may use the Court's form Proposed Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order, which is also available at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-arun-subramanian. Any open legal issues can be addressed at the conference. A copy of the Court's order dated April 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=DO3V6f at no extra charge.[CC] FCA US: Class Cert. Ruling Held in Abeyance ------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWARD PISTORIO, et al., v. FCA US LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-11838-SFC-APP (E.D. Mich.), the Hon. Judge Sean Cox entered an order agreeing to hold the decision on Plaintiffs' class certification motion in abeyance until after the Sixth Circuit issues its ruling in Speerly. The Plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on August 22, 2024. The Parties have filed five motions to exclude the Parties’ respective experts. The Court has referred those motions to Magistrate Judge Patti. On Feb. 12, 2025, Judge Patti held a hearing on two of the Parties' motions to exclude. Additionally, over the last few months, the parties in Dennis Speerly, et al. v. General Motors LLC, No. 23-01940, have filed their respective supplemental appellate briefs to the en banc panel of the Sixth Circuit. The Parties agree that some of the issues presented in that appeal may be relevant to this Court's ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Thus, the Parties propose that this Court hold its class certification ruling in abeyance until after the Sixth Circuit issues its ruling in Speerly. FCA US LLC designs, engineers, manufactures, and sells vehicles. A copy of the Court's order dated March 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=i4mlNr at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: E. Powell Miller, Esq. Dennis A. Lienhardt, Jr., Esq. Mitchell J. Kendrick, Esq. THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C. 950 West University Drive, Suite 300 Rochester, MI 48307 Telephone: (248) 841-2200 E-mail: epm@millerlawpc.com dal@millerlawpc.com mjk@millerlawpc.com - and - Lawrence Deutsch, Esq. Jeffrey L. Osterwise, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3062 E-mail: ldeutch@bm.net josterwise@bm.net - and - Cody R. Padgett, Esq. Abigail Gertner, Esq. CAPSTONE LAW APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 E-mail: Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com Abigail.Gertner@capstonelawyers.com - and - Joshua H. Haffner, Esq. Vahan Mikayelyan, Esq. HAFFNER LAW PC 15260 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1520 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Telephone: (213) 514-5681 E-mail: jhh@haffnerlawyers.com vh@haffnerlawyers.com The Defendant is represented by: Stephen A. D'Aunoy, Esq. Thomas L. Azar, Jr., Esq. Scott H. Morgan, Esq. Fred J. Fresard, Esq. Ian K. Edwards, Esq. Ellisse Thompson, Esq. KLEIN THOMAS LEE & FRESARD 100 N. Broadway, Ste. 1600 St. Louis, MO 63102 Telephone: (314) 888-2970 E-mail: steve.daunoy@kleinthomaslaw.com tom.azar@kleinthomaslaw.com scott.morgan@kleinthomaslaw.com fred.fresard@kleinthomaslaw.com ian.edwards@kleinthomaslaw.com ellisse.thompson@kleinthomaslaw.com FLURRY INC: Agrees to Settle Flo App Class Suit for $3.5MM ---------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that mobile analytics firm Flurry, Inc. has agreed to pay a $3.5 million Flo app settlement that, if approved by the court, will resolve proposed class action claims that alleged the shuttered company illegally harvested user data from the popular period and ovulation tracking tool. The proposed Flo app class action settlement looks to cover all Flo app users who entered menstruation and/or pregnancy information into the women's health app between November 1, 2016 and February 28, 2019, both dates inclusive. If the deal with the defunct Flurry is preliminarily approved by the court, class members who submit a timely, valid claim form will be eligible to receive a proportional share of the $3.5 million Flo app settlement fund. Covered individuals who verify that they lived in California during the applicable time period can receive a Flo settlement payout that's double the amount to be paid to non-California class members. These larger payments will account for the "increased legal value of claims under California's data protection laws, which provide statutory damages," the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval says. Eligible individuals can file a Flo app claim form by mail or online through the court-approved settlement website once it is established. The initial lawsuit against Flo Health claimed the company secretly embedded software within its period-tracking app to share consumers' highly sensitive health information with third parties. Co-defendants Flurry, Google and Facebook were later added to an amended complaint as alleged recipients of Flo user data. According to the case, Flo's illegal data-sharing practices exposed intimate details about the sexual health, menstruation cycles, gynecological health and physical well-being of millions of users, which third parties then leveraged for targeted advertising and other monetization opportunities. "As one of the most prominent mobile app data analytics firms, Flurry knew that the data it received from Flo Health through Flurry contained intimate health data," the suit says. "Despite knowing this, Flurry continued to receive, analyze, and use this information for its own purposes, including marketing and analytics." The $3.5 million settlement with Flurry does not resolve the remaining claims against Flo Health, Google and Facebook. Court documents state that if the class action lawsuit proceeded to trial and was successful, any potential recovery "would be limited by Flurry's financial condition," as the company is "a dissolved entity with a limited pool of funds." According to court documents, class members can expect to receive notice of the settlement via email or mail if the deal is approved. [GN] FLY E-BIKE: Chimicles Investigates Potential Class Action Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP is investigating potential class action claims against Fly E-Bike Inc. for falsely advertising that its electric bikes (e-bikes), electric scooters (e-scooters), and electric motorcycles (e-motorcycles) were compliant with UL safety standards when they were not. Fly E-Bike allegedly represented that its e-bikes, e-scooters, and e-motorcycles were compliant with UL electrical and fire safety standards by applying counterfeit or misleadingly similar UL certification symbols in its advertising, including on its website, its Instagram accounts, and in-store. But Fly E-Bike's e-bikes, e-scooters, and e-motorcycles were not certified by UL for electrical or fire safety compliance. [GN] G.SKILL INTERNATIONAL: Appeals Class Cert. Ruling in Hurd Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- G.SKILL INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISE CO., LTD., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled Tristan Hurd, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. G.Skill International Enterprise Co., Ltd., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:22-cv-00685-SSS-MAR, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Plaintiffs Tristan Hurd and Ken Dimicco, representing a proposed class, allege G.Skill misled consumers by advertising Dynamic Random-Access Memory modules for use in desktop computers at speeds higher than the actual speed. Plaintiff Hurd, on behalf of the California Subclass, alleges violations of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), False Advertising Law (FAL), and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), as well as express warranty and negligent misrepresentation claims. Plaintiff Dimicco, on behalf of the New York Subclass, alleges violations of New York General Business Law Sections 349 and 350. On Mar. 14, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Sunshine Suzanne Sykes granted in part and denied in part on Mar. 10, 2025. The Court certified the following classes under Rule 23(b)(2) and Rule 23(b)(3): (1) California class: for the UCL, FAL, CLRA, express warranty, and negligent misrepresentation claims, all California individuals who made an online purchase of G.Skill's High-Speed Memory within the governing statute of limitations period; and (2) New York class: for the N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law Sections 349 and §350 claims, all New York individuals who made an online purchase of G.Skill's High-Speed Memory within the governing statute of limitations period. The Court also certified the following classes solely under Rule 23(b)(2): (3) Consumer protection class: for claims applying the relevant state consumer protection statutes for each state, all individuals who made an online purchase of G.Skill's High-Speed Memory within the governing statute of limitations period from the following states: California, Connecticut, Delaware, Washington, D.C., Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont, Washington, and West Virginia. Additionally, Plaintiffs Hurd and Dimicco were appointed as class representatives, and the law firms of Dovel & Luner and Kneupper & Covey were designated as class counsel. The appellate case is captioned Hurd, et al. v. G.Skill International Enterprise Co., Ltd., et al., Case No. 25-1924, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 24, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents TRISTAN HURD, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Simon Carlo Franzini, Esq. Grace Bennett, Esq. Richard Elgar Lyon, III, Esq. Jonas Bram Jacobson, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Defendants-Petitioners G.SKILL INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISE CO., LTD., et al. are represented by: Matthew Allen Fitzgerald, Esq. Juliet B. Clark, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS, LLP Gateway Plaza 800 E. Canal Street Richmond, VA 23219 - and – Robert C. Hsu, Esq. LEXINT LAW GROUP PLC 135 S. State College Boulevard, Suite 200 Brea, CA 92821 Telephone: (626) 286-7055 GILEAD SCIENCES: Class Suit over Drug Side Effects Ongoing ---------------------------------------------------------- Gilead Sciences, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2025, that the company was named as a defendant in a class action lawsuit and various product liability lawsuits related to "Viread," "Truvada," "Atripla," "Complera" and "Stribild." Gilead agreed to make a one-time payment of approximately $39 million to a group of plaintiffs (approximately 2,470 plaintiffs). The federal court set a trial date of March 2027 for the first bellweather trial of the remaining cases. Briefing is ongoing in the putative class action in Missouri regarding whether the court should certify the proposed class. Plaintiffs allege that these drugs caused them to experience kidney, bone and/or tooth injuries. The lawsuits, which are pending in state or federal court in California and Missouri, involve more than 25,000 active plaintiffs. Plaintiffs in these cases seek damages and other relief on various grounds for alleged personal injury and economic loss. The first bellwether trial in California state court was scheduled to begin in October 2022, but is currently stayed while the California First District Court of Appeal considers the merits of plaintiffs' theories of liability. Gilead Sciences, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company headquartered in Foster City, California, that focuses on researching and developing antiviral drugs used in the treatment of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, influenza, and COVID-19, including ledipasvir/sofosbuvir and sofosbuvir. GLOBAL SECURITY: Faces Jones Wage-and-Hour Suit in W.D. Va. ----------------------------------------------------------- MARK A. JONES, DOMINIC ARMSTRONG, JAMES A. SPENCE, MICHAEL L. CARLSON, TYNAN BRYSON, and HARRY HANSON, JR., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. GLOBAL SECURITY CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No. 7:25-cv-00193-EKD (W.D. Va., March 19, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and breach of contract. The Plaintiffs were employed by the Defendant as hourly employees at any time between 2018 and 2024. Global Security Corporation is a security services provider based in Edmond, Oklahoma. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David W. Thomas, Esq. Christopher Janszky, Esq. MICHIEHAMLETT PLLC 310 4th Street NE, 2nd Floor P.O. Box 298 Charlottesville, VA 22902 Telephone: (434) 951-7224 Facsimile: (434) 951-7244 Email: dthomas@michiehamlett.com cjanszky@michiehamlett.com GOOGLE LLC: Class Cert Bid Filing Revised to Nov. 8 --------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit re Google RTB Consumer Privacy Litigation, Case No. 4:21-cv-02155-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting revised case schedule: Event New Case Schedule Class Certification Motion Motion: Nov. 8, 2024 Opposition: Jan. 31, 2025 Reply: May 9, 2025 Hearing: TBD Opening Expert Reports: June 20, 2025 Rebuttal Expert Reports: Aug. 1, 2025 Close of Expert Discovery: Aug. 29, 2025 Dispositive/Daubert Motions Motions: Sept. 19, 2025 Oppositions: Oct. 31, 2025 Replies: Dec. 5, 2025 Hearing: TBD On February 21, 2025, the parties advised the Court that they had participated in a mediation before Shirish Gupta at JAMS in San Francisco on February 20, 2025, that the parties had made substantial progress during that mediation session, and that a further mediation session had been scheduled with Mr. Gupta for March 7, 2025. S Google operates as a global technology company specializes in internet related services and products. A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=83YYQK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Elizabeth C. Pritzker, Esq. Jonathan K. Levine, Esq. Bethany Caracuzzo, Esq. PRITZKER LEVINE LLP 1900 Powell Street, Suite 450 Emeryville, CA 94608 Telephone: (415) 692-0772 Facsimile: (415) 366-6110 E-mail: ecp@pritzkerlevine.com jkl@pritzkerlevine.com bc@pritzkerlevine.com The Defendant is represented by: Whitty Somvichian, Esq. Aarti G. Reddy, Esq. Reece Trevor, Esq. COOLEY LLP 3 Embarcadero Center, 20th Fl. San Francisco, CA 94111-4004 Telephone: (415) 693-2000 Facsimile: (415) 693-2222 E-mail: wsomvichian@cooley.com areddy@cooley.com rtrevor@cooley.com GREGORY GREENLEE: Beasley Requests Recusal of Judge Starr --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as BLACKS IN TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL, v. GREGORY GREENLEE, DENNIS SCHULTZ, AND BLACKS IN TECHNOLOGY, LLC, Case No. 3:22-cv-00532-X-BT (N.D. Tex.), the Plaintiff Beasley requests Judge Starr to consider whether to recuse himself under 28 U.S.C. section 144 and allow another judge to be assigned to resolve the conflict between the parties more effectively. The Presiding Judge's pattern, as further demonstrated on March 11, 2025, of obvious mistakes and departures from the truth represent manifest errors which seriously question the judge's impartiality, which necessitate recusal. On March 11, 2025, in the First Lawsuit, the Presiding Judge entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Beasley's motions under 28 U.S.C. section 144 & 455 to recuse the Presiding Judge. Again, the Presiding Judge made repeated, obvious findings not supported by the record. Beasley alleges that the Presiding Judge's willingness to make repeated misstatements of fact in the First Lawsuit is evidence of bias for grounds of recusal in this Second Lawsuit. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 15, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vR5f6B at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Beasley, pro se Richardson, TX 75083-1359 Telephone: (972) 365-1170 E-mail: pbeasley@bitintl.org GROVEHOUSE HOSPITALITY: Faces Mendez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y. ------------------------------------------------------------------- RUBEN MENDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GROVEHOUSE HOSPITALITY, LLC, GROVEHOUSE HOSPITALITY HOLDINGS, LLC, WOODFIRE COLLISION LLC, MISI DOMINO LLC, MELISSA ROBBINS, individually, and SEAN FEENEY, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01646 (E.D.N.Y., March 25, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, tip misappropriation, failure to provide proper annual wage notices, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a tipped worker at Misi restaurant from approximately September 2019 through July 2022, subject to the COVID-19 restaurant closures in 2020, and at Lilia from approximately July 2020 to September 2020, then again from December 2020 through approximately 2021. Grovehouse Hospitality, LLC is a restaurant owner and operator based in Brooklyn, New York. Grovehouse Hospitality Holdings, LLC is a restaurant owner and operator based in Brooklyn, New York. Woodfire Collision LLC is a restaurant owner and operator based in Brooklyn, New York. Misi Domino LLC is a restaurant owner and operator based in Brooklyn, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Brian S. Schaffer, Esq. Armando A. Ortiz, Esq. David J. Sack, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 HAIN CELESTIAL: Howard Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 9th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ TRACY HOWARD, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Defendant's motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled Tracy Howard, et al., individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00527-VC, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The Plaintiffs allege that Hain manufactures baby foods that violate California state law by including nutrient content labels. They bring claims for Hain's allegedly unlawful use of the nutrient content labels. They also allege that the labels are misleading to consumers. On Nov. 12, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which Judge Vince Chhabria granted on Feb. 5, 2025. The Court held that summary judgment must be granted for Hain because no reasonable jury could conclude that the products at issue are intended primarily for children under two. Hain also presented evidence indicating that the products are not intended primarily for children under two. On Feb. 21, 2025, judgment was entered in favor of the Defendant. The appellate case is captioned Howard, et al. v. The Hain Celestial Group, Inc., Case No. 25-1919, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 24, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on March 31, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript Order was due on April 4, 2025; -- Appellant's Appeal Transcript is due on May 5, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on June 13, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on July 14, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants TRACY HOWARD, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Seth Adam Safier, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 835 Douglass Street San Francisco, CA 94114 - and – Hayley Reynolds, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Defendant-Appellee THE HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP, INC. is represented by: Dean N. Panos, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK, LLP 353 N Clark Street, Suite 4300 Chicago, IL 60654 - and – Alexander Smith, Esq. Kate T. Spelman, Esq. Madeline P. Skitzki, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK, LLP 515 S. Flower Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 HAMILTON-RYKER: 6th Circuit Split in Overtime Exemption Case ------------------------------------------------------------ The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed a lower court decision that held a pipe inspector employed by Hamilton-Ryker IT Solutions, LLC, was considered a "salaried worker." The Sixth Circuit concluded that since Lynwood Pickens' guaranteed pay only covered eight hours, not his usual 52-hour workweek, he did not meet the salary basis test. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings, saying Pickens is entitled to summary judgment on his individual claim. The Sixth Circuit will let the district court decide in the first instance whether Pickens' action may proceed on a collective basis. Chief Judge Jeffrey Sutton delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Judge Raymond Kethledge joined. Judge Eric Murphy filed a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part. Judge Murphy affirmed the lower court decision. Pickens was a pipe inspector employed by Hamilton-Ryker from 2018 to 2019. For any week in which Pickens worked, Hamilton-Ryker paid him a "guaranteed weekly salary" of $800, a figure based on eight hours of pay at Pickens' $100 hourly rate. If Pickens worked more than eight hours in any given week, which he always did, he received additional compensation at $100 per hour. Over the course of his employment, Pickens worked 28 hours in his slowest week (receiving $2,800), and 83 hours in his busiest (receiving $8,300). On average, he worked for just under 52 hours per week, making his usual earnings $5,200 per week, what would come to annualized earnings of $270,400. If Pickens worked more than 40 hours in a week, Hamilton-Ryker did not pay him overtime (time and a half or $150 per hour) because the company classified him as a salaried worker, making him exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act. Pickens believes he is exempt from the FLSA and entitled to overtime pay. Fourteen of his coworkers opted into the lawsuit, which was filed as a "collective action" under the FLSA. Pickens and his coworkers moved for summary judgment. So did Hamilton-Ryker. The district court granted summary judgment to Hamilton-Ryker, treating Pickens as a salaried employee under the Act. It dismissed Pickens' coworkers on the ground that the court had not determined that they were "similarly situated" to Pickens . Hamilton-Ryker maintained that Pickens properly qualified as exempt under 29 C.F.R. Sec. 541.602(a), which defines salary basis pay as "a predetermined amount constituting all or part of the employee's compensation" that is "not subject to reduction because of variations in the quality or quantity of the work performed." The company emphasized that Pickens received his $800 guarantee regardless of hours worked (so long as he worked at least some time each week), satisfying the regulation's plain language. Hamilton-Ryker warned that rejecting its position would create uncertainty for employers using hybrid compensation structures and conflict with the regulation's express allowance for salary to constitute only "part of" total compensation. The Sixth Circuit, ruling 2-1, held that the salary basis test requires compensation reflecting an employee's entire workweek, not just a fraction of it. Chief Judge Sutton wrote: "His supposed 'salary' of $800 -- for one day's work -- simply did not count as a salary" under 29 C.F.R. Sec. 541.602(a)(1). The opinion emphasized that the $800 guarantee covered only 15% of Pickens's typical workweek, with the remainder paid hourly. This structure, the Sixth Circuit found, failed to provide the "stability and security" characteristic of salaried employment. The majority rejected Hamilton-Ryker's argument that any weekly payment satisfies the test, noting this would nullify Sec. 541.604(b)'s reasonable relationship requirement. Judge Murphy dissented in part, arguing the majority improperly added requirements to unambiguous regulations. He contended that Sec. 541.602(a) expressly permits salary to constitute "part of" compensation and imposes no minimum relationship between the guaranteed amount and actual hours worked. "The regulation unambiguously defines a salary as any predetermined weekly amount," Judge Murphy wrote. "If the Department of Labor dislikes this outcome, it should amend the regulation -- not have courts rewrite it." The dissent warned the decision would disrupt common compensation structures in industries where exempt employees receive base pay plus production incentives. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=J9f8UI The case is captioned, Lynwood Pickens, Individually and For Others Similarly Situated v. HAMILTON-RYKER IT SOLUTIONS, LLC, Case No. 3:20-cv-00141 (M.D. Tenn., Feb. 18, 2020) and reported by Class Action Reporter on Feb. 24, 2020. Pickens worked for Hamilton-Ryker as a Quality Assurance/Quality Control Inspector. Hamilton-Ryker provides staffing solutions to projects ranging from information technology, customer service, oil and gas, and health industry. The Plaintiff is represented by: Charles P. Yezbak, III, Esq. YEZBAK LAW OFFICES PLLC 2021 Richard Jones Road, Suite 310-A Nashville, TN 37215 Email: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. Richard M. Schreiber, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com rschreiber@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Telecopier: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com Ashlee Cassman Grant, Esq. -- agrant@bakerlaw.com -- at BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP, Houston, Texas, represents Hamilton-Ryker. HAPPY SOCKS: Hernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ----------------------------------------------------------- Timothy Hernandez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. HAPPY SOCKS NORTH AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-01761 (S.D.N.Y., March 31, 2025), is brought against Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website, www.happysocks.com (the "Website"), to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website, and therefore denial of the goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant is a company that owns and operates the Website, offering features which should allow all consumers to access the goods and services and by which Defendant ensures the delivery of such goods throughout the United States, including New York State.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com HART MIRACLE: Pardo Sues Over Disabled's Equal Access to Property ----------------------------------------------------------------- NIGEL FRANK DE LA TORRE PARDO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HART MIRACLE MARKETPLACE, LLC, MARSHALLS OF MA, INC. D/B/A MARSHALLS 1036, and SUBWAY 50023 INC. D/B/A SUBWAY 50023, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-21374 (S.D. Fla., March 25, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants have failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate their facilities to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other persons with disabilities. The Defendants have continued to discriminate against people who are disabled in ways that block them from access and use of their properties and businesses. The Plaintiff and similarly situated disabled individuals encountered architectural barriers in common areas such parking, entrance access and path of travel, and public restrooms. The Plaintiff and Class members seek injunctive relief to remove the existing architectural barriers to the physically disabled when such removal is readily achievable for the place of public accommodation. Hart Miracle Marketplace, LLC is a commercial plaza property owner and operator doing business in Florida. Marshalls of MA, Inc., doing business as Marshalls 1036, is a commercial property owner and operator doing business in Florida. Subway 50023 Inc., doing business as Subway 50023, is a commercial property owner and operator doing business in Florida. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Perez, Esq. ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC 7950 W. Flagler Street, Suite 104 Coral Gables, FL 33144 Telephone: (786) 361-9909 Facsimile: (786) 687-0445 Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com HUMANA INC: Bid to Dismiss Expert Testimony in TCPA Suit Denied --------------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Sellers, writing for Insurance Business Mag, reports that a federal judge has denied Humana Inc.'s efforts to exclude expert testimony in a proposed class action lawsuit accusing the company of violating the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by repeatedly making robocalls to individuals who were not Humana customers. The plaintiff, David Elliot, alleges that Humana made numerous prerecorded calls to his telephone number despite being informed that it had reached the wrong person. Elliot, who was never a Humana customer, claims the calls persisted and that thousands of others may have received similar calls over a four-year period. In support of his motion for class certification, Elliot presented the expert opinion of Anya Verkhovskaya, President and CEO of Class Experts Group, LLC. Verkhovskaya, who has extensive experience serving as a court-approved expert in TCPA cases, was retained to show that potential class members could be reliably identified and notified. Her analysis relied on a declaration prepared by Christina Peters-Stasiewicz, Vice President at Class Experts Group. Peters-Stasiewicz used Structured Query Language (SQL) to analyze Humana's internal call data, identifying 8,627 unique phone numbers that had either been flagged as wrong numbers on Humana's internal do-not-call lists or had received a prerecorded call following a call coded as "disconnected." These phone numbers were divided into two categories: -- Type-A Numbers: Those associated with calls coded as "prerecorded" and appearing on internal do-not-call lists. -- Type-B Numbers: Those that received a prerecorded call after a call coded as "disconnected." Using this data, Verkhovskaya proposed a multi-step notification plan, including reverse lookups, cross-referencing subscriber information with carrier data, and issuing subpoenas to telephone carriers to identify account holders. Potential class members would then be sent claim forms asking whether they received a wrong-number call, whether they were Humana customers, and other verifying information. Humana filed two motions: one to exclude Verkhovskaya's expert report and testimony, and another to strike Peters-Stasiewicz's declaration. The company argued that Verkhovskaya lacked formal training in data analytics, relied improperly on an undisclosed expert, and used an unreliable methodology. Humana also contended that Peters-Stasiewicz's declaration amounted to expert testimony submitted without proper disclosure. Judge Rebecca Grady Jennings denied both motions. The court found Verkhovskaya qualified under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 based on her two decades of experience in class notification and TCPA litigation. Her lack of a formal degree in data science did not disqualify her, the court held, because she demonstrated specialized knowledge and practical experience. The court also found her methodology -- including the "reverse append" process and validation through sworn claim forms -- to be sufficiently reliable and relevant at the class certification stage. Humana's objections, the judge ruled, went to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility. Peters-Stasiewicz's declaration was not expert testimony, the court concluded, but rather a straightforward summary of Humana's own data. The declaration was admissible, particularly at the class certification stage, where the court may consider reliable evidence even if it may not be admissible at trial. Humana's argument that Verkhovskaya's methodology was flawed because it did not independently identify Elliot was also rejected. The court cited precedent showing that failure to capture a named plaintiff's data does not render the methodology unreliable, especially where the data is drawn from the defendant's own records. The court emphasized that class certification does not require evidence to meet the strict admissibility standards applicable at trial. The evidence provided by Verkhovskaya and Peters-Stasiewicz met the threshold of reliability necessary for certification proceedings. Though the case involves one of the nation's largest health insurers, no insurance policy terms were at issue. The legal questions focused solely on telemarketing conduct governed by federal statute. The ruling serves as a reminder for insurance carriers and administrators of the legal exposure surrounding TCPA compliance and the operational risks of automated outreach programs, especially when call records may later support class action claims. Case: David Elliot v. Humana Inc. Court: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky Date: March 24, 2025 Judge: Rebecca Grady Jennings [GN] IGLOO PRODUCTS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Fingertip Injuries ------------------------------------------------------------------ Michael Adams, writing for About Lawsuits, reports that a California man has filed a lawsuit alleging that his son's fingers were pinched by an Igloo cooler, which was later recalled due to multiple reports of similar finger injuries caused by a dangerous and defective handle design. The complaint (PDF) was brought by Robert Castellano in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on March 28, naming Igloo Products Corp. as the defendant. Just over a month ago, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) announced the recall of more than 1 million Igloo coolers on February 13, following at least 12 reports of fingertip injuries linked to the handles of Igloo 90 Quart Flip and Tow Rolling Coolers, which included reports of deep lacerations, bone fractures and even partial finger amputations. According to the complaint, Castellano purchased an Igloo MaxCold Latitude 90 Roller Cooler in 2022. However, when his 17-year-old son had his fingers pinched by the cooler's handle while on a camping trip in August 2024, Castellano stopped using the cooler. Castellano indicates that after receiving a recall notice for the cooler several months later, he applied for a new handle to be sent to him, which he received but did not feel comfortable using as a replacement for the defective device. "Reasonable consumers expect that a simple product like a cooler will cause them no harm. After all, what harm can a properly insulated box cause?" the lawsuit states. "Defendant, however, has betrayed customers' reasonable expectations." Castellano's lawsuit also criticizes the scope of Igloo's recall remedy, claiming that simply offering a replacement handle, without refunds or full product replacements, falls short of industry standards for addressing safety hazards. As a result, Castellano is requesting a full refund for the purchase price of his cooler. The lawsuit further accuses Igloo of being aware of the defect long before the recall was issued, referencing prior consumer complaints submitted directly to the company and posted publicly online, asserting that Igloo failed to warn users or take corrective action until after multiple injuries had been reported. The complaint alleges that Igloo's conduct was "knowing, intentional, and malicious," and demonstrated a conscious disregard for consumer safety. The complaint brings forth claims of breach of implied warranty and violations of multiple California consumer protection statutes, including the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, the Legal Remedies Act, the Unfair Competition Law, and the False Advertising Law. If certified as a class action, the lawsuit could impact thousands of Igloo customers across the country who bought coolers subject to the recall. Igloo Cooler Recall The recalled Igloo Flip and Tow Rolling Coolers referenced in Castellano's lawsuit were produced in the United States prior to January 2024. They were made available for purchase from January 2019 through January 2025 at major retailers, including Costco, Target, Academy and Dick's Sporting Goods, as well as online platforms like Amazon.com and Igloocoolers.com. Prices ranged from $80 to $140. [GN] The manufacturing date can be found stamped on the bottom of each cooler, in a circular format. An arrow points to the production month, while the center of the circle displays the last two digits of the year. The CPSC is advising customers to stop using the affected coolers immediately and to contact Igloo for a replacement handle. [GN] J&I CORDON: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Response ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN DARIO OSORIO MONSALVE, on their own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. J&I CORDON ELECTRIC, LLC and OSCAR CORDON, Individually, Case No. 1:25-cv-01135-LMM (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Leigh Martin May entered an order granting motion to extend time for the Defendants to respond to the Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify collective action. -- The deadline for Defendants to file a response to the Plaintiff's motion to conditionally certify collective action and facilitate notice to potential class members is extended to April 15, 2025. J&I is a full service electrical contracting company residing in Lawrenceville, Georgia and the surrounding states. A copy of the Court's order dated April 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vsIZCS at no extra charge.[CC] J&I CORDON: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JUAN DARIO OSORIO MONSALVE, on their own behalf and on behalf of those similarly situated, v. J&I CORDON ELECTRIC, LLC and OSCAR CORDON, Individually, Case No. 1:25-cv-01135-LMM (N.D. Ga.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order extending the deadline to respond to the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification by 14 days, up to and including April 15, 2025. Pursuant to Standing Order Section III(a), a proposed order granting this motion is attached for the Court's convenience and filing. An extension of 14 days from the date of this filing will not prejudice either Party or cause unnecessary delay in the action, and will allow the Defendants' counsel sufficient time to gather additional information necessary to respond to the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification following the filing of the Defendants' answer. On March 4, 2025, the Plaintiff filed his collective action complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division. On March 12, 2025, the Plaintiff Osorio filed his motion to conditionally certify collective action and facilitate notice to potential Class Members. J&I is a full service electrical contracting company. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eMbChn at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Justin B. Connell, Esq. Daniel F. Barrett, Esq. ELARBEE, THOMPSON, SAPP & WILSON, LLP 800 International Tower 229 Peachtree Street, NE Atlanta, GA 30303 Telephone: (404) 659-6700 E-mail: barrett@elarbeethompson.com J. DOERER: Judge Recommends Class Cert Denial in Benoite Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHELTON BENOITE, v. J. DOERER, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-01407-KES-HBK (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Helena Barch-Kuchta recommended that Plaintiff's motion for class certification be denied. Accordingly, the Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(l). Within 14 days after being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written objections with the Court. The Plaintiff, a federal prisoner incarcerated at United States Penitentiary, Atwater, proceeds pro se in this civil action. Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for class certification filed on Feb. 12, 2025. A copy of the Court's findings and recommendation dated March 10, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JGTEnH at no extra charge.[CC] LIVING PROOF HEALTH: McAlpin Files TCPA Suit in M.D. Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Living Proof Health Insurance Agency LLC. The case is styled as Kristi McAlpin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Living Proof Health Insurance Agency LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00621-SEB-CSW (M.D. Pa., March 31, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Living Proof Health Insurance Agency LLC -- https://livingproofinsurance.com/ -- deliver personalized insurance solutions.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (617) 485-0018 Fax: (508) 318-8100 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com LONGVIEW MEDICAL: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANNA JOHNSON, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LONGVIEW MEDICAL CENTER, L.P. d/b/a LONGVIEW REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Case No. 6:24-cv-00215-JDK (E.D. Tex.), the Defendant asks the Court to enter an order to extend the response date to the Plaintiff's opposed motion up to and including April 25, 2025, and for such other and further relief to which the Court may find Defendant justly entitled. The Plaintiff filed its Opposed Motion for Notice under Swales on March 28, 2025. The Defendant's counsel has multiple client commitments including briefing and other deadlines. To provide the Defendant with the opportunity to reasonably and diligently evaluate and respond to the arguments and legal authority presented in the Plaintiff's Opposed Motion, and to file supporting documents, the Defendant requests a fourteen-day extension until up to and including April 25, 2025, to prepare and file its Response in Opposition to the Plaintiff's Opposed Motion. The Defendant has conferred with Plaintiff's counsel, and she is not opposed to the Defendant's motion requesting an extension of the response date until up to and including April 25, 2025. Longview is a general medical and surgical facility. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated April 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0czcc4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Leslie Selig Byrd, Esq. Anna Wortham, Esq. BRACEWELL LLP 300 Convent Street, Suite 2700 San Antonio, TX 78205 Telephone: (210) 299-3460 Facsimile: (800) 404-3970 E-mail: leslie.byrd@bracewell.com Anna.Wortham@bracewell.com LOWE'S COMPANIES: Masry Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Omar Masry, an individual; ELLIOT MASS, an individual, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC. a North Carolina corporation; LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, a North Carolina limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 23CV057098 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on March 31, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-02959. In the State Court Action, on February 28, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (the "FAC") that contained new allegations that the defendants' alleged conduct "foreseeably caused unlawful self-censorship of Plaintiffs and other Lowe's customers." The Plaintiffs assert a claim for alleged violations of California Civil Code Section 1670.8 and seek to bring a "class action on their own behalf and on the behalf of all other similarly situated consumers in California."[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Tyree P. Jones, Esq. Deborah Y. Jones, Esq. Alyssa J. Garcia, Esq. POLSINELLI LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2900 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 556-1801 Fax: (310) 556-1802 Email: tjones@polsinelli.com dyjones@polsinelli.com ajgarcia@polsinelli.com MAISON SOLUTIONS: Continues to Defend Green Securities Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Maison Solutions Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Green securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On January 4, 2024, the Defendants were named in a class action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, as well as violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (Rick Green and Evgenia Nikitina v. Maison Solutions Inc., et. al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00063). As relief, the plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, compensatory damages. The Company and Defendants believe the allegations in both complaints are without merit and intend to defend each suit vigorously. It is reasonably possible that a loss may be incurred; however, the possible range of losses is not reasonably estimable given the pending status of the cases. Maison Solutions Inc. is a retail company that operates grocery stores and is based in Monterey Park, CA. MAISON SOLUTIONS: Continues to Defend Kim Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Maison Solutions Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Kim securities class suit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. On January 2, 2024, the Company and its executive officers and directors, as well as Joseph Stone Capital LLC, and AC Sunshine Securities LLC, the underwriters in the Company's initial public offering (together, the "Defendants"), were named in a class action complaint filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York alleging violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (Ilsan Kim v. Maison Solutions Inc., et. al, Index No. 150024/2024). As relief, the plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, compensatory damages. On or about April 17, 2024, the parties agreed to stay the action in favor of the Rick Green matter. The Company and Defendants believe the allegations in both complaints are without merit and intend to defend the suit vigorously. Maison Solutions Inc. is a retail company that operates grocery stores and is based in Monterey Park, CA. MAJOR ENERGY: Continues to Defend Glikin Variable Rate Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Via Renewables Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2025, that the Major Energy Electric Services LLC continues to defend itself from the Glikin variable rate class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On January 14, 2021, Glikin, et al. v. Major Energy Electric Services, LLC, a purported variable rate class action was filed by a Maryland customer in the United States District Court, Southern District of New York, attempting to represent a class of all Major Energy customers (including customers of companies Major Energy acts as a successor to) in the United States charged a variable rate for electricity or gas by Major Energy during the applicable statute of limitations period up to and including the date of judgment. The Company moved this case to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland (Case No. 1:21-cv-03251-MJM) and in December 2023 filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. On September 18, 2024, the Court found that Plaintiff's claims were unexhausted, stayed the case and ordered that Plaintiff must first present Plaintiff's claims to the Maryland Public Service Communion ("MPSC") before the Court may adjudicate them. Plaintiff filed its claim with the MPSC and that claim is pending. The Company is vigorously defending this matter; however, given the current early stage of this matter, it cannot predict the outcome of this case at this time. Via Renewables Inc. is an independent retail energy services. It offers its services under the Electricity Maine, Electricity N.H., Major Energy, Provider Power Massachusetts, Spark Energy, and Verde Energy brands. MANITOBA: First Nations Sue Over Poor Child Welfare System ---------------------------------------------------------- Kristin Annable and Caroline Barghout of CBC News report that a $2.1-billion proposed class action arrived at the Court of King's Bench on Monday, March 31, 2025, where Manitoba's chief justice heard arguments that the provincial and federal governments breached their duties to First Nations through what the suit calls "devastating mismanagement of the child welfare system." The chiefs of three Manitoba First Nations -- Black River First Nation, Pimicikamak Cree Nation and Misipawistik Cree Nation, along with the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs -- launched the lawsuit in October 2022. The statement of claim says they're seeking $2.1 billion in damages for First Nations harmed by the apprehension of kids by child and family services (CFS) agencies between 1992 and the present day. It also seeks an order ending the "unnecessary apprehension" of First Nations children on the basis of "poverty, racial and cultural bias, and systemic racism." "It arises out of a set of facts that are deeply troubling," said Michael Rosenberg, the lawyer for the First Nations, in his opening submissions. "This is an ongoing human catastrophe. It continues to the present day and without this court's action the plaintiffs are concerned it won't stop." Chief Justice Glenn Joyal will hear arguments over the next five days on whether the suit should be certified as a class action, and whether it should move to summary judgment -- meaning he can render a decision on the merits of the case without it going to trial. Thousands of pages of documents have been filed by both sides, including reports, affidavits and case law. Misipawistik Cree Nation Chief Heidi Cook is the lead plaintiff in the case. She worked within the CFS system for years and saw the impact it had on families in her community, about 400 kilometres northwest of Winnipeg. "It is just absolutely heartbreaking," she said. "When a child is apprehended into a system, the child experiences a lot of trauma -- the separation from their family, the uncertainty of what's going to happen … The family also experiences that. The nation loses its connection to its children." The First Nations say they have collectively lost language, culture, identity and spirituality as a result of the historical policies of the child welfare system, according to the court documents. Rosenberg, from Toronto-based law firm McCarthy Tetrault, told court both the federal and provincial governments were repeatedly warned the system was in crisis. They repeatedly accepted recommendations from reports but did not change the system, he said. He is asking that court finds both governments breached their duties to First Nations. A report by research professor Vandna Sinha and CFS consultant Tara Petti, commissioned by the plaintiffs, found the government emphasized funding for protective measures regarding kids in care, rather than preventing their apprehension, according to an affidavit Sinha filed in 2024. The report also found that: -- Manitoba has the highest rate of children in out of home care in Canada. -- From 2001 to 2021, the number of children in care increased from 5,440 to 9,850. -- The percentage of kids in care who are Indigenous rose to 91 per cent in 2021 from 80 per cent in 2001. Working to address 'shortcomings': province Both governments are opposing the certification motion and summary judgment. The province is expected to make its arguments on April 1, Tuesday, followed by the federal government on Wednesday. The province declined to comment as the matter is before the courts. The federal government denied all allegations that it has employed discriminatory practices to destroy First Nations families, cultures, and First Nations through its funding of on-reserve child welfare services, in a prepared statement. The statement said it is the provincial government that has jurisdiction to the control and set the standard for child welfare services on and off reserve in Manitoba. In a 111-page motion brief filed earlier this month, the provincial government acknowledges that the CFS system has "shortcomings" and said it "continues to make efforts to address them." Changes have been made to the child welfare system since 1992 in a "sincere attempt to improve outcomes," the government stated in the brief. The First Nations' arguments do not account for the complex history of CFS in Manitoba, according to the brief. It notes the federal government stopped providing funding for off-reserve First Nations people in 1992, leaving the province without the funding to address their child welfare needs. Black River Chief Sheldon Kent, another lead plaintiff, told CBC during the lunch break he is disappointed the governments are claiming they are not liable for poor outcomes for Manitoba children in care. "To hear them say that it's not their responsibility, they're not liable, yet they're the governments that created the agencies and the systems, that's disappointing to hear," Kent said. The negative outcomes for First Nations children are not solely because of the provincial government, the brief maintains. It says the CFS agencies, which make the decisions to apprehend and are separate entities, also bear responsibility. In a separate 220-page brief, Canada's attorney general wrote the government is "committed to reconciliation" and acknowledged historical wrongs were committed against First Nations in the administration of the child welfare system. However, it argues that has already been addressed in previous settlements. In 2023, the Federal Court approved a $23-billion settlement to compensate an estimated 300,000 First Nations children and their families for Canada's chronic underfunding of on-reserve child welfare services. The brief said Canada settled two other class actions with First Nations people for harms caused by the residential schools system and the Sixties Scoop. "In addition to numerous federal Indigenous programs that existed over the last number of decades, Canada has also provided First Nations with extensive funding and programming to promote and revitalize Indigenous languages, culture and traditions," said the motion brief. The federal government also argues that Manitoba had jurisdiction and legislative control over child welfare services, and in 2003, the province delegated authority over Indigenous aspects of child welfare to four CFS authorities through a process known as devolution. Those authorities and their employees are responsible for administering and providing the delivery of care, the brief says. It also says the federal government "did not provide direct funding for the delivery of off-reserve child welfare services." [GN] MARRIOTT INT'L: Court Vacates Deadlines, Hearings in Cahill ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSHUA CAHILL, v. MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-05065-FLA-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando Aenlle-Rocha entered an order vacating deadlines and hearings and setting date for submission of motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement agreement to June 1, 2025. 1. The July 4, 2025, deadline for the court to hear the Plaintiff's motion for class certification is vacated. 2. The parties' fact discovery cut-off deadline of Nov. 28, 2025, is vacated. 3. The parties' expert disclosure (initial) deadline of Dec. 5, 2025, is vacated. 4. The parties' expert disclosure (rebuttal) deadline of Dec. 19, 2025, is vacated. 5. The parties' expert discovery cut-Off deadline of Jan. 2, 2026, is vacated. 6. The parties' deadline to complete settlement conference of Feb. 20, 2026, is vacated. 7. The parties shall file their motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement agreement by June 1, 2025. Marriott is a hospitality service provider that operates hotels and restaurants. A copy of the Court's order dated April 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pbUmOT at no extra charge.[CC] METAGENOMI INC: Continues to Defend Vreeland Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------- Metagenomi Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Vreeland class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On September 26, 2024, a class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company and certain of the Company's officers and certain of its current and former directors, captioned Vreeland v. Metagenomi Inc. et al., No. 5:24-cv-06765 (the "Securities Action"). The Securities Action alleges violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act against all defendants and control person violations of Section 15 against the individuals. The Securities Action alleges that the defendants made misleading statements and omitted to disclose material information concerning the Company's collaboration with Moderna in the Company's registration statement and final prospectus materials filed in January 2024 and February 2024. The Securities Action seeks, among other things, compensatory damages as well as costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and expert fees. On February 10, 2025, the court appointed Mingxi Bi as lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff's amended complaint is due on April 4, 2025 under the current case schedule. The Company is currently unable to predict the outcome of this lawsuit and therefore cannot determine the likelihood of loss, if any, nor estimate a range of possible loss. The Company intends to defend vigorously against this litigation. Founded in 2016, Metagenomi is a genetics medicine company headquartered in Emeryville, CA. Following its initial public offering, Metagenomi's stock traded on the Nasdaq under the symbol "MGX". [BN] METROPOLITAN OPERA: Class Settlement in Tuteur Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as REBECCA TUTEUR, ANTHONY VITI, and MATTHEW NAPOLI, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. METROPOLITAN OPERA ASSOCIATION, INC., Case No. 1:23-cv-03997-GS (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Gary Stein entered an order granting final approval of class action settlement. 1. The Court, having reviewed the terms of the Settlement Agreement submitted by the Parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2), grants final approval of the Settlement Agreement, and, for purposes of the Settlement Agreement and this Final Approval Order and Judgment only, the Court finally certifies the following Settlement Class: "All individuals who were mailed a notification by or on behalf of the Met Opera regarding the Met Opera Data Security Incident." Specifically excluded from the Settlement Class are: (i) the Met Opera; (ii) all Settlement Class Members who timely and validly submit a Request for Exclusion; (iii) any judges assigned to the Action and their staff and family; and (iv) any other Person found by a court of competent jurisdiction to be guilty under criminal law of initiating, causing, aiding, or abetting the criminal activity occurrence of the Met Opera Data Security Incident or who pleads nolo contendere to any such charge. 2. The Court grants final approval to the appointment of the Plaintiffs Rebecca Tuteur, Anthony Viti, and Matthew Napoli as Settlement Class Representatives. 3. The Court grants final approval to the appointment of Siri & Glimstad LLP and Israel David LLC as Class Counsel. Metropolitan Opera provides performing art services. The Organization promotes musical art particularly opera for the general public. A copy of the Court's order dated March 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JSFeMj at no extra charge.[CC] MICROGENICS CORP: Moreland Must File Opposition Papers by April 15 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Moreland, et al., v. Microgenics Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:21-cv-00748 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Feb. 11, 2021), the Hon. Judge Eric N. Vitaliano entered a revised order as follows: -- Plaintiffs' papers in opposition to the Microgenics defendants' papers shall be served by April 15, 2025. -- Microgenics defendants' reply papers shall be served by May 20, 2025. -- Final bundles should not be filed on the docket without further order of the Court. The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act. Microgenics is a clinical diagnostics division of Thermo Electron Corporation that specializes in manufacturing and supplying clinical diagnostic products and toxicology testing solutions to federal agencies.[CC] MINERAL RESOURCES: Faces Class Action Suit Over Tax Scandals ------------------------------------------------------------ Mark Wembridge and Lucas Baird, writing for Financial Review, reports that Mineral Resources and its embattled founder Chris Ellison have been served with a class action in Victoria's Supreme Court following a series of corporate governance and tax scandals at the loss-making miner. The claim alleges that MinRes "engaged in misleading conduct and failed to disclose material information in relation to its business practices, standards of corporate governance, and the scope and nature of transactions with related parties, including Mr Ellison". It also alleges that MinRes' share price was "artificially inflated by the company's misconduct" and that investors suffered loss and damage as a result. "Some investors would not have purchased Mineral Resources shares had the alleged wrongdoing not occurred," the action said. Highly indebted MinRes said it would "strongly defend" the action, which was filed by Melbourne-based law firm Phi Finney McDonald on behalf of the self-managed superannuation fund of shareholders Peter and Gai Collens. The diversified miner's shares have lost two-thirds of their value over the past year after The Australian Financial Review revealed that Ellison had engaged in an offshore tax dodge that enriched him and several other executives at the expense of MinRes. The Australian Securities and Investments Commission has launched an investigation into MinRes and Ellison, including claims of related-party transactions and the misuse of company resources. The MinRes board last November released a damning report that found Ellison's conduct had a "significant reputational impact" on the miner, and that the New Zealander directed MinRes staff to work on his properties and private boat. Ellison had "failed to be as forthcoming with the board as he should have been", the report concluded. Ellison agreed to pay millions of dollars in compensation, and will step down as managing director by mid-2026. Chairman James McClements has also been shown the door. Under the spotlight MinRes, Australia's largest crushing contractor and a major lithium and iron ore producer, was drawn under the spotlight again in February after reporting worse-than-expected interim results. The company posted an $807 million loss for the final six months of last year, down from a profit of $530 million a year ago, as the rout in commodity prices forced the closure of most of its lithium operations. Analysts had expected a pre-tax loss of $400 million. The interim results included a $232 million foreign exchange hit and a $352 million writedown from the mothballing of its Bald Hill lithium mine. The ASX subsequently queried whether MinRes had properly updated the market before its first-half results release. The miner said the concerns of the class action, which was filed on March 31, had been "comprehensively addressed by the company in the market since October 2024". Annabelle Nilsson, a senior associate at Phi Finney McDonald, said: "Mineral Resources' current predicament is an example of the importance of strong and effective corporate governance, and the harm that can result in its absence." The claim is on behalf of investors who purchased MinRes shares from March 31, 2019, to November 14 last year, the law firm said, adding that others who were affected were invited to join the action. The $3 billion cost of MinRes' Onslow iron ore project has seen the West Australian miner's gross debt balloon to $5.8 billion, dwarfing its $4.6 billion market capitalisation and heightening analysts' fears of an equity raising. MinRes has also earmarked $230 million to repair its flagship iron ore haul road in the Pilbara after the infrastructure began crumbling soon after commencing operations. The road, which provides critical cash flow for the miner's stressed balance sheet, was closed temporarily by workplace safety authorities after half a dozen trucks crashed on the network since August. The closure forced MinRes to use public roads to transport iron ore from its mine to the port, although it denied that the closure would further eat into its already lowered production guidance. Separately, MinRes and Ellison have been sued for more than $600,000 for allegedly terminating the miner's in-house counsel for raising "cultural issues" in the workplace. Former legal counsel Courtney Kelley alleged that she was retrenched last May because Ellison believed she would make a whistleblower complaint about her concerns. MinRes disputes Kelley's allegations, saying her employment ended "because she did not want to return to her substantive role as a land access adviser at the conclusion of a six-month trial period in the commercial and legal team". "There is no basis for the allegation. Mr Ellison has not met or interacted with Ms Kelley," the miner said. [GN] MODIVCARE INC: Continues to Defend Kalera Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- ModivCare Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Kalera federal securities class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. On January 29, 2025, a class action complaint for purported violation of federal securities laws was filed by Dinesh Kalera, individually and on behalf of a putative class of purchasers of our common stock between November 3, 2022 and September 15, 2024 (the "Alleged Class Period"), in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado against the Company and three of its officers who served as chief financial officer of the Company during the Alleged Class Period. The complaint alleges claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and asserts, among other things, that the Company's public statements concerning its NEMT segment accounts receivable collections efforts and effectiveness, cash flow results, and contractual payment and collection terms were materially false and misleading or contained material omissions. The Company denies the allegations in all respects and believes its public disclosure at all times has been true, correct and complete in all material respects in compliance with all federal securities and other laws and intends to defend itself vigorously in this case. ModivCare Inc. is a technology-enabled healthcare services company that provides a suite of integrated supportive care solutions for public and private payors and their members. MONEYLION TECHNOLOGIES: Overcharges Loan Borrowers, Lowe Claims --------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES LOWE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MONEYLION TECHNOLOGIES, INC., d/b/a MONEYLION, Defendant, Case No. 153635/2025 (N.Y. Sup., March 17, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the Military Lending Act and the Truth in Lending Act. According to the complaint, the Defendant violated the MLA by (1) charging interest above the 36 percent statutory military annual percentage rate cap; (2) failing to provide any required MLA Disclosures; (3) including a class action and jury trial waiver; and (4) including a mandatory binding arbitration clause. The Defendant systematically violates the Truth in Lending Act by failing to make required disclosures concerning the interest rate charged as part of its loan agreements with consumers. The Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant accountable for its actions and prevent its predatory lending practices from continuing. MoneyLion Technologies, Inc., doing business as MoneyLion, is a financial products provider, headquartered in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas M. Mullaney, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. MULLANEY 530 Fifth Avenue, 23rd Floor New York, NY 10036 Telephone: (212) 223-0800 Email: tmm@mullaw.org - and - Randall K. Pulliam, Esq. Edwin Lee Lowther III, Esq. Courtney Ross Brown, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC One Allied Drive, Suite 1400 Little Rock, AR, 72202 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 Email: rpulliam@cbplaw.com llowther@cbplaw.com cbrown@cbplaw.com - and - Jacob L. Phillips, Esq. Joshua R. Jacobson, Esq. JACOBSON PHILLIPS PLLC 478 E. Altamonte Dr., Ste. 108-570 Altamonte Springs, FL 32701 Telephone: (407) 720-4057 Email: jacob@jacobsonphillips.com joshua@jacobsonphillips.com MONSANTO COMPANY: Michaels Sues Over Roundup's Effect on Health --------------------------------------------------------------- MARY MICHAELS, individually and as personal representative of the estate of WILLIAM MICHAELS, deceased, Plaintiff v. MONSANTO COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-00380 (E.D. Mo., March 25, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, strict products liability, and breach of implied warranties. The case arises from the Defendant's design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, advertising, distributing, labeling, and selling of the herbicide Roundup. According to the complaint, Roundup contains the active ingredient glyphosate, which is dangerous to human health, unfit and unsuitable to be marketed and sold in commerce. Moreover, the Defendant failed to disclose that the product contains glyphosate. As a result of being exposed to the product, the Plaintiff's decedent developed Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma, suit says. Monsanto Company is an agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation, with its principal place of business in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Tara K. King, Esq. WAGSTAFF LAW FIRM 940 North Lincoln Street Denver, CO 80203 Telephone: (303) 376-6360 Facsimile: (888) 875-2889 Email: tking@wagstafflawfirm.com - and - Ken Moll, Esq. MOLL LAW GROUP 180 N. Stetson Ave., 35th Floor Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 462-1700 Facsimile: (312) 756-0045 Email: kmoll@molllawgroup.com info@molllawgroup.com MYRIAD GENETICS: Settles Consolidated Shareholder Suit ------------------------------------------------------ Myriad Genetics, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 28, 2025, that on August 3, 2023, the parties to "In re Myriad Genetics, Inc. Securities Litigation," Case No. 2:19-cv-00707-DBB, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah on September 27, 2019, entered into a stipulation and agreement of settlement. On August 2, 2023, the company entered into a stipulation and agreement of settlement to resolve the securities class action lawsuit, which was subsequently approved by the District Court on December 15, 2023. Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, it paid a settlement amount of $77.5 million in cash. The parties filed a motion seeking court approval of the settlement. Defendants continue to deny any liability. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Myriad has agreed to pay a settlement amount of $77.5 million, consisting of at least $20 million in cash and up to $57.5 million in freely tradeable shares of Myriad common stock. Within ten business days of preliminary court approval of the settlement, which is expected to occur in the third quarter of 2023. Myriad Genetics Inc. is into in vitro and in vivo diagnostic substances and is based in Salt Lake City, Utah. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION: Arbitration Bid Denial in 'Gibson' Appealed ----------------------------------------------------------------- BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY ENERGY COMPANY is taking an appeal from a court order denying its motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Don Gibson, et al., individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. National Association of Realtors, et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:23-cv-00788-SRB, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants are engaged in a continuing contract, combination, or conspiracy to unreasonably restrain interstate trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The conspiracy consists of a continuing agreement among the Defendants and Defendants' co-conspirators to require sellers of residential property to make inflated payments to the buyer broker. In furtherance of the contract, combination, or conspiracy, the Defendants and their co-conspirators, among other things, have participated in the creation, maintenance, re-publication, and implementation of the Mandatory Offer of Compensation Rule and other anticompetitive National Association of Realtors rules, say the Plaintiffs. On Jan. 17, 2025, Defendant Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company filed a motion to compel arbitration, which Judge Stephen R. Bough denied, together with Defendant William Raveis Real Estate, Inc.'s motion to compel arbitration and/or stay proceedings, on Feb. 24, 2025. The Court concluded that since the Defendants are non-parties, they cannot enforce contracts and therefore cannot compel arbitration. Further, as class certification has not occurred, putative non-party class members are not subject to the Court's jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court declined to stay the proceedings in this litigation and the motions were denied. The appellate case is captioned Don Gibson, et al. v. BHE, Case No. 25-1573, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, filed on March 24, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellees DON GIBSON, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Alexander Aiken, Esq. SUSMAN & GODFREY 401 Union Street, Suite 3000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 516-3880 - and – Steve Berman, Esq. HAGENS & BERMAN 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 - and – Brandon J.B. Boulware, Esq. Jeremy Suhr, Esq. BOULWARE LAW LLC 1600 Genessee Street, Suite 956A Kansas City, MO 64102 Telephone: (816) 492-2826 - and – Robert Abraham Braun, Esq. COHEN & MILSTEIN West Tower, Suite 800 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 - and – Eric L. Dirks, Esq. Michael Anthony Williams, Esq. WILLIANS & DIRKS 1100 Main Street, Suite 2600 Kansas City, MO 64105 Telephone: (816) 876-2600 - and – Beatrice C. Franklin, Esq. SUSMAN & GODFREY One Manhattan, W., Floor 50 New York, NY 10001 Telephone: (212) 336-8330 - and – Michael S. Ketchmark, Esq. Scott A. McCreight, Esq. KETCHMARK & MCCREIGHT 11161 Overbrook Road, Suite 210 Leawood, KS 66211 Telephone: (913) 266-4500 Defendant-Appellant BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY ENERGY COMPANY is represented by: Yotam Barkai, Esq. Katherine B. Forrest, Esq. Andrew Gordon, Esq. Anna R. Gressel, Esq. PAUL & WEISS 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 373-3000 - and – Taylor Brooke Concannon Hausmann, Esq. Jeffrey Simon, Esq. HUSCH & BLACKWELL 4801 Main Street, Suite 1000 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 983-8000 NATIONAL PUBLIC: Standing Order Entered in Zhang Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WANYU ZHANG, v. NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00699-BAH (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Beryl Howell entered a standing order: After submission of the Joint Meet and Confer Report, the Court will, if necessary, schedule an initial status conference to address matters that are not addressed or agreed to by the parties in the Joint Meet and Confer Report. Motions and submissions should be double-spaced, in 12-point, Times New Roman font, with page numbers and margins of no less than 1 inch. The Court expects the parties to follow the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and Local Civil Rule 26.2. The parties must file with the Court a Joint Pretrial Statement at least 14 days before the final pretrial conference unless the Court sets another filing date. National Public Radio is an American public broadcasting organization headquartered in Washington, D.C. A copy of the Court's order dated March 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bsRJrL at no extra charge.[CC] NATIONAL STUDENT: Gottlieb Loses Class Certification Bid -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SEAN GOTTLIEB, v. NATIONAL STUDENT LOAN DATA SYSTEM, et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-03644-TSC (D.D.C.), the Hon. Judge Tanya Chutkan entered an order denying without prejudice the Plaintiff's request for injunction. Generally, injunctive relief is warranted if a plaintiff shows that he "'is likely to succeed on the merits, [2] that [he] is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, [3] that the balance of equities tips in [his] favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the public interest.'" The Plaintiff's motion does not address these factors. It is further ORDERED that the Plaintiff's motion to demonstrate exhaustion of available remedies and motion to introduce as evidence the historical background of the Plaintiff's student loans are denied without prejudice as premature. The Court further entered an order that: -- the Plaintiff's motion for CM/ECF password is granted. -- the Plaintiff's motion for class certification and appointment of counsel is denied without prejudice. -- the Plaintiff's motion to request the award of monetary damages and revocation of any form of immunity for the Defendants is denied without prejudice. National Student is a centralized database that tracks and manages information about federal student loans and grants. A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated April 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=c4y6J5 at no extra charge.[CC] NEUMORA THERAPEUTICS: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Neumora Therapeutics Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On February 6, 2025, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a lawsuit against the Company, certain executive officers, and certain underwriters in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Case No. 1:25-cv-01072). The complaint is a putative class action alleging violations of the Securities Act related to its initial public offering on September 15, 2023. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, as well as fees and costs. The complaint claims that its offering documents contained false and misleading statements and omitted material facts about the prospects of navacaprant. The Company doesn't believe these allegations have merit and intends to move to dismiss. Neumora Therapeutics, Inc. is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company that was founded in 2019 by Arch Venture Partners, L.P.[BN] NEW YORK UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Data Breach ---------------------------------------------------------------- Dharma Niles and Krish Dev, writing for NYU News, report that NYU is facing 10 class action lawsuits alleging that it mishandled applicants' personal information and failed to meet national cybersecurity standards after a hacker leaked files with more than 3 million names, hometowns and GPAs on the university's website last week. The lawsuits, each filed by an individual applicant, claim that NYU's cybersecurity practices do not follow guidelines set by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the Center for Internet Security, leaving those who applied to the school at risk of identity theft. Cybersecurity experts Zack Ganot and Arnaud de Saint Meloir, who help run databreach.com, told WSN that the amount of information included in the files -- which were publicly downloadable on NYU's main website for over two hours -- could have sold for tens of thousands of dollars on the dark web. "Almost for sure, NYU will settle and people will receive compensation -- it was a real breach," Ganot told WSN. "Without putting it too bluntly, it was NYU's fault. They did not secure the data as they should have, and it's kind of hard to get around." A university spokesperson did not respond to multiple requests for comment. In a university wide email sent about six hours after the breach, senior administrators Martin Dorph and Don Welch said that NYU removed the hacked page and reported the incident to law enforcement. In a second email five days later, they said that NYU IT and its cybersecurity consultant were "working as swiftly as possible" to evaluate what personal information was susceptible to unauthorized access. Alumni and unenrolled applicants, whose data comprises around 98% of the leak, have not received communications regarding the incident. The lawsuits criticized NYU for not issuing a "prompt and accurate" statement informing the millions of applicants that their personal information had been compromised. William Federman, a lawyer in one of the cases against the university, told WSN that an immediate text, email or press release explicitly notifying applicants that their data was leaked would have been an ideal response. "Imagine being an alum of the [University Heights] campus and now learning that your personal data has been stolen and is potentially being misused," Federman said in a statement. "You would have high anxiety and not even know where to start." In an interview with WSN, Alexander Grijalva, an SPS professor teaching project management and IT, said he believed that NYU "disclosed as much as it could" and that the response time was likely inhibited by legal advisors and administrators' caution confirming the university's specific concerns surrounding the breach. Grijalva said the university issued its statement "faster than some institutions would," and that the forensic processes that offer more details would take months. "I would never criticize the university, because being in this job, I know how tough it is -- in institutions of any size," Grijalva, who is also the chief information security officer at VillageCare, said. "There's so much data floating around, so many thousands of users and you can't lock down 100%. The only way to have 100% security is just to get rid of digital technology." Several of the lawsuits specifically criticize the university for retaining applicants' data for decades, citing industry guidelines that recommend encrypting or disposing of information as soon as it is no longer relevant. NYU's policies stipulate that application data is destroyed after a two-year period, with the exception of enrolled students, whose data is destroyed five years after they graduate. While over 99% of the data represents applicants from 2009 and later, records date back to 1978 and can be found across all schools, and for both admitted and rejected applicants. Federman said that while some of the retained information may still be relevant for advertising or analytics, it should be stored on a separate hard drive to mitigate accessibility risks. Compiled, the files include each individual's SAT and ACT scores, zip codes and ethnicity, among other personal information submitted on the Common Application. De Saint Méloir said the breach was the first he has seen with GPAs. The lawsuits claim that while the files did not include phone numbers, home addresses or social security numbers, the available information is often enough for hackers to find them. "The good news -- but the bad news -- is that I didn't find any social security number, so I don't think the compensation will be that large," de Saint Meloir said. "But also it depends on the net profit of the company -- considering NYU is one of the richest universities in the country, it could be an interesting settlement." Over the past several years, similar incidents have taken place at the University of Minnesota -- which was seemingly hacked by the same person who took over NYU's website -- Marymount Manhattan College, Syracuse University and several other schools. In most cases, institutions faced an onslaught of class action lawsuits before they consolidated into one. Students who filed claims in lawsuits received $38, $150 and up to $1,000, respectively -- although all breaches involved SSNs. Along with links to download the data, NYU's hacked page displayed three charts with what the hacker claimed to be the university's average admitted SAT scores, ACT scores and GPAs for the 2024-25 admissions cycle. On the defaced website, the hacker argued that NYU uses "illegal" race-sensitive admissions, showing that the average admitted test scores and GPAs for Asian and white applicants were higher than those who identify as Hispanic or Black. In their email to the NYU community, Dorph and Welch said that the graphs were both "inaccurate and misleading." WSN verified the information of over 50 consenting NYU applicants but did not find any inaccuracies. In his look into the files, de Saint Méloir said the charts are consistent with the data but noted that less than one in 20 admitted students included their test scores in the last application cycle. "These claims are statistically worthless," de Saint Méloir said. "You need a much deeper study to validate that conclusion or not." Two days after the data breach, NYU's Black Student Union released a statement criticizing the university's response and WSN's article published immediately after the hack. The group said the incident was particularly concerning amid a federal crackdown on diversity, equity and inclusion programs in the United States, and that its members plan to work with NYU leadership and the Student Government Assembly to more thoroughly address the issue. "Nowhere does the university acknowledge that this attack disproportionately targeted Black students or address the underlying motivation of racism," the BSU statement read. "This was not just a data breach; it was an act of blatant racism designed to perpetuate harmful narratives about Black and Latine students." Ganot said that the "hacktivist" had a clear political motivation and that it "speaks volumes" that the attacker didn't ask NYU for ransom -- which, "based on historical trends," could have been around $1 million. In the same interview, de Saint Meloir said that in most instances, this amount of personal information would have only been available on the dark web, noting that this was the "easiest to access" data breach he had seen. A breach of this level would have previously resulted in an investigation by governmental agencies such as the Federal Trade Commission or the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Ganot added. However, he said the Trump administration's firing sprees have restricted the agencies' capacity for oversight. "They basically were shut down, and everyone knows they were shut down, so that's not going to happen," Ganot said. "The only way to hold a company accountable right now, is filing a class action lawsuit." [GN] NORDSTROM INC: Gilbert Sues Over Unfair and Unlawful Merger ----------------------------------------------------------- Eric Gilbert, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. NORDSTROM, INC.; NAVY ACQUISITION CO., INC.; NORSE HOLDINGS, INC.; ERIK B. NORDSTROM; PETER E. NORDSTROM; JAMES L. DONALD; KIRSTEN A. GREEN; GLENDA G. MCNEAL; AMIE THUENER O'TOOLE; GUY B. PERSAUD; ERIC D. SPRUNK; BRADLEY D. TILDEN; MARK J. TRITTON; ATTICUS N. TYSEN; EL PUERTO DE LIVERPOOL S.A.B. DE C.V., Case No. 2:25-cv-00568 (W.D. Wash., March 31, 2025), is brought challenging an unfair and unlawful going-private merger orchestrated by insiders of Nordstrom, Inc. to acquire the Company at an inadequate price of $24.25 per share (the "Merger"). The Merger is the product of a flawed process that violated Washington's anti statute takeover and Nordstrom insiders' fiduciary duties. Members of the Nordstrom founding family and El Puerto de Liverpool, a Mexican retailer, who collectively own 43% of Nordstrom's stock (the "Buyer Group"), formed a Buyer Group and agreed amongst themselves to acquire the remaining Nordstrom shares they did not already own and to vote against alternative transactions before receiving approval to do so from Nordstrom's Board of Directors (the "Board"). Washington Business Corporations Act ("WBCA") (the "Anti-Takeover Statute") provides that if stockholders collectively owning more than 10% of a Company's outstanding shares reach an agreement, arrangement, or understanding (an "AAU") among themselves with respect to acquiring or voting shares before receiving Board approval, a subsequent merger must be approved by stockholders holding two-thirds of the Company's shares excluding the shares owned by the buyers. Plaintiffs allege the Board's purported approval of the Buyer Group's formation on September 3, 2024 (the "Belated Board Approval") was ineffective because the Buyer Group had already formed an AAU, thereby becoming an "acquiring person" prior to that date. Consequently, the Merger must comply with the heightened voting requirement of RCW demanding approval by two thirds of the disinterested stockholders. Accordingly, through this action, Plaintiff seeks, among other relief, declaratory judgment that the Merger violates the Anti-Takeover Statute, an injunction preventing the consummation of the Merger unless and until it complies with the Anti-Takeover Statute's voting requirements, findings that Defendants breached their fiduciary duties, and an award of damages to the Class and other relief, including attorneys' fees and costs, as appropriate, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been a common stockholder of Nordstrom. Nordstrom, Inc. is a Washington corporation that operates as a department store chain under the banners "Nordstrom" and "Nordstrom Rack."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Steve W. Berman, Esq. Rachel Fitzpatrick, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 Email: steve@hbsslaw.com rachelf@hbsslaw.com - and - Reed R. Kathrein, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 300 Berkeley, CA 94710 Phone: (510) 725-3000 Facsimile: (510) 725-3001 Email: reed@hbsslaw.com - and - Jason Leviton, Esq. BLOCK LEVITON & LLP 260 Franklin St. Suite 1860 Boston, MA 021110 Phone: (617) 398-5600 Email: jason@blockleviton.com - and - Kimberly A. Evans, Esq. Lindsay K. Faccenda, Esq. Daniel M. Baker, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1120 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 499-3600 Email: kim@blockleviton.com lindsay@blockleviton.com daniel@blockleviton.com - and - Ned Weinberger, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 222 Delaware Ave., Suite 1510 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 573-2540 Email: nweinberger@labaton.com - and - John Vielandi, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Phone: (212) 907-0700 Email: jvielandi@labaton.com - and - D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. Adrienne Bell, Esq. KASKELA LAW LLC 18 Campus Boulevard, Suite 100 Newtown Square, PA 19073 Phone: (484) 258-1585 Email: skaskela@kaskelalaw.com abell@kaskelalaw.com NUSCALE POWER: Continues to Defend Tucker Class Suit in Delaware ---------------------------------------------------------------- NuScale Power Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 17, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Tucker class suit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. On December 10, 2024, a purported class action lawsuit titled Tucker v. NuScale Power Corporation, et al., Case No. 2024-1272-NAC (Del. Ch. Ct.) was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The lawsuit names the Company, eight current board members and one former board member as defendants. The lawsuit broadly alleges that the Company's corporate opportunity waiver provision contained in the Company's Certificate of Incorporation is overbroad and impermissibly waives certain fiduciary duties in contradiction to state statutory law. The named plaintiff seeks injunctive and declaratory relief, certification as class representative, and costs, fees and damages for a to-be certified class of plaintiffs. This lawsuit is in its early stages. NuScale Power Corporation is a nuclear power company, with its principal office located at 1100 NE Circle Blvd., Suite 200, Corvallis, Oregon. [BN] OMOI INC: Henry Sues Over Website's Access Barriers to the Blind ---------------------------------------------------------------- CONSTANCE HENRY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OMOI, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03151 (N.D. Ill., March 25, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, declaratory relief, and negligent infliction of emotional distress. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://omoionline.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inaccurate heading hierarchy, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, lack of alt-text on graphics, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Omoi, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Davis B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (630)-478-0856 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law ORIGINAL BTC: Wee-Ellis Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store ----------------------------------------------------------------- MELCHION WEE-ELLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Original BTC USA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-01653 (E.D.N.Y., March 25, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.originalbtc.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate heading hierarchy, ambiguous link texts, unclear labels for interactive elements, inaccessible drop-down menus, inaccurate labeling of form fields, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse, says the suit. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Original BTC USA, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael H. Cohen, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (917) 437-3737 Email: mcohen@ealg.law PARAGON 28: Continues to Defend Ellington Class Suit in Colorado ---------------------------------------------------------------- Paragon 28 Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Ellington class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. On September 30, 2024, a putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. The complaint alleges that the Company and certain current and former officers violated federal securities laws. The case is captioned Ellington v. Paragon 28, Inc., et al. and a lead plaintiff has not yet been appointed. The Company believes the allegations in the complaint is without merit and intends to vigorously defend the litigation. Paragon 28, Inc. is a technology company located in Englewood, Colorado. [BN] PARAGON 28: Continues to Defend Tiedt Class Suit in Colorado ------------------------------------------------------------ Paragon 28 Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Tiedt class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado. On October 18, 2024, a putative class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. This complaint alleges that the Company and certain current and former officers violated federal securities laws. The case is captioned Tiedt v. Paragon 28, Inc., et al., and a lead plaintiff has not yet been appointed. The Company believes the allegations in the complaint is without merit and intends to vigorously defend the litigation. Paragon 28, Inc. is a technology company located in Englewood, Colorado. [BN] PEACH AND LILY: Visually Impaired Can't Access Website, Miller Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- KIMBERLY MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PEACH AND LILY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00266 (W.D.N.Y., March 25, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.peachandlily.com/, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: lack of alternative text (alt-text), empty links that contain no text, redundant links, and linked images missing alt-text. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Peach and Lily, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal PLAYAGS INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- PlayAGS Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from a consolidated securities class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. On June 25 and July 31, 2020, putative class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada (the "Court"), by two separate plaintiffs against the Company and certain of its officers, individually and on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Company securities between August 2, 2018 and August 7, 2019. The complaints alleged that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), by making false and misleading statements concerning the Company's forward-looking financial outlook and accounting for goodwill and intangible assets in its iGaming reporting unit, resulting in injury to the purported class members when the value of the Company's common stock declined following its release of its Second Quarter 2019 results on August 7, 2019. On August 4, 2020, a third plaintiff ("OPPRS") filed a putative class action lawsuit in the same court asserting similar claims to those alleged in the first two class action complaints, based on substantially the same conduct, on behalf of a slightly larger class (stretching back to May 3, 2018). Specifically, OPPRS claimed that the Company, certain of its officers, and certain entities that allegedly beneficially held over 50% of the Company's common stock at the beginning of the class period, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act by allegedly making false and misleading statements concerning the Company's forward-looking financial outlook and accounting for goodwill and intangible assets in its iGaming reporting unit, and the adequacy of its internal controls over financial reporting, resulting in injury to the purported class when the Company's common stock price declined following the release of its Second Quarter 2019 results. In addition, based on substantially similar alleged false or misleading statements, OPPRS asserted claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), on behalf of all persons who purchased Company common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's August 2018 and March 2019 secondary public offerings. These secondary-offering claims were brought against the same defendants identified above, plus certain of the Company's directors and the underwriters. On October 28, 2020, the Court consolidated these three related putative class actions into In re PlayAGS, Inc. Securities Litigation and appointed OPPRS as lead plaintiff. On January 11, 2021, the lead plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint in the consolidated action against the same set of defendants, again asserting claims (i) under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, with an even larger putative class period (May 3, 2018 through March 4, 2020), and (ii) under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act on behalf of the same putative class as in OPPRS's previous complaint. The Amended Complaint alleges that statements the defendants made about, among other things, the Company's growth, financial performance, and forward-looking financial outlook were materially false or misleading because the Company omitted to state that, according to plaintiffs, its market strength was declining, its growth strategies were unsustainable, and it was experiencing challenges in the Oklahoma market. Plaintiffs claimed that the purported class was injured when the common stock price declined after the alleged "truth" was revealed following release of the Company's financial reports on August 7, 2019, November 7, 2019, and March 4, 2020. Plaintiffs also asserted that the Company violated Regulation S-K Items 303 and 105 by failing to disclose these same alleged negative trends and significant risks in the registration materials for the Company's secondary offerings. Unlike the previous complaints, the Amended Complaint did not allege false or misleading statements concerning the Company's accounting for the iGaming reporting unit or the adequacy of the Company's internal controls over financial reporting. On February 23, 2021, the Court granted the lead plaintiff's unopposed motion to file a Second Amended Complaint. The Second Amended Complaint was filed on March 25, 2021 and asserted substantially the same claims as the Amended Complaint but extended the beginning of the putative class period back to January 26, 2018. On May 24, 2021, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint, and on December 2, 2022, the court granted in part and denied in part those motions. It dismissed each of the five claims in the second amended complaint—including all claims under the Securities Act—but the court carved out from the dismissal a "scheme liability" claim under Section 10(b), brought only against the Company, David Lopez, and Kimo Akiona, which the court felt was insufficiently briefed. The lead plaintiff was granted leave to file a further amended complaint but chose not to, and instead sought to move forward on the sole remaining scheme liability claim. On January 17, 2023, the Company, Mr. Lopez, and Mr. Akiona filed an answer to the remaining claim, along with a motion to temporarily stay discovery and a motion for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the legal findings contained in the court's December 2, 2022 decision require dismissal of the scheme liability claim as well and termination of the action. Those motions were fully briefed as of March 22, 2023. On March 23, 2023, the Court decided the motion to temporarily stay discovery in favor of the defendants, holding that all discovery was stayed pending resolution of the motion for judgment on the pleadings. On February 13, 2024, the Court granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissed the securities class action in full with prejudice. On March 14, 2024, Plaintiff's filed a notice of appeal. On May 2, 2024 the Plaintiff/Appellant filed an appeal brief. On July 26, 2024 the Company filed its responsive brief. On September 24, 2024, Plaintiff/Appellant filed its reply brief in further support of its appeal. The Ninth Circuit has indicated that it intends to hear oral argument in the first few months of 2025, but no date has yet been set. The defendants will continue to defend vigorously against these claims, but there can be no assurances as to the outcome. PlayAGS, Inc. is a designer and supplier of gaming products and services for the gaming industry. POTBELLY CORP: Settlement in WEPOA Class Suit for Final OK ---------------------------------------------------------- Potbelly Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 29, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2025, that the settlement MOU in the Washington Equal Pay and Opportunities Act (WEPOA) class suit is subject to final documentation and approval of the court. In June 2024, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in Washington state against the Company relating to the Washington Equal Pay and Opportunities Act. As of December 29, 2024, it deemed it probable that a material loss exposure exists in relation to this matter. As such, it has recorded a loss contingency of $1.8 million based on its current estimate of the potential outcome, which is reflected in general and administrative expenses in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations. On January 22, 2025, it entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the Plaintiff relating to the settlement of the claims, which settlement is subject to final documentation and court approval. Potbelly Corporation, through its subsidiaries, owns, operates, and franchises Potbelly Sandwich Works sandwich shops in the United States. The company was formerly known as Potbelly Sandwich Works, Inc. and changed its name to Potbelly Corporation in 2002. Potbelly Corporation was founded in 1977 and is headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. QUAKER OATS: Settlement Class in Kessler Gets Initial Certification ------------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RAYMOND KESSLER, HARTEN CE HILL, LAZARO RODRIGUEZ, TERESA HERENDEEN, and BARBARA ABREU individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, V. THE QUAKER OATS COMPANY, Case No. 7:24-cv-00526-KMK (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Kenneth Karas entered an order preliminary approval order: 1. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3), the Settlement Class, defined as follows, is preliminarily certified for the purpose of settlement only: "All natural persons who, between the earliest date of distribution of any Covered Product and the date of Preliminary Approval, purchased in the United States any Covered Product for personal, family or household use, and not resale, except for any Excluded Persons." 2. The Settlement Class excludes: (1) Any judge presiding over the Litigation, their staff and their immediate family members; (2) Defendant; (3) any entity in which a Defendant has a controlling interest; (4) any of the Defendant's subsidiaries, parents, affiliates, and officers, directors, employees, legal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns; and (5) any persons who timely exclude themselves from the Settlement Class in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section VI of the Settlement Agreement. 3. The Plaintiffs Teresa Herendeen, Raymond Kessler, Hartence Hill, Lazaro Rodriguez, and Barbara Abreu are appointed as Class Representatives of the Settlement Class. 4. Michael R. Reese of Reese LLP, Jason P. Sultzer of Sultzer & Lipari, PLLC, Nick Suciu III of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC, Paul Doolittle of Poulin Willey Anastapoulo, Charles E. Schaffer of Levin Sedrin & Berman, Joshua Arisohn of Bursor & Fisher, P.A., Jeffrey S. Goldenberg of Goldenberg Schneider, LP.A., and Jeffrey K. Brown of Leeds Brown, P.C., are appointed as Class Counsel for the Settlement Class. 5. The Court will hold a Final Approval Hearing on August 4th, 2025 at 10:00 AM. Quaker Oats is an American food division business headquartered in Chicago. A copy of the Court's order dated March 13, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=GCgOak at no extra charge.[CC] SECURUS TECHNOLOGIES: Court Sends Price-Fixing Case to Arbitration ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland granted in part and denied in part Defendants' motion to compel arbitration in the case captioned as Ashley Albert, et al. v. Global Tel*Link Corp., et al., Case No. 20-cv-01936 (D. Md.). The Defendants sought to require Plaintiffs Ashley Albert and Ashley Baxter to pursue their claims against Defendants Securus Technologies, LLC, Platinum Equity Capital Partners IV, L.P., Platinum Equity LLC, Abry Partners, LLC and Abry Partners VII, L.P. in individual arbitration and to stay the case pending arbitration. The court compelled arbitration of the Plaintiffs' claims against Securus but denied arbitration of claims against Platinum and Abry. The case is stayed as to Securus pending arbitration, while litigation against the remaining defendants may continue. Case Background Albert and Baxter allege a price-fixing and kickback scheme involving inmate collect calls in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 1–38, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. Sections 1961–68. Specifically, they claim the Defendants conspired to inflate prices and suppress competition by fixing rates and paying artificially low commission fees to correctional facilities. Securus argued that Albert and Baxter agreed to mandatory arbitration through its Terms and Conditions, which included an Arbitration Agreement. The agreement stated that any legal dispute "concerning or arising in any way from any purchase from the website, any Securus product or service" must be resolved through binding individual arbitration. The agreement also contained a delegation clause, assigning questions of arbitrability -- such as the scope and enforceability of the agreement -- to the arbitrator rather than the court. The Plaintiffs initially filed this lawsuit in June 2020, identifying themselves as "Ashley Albert" and "Ashley Baxter." However, Securus claimed it could not initially confirm their accounts because the names and addresses provided did not match its records. It was only after discovery in mid-2024 that Securus learned the Plaintiffs had used alternate surnames (Ashley Gray and Ashley Layna) and additional addresses, allowing it to confirm their acceptance of the arbitration agreement in 2020. Plaintiffs’ Challenges to the Arbitration Agreement The Plaintiffs contested the validity of the arbitration agreement on several grounds. First, they argued that the agreement was illusory because Securus reserved the right to modify it unilaterally. The court rejected this argument, noting that the agreement explicitly required Securus to provide notice of material changes, making the clause enforceable under contract law. Second, the Plaintiffs contended that the PayNow single-call product terms, which lacked an arbitration clause, superseded Securus’ Terms and Conditions. The court found this argument unpersuasive because the PayNow terms were associated with a different company, 3Ci, and did not override Securus' own contractual terms. Third, the Plaintiffs asserted that they had opted out of arbitration by sending letters to Securus in January 2025. The court ruled that this attempt was untimely because the lawsuit had been filed in 2020, long before the Plaintiffs' opt-out notices. Finally, Plaintiffs argued that Securus waived arbitration by litigating the case for four years before seeking to compel arbitration. The court disagreed, finding that Securus only became aware of the arbitration agreement after the Plaintiffs' discovery responses in mid-2024 revealed their alternate names and account details. Because Securus promptly moved to compel arbitration upon discovering the agreement, it did not waive its rights. Delegation Clause and Arbitrability The court emphasized that the delegation clause in the Arbitration Agreement required threshold issues -- such as whether the dispute fell within the scope of arbitration -- to be decided by an arbitrator, not the court. Since the Plaintiffs did not specifically challenge the delegation clause itself, the court held that the arbitrator, not the court, must resolve any disputes over the agreement's applicability. Non-Signatory Defendants (Platinum & Abry) The court denied the motion to compel arbitration as to Defendants Platinum and Abry, who were not signatories to the arbitration agreement. While the Plaintiffs alleged "substantially interdependent misconduct" between Securus and these defendants, the court applied state contract law (Oregon and New Hampshire) and found that equitable estoppel did not apply. Under those states' laws, estoppel requires a showing of false representation and reliance, which Defendants failed to establish. Stay of Proceedings The court stayed the Plaintiffs’ claims against Securus pending arbitration but allowed the case to proceed against Platinum and Abry. The court ordered Defendants to file a status report by April 15, 2025, indicating whether they intended to pursue or seek to stay pending motions to dismiss or, as to Securus, strike class allegations. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KHjVn6 from PacerMonitor.com SERAPHINA THERAPEUTICS: Bishop Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------------- Cedric Bishop, for himself and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, v. SERAPHINA THERAPEUTICS, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-02682 (S.D.N.Y., April 1, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, https://fatty15.com, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. SERAPHINA THERAPEUTICS, INC., operates the Fatty 15 online retail store, as well as the Fatty 15 interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: jeffrey@gottlieb.legal dana@gottlieb.legal michael@gottlieb.legal SHOE CITY: Pittman Suit Seeks Blind Users' Equal Access to Website ------------------------------------------------------------------ DEBBIE PITTMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SHOE CITY - WHITTIER, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03163 (N.D. Ill., March 25, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://shoecity.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate heading hierarchy, ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for interactive elements, the lack of navigation links, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Shoe City-Whittier, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Davis B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (630) 478-0856 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law SKYNAIL BY SUGAR: Edwards Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against SKYNAIL BY SUGAR, et al. The case is styled as Marnae Edwards, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated and all aggrieved employees pursuant to Labor Code Sec v. SKYNAIL BY SUGAR, HONG DYLAN, Case No. 25STCV09468 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 1, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." Skynail by Sugar -- https://www.skynailbysugar.com/ -- introduces our nail products made in Korea.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amit Peery, Esq. THE PEERY LAW FIRM 4550 E Thousand Oaks Blvd., Ste. 100 Westlake Village, CA 91362-3824 Phone: 818-995-4079 Fax: 818-995-6514 Email: ap@peerylaw.com SMART ERP: Faces Newson Personal Injury Suit in N.D. Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Smart ERP Solutions, Inc. The case is captioned as STEVIE NEWSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SMART ERP SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-02597-SK (N.D. Cal., March 17, 2025). An initial case management conference is set for June 16, 2025, before Judge Sallie Kim. The Plaintiff brings personal injury claims against the Defendant. Smart ERP Solutions, Inc. is a software company in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Laura Grace Van Note, Esq. Scott Edward Cole, Esq. Mark Thomas Freeman, Esq. COLE & VAN NOTE 555 12th Street, Suite 2100 Oakland, CA 94607 Telephone: (510) 891-9800 Email: lvn@colevannote.com sec@colevannote.com mtf@colevannote.com SPRECKELS SUGAR: Castro's Bid for Class Certification Tossed ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARNOLD SAMUEL CASTRO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. SPRECKELS SUGAR COMPANY, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 3:24-cv-00747-TWR-LR (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Todd Robinson entered an order denying the Plaintiff's motion for class certification. Accordingly, the Plaintiff's motion falls short in several respects, from its proposed class definitions to the Plaintiff's standing to assert the miscalculation claims to the typicality of the Plaintiff's standing-in-line claims and the numerosity of a class of which the Plaintiff's standing-in-line claims are typical. Although the Court cannot grant the Plaintiff leave to amend with regard to his miscalculation claims under Lierboe, and the Court harbors serious concerns that the Plaintiff will be able to remedy the evidentiary hurdles to his establishing typicality and numerosity for the standing-in-line claims given the Plaintiff's apparent failure to obtain any discovery regarding the issue, the Court will permit the Plaintiff an additional opportunity to seek class certification. The Court says that the Plaintiff may file a second motion for class certification addressing the above-enumerated deficiencies within 28 days of the electronic docketing of this Order. For purposes of the Plaintiff's Motion, the Court therefore defines the following class and subclasses: Class: "All persons who worked for Defendant in California as an hourly, non-exempt employee at any time during the period beginning July 8, 2022, and ending when notice to the Class is sent, who were not paid all wages owed to them based on the hours worked." Miscalculation Subclass: "All persons who worked for the Defendant in California as an hourly, non-exempt employee at any time during the period beginning July 8, 2022, and ending when notice to the Class is sent, who were not paid all wages owed to them based on the hours worked as a result of the Defendant's miscalculation of their regular rate of pay for sick pay and meal period premium compensation." Waiting-in-Line Subclass: "All persons who worked for Defendant in California as an hourly, non-exempt employee at any time during the period beginning July 8, 2022, and ending when notice to the Class is sent, who were not paid all wages owed to them based on the hours worked as a result of not being compensated for time spent waiting in line at the Defendant's iris scanners to clock in for shifts and after lunch." Spreckels operates a sugar beet processing facility in Brawley, California. A copy of the Court's order dated April 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EUsMf3 at no extra charge.[CC] STATE FARM: Ellis Suit Seeks Leave to File Class Reply Brief ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANDREA ELLIS, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, Case No. 6:22-cv-01005-RBD-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order as follows: The Plaintiff Andrea Ellis respectfully moves this Court, pursuant to Local Rule 3.01(d) for permission to file a reply in support of her motion for class certification up to ten (10) pages in length within twenty-one (21) days of the Order resolving this Motion. The Plaintiff accordingly requests leave to file a reply brief of up to ten (10) pages in support of class certification within twenty-one (21) days of the Order adjudicating this Motion The Plaintiff filed her Motion for Class Certification on February 13, 2025. On March 27, 2025, State Farm filed its Opposition to Plaintiff’s Certification Motion. The Opposition also advances a host of legal arguments with citations to authority not addressed in the Certification Motion. Plaintiff submits that good cause exists to permit Plaintiff an opportunity to file a reply brief addressing State Farm’s experts’ opinions and the factual materials and legal authorities set out in the Opposition. State Farm is a group of mutual insurance companies. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nRLnU6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jacob L. Phillips, Esq. Joshua R. Jacobson, Esq. NORMAND PLLC Orlando, FL 32814-0036 Telephone: (407) 603-6031 E-mail: jacob.phillips@normandpllc.com jjacobson@normandpllc.com - and - Hank Bates, III, Esq. Lee Lowther, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC 519 W. 7th St. Little Rock, AR 72201 Telephone: (501) 312-8500 Facsimile: (501) 312-8505 E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com llowther@cbplaw.com - and - Christopher L Ayers, Esq. Scott A. George, Esq. SEEGER WEISS LLP 55 Challenger Road, 6th Fl. Ridgefield Park, NJ 07660 Telephone: (973) 639-9100 E-mail: cseeger@seegerweiss.com cayers@seegerweiss.com sgeorge@seegerweiss.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE First Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com - and - Scott Edelsberg, Esq. EDELSBERG LAW, PA 20900 NE 30th Avenue, Suite 417 Aventura, FL 33180 Telephone: (305) 975-3320 E-mail: scott@edelsberglaw.com STRAFFORD PUBLICATIONS: Class Cert Bid Deadline Suspended --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ELENA TREBAOL LINDEKUGEL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. STRAFFORD PUBLICATIONS, LLC; and BARBRI, INC., Case No. 1:24-cv-05642-AT (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Judge Amy Totenberg entered an order Suspending the Plaintiff's deadline to move for class certification. Strafford operates as a continuing education provider. A copy of the Court's order dated April 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MD7Q20 at no extra charge.[CC] T-MOBILE USA: Claimants Received Payouts in Data Breach Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ Jake Peterson, writing for LifeHacker, reports that if you're expecting money from T-Mobile, there's good news: Your check should be just about on its way. As spotted by PCMag, T-Mobile's data breach settlement page now reports the following: "All court proceedings are now complete. The distribution of settlement payments is expected to begin April 2025." So long as payments roll out on time, claimants can expect their checks to start shipping out sometime this month. Why was T-Mobile sued? These payments are tied to a class-action lawsuit from an August 2021 data breach. Hackers stole information from tens of million of current and former T-Mobile customers, including first and last names, birth dates, Social Security numbers, and driver's license information. T-Mobile originally claimed the hackers only compromised the data of 7.8 million current customers and 40 million former customers, but customers filed the lawsuit alleging the true number was around 76 million. While T-Mobile did not admit fault, the company did settle the suit, agreeing to a $350 million settlement payout. In addition, the company had to pay $150 million to beef up its security around customer data. The entire debacle cost T-Mobile half a billion dollars. How much are the payments? How much claimants actually receive from this settlement could be dependent on the amount of time and money they spent trying to fix their security issues. Claimants had to show documentation of their efforts, and could be reimbursed for both the money spent as well as an additional $25 per hour to compensate for their time -- for a maximum possible payout of $25,000. Alternatively, victims could simply accept a $25 payment to put the entire case to rest. (If you lived in California at the time, that payout jumped to $100.) Unfortunately, it's far too late to claim a payment in this case -- that deadline ended on January 23, 2023. If you made a claim, you should have been contacted in October of last year. I'm sorry if this news is arriving too late for you to claim money from the suit. However, if you did make a claim before that 2023 deadline, your March 31 probably just got a little better. [GN] TASKUS INC: Continues to Defend Lozada Class Suit in New York ------------------------------------------------------------- TaskUs Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Lozada class suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On February 23, 2022, a purported class action lawsuit captioned Lozada v. TaskUs, Inc. et al., No. 22-cv-1479-JPC, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, its President, and its Chief Financial Officer. The complaint alleges that the registration statement filed in connection with the Company's initial public offering ("IPO") and the Company's second and third quarter 2021 earnings calls contained materially false and misleading information in violation of the federal securities laws. On October 20, 2022, the court entered an order appointing Humberto Lozada as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit. On December 16, 2022, lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint, alleging additional misstatements in certain of the Company's 2021 earnings releases filed on Form 8-K and at an investor conference, and asserting additional securities claims, including against members of TaskUs's board of directors as well as BCP FC Aggregator L.P. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and an award of costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees, as well as equitable relief. On February 17, 2023, TaskUs and the other named defendants filed a motion to dismiss. On October 16, 2023, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed with prejudice certain claims based on certain theories of liability. On February 24, 2025, the Company entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement (the "Settlement Agreement"), which is subject to approval by the court. The Settlement Agreement contemplates a combined payment by defendants of $17.5 million, inclusive of plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and expenses, and a full and complete release of all claims. The Company expects its insurance retention and policies to fund the settlement amount. The defendants have entered into the Settlement Agreement solely to eliminate the burden, expense, uncertainty, and risk of further litigation and have denied, and continue to deny, any and all allegations of liability or wrongdoing. TaskUs is an outsourcing company that handles content moderation, customer experience, artificial intelligence, operations and risk & response services. TASKUS INC: Forsberg Class Suit Stayed -------------------------------------- TaskUs Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2025, that the Forsberg class suit is stayed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. On April 1, 2022, a purported class action lawsuit captioned Gregory Forsberg, Christopher Gunter, Samuel Kissinger, and Scott Sipprell vs. TaskUs, Inc. and Shopify, Inc., Shopify Holdings (USA), Inc., Shopify (USA) Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00436-UNA, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges the named defendants failed to exercise reasonable care in securing and safeguarding consumer information in connection with a 2020 data breach impacting Ledger SAS cryptocurrency hardware wallets, resulting in the unauthorized public release of approximately 272,000 pieces of detailed personally identifiable information, including Plaintiffs' and class members' full names, email addresses, postal addresses, and telephone numbers. The four named plaintiffs allege aggregate losses of approximately $140,000, and allege that the damages exceed $5 million for purposes of class action jurisdiction. On April 8, 2022, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, which is currently pending. This case is currently stayed. TaskUs is an outsourcing company that handles content moderation, customer experience, artificial intelligence, operations and risk & response services. THRIVING MIND: Agrees to Settle Data Breach Suit for $900,000 ------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that Thriving Mind South Florida has agreed to pay a $900,000 class action settlement to resolve allegations that the mental health-focused nonprofit was liable for an August 2023 data breach. The official website for the Thriving Mind data breach settlement can be found at SFBHNDataIncident.com. Class members covered by the Thriving Mind settlement include all United States residents who were sent a notice by South Florida Behavioral Health Network, which does business as Thriving Mind South Florida, that their private information may have been impacted in a data incident between August 1 and August 3, 2023. The deal was preliminarily approved by the court in February 2025. If the class action settlement is granted final approval at a hearing on July 29 of this year, each class member who files a timely, valid claim form can to receive up to $5,000 for documented losses related to the Thriving Mind data breach. Alternatively, covered individuals can elect to receive a flat cash payment, estimated to be $100. This amount may increase or decrease on a pro-rata basis depending on the total number of valid claims submitted, the settlement website shares. In addition to the cash payment option, class members can also submit a claim for one year of free credit monitoring services, valued at $90 per year. The deadline to file a Thriving Mind settlement claim form is July 14, 2025. Alternatively, you can download a PDF claim form to print and return by mail by the July 14 deadline. Data breach settlement benefits and cash payments will be sent to eligible claimants only after the deal receives final approval from the court and any appeals are resolved. The Thriving Mind data breach lawsuit alleged cybercriminals had three days of "unfettered access" to sensitive information stored in the defendant's computer network due to its lack of adequate cybersecurity safeguards. According to the settlement website, the attack compromised the names, addresses, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, medical information and health insurance and benefit details of current and former Thriving Mind patients. As part of the deal, the nonprofit has agreed to make changes to better secure its systems. A final approval hearing for the Thriving Mind data breach settlement is scheduled for July 29, 2025. It is typically only after a class action settlement receives final approval from the court that benefits and/or cash payments will begin to be distributed to eligible claimants. [GN] TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: Gosse Appeals FDCPA Suit Dismissal to 3rd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ CHELSEY GOSSE is taking an appeal from a court order dismissing her lawsuit entitled Chelsey Gosse, Plaintiff, v. Transworld Systems, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:20-cv-01446, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). On Mar. 1, 2021, the Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On Feb. 28, 2025, the Defendants filed an unopposed motion for summary judgment, which Judge Keli M. Neary granted on Mar. 3, 2025. Judgment was entered in favor of the Defendants. The appellate case is captioned Chelsey Gosse, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Petitioner v. Transworld Systems Inc., et al., Case No. 25-1474, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on March 24, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Petitioner CHELSEY GOSSE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Robert P. Cocco, Esq. ROBERT P. COCCO, P.C. 1500 Walnut St., Ste. 900 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Telephone: (215) 351-0200 Email: bob.cocco@phillyconsumerlaw.com - and – Christina L Henry, Esq. HENRY & DEGRAAFF, P.S. 119 1st Ave., Ste. 500 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 330-0595 Facsimile: (206) 400-7609 Email: chenry@HDM-legal.com - and – Scott C. Borison, Esq. 1900 S. Norfolk St., Suite 350 San Mateo, CA 94403 Telephone: (301) 620-1016 Facsimile: (301) 620-1018 Email: Scott@borisonfirm.com TRIVEST PARTNERS: Must Produce Withheld Docs, Hall Asserts ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AARON HALL, KATHERINE GLOD, and JEFFREY BINDER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. TRIVEST PARTNERS L.P., TGIF POWER HOME INVESTOR, LLC, TRIVEST PARTNERS, INC., TRIVEST GROWTH PARTNERS, INC., TRIVEST GROWTH PARTNERS, L.P., TRIVEST GROWTH PARTNERS GP, LLC, TRIVEST GROWTH INVESTMENT FUND, L.P., TGIF POWER HOME BLOCKER, INC., TRIVEST INVESTMENT ADVISORS, LLC, and WILLIAM JAYSON WALLER, Case No. 4:22-cv-12743-FKB-CI (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion and compelling the Trivest Defendants to produce the improperly withheld documents. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(a)(3)(B)(iv), and in accordance with email instruction from Judge Ivy's chambers on Feb. 27, 2025, the Plaintiffs move to compel the Defendants to produce documents responsive to the Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to Defendant TGIF Power Home Investor, LLC, including as incorporated in Plaintiffs' First Set of Requests for Production of Documents to the remaining Trivest Defendants. The Court's December 17, 2024, ruling ordered the Trivest Defendants to amend their privilege log and produce additional non-privileged communications and documents. Unfortunately, the Trivest Defendants continue to withhold and redact documents for privilege based on insufficient or facially improper justifications. In several instances, the Plaintiffs have confirmed the impropriety of the privilege claims by obtaining the documents elsewhere. Trivest is a private equity firm focused on founder and family-owned businesses. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 11, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JDxW3j at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq. Julia G. Prescott, Esq. COULSON P.C. 300 River Place Drive, Suite 1700 Detroit, MI 48207 Telephone: (313) 644-2685 E-mail: nick@coulsonpc.com jprescott@coulsonpc.com UNITED PARCEL: Filing for Renewed Class Cert Bid Due June 20 ------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL MALONE, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, v. UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-03643-JDW (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Joshua D. Wolson entered an order amending the class certification deadlines as follows: 1. Any motions to amend the pleadings are due by April 4, 2025; 2. On or before April 11, 2025, the Parties shall meet and confer to set aside additional dates to hold open for the depositions referenced in their joint letter, and they shall submit a letter to my Chambers via email that identifies the dates that will be set aside for those depositions; 3. The additional fact discovery period shall close on May 30, 2025; 4. Mr. Malone's renewed class certification motion, if any, is due by June 20, 2025. 5. Mr. Malone's fee petition, as contemplated in my prior Order, is due by July 25, 2025. United Parcel provides transportation, logistics, and financial services. A copy of the Court's order dated April 1, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JntHt1 at no extra charge.[CC] UNITED STATES: Simmons Sues Over Money Powers' Delegation to Banks ------------------------------------------------------------------ ROBERT SIMMONS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, BOARD OF GOVERNORS of the FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE CORPORATION, BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, BANK OF AMERICA, NA, CITIGROUP INC., CITIBANK, NA, J.P. MORGAN CHASE & COMPANY, WELLS FARGO & COMPANY, AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL GROUP INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00851-JMC (D.D.C., March 17, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for shareholder oppression, negligence, unjust enrichment, corporate waste, breach of contract, fraud in the inducement, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, gross negligence, and abuse of control. The Plaintiff brings this derivative class action for alleged breach of contract against the Defendants. According to the complaint, the Federal Reserve has itself delegated United States money powers to private banks that clearly have operated outside the boundaries of the general Welfare and Equal Protection of natural shareholders, which all juridical entities and their officers have a fiduciary duty to serve, according to the contract of good faith and fair dealing that is implied when operating under the umbrella of United State authority, as well as the delegated authority to wield Congressional Money Powers. The Plaintiff asks the Supreme Court officers to do a judicial review and challenge the Congress officers to devise a more sound monetary method to secure the general Welfare and Equal Protection of the American people to whom they owe a fiduciary duty of care. United States Government is a juridical entity headquartered in Washington, D.C. Federal National Mortgage Association is a United States government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) based in Washington, D.C. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation is an American publicly traded, government-sponsored enterprise (GSE), headquartered in Tysons, Virginia. Bank of America Corporation is a financial services company based in North Carolina. Bank of America, NA is a financial services company based in North Carolina. Citigroup Inc. is a financial services company based in New York, New York. Citibank, NA is a financial services company based in New York, New York. J.P. Morgan Chase & Company is a financial services company based in New York, New York. Wells Fargo & Company is a financial services company based in California. American International Group Inc. is a global insurance organization in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff appears pro se. VERITAS INVESTMENTS: Matamoros Files Labor Suit in Cal. State Court ------------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Veritas Investments, Inc., et al. The case is captioned as ISAIAS MEZA MATAMOROS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. VERITAS INVESTMENTS, INC., et al., Case No. 25CV115310 (Cal. Super., Alameda Cty., March 17, 2025). An initial case management conference is set for July 15, 2025, before Judge Somnath Raj Chatterjee. The Plaintiff brings employment suit against the Defendants. Veritas Investments, Inc. is a property management company in San Francisco, California. [BN] VIA RENEWABLES: Continues to Defend Amburgev Stockholder Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Via Renewables Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Amburgev stockholder class suit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. On July 19, 2024, Joshua Amburgey, a purported stockholder of the Company at the time of the Merger, filed a verified class action complaint, Joshua Amburgey, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Via Renewables, Inc., et al., Case No. 2024-0762-KSJM (Del. Ch.) (the "Amburgey Action") in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company and Amanda E. Bush, Stephen Kennedy and Kenneth Hartwick in their capacities as members of the Company's Special Transaction Committee of the Board of Directors ("Special Committee"), as well as Mr. Maxwell, Retailco, LLC, TxEx Energy Investments, LLC, Electric Holdco, LLC, NuDevco Retail Holdings, LLC and NuDevco Retail, LLC. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties owed to the Company's public stockholders in connection with the Merger. Via Renewables is an independent retail energy services company. VIA RENEWABLES: Continues to Defend Taylor Class Suit in Delaware ----------------------------------------------------------------- Via Renewables Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 6, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Taylor class suit in Delaware. On July 25, 2024, Bruce Taylor, a purported stockholder of the Company at the time of the Merger, filed a verified class action complaint, Bruce Taylor v. W. Keith Maxwell III, et al., Case No. 2024-0794 (Del. Ch.) (the "Taylor Action") in the Delaware Court against the Special Committee, and Mike Barajas, in his capacity as the Company's Chief Financial Officer, as well as Mr. Maxwell in his capacity as controlling stockholder of the Company. Plaintiff alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties and participated in the provision of a materially untrue and misleading proxy statement to Company's minority stockholders in connection with the Merger. Via Renewables is an independent retail energy services company. VICOR CORP: Continues to Defend Pouladian Stockholder Class Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Vicor Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 3, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Pouladian stockholder class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. On July 11, 2024, purported stockholders of the Company filed a putative class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California styled Pouladian et al. v. Vicor Corporation et al., case number 3:24-cv-04196. The suit was brought against the Company and the Company's Chief Executive Officer, President and Chairman (the "Defendants"). The plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), due to allegedly false and misleading statements during earnings calls in 2023 about the Company's commercial relationship with an existing customer. The complaint seeks damages, interest and attorneys' fees and costs. The plaintiffs were appointed lead plaintiffs on October 24, 2024, and an amended complaint was filed on November 22, 2024. The Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the amended complaint on January 1, 2025. The plaintiffs' response is due March 5, 2025, and the Defendants have until March 21, 2025 to file their reply. The Defendants believe the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and intend to vigorously defend against the lawsuit. Vicor Corp. is into the manufacture of electronic components and is based in Andover, MA. WELLS FARGO: Judge Dismisses ERISA Class Action Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------- Matthew Sellers, writing for Investment News, reports that a federal judge has dismissed a proposed class action brought by four former Wells Fargo employees who accused the company of breaching its fiduciary duties under ERISA by mismanaging its employee health plan's prescription drug benefits. In a detailed ruling, U.S. District Judge Laura M. Provinzino held that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to pursue their claims because they failed to demonstrate a concrete, particularized injury that was traceable to the alleged misconduct and redressable by the court. Among the allegations: -- Price Discrepancies for Generic-Specialty Drugs: Plaintiffs alleged that ESI charged the Plan $1,881 for a 90-pill prescription of the prostate cancer drug abiraterone acetate, while the average acquisition cost was $82.80. Participants, under the Plan terms, were required to pay the full cost for such drugs -- dispensed through ESI's wholly owned pharmacy, Accredo -- until meeting their deductibles. -- Benchmark Pricing Concerns: ESI used the AWP (Average Wholesale Price) benchmark to set pricing, which plaintiffs alleged was inflated and susceptible to manipulation. They claimed that using NADAC (National Average Drug Acquisition Cost) would have better aligned with true market prices. -- Administrative Fees: From 2019 to 2022, administrative fees paid to ESI by the Plan increased from $9.2 million to $25.6 million, even as the number of participants declined. In contrast, another large plan paid significantly less per participant for similar services. -- No Open Bidding Process: Plaintiffs said Wells Fargo failed to conduct a competitive process before engaging ESI and did not consider other PBM models, such as pass-through arrangements that might have lowered costs. They claimed these actions constituted breaches of fiduciary duty under ERISA § 1104(a) and prohibited transactions under § 1106, seeking relief under 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132(a)(2) and (a)(3). Remedies sought included restitution, surcharge, disgorgement, removal of fiduciaries, replacement of the PBM, and the appointment of an independent fiduciary. The Plan documents were central to the court's analysis. Notably: -- Contribution Discretion: Wells Fargo retained "sole discretion" to determine participant contribution amounts and had broad authority to modify those rates by participant class, benefit type, or other criteria. -- Expense Allocation: The Plan allowed participant contributions to be used to cover all Plan expenses -- not just those tied to an individual's own benefits. These provisions undermined the plaintiffs' claims that their higher costs were directly caused by the challenged conduct. Judge Provinzino granted Wells Fargo's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), finding that the plaintiffs lacked standing because their alleged harm was speculative, causation was insufficient, and requested relief would not necessarily redress the injury. The court emphasized that plaintiffs did not allege they were denied any benefits promised under the Plan. Instead, they asserted they paid more than they should have due to mismanagement. The court found this harm to be too speculative, particularly given the Plan's structure and Wells Fargo's discretion to set contributions. Because Wells Fargo had unilateral authority over participant contribution rates, the court found it too speculative to conclude that lower PBM costs would have resulted in lower premiums or out-of-pocket payments. Even if the court granted all requested relief -- including removing fiduciaries and replacing the PBM -- Wells Fargo could legally maintain or increase participant contributions. "Merely changing 'may' to 'would' is a semantic sleight of hand," the judge wrote, rejecting plaintiffs' claim that reduced fees "would" have led to lower participant costs. The court also found that because the plaintiffs were no longer participants in the Plan, they lacked standing to seek forward-looking remedies. They would not be affected by any prospective relief, such as replacing fiduciaries or changing the Plan structure. The court drew on Thole v. U.S. Bank N.A., 590 U.S. 538 (2020), which held that participants in a defined-benefit plan lacked standing to sue over fiduciary mismanagement where they received all promised benefits. Although this case involved a health plan, not a pension, the court deemed the Plan similarly structured and concluded that the plaintiffs' theory of harm fell short under Thole. The court also considered the Third Circuit's recent decision in Knudsen v. MetLife Grp., Inc., 117 F.4th 570 (3d Cir. 2024), which hypothetically allowed for ERISA standing based on excessive out-of-pocket health costs. However, the court found the plaintiffs' claims too speculative under that framework as well. The complaint was dismissed without prejudice, leaving open the possibility that a future plaintiff -- perhaps one still participating in the Plan and able to allege specific, traceable harm -- could pursue similar claims. "The Court is not unsympathetic to Plaintiffs' concerns," Judge Provinzino wrote. "Prescription drug costs are high -- even for those who are insured." But under current law, she concluded, the plaintiffs lacked standing to proceed. [GN] The plaintiffs -- Sergio Navarro, Theresa Gamage, Dayle Bulla, and Jane Kinsella -- are former Wells Fargo employees and former participants in the Wells Fargo & Company Health Plan ("the Plan"), a self-funded employee welfare benefit plan governed by ERISA. They sued on behalf of themselves, other similarly situated participants, and the Plan itself. They alleged that Wells Fargo engaged in fiduciary mismanagement by contracting with Express Scripts, Inc. ("ESI"), a traditional pharmacy benefit manager (PBM), without a competitive bidding process and on terms that resulted in inflated prescription drug prices and excessive administrative fees. [GN] WILDLIFE CONSERVATION: Settles Bronx Zoo Class Suit for $900,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Kelly Mehorter of ClassAction.org reports that a $990,000 settlement has been reached to resolve a proposed class action lawsuit that alleged the operator of the Bronx Zoo illegally waited until the very end of the online purchasing process to disclose to ticket buyers a $2 processing fee. The Bronx Zoo ticket deal looks to compensate all United States residents who purchased electronic tickets to the Bronx Zoo from BronxZoo.com between August 28, 2022 and January 16, 2024 and paid a processing fee in connection with the purchase. The court-approved website for the class action settlement can be found at BronxZooTicketFeeSettlement.com. Class members must file a valid Bronx Zoo claim form online or by mail by July 21, 2025 to receive their share of the $990,000 settlement fund. Individual cash payment amounts from the settlement will be pro-rated based on the total processing fees paid by each eligible class member. The court preliminarily approved the Bronx Zoo ticket fee settlement on February 25, 2025. Next, it is up to the court to decide whether to grant final approval to the terms of the deal at a hearing on June 5, 2025. According to the settlement website, eligible class members should receive their payment 60 days after the deal is granted final approval, unless there is an appeal. In the initial class action lawsuit, Wildlife Conservation Society, the operator of the Bronx Zoo, was accused of violating New York's Arts and Cultural Affairs Law, a state statute that requires places of entertainment to plainly disclose the total cost of a ticket, including any added charges, before the ticket is selected for purchase. In addition to monetary relief, the defendant also has agreed to revise the purchase flow for tickets on BronxZoo.com to comply with New York law. [GN] WOODSTREAM CORPORATION: Bid to Seal Trade Secrets Docs OK'd ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as GREGORY MARONEY AND HENRY H. HEUMANN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. WOODSTREAM CORPORATION, Case No. 7:19-CV-08294-KMK-JCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Kenneth Karas entered an order granting the Defendant's unopposed motion to seal. As discussed by the Defendant, the documents which it seeks to seal fall "into categories commonly sealed" such as "those containing trade secrets, confidential research and development information, marketing plans, revenus information, pricing information." The Clerk of Court is directed to close the pending motion. On June 25, 2024, the Plaintiffs Henry Heumann and Gregory Maroney filed a motion for class certification. Woodstream manufactures and markets pest control and wildlife caring and control products. A copy of the Court's order dated March 12, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=K3d1vS at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Robyn E. Bladow, Esq. Savannah L. Jensen, Esq. Jake A. Feiler, Esq. Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 555 South Flower Street Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 680-8400 Facsimile: (213) 680-8500 E-mail: robyn.bladow@kirkland.com savannah.jensen@kirkland.com jake.feiler@kirkland.com lefkowitz@kirkland.com WORLD TRAVEL: Casillas Suit Removed to S.D. California ------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Miltita Casillas, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. WORLD TRAVEL HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 25CU004653C 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 31, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-00772-H-SBC. The Plaintiff purports to bring claims on behalf of the Putative Class for WTH's alleged violation of California Trap and Trace Law, Cal. Penal Code, claiming that WTH improperly disclosed the personal information of consumers who visited its website to TikTok. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that WTH installed a tracking pixel on its website that duplicated and sent consumers' personal information to TikTok.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott J. Ferrell, Esq. David W. Reid, Esq. Victoria C. Knowles, Esq. PACIFIC TRIAL ATTORNEYS A Professional Corporation 4100 Newport Place Drive, Ste. 800 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Email: sferrell@pacifictrialattorneys.com dreid@pacifictrialattomeys.com vknowles@pacifictrialattorneys.com The Defendants are represented by: Nitya Bhardwaj, Esq. VEDDER PRICE (CA), LLP 1925 Century Park East, Suite 1900 Los Angeles, California 90067 Fax: (424) 204-7702 Phone: (424) 204-7700 Email: nbhardwaj@vedderprice.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***