/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250415.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, April 15, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 75
Headlines
12 CHAIRS: Sanchez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
331 TRIBECA CLEANERS: Faces Santos Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
ACTINIUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
AGENCY LABS LLC: Reyes Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York
ALAMEDA, CA: Filing of Class Cert Bid in Ruelas Due June 18
ALARUM TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Class Suit in D.N.J.
ALN MEDICAL: Faces Hurley Suit Over Unprotected Private Data
AMAZON.COM.DEDE: Class Certification Denied in Vaccarro Suit
APPLE INC: Faces Books Licensing Class Action Lawsuit
ASK MEDIA: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due June 8
ATHENA COSMETICS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Slattery Due Nov. 24
AUTOMATIC APPLIANCE: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
AXON ENTERPRISE: GovGPT's Motion for Centralization Denied
BAKKT HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Misleading Statements
BAYEH PIZZA INC: Cruz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
BAYER: Files Writ of Certiorari in Durnell Roundup Case
BELMONT VILLAGE: Denise Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
BLACKSTRAP INDUSTRIES: Calcano Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
BOAR'S HEAD: Settles Listeria Class Action Suit for $3.1 Million
BUCKLEY CABLE: Bids for Class Cert. in Duggan Suit Due Oct. 24
C.H. ROBINSON: Moreno Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Calif.
C.H. ROBINSON: Woods Suit Remanded to Contra Costa Superior Court
C3.AI INC: Reckstein Shareholder Suit Ongoing in California Court
CAMDEN NATIONAL: Lessner Sues Over Disclosed Clients' Personal Info
CELESTRON ACQUISITION: DPPs' Bid for Financial Assurance Denied
CENTERRA INTEGRATED: Nieves Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
CEREVEL THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
CLEANRITE INC: Cuevas Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
COAST TO COAST: Cardenas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CONTINENTAL FINANCE: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Cider Affirmed
CONTRACT SOLUTIONS: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
COUNTRY MUTUAL: W.D. Washington Grants Bid to Dismiss Cameron Suit
CREDIT ASSOCIATES: Crowell Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Texas
CREDIT UNION: Faces Class Action Suit Over Discriminatory Policy
CRST EXPEDITED: Summary Judgment Bid Denied in Huckaby Suit
CVS HEALTH: Discloses Private Medical Info, Getz Class Suit Says
DELTA AIR: Motion to Compel in Duvaney Suit Granted in Part
ELDORADO GOLD: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
ELON MUSK: Canvassers Sue Over Petition Signature Payments
EMPIRE STATE DAIRY: ZDG Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
ENCORE ENERGY: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
EQUITABLE FINANCIAL: Mismanages 401(k) Plan, Tedford Suit Alleges
EXPERIAN DATA: Illegally Collects and Sells Users' Info, Lopez Says
FAMILY DOLLAR: Court Stays Discovery in Morrison Lawsuit
FANNIE MAE: Class Plaintiffs Ask Court to Set Post-Judgment Hearing
FARADAY FUTURE: Obtains Final OK of $7.5MM "Zhou" Class Settlement
FEATURE LLC: Garcia Suit Removed to C.D. California
FELDMAN LAW: Arbitration Awards in Sullivan Suit Affirmed in Part
FENIX INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Action Over "Impersonated" Models
FLORIDA: Immigrant Coalition Seeks Class Certification
FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Suit Defective Transmission Systems
FOSTER FARMS: Organic Consumers Suit Remanded to D.C.'s Super. Ct.
G4S SECURE: Motion to Compel Arbitration in Barnes Suit Denied
GALAXY GAS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Flavored Nitrous Oxide
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Defective Engines
GENERAL MOTORS: Nava Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection
GLOBAL BLOOD: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Jolly Due April 24
GOLDEN WEST SECURITY: Sandoval Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
GREENVILLE COUNTY, SC: O.R. Sues Over Library Policy Amendments
HOMEGOODS LLC: Becerra Suit Removed to E.D. California
HUMACYTE INC: Has Until June 27 to Respond to "Cutshall"
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Nexo Hydrogen Vehicles
IM CANNABIS: Tel Aviv Court Approves Class Action
INSIGHT FOUNDATION: Faces Class Action Suit Amid Hospital Closure
INTERSTATE MGMT: Court Discharges Order to Show Cause in Carrero
JAMES KOUTOULAS: Sheeler's Bid to Intervene Tossed
JAMO 31: Kim Must File Class Cert Bid by May 23
JBS USA FOOD: Court Grants in Part Joint Bid to Dismiss Brown Suit
JBS USA FOOD: Omaha Packing's Bid to Toss Brown Suit OK'd in Part
JOHN HANCOCK: Bids for Class Cert in Zaben Due March 11, 2026
KEPT COMPANIES: Pablo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
KEWIT MINING: Robinson Sues Over Wage and Hour Law Breaches
KIKA SCOTT: General Pretrial Management Entered in Garcia Suit
KISS NUTRACEUTICALS: Gamboa's Renewed Class Cert Bid Granted
KORVATO LLC: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio
L'OBJET USA: Isakov Seeks Blind Users' Equal Access to Website
LABORATORY CORP: Class Cert Filing in Howard Amended to Nov. 26
LEAD DOG: Slendak Seeks More Time To File Class Cert Reply
LEAD DOG: Slendak Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply
LEE UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Security Breach
LI-CYCLE HOLDINGS: "Wyshynski" Certification Set for 2026 Hearing
LI-CYCLE HOLDINGS: Appeal from "Hubiack" Dismissal Order Pending
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Badin's Bid to Remand Suit to State Court Denied
LONG ISLAND POWER: Must Face Riverdale Jewish Center, et al. Suit
MANGANARO MIDATLANTIC: Class Cert Hearing Reset to May 29
MAT HOLDINGS: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Herrera Suit Says
MAYO FOUNDATION: Mack Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to S.D. Calif.
MCA MERRILLVILLE: Bid to Certify Class Tossed w/o Prejudice
MCDONALD'S USA: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over E. Coli in Burgers
MDL 3101: Court Narrows Claims in Baby Food Products Liability Suit
MICHIGAN: District Court Dismisses Does v. State Police, Others
MICROVAST HOLDINGS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Schelling"
MICROVAST HOLDINGS: Court Hears Arguments on Bids to Junk "Jacob"
MIDI HEALTH: Discloses Patient Info to 3rd Parties, Suit Alleges
MONTE NIDO HOLDINGS: Casey Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
MOVADO GROUP: Wee-Ellis Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store
MUD AUSTRALIA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Isakov Suit Says
NEIMAN MARCUS: Wilkins Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
NEW BALANCE: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
NEW YORK ADORNED: Mercedes Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
NEW YORK DOC: Caballero Must File Status Report by April 25
NEW YORK, NY: Tunnell Sues Over Religious Discriminatory Policies
NEW YORK: Faces Ram Suit Over Failure to Safeguard Clients' Info
NEW YORK: Faces Tai Suit Over Failure to Safeguard Clients' Info
NORDIC ENERGY: Bickel Sues Over Deceptive Bait-And-Switch Scheme
NOVA LIFESTYLE: Calif. Court OKs $750K Settlement in "Barney" Suit
NURTURE LLC: S.D. New York Narrows Claims in Baby Food Class Suit
NYU LANGONE: Brown Seeks Conditional Cert of Collective Action
OBIKA NY: Visually Impaired Can't Access Website, Isakov Suit Says
OIL PRICE: Conspires to Control PVC Pipe Prices, Vitolite Claims
OPTUMRX INC: Medical Center PHCY et al. Sue Over Illegal Pricing
ORACLE CORP: Faces Data Breach Class Action Suit in W.D. Tex.
ORACLE CORPORATION: Toikach Over Failure to Secure Clients' Info
OVERTURE SYSTEMS: Faces Layne Suit Over Website Inaccessibility
OXFORD RISK: Faces VLSI Breach of Contract Suit in Delaware
OXY USA INC: New Mexico Court Refuses to Dismiss Snyder Class Suit
PACIFICORP: Appeals Class Action Ruling Over 2020 Oregon Wildfires
PADDYWAX LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Fernandez Claims
PARAGON 28: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Zimmer Biomet
PARSONS DISCOUNT: Ramos Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Store Employees
PENNSYLVANIA STATE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Hudson Says
PEPPERIDGE FARM: S.D. New York Refuses to Toss Ward Consumer Suit
PHILADELPHIA CORP: Settlement in Matthews Suit Gets Final Court Nod
PHILADELPHIA, PA: E.D. Pennsylvania Dismisses Newton v. PAPPD
PPL CORPORATION: Class Settlement in Binder Gets Initial Nod
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Maggio Sues Over Deceptive Product Marketing
PROFESSIONAL FINANCE: Plaintiffs Seeks Final OK of Settlement
PROVEN WINNERS: Faces Miller Suit Over Website's Access Barriers
PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Faces Angulo Class Action Suit in E.D. Wash.
RCM TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement in Gray Suit Gets Final Court Okay
RESORT DATA: Faces Rayner Suit Over Data Security Failures
ROUNDPOINT MORTGAGE: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Jan. 15, 2026
SAFAVIEH INTERNATIONAL: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Suit Claims
SAINT JOSEPH'S: Faces Lander Suit Over Private Data Breach
SAM NATURAL: Faces Mendez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CA: Imo Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
SANA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
SELECT PORTFOLIO: Evans Must File Class Cert Bid by April 25
SERITAGE GROWTH: Continues to Defend Zhengxu He Suit in N.Y.
SILVER-SPRING HOME: Underpays Healthcare Workers, Williams Alleges
SLEEP LOFT: Hernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store
SOHO ART: Visually Impaired Can't Access Website, Layne Suit Says
SOLAR MOSAIC: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in Sauer, et al. Suit
SOUNDHOUND AI: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Due May 27
SOUTH CAROLINA: Court Dismisses Federal Claim in AAC v. Gietz
SPIRE GLOBAL: Court Holds Arguments on Bid to Junk Securities Suit
SPORTSMAN'S MARKET: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Pittman Claims
SPRUCE POWER: Court OKs $4.75MM Settlement in Delaware Suits
SPRUCE POWER: Pays $15MM Settlement in NY Securities Suit
STAKE CENTER: Holtsclaw Seeks to Extend Class Cert Bid Deadline
STELLAE INTERNATIONAL: Rivas Sues Over Untimely Payment of Wages
SUN AND SKY: Faces Layne Suit Over Online Store's Access Barriers
SUNRISE BRANDS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hernandez Claims
SYNERGY CHC CORP: $340K Settlement in "Valenti" Fully Paid
SYSCO KANSAS: Harms Seeks Conditional Cert. of FLSA Collective
TAKATA CORP: Motion in Limine Granted as to Sims Airbag Claim
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: KPH Healthcare Sues Over Alleged Conspiracy
TARGET CORP: Navarro Suit Moved From E.D. California to Minnesota
TILLAMOOK COUNTY: High Court Reverses Class Suit Disqualification
TRACER BULLET: Fernandez Sues Over Website's Access Barriers
TRADE DESK: Tracks and Collects Users' Data, Turner Suit Alleges
TRAVISMATHEW LLC: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Dalton Claims
TREEHOUSE FOODS: Patora Sues Over Sale of Contaminated Food Product
UBP BAY CITY: Howard Suit Removed to E.D. Michigan
UNIFIN INC: E.D. New York Grants Bid to Dismiss Obstfeld FDCPA Suit
UNION PACIFIC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Black Due Sept. 19
UNITED STATES: Bid to Provide Plaintiffs' Identifying Info Tossed
UNITED STATES: Court Narrows Claims in Lambro FLSA Lawsuit
UNITED STATES: Issuance of Class Notice in Ritter FLSA Suit Granted
UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Agrees to $3.49-Mil. TCPA Class Settlement
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: Coach Faces Data Breach Class Action Suit
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: Fails to Secure Athletes' Data, Suit Claims
VCE THEATERS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due July 31
VITALANT: McElroy Suit Removed to N.D. California
WAKE COUNTY, NC: Bid to Bifurcate Discovery in McDougal Nixed
WASHINGTON DC: Class Cert Discovery in Brown Suit Due June 6
WELLS FARGO: Henzel Seeks to Seal Reply & Referenced Exhibit
WILLIAM LEE HOLLADAY: Jackson Suit Removed to S.D. Alabama
WISCONSIN: Bid for Summary Judgment Granted in Howard v. Ashworth
YARDI SYSTEMS: Sentinel Has Until April 21 to Respond to Duff Suit
ZELIS HEALTHCARE: Conspires to Restrain Trade, Pacific Suit Says
ZUFFA LLC: Seeks Denial of Johnson's Class Certification Bid
ZURICH AMERICAN: Pretrial Scheduling Order Entered in Hales Suit
[] Lithuania Court Accepts Class Suit from 24 Asylum Seekers
[^] CA Updates Announces Most Active Class Action Firms of 2024
*********
12 CHAIRS: Sanchez Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
ANDRES SANCHEZ, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. 12 CHAIRS BYN, LLC (d/b/a 12 CHAIRS), RON
KEREN (a.k.a RON KEEREN), RONEN GRADY and MAYAAN GLASS, Defendants,
Case No. 1:25-cv-01751 (E.D.N.Y., March 31, 2025) accuses the
Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York
Labor Law.
Plaintiff Sanchez was ostensibly employed as a busboy/food runner.
However, he was required to spend a considerable part of his work
day performing non-tipped duties. Allegedly, the Defendants paid
Plaintiff Sanchez at a rate that was lower than the required
minimum wage rate.
The 12 CHAIRS BYN, LLC owns, operates, or controls a middle eastern
restaurant, located at 342 Wythe Avenue, Brooklyn, NY under the
name "12 Chairs". [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace Esq.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
331 TRIBECA CLEANERS: Faces Santos Wage-and-Hour Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
REYES DIAZ SANTOS and ANGELICA MIRANDA MATEO, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 331 TRIBECA
CLEANERS, INC. (d/b/a GREENWICH CLEANERS), CHRIS LEE, and SKI LEE,
Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-02596 (S.D.N.Y., March 28, 2025) is a
class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to
pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to comply
with notice and recordkeeping requirements, failure to furnish
accurate wage statements, and failure to reimburse business
expenses.
Plaintiff Santos and Mateo were employed as ironers at Greenwich
Cleaners located at 331 Greenwich Street, New York, New York from
approximately July 2021 until on or about March 15, 2025, and from
approximately February 2024 until on or about March 15, 2025,
respectively.
331 Tribeca Cleaners, Inc., doing business as Greenwich Cleaners,
is a dry-cleaning services provider, located at 331 Greenwich
Street, New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
ACTINIUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action securities lawsuit was filed against Actinium
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. that seeks to recover losses of shareholders
who were adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between
October 31, 2022 and August 2, 2024.
CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
false statements and/or concealed that: (1) the Company's data from
the Phase 3 Sierra trial was unlikely to satisfy the FDA's
guidelines for the acceptance and approval of the Company's
targeted radiotherapy, Iomab-B BLA; (2) the additional analyses,
including long-term follow-ups that purportedly demonstrated a
trend towards improved Overall Survival that the Company provided
to the FDA in an attempt to mitigate the Sierra Trial's poor OS
data were unlikely to satisfy the FDA's guidelines for the
acceptance and approval of the Company's Iomab-B BLA; (3) as a
result, the FDA would likely refuse to review the Iomab-B BLA or,
if it did consider that BLA, that the application in its current
form was unlikely to be approved; and (4), as a result, defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Actinium stock during the
relevant time frame -- even if you still hold your shares -- go to
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/actinium-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=140564&wire=1
to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or
obligation to participate.
WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP
has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities
litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars
for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning
high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing
investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70
employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi &
Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top
50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the
United States. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Ed Korsinsky, Esq.
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
https://zlk.com/ [GN]
AGENCY LABS LLC: Reyes Files TCPA Suit in S.D. New York
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against AGENCY LABS LLC. The
case is styled as Yandy Reyes, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. AGENCY LABS LLC; Joel Kaplan,
individually and as the CEO of the Agency Lab LLC; Case No.
1:25-cv-02712-JPO (S.D.N.Y., April 1, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Agency Labs -- https://agencylabs.com/ -- is an enterprise
technology studio focused on building and maintaining digital
products and systems.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
ALAMEDA, CA: Filing of Class Cert Bid in Ruelas Due June 18
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARMIDA RUELAS; DE'ANDRE
EUGENE COX; BERT DAVIS; KATRISH JONES; JOSEPH MEBRAHTU; DAHRYL
REYNOLDS; MONICA MASON; SCOTT ABBEY; and all others similarly
situated, v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA; YESENIA SANCHEZ, SHERIFF; ARAMARK
CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, Case No.
4:19-cv-07637-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter
an order as follows:
1. Aramark shall produce the agreed-upon supplemental discovery
by May 21, 2025.
2. The Plaintiffs' opening motion for class certification shall
be due by June 18, 2025.
3. The Defendants' oppositions to the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification shall be due by July 23, 2025.
4. The Plaintiffs' reply shall be due by Aug. 13, 2025.
5. The hearing on the motion shall occur on a date convenient
for the Court.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 3, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HMdgtG at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Dan Siege, Esq.
SIEGEL, YEE, BRUNNER & MEHTA
475 14th St 500
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 839-1200
The Defendants are represented by:
Cortlin H. Lannin, Esq.
Isaac D. Chaput, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
Salesforce Tower
415 Mission Street, Suite 5400
San Francisco, CA 94105-2533
Telephone: (415) 591-6000
Facsimile: (415) 591-6091
E-mail: clannin@cov.com
ichaput@cov.com
- and -
Gilbert J. Tsa, Esq.
HANSON BRIDGETT LLP
425 Market St 26FL
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415) 995-5178
ALARUM TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Securities Class Suit in D.N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed
against Alarum Technologies Ltd. ("Alarum" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: ALAR) and certain officers. The class action, filed in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
and docketed under 25-cv-01263, is on behalf of a class consisting
of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or
otherwise acquired Alarum securities between March 14, 2024 and
August 26, 2024, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking
to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal
securities laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain
of its top officials.
If you are an investor who purchased or otherwise acquired Alarum
securities during the Class Period, you have until April 15, 2025
to ask the Court to appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A
copy of the Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To
discuss this action, contact Danielle Peyton at
newaction@pomlaw.com or 646-581-9980 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll-free,
Ext. 7980. Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include
their mailing address, telephone number, and the number of shares
purchased.
Alarum is a global Software as a Service ("SaaS") provider that
offers web data collection solutions and a private internet
browsing platform to a concentrated customer base.
Alarum operates under a consumption-based business model, under
which the Company charges customers for a given product or service
based on how much they use it. Specifically, the Company generates
SaaS revenues "when customers subscrib[e] to [its] enterprise and
consumer access platforms and [pay] for the packages they choose."
Given Alarum's concentrated customer base, the spending patterns of
even a small number of customers can have a substantial impact on
the Company's growth.
Alarum has described itself as a "market leader" that has
demonstrated "success in not only retaining, but also significantly
expanding [its] engagements with existing customers." However,
unbeknownst to investors, Alarum was experiencing difficulties in
retaining and expanding its customer engagements. By June 2024
Alarum began seeing reduced customer spending that ultimately
resulted in a 20% revenue decrease from the prior month.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Company consistently maintained
at all relevant times that it "deliver[s] strong performance and
value to [its] shareholders" and touted that its "revenues and
operating cashflow reflect the dedication of [Alarum's] team and
the robustness of [its] business model."
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose that: (i) the Company was less effective in retaining
and/or expanding customer engagements than it had represented to
investors; (ii) the foregoing would impair Alarum's ability to
generate consistent revenue growth; (iii) accordingly, Alarum's
business and/or financial prospects were overstated; and (iv) as a
result, the Company's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.
On August 26, 2024, Alarum announced its results for the second
quarter of 2024 and issued Q3 2024 guidance. Specifically, Alarum
revealed that it was expecting Q3 2024 revenue of $7 million, far
short of the $9.2 million revenue figure projected by analysts.
Alarum hosted an earnings call with investors and analysts to
discuss the Company's Q2 2024 results, during which Alarum's Chief
Executive Officer Defendant Shachar Daniel attributed the
disappointing Q3 2024 revenue guidance to the reduced customer
spending Alarum began experiencing in June 2024.
Market analysts were quick to comment on the Company's revelation.
For example, on August 27, 2024, Seeking Alpha noted that Alarum's
projected Q3 2024 revenue figure "represent[ed] over a 20% decline
sequentially and only 3% growth [year-over-year]," and raised
several issues with Alarum's disclosure including, among other
things, the lack of clarity in the Company's explanation for the
drop in customer demand.
On this news, Alarum's American Depositary Receipt ("ADR") price
fell $6.77 per ADR, or 31.34%, to close at $14.83 per ADR on August
26, 2024.
Pomerantz LLP, with offices in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles,
London, Paris, and Tel Aviv, is acknowledged as one of the premier
firms in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust class
litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known as the
dean of the class action bar, Pomerantz pioneered the field of
securities class actions. Today, more than 85 years later,
Pomerantz continues in the tradition he established, fighting for
the rights of the victims of securities fraud, breaches of
fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The Firm has recovered
billions of dollars in damages awards on behalf of class members.
See www.pomlaw.com.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
CONTACT:
Danielle Peyton
Pomerantz LLP
dpeyton@pomlaw.com
(646) 581-9980 ext. 7980 [GN]
ALN MEDICAL: Faces Hurley Suit Over Unprotected Private Data
------------------------------------------------------------
CAROLINE HURLEY, on behalf of herself individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALN MEDICAL MANAGEMENT
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-03075 (D. Neb. March 31, 2025)
arises from a recent cyberattack resulting in a data breach of
sensitive information in the possession and custody and/or control
of Defendant.
The data breach occurred between March 18, 2024, and March 24,
2024, allowing cybercriminals unfettered access to Plaintiff's and
the Class's most sensitive information for almost a week. However,
it took a year for the Defendant to inform Plaintiff and the Class
Members about the data breach. In addition, Defendant's data breach
notice obfuscated the nature of the breach and the threat it
posted--refusing to tell its clients' patients how many people were
impacted, how the breach happened, and why it took Defendant until
March 21, 2025, to begin notifying victims that hackers had gained
access to highly private sensitive information.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's
unlawful conduct and asserts claims for negligence, negligence per
se, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and invasion of
privacy/intrusion upon seclusion.
Headquartered in Lincoln, NE, ALN Medical Management LLC provides
revenue cycles and billing services to its clients, including
healthcare companies. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC
980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IL 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
E-mail: raina@straussborrelli.com
AMAZON.COM.DEDE: Class Certification Denied in Vaccarro Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Georgette Castner of the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey denied plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration of an order denying her motion for class
certification in the case captioned as DIANE VACCARRO et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. AMAZON.COM.DEDE, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
18-cv-11852-GC-TJB (D.N.J.).
This matter arises out of allegations that Defendant unlawfully
withheld overtime wages owed to workers for time spent in mandatory
security screenings. Plaintiff filed a Motion for Class
Certification on March 22, 2024 seeking to certify the following
class:
All Defendant's hourly fulfillment center employees who worked in
New Jersey and who, during at least one workweek from May 11, 2016
(two (2) years prior to the original date of the filing of the
Complaint) through the present, worked at least 40 hours during a
workweek according to Defendant's timekeeping system.
The Court found that the putative class did not meet Rule 23(b)'s
predominance requirement. Rule 23(b)(3) dictates that "the
questions of law or fact common to class members must predominate
over any questions affecting only individual members.
The Court held that, because the putative class members were
subject to differing security screening protocols based on the
location and time period in which they worked, Plaintiff's proposed
class inherently involved issues of individualized liability
because Amazon cannot be liable to employees that were never
subject to the alleged unlawful policy. For example, many
employees in the proposed class -- including Plaintiff herself when
she worked at the Avenel, NJ facility -- experienced significant
periods in which they were not subject to any security screenings
whatsoever. The introduction of the "A-Z App" in 2020 further
complicates the inquiry, as employees using the app could wait to
clock out until after they had walked through security. Amazon
would have no liability to these employees, who were presumably
compensated for that time.
Plaintiff now seeks reconsideration of the Court's Oct. 30, 2024
decision, arguing that the Court erred in not granting
certification of the original proposed class. Alternatively,
Plaintiff contends that the Court should have sua sponte certified
a narrower class.
Plaintiff contends that the proposed class does, in fact, meet Rule
23(b)(3)'s predominance requirements because whether a facility
implemented the screenings during a particular period is not an
individualized issue at all. Furthermore, she states that the only
individualized issue raised by the introduction of the A-Z App is
whether, on any particular occasion, an employee used the A-Z App.
Plaintiff claims that such issues can be proven with common
evidence -- Amazon's electronic records.
Plaintiff has failed to identify any factual or legal matter
overlooked by the Court and instead rehashes her prior arguments,
making reconsideration of the Court's ruling with respect to
Plaintiff's original proposed class inappropriate.
The Court denies Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration with
respect to the originally proposed class.
Plaintiff additionally proposes narrower subclasses of either (a)
all facility employees at which the screenings were implemented for
the period prior to March 2020 excluding the Avenal facility
(Subclass A); or (b) only Robbinsville facility employees for the
same period (Subclass B).
Plaintiff points to the Court's Oct. 30, 2024 Opinion where, in an
attempt to avoid rejecting the Motion for Class Certification
outright, the Court sua sponte considered a narrower subclass
period of 2016 to March or April 2020. The Court found that even
the narrowed subclass did not remedy the predominance issues as
there was still contradictory evidence as to whether the class
members were all subject to the same security screenings during
this period.
It is true that the Court suggested a more limited subclass might
survive. But the Court explicitly declined to define such a
subclass because the parties had not proposed any redefined classes
or subclasses, and the Court found that it did not have sufficient
information to do so sua sponte. While courts have the discretion
to redefine a class sua sponte, they do not have an unbending
obligation.
Judge Castner says that while Plaintiff is correct that Rule 23
allows for multiple bites at the apple, a motion for
reconsideration is not the appropriate vehicle. Rather, a renewed
motion for class certification is more appropriate. The Court would
treat a renewed motion like any other for class certification and
apply the usual Rule 23 standard.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Dd2vtm from PacerMonitor.com.
APPLE INC: Faces Books Licensing Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------
MacRumors report that a lawsuit filed against Apple in California
this week accuses the company of violating the state's false
advertising law and other consumer laws, by intentionally
misleading customers into thinking that they are purchasing digital
e-books from the Apple Books app in perpetuity, when instead they
are only purchasing revokable licenses to the books.
The proposed class action complaint explains that Apple is required
to pull a digital book or audiobook from the Apple Books app if and
when it loses a license to that content, resulting in the content
no longer being available in the app's store. As a result, the
complaint alleges that some customers have unexpectedly found that
digital books they previously purchased were no longer available to
re-download, despite having paid for them. Apple removes books
without warning, and without providing refunds, the complaint
adds.
As noted in the complaint, the purchase screen in the Apple Books
app does not include a link to any terms of service or licensing
information. However, in order to set up and use an iPhone, iPad,
Mac, or other Apple device, users are required to agree to Apple's
various software license agreements, which all state the
following:
By using this software in connection with an Apple Account, or
other Apple Services, you agree to the applicable terms of service,
such as the latest Apple Media Services Terms and Conditions [. . .
]
In the Apple Media Services Terms and Conditions, Apple states
that:
Purchased Content will generally remain available for you to
download, redownload, or otherwise access from Apple. Though it is
unlikely, subsequent to your purchase, Content may be removed from
the Services and become unavailable for further download or access
from Apple (for instance, because Apple loses its right from the
Content provider to make it available). To ensure your ability to
continue enjoying Content, we encourage you to download all
purchased Content to a device in your possession and to back it
up.
The lawsuit, Morehouse et al v. Apple, Inc., was filed in a U.S.
district court in San Jose on Tuesday, April 1. The plaintiffs are
seeking up to $5 billion in damages, with the proposed class being
all individuals who purchased a digital book or audiobook from the
Apple Books store within the to-be-determined class period. A judge
has yet to be assigned to the case, and it remains to be seen if
the class action lawsuit is certified and proceeds to trial.
The complaint was filed by law firm Siri & Glimstad LLP. [GN]
ASK MEDIA: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due June 8
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Insurance King Agency,
Inc. v. Ask Media Group, LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-09509-TLT (N.D.
Cal.), the Hon. Judge Trina Thompson entered a case management and
scheduling order as follows:
Trial Date: Sept. 13, 2027
Final Pretrial Conference: July 29, 2027
Expert Discovery Cut-Off: March 1, 2027
Fact Discovery Cut-Off: Nov. 30, 2026
Class Certification Motion Hearing: Oct. 20, 2026
Class Certification Reply Due: Sept. 17, 2026
Class Certification Opposition Due: Aug. 10, 2026
Class Certification Motion Due: June 8, 2026
Ask Media is a collection of websites that help curious people find
the information they need.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 3, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wLEPn8 at no extra
charge.[CC]
ATHENA COSMETICS: Class Cert Bid Filing in Slattery Due Nov. 24
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DORIANN SLATTERY, v.
ATHENA COSMETICS, INC., Case No. 2:23-cv-10078-HDV-AJR (C.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Hernan Vera entered an order granting joint
stipulation to modify scheduling order:
Event New Date
Fact Discovery Cut-Off July 13,2025
Deadline for Plaintiff's Expert Aug. 8, 2025
Disclosures:
Deadline for Plaintiff's Motion for Nov. 24, 2025
Class Certification:
Deadline for Defendant's Response to Dec. 23, 2025
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification:
Deadline for Plaintiff's Reply in Support Jan. 6, 2026
of Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification:
Hearing on Class Certification: Feb. 5, 2026 at
10am
Athena is engaged in the wholesale distribution of prescription
drugs, and proprietary drugs.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 3, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IrrBzx at no extra
charge.[CC]
AUTOMATIC APPLIANCE: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline Fernandez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. AUTOMATIC APPLIANCE PARTS, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-02705
(S.D.N.Y., April 1, 2025), is brought against Defendant for the
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's
website, www.automaticnewyork.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
AXON ENTERPRISE: GovGPT's Motion for Centralization Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case styled IN RE: AXON ENTERPRISE, INC., BODY-WORN CAMERA
AND DIGITAL EVIDENCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ANTITRUST LITIGATION, MDL
No. 3145, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation denied GovernmentGPT Incorporated's motion for
centralization.
Plaintiff GovGPT moves under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407 to centralize this
litigation in the District of New Jersey. The litigation consists
of two actions pending in two districts as listed on Schedule A –
one in the District of Arizona (GovGPT) and another in the District
of New Jersey (Township of Howell). Plaintiffs in Township of
Howell oppose centralization. Defendants Axon Enterprise, Inc., and
Safariland LLC also oppose centralization and, alternatively,
propose the District of New Jersey.
There are only two actions in this litigation, and no potential
tag-along actions have been filed since GovGPT sought
centralization. Additionally, the actions present significant
differences that likely will diminish the potential efficiencies
from centralizing these two cases. For example, the Township of
Howell action is a putative nationwide class action on behalf of
purchasers of Axon BWC systems, which likely will involve class
certification discovery and motions irrelevant to GovGPT, an
individual competitor action. Further, GovGPT involves factual
issues about alleged security risks posed by Axon's BWC systems
that are not raised in Township of Howell. Moreover, the alleged
security risks already have been the subject of significant
proceedings in the District of Arizona.
The Panel concludes that centralization will not serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses or further the just and
efficient conduct of the litigation. The actions unquestionably
share common factual allegations concerning Axon's alleged
monopolization of the market for body-worn camera (BWC) systems and
digital evidence management systems. Where only a minimal number of
actions are involved, like the two actions here, the proponent of
centralization bears a heavier burden to demonstrate that
centralization is appropriate. Moving plaintiff has failed to meet
that burden.
They add that they have stated that centralization under Section
1407 should be the last solution after considered review of all
other options. Among these options are voluntary cooperation and
coordination among the parties and the involved courts to avoid
duplicative discovery or inconsistent pretrial rulings. Their
review of the record indicates that the parties have not yet
seriously pursued informal coordination, which provides a
practicable alternative to formal centralization under Section
1407.
A copy of the Panel's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=93GIp4
BAKKT HOLDINGS: Faces Class Action Suit Over Misleading Statements
------------------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against Bakkt
Holdings, Inc. ("Bakkt" or "the Company") (NYSE: BKKT). The lawsuit
alleges that Defendants made materially false and/or misleading
statements, and/or failed to disclose material adverse facts
regarding Bakkt's business, operations, and prospects, including
allegations that: (1) Bakkt misrepresented the stability and/or
diversity of its crypto services revenue; (2) the Company failed to
disclose Bakkt's Crypto services revenue was substantially
dependent on a single contract with Webull; and (3) Bakkt
misrepresented its ability to maintain key client relationships.
If you bought shares of Bakkt between March 25, 2024 and March 17,
2025, and you suffered a significant loss on that investment, you
are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey D.
Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at
(888) 508-6832 or you may visit the firm's website at
www.holzerlaw.com/case/bakkt-holdings/ to learn more.
The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the
case is June 2, 2025.
Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law
firm for 2021, 2022, and 2023, dedicates its practice to vigorous
representation of shareholders and investors in litigation
nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative
litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys
have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of
dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate
misconduct. More information about the firm is available through
its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm.
Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this
promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney
responsible for its content.
CONTACT:
Corey Holzer, Esq.
(888) 508-6832 (toll-free)
cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN]
BAYEH PIZZA INC: Cruz Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Bayeh Pizza, Inc., et
al. The case is styled as Adalberto Cruz Cruz, an individual and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Bayeh Pizza, Inc., Piara
Pizza, Case No. 25STCV09445 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.,
April 1, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
Piara Pizza -- https://piarapizza.com/ -- offers fresh, fast Pizza,
Hot Wings, Cheesy Bread and Breadsticks for your dining
pleasure.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Robert David Wilson, III, Esq.
WILSON LAW
5173 Waring Rd., Ste. A Pmb 70
San Diego, CA 92120-2705
Phone: 858-833-8611
Email: wilsonesq3@gmail.com
BAYER: Files Writ of Certiorari in Durnell Roundup Case
-------------------------------------------------------
On April 4, 2025, Bayer -- through its indirect subsidiary Monsanto
-- filed its petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S.
Supreme Court in the Durnell case, just three business days after
the Missouri Supreme Court's decision created a pathway toward the
high court's review. The company argues that a split among federal
circuit courts in the Roundup(TM) personal injury litigation, on
the cross-cutting question of whether federal law preempts
state-based failure-to-warn claims, warrants review and resolution
by the country's top court. The stakes could not be higher as tens
of thousands of Roundup(TM) cases are pending in state and federal
courts, all of which rest on state-based failure-to-warn claims
that should be preempted by federal law. The ongoing litigation
also threatens Monsanto's ability to continue to supply
glyphosate-based products to farmers and other professional users.
The security and affordability of the food supply depend on having
innovative agricultural tools like Roundup(TM) available to farmers
with uniform and science-based labels that everyone in the stream
of commerce can rely on, as dictated by federal law. Yet the
litigation industry is spending hundreds of millions of dollars,
based on a single outlier report that is now a decade old, in an
effort to punish the company for marketing a product without a
cancer warning, even though the EPA and every other health
regulator worldwide that has assessed the safety of glyphosate, the
active ingredient in Roundup(TM), has found that it does not cause
cancer. A favorable ruling by the Supreme Court could largely
curtail this litigation.
The company argues that the Third Circuit Court of Appeals was
correct when it unanimously held in Schaffner that the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) expressly
preempted the plaintiff's failure-to-warn claim, because a jury
verdict in his favor would impose labeling requirements different
from what EPA requires in administering FIFRA. FIFRA's express
preemption clause declares that a state 'shall not impose or
continue in effect any requirements for labeling . . . in addition
to or different from those required' under federal law.
In Durnell, the jury's verdict rests solely on the claim that
Missouri law requires the company to warn that Roundup(TM) is
carcinogenic, the precise warning that EPA rejects. This claim is
plainly in conflict with the product label EPA approved under
federal law, based on the agency's rigorous scientific assessment,
and cannot be changed without agency approval. Thus, it is
expressly preempted.
The 9th and 11th Circuits and Missouri's intermediate appellate
court have reached different conclusions on the preemption question
and the petition argues that state and federal courts require
guidance that only the U.S. Supreme Court can provide. The petition
states that courts in Hardeman, Carson and Durnell erred because
they ignored EPA regulations that require agency approval in
advance of any label change, especially precautionary statements
regarding human health. Thus, a state-based requirement to provide
a cancer warning not currently on the EPA approved label is 'in
addition to or different from' federal requirements and thus
expressly preempted by FIFRA's labeling requirements. Moreover,
these contrary holdings would open the door to 50 different
state-required labels for glyphosate-containing herbicides, and any
other products governed by FIFRA, in conflict with the clear intent
and letter of the Uniformity provision of this federal law.
The petition also notes that there is preemption language similar
to FIFRA in statutes regulating medical devices, poultry products,
meat and motor vehicles that make resolution of this preemption
split even more important, as courts often are guided by prior
decisions interpreting similar language in other statutes.
Monsanto's petition argues that Durnell's state-based
failure-to-warn claim also should be dismissed under implied
preemption because it is impossible for the company to comply with
both federal and state requirements for the same reasons already
noted.
Monsanto filed two prior petitions in the Roundup(TM) litigation on
the federal preemption question with the U.S. Supreme Court, in
Hardeman and Pilliod, the second and third cases to go to trial.
Significantly, both petitions were filed before the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled in the company's favor in
Schaffner in August 2024, creating a circuit split.
In October 2023, Durnell was tried in Missouri Circuit Court for
the City of St. Louis and the jury returned a verdict in favor of
the plaintiff. The jury found the Company failed to warn of the
product's risk and awarded 1.25 million US-Dollars to the
plaintiff, but it rejected all other claims and declined to award
punitive damages. The company appealed the verdict in August 2024
and the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District upheld the
verdict in February 2025. Monsanto promptly filed a writ to
transfer the case to the Missouri Supreme Court and it declined
review on April 1, making it ripe for U.S. Supreme Court review and
the petition filed just three days later.
About Bayer
Bayer -- http://www.bayer.com-- is a global enterprise with core
competencies in the life science fields of health care and
nutrition. In line with its mission, "Health for all, Hunger for
none," the company's products and services are designed to help
people and the planet thrive by supporting efforts to master the
major challenges presented by a growing and aging global
population. Bayer is committed to driving sustainable development
and generating a positive impact with its businesses. At the same
time, the Group aims to increase its earning power and create value
through innovation and growth. The Bayer brand stands for trust,
reliability and quality throughout the world. In fiscal 2024, the
Group employed around 93,000 people and had sales of EUR46.6
billion. R&D expenses amounted to EUR6.2 billion.
BELMONT VILLAGE: Denise Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against BELMONT VILLAGE, L.P.
The case is styled as Huggins Denise, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated v. BELMONT VILLAGE, L.P., Case No.
25STCV09477 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 1, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
Belmont Village Senior Living -- https://www.belmontvillage.com/ --
offer assisted living, independent living & memory care programs
tailored for elder residents' needs.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638
Phone: 310-432-0000
Fax: 310-432-0001
Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
BLACKSTRAP INDUSTRIES: Calcano Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Marcos Calcano, on behalf of himself and all other persons
similarly situated v. BLACKSTRAP INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No.
1:25-cv-02680 (S.D.N.Y., April 1, 2025), is brought against the
Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired
persons.
The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and
therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a
violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website,
https://blackstrap.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.
BLACKSTRAP INDUSTRIES, INC., operates the Blackstrap online retail
store, as well as the Blackstrap interactive Website and
advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and
throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, N.Y. 10003-2461
Phone: (212) 228-9795
Fax: (212) 982-6284
Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal
Danalgottlieb@aol.com
Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal
BOAR'S HEAD: Settles Listeria Class Action Suit for $3.1 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Boar's Head Provisions Co. agreed to
a $3.1 million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims
that it sold recalled meat products contaminated with listeria.
The settlement benefits consumers who purchased Boar's Head
products between May 10 and August 12, 2024, that were later
recalled due to potential listeria contamination.
On July 25 and 29, 2024, Boar's Head announced a voluntary recall
of certain meat products due to potential listeria contamination.
Listeria is a foodborne illness that can cause serious symptoms in
healthy individuals but can be deadly for vulnerable populations,
such as the elderly, pregnant women and immunocompromised
individuals.
Consumers quickly took legal action against Boar's Head, arguing
the company should have known its products were contaminated with
listeria. Plaintiffs in the case say they suffered economic damages
when they purchased the contaminated products.
Boar's Head is a meat and cheese company that sells products in
delis and grocery stores across the country.
Boar's Head has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $3.1
million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve the
allegations.
Under the terms of the Boar's Head settlement, class members can
receive a full refund for each recalled product they purchased, if
they have proof of purchase. Without proof of purchase, class
members can receive an average retail price for up to two recalled
products per household.
If class members received reimbursement from Boar's Head for the
recalled products, their settlement payment will be reduced by the
amount of reimbursement they received.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is May 16, 2025.
The final approval hearing for the Boar's Head settlement is
scheduled for Aug. 13, 2025.
To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid
claim form by May 16, 2025.
Who's Eligible
Consumers who purchased certain Boar's Head meat products between
May 10, 2024, and Aug. 12, 2024, for personal use and not for
resale.
Potential Award
Full refund for products with proof of purchase; a limited cash
payout otherwise.
Proof of Purchase
Proof of purchase is required for class members who wish to claim
more than two products. Acceptable proof includes a receipt,
invoice or other documentation that identifies the product
purchased, the date of purchase, the location of purchase and the
purchase price.
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
05/16/2025
Case Name
Pompilio, et al. v. Boar's Head Provisions Co. Inc., Case No.
7:24-cv-08220-PMH, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York
Final Hearing
08/13/2025
Settlement Website
ColdCutRecallSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Cold Cut Recall Claim Administrator
1650 Arch Street, Suite 2210
Philadelphia, PA 19103
info@ColdCutRecallSettlement.com
(844) 905-4111
Class Counsel
Jason P. Sultzer
SULTZER & LIPARI PLLC
Nick Suciu III
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC
Michael R. Reese
REESE LLP
Paul Doolittle
POULIN WILLEY ANASTAPOULO LLC
Charles E. Schaffer
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP
Jeffrey K. Brown
LEEDS BROWN LAW P.C.
Defense Counsel
Nick P. Panayotopoulos
WEINBERG WHEELER HUDGINS GUNN & DIAL [GN]
BUCKLEY CABLE: Bids for Class Cert. in Duggan Suit Due Oct. 24
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SAMUEL DUGGAN, on behalf
of himself and all persons similarly situated, and ERIC LANEY, on
behalf of himself and all persons similarly situated, v. BUCKLEY
CABLE CONSTRUCTION CO., Case No. 2:24-cv-04188-MKC (E.D. Pa.), the
Hon. Judge Mary Kay Costello entered a scheduling order as
follows:
1. Motions regarding class certification, if any, shall be
filed by Oct. 24, 2025. Responses shall be filed no later
than No. 14, 2025. The Court will hold a hearing to address
the motion on Dec. 3, 2025, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom TBD,
United States District Court, 601 Market Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19106.
2. The parties shall complete all discovery by Dec. 19,
2025.
3. The parties shall complete fact discovery by Oct. 10, 2025.
4. The Plaintiffs shall serve expert reports, if any, on or
before Oct. 24, 2025.
5. The Defendant shall serve expert reports, if any, on or
before Nov. 21, 2025.
6. Responsive or supplemental expert reports, if any, must be
served on or before Dec. 5, 2025.
7. Motions for summary judgment or motions to exclude expert
testimony, if any, shall be filed by Feb. 23, 2026.
Responses shall be filed no later than March 16, 2026.
8. A trial readiness conference will be held on June 16, 2026,
at 10:00 a.m., in Chambers Room 3042 at the James A. Byrne
United States Courthouse located at 601 Market Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19106.
Buckley offers aerial and underground construction, general
maintenance, designing, and engineering services.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 3, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uk25i4 at no extra
charge.[CC]
C.H. ROBINSON: Moreno Labor Suit Removed to N.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------
The case styled CARLOS MORENO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. C.H. ROBINSON WORLDWIDE, INC.; C.H.
ROBINSON COMPANY, INC. and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
24CV074754, was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Alameda, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California on March 26, 2025.
The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:25-cv-02844 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and the California Business and Professions
Code including failure to provide meal periods, failure to provide
rest breaks, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to furnish
timely and accurate wage statements, failure to pay all wages owed
every pay period, failure to reimburse business expenses, and
unfair competition.
C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. is a transportation company
headquartered in Minnesota.
C.H. Robinson Company, Inc. is a transportation company
headquartered in Minnesota. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jack S. Sholkoff, Esq.
CARMEN M. AGUADO, Esq.
Vi N. Applen, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC
400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone: (213) 239-9800
Facsimile: (213) 239-9045
Email: jack.sholkoff@ogletree.com
carmen.aguado@ogletree.com
vi.applen@ogletree.com
C.H. ROBINSON: Woods Suit Remanded to Contra Costa Superior Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California remands the lawsuit captioned
ELIZABETH WOODS, Plaintiff v. C.H. ROBINSON COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00294-SK (N.D. Cal.), to the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Contra Costa.
Plaintiff Elizabeth Woods, a former employee of Defendant C.H.
Robinson Company, Inc. filed this putative class action seeking
relief under California's wage and hour laws. The matter comes
before the Court upon consideration of the Plaintiff's motion to
remand.
The Plaintiff filed this class action in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of Contra Costa on Nov. 27,
2024. The Complaint asserts seven causes of action: (1) failure to
pay all overtime wages in violation of California Labor Code, (2)
failure to provide all meal periods in violation of California
Labor Code, and California Civil Code, (3) failure to provide all
rest periods in violation of California Labor Code and California
Civil Code, (4) failure to pay all sick time in violation of
California Labor Code, the applicable Wage Orders, and California
Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5, (5) failure to provide
accurate itemized wage statements in violation of California Labor
Code, (6) failure to reimburse necessary business expenses, and (7)
unfair competition in violation of California Business and
Professions Code. The Complaint did not include an estimate of
damages.
On Jan. 8, 2025, the Defendant removed the case to federal court
under the Class Action Fairness Act. In doing so, the Defendant
argued that the Plaintiff's claims for unpaid overtime wages, meal
and rest premiums, wage statement penalties, and unreimbursed
business expenses place $8,869,192 in controversy. The Defendant's
calculation of the amount in controversy ("AIC") relied on analysis
conducted by economist Ariel Kumpinsky.
Kumpinsky reviewed an Excel spreadsheet that contained a list of
dates that employees were hired, dates that employees' employment
ended, and rates of pay for the hourly employees, who worked for
the Defendant during the period Nov. 27, 2020, through April 13,
2024. Kumpinsky concluded that the putative class includes at least
564 persons, who received an average hourly rate of $28.97. The
putative class members worked at least 59,389 workweeks during the
period and received 2,771 wage statements.
In addition, the Defendant made self-described "conservative
assumption[s]" about the violation rate for each claim. The
Defendant assumed that each putative class member worked one hour
of unpaid overtime per workweek, missed one meal break and one rest
break per workweek, suffered one wage statement violation for every
pay period, and incurred $5 in unreimbursed business expenses per
workweek.
On Jan. 30, 2025, the Plaintiff moved to remand the action back to
state court, arguing that the Defendant's calculation of AIC rests
on unreasonable assumptions about the rate of violation. Both
parties submitted briefing. The Court heard oral argument on March
24, 2025.
The Defendant estimated an AIC of $8,869,192 based on the
Plaintiff's claims of failure to pay all overtime wages, failure to
provide meal and rest breaks, failure to provide accurate wage
statements, and failure to reimburse necessary business expenses.
The Plaintiff does not challenge the Defendant's valuation of the
claim for failure to reimburse necessary business expenses but
argues that the valuations for the remaining claims are based on
unreasonable assumptions.
Judge Kim holds that the Defendant's assumption that each putative
class member worked one hour of unpaid overtime per workweek is
unreasonable. The Plaintiff does not allege that class members
worked unpaid overtime hours. Rather, the Plaintiff alleges that
class members worked underpaid overtime hours because the Defendant
failed to properly calculate the overtime rate. The Defendant
conceded this point during oral argument.
Because neither party provided information about the range of
incentive pay and other forms of renumeration, the Court is not in
a position to calculate a better alternative to the Defendant's
unreasonable assumption. In these circumstances, Judge Kim says it
is appropriate to assign a value of $0 to the overtime claim.
The Defendant's assumption that all class members worked qualifying
shifts is not supported by the language of the Complaint or by any
other evidence, and it is, therefore, unreasonable, Judge Kim
holds. Because neither party submitted information about the length
of class members' workdays, the Court is not in a position to
calculate a better alternative to the Defendant's unreasonable
assumption, and it is appropriate to assign a value of $0 to the
overtime claim.
Absent the overtime, meal, and rest claims, Judge Kim points out
that the Defendants' AIC calculation necessarily falls below the $5
million jurisdictional threshold. The Defendant estimates that
$2,550,500 is the amount in controversy for the claim for failure
to provide accurate wage statements and that $296,945 is the amount
in controversy for the claim for failure to reimburse expenses. The
total of these two claims is $2,847,445.
Because this amount is below $5 million, the Court need not reach
the issue of whether the Defendant's wage statement claim valuation
is supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
For these reasons, Judge Kim finds the Defendant has not carried
its burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, that
CAFA's amount-in-controversy requirement is satisfied. Accordingly,
the Court grants the Plaintiff's motion to remand the case to
Contra Costa Superior Court.
If the Defendant later discovers evidence demonstrating that the
jurisdictional bar is met, it may once again attempt to remove this
case to federal court.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/29saujfc from PacerMonitor.com.
C3.AI INC: Reckstein Shareholder Suit Ongoing in California Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
C3.ai, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q report for the quarterly
period ended January 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission in February 28, 2025, that it is facing a
putative securities class action complaint captioned "The Reckstin
Family Trust v. C3.ai, Inc. et al.," Case 22-cv-01413-HSG (March 4,
2022, N.D. Cal.) against the company, and certain current and
former officers and directors.
On February 15, 2023, the lead plaintiff and three additional named
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The amended complaint names
as defendants the company, four current and former officers and
directors, the underwriters in its initial public offering (IPO),
and Baker Hughes Company. The amended complaint generally alleges
that the defendants made material misstatements or omissions about
its partnership with Baker Hughes and the company's own salesforce.
The amended complaint alleges that defendants made these
misstatements or omissions in connection with the company's IPO in
violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and
between December 9, 2020 and December 2, 2021, inclusive, in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. On December 12, 2022, the court appointed a lead
plaintiff and lead counsel.
The amended complaint further alleges that certain defendants
engaged in insider trading in violation of Section 20A of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Plaintiffs seek unspecified
damages, interest, fees and costs. All defendants have now moved to
dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint on May 1, 2023.
On June 30, 2023, Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the underwriter
defendants. On February 22, 2024, the court granted the motion to
dismiss on all claims except for portions of the alleged violations
of Section 11 and Section 15. Plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint on April 4, 2024. Defendants filed motions to dismiss on
May 17, 2024. Plaintiffs filed an opposition brief on July 15,
2024. While the motions were pending, Plaintiffs filed a motion to
amend their second amended complaint on September 27, 2024 to add
new factual allegations. The parties have thus stayed the briefing
on the motion to dismiss until the motion to amend is resolved.
Defendants filed an opposition to the motion to amend on November
12, 2024. On February 13, 2025, the court granted plaintiffs’
motion to amend, and the latter filed their third amended complaint
on February 14, 2025. Briefing for the revised motion to dismiss is
expected to be complete in June 2025.
C3.ai, Inc. is an enterprise artificial intelligence (AI) software
provider with prebuilt and configurable AI applications for
business use.
CAMDEN NATIONAL: Lessner Sues Over Disclosed Clients' Personal Info
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL LESSNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. CAMDEN NATIONAL CORPORATION d/b/a CAMDEN
NATIONAL BANK, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00109-KFW (D. Me., March
26, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence,
negligence per se, invasion of privacy, trespass to chattel, breach
of confidence, breach of express and implied contract, unjust
enrichment (in the alternative to contract claims), bailment,
declaratory judgment, violation of privacy, and violations of the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the Computer Fraud and
Abuse Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has disclosed the
personal and financial information of its customers to third
parties without consent. The Defendant installed tracking
technologies, including, but not limited to, the Meta Pixel and
Google Analytics, on its website to collect and disclose the said
information. As a result, the Defendant violated the Plaintiff's
and the Class members' statutorily protected privacy rights.
Camden National Corporation, doing business as Camden National
Bank, is a national banking association, headquartered in Camden,
Maine. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dov Sacks, Esq.
INDEPENDENCE LAW MAINE AND NEW HAMPSHIRE
P.O. Box 406
Auburn, ME 04212
Telephone: (207) 241-9717
Email: Dov@independencelawmaine.com
- and -
Lynn A. Toops, Esq.
Amina A. Thomas, Esq.
COHEN & MALAD, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 1400
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 636-6481
Email: ltoops@cohenandmalad.com
athomas@cohenandmalad.com
- and -
J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq.
Emily E. Schiller, Esq.
STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC
223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200
Nashville, TN 37203
Telephone: (615) 254-8801
Facsimile: (615) 255-5419
Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com
eschiller@stranchlaw.com
- and -
Samuel J. Strauss, Esq.
Raina C. Borrelli, Esq.
STRAUSS BORRELLI, PLLC
980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610
Chicago, IN 60611
Telephone: (872) 263-1100
Facsimile: (872) 263-1109
Email: sam@straussborrelli.com
raina@straussborrelli.com
CELESTRON ACQUISITION: DPPs' Bid for Financial Assurance Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Jose Division, denies the DPPs' Motion
Requesting Financial Assurance and Asset Information in the
consolidated lawsuit captioned IN RE TELESCOPES ANTITRUST
LITIGATION, Case No. 5:20-cv-03642-EJD (N.D. Cal.).
Plaintiffs Aurora Astro Products LLC and Pioneer Cycling & Fitness,
LLP bring this putative antitrust class action on behalf of
themselves and a proposed class of Plaintiffs, who directly
purchased telescopes ("direct purchaser plaintiffs" or "DPPs")
manufactured or sold by Defendants Celestron Acquisition, LLC,
Suzhou Synta Optical Technology Co., Ltd., Synta Canada Int'l
Enterprises Ltd., SW Technology Corp., Olivon Manufacturing Co.
Ltd., Olivon USA, LLC, Nantong Schmidt Optoelectrical Technology
Co. Ltd., Ningbo Sunny Electronic Co., Ltd., Pacific Telescope
Corp., Corey Lee, David Shen, Sylvia Shen, Jack Chen, Jean Shen,
Joseph Lupica, Dave Anderson, and Laurence Huen.
The DPPs seek an order requiring that the Defendants identify their
assets and cease transferring money outside of the United States,
excluding transfers made in the ordinary course of business. The
DPPs bring this motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23, Rule 64, and the Court's "inherent authority."
The DPPs generally contend that the Defendants are likely to
dissipate their assets prior to any potential judgment in this case
because they have a fraudulent corporate structure, they have
routinely sent money abroad, and they have a history of judgment
avoidance.
The Defendants oppose, arguing that the DPPs' allegations are
unfounded, have already been found meritless, and fail to satisfy
the factors required for a preliminary injunction.
Judge Davila notes that the DPPs' request is a request for
injunctive relief. Securing such relief requires a motion for a
preliminary injunction, Judge Davila opines. However, the DPPs fail
to acknowledge that they seek a preliminary injunction, and
accordingly, fail to provide the Court with the relevant standard
for securing a preliminary injunction in these circumstances.
Instead, the DPPs argue that they are entitled to relief under Rule
64, which might provide the Court authority to grant the requested
equitable relief, but does not provide the standard upon which
parties must show they are entitled to this relief. The DPPs also
appear to argue that the standard here is the "likelihood of
dissipation of the claimed assets," but the cases the DPPs cite
generally consider this element in the context of the factors under
Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008),
specifically the factor examining irreparable harm, Judge Davila
opines.
The DPPs' failure to brief a relevant standard necessitates
dismissal without prejudice, Judge Davila holds. However, to
provide guidance to the parties in the event that the DPPs choose
to re-file their request in another form, and in consideration of
DPPs' history of raising these and similar arguments in other
forums, the Court will examine DPPs' motion under the Winter
factors.
The Court assumes this is the applicable standard because the cases
discussing the "likelihood of dissipation of the claimed assets" do
so in the context of Winter, the DPPs' motion discusses some of the
Winter factors, such as irreparable harm, and DPPs' reply notes
that Rule 64 permits equitable relief in cases where the party has
shown "a likelihood of success on the merits," another Winter
factor.
Judge Davila finds the DPPs do not make any arguments directly
addressing the likelihood of success on the merits other than
conclusorily stating in their reply, without explanation or
argument, that they have shown a likelihood of success on the
merits. As the Court described in its recent order granting class
certification, antitrust violations also require a showing of an
antitrust injury and measurable damages.
If the Defendants do move all their assets outside of the United
States, Judge Davila says this would likely frustrate any potential
judgment collection efforts and cause irreparable harm. However,
Judge Davila points out that there is no evidence that this is
likely to occur.
Also fatal to the DPPs' motion, Judge Davila finds the DPPs fail to
present any evidence, or make any arguments, showing recent conduct
by the Defendants that necessitate the DPPs' request for such an
extraordinary remedy at this time. The most recent piece of
evidence the DPPs produce are deposition transcripts from 2023,
which describe conduct occurring in the years prior. All other
evidence of emails, financial statements, and other documents date
back as far as 2009.
Accordingly, the Court finds that the DPPs have failed to present
evidence sufficient to meet their burden to show the Defendants are
likely to move their assets out of the country before any potential
judgment.
Based on the foregoing, the Court denies the DPPs' motion for an
order that requires the Defendants identify their assets and
prevents them from transferring money out of the United States.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3wjzm7w3 from PacerMonitor.com.
CENTERRA INTEGRATED: Nieves Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled ANTONIO S. NIEVES, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. CENTERRA INTEGRATED FLEET
SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV04361,
was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on March 28, 2025.
The Clerk of Court for the Central District of California assigned
Case No. 2:25-cv-02729 to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code
including failure to pay wages for all hours worked at minimum
wage, failure to pay overtime, failure to authorize or permit meal
periods, failure to authorize or permit rest periods, failure to
indemnify employees for employment-related losses/expenditures,
failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements, failure
to timely pay all earned wages and final paychecks due at time of
separation, and unfair business practices.
Centerra Integrated Fleet Services, LLC is a provider of vehicle
management and maintenance services, headquartered in Virginia.
[BN]
The Defendant is represented by:
Sabrina A. Beldner, Esq.
David Szwarcsztejn, Esq.
Charles J. Urena, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS LLP
1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 315-8200
Facsimile: (310) 315-8210
Email: sbeldner@mcguirewoods.com
dszwarcsztejn@mcguirewoods.com
curena@mcguirewoods.com
CEREVEL THERAPEUTICS: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Entwistle & Cappucci LLP ("Entwistle & Cappucci") announced that
its ongoing investigation has led to the filing of a class action
(the "Action") against Cerevel Therapeutics Holdings, Inc.
("Cerevel" or the "Company"), Bain Capital Investors, LLC ("Bain")
and Pfizer, Inc. ("Pfizer") on behalf of a class (the "Class")
consisting of all persons or entities that:
(a) sold or otherwise disposed of the publicly-traded common stock
of Cerevel during the period from October 11, 2023 through August
1, 2024, inclusive, and thus were damaged by defendants' violations
of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange
Act"); (b) held shares of Cerevel as of January 8, 2024 (the
"Record Date") and were entitled to vote on the merger of Cerevel
and AbbVie Inc. ("AbbVie") and thus were damaged by defendants'
violations of Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act; and/or (c) sold
shares of Cerevel stock contemporaneously with Bain's purchase of
shares on or about October 16, 2023 and thus were damaged by Bain's
violations of Section 20A of the Exchange Act.
The Action seeks to recover damages resulting from defendants'
omissions and other wrongdoing in connection with Cerevel's October
16, 2023 secondary stock offering (the "October Offering" or
"Offering"). In this regard, the complaint alleges that Cerevel's
Offering documents and other public statements omitted material
facts regarding AbbVie's interest in acquiring Cerevel at a price
well in excess of the $22.81 per share Offering price, artificially
deflating Cerevel's stock price until the merger was announced.
Moreover, Cerevel's controlling shareholder, Bain, acquired Cerevel
shares from the October Offering at an artificially depressed price
while allegedly in possession of material nonpublic information
regarding AbbVie's interest. On December 6, 2023 (less than two
months after the October Offering), Cerevel publicly announced that
AbbVie agreed to acquire Cerevel for $45 per share. The merger
allowed Bain to receive a windfall of more than $120 million on the
shares it acquired at the artificially depressed Offering price.
The Action also seeks to recover damages on behalf of investors
that held shares as of the January 8, 2024 Record Date and were
damaged as a result of defendants' allegedly false and misleading
statements and omissions of material facts in Cerevel's January 18,
2024 Proxy statement (the "Proxy"). Among other things, the
complaint alleges the Proxy misled investors regarding the true
nature and timing of AbbVie's interest in Cerevel.
The Action was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware and is captioned: S/M Merger Arbitrage, L.P.
v. Cerevel Therapeutics Holdings, Inc., No. 25-cv-417 (D. Del.).
The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b), 14(a), 20A and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this matter, you must
file a motion with the Court no later than June 3, 2025. Any member
of the proposed Class may move the Court to serve as a lead
plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or they may choose to do
nothing and remain a member of the Class.
If you wish to discuss this Action or have any questions concerning
this notice or your rights or interests, please contact: Robert N.
Cappucci, Esq. or Andrew M. Sher, Esq. of Entwistle & Cappucci at
(212) 894-7200 or via e-mail at rcappucci@entwistle-law.com or
asher@entwistle-law.com.
About Entwistle & Cappucci
Entwistle & Cappucci is a national law firm providing exceptional
legal representation to clients in the most complex and challenging
legal matters. Our practice encompasses all areas of litigation,
corporate transactions, bankruptcy, insurance, corporate
investigations and white-collar defense. Our clients include public
and private corporations, major hedge funds, public pension funds,
governmental entities, leading institutional investors, domestic
and foreign financial services companies, emerging business
enterprises and individual entrepreneurs.
Contacts
Robert N. Cappucci, Esq.
Andrew M. Sher, Esq.
Entwistle & Cappucci LLP
230 Park Avenue, 3rd Floor
New York, NY 10169
Telephone: (212) 894-7200
E-mail: rcappucci@entwistle-law.com
(asher@entwistle-law.com[GN]
CLEANRITE INC: Cuevas Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------------
RAY CUEVAS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. CLEANRITE, INC., a California Corporation; and DOES 1-50,
inclusive, Case No. 25CV01087 (Cal. Super., Butte Cty., March 19,
2025) seeks to recover unpaid wages, restitution, penalties, and
other related relief for himself and all other similarly situated
non-exempt employees under the California Labor Code and Business
and Professions Code.
The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to pay for all hours
worked due to its failure to record and pay for all time worked
on-call and standby time. The Plaintiff further alleges that
Defendant failed to pay all overtime and sick pay compensation at
the proper legal rates by failing to properly calculate the
"regular rate of pay." Moreover, the Plaintiff alleges that
Defendant failed to pay all wages in a timely manner in violation
of Labor Code section 204.
Next, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant's meal and rest
period policies and practices failed to allow and permit non-exempt
employees to take all compliant and timely meal and rest periods or
pay premium wages at the "regular rate of pay" in lieu thereof.
The Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant failed to provide
non-exempt employees with accurate written itemized wage statements
in violation of Labor Code section 226(a), failed to reimburse all
necessary business expenses incurred, and failed to timely pay all
final wages upon separation of employment in violation of Labor
Code sections 201-203.
The Defendant provides cleaning and maintenance services. The
Defendant offers reconstruction and repair services for damage
caused by wind, water, mold, fire, and smoke.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq.
BOKHOUR LAW GROUP, P.C.
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 920
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 975-1493
Facsimile: (310) 675-0861
E-mail: mehrdad@bokhourlaw.com
- and -
Falakassa, Esq.
FALAKASSA LAW, P.C.
1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 920
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (818) 456-6168
Facsimile: (888) 505-0868
E-mail: josh@falakassalaw.com
COAST TO COAST: Cardenas Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Coast To Coast
Computer Products, Inc. The case is styled as Tera Cardenas,
individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees
v. Coast To Coast Computer Products, Inc., Case No. 25STCV09438
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 1, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
Coast to Coast Computer Products, Inc. -- https://coastcoast.com/
-- is your one stop shop for all the leading brand name ink, toner,
office, and IT supplies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan M. Genish, Esq.
BLACKSTONE LAW
8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442
Phone: 855-786-6355
Fax: 855-786-6356
Email: jgenish@blackstonepc.com
CONTINENTAL FINANCE: Denial of Arbitration Bid in Cider Affirmed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TIFFANY JOHNSON and TRACY I. CRIDER, Plaintiffs, v.
CONTINENTAL FINANCE COMPANY, LLC, et al., Defendants, Nos. 23-2047
& 23-2049 (4th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit on March 11, 2025, affirmed a Maryland federal court's
denial of Continental's motion to compel arbitration, finding the
arbitration agreement in its credit card contracts to be illusory
and unenforceable.
The case arose when Maryland residents Tiffany Johnson and Tracy
Crider filed class action lawsuits against Continental Finance
Company, LLC and its subsidiary Continental Purchasing, LLC,
alleging violations of Maryland’s usury laws. The complaints,
later consolidated, claimed that Continental used a
“rent-a-bank” scheme to skirt state interest rate limits by
routing high-interest loans through a federally chartered bank and
then immediately acquiring the loans for servicing and collection.
Plaintiffs alleged that despite structuring the loans through
exempt banks, Continental acted as the de facto lender and thus
remained subject to Maryland’s interest caps. They sought
declaratory relief and statutory damages, claiming the loans were
void and unenforceable under Maryland law. Continental removed the
suits to federal court and moved to compel arbitration under a
cardholder agreement that Plaintiffs had allegedly accepted by
activating and using their credit cards.
The cardholder agreement included a broad arbitration clause and a
"change-in-terms" provision stating Continental could "change any
term of the Agreement in its sole discretion, upon such notice
required by law." Johnson and Crider opposed the motion, arguing
that the unilateral modification power rendered the entire
agreement—including the arbitration clause—illusory and thus
unenforceable under Maryland contract law.
Plaintiffs sought to represent a class defined as "All Maryland
residents who entered into credit card agreements with Continental
Finance Company, LLC and/or Continental Purchasing, LLC and were
charged interest rates in excess of Maryland’s statutory limits
through alleged rent-a-bank lending practices."
Tiffany Johnson and Tracy Crider were the proposed class
representatives. Counsel for Plaintiffs included Richard S. Gordon
and Benjamin H. Carney of Gordon, Wolf & Carney, CHTD., along with
Leah Nicholls of Public Justice.
Judge Paula Xinis of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland denied Continental’s motion to compel arbitration,
holding that the arbitration agreement lacked mutuality and
consideration, making it illusory under Maryland law. She also
rejected Continental’s argument that the court should defer the
issue to the arbitrator based on the delegation clause, explaining
that issues of contract formation must be resolved by the court,
not an arbitrator.
The Fourth Circuit, in an opinion authored by Judge Wilkinson and
joined by Judge Wynn, affirmed. The court first held that questions
regarding contract formation—specifically whether the arbitration
agreement was ever validly formed—must be decided by courts, not
arbitrators, even when the arbitration clause purports to delegate
such questions. Judge Wilkinson emphasized that "no agreement, no
arbitration," and relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Granite
Rock Co. v. Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters, which distinguishes
between contract formation and validity.
Applying Maryland law, the court concluded that the arbitration
agreement was unenforceable because the change-in-terms clause
allowed Continental to alter any part of the agreement, including
the arbitration clause, at its sole discretion. Even though the
clause required “notice as required by law,” the court found
this language insufficient to create a meaningful limitation. The
court contrasted this clause with the more narrowly tailored one
upheld in Holloman v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., which required
30-day notice and permitted changes only once per year.
Here, Continental retained the unilateral right to change the
contract at any time, and the court found the notice language so
vague as to be meaningless. The court emphasized that Maryland law
requires mutual obligation for a contract to be enforceable and
that a promise subject to unlimited modification is not a promise
at all.
Judge Wynn wrote a concurring opinion underscoring that the
formation challenge was limited to the arbitration agreement and
did not call into question the validity of the cardholder agreement
as a whole. He agreed that Maryland law treats arbitration
provisions as separate bilateral contracts, requiring their own
independent consideration.
Judge Niemeyer dissented in part, arguing that the agreement should
have been enforceable because Continental’s modification power
was limited by the notice requirement and the plaintiffs' ability
to opt out by ceasing use of the card. He distinguished the case
from Cheek v. United Healthcare, which involved a modification
clause allowing changes without any notice.
The Fourth Circuit’s decision has broad implications for the
enforceability of arbitration clauses embedded in financial
agreements with discretionary modification provisions. It
underscores the need for lenders and service providers to draft
such clauses with precision and to include clear constraints on
unilateral changes, particularly where state law, like
Maryland’s, requires substantive mutuality to support enforceable
arbitration.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2s3m66dp
Richard S. Gordon -- rgordon@gordonwolf.com -- & Benjamin H. Carney
-- bcarney@gordonwolf.com -- GORDON, WOLF & CARNEY, CHTD., Hunt
Valley, Maryland; Leah M. Nicholls -- lnicholls@publicjustice.net
-- PUBLIC JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Counsel for Plaintiffs
Fredrick S. Levin -- flevin@orrick.com -- & Sarah B. Meehan --
smeehan@orrick.com -- ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP, Santa
Monica, California and Washington, D.C.; Counsel for Defendants
Continental Finance Company, LLC and Continental Purchasing, LLC.
CONTRACT SOLUTIONS: Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Response
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID RUSSELL on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, v. CONTRACT SOLUTIONS, LLC,
d/b/a CONEXA TECHNOLOGIES, et al., Case No. 8:24-cv-02421-CEH-AAS
(M.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order for an
enlargement of time, up to and including May 4, 2025, to respond to
the Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of a
collective action.
Contract Solutions provides professional engineering services.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 3, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wnOSsk at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
Dennis M. McClelland, Esq.
Austin A. Laurienzo, Esq.
PHELPS DUNBAR LLP
100 South Ashley Drive, Suite 2000
Tampa, FL 33602-5315
Telephone: (813) 472-7550
Facsimile: (813) 472-7570
E-mail: dennis.mcclelland@phelps.com
austin.laurienzo@phelps.com
COUNTRY MUTUAL: W.D. Washington Grants Bid to Dismiss Cameron Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Ricardo S. Martinez of the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Seattle, grants the Defendants'
motion to dismiss the lawsuit titled GEORGE CAMERON AND JANIN
CAMERON, Country Mutual Insurance Company claimants, and all others
similarly situated throughout Washington State and the United
States of America, Plaintiffs v. COUNTRY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
an insurance company, et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:24-cv-02147-RSM (W.D. Wash.).
The matter comes before the Court on Defendants Country Casualty
Insurance Company, Country Preferred Insurance Company, Country
Investors Life Assurance Company, and Country Life Insurance
Company (collectively, "Country Affiliates")'s Motion to Dismiss
under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Defendant Country Mutual Insurance Company, represented
by the counsel, does not join this Motion and intends to file its
answer after the instant Motion is resolved. The Plaintiffs
oppose.
The action was removed from the King County Superior Court on Dec.
27, 2024. Plaintiffs George and Janin Cameron bring this putative
class action against the Country Affiliates, as well as Country
Mutual Insurance Company and "Country Financial."
On Aug. 28, 2021, the Plaintiffs renewed an insurance policy
"cobranded with both Country Financial and Country Mutual Insurance
Company branding." The policy insured a Challenger tractor valued
at $84,500 and a Kirby bale processor valued at $45,000. It covered
fire damage and debris removal as well as damage to tires.
On Jan. 8, 2022, George Cameron was towing the Kirby bale processor
with his Challenger tractor. An unknown malfunction caused the
tractor to catch fire. Both the tractor and the bale processor were
damaged. Mr. Cameron soon reported the occurrence to Country Mutual
Insurance Company. No insurance employee came to investigate the
damage.
Country Mutual Insurance Company instead adopted the lowest
valuation of the Challenger as the actual value of the Challenger
and sent out a check which only covered damages for its valuation
of the Challenger and part of the repair costs of the Kirby thus in
part denying Cameron's claim. This did not cover debris removal, a
lost tire, or lost fuel. The Plaintiffs sent the check back and
later sent in additional documents to support their claims.
On Feb. 12, 2024, Country Mutual Insurance Company sent a letter
stating that all other claims would be denied as the one-year time
limit on claims had elapsed and because the quotes were
insufficient evidence of loss.
Although the Complaint fails to mention where the Plaintiffs live,
where the Defendants are located, where the insured property is
located, or where any of the insurance agreements were signed, the
policy indicates that the insured property was located on a farm in
Eastern Washington. The policy lists mailing addresses for Country
Mutual Insurance Company in Salem, Oregon, and Bloomington,
Illinois.
Judge Martinez notes that this is not the Plaintiffs' first attempt
to sue these Defendants. The Plaintiffs filed a putative class
action in the Eastern District of Washington on May 17, 2024. That
complaint listed the Plaintiffs as residents of Yakima County,
Eastern Washington.
The Eastern District case was dismissed without prejudice on Oct.
23, 2024 (George Cameron, et al. v. Country Mutual Ins. Co., et
al., No. 1:24-cv-03075-MKD, 2024 WL 4557671, at *6–8 (E.D. Wash.
Oct. 23, 2024)). The Plaintiffs "failed to demonstrate plausible
grounds to conclude that the proposed class would meet the
class-member and amount-in-controversy requirements for CAFA
jurisdiction, even if Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend." The
Eastern District Court further found that the Plaintiffs did not
have any Article III injury caused by the Country Affiliates'
challenged insurance practices where the Plaintiffs have not bought
any insurance policy from the Country Affiliates.
The instant case was filed one month later in King County Superior
Court and removed at the end of last year. The Complaint attempts
to assert liability against not just Country Mutual, but the same
Country Affiliates Defendants as well, accusing Country Financial
Defendants have attached several exhibits to their Motion.
The Court finds that these exhibits are incorporated by reference
in the Complaint or are matters of public record and may be
considered in a Rule 12(b)(6) Motion.
The Complaint states "the ultimate class should include all
individuals throughout Washington State and throughout the United
States who have submitted a claim to Defendants which was partially
or totally denied in which there was a violation of the insurance
regulations."
The Complaint boldly states that the Defendants have "failed to
properly investigate every claim submitted to them resulting in
$15,000,000 of wrongfully denied claims throughout Washington and
$250,000,000 of wrongfully denied claims throughout the United
States" and have "failed to give every claimant the necessary
information on their claim settlement procedures, which has
resulted in $20,000,000 worth of claims being wrongfully denied
throughout Washington State and $300,000 [sic] worth of claims
throughout the United States."
There appears to be only one cause of action--violations of the
Washington Consumer Protection Act ("CPA") through violations of
various insurance regulations. Country Affiliates moved to dismiss
on Jan. 3, 2025.
As an initial matter, the Court finds that it has subject matter
jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' claims sufficient to retain this
case and avoid remanding to King County Superior Court. The
Defendants, including Country Mutual Insurance Company, removed
this case under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Section
1332(d) ("CAFA") because the Plaintiffs plead a class action
involving at least 100 putative class members and an aggregate
amount in controversy exceeding $5,000,000. This Court maintains
CAFA jurisdiction even if it concludes that the Plaintiffs cannot
establish a certifiable class.
The Defendants' first argument is that the Plaintiffs again lack
standing to sue Country Affiliates, i.e., all the Defendant
insurance companies other than the one that contracted for
insurance with the Plaintiffs. The Defendants point out that the
Plaintiffs must allege an injury traceable to these Defendants'
conduct and that this applies for a putative class action.
The Defendants cite Lee v. Am. Nat'l Ins. Co., 260 F.3d 997,
1001–02 (9th Cir. 2001) for the proposition that a plaintiff, who
purchased life insurance policies from one insurance company, does
not have standing to bring claims individually or on behalf of a
putative class against the insurance company's subsidiary regarding
similar policies.
The Defendants also cite to the Eastern District of Washington case
dismissing the Plaintiff's claims against these same parties for
lack of standing. In response, the Plaintiffs point to new facts in
the instant Complaint and argue that all of the Defendants are
alter egos of each other or joint actors.
Judge Martinez opines that the problem for the Plaintiffs is that
the Complaint includes mere labels and conclusions to support alter
ego liability, director liability, joint venture liability, etc.
The Plaintiffs do not allege facts supporting these elements of a
joint venture.
The same issues arise for director liability and the other sources
of liability for the Country Affiliates, Judge Martinez explains.
These allegations are not plausible on the pleaded facts. Rather,
Judge Martinez points out, it is clear that the Plaintiffs were
insured by their named insurer and that all of their claims are
properly asserted against only that entity--Defendant Country
Mutual Insurance Company.
Accordingly, the Court agrees with all of the points raised by the
Country Affiliates as to standing. As this is the Plaintiffs'
second attempt to sue these Defendants, the Court will dismiss the
Plaintiffs' claims against these entities with prejudice. The Court
notes that the Plaintiffs otherwise fail to assert facts sufficient
to show liability under the CPA against these Defendants and that
dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) would also be appropriate for the
reasons argued by the Defendants.
The Defendants also move to dismiss all claims brought against
"Country Financial," arguing that this a trade name and not a legal
entity. The Court agrees with the Defendants and will dismiss all
claims against Country Financial with prejudice.
Finally, the Defendants move to dismiss all class allegations
brought against all Defendants--Country Affiliates and Country
Mutual Insurance Company--arguing that the Plaintiffs do not
plausibly plead facts to support predominance as required by Rule
23.
The Court entirely agrees with the Defendants and the cited cases
that have come to this same conclusion. Even accepting the
Plaintiffs' allegations as true, determining whether any class
member was injured or adequately compensated for their specific
insurance claim would require individualized inquiries into each
class member's insurance contract, the information provided on each
specific claim, the pre-accident value or replacement cost of each
piece of damaged property, what each member was offered, and
whether the offer was less than the pre-accident value or
replacement cost, among other things.
Such is not appropriate for a class action, Judge Martinez holds.
Further, the Eastern District court has already held that these
Plaintiffs cannot bring a nationwide class action against Country
Affiliates or Country Mutual Insurance Company as a matter of law.
Judge Martinez maintains there is no reason to believe that these
structural issues could be cured by further amendment. Given all of
these, the Court will strike all class allegations.
The Plaintiffs have previously filed a near-identical case in the
Eastern District. The deficiencies here are mainly legal in nature,
not factual, Judge Martinez notes. Leave to amend will, therefore,
not be granted.
Accordingly, the Court finds and orders that the Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss is granted. The Plaintiff's claims against Defendants
Country Casualty Insurance Company, Country Preferred Insurance
Company, Country Investors Life Assurance Company, and Country Life
Insurance Company are dismissed with prejudice. All claims against
Country Financial are dismissed with prejudice.
The Plaintiffs' class allegations as to all Defendants are
stricken. This case will proceed against Defendant Country Mutual
Insurance Company only.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yc2rtpe5 from PacerMonitor.com.
CREDIT ASSOCIATES: Crowell Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Associates,
LLC. The case is styled as Patric Crowell, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Credit Associates, LLC,
Case No. 4:25-cv-00349-O (N.D. Tex., April 1, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Credit Associates -- https://www.creditassociates.com/ -- offer
professional debt relief and settlement services to help you regain
financial stability.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
245 Fischer Ave., Suite D1
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Phone: (800) 400-6808
Email: ak@kazlg.com
CREDIT UNION: Faces Class Action Suit Over Discriminatory Policy
----------------------------------------------------------------
maldef.org reports that a Latino civil rights organization is suing
a Georgia credit union for unlawfully denying consideration for
credit to recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals
(DACA) and other immigrants solely because of their status and not
their ability to repay, according to papers filed in federal court
on Thursday, April 3.
MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund) and
Eshman Begnaud, LLC, filed the class-action lawsuit on behalf of
Carmen Belem Pimentel Alcocer of Cherokee County, Georgia.
According to the complaint, Pimentel, a DACA recipient, was denied
a loan by the Credit Union of Georgia (CUGA) because she is not a
U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident. The case argues that
CUGA's policy of denying financial services and credit to
non-citizens is a violation of federal civil rights law prohibiting
discrimination based on a person's citizenship status.
"It is irrational and contrary to capitalist principles to deny a
loan on any basis other than credit-worthiness," said Thomas A.
Saenz, MALDEF president and general counsel. "Discrimination
against DACA recipients -- denying any consideration of individual
circumstances -- must end."
Pimentel joined the credit union in 2021, and in 2022 she obtained
an auto loan from CUGA. In May 2024, Pimentel applied to CUGA for
another auto loan. The application included a question about
citizenship. Pimentel indicated that she is not a U.S. citizen.
Shortly after submitting her application online, a representative
from the credit union called Pimentel and asked if she had a "green
card." Pimentel told the representative that she was a DACA
recipient. As a DACA recipient, Pimentel is authorized to work in
the U.S. and has a social security card. The credit union
representative told Pimentel that because she was not a U.S.
citizen or a lawful permanent resident with a green card, she was
not eligible for a loan under CUGA's policies.
"Denying banking services, like loans, to customers solely based on
their immigration status is not only discriminatory, it is bad
business," said Andrea Senteno, MALDEF Washington D.C. regional
counsel. "Every customer should have the opportunity to demonstrate
their overall creditworthiness, without being categorically barred
from banking products just because they aren't a U.S. citizen or
green card holder."
According to the filed complaint, the credit union changed its
internal policies in January 2024 to bar the credit union from
granting loans to anyone who is not a U.S. citizen or a lawful
permanent resident.
In the complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, attorneys argue that CUGA's policy violates
Section 1981 of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1866.
CUGA is a member-owned credit union with $6.3 million in assets. It
offers a range of financial and credit products, including savings,
mortgages, student loans, personal loans, and auto loans.
Since 2017, MALDEF has filed 22 lawsuits challenging the policies
of financial institutions that discriminate against immigrants.
[GN]
CRST EXPEDITED: Summary Judgment Bid Denied in Huckaby Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Otis D. Wright, II of the United States District Court for
the Central District of California denied the motions for summary
judgment filed by the parties in the case captioned as KEITH
HUCKABY, Plaintiff, v. CRST EXPEDITED, INC. et al., Defendants,
Case No. 2:21-cv-07766-ODW-PD (C.D. Cal.). CRST's motion for
decertification is denied.
Plaintiff Keith Huckaby is a former long-haul truck driver for
Defendants CRST Expedited, Inc. and CRST International, Inc.
Huckaby was a CRST employee driver from approximately April 2019 to
August 2020.
The parties hotly dispute the basis of CRST's compensation model.
CRST asserts that it primarily compensates its drivers through load
pay -- a flat rate for delivering the load and performing all
driving and nondriving tasks necessary for safe delivery. According
to CRST, the team driver's load pay is calculated from a basic
formula: multiplying (i) a split of the number of
computer-estimated miles associated with a load; and (ii) the
per-mile compensation rate that a driver is assigned based on
experience. In contrast, Huckaby asserts that CRST promised to
compensate its drivers based on actual miles, not by load or
computer-estimated miles.
On March 9, 2022, Huckaby brought this putative class action
raising nine causes of action under California and federal law. On
March 14, 2022, pursuant to the parties' stipulation, the Court
dismissed without prejudice Huckaby's sixth, seventh, and eighth
causes of action. Accordingly, six of Huckaby's causes of action
remain:
(1) failure to pay minimum wages;
(2) failure to pay statutory/contractual wages;
(3) failure to reimburse business expenses;
(4) failure to provide itemized wage statements;
(5) failure to timely pay wages; and
(9) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law.
On Oct. 3, 2022, the Court granted in part Huckaby's motion for
class certification and certified a class as to (1) minimum wages,
(2) statutory/contractual wages, and (9) UCL violations.
Subsequently, on April 10, 2023, the Court granted in part and
denied in part CRST's motion for reconsideration. The Court denied
CRTS's motion to the extent CRST sought to undo class
certification, but it agreed to amend the end date of the class
period. The Court consequently defined the certified "Amended
Piece-Rate Class" or "Class" as: All current and former employees
that had a residential address in California and performed work as
a truck driver for CRST ("CA Truck Driver") who were compensated by
a piece-rate from August 9, 2017, through the date of the Court's
April 10, 2023 order amending this class definition, excluding the
participants in the settlement in Montoya v. CRST Expedited, Inc.,
Case No. 16-cv10095-PBS (D. Mass.). Those who qualify for this
class are "Class Members."
Huckaby now moves for partial summary judgment. CRST also moves for
summary judgment, or in the alternative, partial summary judgment.
Additionally, CRST moves to decertify the Amended Piece-Rate Class.
Huckaby seeks partial summary judgment on the issues underlying the
three Class claims: minimum wage; contractual/statutory wage; and
UCL. He argues the undisputed facts establish that CRST did not
compensate Class Members for:
(1) conducting pre- and post-trip vehicle inspections;
(2) completing required paperwork and data entry;
(3) stopping and scaling the vehicles at weigh stations;
(4) participating in Department of Transportation inspections;
and
(5) fueling the truck.
Huckaby contends that CRST's failure to compensate for these
nondriving tasks violated California Labor Code sections 221, 223,
and 226.2 and that CRST thus owes Class Members compensation for
work done on these tasks.
CRST seeks summary judgment as to all claims, Class and individual.
On the Class claims, CRST argues the undisputed facts establish
that it compensated Class Members under a load-based piece-rate pay
structure that encompasses all tasks necessary to safely deliver a
load, and this load-based pay structure fully complies with
California law. On Huckaby's individual claims, CRST contends the
derivative wage statement and waiting time claims fail for the same
reason as the Class claims and Huckaby's claim for unreimbursed
cell phone expenses fails as a matter of law.
The parties' primarily dispute whether CRST's piece-rate pay
structure compensated Class Members by the mile or the load.
Additionally, CRST argues that California minimum wage laws do not
apply to Class Members' work performed outside of California.
Finally, CRST contends it is entitled to summary judgment on the
UCL and individual claims as a matter of law.
The Court denies Huckaby's motion for summary judgment in full,
because a triable issue exists regarding the parties' mutual
understanding of the agreed "piece" in CRST's piece-rate
compensation system. For the same reason, the Court DENIES CRST's
motion for summary judgment as to Huckaby's minimum wage and
statutory/contractual wage claims.
The Court finds Huckaby lacks standing to pursue restitution or
injunctive relief under the UCL. Consequently, the Court lacks
equitable jurisdiction over this claim.
Huckaby requests, in the event the Court finds it lacks equitable
jurisdiction, the Court sever the UCL claim and remand it to the
state court. At this late stage in the proceedings, the Court finds
it would be inequitable and prejudicial to sever and remand as
Huckaby requests. Accordingly, the Court denies CRST's motion for
summary judgment as to the UCL claim and dismisses that claim
without prejudice and without leave to amend, for lack of equitable
jurisdiction.
The Court denies CRST's motion for summary judgment on Huckaby's
individual claims for unreimbursed cell phone expenses and
derivative wage statement and waiting time penalties.
Motion for Decertification
CRST argues decertification is warranted for two reasons:
(1) discovery has revealed that individual issues will
predominate at trial over common questions, and
(2) class treatment is not superior because Huckaby's damages
model lacks common proof, making trial on a class-wide basis
unmanageable.
CRST offers nothing new in its motion for decertification that
alters the Court's previous conclusion.
The Court denies CRST's Motion for Decertification.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=1Bc94I from PacerMonitor.com.
CVS HEALTH: Discloses Private Medical Info, Getz Class Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
NEIL GETZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. CVS HEALTH CORPORATION and CVS PHARMACY, INC., Case No.
2025CUNP040646 (March 19, 2025) alleges that CVS aided, employed,
agreed, and conspired with Adobe, Inc. to intercept sensitive and
confidential personal and medical communications of Website users
via Adobe's code embedded on the Website.
Through the Adobe code it implemented on the Website, CVS has,
unbeknownst to the Plaintiff, disclosed information about
Plaintiff's and Class Members' medical conditions, immunizations
and vaccines, prescriptions, and other Private Information,
including their activity searching for and purchasing sensitive
healthcare products. In fact, CVS transmitted private medical
information of Plaintiff and Class Members to a variety of other
third-party social media and advertising companies in the online
advertising ecosystem in addition to Adobe, where Adobe in turn
transmitted the information to, inter alia, Facebook, The Trade
Desk, and Quantum Metric, says the suit.
CVS, which has over 36 million customers, maintains an online
pharmacy, retail store for over-the-counter medical products,
vaccination center, and health clinic, all through its website,
www.cvs.com. CVS encourages Website users, including Plaintiff and
Class Members, to use the Website to search for and purchase
over-the-counter medications and healthcare products, schedule
vaccine administrations, manage prescriptions, schedule in-person
and virtual doctor Ventura Superior Court transmitted through
appointments via the MinuteClinic Services, and take other actions
related to their personal healthcare. While doing this, Website
users, including Plaintiff and Class Members, conveyed Private
Information, including medical information, to CVS, the suit
asserts.
The Plaintiff and all other Class Members are users who
communicated with CVS through the Website. They shared information,
including their Protected Health Information and Personally
Identifiable Information, with the reasonable belief that CVS would
take appropriate steps to maintain the privacy of these
communications.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kristen Lake Cardoso, Esq.
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW
FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
1 W. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 332-4200
E-mail: cardoso@kolawyers.com
ostrow@kolawyers.com
DELTA AIR: Motion to Compel in Duvaney Suit Granted in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah of the United States District
Court for the District of Nevada granted in part plaintiff's motion
to compel defendants to respond fully to interrogatory in the case
captioned as MARSHA R. DUVANEY, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC., and THE
ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF DELTA AIR LINES, INC., Defendants, Case
No. 21-cv-02186-RFB-EJY (D. Nev.).
The instant Motion arises out of a putative class action alleging
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
Plaintiff DuVaney, a former employee of Northwest Airlines of
thirty-three years, is a participant in Northwest Airlines' Pension
Plan for Contract Employees, which is currently sponsored by
Defendants. Plaintiff receives a Joint-and-Survivor Annuity ("JSA")
that provides a fixed monthly benefit amount; Plaintiff's husband,
as named beneficiary, is entitled to receive a specified portion of
that benefit amount in the event Plaintiff predeceases him. JSAs
are provided as an alternative to a Single Life Annuity ("SLA") in
which no benefit is provided to a surviving spouse
of the participant, and which therefore result in higher monthly
benefits than JSAs.
Although the monthly benefits paid during the life of a participant
will be less under a JSA, Sec. 205(d) of ERISA requires that any
qualified JSA provide benefits that are the "actuarial equivalent"
of benefits that a participant would be entitled to under an SLA.
29 U.S.C. Sec. 1055(d)(1)(B). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants
violated Sec. 1055(d) by providing her JSA benefits that are not
actuarially equivalent to what she would have received under an SLA
plan resulting in what she estimates to be a $12,605 reduction in
benefits. Plaintiff asserts this reduction is the result of the
"unreasonably low conversion factors" used by Defendants in
calculating JSA benefits. Plaintiff further alleges that the use of
unreasonably low conversion factors affect not only participants of
the Contract Plan, such as herself, but also participants of the
Northwest Airlines Pension Plan for Salaried Employees (the
"Salaried Plan") and the Northwest Airlines Pension Plan for Pilot
Employees (the "Pilots Plan").
Based on the allegations, Plaintiff identifies a putative class
that includes all retirees who began receiving a JSA benefit or
Qualified Pre-Retirement Survivor Annuity (which is similar to a
JSA but pays a benefit to a surviving spouse in the event the
participant dies before retirement) under any of the Plans on or
after Dec. 10, 2015. Based on data produced by Defendants, this
putative class contains approximately 4,272 members.
Plaintiff served Defendants with an initial set of interrogatories
on June 7, 2024, including one that requested Defendants disclose
the monthly amount of the SLA each retiree in the putative class
could have received at their Benefit Commencement Date ("SLA at
BCD"). This interrogatory was in addition to a prior request for
production containing identical language. Plaintiff asserts that
the SLA at BCD for each putative class member is essential for
determining whether they are receiving an actuarially equivalent
JSA amount, as well as determining the harm each putative class
member suffered.
As a threshold argument, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have
waived any objection to responding to the interrogatory at issue by
not raising a specific objection in their initial response.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants offered only "boilerplate
objections" without specifically addressing the requested SLA at
BCD amounts. Separately, Plaintiff addresses proportionality under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a) asserting disclosure of the
SLA at BCD for each purported class member is appropriate because
of the public interest in retirement plans, the amount in
controversy is likely in the tens of millions, the SLA at BCD
exists within Defendants' systems, Defendants' significant
resources relative to Plaintiff, the importance of the SLA at BCD
amounts in proving claims on behalf of the putative class, and the
relatively low cost of production compared to the alleged amount in
controversy.
Defendants argue that the manual retrieval of SLA at BCD for all
4,272 putative class members is unduly burdensome and
disproportionate to the needs of the case. ECF No. 81 at 12.
Defendants assert they did not waive this objection because, inter
alia, Plaintiff's initial interrogatories did not raise the
specific issue of whether SLA at BCD values were available for the
identified retirees, and a supplemental response with specific
objections was provided once that issue was identified. In the
alternative, Defendants argue that any failure to object should be
excused because of their good-faith efforts to promptly respond
once Plaintiff raised the issue in her July 12, 2024, communication
subsequent to the service of her initial interrogatories on
Defendants.
Turning to the merits of their objection, Defendants assert that
Plaintiff's expert could use the Data Set to derive the SLA at BCD
for each retiree, and that this is a far less burdensome means than
manual retrieval. Defendants further argue that Plaintiff's
asserted damages cannot, without more, outweigh the burden of
manual production, and that maintaining SLA at BCD data in useful
form is not required by any law and would serve no business
purpose.
The Court entered an Order as follows:
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is granted in part to the extent that
Defendants must disclose SLA at BCD values for the representative
sample of putative class members described above. This sample shall
be in addition to the sample of 50 putative class members
Defendants previously provided Plaintiff, and consist of data for
an additional 165 putative class members. Of the 4,272 retirees
included in the Data Set, Defendants must provide the SLA at BCD
value for every twenty-fifth retiree to Plaintiff no later than May
1, 2025.
Defendants must identify to Plaintiff the members included in the
representative sample so as to allow Plaintiff to confirm that
every twenty-fifth retiree in the Data Set was selected and that
Defendants did not intentionally select the members in a manner
that benefited their position.
The parties must meet and confer after the sample data has been
disclosed to discuss any remaining issues arising from the sample
data. This meet-and-confer must take place no later than May 22,
2025.
Should the disputes regarding the sufficiency of the sample data
for class certification purposes remain following the meet and
confer, the parties must file a joint request for a hearing at
which time the Court will address the remaining disputes. If the
sample provided is sufficient to allow Plaintiff to proceed to a
motion for class certification, the parties must file a status
report providing a briefing schedule for class certification and
proposed discovery plan that will follow the decision on
certification.
Discovery deadlines in the Court's most recent Scheduling Order
(ECF No. 92) are vacated pending the outcome of the production
ordered and anticipated motion for certification that will follow.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ayREzT from PacerMonitor.com.
ELDORADO GOLD: Rosen Law Investigates Potential Securities Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Why: Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, announces
an investigation of potential securities claims on behalf of
shareholders of Eldorado Gold Corporation (NYSE: EGO) resulting
from allegations that Eldorado Gold may have issued materially
misleading business information to the investing public.
So What: If you purchased Eldorado Gold securities you may be
entitled to compensation without payment of any out of pocket fees
or costs through a contingency fee arrangement. The Rosen Law Firm
is preparing a class action seeking recovery of investor losses.
What to do next: To join the prospective class action, go to
https://rosenlegal.com/submit-form/?case_id=37849 or call Phillip
Kim, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email case@rosenlegal.com
for information on the class action.
What is this about: On February 5, 2025, Eldorado Gold issued a
press release in which it provided an update on the construction
progress on its Skouries Project. In pertinent part, this
announcement stated that "[a]s previously disclosed, labour market
tightness in Greece, particularly pronounced in construction, has
continued to limit the availability of key construction personnel
at Skouries, resulting in a slower ramp-up of the workforce and
delayed progress in certain areas of the Project." Further,
Eldorado announced that "[f]irst production at Skouries is now
expected in the first quarter of 2026, followed by commercial
production expected in mid-2026."
On this news, the price of Eldorado Gold stock fell $1.78 per
share, or 11.2%, to close at $14.01 on February 6, 2025.
Why Rosen Law: We encourage investors to select qualified counsel
with a track record of success in leadership roles. Often, firms
issuing notices do not have comparable experience, resources, or
any meaningful peer recognition. Many of these firms do not
actually litigate securities class actions. Be wise in selecting
counsel. The Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the
globe, concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation. Rosen Law Firm achieved the
largest ever securities class action settlement against a Chinese
Company at the time. Rosen Law Firm was Ranked No. 1 by ISS
Securities Class Action Services for number of securities class
action settlements in 2017. The firm has been ranked in the top 4
each year since 2013 and has recovered hundreds of millions of
dollars for investors. In 2019 alone the firm secured over $438
million for investors. In 2020, founding partner Laurence Rosen was
named by law360 as a Titan of Plaintiffs' Bar. Many of the firm's
attorneys have been recognized by Lawdragon and Super Lawyers.
Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar
outcome.
Contacts
Laurence Rosen, Esq.
Phillip Kim, Esq.
The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
275 Madison Avenue, 40th Floor
New York, NY 10016
Tel: (212) 686-1060
Toll Free: (866) 767-3653
Fax: (212) 202-3827
case@rosenlegal.com
www.rosenlegal.com [GN]
ELON MUSK: Canvassers Sue Over Petition Signature Payments
----------------------------------------------------------
Nina Golgowski, writing for Huffpost, reports that Billionaire Elon
Musk and his super PAC are facing a class-action lawsuit claiming
they owe millions to canvassers who helped sign petitions during
the 2024 election.
The federal lawsuit filed Tuesday, April 1, by a Pennsylvania man,
who is not identified for safety and security reasons, estimates
that Musk and America PAC owe more than $5,000,000 to more than 100
people for their work.
The man claims he and other registered voters were promised $100
for signing a petition supporting free speech and gun rights.
They'd get another $100 for every additional voter's signature they
helped secure on the petition.
"While Plaintiff was paid his hourly rate for canvassing, and he
was paid some referrals for the petition signatures he obtained
(albeit well after he performed the work to obtain these
referrals), Plaintiff estimates that he has not been paid at least
$20,000 he is owed for his referrals," states the lawsuit, which
was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.
Repeated attempts to contact Musk and America PAC for the money
have not been successful, the suit adds.
A spokesperson for America PAC denied wrongdoing to CNN.
"America PAC is committed to paying for every legitimate petition
signature, which is evidenced by the fact that we have paid tens of
millions of dollars to canvassers for their hard work in support of
our mission," said spokesman Andrew Romeo in a statement.
Attempts to reach Romeo for comment were not immediately
successful.
A website for America PAC's petition program states that the
"overwhelming majority of checks owed to eligible referrers and
petition signers" have been mailed out, but that some payments may
be delayed due to the organization's work vetting eligible
referrers and petition signers.
"These efforts are important to ensure that any potential fraud or
abuse is eliminated," it states. It advises anyone missing payment
to submit a help desk inquiry.
The lawsuit follows Musk and America PAC sensationally handing out
$1 million checks to people attending a town hall event in
Wisconsin that was supporting a conservative judicial candidate.
The giveaway was challenged in the state Supreme Court but
ultimately allowed to go on. [GN]
EMPIRE STATE DAIRY: ZDG Files Suit in N.Y. Sup. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against EMPIRE STATE DAIRY,
LLC, et al. The case is styled as ZDG, LLC, individually and on
behalf of all other similarly situated Lien Law Article 3-A Trust
Beneficiaries v. EMPIRE STATE DAIRY, LLC, et al., Case No.
652083/2025 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty., April 1, 2025).
Empire State Dairy LLC is a dairy company based in Brooklyn, New
York, specializing in the production and distribution of dairy
products.[BN]
ENCORE ENERGY: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
A class action securities lawsuit was filed against enCore Energy
Corp. that seeks to recover losses of shareholders who were
adversely affected by alleged securities fraud between March 28,
2024 and March 2, 2025.
CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
false statements and/or concealed that: (1) enCore lacked effective
internal controls over financial reporting; (2) enCore could not
capitalize certain exploratory and development costs under GAAP;
(3) as a result, its net losses had substantially increased; and
(4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive statements
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were
materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.
WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in enCore Energy stock during
the relevant time frame - even if you still hold your shares -- go
to
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/encore-energy-corp-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=140942&wire=1
to learn about your rights to seek a recovery. There is no cost or
obligation to participate.
WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, Levi & Korsinsky LLP
has established itself as a nationally-recognized securities
litigation firm that has secured hundreds of millions of dollars
for aggrieved shareholders and built a track record of winning
high-stakes cases. The firm has extensive expertise representing
investors in complex securities litigation and a team of over 70
employees to serve our clients. For seven years in a row, Levi &
Korsinsky has ranked in ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top
50 Report as one of the top securities litigation firms in the
United States. Attorney Advertising. Prior results do not guarantee
similar outcomes.
CONTACT:
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Ed Korsinsky, Esq.
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
https://zlk.com/ [GN]
EQUITABLE FINANCIAL: Mismanages 401(k) Plan, Tedford Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HOLLIS TEDFORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. EQUITABLE FINANCIAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
THE BENEFITS ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE FOR THE EQUITABLE 401(K)
PLAN, and THE INVESTMENT COMMITTEE FOR THE EQUITABLE 401(K) PLAN,
Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-02180 (D.N.J., March 31, 2025) is a
class action against the Defendants for breaches of fiduciary duty
of prudence and failure to adequately monitor other fiduciaries
pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
The Plaintiff brings this class action against the Defendants for
breaching the duties they owed to the Equitable 401(k) Plan, to the
Plaintiff, and to the other participants of the Plan by, inter
alia, failing to pay reasonable fees for recordkeeping and
administration fees (RKA) services with respect to the Plan, and
failing to objectively and adequately review the Plan's investment
portfolio, initially and on an ongoing basis, with due care to
ensure that each investment option was prudent, in terms of
performance. The Defendants' mismanagement of the Plan, to the
detriment of participants and beneficiaries, constitutes a breach
of the fiduciary duties of prudence.
Equitable Financial Life Insurance Company is a financial services
and insurance company, headquartered in Syracuse, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
James A. Maro, Esq.
CAPOZZI ADLER, P.C.
312 Old Lancaster Road
Merion Station, PA 19066
Telephone: (610) 890-0200
Facsimile: (717) 232-3080
Email: markg@capozziadler.com
jamesm@capozziadler.com
EXPERIAN DATA: Illegally Collects and Sells Users' Info, Lopez Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
MARIA LOPEZ, ARIEL GILLIGAN, KIRSTIE SEMIEN, LOGAN MITCHELL, and
MICHAEL SELBY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. EXPERIAN DATA CORPORATION, EXPERIAN PLC,
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., and TAPAD, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 5:25-cv-02873-NC (N.D. Cal., March 27, 2025) is a class
action against the Defendants for intrusion upon seclusion, unjust
enrichment, and violations of the California Invasion of Privacy
Act and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged unlawful business
practices of tracking and recording the personal information and
specific web activity of hundreds of millions of Americans without
their consent. According to the complaint, after the Defendants
tracked consumers across the Internet and compiled various bits of
information about them, the Defendants built comprehensive user
profiles that include an assortment of information, interests, and
inferences, and offered up that information for sale to the highest
bidder. The Plaintiffs bring this action to enforce their
constitutional rights to privacy and to seek damages under
California law for the harm caused by the collection and sale of
their confidential data and personal information.
Experian Data Corporation is a global data and technology company,
with its principal place of business in Costa Mesa, California.
Experian PLC is a global data and technology company, with its
principal place of business in Ireland.
Experian Information Solutions, Inc. is a global data and
technology company, with its principal place of business in Costa
Mesa, California.
Tapad, Inc. is a software company, with its principal place of
business in New York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
Max S. Roberts, Esq.
Victoria X. Zhou, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Telephone: (646) 837-7150
Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
Email: pfraietta@bursor.com
mroberts@bursor.com
vzhou@bursor.com
- and -
Joshua R. Wilner, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Telephone: (925) 300-4455
Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
Email: jwilner@bursor.com
FAMILY DOLLAR: Court Stays Discovery in Morrison Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jared M. Strauss of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida granted Family Dollar Stores, LLC's
motion to stay discovery pending adjudication of motions to dismiss
in the case captioned as GREGG MORRISON, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
FAMILY DOLLAR STORES, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No.
24-cv-60294-AHS (S.D. Fla.).
In this case, Defendants have filed two separate motions to
dismiss. In the first motion to dismiss, all Defendants seek
dismissal on Article III standing grounds. Additionally, two of the
Defendants seek dismissal on personal jurisdiction grounds. In the
second motion to dismiss, all Defendants raise numerous arguments
for dismissal on Rule 12(b)(6) grounds. Some arguments go to all
claims; other arguments pertain to only certain claims.
Judge Strauss holds, "All I find at this time is that a stay of
discovery pending further consideration of the motions to dismiss
is reasonable and supported by good cause. That is especially so
given that discovery in this action is likely to be extremely
extensive. Plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action Complaint is
roughly 200 pages and contains 629 paragraphs. Moreover, this
action includes 32 named Plaintiffs and almost as many Defendants
(though Defendants are related entities). Further, Plaintiffs' FAC
seeks certification of 20 classes from 20 different states and
includes a class period (for each class) that exceeds two years.
Additionally, the FAC implicates dozens (if not hundreds) of
different products that Defendants sold in those states during the
class period. Needless to say, discovery in this case is likely to
be very expensive and time-consuming. Given the types of challenges
that Defendants raise in their motions to dismiss and the high
costs that will come with discovery in this matter, a stay of
discovery is appropriate."
Defendants' motion to set status conference is denied. In light of
the stay of discovery, Judge Strauss finds that a status conference
is not necessary at this time.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xZ73mv from PacerMonitor.com.
FANNIE MAE: Class Plaintiffs Ask Court to Set Post-Judgment Hearing
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The Class Plaintiffs in the case captioned as In re Fannie
Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class
Action Litigations, Case No. 1:13-mc-01288-RCL (D.D.C.), filed a
motion requesting Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia to approve the
post-judgment notice and enter a scheduling order governing Class
Counsel's motion for attorneys' fees, expenses and Class
Representative incentive awards.
On March 20, 2024, the Court entered judgment in the matter in
favor of class representatives Joseph Cacciapalle, Michelle M.
Miller, Timothy J. Cassell, and Barry P. Borodkin and the classes
certified by the Court on Dec. 7, 2021.
Class Counsel move for, and confirm their intent to submit full
briefing and documentation in support of, their requests for
payment of taxable costs of up to $78,700 and attorneys' fees of up
to one-third of the total amount obtained for the Classes
(including any pre-judgment and post-judgment interest through the
date of payment), but not including the amount of recovery for the
WR Berkley Plaintiffs and for reimbursement of nontaxable expenses
in an amount not to exceed $15 million, and also intend to request,
on behalf of the four Class Representatives, a total of $120,000 in
incentive awards to be paid from the Total Amount.
Plaintiffs also intend to file a motion for approval of a proposed
final allocation plan and final distribution method of the Net
Class Award to members of the Classes and the Net Berkely Award to
the WR Berkely Plaintiffs as contemplated in the Court's March 20,
2024 Order Governing Plan of Allocation.
To comply with Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(h)(1) and
54(d)(2), Class Counsel move for approval of the proposed form of
notice to be provided to the Classes by direct mail and by
publication, and for entry of the Proposed Order that would:
(i) approve the form and manner of providing notice to the
Classes of Class Counsel's forthcoming motion for Attorneys' Fees,
Expenses, and Class Representative Incentive Awards (i.e., the Fee
and Expense Request) and Plaintiffs' forthcoming motion for
approval of a proposed Plan of Allocation and Distribution;
(ii) provide for a schedule for the filing of the Fee and
Expense Request and the motion for approval of the proposed Plan of
Allocation and Distribution, the filing of any Class Member
objections to those motions, and the filing of a reply
brief in response to any Class Member objections;
(iii) schedule a hearing on the Fee and Expense Request and
motion for approval of proposed Plan of Allocation and
Distribution); and
(iv) provide that the Court exercises its discretion under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58(e) and orders that Class
Counsel's Fee and Expense Request shall have the same effect under
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4) as a timely filed
motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59.
Plaintiffs request that the Court grant this motion by approving
the Proposed Post-Judgment Notice and Proposed Summary
Post-Judgment Notice, entering the Proposed Order, and scheduling
the Post-Judgment Hearing on a mutually agreeable
date between July 28, 2025 and August 15, 2025.
On March 14, 2025, the Court denied defendants' motion for judgment
and upheld the jury verdict awarding a total of $612.4 million in
favor of plaintiffs.
A copy of the Motion dated April 9, 2025, is available at from
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ivgtne PacerMonitor.com.
FARADAY FUTURE: Obtains Final OK of $7.5MM "Zhou" Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 23, 2021, a putative class action lawsuit -- Zhou v
Breitfeld et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-01852 (U.S. District Court –
Central District of California) -- alleging violations of the
Exchange Act was filed in the United States District Court, Central
District of California, against Faraday Future Intelligent Electric
Inc. and its former Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer, and its current Chief Product and User Ecosystem Officer,
as well as the Co-CEOs of Property Solutions Acquisition Corp.
On May 6, 2022, the appointed lead plaintiffs in the Zhou putative
class action filed an amended complaint alleging violations of
Sections 10(b), 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, Sections 11
and 15 of the Securities Act , and related "control" person claims
for secondary liability under those statutes, seeking unspecified
damages. Following motion to dismiss briefing which resulted in the
dismissal of several of the plaintiffs' claims, answers were filed
and the parties agreed to participate in mediation.
On April 27, 2023, the court granted the parties' joint motion for
a temporary stay pending mediation. The parties thereafter
participated in a private mediation on June 29, 2023. After further
discussions and negotiations, the parties reached an
agreement-in-principle to settle the Zhou putative class action.
Although denying all allegations, the Company nevertheless agreed
to settle the Zhou putative class action for a non-reversionary
cash payment of $7.5 million for the benefit of the settlement
class and to be funded entirely by the Company's insurers, in
exchange for the release of all claims asserted against the
Company.
The court granted preliminary approval of the settlement on
November 7, 2023, and scheduled a hearing for final approval of the
settlement to take place on March 18, 2024. On January 23, 2024,
the ostensible lead plaintiff in the Consolidated Delaware Class
Action filed an Objection to final approval of the settlement to
which the Company and the other defendants responded on March 11,
2024.
On March 18, 2024, the court overruled the Objection in its
entirety and entered an Order finally approving the Zhou putative
class action settlement, the Company disclosed in a Form 10-K
report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
About Faraday Future
Los Angeles, CA-based Faraday Future (NASDAQ: FFIE) --
http://www.ff.com-- designs and engineers next-generation
intelligent, connected, electric vehicles. FF manufactures
vehicles at its production facility in Hanford, California, with
additional future production capacity needs addressed through a
contract manufacturing partner in South Korea. FF is also
exploring other potential contract manufacturing options in
addition to the contract manufacturer in South Korea. The Company
has additional engineering, sales, and operational capabilities in
China and is exploring opportunities for potential manufacturing
capabilities in China through a joint venture or other
arrangement.
New York, NY-based Mazars USA LLP, the Company's auditor since
2022, issued a "going concern" qualification in its report dated
May 28, 2024, citing that the Company has incurred operating
losses
since inception, has continued cash outflows from operating
activities, and has an accumulated deficit. These conditions
raise
substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a going concern.
FEATURE LLC: Garcia Suit Removed to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Silvia Garcia, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Feature LLC d/b/a WWW.FEATURE.COM,
Case No. 2025CUMT039169 was removed from the Ventura County
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California on April 1, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02824 to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
FEATURE -- https://feature.com/ -- has been providing iconic,
limited-edition footwear, high-end apparel, and accessories for
over a decade.[BN]
The Plaintiff appears pro se.
The Defendant is represented by:
Pooja L. Shah, Esq.
DENTONS US LLP
601 South Figueroa Street Suite 2500
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: (213) 623-9300
Fax: (213) 623-9924
Email: pooja.l.shah@dentons.com
FELDMAN LAW: Arbitration Awards in Sullivan Suit Affirmed in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, SCOTT SULLIVAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. STEWART A.
FELDMAN, et al., Defendants, No. 23-20140 (5th Cir.), the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on March 11, 2025, affirmed
three arbitration awards, reversed in part a fourth, and vacated a
district court order staying future arbitration. The appeals stem
from overlapping and conflicting arbitration awards following
disputes over captive insurance arrangements between doctors and a
law firm.
Doctors Scott Sullivan and Frank Dellacroce of New Orleans,
Louisiana, along with their associated business entities—St.
Charles Surgical Hospital, Center for Restorative Breast Surgery,
Sigma Delta Billing, and three captive insurers (Cerberus, Janus,
and Orion Insurance Corporations)—entered a turnkey insurance
services agreement with Stewart Feldman and his law firm in 2015.
That agreement included a broad arbitration clause delegating all
disputes to private resolution, but with unique stipulations: a
four-month arbitration timeline, exclusion of AAA administration,
and Texas law as governing authority.
The Doctors alleged that Feldman and his affiliates, including
Capstone Associated Services (Wyoming), LP; Capstone Associated
Services, Ltd.; Capstone Insurance Management, Ltd.; and executive
Jeff Carlson, mismanaged their captive insurers and used an
undisclosed risk pool called PoolRe for self-dealing. Their claims
included breach of fiduciary duty, legal malpractice, and
conversion of funds. The Doctors also alleged that Feldman and
Capstone refused to wind down the insurance entities even after a
2018 Tax Court ruling declared PoolRe a sham.
The parties launched at least nine overlapping arbitrations across
Louisiana and Texas. Four of them—Jones, Kutcher, Baker, and
Glasser—resulted in final awards, with Judge Charles Jones
awarding over $88.6 million and authorizing class relief. The three
other arbitrators issued awards ranging from $1.47M to $4.56M.
However, the four awards conflicted in their findings on liability,
class status, and damages.
The Jones arbitration certified a class defined as: All former and
current clients of the Feldman Law Firm and Capstone Services
entities who formed captive insurers or were advised under similar
pooling arrangements through PoolRe and who were similarly injured
by the defendants’ fiduciary breaches and misrepresentations.
Doctors Sullivan and Dellacroce were named as class
representatives. Class counsel was not expressly identified in the
Jones award, but filings before the district court confirmed that
multiple experienced firms participated on behalf of the class,
including Yetter Coleman LLP and Smiley PLLC.
Judge Jones reviewed the Rule 23(a) factors and found that the
class satisfied all requirements:
(i) Numerosity was established by identifying numerous similarly
situated PoolRe participants across multiple states, making joinder
impractical.
(ii) Commonality was supported by shared questions of fiduciary
misconduct, nondisclosure, and unauthorized use of captive insurer
funds.
(iii) Typicality was satisfied because the class representatives'
claims arose from the same conduct that affected all class
members.
(iv) Adequacy was confirmed based on the class representatives’
participation and the experience of counsel handling complex
insurance litigation.
The Feldman and Capstone Parties objected, arguing that class
arbitrability should have been decided by the court. But the Fifth
Circuit held that the parties clearly and unmistakably delegated
such questions to the arbitrators by incorporating AAA
Supplementary Rules. The court acknowledged its ruling aligned with
recent circuit precedent and affirmed that Judge Jones had the
authority to certify the class.
The Court also held that arbitrators, not courts, had discretion to
disregard the four-month deadline and proceed with overlapping
arbitrations. While the parties disputed the interpretation of the
term “dispute” in the agreement, the Court deferred to the
arbitrators' construction, emphasizing that each tribunal arguably
addressed a distinct issue—even if rooted in the same facts.
However, the Court reversed the district court’s confirmation of
the Jones award against Jeff Carlson, finding that he was not a
signatory to the engagement letter, did not seek benefits under it,
and could not be bound under the doctrine of direct-benefits
estoppel. Carlson's limited participation in prior arbitrations to
defend himself did not constitute a waiver or inconsistent
position, and the court ruled he was improperly held jointly liable
for nearly $100 million in damages.
The Court also vacated the district court’s 2021 injunction that
barred future arbitration, holding that the parties retained the
right to arbitrate further to reconcile the inconsistencies among
the awards. The Fifth Circuit stressed that enforcing only the
largest award while confirming all four conflicted with the
parties' agreement and risked undermining the integrity of the
arbitral process.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at
https://tinyurl.com/468nch7b
Paul D. Yetter –- pyetter@yettercoleman.com -- & Monica Uddin
–- muddin@yettercoleman.com –- YETTER COLEMAN LLP, Houston,
Texas; Brian N. Smiley –- bsmiley@smileypllc.com -– SMILEY
PLLC, Houston, Texas; Counsel for Plaintiffs
David J. Beck –- dbeck@beckredden.com -- & Matthew R. McGill -–
mmcgill@gibsondunn.com –- BECK REDDEN LLP, Houston, Texas;
Counsel for Defendants Stewart Feldman and The Feldman Law Firm,
L.L.P.
Allan B. Diamond –- adiamond@diamondmccarthy.com -– DIAMOND
MCCARTHY LLP, Houston, Texas; Counsel for Defendants Capstone
Associated Services (Wyoming), LP, Capstone Associated Services,
Ltd., and Capstone Insurance Management, Ltd.
Scott D. Marrs –- smarrs@shb.com –- SHOOK, HARDY & BACON
L.L.P., Houston, Texas; Counsel for Defendant Jeff Carlson
FENIX INTERNATIONAL: Faces Class Action Over "Impersonated" Models
------------------------------------------------------------------
Steffie Banatvala, writing for Independent, reports that Two former
OnlyFans users are suing the subscriber platform in a class-action
lawsuit over claims they were defrauded by "impersonated" models.
M. Brunner and J. Fry of Illinois say creators they subscribed to
were employing agencies to "impersonate" models instead of speaking
directly to them through direct messages and video clips, reports
404 Media.
The former users say they would not have subscribed to the platform
or would have reduced their fees if they knew they were speaking to
agency "chatters."
However, they would consider returning to the platform if the
platform stopped models using agencies, according to the report.
For years, dozens of OnlyFans agencies have offered a service where
people manage creators' messages and sometimes respond to fans. Not
all creators use the service.
The plaintiffs did not provide proof they were speaking to agency
chatters in the complaint, which is against OnlyFan's parent
companies Fenix International Limited and Fenix Internet, LLC.
It comes after a lawsuit against Unruly Agency in 2021, which
claimed the company preyed on and defrauded fans into sharing their
"deepest and innermost personal secrets."
Five OnlyFans users filed separate class action complaints against
the parent companies last July over "chatter scams," with the case
set for trial in 2027.
"Over time, Plaintiff Fry began to become suspicious of who he was
actually communicating with when purportedly exchanging DMs with
Creators, as messages he received contained contradicting
information or errors," the Illinois men's complaint detailed.
Plaintiff Brunner also realized a single person would struggle to
send content directly to 700,000 fans, it said.
"By exercising its discretion to enrich itself while participating
in the deception of its customers, OnlyFans consciously and
deliberately frustrates the agreed common purposes of the contract
and disappoints the reasonable expectations of Plaintiffs and Class
Members, thereby depriving them of the benefit of their bargain,"
it stated.
OnlyFans has not yet responded to The Independent's request for
comment.
"Any third party that a creator elects to work with does not work
on behalf of OnlyFans and is not affiliated with the company in any
way," an OnlyFans spokesperson told Cosmopolitan last year on a
story about how creators boost productivity with agencies.
"Creators may choose to work with a wide range of third parties,
including photographers, videographers, talent managers and
agencies, to curate and monetize their content." [GN]
FLORIDA: Immigrant Coalition Seeks Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FLORIDA IMMIGRANT
COALITION, et al., v. JAMES UTHMEIER, in his official capacity as
the Attorney General of the State of Florida, et al., Case No.
1:25-cv-21524-KMW (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting class certification to allow the provision
of relief for the classes.
Given the emergency nature of the relief, the Plaintiffs request
that, should the court require additional time to consider the
class certification, it grants provisional class certification in
connection with a temporary restraining order or preliminary
injunction.
In summary, each class seeks a single injunction that would
prohibit enforcement of the challenged provisions, and no
individualized determinations are necessary to grant that relief.
Because the same state law threatens all class members in the same
way, and because the requested injunction would provide uniform
relief, Rule 23(b)(2) is satisfied.
The Plaintiffs request that this Court certify two classes under
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2) for purposes of
enjoining the enforcement of S.B. 4C as to all members of those
classes.
The first class ("The Entry Class") would include:
"all individuals potentially subject to the "illegal entry"
provision in the law: any person not a citizen or national of
the United States who may now or in the future enter or
attempt to enter the state of Florida after entering the
United States by eluding or avoiding examination or inspection
by immigration officers."
The second class ("The Reentry Class") would include:
"all individuals potentially subject to the "illegal reentry'
provision in the law: any person not a citizen or national of
the United States who may enter, attempt to enter, or be found
in the state of Florida after the person has been denied
admission to or excluded, deported, or removed from the United
States; or has departed from the United States while an order
of exclusion, deportation, or removal was outstanding."
These classes satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(a) and fall
within the scope of Rule 23(b)(2), asserts the suit.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 2, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nHyxq7 at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Cody Wofsy
Spencer Amdur
Hannah Steinberg
Oscar Sarabia Roman
Omar Jadwat
Grace Choi
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES
UNION FOUNDATION
IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT
425 California Street, Suite 700
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 343-0770
E-mail: cwofsy@aclu.org
samdur@aclu.org
hsteinberg@aclu.org
osarabia@aclu.org
ojadwat@aclu.org
gchoi@aclu.org
- and -
Amy Godshall
Daniel B. Tilley
Amien Kacou
ACLU FOUNDATION OF FLORIDA, INC.
4343 West Flagler Street, Suite 400
Miami, FL 33134
Telephone: (786) 363-2700
E-mail: agodshall@aclufl.org
dtilley@aclufl.org
akacou@aclufl.org
- and -
Paul R. Chavez
Anne Janet Hernandez Anderson
Evelyn Wiese
Christina Isabel LaRocca
AMERICANS FOR IMMIGRANT JUSTICE
6355 NW 36 Street, Suite 309
Miami, FL 33166
Telephone: (305) 576-6273
E-mail: pchavez@aijustice.org
ajhernandez@aijustice.org
ewiese@aijustice.org
clarocca@aijustice.org
FORD MOTOR: Faces Class Action Suit Defective Transmission Systems
------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo Finance reports that On April 2, 2025 a proposed class action
was filed in Vancouver against Ford Motor Company and Ford Motor
Company of Canada Limited ("Ford") on behalf of all Canadian
residents who owned or leased a Ford Expedition, Ford Mustang, Ford
Ranger, Ford F-150, or Lincoln Navigator from model years 2017/2018
to the present that was manufactured by Ford and equipped with a
10R80 10-speed Transmission. Court File No. VLC-S-S-252509
The lawsuit alleges that the 10R80 10-speed transmission, developed
through a joint venture between Ford and General Motors, has been
linked to significant operational issues. Owners of class vehicles
have reported problems such as:
-- Unintended lunging when shifting from park to drive
-- Shimmying and shuddering while in motion
-- Difficulty shifting gears
-- Premature wear of clutch plates and transmission components
-- Sudden gearshift that has not been initiated by the driver
If you own a Ford with a 10R80 transmission and have been affected
by any of the issues above, please register on our site at
https://www.charneylawyers.com/ford-10r80-10-speed-transmission-class-action
or reach out to Charney Lawyers PC at info@charneylawyers.com.
[GN]
FOSTER FARMS: Organic Consumers Suit Remanded to D.C.'s Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit titled ORGANIC CONSUMERS ASSOC., Plaintiff v. FOSTER
FARMS, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01703-TSC
(D.D.C.), Judge Tanya S. Chutkan of the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia grants the Plaintiff's motion to remand.
Plaintiff Organic Consumers Association sued Defendants Foster
Farms, LLC and Foster Farms Holdings in the District of Columbia's
Superior Court under the city's Consumer Protection
Procedures Act. The Defendants removed the lawsuit to this Court.
The Plaintiff then moved to remand and for awarded attorneys'
fees.
Because the Defendants have not shown that this Court has subject
matter jurisdiction, the Court grants the Plaintiff's Motion to
Remand, but denies the Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees
because the Defendants had an objectively reasonable basis for
seeking removal.
The Plaintiff is a non-profit organization that advocates for
healthy and safe food options and corporate transparency. The
Defendants sell frozen chicken products in several grocery stores
in the District. On the Defendants' website, they claim that their
products are made from chickens, who have freedom from injury,
pain, disease, fear, and distress, as well as the ability to
express their natural and instinctual chicken behaviors.
The Plaintiffs allege that such claims "lead" consumers to believe
that the Defendants' chickens are "humanely sourced" but that these
statements are deceptive because undercover investigations have
shown that the Defendants do not treat their chickens humanely. The
Plaintiffs further allege that the United States Department of
Agriculture's past inspections and memoranda corroborate the
Defendants' history of inhumane treatment.
On April 10, 2024, the Plaintiff sued the Defendants in D.C.
Superior Court on behalf of the District's "consumers and the
general public" under the District's Consumer Protection Procedures
Act ("DCPPA"). That Act prohibits unfair or deceptive trade
practices, regardless of whether or not any consumer is in fact
misled, deceived, or damaged thereby.
The Plaintiff does not seek monetary damages but asks the Court to
declare that the Defendants violated the DCPPA and order them to
cease the misleading and deceptive marketing practices unless and
until they change their animal husbandry practices to comport with
their marketing as understood by consumers. It also seeks
attorneys' fees, expert fees, and costs and disbursements and
prejudgment interest.
On June 11, 2024, the Defendants timely removed this case to this
Court. The Defendants--none of whom are citizens of the District of
Columbia--assert diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(a), alleging that the amount of controversy is more
than $75,000.
The Plaintiff does not dispute that the parties are completely
diverse. The only question, therefore, is whether this case
satisfies the $75,000 jurisdictional minimum. It does not, Judge
Chutkan points out.
The Plaintiff argues that to satisfy federal diversity
jurisdiction, the Defendants would need to establish that the
$75,000 jurisdictional minimum is met for each member of the D.C.
general public represented in this litigation. The Defendants
respond that their total cost of compliance to provide the
Plaintiff's injunctive relief is "well over" $75,000 and need not
be pro-rated among the D.C. public.
Permitting the Defendants' total compliance costs to satisfy the
jurisdictional minimum would violate the non-aggregation principle,
which states that the separate and distinct claims of two or more
plaintiffs cannot be aggregated in order to satisfy the
jurisdictional amount requirement, Judge Chutkan opines.
The Court previously held that the non-aggregation principle
applies to DCPPA claims seeking punitive damages on behalf of the
public, citing Clean Label Project Found. v. Mead Johnson & Co.,
No. 20-cv-3231, 2023 WL 2733723, at *6 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2023). Now,
the Court is persuaded by the "chorus of courts" in this district
holding that the principle applies equally to DCPPA claims on
behalf of the public, which do not seek monetary damages.
Accordingly, in determining the amount in controversy, the Court
will divide the Defendants' total compliance costs among the
potential injunction's beneficiaries, which results in less than
$75,000 per beneficiary. But because the Defendants do not show
that their total compliance costs divided among each member of the
D.C. public would exceed $75,000, Judge Chutkan holds that they
fail to satisfy the amount of controversy requirement under a
cost-to-defendant rationale.
Alternatively, the Defendants argue that the total attorneys' fees
that the Plaintiffs may be awarded in this case will exceed the
$75,000 jurisdictional minimum. The DCPPA provides for attorneys'
fees.
For the same reasons discussed in this Memorandum Opinion, Judge
Chutkan explains that several district courts in this Circuit have
also applied the non-aggregation principle in the attorneys' fees
context. The Court follows suit. Because the Defendants have not
shown that the Plaintiff's potential attorney fees would exceed
$75,000 on a pro rata basis, the Court finds that this argument
fares no better than the Defendants' cost of compliance theory.
Judge Chutkan also finds that the Defendants' counterarguments for
both of their jurisdictional theories are unpersuasive.
Because members of the D.C. public could seek relief, and the DCPPA
provides the Plaintiff the right to sue on their behalf, Judge
Chutkan points out that the non-aggregation principle is
appropriately applied here.
The Plaintiff requests costs and expenses, including attorneys'
fees, associated with seeking remand.
Judge Chutkan explains that these costs may be awarded if the
removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking
removal. A basis for removal is objectively reasonable when it has
at least some logical and precedential force.
Judge Chutkan finds the Defendants had such a basis for seeking
removal. Moreover, the Defendants correctly argued that this Court
is not bound by the "thrust" of district court opinions in this
Circuit that have remanded DCPPA claims based on a lack of
diversity jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court will not award the
Plaintiff attorneys' fees associated with this remand litigation.
For these reasons, the Court grants the Plaintiff's Motion for
Remand and denies the Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2ura675f from PacerMonitor.com.
G4S SECURE: Motion to Compel Arbitration in Barnes Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ROBERT BARNES, et al., Plaintiffs, v. G4S SECURE
SOLUTIONS (USA) INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No.
2:23-cv-12897 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Robert J. White of the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan denied
corporate defendants’ motion to compel arbitration and dismiss
newly added plaintiffs, finding that plaintiffs sufficiently
challenged the validity of the arbitration agreements.
Plaintiffs, a group of Black former security personnel who worked
at the Renaissance Center in Detroit, filed this putative class
action against their former employers and colleagues, asserting
discrimination, retaliation, hostile work environment, and related
civil rights claims under Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights
Act (ELCRA), Sections 1981 and 1983 of Title 42 of the United
States Code, the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and
Michigan's Whistleblower Protection Act.
The proposed class includes all Black individuals employed as
security personnel at the Renaissance Center in Detroit, Michigan,
by G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc., Renaissance Center Management
Company (RCM), General Motors, LLC (GM), and Allied Universal
Security Services from 2019 through 2025.
The plaintiffs allege they were subjected to systemic racial
discrimination, unequal disciplinary practices, denial of leave
protections, and retaliation for reporting unlawful or unsafe
workplace conditions. Several individual defendants are also named,
including security supervisors and executives alleged to have
participated in or permitted discriminatory treatment.
Lead plaintiffs include Robert Barnes, Maurice Duck Sr., Derrick
Tolliver, and Michael Young Jr. Class counsel has not been formally
appointed, though plaintiffs are represented by counsel familiar
with civil rights and employment litigation.
The lawsuit was initially filed by Barnes in 2023 and amended on
April 1, 2024, to add Duck, Tolliver, and Young. The amended
complaint named as defendants G4S, RCM, GM, Allied, and several
individual employees and executives, including both Black and white
colleagues. Plaintiffs claim the corporate defendants acted as
joint employers and that their employment relationship was
mischaracterized to avoid union protections and legal liability.
Defendants moved to compel arbitration with Barnes and Duck and to
dismiss Tolliver and Young's claims based on a shortened statute of
limitations. The corporate defendants relied on electronic
onboarding documents, including arbitration agreements allegedly
signed via Allied’s Optyma system.
Plaintiffs contested the validity of these agreements, asserting
they never saw, reviewed, or agreed to the arbitration terms, which
they claim were hidden or inaccessible during onboarding. Both
Barnes and Duck submitted sworn declarations denying knowledge of
the arbitration agreements, supported by similar testimony from
other employees and the absence of arbitration records in personnel
files.
Judge White found that the corporate defendants met their initial
burden to show evidence of signed arbitration agreements. However,
plaintiffs rebutted by raising genuine disputes over contract
formation and mutual assent.
The Court emphasized several key findings:
I. Duck and Barnes credibly denied reviewing or agreeing to the
arbitration terms.
II. Barnes submitted a contemporaneous letter to management
reporting issues with inaccessible onboarding links.
III. A third employee, Donald Gambrell, corroborated the
plaintiffs’ accounts and described similar onboarding
experiences.
IV. Allied’s own evidence showed that arbitration forms required
affirmative steps but did not rebut the plaintiffs’ claims of
technical or procedural barriers.
Judge White concluded that a genuine dispute existed over whether
plaintiffs assented to the arbitration terms, precluding
enforcement of the agreements. The Court emphasized that a blanket
assertion of electronic acknowledgment is not enough to bypass
plaintiffs’ credible testimony and corroborating evidence.
As to Tolliver and Young, the Court rejected the defendants’
effort to enforce the six-month limitations provision. Both men
submitted affidavits stating they never knowingly signed such
waivers and were never informed of any shortened filing deadlines.
Young also asserted that he was a union member and protected by a
collective bargaining agreement without such waiver terms.
Because the statute-of-limitations issue was not evident on the
face of the complaint and instead required the Court to weigh
evidence outside the pleadings, Judge White denied the motion under
both Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), holding that the enforceability
of the waivers could not be resolved at the pleading stage.
This case highlights the ongoing judicial scrutiny of electronic
arbitration agreements, especially in employment settings involving
low-wage or unionized workers. While federal law supports
arbitration, courts remain cautious when the validity of consent is
in question.
The Court noted that employers bear a heavy burden when employees
allege that onboarding platforms are opaque or used coercively. In
light of rising class action filings involving race and employment
discrimination, particularly in the security services industry,
this ruling may shape future litigation strategy for similarly
situated plaintiffs and corporate defendants.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/35fbu7y6
David A. Robinson –- drobinson@davidarobinsonlaw.com -–
ROBINSON LAW, Detroit, Michigan; Counsel for Plaintiffs.
Douglas M. Olds –- dolds@littler.com -- & Brittany K. Salyers
-– bsalyers@littler.com -– LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C., Detroit,
Michigan; Counsel for Defendants Allied Universal, G4S Secure
Solutions (USA) Inc., and General Motors, LLC.
GALAXY GAS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Flavored Nitrous Oxide
------------------------------------------------------------------
Russell Maas, writing for About Lawsuits, reports that a class
action lawsuit has been filed against Galaxy Gas and a number of
different companies, indicating that a Florida woman died after
becoming addicted to nitrous oxide gas sold at local vape shops for
recreational inhalation, even though they are supposedly intended
for culinary use.
The complaint was brought by Kathleen Dial in Orange County Circuit
Court on February 6, 2025, acting as the personal representative of
the Estate of Margaret P. Caldwell, who passed away in November
2024, after inhaling nitrous oxide behind a smoke shop in Orange
County, Florida.
The nitrous oxide lawsuit names a wide range of companies as
defendants, including vape and smoke retailers such as Fuego Smoke
& Vape, Puffzilla and Moe's Smoke Shop, as well as nitrous oxide
manufacturers like Galaxy Gas, Looper, Monster Gas and others,
claiming they knowingly manufactured and sold flavored,
large-volume nitrous oxide products intended to be abused as
inhalants.
Nitrous oxide, also known as "whippits" or "laughing gas," is
commonly used in medical and culinary settings. However, when
inhaled recreationally, the gas can cause euphoria, hallucinations
and other dissociative effects. Prolonged or repeated use can lead
to addiction, nerve damage, brain injury and even death.
As the use of flavored nitrous oxide canisters continues to rise,
Dial's complaint is likely to be among many nitrous oxide lawsuits
expected from individuals who have been seriously harmed, or from
families who have lost loved ones due to inhalation-related
injuries.
According to the lawsuit, the defendants aggressively marketed
their nitrous oxide canisters in enticing flavors, such as "mango
smoothie," "vanilla raspberry" and "cotton candy," packaged in
colorful, whimsical designs that appealed to young people.
Despite being labeled as culinary tools, the lawsuit indicates
Galaxy Gas and other popular nitrous oxide products are sold almost
exclusively through vape shops and smoke retailers that cater to
recreational users.
The complaint details how Margaret Caldwell, a Florida resident,
was first exposed to the gas through social media posts and
influencer promotions, which portrayed the product as trendy and
harmless. Drawn in by the branding and easy accessibility, Caldwell
began purchasing nitrous oxide canisters from at least seven
different smoke shops in Central Florida.
Over time, she developed a severe addiction, often consuming the
gas in the parking lots immediately after purchase. Employees at
several shops allegedly noticed her frequent visits and even
criticized her for leaving behind empty canisters, yet continued to
sell to her.
On November 22, 2024, Caldwell was found dead behind one of the
same smoke shops where she had routinely purchased the gas. The
lawsuit claims she died after inhaling nitrous oxide from a
canister that far exceeded the legal volume allowed under Florida
law. Her death, the complaint argues, was the direct result of
repeated exposure to a product designed, marketed, and sold for
abuse.
Despite the fact that selling more than 16 grams of nitrous oxide
is a third-degree felony under Florida law (Fla. Stat.
§877.111(4)), the lawsuit alleges that most of the products
Caldwell purchased exceeded that limit. The complaint also accuses
the manufacturers of misbranding and adulterating the gas in
violation of Fla. Stat. §499.005, arguing that by flavoring and
packaging the products as if they were food items, the companies
deceptively marketed a dangerous chemical as something safe.
The lawsuit seeks to represent individuals nationwide who purchased
nitrous oxide products from smoke shops, alleging they were misled
into believing the products were safe and intended for legitimate
use. Claims against the manufacturers include strict product
liability, unjust enrichment, and violations of Florida's Deceptive
and Unfair Trade Practices Act, based on deceptive marketing and
targeting of minors.
In addition to damages, the lawsuit asks the court to issue an
injunction barring smoke shops from continuing to sell nitrous
oxide for recreational use.
"Defendants manufactured and distributed products that result in
addiction and cause grievous bodily harm to the public," the
lawsuit states. "There is no lawful justification for selling N-0
Products, which are ostensibly cooking accessories, at smoke shops.
Sales at smoke shops are unequivocally aimed at consumers who will
use N-0 Products for inhalation, will get addicted, and suffer
severe physical harm or death."
Smoke Shops Targeted as Defendant Class
In a rare legal move, the lawsuit also seeks to certify a defendant
class of smoke shops, potentially including thousands of retailers
nationwide that sell flavored nitrous oxide products alongside
vapes, pipes and tobacco products. The plaintiff argues that there
is no legitimate reason for a culinary product to be sold in such
establishments, and that the smoke shops knowingly sold the gas for
recreational use, despite its dangers.
The case may have sweeping implications for both the vape retail
industry and nitrous oxide regulation nationwide. If certified, the
case could set a new precedent for holding retailers accountable
for selling products that are widely misused, despite being
technically legal. [GN]
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Defective Engines
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that General
Motors faces a proposed class action lawsuit that alleges the
company's "dangerously defective" 6.2L V8 L87 engine is prone to
sudden and catastrophic failure, a problem allegedly so widespread
that the automaker has reportedly told service centers that it
lacks enough replacement parts for repairs.
The 22-page General Motors lawsuit warns that vehicles equipped
with the 6.2L V8 L87 engine, introduced in 2019, may fail entirely
"with little or no warning" and necessitate "complex, expensive,
time-consuming" and often futile repairs. Per the case, some GM
drivers have reported experiencing engine failure "within days" of
buying their vehicle, while one engine allegedly failed after only
four miles of driving.
According to the class action suit, the problematic GM engine is
found in nearly one million model year 2019–2024 Chevrolet
Silverado 1500, 2021–2024 Chevrolet Tahoe, 2021–2024 Chevrolet
Suburban, 2019–2024 GMC Sierra 1500, 2021–2024 GMC Yukon,
2021–2024 GMC Yukon XL, 2021–2024 Cadillac Escalade, and
2021–2024 Cadillac Escalade ESV vehicles. General Motors has
marketed these vehicle models as "rugged" and "reliable"
workhorses, the suit notes.
The alleged GM 6.2L V8 L87 engine defect has caused a drastic
decrease in the value of affected vehicle models and left drivers
nationwide without the use of their Chevy, GMC and Cadillac
vehicles, the filing says.
General Motors has known of the L87 engine problems since at least
2021, the class action lawsuit alleges. In January 2025, the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) commenced an
investigation into the affected vehicle models, as some 877,710
cars are equipped with the same engine, the filing shares.
Since the NHTSA began looking into the GM engine issue, more than a
thousand complaints of sudden, catastrophic engine failure have
been reported, indicating the existence of "a major quality control
issue," the case states.
Per the filing, the NHTSA describes the alleged GM engine defect as
"internal engine component failure," resulting from "improper
installation of the wrist pin and circlip (a.k.a. retainage clip),
or due to missing circlips." Failure of either of the components
allows for wrist-pin displacement and connecting rod failure, the
lawsuit says.
Even with the express warranties it offers for the affected vehicle
models, GM has "left many customers stranded for weeks" as they
await engine repairs, the complaint stresses.
The GM 6.2L V8 L87 engine defect lawsuit looks to cover all
individuals in the United States who bought a 2019–2024 Chevrolet
Silverado 1500, 2021–2024 Chevrolet Tahoe, 2021–2024 Chevrolet
Suburban, 2019–2024 GMC Sierra 1500, 2021–2024 GMC Yukon,
2021–2024 GMC Yukon XL, 2021–2024 Cadillac Escalade, or
2021–2024 Cadillac Escalade ESV, other than for resale, between
the launch of the L87 in 2019 and the present. [GN]
GENERAL MOTORS: Nava Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection
------------------------------------------------------
ANTHONY NAVA, Plaintiff v. GENERAL MOTORS FINANCIAL COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-00342-O (N.D. Tex., March 31, 2025) is
a class action seeking to recover damages and illegal profits and
to prevent Defendant General Motors Financial Company, Inc. from
benefiting from its violations of the Texas Debt Collection Act.
According to the complaint, GM Financial routinely and
systematically violates provisions of the TDCA by collecting from
borrowers' fees that are not authorized by their auto loan
agreements or permitted by law. Moreover, GM Financial abuses its
position as a vehicle loan servicer by charging fees to borrowers
who make their auto loan payments online or over the phone, says
the suit.
Headquartered in Forth Worth, TX, General Motors Financial Company,
Inc. provides auto finance to customers in the United States,
Mexico, Latin America, Canada, Europe, and China. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicole Bell, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP
935 Gravier Street
Suite 1600
New Orleans, LA 70112
Telephone: (504) 523-2434
E-mail: nbell@peifferwolf.com
- and -
Brandon M. Wise, Esq.
Domenica M. Russo, Esq.
PEIFFER WOLF CARR KANE CONWAY & WISE, LLP
One US Bank Plaza
Suite 1950
St. Louis, MO 63101
Telephone: (314) 833-4825
E-mail: bwise@peifferwolf.com
drusso@peifferwolf.com
GLOBAL BLOOD: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Jolly Due April 24
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Jolly, v. Global Blood
Therapeutics, Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-09345-TLT (N.D. Cal.), the
Hon. Judge Trina Thompson entered a case management and scheduling
order as follows:
Trial Date: Aug. 16, 2027
Final Pretrial Conference: July 15, 2027
Daubert and Dispositive Motions: Feb. 2, 2027
. Class Certification Motion Hearing: June 30, 2026
Class Certification Reply Due: May 29, 2026
Class Certification: Opposition Due: May 15, 2026
Class Certification Motion Due: April 24, 2026
Global Blood is a biopharmaceutical company dedicated to the
discovery, development, and delivery of life-changing treatments
that provide hope to underserved patient communities.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 2, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ccH2y3 at no extra
charge.[CC]
GOLDEN WEST SECURITY: Sandoval Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Golden West Security.
The case is styled as Homero Sandoval, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated v. Golden West Security, Case No.
25STCV09508 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 1, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
Golden West Security -- https://www.goldenwestsecurity.com.au/ --
offer a range of security doors and security screen doors.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638
Phone: 310-432-0000
Fax: 310-432-0001
Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
GREENVILLE COUNTY, SC: O.R. Sues Over Library Policy Amendments
---------------------------------------------------------------
O.R., by and through his parents, Cheryl Rogers and Greg Rogers, on
behalf of himself and those similarly situated; CHERYL ROGERS; GREG
ROGERS; E.G., by and through her mother, Amber Galea, on behalf of
herself and those similarly situated; M.G by and through her
mother, Amber Galea; and W.M., by and through his mother, Kersey
Clark, Plaintiffs v. GREENVILLE COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA; BEVERLY
JAMES, in her official capacity as Executive Director of the
Greenville County Library System; and KAREN ALLEN, in her official
capacity as Youth Services Manager of the Greenville County Library
System, Defendants, Case No. 6:25-cv-02599-DCC (D.S.C., March 26,
2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the First Amendment's and the Fourteenth Amendment's
Anti-Trans-Character Collection Policy and Widespread Custom &
Practices.
The case arises from the adoption of policy amendments by the Board
of the Greenville County Library System, which require the removal
of all materials from the juvenile and young adult sections of the
library that contain "illustrations, themes, or story lines [that]
affirm, portray, or discuss changing the appearance of a minor's
gender in ways inconsistent with the minor's biological sex" or
with "illustrations, themes, or storylines that celebrate, portray,
or affirm gender transitioning." The Library also enforces a
widespread custom and practice of discriminating against the
collection, retention, and display of library materials, including
books for adults that positively portray LGBTQ people. By
discriminatorily suppressing the Plaintiffs' access to these
materials on the basis of the Defendants' animus towards gender
transition and transgender people, the Defendants have violated,
and continue to violate, the Plaintiffs' rights under the First and
Fourteenth Amendments, causing ongoing and irreparable harm, suit
says.
Greenville County is a county in South Carolina. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Shana Knizhnik, Esq.
Joshua Block, Esq.
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION
125 Broad Street, Floor 18
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 549-2500
Email: sknizhnik@aclu.org
jblock@aclu.org
- and -
Allen Chaney, Esq.
ACLU OF SOUTH CAROLINA
P.O. Box 1668
Columbia, SC 29202
Telephone: (864) 372-6881
HOMEGOODS LLC: Becerra Suit Removed to E.D. California
------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Brianna Becerra and Melissa Ponton,
individuals and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
HOMEGOODS LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; EMMA HEATH, an
individual; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. VCU318397
was removed from the Superior Court for the State of California, in
and for the County of Tulare, to the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California on April 1, 2025, and
assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00381-BAM.
The Complaint asserts the following causes of action: Failure To
Pay Overtime Wages; Failure To Pay Minimum Wages; Failure To
Provide Meal Periods; Failure To Provide Rest Periods; Waiting Time
Penalties; Wage Statement Violations; Failure To Indemnify; and
Unfair Competition.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Bradley E. Schwan, Esq.
Jannine E. Kranz, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON P.C.
2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067.3107
Phone: 310.553.0308
Fax: 310.553.5583
Email: bschwan@littler.com
jkranz@littler.com
- and -
Brittany L. McCarthy, Esq.
Warsame Y. Hassan, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
501 W. Broadway, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92101.3577
Phone: 619.232.0441
Fax: 619.232.4302
Email: blmccarthy@littler.com
wyhassan@littler.com
HUMACYTE INC: Has Until June 27 to Respond to "Cutshall"
--------------------------------------------------------
On November 18, 2024, James A. Cutshall filed a putative class
action lawsuit, captioned Cutshall v. Humacyte, Inc., et al., No.
1:24-cv-00954, against the Company and certain of the Company's
officers in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina.
The complaint in the Securities Litigation asserts claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act on behalf of a
putative class of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise
acquired securities of the Company between May 10, 2024 and October
17, 2024, based on allegations that the defendants made or were
responsible for false or misleading statements and omissions
related to the BLA for the vascular trauma indication and to
alleged deficiencies at the Company's Durham, North Carolina
manufacturing facility.
The Complaint seeks a variety of relief, including unspecified
compensatory damages, attorneys fees and costs.
On January 31, 2025, the court appointed co-lead plaintiffs. On
February 19, 2025, the court entered a scheduling order directing
the co-lead plaintiffs to file a consolidated amended complaint by
April 24, 2025 and the defendants to answer or otherwise respond to
the amended complaint by June 27, 2025.
HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Nexo Hydrogen Vehicles
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sepehr Daghighian, writing for TheLemonFirm.com, reports that
Hyundai is facing a class action lawsuit filed in California
federal court over allegations that its Nexo hydrogen fuel cell
vehicles are fundamentally flawed and falsely advertised. The suit,
brought by plaintiff Stacy Ross, also names FirstElement Fuel Inc.
and California Governor Gavin Newsom as co-defendants.
Ross alleges that Hyundai misled consumers about the practicality
and reliability of Nexo's fuel infrastructure, safety systems, and
long-term usability. The lawsuit paints a picture of a vehicle sold
on the promise of zero-emission convenience but plagued with
limited refueling options, unreliable infrastructure, and critical
safety issues.
Core Allegations: Infrastructure Failure and Vehicle Defects
The plaintiff claims that Hyundai and FirstElement Fuel built and
marketed a hydrogen vehicle system that fails to meet even basic
expectations. Among the most concerning issues cited:
-- Hydrogen stations are frequently inoperable or closed.
-- The Nexo's hydrogen tank often fails to fill completely.
-- Only three dealerships in California can service the Nexo,
with specially trained technicians.
-- Safety problems include a faulty parking sensor system that
shuts down without warning.
-- Malfunctioning GPS navigation, which further degrades
usability.
Ross asserts that despite full knowledge of these issues, Hyundai
continues to sell the Nexo in California, where a lack of adequate
fueling and servicing support has left owners stranded and unable
to use their vehicles as intended.
In addition, the suit accuses Governor Newsom of channeling
significant taxpayer dollars to support what the lawsuit describes
as a commercially unviable and environmentally flawed hydrogen
infrastructure.
What the Lawsuit Seeks
The class action seeks to represent all California-based owners or
lessees who purchased or leased a Hyundai Nexo in the past four
years. Ross is demanding compensatory, statutory, and punitive
damages, as well as injunctive and declaratory relief. Claims
include fraud, breach of warranty, false advertising, and
violations of California consumer protection laws.
The lawsuit is Ross, et al. v. Hyundai Motor America Inc., et al.,
Case No. 2:25-cv-01480, filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California.
How Hyundai Owners Can Take Back Control
While this class action lawsuit has been initiated, many Hyundai
Nexo owners are likely affected by the same alleged infrastructure
and defect issues, with numerous drivers expressing frustration
over the brand's lack of transparency and support. These types of
issues often lead to escalated legal action, highlighting the
importance of protecting consumer rights.
If you struggle with vehicle troubles and feel cornered against big
vehicle brands, remember it is always better to have experts with
you. With extensive experience and successful cases at hand, The
Lemon Firm is your best bet. With dedicated team members always at
your disposal, the package becomes too good to be true. So, if your
car is giving you a headache, don't hesitate to reach out!
Call 833 Lemon Firm and speak with a case analyst today! [GN]
IM CANNABIS: Tel Aviv Court Approves Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
On August 19, 2019, a cannabis consumer filed a T.Z. Motion for
approval of a class action to Tel Aviv - Jaffa District Court
against 17 companies operating in the field of medical cannabis in
Israel, including Focus Medical Herbs Ltd., a subsidiary of IMC
Holdings Ltd.
The T.Z. Applicant's argument is that the T.Z. Parties did not
accurately mark the concentration of active ingredients in their
products. The personal suit sum for each class member stands at NIS
15,585,000 and the total amount of the class action suit is
estimated at NIS 685,740,000,000. On June 2, 2020, the T.Z. Parties
submitted their response to the T.Z. Motion. The T.Z. Parties argue
in their response that the threshold conditions for approval of a
class action were not met, since there is no reasonable possibility
that the causes of action in the T.Z. Motion will be decided in
favor of the class group.
On July 3, 2020, the T.Z. Applicant submitted his response to the
T.Z. Parties' response. On July 5, 2020, the T.Z. Applicant was
absent from the hearing. As a result, on July 23, 2020, the T.Z.
Parties filed an application for a ruling of expenses which
received a response from the T.Z. Applicant on August 12, 2020,
asking to decline this request. On September 29, 2020, the court
ruled that the T.Z. Applicant would pay the T.Z. Parties' expenses
amount of NIS 750,000. On July 14, 2021, a prehearing was held. The
court recommended the parties negotiate independently to avoid
litigation, and if negotiations fail, then to begin mediation
proceedings. The parties agreed to follow the court's
recommendations.
On November 3, 2021, the court ruled the T.Z. Parties will file an
update regarding the mediation procedure in 30 days. The parties
conducted unsuccessful negotiations. On March 14, 2022, the T.Z.
Applicant filed a request to amend the T.Z. Motion and the judge
disqualified herself from hearing the case. As a result, the case
was redirected. On June 21, 2022, the T.Z. Parties filed a response
to the T.Z. Applicant's Request for Amendment. On September 12,
2022, the court ruled on the T.Z. Applicant's Request for Amendment
and accepted the T.Z. Applicant’s request to clarify its claims
regarding product labeling, while rejecting the T.Z. Applicant's
other requests. On November 27, 2023, the T.Z. Applicant submitted
an amended application for approval of the T.Z. Motion, and the
T.Z. Parties’ response was submitted on February 8, 2023. On
March 16, 2023, the T.Z. Parties submitted its deposition, and the
T.Z. Applicant submitted its response to the T.Z. Parties respond
from February 8, 2023. On April 20, 2023, the T.Z. Parties
submitted a request to delete new evidence and clauses from the
T.Z. Applicant respond. On April 27, 2023, a preliminary hearing
was held and an evidentiary hearing was scheduled for October 22nd,
2023 and November 5th, 2023.
On July 4, 2023, the T.Z. Parties submitted an agreed request to
release from the class action and validity of a judgment. The
request was conditioned upon and subject to approval of the court.
According to the release request, the companies will pay the
plaintiff a total amount of NIS 70,000 (including VAT) and a total
amount of NIS 40,000 (including VAT) to the T.Z. Applicant's
counsel. On July 24, 2023, the T.Z. Motion was approved by the
court.
About IM Cannabis Corp.
IMC (Nasdaq: IMCC) (CSE: IMCC) is an international cannabis
company
that provides premium cannabis products to medical patients in
Israel and Germany, two of the largest medical cannabis markets.
The Company has exited operations in Canada to pivot its focus and
resources to achieve sustainable and profitable growth in its
highest value markets, Israel and Germany. The Company leverages a
transnational ecosystem powered by a unique data-driven approach
and a globally sourced product supply chain.
As of March 31, 2024, the Company has C$41,109,000 in total assets
and C$32,765,000 in total liabilities.
INSIGHT FOUNDATION: Faces Class Action Suit Amid Hospital Closure
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea Simeon and Nadine Grimley, writing for WKBN 27, report that
a class-action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio against Insight Foundation after
local hospitals closed and employees say they were left without
paychecks.
Filed by David McCullough, of Garrettsville, Ohio, the lawsuit
contends that he was an employee of Insight Hillside and that he
and other employees of Insight Trumbull and Hillside were
terminated without cause as a result of massive layoffs on March
28. The lawsuit says employees were not provided 60 days advanced
written notice of their terminations as required by the Worker
Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act).
The plaintiffs are seeking to recover 60 days' pay and ERISA
benefits, as well as the repayment of money deducted from wages for
fringe benefits and compensation for accrued but unpaid vacation
time.
The law firm of Dubyak Nelson filed the lawsuit.
"We filed this lawsuit to try to get employees paid for the money
that they are entitled to for the hours that they worked and were
unpaid, and also for additional funds that they may be entitled to
under federal and state law," said Christina Spallina, attorney for
the plaintiffs.
McCullough says he was notified that his health insurance was
terminated on March 31, but he says Insight is withholding his
contributions to the health plan and has not returned them.
The lawsuit contends that those at Insight told employees they were
being temporarily "furloughed" and would remain on the payroll and
receive accrued vacation time, but employees have not been paid for
accrued vacation time and at least three weeks' worth of wages
prior to the termination of their employment.
A spokesperson for the company announced last March 27, 2025, that
all services at the hospitals were pausing, citing a lack of
funding that was supposed to come from Steward Health through
bankruptcy court.
Union representatives told WKBN that communication hadn't been
clear, and Trumbull County commissioners previously said they were
"dismayed" that the board hadn't been notified of Insight's
decision to halt services at most of its facilities.
Judge Benita Y. Pearson has been assigned to the case.
Insight has not entered a response yet. WKBN reached out to Insight
for comment but has not yet heard back.
Meanwhile, Rep. David Thomas is reacting to the shuttered
hospitals.
"I feel for the workers, for the folks who use the hospital systems
who rely on them; my heart goes out to them. It's very, very
disappointing," Thomas said.
Thomas's district includes parts of Trumbull County. He says he's
been coordinating with Rep. Nick Santucci and the Governor's
Office, plus has talked with the head of the hospital system to
offer support.
"Unfortunately, given this current situation and where they're at
just as a basic reality, there does not seem to be much, if
anything, we at the state level can do," Thomas said.
Ohio Congressman Dave Joyce also released a statement:
"In Congress, I have always fought for access to quality healthcare
in communities across my district. I am incredibly disappointed to
hear the news that Insight has closed Trumbull Regional Medical
Center and Hillside Rehabilitation Hospital in Warren, severely
limiting healthcare access for local residents and creating
unsettling job instability for hospital staff. At this time, I
remain committed to working with local officials to support
community healthcare access and the workers who have dedicated
their lives to patient care."
Spallina says people can reach out to their law offices for more
information by calling 216-364-0500.
"We're interested in speaking to anyone who has questions about
what we filed and whether or not that lawsuit applies to them," she
said. [GN]
INTERSTATE MGMT: Court Discharges Order to Show Cause in Carrero
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of California discharges an order to show
cause issued in the lawsuit entitled ELIZABETH QUIROGA CARRERO, on
behalf of herself and all other similarly situated non-exempt
former and current employees, Plaintiff v. INTERSTATE MANAGEMENT
COMPANY LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-01077-JLT-SAB
(E.D. Cal.).
On Jan. 22, 2025, the parties filed a notice of settlement of this
action. On Jan. 23, 2025, the Court issued an order setting the
deadline to file dispositional documents within sixty days. Because
the parties failed to file such documents or otherwise request an
extension of time from the Court by the deadline, the Court issued
an order to show cause why sanctions should not issue on March 25,
2025.
On March 31, 2025, the parties filed a joint declaration responding
to the order to show cause, along with a stipulation of dismissal.
Satisfied with the response from the parties, the Court will
discharge the order to show cause.
While the Plaintiff has brought this case as a putative class
action, the Court agrees with the parties that Rule 41(a) applies
in the disposition of this matter and not Rule 23(e) because no
class has been certified and the matter is being dismissed without
prejudice.
In light of the stipulation of the parties, Judge Boone rules that
this action has been terminated and has been dismissed without
prejudice as to all claims and causes of action with each party
bearing that party's own attorney's fees and costs.
Accordingly, the Court discharges the March 25, 2025 order
requiring the parties to show cause. The Clerk of the Court is
ordered to close the file in this case and adjust the docket to
reflect voluntary dismissal of this action pursuant to Rule 41(a).
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3y8xctdh from PacerMonitor.com.
JAMES KOUTOULAS: Sheeler's Bid to Intervene Tossed
--------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIC DE FORD, SANDRA BADER
and SHAWN R. KEY, v. JAMES KOUTOULAS and LGBCOIN, LTD, Case No.
6:22-cv-00652-PGB-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Paul Byron
entered an order denying pro se non-party Albert Sheeler's motion
to intervene.
The Court notes that Mr. Sheeler's Motion again fails to comply
with the Local Rules. Specifically, Mr. Sheeler does not include a
legal memorandum, nor does he comply with this Court's duty to
confer in good faith. This, alone, is sufficient basis for the
Court to deny the Motion.
Because Mr. Sheeler's motion fails due to untimeliness, the Court
need not consider the remaining elements of Rule 24(a)(2).
The Plaintiffs initiated this putative class action on April 1,
2022.
On June 2, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a notice certifying their
compliance with the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
("PSLRA").
A copy of the Court's order dated April 3, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JB7Vi1 at no extra
charge.[CC]
JAMO 31: Kim Must File Class Cert Bid by May 23
-----------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as AJ W. KIM, on behalf of
himself, FLSA Collective Plaintiffs, and the Class, JEE YEON HAN,
JAE HWAN SHIN, DEVIN LIU, CASEY ROSARIO, SAMUEL KANG, DOMINICK
RUSSO, and WINTON FONG, v. JAMO 31 INC. d/b/a OSAMIL, JAMO 31 PLUS
INC. d/b/a OSAMIL UPSTAIRS, MOKWOO KIM, WON CHUL SEO a/k/a LION
SEO, and IRENE LEE a/k/a SOOKYUNG LEE, Case No. 1:24-cv-02062-MKV
(S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil entered an order
granting the parties leave to file their cross-motions for partial
summary judgment.
-- The parties shall file their motions on or before May 2, 2025.
-- Oppositions are due on or before May 23, 2025, and replies are
due on or before May 30, 2025.
-- The Plaintiffs shall file their motion for class certification
on or before May 2, 2025.
-- The Defendants' opposition is due on or before May 23, 2025.
-- The Plaintiffs' reply is due on or before May 30, 2025.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 2, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=10U18K at no extra
charge.[CC]
JBS USA FOOD: Court Grants in Part Joint Bid to Dismiss Brown Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Philip A. Brimmer of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Colorado grants in part and denies in part the
Defendants' joint motion to dismiss the lawsuit entitled RON BROWN,
and MINKA GARMON, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JBS USA FOOD COMPANY, TYSON
FOODS, INC., CARGILL, INC., CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS CORP., HORMEL
FOODS CORP., ROCHELLE FOODS, LLC, AMERICAN FOODS GROUP, LLC,
TRIUMPH FOODS, LLC, SEABOARD FOODS, LLC, NATIONAL BEEF PACKING CO.,
LLC, SMITHFIELD FOODS INC., SMITHFIELD PACKAGED MEATS CORP., AGRI
BEEF CO., WASHINGTON BEEF, LLC, PERDUE FARMS, INC., GREATER OMAHA
PACKING CO., INC., INDIANA PACKERS CORPORATION, QUALITY PORK
PROCESSORS, INC., AGRI STATS, INC., and WEBBER, MENG, SAHL AND
COMPANY, INC., d/b/a/ WMS & Company, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-02946-PAB-STV (D. Colo.).
The matter is before the Court on the Defendants' Joint Motion to
Dismiss the Amended Complaint for Failure to State a Claim filed on
behalf of all Defendants. The Defendants move to dismiss both of
the Plaintiffs' claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) to the extent they are based on the allegations added in
the Plaintiffs' amended complaint. The Plaintiffs oppose the
Defendants' motion. The Defendants filed a reply.
Plaintiffs Ron Brown and Minka Garmon bring claims on behalf of
themselves individually and on behalf of a class consisting of all
individuals employed by the Defendants, their subsidiaries, and
related entities at beef- and pork-processing plants in the
continental United States from Jan. 1, 2000, to the present day
(the "class period").
The Defendants include 15 red meat processors and several of their
subsidiaries (the "Processor Defendants"), which include the
following Defendants named in both the original and amended
complaints: Agri Beef Co.; Washington Beef, LLC; American Foods
Group, LLC; Cargill, Inc.; Cargill Meat Solutions Corp.; Hormel
Foods Corp.; JBS USA Food Co.; National Beef Packing Co., LLC;
Perdue Farms, Inc.; Seaboard Foods, LLC; Smithfield Foods, Inc.;
Smithfield Packaged Meats Corp.; Triumph Foods, LLC; and Tyson
Foods, Inc. In addition to the processor Defendants, the amended
complaint names two consulting companies as Defendants, Agri Stats,
Inc., and Webber, Meng, Sahl and Company, Inc. ("WMS").
The Processor Defendants collectively produce approximately 80
percent of the red meat that is sold in the United States. They own
and operate approximately 140 red meat processing plants in the
continental United States. They employed hundreds of thousands of
the members of the class during the class period in various
positions and compensated these employees with benefits and either
hourly wages or an annual salary.
The case arises out of claims that the Defendants suppressed the
wages of employees at beef- and pork-processing plants across the
United States from 2000 to the present day. On Nov. 11, 2022, the
Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and a class composed of the
individuals employed at the Defendants' beef- and pork-processing
plants, filed their original complaint. On Feb. 17, 2023, the
Defendants filed a joint motion to dismiss, arguing that the
Plaintiffs had failed to state plausible claims for relief and that
the Plaintiffs' claims were barred by the statute of limitations.
On Feb. 17, 2023, the Defendants also filed individualized
supplemental motions to dismiss. On Sept. 27, 2023, the Court ruled
on the motions to dismiss. The Court found that the Plaintiffs'
claims were not time-barred and that the Plaintiffs had plausibly
stated their first and second claims as to every Defendant except
Defendant Iowa Premium, LLC, who the Court dismissed from the
case.
On Jan. 11, 2024, the parties filed a stipulated motion to grant
the Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint. On Jan. 12, 2024,
the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. Most of the allegations
in the amended complaint are identical to those in the original
complaint. However, the amended complaint alleges new means by
which the Defendants suppressed their employees' wages, expands the
period covered by the Plaintiffs' claims, and adds five new
Defendants.
On April 5, 2024, the Defendants filed the joint motion to dismiss,
which argues that the portion of the Plaintiffs' claims expanded by
the new allegations in the amended complaint should be dismissed.
As part of the amended complaint, the Plaintiffs include new
allegations, including the fact that from 2000 to 2019, the
Defendant Processors directly exchanged sensitive compensation
data, including the amount and dates of planned future hourly wage
increases, through compensation surveys. The surveys were called
the "Beef Industry Wage Indexes" ("BIWI") and "Pork Industry Wage
Indexes" ("PIWI") (collectively the "BIWI/PIWI surveys") and were
conducted by Tyson.
The participating Processor Defendants provided their sensitive
compensation information directly to Tyson in private
communications for the purpose of assembling the BIWI/PIWI surveys.
Such data was often transmitted by telephone rather than by written
communication. Each BIWI and PIWI was labeled "CONFIDENTIAL," and
the Processor Defendants agreed not to share the compensation data
beyond those processors that participated in the surveys.
The parties dispute whether the Court must consider the allegations
regarding the BIWI/PIWI surveys separately to determine if they
plausibly allege violations of the Sherman Act or whether the Court
can consider the allegations regarding WMS and the BIWI/PIWI
surveys together in analyzing the sufficiency of the Plaintiffs'
pleading.
The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to allege a single
conspiracy because, although the Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged
that the goal of each conspiracy was the same, the complaint fails
to plausibly allege that this was a shared goal, i.e. that the
conspiracies were interdependent and that the Defendants acted
together for their shared mutual benefit within the scope of the
conspiracy.
The Court also finds that it is not plausible that participants in
the Red Meat Survey Group, who agreed to internally exchange
compensation information as a means of suppressing wages (the "WMS
conspiracy") also had a shared, single objective to fix wages with
non-Red Meat Survey Group members who exchanged compensation
information through the BIWI/PIWI surveys (the "BIWI/PIWI
conspiracy"). Each group kept its membership exclusive and its
compensation data confidential. The complaint does not allege that
the participants in the BIWI/PIWI surveys, who were not "recruited"
to join the Red Meat Survey Group, were aware that the "secret
group" existed, or that Red Meat Survey Group members, who did not
receive BIWI/PIWI surveys, were aware of the "secret BIWI and PIWI
reports."
Finally, in reaching this conclusion, the Court has not
impermissibly judged the complaint by dismembering it and viewing
its separate parts. Instead, it is only by considering the
allegations in the complaint as a whole that it is clear that the
exclusive nature of both conspiracies makes them distinct.
Therefore, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs' amended complaint
adds a new conspiracy as a separate basis for its first and second
claims. As such, the Court will consider whether the Plaintiffs
have plausibly stated their claims against the Defendants based on
their BIWI/PIWI survey allegations.
On the matter whether the Plaintiffs plausibly state their first
and second claims for relief, Judge Brimmer finds that the
Defendants provide no support for the proposition that the Court
must ignore the general allegations on the grounds that the
Plaintiffs provide more detailed allegations about certain years.
The Plaintiffs' allegation that BIWI/PIWI surveys were exchanged at
least annually from 2000 to the present day is not a mere
conclusion, Judge Brimmer says. The allegation is supported by more
specific allegations regarding the dates and participants in
surveys in 2000, 2002, 2004 through 2009, 2011 through 2014, and
2019. As such, Judge Brimmer holds that the Defendants' argument
fails. Finally, regarding the Defendants' argument that the
Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege parallel conduct because
the amended complaint does not identify temporally proximate
parallel conduct, the Court disagrees.
Considering the allegations in the Plaintiffs' amended complaint as
a whole, the Court finds that they plausibly allege sufficient
parallel conduct to support the Plaintiffs' claim for a per se
violation of the Sherman Act.
Judge Brimmer finds that the complaint plausibly alleges that the
BIWI/PIWI conspiracy occurred during the limitations period. The
Court also finds that the Defendants did not have adequate notice
that they could be subject to liability in this action for
exchanging BIWI/PIWI surveys based on the allegations in the
original complaint that the Plaintiffs exchanged wage information
via WMS and Agri Stats.
The Court also finds, among other things, that the terms of the
collective bargaining agreements make the Plaintiffs' allegation
that the BIWI/PIWI surveys were kept secret from the Plaintiffs
implausible. As such, the Defendants' conspiracy to suppress wages
through the exchange of compensation information contained in the
BIWI/PIWI surveys was not effectively concealed from the
Plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs have, therefore, failed to plausibly allege the
second element of fraudulent concealment. Accordingly, the
Plaintiffs have not shown that the statute of limitations on their
claims based on the BIWI/PIWI conspiracy should be equitably
tolled. Therefore, although the Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged
their BIWI/PIWI conspiracy claims and have alleged that these
conspiracies have continued to the present day, the Plaintiffs are
barred from recovering for injuries that occurred before Jan. 12,
2020.
For these reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part the
Defendants' Joint Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint for
Failure to State a Claim. The Plaintiffs' first and second claims
for relief are dismissed to the extent they seek to recover for the
alleged BIWI/PIWI conspiracy prior to Jan. 12, 2020.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/tmpzhv87 from PacerMonitor.com.
JBS USA FOOD: Omaha Packing's Bid to Toss Brown Suit OK'd in Part
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Philip A. Brimmer of the U.S. District Court
for the District of Colorado grants in part and denies in part
Defendant Greater Omaha Packing Co., Inc.'s motion to dismiss the
lawsuit styled RON BROWN, and MINKA GARMON, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. JBS USA FOOD
COMPANY, TYSON FOODS, INC., CARGILL, INC., CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS
CORP., HORMEL FOODS CORP., ROCHELLE FOODS, LLC, AMERICAN FOODS
GROUP, LLC, TRIUMPH FOODS, LLC, SEABOARD FOODS, LLC, NATIONAL BEEF
PACKING CO., LLC, SMITHFIELD FOODS INC., SMITHFIELD PACKAGED MEATS
CORP., AGRI BEEF CO., WASHINGTON BEEF, LLC, PERDUE FARMS, INC.,
GREATER OMAHA PACKING CO., INC., INDIANA PACKERS CORPORATION,
QUALITY PORK PROCESSORS, INC., AGRI STATS, INC., and WEBBER, MENG,
SAHL AND COMPANY, INC., d/b/a/ WMS & Company, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 1:22-cv-02946-PAB-STV (D. Colo.).
The matters before the Court are Defendant Greater Omaha Packing
Co., Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss and IPC's Motion to Dismiss for
Failure to State a Claim, or in the Alternative, Motion for a More
Definite Statement. The motions are filed by Greater Omaha Packing
Co., Inc. ("Omaha Packing") and Indiana Packers Corporation
("Indiana Packers" or "IPC").
The case arises out of class action antitrust claims against the
Defendants for allegedly suppressing the wages of the employees at
beef- and pork-processing plants across the United States.
Plaintiffs Ron Brown and Minka Garmon bring claims on behalf of
themselves individually and on behalf of a class consisting of all
individuals employed by the Defendants, their subsidiaries, and
related entities at beef- and pork-processing plants in the
continental United States from Jan. 1, 2000, to the present day
(the "class period").
The Defendants include 14 red meat processors and several of their
subsidiaries (the "Processor Defendants"), including Omaha Packing
and Indiana Packers. In addition to the Processor Defendants, the
amended complaint names two consulting companies as Defendants,
Agri Stats, Inc. ("Agri Stats") and Webber, Meng, Sahl and Company,
Inc. ("WMS").
The Processor Defendants collectively produce approximately 80
percent of the red meat that is sold in the United States. The
Processor Defendants own and operate approximately 140 red meat
processing plants in the continental United States and employed
hundreds of thousands of the members of the class during the class
period in various positions and compensated these employees with
benefits and either hourly wages or an annual salary.
Since 2000, the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants have
conspired to fix and depress the wages of their employees at the
Processor Defendants' red meat processing plants, which has been
facilitated by their exchange of non-public compensation data via
Agri Stats, WMS, and surveys called the "Beef Industry Wage
Indexes" ("BIWI") and "Pork Industry Wage Indexes" ("PIWI").
From 2000 to 2019, the Processor Defendants directly exchanged
sensitive compensation data, including the amount and dates of
planned future hourly wage increases, through BIWI/PIWI surveys
conducted by Tyson Foods Inc. ("Tyson"). The participating
Processor Defendants provided their sensitive compensation
information directly to Tyson in private communications for the
purpose of assembling the BIWI/PIWI surveys. Such data was often
transmitted by telephone rather than by written communication. Each
BIWI and PIWI was labeled "CONFIDENTIAL," and the Processor
Defendants agreed not to share the compensation data beyond those
processors that participated in the surveys. The BIWI and PIWI
reports identified how much each participating Processor Defendant
was currently paying and would be paying in the future to
hourly-paid workers at each of the Processor Defendant's red meat
processing plants.
Throughout the class period, senior executives of the Processor
Defendants, who had the authority to determine or influence the
compensation of members of the class, allegedly contacted one
another in order to align their current and future compensation
practices. As a result of the conspiracy to depress wages, the
Processor Defendants simultaneously and in parallel limited annual
wage increases to members of the class. Wages were lower than they
would have been in the absence of a conspiracy.
The Plaintiffs bring two claims against the Defendants. First, the
Plaintiffs bring a claim under Section 1 of the Sherman Act for the
Defendants entering "into a continuing agreement, understanding,
and conspiracy in restraint of trade to fix, depress, maintain, and
stabilize the compensation paid to workers at their red meat
processing plants in the continental United States" (the "per se
claim").
The Plaintiffs also bring a claim under Section 1 of the Sherman
Act for the Defendants entering into "a continuing agreement to
regularly exchange detailed, timely, competitively sensitive, and
non-public information about the compensation being paid or to be
paid to their employees at red meat processing plants in the
continental United States," which the Plaintiffs allege "is an
unreasonable restraint of trade" (the "rule of reason claim").
On Nov. 11, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed their original complaint, in
which they brought claims based on the Defendants' use of WMS and
Agri Stats to exchange compensation data and suppress wages from
2014 to the present. On Feb. 17, 2023, the Defendants filed a joint
motion to dismiss, arguing that the Plaintiffs had failed to state
plausible claims for relief and that the Plaintiffs' claims were
barred by the statute of limitations. The Individual Defendants
filed supplemental motions to dismiss.
On Sept. 27, 2023, the Court ruled on the motions to dismiss. The
Court found that the Plaintiffs' claims were not time-barred and
that they had plausibly stated their first and second claims as to
every Defendant then part of the case except Defendant Iowa
Premium, LLC, who the Court dismissed from the case.
On April 5, 2024, the Defendants filed their joint motion to
dismiss, which argued that the Plaintiffs' claims should be
dismissed as they relate to the new allegations in the amended
complaint and as they relate to the expanded time period covered by
the Plaintiffs' claims. That same day Indiana Packers and Greater
Omaha filed supplemental motions to dismiss. The Plaintiffs
responded to Indiana Packers' and Greater Omaha's motions to
dismiss and Indiana Packers and Greater Omaha replied.
On March 26, 2025, the Court ruled on the second joint motion to
dismiss. The Court found that the Plaintiffs had not plausibly
alleged a single conspiracy to fix and depress wages at the
Processor Defendants' meat packing plants. Instead, because the
allegations in the complaint demonstrated that nonparticipants in
the BIWI/PIWI surveys and the Red Meat Industry Compensation
Surveys were excluded from each other's information, the amended
complaint alleges two parallel conspiracies to fix and depress
wages (the "BIWI/PIWI conspiracy" and the "WMS conspiracy").
The Court found that, while the Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged
their claims based on the BIWI/PIWI conspiracy, they have failed to
demonstrate the statute of limitations should be tolled from 2000
to the present due to the Defendants' fraudulent concealment. The
Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendants' joint
motion to dismiss and dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims based on the
BIWI/PIWI conspiracy for the period from 2000 to 2020 as to every
Defendant.
Indiana Packers and Greater Omaha argue that the statute of
limitations bars the Plaintiffs' claims against them. The amended
complaint alleges that Greater Omaha participated in BIWI surveys
at least in 2000, 2004, 2006-2009, 2011-2015, and 2019. The amended
complaint also alleges that BIWI surveys contained sensitive
compensation data, including the amount and dates of planned future
hourly wage increases.
The Court finds that these allegations are sufficient to plausibly
allege that Greater Omaha knowingly joined the BIWI/PIWI conspiracy
because it is unlikely to have shared its competitively sensitive
compensation data without an advance agreement between the
Defendants to use the information for their mutual benefit, such as
using the information to depress wages.
Judge Brimmer notes that there are no allegations in the amended
complaint that Greater Omaha was recruited into the Red Meat Survey
Group, that it exchanged competitively sensitive information
through the Red Meat Industry Compensation Surveys, or that it
attended Red Meat Industry Compensation Meetings. The amended
complaint, therefore, does not plausibly allege that Greater Omaha
joined the WMS conspiracy. The Court will dismiss the Plaintiffs'
first and second claims against Greater Omaha to the extent they
are based on its participation in the WMS conspiracy.
Finally, Greater Omaha argues that the Plaintiffs have failed to
plausibly allege their second claim for relief against Greater
Omaha because the Plaintiffs have not alleged anticompetitive
effects stemming from the BIWI/PIWI surveys.
Judge Brimmer finds that Greater Omaha has not shown why, at the
motion to dismiss stage, these allegations are insufficient to
state the Plaintiffs' second claim against it. Therefore, the Court
will deny Greater Omaha's motion to the extent it seeks to dismiss
the Plaintiffs' claims based on its participation in the BIWI/PIWI
conspiracy.
Indiana Packers claims that the few references to it in the amended
complaint lack well-pled factual allegations linking it to any
anticompetitive agreement to exchange wage data, let alone a
sprawling, 20-year, industry-wide conspiracy to suppress wages.
Indiana Packers argues, among other things, that the amended
complaint asserts that the Defendants conspired to fix and depress
wages through the exchange of competitively sensitive information
via WMS, Agri Stats, and BIWI/PIWI surveys, but the amended
complaint alleges that Indiana Packers participated in only Agri
Stats and PIWI surveys.
The Court finds that the Plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege
that Indiana Packers participated in the WMS conspiracy. There are
no allegations in the amended complaint that Indiana Packers was
recruited to join the Red Meat Survey Group, that it exchanged
competitively sensitive information through the Red Meat Industry
Compensation Surveys, or that it attended Red Meat Industry
Compensation Meetings.
Because Indiana Packers was excluded from the Red Meat Survey
Group, Judge Brimmer opines that it is not plausible that it
conspired with members of the group to fix and depress wages by
sharing wage information that Indiana Packers could not access.
Therefore, the Court will dismiss the Plaintiffs' first and second
claims against Indiana Packers to the extent that they are based on
Indiana Packers' participation in the WMS conspiracy.
For these reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part
Defendant Greater Omaha Packing Co., Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss. The
Plaintiffs' first and second claims against Omaha Packing are
dismissed to the extent they are based on Omaha Packing's
participation in the WMS conspiracy.
IPC's Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, or in the
Alternative, Motion for a More Definite Statement is denied in part
and granted in part. The Plaintiffs' first and second claims
against Defendant Indiana Packers Corporation are dismissed to the
extent they are based on Indiana Packers Corporation's
participation in the WMS conspiracy.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4apk4bf5 from PacerMonitor.com.
JOHN HANCOCK: Bids for Class Cert in Zaben Due March 11, 2026
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ZABEN, LLC, and WEINSTOCK
PARTNERS LLC, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, v. JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NEW YORK and
JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (U.S.A.) Case No.
7:23-cv-08178-CS-AEK (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Andrew Krause
entered a second amended discovery plan & scheduling order as
follows:
1. The case is to be tried to a jury.
2. Non-expert depositions shall be completed by Dec. 15, 2025.
3. Any further discovery requests, except for requests for
admission and interrogatories seeking the claims and
contentions of the opposing party per Rule 33.3(c), shall be
served no later than Nov. 14, 2025.
4. Opening expert reports shall be served no later than Mar.
11, 2026.
5. Any motions for class certification shall be filed no later
than Mar. 11, 2026.
6. Rebuttal expert reports shall be served no later than Apr.
21, 2026.
7. Any oppositions to motions for class certification shall be
filed no later than Apr. 21, 2026.
8. Reply expert reports shall be served no later than June 10,
2026.
9. Any replies in support of class certification shall be filed
no later than June 10, 2026.
10. Any requests for admission, and any interrogatories seeking
the claims and contentions of the opposing party per Rule
33.3(c), shall be served by June 17, 2026.
11. Expert depositions and all discovery shall be completed by
July 8, 2026.
12. Any letters requesting a pre-motion conference for a summary
judgment motion shall be filed no later than Aug. 21, 2026.
John Hancock Life offers retirement plans and life insurance
services.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 3, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zGdqt5 at no extra
charge.[CC]
KEPT COMPANIES: Pablo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Kept Companies, Inc.
The case is styled as Mario Pablo, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. Kept Companies, Inc., Case No. 25STCV09513
(Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 1, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
Kept Companies -- https://www.keptcompanies.com/ -- is the parent
business of nine renowned facility maintenance brands.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638
Phone: 310-432-0000
Fax: 310-432-0001
Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
KEWIT MINING: Robinson Sues Over Wage and Hour Law Breaches
-----------------------------------------------------------
TRAVIS ROBINSON, individually and for others similarly situated v.
KIEWIT MINING GROUP INC., Case No. 8:25-cv-00237-RFR-RCC (D. Neb.,
March 31, 2025) arises from Defendant's pre/post-shift
off-the-clock policy that violates the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Alaska Wage and Hour Act.
The Defendant has employed Plaintiff Robinson as an operator
utility tech 4 from approximately February 2021 through November
2023. Throughout his employment, the Defendant subjected Plaintiff
to the said policy in which the Defendant does not pay Plaintiff
and the other hourly-paid employees for the time they spend donning
and doffing their safety gear and protective clothing, gathering
and storing their tools and equipment, and washing-up, "off the
clock," before and after their shifts, says the suit.
Headquartered in Omaha, NE, Kiewit Mining Group, Inc. provides
services in mine management, production, infrastructure
construction, and maintenance. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian E. Jorde, Esq.
Christian T. Williams, Esq.
DOMINA LAW GROUP PC LLO
2425 South 144th Street
Omaha, NE 68144
Telephone: (402) 493-4100
Facsimile: (402) 493-9782
E-mail: bjorde@dominalaw.com
cwilliams@dominalaw.com
- and -
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
KIKA SCOTT: General Pretrial Management Entered in Garcia Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOSE ALFREDO GARCIA, v.
KIKA SCOTT, Case No. 1:25-cv-02527-JHR-BCM (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon.
Judge Barbara Moses entered an order regarding general pretrial
management:
All pretrial motions and applications, including those related to
scheduling and discovery (but excluding motions to dismiss or for
judgment on the pleadings, for injunctive relief, for summary
judgment, or for class certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23) must
be made to Judge Moses and in compliance with this Court's
Individual Practices in Civil Cases, available on the Court's
website at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-barbara-moses.
Once a discovery schedule has been issued, all discovery must be
initiated in time to be concluded by the close of discovery set by
the Court.
Discovery applications, including letter-motions requesting
discovery conferences, must be made promptly after the need for
such an application arises and must comply with Local Civil Rule
37.2 and section 2(b) of Judge Moses's Individual Practices. It is
the Court's practice to decide discovery disputes at the Rule 37.2
conference, based on the parties' letters, unless a party requests
or the Court requires more formal briefing. Absent extraordinary
circumstances, discovery applications made later than 30 days prior
to the close of discovery may be denied as untimely.
For motions other than discovery motions, pre-motion conferences
are not required but may be requested where counsel believe that an
informal conference with the Court may obviate the need for a
motion or narrow the issues.
Requests to adjourn a court conference or other court proceeding
(including a telephonic court conference) or to extend a deadline
must be made in writing and in compliance with § 2(a) of Judge
Moses's Individual Practices. Telephone requests for adjournments
or extensions will not be entertained.
In accordance with section 1(d) of Judge Moses's Individual
Practices, letters and lettermotions are limited to four pages,
exclusive of attachments. Courtesy copies of letters and
letter-motions filed via ECF are required only if the filing
contains voluminous attachments. Courtesy copies should be
delivered promptly, should bear the ECF header generated at the
time of electronic filing, and should include tabs for the
attachments.
If you are aware of any party or attorney who should receive notice
in this action, other than those currently listed on the docket
sheet, please notify Courtroom Deputy Tamika Kay at (212) 805-0228
immediately.
Counsel for the plaintiff must serve a copy of this Order on any
defendant previously served with the summons and complaint, must
serve this Order along with the summons and complaint on all
defendants served hereafter, and must file proof of such service
with the Court.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 3, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8CTZtw at no extra
charge.[CC]
KISS NUTRACEUTICALS: Gamboa's Renewed Class Cert Bid Granted
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MELISSA GAMBOA, on her own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. KISS
NUTRACEUTICALS, KISS INDUSTRIES, LLC, COLE EVANS, and GRANT DEAN,
Case No. 1:22-cv-01141-WJM-TPO (D. Colo.), the Hon. Judge William
Martinez entered an order granting the Plaintiff's renewed motion
for class certification.
The Court certifies a Rule 23 class as to Plaintiff's wage claims
arising under state and local law defined as:
"All production, inventory and shipping workers who worked
overtime hours and who were not paid overtime wages between
May 9, 2019 and the present."
Pursuant to Rule 23(g), the Court appoints the Plaintiff's counsel
at Milstein Turner, PLLC as class counsel.
The Plaintiff is directed to file a supplemental motion setting
forth in greater detail her proposed plan for distribution of the
class notice by no later than April 14, 2025.
The Court thus finds the class is appropriately defined and does
not create an impermissible fail-safe.
The Court thus finds a class action is the superior method for
resolving Plaintiff and the putative class members' wage claims
arising under state and local law. And, having now found all
requisites of Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) to be satisfied, the
Court concludes the Plaintiff's request for certification of a Rule
23 class should be granted.
The Plaintiff brings this wage action on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"); the Colorado Minimum Wage Act ("CMWA"), the Colorado
Overtime and Minimum Pay Standards Order ("COMPS"); the Denver
Minimum Wage Ordinance ("DMWO"); and the Colorado Wage Claim Act
("CWCA").
Kiss manufactures vitamin supplements and [cannabidiol] ['CBD']
gummies.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 2, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Xr6ZmX at no extra
charge.[CC]
KORVATO LLC: Wilson Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Ohio
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Korvato LLC. The case
is styled as Peter Wilson, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Korvato LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-00635-PAB (N.D.
Ohio, April 1, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Korvato -- https://www.korvato.com/ -- is a pioneering fintech
enterprise redefining the future of trading.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Brian T. Giles, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN T. GILES
1470 Apple Hill Road
Cincinnati, OH 45230
Phone: (513) 379-2715
Email: Brian@gileslenox.com
L'OBJET USA: Isakov Seeks Blind Users' Equal Access to Website
--------------------------------------------------------------
SIMON ISAKOV, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. L'OBJET USA, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-02521 (S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2025) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Right 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.l-objet.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, ambiguous link texts,
inaccessible contact information, changing of content without
advance warning, 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.
L'objet 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
LABORATORY CORP: Class Cert Filing in Howard Amended to Nov. 26
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CONNIE HOWARD, YADIRA
YAZMIN HERNANDEZ, and DEBORAH REYNOLDS, on behalf of themselves and
all other persons similarly situated, v. LABORATORY CORPORATION OF
AMERICA and LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA HOLDINGS, Case No.
1:23-cv-00758-WO-JEP (M.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Joi Elizabeth Peake
entered an order amending the scheduling deadline as follows:
EVENT DEADLINE
Close of Fact Discovery: Sept. 29, 2025
Deadline for Plaintiffs' motion for class Nov. 26, 2025
certification (and Plaintiffs' expert
disclosures and reports)
Deadline for Defendants' class Feb. 10, 2026
certification opposition brief (and
Defendants' expert disclosures and
reports):
Deadline for Plaintiffs' class Mar. 25, 2026
certification reply (and any rebuttal
expert reports):
Completion of all expert discovery: April 1, 2026
Deadline for any Daubert motions and April 15, 2026
motions for summary judgment:
Labcorp provides laboratory services used for diagnosis and
healthcare decisions.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 2, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FepYbn at no extra
charge.[CC]
LEAD DOG: Slendak Seeks More Time To File Class Cert Reply
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUSSELL ANDREW SLENDAK,
individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, v. LEAD
DOG PIZZA, INC., and JOHN W. ECKBURG, Case No. 3:24-cv-03988-MGL
(D.S.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting a
14 day extension to file Reply to the Defendant's response to
motion for conditional certification until April 21, 2025.
Lead Dog is a local franchise of Domino's Pizza.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 3, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=2DipSU at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob J. Modla, Esq.
CROMER BABB & PORTER, LLC
1418 Laurel Street, Suite A (29201)
Columbia, SC 29211
Telephone: (803) 799-9530
E-mail: jake@cromerbabb.com
LEAD DOG: Slendak Seeks More Time to File Class Cert Reply
----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as RUSSELL ANDREW SLENDAK,
individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons, v. LEAD
DOG PIZZA, INC., and JOHN W. ECKBURG, Case No. 3:24-cv-03988-MGL
(D.S.C.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order extending
the deadline to file Plaintiff's reply in support of motion for
conditional certification and notice until April 21, 2025
The Plaintiff filed his complaint under the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA), requested that the case proceed as a collective action
under 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) on behalf of all delivery drivers
employed by the Defendant who consent to join this action, and
filed his associated Motion.
The Plaintiff's Reply in support of his Motion for Conditional
Certification and Notice was due on April 1, 2025. However, due to
an illness the reply was not filed by April 1st.
Lead Dog Pizza is a local franchise of Domino's Pizzas.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 2, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=nmT1Dy at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jacob J. Modla, Esq.
CROMER BABB & PORTER, LLC
1418 Laurel Street, Suite A
Columbia, SC 29211
Telephone: (803) 799-9530
Facsimile: (803) 799-9533
E-mail: jake@cromerbabb.com
LEE UNIVERSITY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Security Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Emma Karnes, writing for Local 3 News, reports that Christian
college Lee University is being sued after a security breach
allegedly impacted thousands of prospective students.
Plaintiff Michael Harris, a North Carolina resident and prospective
Lee University student, filed a Class Action Complaint on behalf of
himself and others involved, alleging:
Count 1: Negligence
Count 2: Breach of Implied Contract
Count 3: Invasion of Privacy -- Intrusion upon seclusion
Count 4: Unjust Enrichment/Quasi Contract
According to a notice sent out on March 24, 2025 concerning the
data breach, someone gained access through a third-party software
to the university's network a year earlier in March 2024. They took
names, Social Security numbers, and education-related information,
or "PII" as referred to in the lawsuit.
"As soon as we discovered the incident, we took the steps described
above," says the notice, referring to the data breach
investigation. "As part of our ongoing commitment to information
security, we are reviewing existing policies and procedures and
implementing enhanced security measures to reduce the likelihood of
a similar incident occurring in the future. We are further
notifying you of this event and advising you about steps you can
take to help protect your information."
The notice letter also notes that victims are offered "credit
monitoring services", implying a lack of security and an imminent
threat of identity theft and financial fraud.
The lawsuit now alleges that Lee University:
-- Waited over a year to inform victims of the data breach, a
direct violation of Tennessee Code
-- Failed to clarify whether they were able to contain or end the
cybersecurity threat, leaving victims in fear that their PII is
continuously insecure
-- Failed to clarify how the data breach occurred
Due to the data breach, the Plaintiff and other class members say
they were made vulnerable to identity theft in more ways than one:
"Armed with the PII accessed in the Data Breach, data thieves can
commit a variety of crimes including, e.g., opening new financial
accounts in Class Members' names, taking out loans in Class
Members' names, using Class Members' names to obtain medical
services, using Class Members' information to obtain government
benefits, filing fraudulent tax returns using Class Members'
information, obtaining driver's licenses in Class Members' names
but with another person's photograph, and giving false information
to police during an arrest."
The lawsuit also claims that the data breach was foreseeable, and
that Lee University was aware of the risks.
"Despite the prevalence of public announcements of data breach and
data security compromises, and despite their own acknowledgment of
its duties to keep PII private and secure, Defendant failed to take
appropriate steps to protect the PII of Plaintiff and the proposed
Class from being compromised."
Harris and others claim that they were required by the university
to hand over sensitive information as a condition of requesting and
receiving information about Lee University.
They also say that the school has not offered any compensation for
the time they will now need to spend monitoring their accounts,
placing credit freezes and fraud alerts, and changing online
passwords. Harris says he has spent over 24 hours and counting
taking action to reduce the consequences of the data breach, and
that he has suffered financial and mental injury due to the
situation.
"Plaintiff suffered lost time, annoyance, interference, and
inconvenience as a result of the Data Breach and has anxiety and
increased concerns for the loss of his privacy." says the lawsuit.
"Plaintiff suffered emotional distress and increased stress and
anxiety as a result of the Data Breach because of the actions he
has been forced to undertake, the loss of control over his most
intimate information, and the fact that he must remain vigilant for
the remainder of his life."
Harris' lawsuit ends with a "Prayer for Relief", or a list of
demands that would bring justice:
-- "For an Order certifying this action as a Class action and
appointing Plaintiff and his counsel to represent the Class;
-- For equitable relief enjoining Defendant from engaging in the
wrongful conduct complained of herein pertaining to the misuse
and/or disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII, and from
refusing to issue prompt, complete and accurate disclosures to
Plaintiff and Class Members;
-- For equitable relief compelling Defendant to utilize
appropriate methods and policies with respect to data collection,
storage, and safety, and to disclose with specificity the type of
PII compromised during the Breach;
-- For equitable relief requiring restitution and disgorgement of
the revenues wrongfully retained as a result of Defendant's
wrongful conduct;
-- Ordering Defendant to pay for lifetime credit monitoring
services for Plaintiff and the Class;
-- For an award of actual damages, compensatory damages,
statutory damages and statutory penalties, in an amount to be
determined, as allowable by law;
-- For an award of punitive damages, as allowable by law;
-- For an award of attorneys' fees and costs, and any other
expense, including expert witness fees;
-- Pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded and,
-- All such other and further relief as this court may deem just
and proper." [GN]
LI-CYCLE HOLDINGS: "Wyshynski" Certification Set for 2026 Hearing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
On November 27, 2023, a putative Ontario securities class action
claim was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against
Li-Cycle Holdings Corp. and its CEO following the Company's
announcement on October 23, 2023 that it would be pausing
construction on the Rochester Hub project.
The claim was amended on February 8, 2024, again on May 6, 2024,
and once more on August 26, 2024 as a result of the defendants'
settled motion. The claim is on behalf of a proposed class of
purchasers of the Company's common shares who acquired their shares
during the period from February 27, 2023 through November 10, 2023.
The claim, which is captioned as Wyshynski v. Li-Cycle Holdings
Corp. et al., Court File No. CV-23-00710373-00CP, alleges common
law secondary market misrepresentations. It also seeks an
oppression remedy under s. 248 of the Ontario Business Corporations
Act, based primarily on allegations of misconduct of senior
management. The Wyshynski claim alleges that the Company's public
disclosures through the class period contained misrepresentations
because they omitted material facts regarding the cost of the
Rochester Hub project and the availability of financing. The
Wyshynski claim alleges that the purported misrepresentations were
publicly corrected on (i) October 23, 2023, when the Company
announced that it would pause construction on the Rochester Hub
project; and (ii) November 13, 2023, with the release of the
Company's Q3 2023 earnings report. The putative class includes all
Canadian resident beneficial owners who acquired Li-Cycle common
shares during the class period and who held some or all of those
common shares until after the release of at least one of the
alleged corrective disclosures. The claim seeks compensatory
damages and an award of costs, along with the appointment of a
third party monitor. On April 5, 2024, the defendants moved to stay
the action on the basis that New York is the more appropriate forum
for the litigation. The defendants agreed to settle the motion on
August 1, 2024, in exchange for certain concessions from the
plaintiff which resulted in narrowing of the claims and the
proposed class.
The plaintiff agreed to abandon their claims under the Ontario
Securities Act and constrain the class to only the Canadian
resident beneficial owners of the Company's shares.
On November 15, 2024, the court ordered a timetable for the
exchange of pleadings and a determination of the plaintiff's motion
to certify their claim as a class action under the Ontario Class
Proceedings Act. The certification motion is not scheduled to
proceed to a hearing until early 2026, the Company disclosed in a
Form 10-K Report for the year ended December 31, 2024, filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
About Li-Cycle Holdings Corp.
Li-Cycle Holdings Corp. is a Canada-based global lithium-ion
battery resource recovery company and pure-play lithium-ion
battery
recycler.
Vaughan, Canada-based KPMG LLP, the Company's former auditor,
issued a "going concern" qualification in its report dated March
15, 2024, citing that the Company has suffered recurring losses
from operations since inception, continued cash outflows from
operating activities and paused its construction of the Rochester
Hub project, that raise substantial doubt about its ability to
continue as a going concern.
Li-Cycle reported a net loss of $138 million for the year ended
December 31, 2023, compared to net loss of $70.8 million for the
year ended December 31, 2022. As of June 30, 2024, Li-Cycle had
US$899.9 million in total assets, US$664.2 million in total
liabilities, and US$235.7 million in total equity.
LI-CYCLE HOLDINGS: Appeal from "Hubiack" Dismissal Order Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
On November 8, 2023, a putative federal securities class action
lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Li-Cycle Holdings Corp. and certain of
its officers and directors, on behalf of a proposed class of
purchasers of the Company's common shares during the period from
June 14, 2022 through October 23, 2023 following the Company's
announcement on October 23, 2023 that it would be pausing
construction on the Rochester Hub project.
On March 15, 2024, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint on
behalf of a proposed class of purchasers of the Company's common
shares during the period from January 27, 2022 through November 13,
2023. See Hubiack v. Li-Cycle Holdings Corp., et al., 1:23-cv-09894
(S.D.N.Y.)
The amended complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act, and alleges that the defendants issued false
and misleading statements regarding the Rochester Hub's
construction budget, costs and timeline, which were allegedly
revealed beginning on October 23, 2023, when the Company announced
that it would pause construction on the Rochester Hub project. The
complaint seeks compensatory damages and an award of costs. On
April 12, 2024, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint in its entirety. On June 10, 2024, the court granted the
motion to dismiss in full and with prejudice. On July 9, 2024, the
lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal, the Company disclosed in a
Form 10-K Report for the year ended December 31, 2024, filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
About Li-Cycle Holdings Corp.
Li-Cycle Holdings Corp. is a Canada-based global lithium-ion
battery resource recovery company and pure-play lithium-ion
battery
recycler.
Vaughan, Canada-based KPMG LLP, the Company's former auditor,
issued a "going concern" qualification in its report dated March
15, 2024, citing that the Company has suffered recurring losses
from operations since inception, continued cash outflows from
operating activities and paused its construction of the Rochester
Hub project, that raise substantial doubt about its ability to
continue as a going concern.
Li-Cycle reported a net loss of $138 million for the year ended
December 31, 2023, compared to net loss of $70.8 million for the
year ended December 31, 2022. As of June 30, 2024, Li-Cycle had
US$899.9 million in total assets, US$664.2 million in total
liabilities, and US$235.7 million in total equity.
LIBERTY MUTUAL: Badin's Bid to Remand Suit to State Court Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert S. Huie of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California denies the Plaintiff's motion to remand in
the lawsuit titled MARIA BADIN, an individual, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LIBERTY MUTUAL
INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:25-cv-00163-RSH-AHG (S.D. Cal.).
On Feb. 24, 2025, Plaintiff Maria Badin filed a motion to remand
this action to state court. Defendants Liberty Mutual Fire
Insurance Company ("LMFIC") and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
("LMIC") (collectively "Liberty Mutual Group") filed their
opposition on March 17, 2025. The Plaintiff filed a reply brief on
March 24, 2025.
On Dec. 19, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a class action lawsuit in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Diego against LMFIC, LMIC, and the Doe Defendants (the
"Complaint"). The Complaint brings claims for: (1) breach of
contract under California law; (2) violation of the California
Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"); and (3) breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing under California law.
The Complaint defines the putative class as "all owners of
Defendants' homeowners' insurance policies who were denied renewal
based on a condition of their property that was misrepresented by
Defendants."
On Jan. 23, 2025, the Plaintiff filed in Superior Court a one-page
"Amendment to Complaint," stating that the true name of the person
previously identified in the Complaint as "Doe 1" was instead
Liberty Insurance Corporation ("LIC"). That same day, the Plaintiff
caused LIC's registered agent to be served with a copy of the
one-page amendment.
The Defendants timely filed a notice of removal on Jan. 23, 2025,
asserting that this Court has original subject matter jurisdiction
under the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), because the size of
the putative class exceeds 100 members, the parties are minimally
diverse, and the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million as
required under CAFA. In support of its notice of removal, the
Defendant attached a declaration of Kevin Crowley, V.P.
Underwriting, at Liberty Mutual Group.
The Plaintiff moves the Court to remand this action to state court
on the grounds that: (1) the Defendants' notice of removal was
procedurally non-compliant; (2) the Defendants failed to prove the
parties are minimally diverse; and (3) the Defendants failed to
prove CAFA's amount in controversy requirement is met.
The Plaintiff argues that the Defendants' notice of removal is
procedurally noncompliant with 28 U.S.C. Section 1446, because it
is not clear which parties were, or were not, seeking removal of
this action. LMFIC and LMIC have sought to remove this case but the
Plaintiff argues that the third entity that it seeks to sue, LIC,
was also required to join in or consent to the removal of the
action.
Judge Huie finds that LIC has not yet been adequately served. The
Plaintiff has filed a proof of service reflecting she caused a copy
of the "Amendment to Complaint" to be served on LIC's registered
agent but there is no indication that LIC was also served with a
summons and complaint. LIC, therefore, need not join or consent to
the removal.
Judge Huie explains that this lawsuit is not a "direct action" as
defined by 28 U.S.C. Section 1332(c)(1), because the Plaintiff does
not seek to impose liability on the Defendants for the actions of a
party insured by the Defendants. Rather, the Plaintiff's action
seeks to impose liability on the Defendants for their own actions,
i.e., their refusal to renew homeowners' insurance policies.
Defendant LMIC is a citizen of Massachusetts where it is
incorporated and maintains its principal place of business; and
Defendant LMFIC is a citizen of Illinois, where it is incorporated,
and Massachusetts, its principal place of business. The Plaintiff
is a citizen of California. Accordingly, Judge Huie holds that
minimal diversity under CAFA is satisfied.
The Plaintiff argues for the first time in her reply brief that the
Liberty Mutual Defendants "failed to establish that they meet the
dollar value threshold to remove the matter. Judge Huie finds the
Defendants have adequately established that the relief claimed at
the time of removal meets the CAFA jurisdictional threshold.
For these reasons, the Court denies the Plaintiff's motion to
remand.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/mr39b54x from PacerMonitor.com.
LONG ISLAND POWER: Must Face Riverdale Jewish Center, et al. Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the appealed case styled as RIVERDALE JEWISH CENTER et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants-Respondents, -against- THE BROOKLYN UNION GAS
COMPANY doing business as NATIONAL GRID, et al.,
Defendants-Respondents, LONG ISLAND POWER AUTHORITY,
Defendant-Respondent-Appellant, Case No. 2023-04938 (N.Y. App.
Div.), Judges Sallie Manzanet-Daniels, Lizbeth Gonzalez, Martin
Shulman, Julio Rodriguez and Bahaati Pitt-Burke of the Supreme
Court of the State of New York Appellate Division, First Judicial
Department declined to dismiss the action against LIPA under the
filed rate doctrine.
On Sept. 1, 2023, Judge Barry R. Ostrager of the Supreme Court, New
York County entered an order that granted defendants’ motions to
dismiss the amended complaint to the extent of staying the putative
class action pending plaintiffs filing administrative complaints
before, and determination thereof by, the Public Service Commission
(PSC) or other authorized administrative agency, and declined to
dismiss the action as against defendant Long Island Power Authority
(LIPA), unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The Supreme Court providently stayed the action under the primary
jurisdiction doctrine.
The first cause of action for breach of contract essentially
alleges that defendants misapplied their tariffs by charging
plaintiffs, religious organizations entitled to residential gas and
electric utility rates, corresponding gross revenue tax (GRT)
surcharges or, for defendant LIPA, GRT payments in lieu of taxes
(PILOT) surcharges at residential customer rates. The second cause
of action alleges that, other than LIPA, the GRT surcharges are not
just, reasonable, or allowed by law or order of the PSC, in
violation of Public Service Law Sec. 65(5). In either case, the
determination of whether the utility company misapplied the
applicable tariff, resulting in overcharges, and the reasonableness
of a utility’s rates, rules, or practices is properly submitted
to the agency authorized to regulate and review such matters.
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction also applies to plaintiffs’
claims of fraud, deceptive business practices, or unjust
enrichment, even if the agency has no power to award the damages
plaintiffs seek in this action. As such, complaints about its
billing practices are properly presented to LIPA under those
procedures.
The Appellate Judges decline to dismiss the action against LIPA
under the filed rate doctrine, as the applicable rate is yet to be
determined and plaintiffs apparently seek to establish 'equal
rates' for all religious organizations entitled to utility services
at residential rates. They also decline to reach the remainder of
LIPA’s dismissal motion, in light of the stay issued under the
primary jurisdiction doctrine. They've considered the parties’
remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UjcIbX
Counsel for appellants-respondents:
Geng Chen, Esq.
SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
One Manhattan West
New York, NY 10001-8602
E-mail: gchen@susmangodfrey.com
Cousel for respondent-appellant:
Michael P. Versichelli, Esq.
RIVKIN RADLER LLP
926 RXR Plaza
Uniondale, NY 11556-0926
E-mail: michael.versichelli@rivkin.com
Counsel for The Brooklyn Union Gas Company, Niagara Mohawk Power
Corporation, New York State Electric & Gas Corporation, Keyspan Gas
East Corporation, Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.,
and Orange and Rockland Utilities, Inc., respondents:
Frances E. Bivens, Esq.
DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
450 Lexington Avenue
New York, NY 10017
E-mail: frances.bivens@davispolk.com
Counsel for Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation, respondent:
Kip Bollin, Esq.
Joseph Koczko, Esq.
THOMPSON HINE
300 Madison Avenue, 27th Floor
New York, NY 10017-6232
E-mail: Kip.Bollin@ThompsonHine.com
Joseph.Koczko@ThompsonHine.com
MANGANARO MIDATLANTIC: Class Cert Hearing Reset to May 29
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FRANKLIN HENRIQUEZ, et.
al., v. MANGANARO MIDATLANTIC, LLC Case No. 1:24-cv-01511-PTG-WEF
(E.D. Va.), the Hon. Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles entered an order
that the hearing on the Plaintiff's motion for condition
certification of a collective action, identification of potential
collective action members, and approval of notice to potential
collective action members currently scheduled for Apr. 17, 2025 at
10:00 a.m. will be reset to May 29, 2025 at 10:00 a.m.
The court further orders that the Clerk shall terminate the hearing
currently scheduled for Apr. 17, 2025 at 10:00 a.m.
Manganaro offers drywall, acoustical ceiling work, concrete, and
commercial buildings.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 3, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rgLeuJ at no extra
charge.[CC]
MAT HOLDINGS: Fails to Pay Proper Overtime Wages, Herrera Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JUAN HERRERA, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MAT HOLDINGS, INC., an Illinois corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03403 (N.D. Ill., March 31, 2025) seeks
to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff worked at Defendant's facility in or around
Romeoville, IL. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant,
he was not earning a consistent and properly calculated overtime
wage that included shift differential pay and other remuneration in
the regular rate for proper overtime calculation, says the suit.
Headquartered in Long Grove, IL, MAT Holdings, Inc. manufactures
automotive and consumer products. The company operates facilities
in multiple states. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jesse L. Young, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600
Kalamazoo, MI 49007
Telephone: (269) 250-7500
E-mail: jyoung@sommerspc.com
- and -
Kevin J. Stoops, Esq.
SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
One Towne Square, 17th Floor
Southfield, MI 48076
Telephone: (248) 355-0300
E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
MAYO FOUNDATION: Mack Wage-and-Hour Suit Removed to S.D. Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case styled LINDSEY M. MACK, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. MAYO FOUNDATION FOR MEDICAL EDUCATION
AND RESEARCH, a Minnesota corporation; MAYO CLINIC, a Minnesota
corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Case No. 25CU005778C, was
removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of California on March 26, 2025.
The Clerk of Court for the Southern District of California assigned
Case No. 3:25-cv-00708-LL-AHG to the proceeding.
The case arises from the Defendants' alleged violations of the
California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code
including unfair competition, failure to pay minimum wages, failure
to pay overtime wages, failure to provide required meal periods,
failure to provide required rest periods, failure to provide
accurate itemized statements, failure to provide wages when due,
and failure to reimburse employees for required expenses.
Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research is a non-profit
organization located in Minnesota.
Mayo Clinic is a healthcare company located in Minnesota. [BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Brittany L. McCarthy, Esq.
Stephanie A. Kierig, Esq.
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
501 W. Broadway, Suite 900
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 232-0441
Facsimile: (619) 232-4302
Email: blmccarthy@littler.com
skierig@littler.com
MCA MERRILLVILLE: Bid to Certify Class Tossed w/o Prejudice
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTEN NAPOLEON on Behalf
of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. MCA MERRILLVILLE
DELI, INC. and MCA VALPARAISO DELI, INC., MCA SCHERERVILLE DELI,
INC., MCA BLOOMINGDALE, INC., MCA ELGIN, INC., MCA ALGONQUIN, INC.,
MCA SCHAUMBURG, INC., KEYSTONE MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., and JAY
PUNUKOLLU, Case No. 2:24-cv-00093-PPS-APR (N.D. Ind.), the Hon.
Judge Andrew Rodovich entered an order denying without prejudice
the motion to certify class with leave to refile pending the
resolution of the motion to dismiss.
-- The court also grants the motion to stay.
-- The case is stayed until the court rules on the motion to
dismiss.
-- The court will reschedule a Rule 16 pretrial conference.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 2, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8fazcs at no extra
charge.[CC]
MCDONALD'S USA: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over E. Coli in Burgers
------------------------------------------------------------------
Abraham Jewett of Top Class Actions reports that a customer has
filed a class action lawsuit against McDonald's USA LLC.
Why: The plaintiff claims McDonald's failed to disclose E. coli
contamination affecting its quarter pounder burgers
Where: The class action lawsuit was filed in Illinois federal
court.
A new nationwide class action lawsuit alleges that McDonald's
failed to disclose that its quarter-pounder burgers were
contaminated with E. coli.
Plaintiff Tammy Williams claims McDonald's improperly, deceptively
and misleadingly labeled and marketed its quarter-pounder burgers
by choosing not to disclose alleged E. coli contamination.
The class action lawsuit argues McDonald's quarter-pounder burgers
can cause mild to severe gastrointestinal illness, with the risk of
serious infection particularly concerning for children under the
age of 5 years, adults older than 65 and people with weakened
immune systems.
Williams wants to represent a nationwide class and Nevada subclass
of consumers who bought a McDonald's quarter pounder burger during
the applicable statute of limitations period.
McDonald's quarter pounder burgers used slivered onions recalled
for E. coli risk, class action says
Williams argues that McDonald's quarter-pounder burgers contain
slivered onions from Taylor Farms, which were recalled on Oct. 25,
2024, due to E. coli contamination.
"Plaintiff purchased and ingested Defendant's Burgers that
contained Escherichia coli (E. coli), including the Burgers that
were subject to the recall," the McDonald's Quarter Pounder class
action says.
Williams claims McDonald's is guilty of negligence, unjust
enrichment and of violating the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
The plaintiff demands a jury trial and requests declaratory and
injunctive relief and an award of actual, statutory, treble and
punitive damages for herself and all class members.
Consumers filed a similar and separate lawsuit against McDonald's
after purchasing and eating food from the fast-food restaurant. A
class action has also been filed against Taylor Fresh Foods for its
role in the McDonald's E.coli contamination.
Have you purchased a McDonald's Quarter Pounder? Let us know in the
comments.
The plaintiff is represented by Michael R. Reese of Reese LLP;
Jason P. Sultzer and Daniel Markowitz of Sultzer & Lipari PLLC;
Jeffrey K. Brown of Leeds Brown Law PC; and Russell M. Busch, Nick
Suciu III and Trenton R. Kashima of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips
Grossman PLLC.
The McDonald's Quarter Pounder class action lawsuit is Williams, et
al. v. McDonald's USA LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-11275, in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. [GN]
MDL 3101: Court Narrows Claims in Baby Food Products Liability Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California issued an Amended Order granting in
part and denying in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss filed
in the lawsuit styled IN RE: BABY FOOD PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION, Case No. 3:24-md-03101-JSC (N.D. Cal.). This document
relates to: ALL ACTIONS.
On April 11, 2024, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
centralized in this Court 10 pending actions involving common
questions of fact. The Plaintiffs in these cases--and over 100
subsequently filed actions--allege the presence of toxic heavy
metals in baby food caused children to develop autism spectrum
disorder ("ASD") and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
("ADHD").
The Defendants comprise various baby food manufacturers, as well as
the foreign and domestic parent companies of those entities. The
Master Complaint asserts seven causes of action under strict
products liability and negligence theories: 1) failure to warn
(strict products liability); 2) manufacturing defect (strict
products liability); 3) design defect (strict products liability);
4) failure to warn (negligence); 5) manufacturing defect
(negligence); 6) design defect (negligence); and 7) general
negligence.
The Defendants move to dismiss the Master Complaint under Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), and 12(b)(6). The
Defendants also move to strike certain portions of the Master
Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(f).
Having considered the parties' submissions, and with the benefit of
oral argument heard on Feb. 27, 2025, the Court grants in part and
denies in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss. The Court grants
the motion to strike references to aluminum and tentatively grants
the motion to strike references to infant formula from the Master
Complaint.
This Amended Order addresses seven pending motions, which are
grouped as follows: 1) jurisdictional motions brought by foreign
parent companies of subsidiary manufacturer defendants; 2) Rule
12(b)(6) motions brought by domestic parent companies of subsidiary
manufacturer defendants; and 3) a collective Rule 12(b)(6) and
12(f) motion brought by the manufacturer defendants.
Three Foreign Parent Defendants move to dismiss on jurisdictional
grounds: Nestle S.A., a Swiss parent to Defendant Gerber Products
Company; Hero AG, a Swiss parent to Defendant Beech-Nut Nutrition
Company; and Danone S.A., a French parent to Defendant Nurture,
LLC. All three Foreign Parent Defendants argue the Court lacks
personal jurisdiction over them. Hero AG further argues the Court
lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.
Hero AG's motion focuses on standing's causation prong. Hero AG
argues the Plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege standing since the
Master Complaint contains "no allegations specific to Hero AG that
would trace an individual plaintiff's alleged injuries to Hero
AG."
But this argument is not a distinct challenge to subject-matter
jurisdiction so much as a reiteration of Hero AG's challenge to the
sufficiency of the Plaintiffs' allegations under Rule 12(b)(6),
Judge Corley points out. Hero AG argues the Plaintiffs fail to
allege sufficient facts to establish Hero AG's involvement in heavy
metal testing of Beech-Nut's baby food--the core of the products
liability and negligence claims. So, Hero AG's motion is denied to
the extent it asserts a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, Judge
Corley holds.
The Plaintiffs do not meaningfully discuss general personal
jurisdiction over the Foreign Parent Defendants. Consequently, the
Court addresses in the Amended Order only the specific personal
jurisdiction analysis. The Court considers whether the Plaintiffs
have plausibly alleged the Foreign Parent Defendants' own contacts
with the forum permit personal jurisdiction, including whether they
had "the right to substantially control" heavy metal testing by
their subsidiaries.
Nestle S.A., Hero AG and Danone S.A. challenge personal
jurisdiction via sworn affidavits. Judge Corley finds that even
under the most permissive federal standard of specific personal
jurisdiction, the Plaintiffs have not met their burden. Therefore,
the Court grants the motions to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction and does not address individual state long-arm
statutes.
Based on the Court's review of the Plaintiffs' proffered
evidence--and absent further explanation as to what new information
would be uncovered through jurisdictional discovery--the Court
denies the Plaintiffs' request.
The Master Complaint names two domestic parent companies to
Defendant Plum, PBC as Defendants: The Campbell's Company and
Sun-Maid Growers of California. The Campbell's Company was parent
of Plum until May 3, 2021, when ownership was transferred to
Sun-Maid. Both Domestic Parent Defendants move to dismiss the
Master Complaint under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)
and 12(b)(6).
As a preliminary matter, the Court notes the Domestic Parent
Defendants' Rule 12(b)(1) traceability argument does not differ
materially from Hero AG's argument discussed in the Amended Order.
Indeed, the Domestic Parent Defendants similarly argue the
Plaintiffs lack standing because they have failed to allege an
injury traceable to the conduct of Campbell or Sun-Maid. For the
reasons stated in the Court's analysis of Hero AG's 12(b)(1)
argument, the Court denies the Domestic Parent Defendants' motions
to dismiss to the extent they are premised on a lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction.
Judge Corley notes that the crux of the motions at issue is a
12(b)(6) challenge to allegations about Campbell's and Sun-Maid's
direct involvement in the heavy metal testing of Plum products. To
survive a motion to dismiss, Judge Corley points out that the
Plaintiffs must allege facts permitting a plausible inference that
Campbell or Sun-Maid directly participated in setting heavy metal
criteria or testing the products. On these allegations alone, the
Plaintiffs have not done so. Accordingly, the Court grants
Campbell's and Sun-Maid's motions to dismiss for failure to state a
claim.
The manufacturers of the baby food products at issue bring a
separate, collective motion to dismiss the Master Complaint under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Defendants Nurture, LLC,
Hain Celestial Group, Inc., Beech-Nut Nutrition Company, Walmart
Inc., Gerber Products Company, Sprout Foods, Inc., Plum, PBC, and
Neptune Wellness Solutions, Inc., all join the motion.
These manufacturer defendants raise two arguments. First, they
assert the Master Complaint must be dismissed because the
Plaintiffs' theory of defect is standardless, as the Plaintiffs do
not allege a threshold dose of heavy metal exposure that would
cause ASD or ADHD. Rather, the Plaintiffs allege any detectable
amount of heavy metals in baby food could cause injury.
Second, the Defendants argue the Plaintiffs have not plausibly
alleged a manufacturing defect claim, since they do not allege the
manufacturers deviated from their product designs. In sum, Judge
Corley finds there is no ironclad rule that the Plaintiffs must
allege the threshold dose of a toxic substance to advance their
claims, and the Court will not require as much here.
The Defendants move to strike references to infant formula and
aluminum in the Master Complaint, which they argue are outside the
scope of this litigation. At the hearing, the Court confirmed
aluminum-related claims will not be addressed in the MDL.
Therefore, the Court grants the motion to strike references to
aluminum in the Master Complaint as immaterial. The Court
tentatively grants the motion to strike references to infant
formula in the Master Complaint as immaterial. A final ruling will
not be made until after the March 2025 case management conference.
For the reasons stated in the Amended Order, the Court grants in
part and denies in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss.
Specifically, the motions are resolved as follows. Defendant Nestle
S.A.'s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is
granted. Defendant Nestle Holdings, Inc.'s motion to dismiss for
lack of personal jurisdiction is denied as moot, since the
Plaintiffs have voluntarily dismissed their claims.
Defendant Hero AG's motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction is granted. Defendant Danone S.A.'s motion to dismiss
for lack of personal jurisdiction is granted.
The Plaintiffs' request for jurisdictional discovery is denied.
Defendant Campbell Soup Company's motion to dismiss for failure to
state a claim is granted, with leave to amend. Defendant Sun-Maid
Growers of California's motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim is granted, with leave to amend. The Collective Defendants'
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is denied.
Further, the motion to strike allegations regarding aluminum is
granted. The motion to strike allegations regarding infant formula
from the Master Complaint is taken under submission. The Court
issues a tentative ruling granting the motion.
The Court will hear from the parties at the March 2025 case
management conference prior to issuing a final ruling. Should
Plaintiffs choose to amend the Master Complaint, they must do so
within 30 days of this Order. This Order disposes of Docket Nos.
275, 276, 277, 281, 282, 284, and 300.
A full-text copy of the Court's Amended Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/558adbh9 from PacerMonitor.com.
MICHIGAN: District Court Dismisses Does v. State Police, Others
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mark A. Goldsmith of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, Southern Division, issued an Opinion & Order
granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss in the lawsuit styled
JOHN DOES, et al., Plaintiffs v. MICHIGAN STATE POLICE, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-12843-MAG-CI (E.D. Mich.).
The Plaintiffs filed this class action challenging the
constitutionality of Michigan's Sex Offender Registration Act,
Mich. Comp. Laws. Section 28.723, et seq., as it was amended in
2021 (SORA 2021). The Plaintiffs brought eight claims, alleging
that SORA 2021 violates constitutional protections regarding ex
post facto, due process, equal protection, the First Amendment, and
the Fourth Amendment.
Judge Goldsmith notes that this action is substantially identical
to another action before the Court, Does v. Whitmer (Does III), No.
22-cv-10209, which was filed a few months after the instant action.
Confronted with two cases challenging SORA 2021, the Court
determined that the instant case be stayed, so that the challenge
would be litigated in Does III.
The stay order noted the "significant overlap in almost all
claims," with the exception of the Fourth Amendment claim, which
was brought in the instant case, but not in Does III. The classes
in the two cases appear to be the same because, as the stay order
noted, both actions were filed on behalf of "all people who are or
will be subject to registration under SORA 2021."
The stay in this case was partially lifted so that the Fourth
Amendment claim could be adjudicated by way of dispositive motions,
following which a motion to dismiss based on the Fourth Amendment
claim was filed. After the Court ruled on cross motions for summary
judgment in Does III, it solicited the views of the parties to the
instant case, as to whether the ruling in Does III resolved the
issues in the instant case, except for the Fourth Amendment claim.
The parties confirmed that it did.
The Plaintiffs do not allege that the Defendants use physical force
to seize them. Instead, the Plaintiffs allege that SORA 2021's
reporting requirements constitute a show of authority that leaves
them with no choice but to submit and appear before their
registering authority. The Plaintiffs contend that the seizure of
them one or more times per year is unreasonable and violates their
Fourth Amendment rights.
In response, the Defendants argue that reporting requirements do
not constitute a seizure for purposes of the Fourth Amendment. The
Court agrees with the Defendants.
Judge Goldsmith opines that the Defendants correctly note that the
Sixth Circuit has already addressed this issue and held that
reporting requirements do not constitute a seizure under the Fourth
Amendment, citing Willman v. Att'y Gen. of United States, 972 F.3d
819 (6th Cir. 2020). In Willman, the plaintiff challenged the
constitutionality of the federal Sex Offender Registration and
Notification Act (SORNA). Like Michigan SORA, federal SORNA
requires Tier I registrants to report in person once per year, Tier
II registrants twice per year, and Tier III registrants four times
per year.
In addition, federal SORNA requires registrants to report changes
in name, address, employment, and education in-person within three
business days. Willman alleged that SORNA's registration
requirements constitute unreasonable seizures that violate the
Fourth Amendment. The Sixth Circuit rejected Willman's argument,
explaining that SORNA's "[reporting] obligations do not prohibit
plaintiff from exercising his liberty to go to different places,
and they do not even require him to obtain permission first."
The Plaintiffs contend that Willman does not address their specific
Fourth Amendment claim for two main reasons. First, the Plaintiffs
argue that Willman's reliance on two habeas cases--United States v.
Benevento, 633 F. Supp. 2d 1170 (D. Nev. 2009) and Hautzenroeder v.
DeWine, 887 F.3d 737 (6th Cir. 2018)--renders its holding
inapplicable here because "in-custody" and "seizure" are distinct
inquiries with different standards.
But Willman did not conduct an "in-custody" analysis; rather, it
specifically referenced the "seizure" standard articulated by the
Sixth Circuit in Jeter. Willman, 972 F.3d at *826, Judge Goldsmith
opines.
Second, the Plaintiffs assert that the parties in Willman were
arguing "some amorphous continuous seizure concept rather than the
specific in-person reporting requirements." The Plaintiffs cite to
the district court's opinion and the parties' pleadings in support
of this argument.
But the words "continuous seizure" do not appear in the Sixth
Circuit's opinion, Judge Goldsmith says. Contrary to the
Plaintiffs' assertion, Judge Goldsmith points out that the Sixth
Circuit squarely addressed and rejected Willman's assertion that
"SORNA's registration requirements constitute unreasonable seizures
that violate the Fourth Amendment." There is no disputing that
Willman's holding applies to the Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment claim
here.
Because SORA's reporting requirements, like those of SORNA, do not
restrain the Plaintiffs' liberty to move around and travel freely,
Judge Goldsmith finds the Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged
that they are "seized" by such reporting requirements. As the
Defendants correctly explain, "statutorily required periodic
reporting is not the same as a show of force by an individual
officer against a specific person during an encounter."
For these reasons, the Court grants the Defendants' motion to
dismiss the Plaintiffs' Fourth Amendment claim.
Now that the Court has denied the Fourth Amendment challenge in the
instant case and has also ruled on the parallel claims in Does III,
the instant case can proceed to judgment. Whatever relief that was
sought in this case, other than the Fourth Amendment claim, has
either been denied or granted in Does III.
The relief granted in Does III inures to the benefit of the
Plaintiffs in this action and to the class they sought to
represent. Therefore, those claims need not be further adjudicated
here and can be denied here, without prejudice. The Fourth
Amendment claim, which is unique to this action, will be denied
with prejudice.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/2uvdz6f2 from PacerMonitor.com.
MICROVAST HOLDINGS: Awaits Ruling on Bid to Dismiss "Schelling"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Microvast Holdings Inc. and certain of its officers have been named
as defendants in a putative class action complaint by a shareholder
of the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Texas under the caption Schelling v. Microvast Holdings, Inc.,
Case No. 4:23-cv-04565 (S.D. Tex.) (filed Dec. 5, 2023).
The complaint alleges that defendants violated certain federal
securities laws by making misleading statements regarding the
receipt of a conditional grant from the United States Department of
Energy, the Company's profitability, and the nature of
Company-associated operations in China.
On March 1, 2024, the court appointed Co-Lead Plaintiffs and
Co-Lead Counsel for the proposed class of Company investors.
Plaintiffs amended their complaint on May 13, 2024, and defendants
filed a motion to dismiss on June 20, 2024. Briefing on the motion
to dismiss was completed on September 10, 2024. The Court has not
ruled yet on the motion, the Company disclosed in a Form 10-K
Report for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2024 filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Microvast is a lithium-ion battery technology company which
designs, develops, and manufactures battery components and
systems,
primarily for electric commercial vehicles and utility-scale
energy
storage systems.
MICROVAST HOLDINGS: Court Hears Arguments on Bids to Junk "Jacob"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Vogel, Ruth Epstein, Stefan Selig, Richard Rieger, Amy
Butte, Yang Wu and Yanzhuan Zheng have been named as defendants in
a litigation filed in the Court of Chancery captioned Matt Jacob v.
Stephen A. Vogel, et al., C.A. No. 2022-0600-PAF (Del. Ch.) (filed
July 07, 2022).
The plaintiff is seeking to certify the litigation as a stockholder
class action. The complaint alleges that Stephen Vogel, Ruth
Epstein, Stefan Selig, Richard Rieger and Amy Butte breached their
fiduciary duties in connection with Tuscan's acquisition of
Microvast, Inc., including by making inadequate disclosures
concerning the projected earnings of Microvast, Inc.
The complaint further alleges that once the earnings of the
combined company became public, the Company's stock dropped,
causing losses to investors. The complaint also alleges that Yang
Wu and Yanzhuan Zheng aided and abetted these purported breaches.
Certain defendants have answered the complaint, and certain
defendants have filed motions to dismiss, which were argued on
April 03, 2025, Microvast Holdings Inc. disclosed in a Form 10-K
Report for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2024 filed with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Microvast is a lithium-ion battery technology company which
designs, develops, and manufactures battery components and
systems,
primarily for electric commercial vehicles and utility-scale
energy
storage systems.
MIDI HEALTH: Discloses Patient Info to 3rd Parties, Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
N.C. and Y.H., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. MIDI HEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:25-cv-02848 (N.D. Cal., March 26, 2025) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of the California Invasion of Privacy
Act and Section 1 of the California Constitution, intrusion upon
seclusion, and breach of confidence.
According to the complaint, the Defendant has disclosed the private
and confidential information of its patients to Meta, TikTok,
Google, and other third parties without consent. The Defendant
installed tracking technologies, including, but not limited to, the
Meta Pixel, Google Analytics, and Google Ads, on its website to
collect and disclose the said information. As a result, the
Defendant violated the Plaintiffs' and the Class members'
statutorily protected privacy rights.
Midi Health, Inc. is a telehealth company with its principal place
of business in Los Altos Hills, California. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ryan J. Ellersick, Esq.
Caleb Marker, Esq.
Jessica M. Liu, Esq.
ZIMMERMAN REED LLP
6420 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1080
Los Angeles, CA 90048
Telephone: (877) 500-8780
Facsimile: (877) 500-8781
Email: ryan.ellersick@zimmreed.com
caleb.marker@zimmreed.com
jessica.liu@zimmreed.com
MONTE NIDO HOLDINGS: Casey Files Suit in Fla. Cir. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Monte Nido Holdings,
LLC. The case is styled as Emily Casey, Stacy Aragon, Anthony
Bracco, Gabrielle Choi, Sarah Gilbert, Gregory Jasinski, Hadassah
Rosenberg, Jane Doe, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Monte Nido Holdings, LLC, Case No.
CACE25004608 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Broward Cty., April 1, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Negligent Security."
Monte Nido -- https://www.montenido.com/ -- is a national mental
health provider committed to eradicating eating disorders.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Mariya Weekes, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC
201 Sevilla Avenue, 2nd Floor
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Phone: (954) 647-1866
Email: mweekes@milberg.com
MOVADO GROUP: Wee-Ellis Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MELCHION WEE-ELLIS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MOVADO GROUP, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 2:25-cv-01700 (E.D.N.Y., March 27, 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.movadocompanystore.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, inaccessible drop-down menus, 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.
Movado Group, Inc. 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
MUD AUSTRALIA: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Isakov Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMON ISAKOV, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. MUD AUSTRALIA, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-02488 (S.D.N.Y., March 26, 2025) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Right 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.mudaustralia.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, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, unclear
labels for interactive elements, inaccurate labeling of form
fields, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive
elements, 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.
Mud Australia 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
NEIMAN MARCUS: Wilkins Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Andrew Wilkins, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. THE NEIMAN MARCUS GROUP, LLC, Case No.
2025-01397-TT was removed from the Court of Common Pleas of Chester
County, Pennsylvania, to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on April 1, 2025, and assigned
Case No. 2:25-cv-01693.
In the Complaint, Plaintiff asserts a claim for violation of Title
III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA").[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jacob Oslick, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
620 Eighth Avenue, 32nd Fl.
New York, NY 10018
Phone: (212) 218-5500
Fax: (212) 218-5526
Email: joslick@seyfarth.com
NEW BALANCE: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
--------------------------------------------------------
Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. New Balance Athletics, Inc., Case No.
0:25-cv-01197-DSD-LIB (D. Minn., April 1, 2025), is brought arising
because Defendant's Website (www.newbalance.com) (the "Website" or
"Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to
people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both
the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective
communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing
regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also
asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human
Rights Act (MHRA).
The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is
responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning
the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her
experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past
year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff
found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that
deny screen reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to
important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its
sighted Website users.
Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to
access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or
shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant
offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and
operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully
accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with
vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class
have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to
be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to
provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is
compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore
disabled under the ADA.
The Defendant offers clothing and accessories for sale including,
but not limited to, shoes, pants, shirts, sweatshirts, activewear,
jackets, vests and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason Gustafson, Esq.
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
Jason Gustafson (#0403297)
80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (763) 515-6110
Email: jason@throndsetlaw.com
pat@throndsetlaw.com
chad@throndsetlaw.com
NEW YORK ADORNED: Mercedes Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Mercedes, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. NEW YORK ADORNED BROOKLYN INCORPORATED, Case No.
1:25-cv-02707 (S.D.N.Y., April 1, 2025), is brought against
Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate Defendant's website, www.loveadorned.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's Website offers products and services for online
sale and general delivery to the public.[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
NEW YORK DOC: Caballero Must File Status Report by April 25
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JONAS CABALLERO, v. NEW
YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND COMMUNITY SUPERVISION,
Case No. 9:20-cv-01470-BKS-PJE (N.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Brenda
Sannes entered an order granting in part and denying in part the
Plaintiff's motion for approval of class notice and notice plan.
The Court further orders that:
-- the Plaintiff shall file a status report by April 25, 2025:
(1) identifying the class administrator they intend to use as
well as the class administrator's credentials and experience;
and (2) presenting a proposed budget for notification,
including the cost of the class administrator's services, the
cost of verifying address information, the costs of mailing
and resending, and the cost of publication via website; and
-- the Defendant may file objections, if any, to the Plaintiff's
status report by May 2, 2025; and
-- the Defendant is directed to provide class counsel with an
updated list of class members within 60 days of the date of
this Order.
Had the Plaintiff proceeded with class notice upon certification,
as contemplated by Rule 23(b)(3), there would be little question as
to Plaintiff bearing the cost of such notice. Thus, this case is
unusual in the sense that Defendant's liability has been
established prior class notice. Nonetheless, under these
circumstances, given the unique procedural posture of providing
class notice where Defendant's liability has already been
determined, the Court, in its discretion, concludes the cost of
this notice is appropriately placed, in part, if not in whole, on
Defendant.
The Plaintiff filed the proposed class action complaint on Dec. 2,
2020. On March 15, 2021, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On
May 1, 2023, United States District Judge Hurd granted Plaintiff's
motion for class certification, certified a liability class under
Rule 23(b)(3), and defined the class as follows:
"All persons who: (a) were incarcerated in New York State
Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS)
custody; (b) DOCCS excluded from Shock on the basis that they
were designated [New York State Office of Mental Health
("OMH")] Level 3 at any time between Dec. 2, 2017, and Nov. 3,
2021; (c) were not judicially ordered to be enrolled in Shock
by their sentencing court; (d) were statutorily eligible to
enroll in Shock; and (e) DOCCS did not offer an alternative
six-month pathway to early release from prison."
The Plaintiff Jonas Caballero brings this disability discrimination
class action against Defendant DOCCS under Title II of the
Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act. This action stems from Defendant's policies
governing access to the Shock Incarceration Program, a six-month
accelerated or early release program for non-violent offenders.
NYS is responsible for the care, custody, and treatment of the
people held in the state prison.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 2, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=5139sN at no extra
charge.[CC]
NEW YORK, NY: Tunnell Sues Over Religious Discriminatory Policies
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SHARON TUNNELL, EDISON GBOR, GREGORY GORDON, FRANCESCO ODDO, JOHN
CLARKE, DAVID R. BURGOS, JOHN D. BRANCACCIO, JR., JOHN KENNEDY,
MARC ROBINSON, TIMOTHY RIVICCI, JOHN V. SCHAEFER, MATTHEW PASIEKA,
ROMMEL A. PEREZ, MATTHEW DEMEREST, ARETHA SIMMONS, JANE AND JOHN
DOES 1-100, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK; and JOHN and JANE
DOES 1-10 in their personal and official capacities, Defendants,
Case No. 1:25-cv-01781 (E.D.N.Y., March 31, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendants for liability under the Free Exercise Clause
and Establishment Clause and violations of the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Title VII, the New York City
Human Rights Law, and the New York State Human Rights Law.
The case arises from the City of New York's alleged unlawful
attempt to limit the number of employees who received religious
accommodation from its' Covid-19 vaccine mandate by enacting
discriminatory policies that categorically excluded most religious
objections from protection. The Plaintiffs and similarly situated
city workers allege violations of their fundamental statutory and
constitutional rights. They seek declaratory and injunctive relief,
as well as reinstatement, nominal, compensatory, actual and
punitive damages, attorneys' fees and other remedies, for harms
arising from the actions complained of herein.
The City of New York is a municipal corporation in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Sujata S. Gibson, Esq.
GIBSON LAW FIRM, PLLC
120 E. Buffalo St. Suite 2
Ithaca, NY 14850
Telephone: (607) 327-4125
Email: sujata@gibsonfirm.law
NEW YORK: Faces Ram Suit Over Failure to Safeguard Clients' Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
NISSIM RAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-02510 (S.D.N.Y., March 26, 2025) is a class action against
the Defendant for negligence, breach of implied contract, and
unjust enrichment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff
and similarly situated individuals stored within its network
systems following a data breach in or around March 2025. The
Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly
situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the
private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was
compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown
and unauthorized third parties, says the suit.
New York University is a university with its headquarters in New
York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Katherine M. Aizpuru, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 1010
Washington, DC 20006
Telephone: (202) 973-0900
Email: kaizpuru@tzlegal.com
- and -
Sabita Soneji, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 254-6808
Email: ssoneji@tzlegal.com
NEW YORK: Faces Tai Suit Over Failure to Safeguard Clients' Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
AFIF TAI and JOSEPH COLLINS, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY,
Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02595 (S.D.N.Y., March 28, 2025) is a
class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per
se, unjust enrichment, violations of California Consumer Privacy
Act, California Unfair Competition Law, and the Consumer Legal
Remedies Act, and declaratory judgment.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiffs
and similarly situated individuals stored within its network
systems following a data breach on March 22, 2025. The Defendant
also failed to timely notify the Plaintiffs and similarly situated
individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private
information of the Plaintiffs and Class members was compromised and
damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and
unauthorized third parties, says the suit.
New York University is a university with its headquarters in New
York, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Jonathan D. Lindenfeld, Esq.
FEGAN SCOTT LLC
305 Broadway, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Telephone: (332) 216-2101
Facsimile: (312) 264-0100
Email: jonathan@feganscott.com
- and -
Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
Megan A. Shannon, Esq.
FEGAN SCOTT LLC
150 S. Wacker Dr., 24th Floor
Chicago, IL 60606
Telephone: (312) 741-1019
Email: Beth@feganscott.com
Megan@feganscott.com
- and -
Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
Karin B. Swope, Esq.
Vara G. Lyons, Esq.
COTCHETT, PITRE & MCCARTHY, LLP
1809 7th Avenue, Suite 1610
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206)-802-1272
Facsimile: (206)-299-4184
Email: tloeser@cpmlegal.com
vlyons@cpmlegal.com
NORDIC ENERGY: Bickel Sues Over Deceptive Bait-And-Switch Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Bickel, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. NORDIC ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-03454
(N.D. Ill., April 1, 2025), is brought to redress Nordic's breach
of contract and deceptive bait-and-switch scheme that has caused
tens of thousands of commercial and residential energy customers in
the United States to pay considerably more for their electricity
and natural gas than they should otherwise have paid.
To entice customers into buying its natural gas and electricity
supply, Nordic offers customers a fixed supply rate for a few
months, to be followed by a variable supply rate. Nordic represents
in its uniform customer contracts that its natural gas and
electricity rates will be comprised of two components. The first
component is for the price of the actual natural gas or electricity
Nordic supplies to customers' homes or business. At the beginning
of the contract term (which automatically renews until a customer
cancels), that rate is fixed at a specific dollar amount per therm
(for natural gas) or per kWh (for electricity). After the initial
fixed term expires, Nordic promises that customers will pay a
variable supply rate based on Nordic's cost to acquire the natural
gas or electricity supply, plus a markup of a set number of cents
per therm or kWh (the "Variable Commodity Component"). The second
component is comprised of the charges Nordic has to pay for
transportation and storage fees for the energy commodity it
supplies (the "Transportation and Storage Component").
Any reasonable consumer, including Plaintiff, would reasonably
expect that the Variable Commodity Component would be "equal to
Nordic's cost to acquire your supply plus 25 cents per therm" and
that it would only vary in accordance with Nordic's supply costs.
Nordic's contract does not give Nordic any discretion to set the
Variable Commodity Component as it sees fit. However, such a
reasonable consumer would be deceived by Nordic's promise to base
the Variable Commodity Component just on its costs to acquire
energy plus the fixed adder. In reality, the Variable Commodity
Component of Nordic's rates are substantially higher than its costs
to acquire energy plus the specified fixed adder.
Moreover, Nordic represents that supply prices are in addition to
"other charges associated with gas delivery," namely the
transportation and storage charges listed in the contract. Any
reasonable consumer would understand and expect that Nordic's
Transportation and Storage Component would only be comprised of
those charges Nordic (who does not transport or store the energy it
supplies) pays third parties, without any markup. To that end,
Plaintiff's utility bill reflected two components for Nordic's gas
supply: "Gas Supply," i.e. the fixed rate for supply followed by
the Variable Commodity Component, and "Interstate Transportation
and Storage Charges," i.e. the Transportation and Storage
Component.
Unfortunately, such a reasonable consumer would be deceived. In
fact, Nordic adds an outrageously high markup to the transportation
and storage charges it incurs to provide its customers with energy
supply. As a result of Nordic's breach of contract and deceptive
practices, tens of thousands of customers have been, and continue
to be, fleeced by Nordic out of tens of millions of dollars in
exorbitant charges for electricity and natural gas. Defendant's
scheme, which often affects society's most vulnerable citizens, is
immoral, unethical, oppressive, and unscrupulous.
The Plaintiff and other Nordic customers (the "Class") have been
injured by Nordic's unlawful practices. Plaintiff and the Class
therefore seek damages, restitution, statutory penalties, and
declaratory and injunctive relief for Nordic's breach of contract
and the duty of good faith and fair dealing, violation of state
consumer protection statutes, and unjust enrichment, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff enrolled with Nordic in April 2022.
Nordic is an alternative retail energy supplier ("ARES") that
competes with local utilities to supply electricity and natural gas
in deregulated energy markets across the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Katrina Carroll, Esq.
CARROLL SHAMBERG LLC
111 West Washington Street Suite 1240
Chicago, IL 60602
Office: 872-215-6205
Mobile: 847-848-1384
Email: katrina@csclassactions.com
- and -
J. Burkett McInturff, Esq.
WITTELS MCINTURFF PALIKOVIC
305 Broadway, 7th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Phone: (914) 775-8862
Email: nar@wittelslaw.com
- and -
D. Greg Blankinship, Esq.
FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
One North Broadway, Suite 900
White Plains, NY 10601
Phone: (914) 298-3290
Email: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com
NOVA LIFESTYLE: Calif. Court OKs $750K Settlement in "Barney" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nova LifeStyle, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2024, that the federal putative class action
complaint George Barney was resolved by a January 30, 2024 Order of
the Court certifying a settlement class and approving a class
settlement.
The Company previously reported on a federal putative class action
complaint George Barney filed against the Company and its former
and current CEOs and CFOs (Thanh H. Lam, Ya Ming Wong, Jeffery
Chuang and Yuen Ching Ho) in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, claiming the Company violated
federal securities laws and pursuing remedies under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.
Barney v. Nova Lifestyle, Inc., United States District Court for
the Central District of California.
That action was resolved by a January 30, 2024 Order of the Court
certifying a settlement class and approving a class settlement. The
agreed settlement payment of $750,000 was entirely funded by the
Company's insurance carrier and has been tendered to a claims
administrator.
In the Barney action, Company shareholders sought to assert claims
on behalf of all entities purchasing stock from December 21, 2015,
through December 20, 2018, under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities Exchange Commission
Rule 10b-5. In support of these claims, plaintiffs alleged that
defendants artificially inflated the Company's share price by
issuing a press release announcing a strategic relationship with
Shanxi Winqing Senior Care Service Group, claiming in the Company's
Annual Statements on Form 10-Ks for the 2017 and 2018 fiscal years
that Shanxi Winqing and Merlino Lewis LLP were among the Company's
largest customers, and reporting revenues from sales transactions
with these entities. Plaintiffs claimed that Shanxi Winqing was a
fictitious entity and Merlno Lewis LLP dissolved in 2013, so that
the announcement of a strategic alliance was false and the reported
revenues non-existent.
The Company denied these allegations and all liability. It asserted
that the entities referenced in its public disclosures were actual
companies and the revenues booked from those entities were genuine
and actually collected. The Company alleged that no registration
exists for Shanxi Winqing because the Company slightly
mistranslated its Chinese name in its public disclosures.
Similarly, the Company claimed to have previously sold products to
Merlino Lewis LLP and failed to update its customer name when the
customer restructured its business.
About Nova Lifestyle
Headquartered in Commerce, Calif., Nova LifeStyle, Inc. is a
distributor of contemporary styled residential and commercial
furniture incorporated into a dynamic marketing and sales platform
offering retail as well as online selection and global purchase
fulfillment. The Company monitors popular trends and products to
create design elements that are then integrated into the Company's
product lines that can be used as both stand-alone or whole room
and home furnishing solutions. Through its global network of
retailers, e-commerce platforms, stagers, and hospitality
providers, Nova LifeStyle also sells (through an exclusive
third-party manufacturing partner) a managed variety of
high-quality bedding foundation components.
San Mateo, Calif.-based WWC, P.C., the Company's auditor since
2022, issued a "going concern" qualification in its report dated
April 12, 2024, citing that the Company incurred net losses of
$7.72 million and $17.10 million for the years ended Dec. 31, 2023
and 2022, and the accumulated deficit increased from $36.71
million
to $44.43 million from 2022 to 2023. These factors raise
substantial doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a
going concern.
"Continuation as a going concern is dependent upon the ability of
the Company to obtain the necessary financing to meet its
obligations and pay its liabilities arising from normal business
operations when they come due and ultimately upon its ability to
achieve profitable operations. The outcome of these matters
cannot
be predicted with any certainty at this time and raises
substantial
doubt that the Company will be able to continue as a going
concern," stated Nova Lifestyle in its Annual Report for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2023.
As of June 30, 2024, Nova LifeStyle had $5,803,647 in total
assets,
$5,755,439 in total liabilities, and $48,208 in total
stockholders'
equity.
NURTURE LLC: S.D. New York Narrows Claims in Baby Food Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York issued an Opinion and Order denying in part
and granting in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss consolidated
class action complaint in the lawsuit titled In re NURTURE BABY
FOOD LITIGATION, Case No. 1:22-cv-05402-MKV (S.D.N.Y.). This
document relates to: ALL ACTIONS.
The case is one in a series of cases initiated in federal court by
parent consumers after a congressional report reported the presence
of heavy metals in the products of several large baby food
manufacturers.
The Plaintiffs bring this consolidated case individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated alleging that Defendant
Nurture LLC (f/k/a Nurture Inc.) failed to properly disclose the
presence of heavy metals and other contaminants in its baby food,
in violation of consumer protection statutes and the common law in
the states in which the Plaintiffs reside.
The Defendant moves to dismiss the case for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure, and for failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).
The Defendant manufactures and sells baby food products under the
brand name Happy Family Organics, including products for infants
and toddlers marketed as Happy Baby Organics and Happy Tot Organics
(together, the "Baby Foods"). On its website, the Defendant
describes its products as made from "high-quality organic
ingredients" and meeting "rigorous and uncompromising quality
standards."
The Defendant states that its products are "[a]lways certified USDA
Organic," "Non-GMO," made from "[i]ngredients grown without the use
of toxic persistent pesticides," and use "[p]ackaging made without
BPA, BPS, or phthalates." The Defendant's packaging reiterates
these assurances, stating that the Baby Foods are "organic,"
"gluten free," and made with "non-GMO" ingredients.
In February 2021, the Subcommittee on Economic and Consumer Policy
(the "Subcommittee") of the Committee on Oversight and Reform of
the United States House of Representatives issued a report titled
Baby Foods Are Tainted with Dangerous Levels of Arsenic, Lead,
Cadmium, and Mercury (the "Congressional Report"). The
Congressional Report was the result of an investigation into the
seven largest baby food manufacturers in the United States,
including the Defendant. The Congressional Report found the
presence of "significant levels" of heavy metals in commercial baby
food products, including the Baby Foods.
The Plaintiffs are parents, who purchased the Baby Foods for their
children in the states of New York, Illinois, California,
Minnesota, and Washington. The Plaintiffs assert they were "unaware
the Baby Foods contained (or had a material risk of containing)
heavy metals, perchlorate, and/or other contaminants. Had the
Defendants disclosed the presence of heavy metals and perchlorate
in the Baby Foods, its inadequate testing, or failure to test, for
heavy metals or perchlorate in the Baby Foods, or that its products
failed to meet internal standards, the Plaintiffs would not have
purchased any of the Baby Foods, and certainly would not have paid
a premium price for them.
Plaintiffs Nicole Stewart, Summer Apicella, and Shannon Fitzgerald
(the "Stewart Plaintiffs") initiated this action by filing a
Complaint. The Stewart Plaintiffs moved to consolidate this action
with numerous related actions brought against the Defendant raising
similar consumer protection related claims. The Plaintiffs in the
other related actions did not oppose the motion for consolidation.
The Court granted the motion to consolidate, ordered the filing of
a Consolidated Class Action Complaint ("CCAC"), and granted the
Defendant leave to move to dismiss the CCAC. The Court later
administratively closed all member cases. Following the Court's
appointment of interim lead counsel, the Plaintiffs filed the CCAC
invoking jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005,
28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d)(2) ("CAFA").
Thereafter, the Defendant moved to dismiss the CCAC and briefing
followed. Following briefing on the motion to dismiss, the parties
filed several notices of supplemental authority and letters
therewith.
The Court found that the CCAC did not sufficiently allege CAFA
subject matter jurisdiction but denied without prejudice the motion
to dismiss and issued an order to show cause why this case should
not be dismissed for lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction,
giving the Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint curing the
deficient jurisdictional allegations.
The Plaintiffs thereafter filed the Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint ("FAC"), individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, and therein raised various state law claims for
violations of: New York's Deceptive Acts and Practices and False
Advertising Law (Counts I–II); Minnesota's Unlawful Trade
Practices Act, Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, False
Statement in Advertisement Act, and Prevention of Consumer Fraud
Act (Counts III–VI); Washington's Unfair Business Practices and
Consumer Protection Act (Count VII); Illinois's Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Practices Act (Count VIII); California's Consumers Legal
Remedies Act ("CLRA"), False Advertising Law ("FAL"), and Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL") (Count IX–XI); fraudulent
misrepresentation by omission under Illinois and Minnesota state
law (Count XII); fraud by omission under state law (Count XIII);
and unjust enrichment under state law (Count XIV).
After reviewing the parties' submissions responsive to the order to
show cause and the FAC, the Court held that the Plaintiffs'
allegations were facially sufficient to invoke this Court's
jurisdiction under CAFA and granted the Defendant leave to file a
motion to dismiss the FAC.
Thereafter, the Defendant moved to dismiss the FAC pursuant to
Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, filing a memorandum of law together with a declaration
and numerous exhibits in support. The Plaintiffs filed a memorandum
of law, a declaration and exhibits in opposition to the motion to
dismiss. The Defendant filed a reply memorandum, and a declaration
and exhibits in further support. The Plaintiffs and the Defendant
both moved for oral argument in connection with the motion to
dismiss.
In connection the motion to dismiss briefing, the Plaintiffs and
the Defendant each filed notices of supplemental authority. The
Court held oral argument on Feb. 27, 2025. During the oral
argument, the Court directed the parties to submit letters
regarding the effect of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603
U.S. 369 (2024) on the continued viability of the primary
jurisdiction doctrine. The Plaintiffs and Defendant submitted
letters, accordingly.
The Defendant argues that the FAC must be dismissed because (1) the
Plaintiffs do not plausibly plead injury sufficient to (a) allege
standing and to (b) state a claim upon which relief can be granted;
(2) the primary jurisdiction doctrine mandates dismissal of the
Plaintiffs' claims in deference to the FDA; (3) the Plaintiffs'
claims are preempted by federal law; (4) the Plaintiffs'
omission-based claims fail to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted; (5) the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted; (6) certain of the
Plaintiffs' other claims fail for state-specific reasons.
Judge Vyskocil finds that the Plaintiffs adequately allege that
they suffered an injury in fact that is fairly traceable to the
challenged conduct of the Defendant. Judge Vyskocil explains the
Plaintiffs do not allege physical injury as a result of their
children consuming the Baby Foods. Rather, they allege that they
suffered injury because they paid for products they would not have
purchased, or for which they would not have paid a premium, had the
Defendant disclosed the Omissions.
Judge Vyskocil holds that the Plaintiffs have alleged an
injury-in-fact fairly traceable to the conduct of the Defendant,
and thus, the Plaintiffs have adequately alleged Article III
standing. The Court, in its discretion, will not dismiss the
Plaintiffs' claims pursuant to the primary jurisdiction doctrine.
The Court also finds that the Plaintiffs' state law claims are not
preempted by federal law, that they adequately plead injury as to
each of their claims, and that they adequately plead their
omission-based claims.
The Defendant moves to dismiss the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment
claim arguing that (1) they are duplicative of their other claims
and (2) they have not shown that Nurture unjustly retained a
benefit.
Here, Judge Vyskocil notes, the Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim
is premised on the same factual allegations as its other claims and
does not plead distinct damages arising from those claims. Indeed,
the Plaintiffs' allegation of damages with respect to their unjust
enrichment claim is the same economic theory of damages that
supports all of their other claims--that the payments rendered by
them were given and received with the expectation that the Baby
Foods would not contain heavy metals, perchlorate, and/or other
contaminants and the Plaintiffs were injured when they paid the
purchase price or a price premium for the Baby Foods that did not
deliver what they promised. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' unjust
enrichment claim is dismissed.
The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiffs fail to state claims
under California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") and False
Advertising Law ("FAL") because they cannot show, as they must,
that remedies at law are inadequate.
While the FAC seeks restitution and injunctive relief for both the
UCL and FAL claims, Judge Vyskocil says the Plaintiffs' opposition
to the pending motion to dismiss represents that they no longer
seek injunctive remedies. Judge Vyskocil finds the Plaintiffs fail
to show that they lack an adequate remedy at law. The Plaintiffs
fail to show how the restitution they seek differs from the damages
they seek under other statutes or legal theories. Accordingly, the
Plaintiffs' UCL and FAL claims are dismissed.
For these reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part the
Defendant's motion to dismiss.
The Plaintiffs have standing to assert all of their claims, the
claims are not pre-empted by federal law, and the Court will not
decline to hear the claims under the primary jurisdiction doctrine.
The Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claim and the California
statutory False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law claims
are dismissed. All other claims are legally sufficient to state a
claim.
The Clerk of Court is requested to terminate the motions pending at
docket entry 225.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion and Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yyx2bj89 from PacerMonitor.com.
NYU LANGONE: Brown Seeks Conditional Cert of Collective Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as CLINTON BARKLEY, RASHAAN
BOWREY, ANDREW HANCOCK, and PHILIP RAMIREZ, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, v., NYU LANGONE MSO, INC., NYU
LANGONE HEALTH SYSTEM, and NYU LANGONE HOSPITALS, Case No.
1:24-cv-09747-AT (S.D.N.Y.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter
an order conditionally certifying case to proceed as a Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") collective action on behalf of an FLSA
collective consisting of:
"All persons who work or have worked for NYU Langone as exempt-
classified I.T. Support Employees nationwide at any time since
Dec. 18, 2021, and who elect to opt in to this action ("FLSA
Collective members")."
The Plaintiffs request that the Court enter an Order:
1) authorizing Plaintiffs to issue the Notice of this action to
proposed FLSA Collective members;
2) approving the Proposed Notice and Consent to Join form to
the Guerra Declaration, to be issued to the proposed FLSA
Collective members;
3) permitting proposed FLSA Collective members to opt in to
this litigation by filing CTJ forms within the ninety (90)
day period following the date of mailing of the Notice (or,
in the event of re-mailings, 90 days from the re-mailing);
4) authorizing the issuance of Plaintiffs’ proposed Notice to
proposed Collective Members via U.S. mail, email, text
message, and on a standalone website;
5) authorizing the issuance of the reminder notice to the
Guerra Declaration via U.S. mail, email, and text message to
those proposed FLSA Collective members who have not
responded halfway through the notice period;
6) requiring NYU Langone to provide Plaintiffs with the FLSA
Collective members’ names, last known addresses, last known
personal email addresses, last known personal telephone
numbers, and employee number in manipulable electronic
format; and
7) requiring NYU Langone to provide partial Social Security
numbers for FLSA Collective members whose Notices are
returned as undeliverable.
The Defendant is a foreign not-for-profit corporation, part of NYU
Langone Health, an integrated academic health system.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 2, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=n4hRnM at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Artemio Guerra, Esq.
Briana Beltran, Esq.
HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
153 Main Street, Suite 201
New Paltz, NY 12561
Telephone: (212) 439-4781
- and -
Molly A. Brooks, Esq.
Emma R. Janger, Esq.
OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
685 Third Ave., 25th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (212) 245-1000
OBIKA NY: Visually Impaired Can't Access Website, Isakov Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------------
SIMON ISAKOV, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OBIKA NY MADISON, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-02526 (S.D.N.Y., March 27, 2025) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Right 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://obica.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, ambiguous link texts,
changing of content without advance warning, unclear labels for
interactive elements, the denial of keyboard access for some
interactive elements, 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.
Obika NY Madison, 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
OIL PRICE: Conspires to Control PVC Pipe Prices, Vitolite Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
VITOLITE ELECTRIC SALES CO., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OIL PRICE INFORMATION
SERVICE, LLC; ATKORE INC.; IPEX USA LLC; PIPELIFE JET STREAM, INC.;
J-M MANUFACTURING COMPANY, INC., d/b/a JM EAGLE; NATIONAL PIPE &
PLASTICS, INC.; CANTEX INC.; DIAMOND PLASTICS CORPORATION; PRIME
CONDUIT, INC.; SANDERSON PIPE CORPORATION; SOUTHERN PIPE, INC.;
OTTER TAIL CORPORATION; NORTHERN PIPE PRODUCTS, INC.; VINYLTECH
CORPORATION; WESTLAKE CORPORATION; and WESTLAKE PIPE & FITTINGS
CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-03447 (N.D. Ill., March
31, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of
Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Act.
The case arises from the Defendants' unlawful and ongoing agreement
to fix the prices for polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe sold and
purchased throughout the United States and its territories, from no
later than January 1, 2021 to the present day. To implement their
price-fixing conspiracy, the Converter Defendants exchanged
detailed, competitively sensitive, non-public information about PVC
Pipe prices, capacity, sales volume, supply, and demand. Defendant
Oil Price Information Service, LLC (OPIS) actively facilitated this
conspiracy by providing a means for the Converter Defendants to
exchange pricing data and monitor each other's adherence to the
agreed-upon price increases. The Defendants' unlawful agreement
caused direct purchasers of PVC pipe, including the Plaintiff and
the Class, to pay supra-competitive prices for PVC pipe sold by
Converter Defendants in the United States and its territories
during the Class Period.
Vitolite Electric Sales Co. is an electrical supply store owner,
with its principal place of business at 24 King Street, Port
Chester, New York.
Oil Price Information Service, LLC is a price reporting agency,
headquartered in Rockville, Maryland.
Atkore Inc. is a manufacturer of electrical products, headquartered
in Harvey, Illinois.
IPEX USA LLC is a PVC pipe producer, headquartered in Pineville,
North Carolina.
Pipelife Jet Stream, Inc. is a PVC pipe producer, headquartered in
Siloam Springs, Arkansas.
J-M Manufacturing Company, Inc., doing business as JM Eagle, is a
PVC pipe producer, headquartered in Los Angeles, California.
National Pipe & Plastics, Inc. is a PVC pipe producer,
headquartered in Endicott, New York.
Cantex Inc. is a manufacturer of nonmetallic PVC Conduit pipe,
headquartered in Fort Worth, Texas.
Diamond Plastics Corporation is a producer of PVC water pipe,
headquartered in Grand Island, Nebraska.
Prime Conduit, Inc. is a manufacturer of PVC Conduit pipe,
headquartered in Chagrin, Ohio.
Sanderson Pipe Corporation is a manufacturer of PVC pipe,
headquartered in Clarksville, Tennessee.
Southern Pipe, Inc. is a manufacturer of PVC pipe, headquartered in
New London, North Carolina.
Otter Tail Corporation is a producer of PVC water pipe,
headquartered in Fergus Falls, Minnesota.
Northern Pipe Products, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Otter
Tail Corporation headquartered in Fargo, North Dakota.
Vinyltech Corporation is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Otter Tail
Corporation headquartered in Phoenix, Arizona.
Westlake Corporation is a producer of PVC water pipe, headquartered
in Houston, Texas.
Westlake Pipe & Fittings Corporation is a wholly-owned subsidiary
of Westlake Corp., headquartered in Houston, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Stephanie A. Scharf, Esq.
SCHARF BANKS MARMOR LLC
30 W Hubbard St., Ste. 500
Chicago, IL 60654
Telephone: (312) 662-6999
Email: sscharf@scharfbanks.com
- and -
Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
Meghan J. Talbot, Esq.
NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
1133 Avenue of the Americas, 31st Floor
New York, NY 10036
Telephone: (917) 438-9189
Email: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com
mtalbot@nussbaumpc.com
- and -
Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
Gerard A. Dever, Esq.
Jeffrey B. Gittleman, Esq.
FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C.
One South Broad Street, 23rd Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Telephone: (215) 567-6565
Email: rliebenberg@finekaplan.com
gdever@finekaplan.com
jgittleman@finekaplan.com
- and -
James E. Cecchi, Esq.
CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCI, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: (973) 994-1700
Email: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com
OPTUMRX INC: Medical Center PHCY et al. Sue Over Illegal Pricing
----------------------------------------------------------------
MEDICAL CENTER PHCY, LLC, and WINONA DRUGS, LLC, individually, and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. OPTUMRX,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00106-DMB-JMV (N.D. Miss., March
31, 2025) accuses the Defendant of violating the Mississippi
Pharmacy Benefit Prompt Pay Act.
Defendant Optum was found to have reimbursed non-affiliated
pharmacies at much lower amounts than those pharmacies affiliated
with Optum. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs and Class members now seek
declaratory and injunctive relief from further illegal pricing
activity by Defendant and are entitled to damages from the
illegally lowered reimbursements by Defendant.
Headquartered in Eden Prairie, MN, OptumRx, Inc. is a California
corporation that operates as a pharmacy management company. [BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
John W. Barrett, Esq.
Katherine Barrett Riley, Esq.
Sterling Aldridge, Esq.
BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.
404 Court Square N
P.O. Box 927
Lexington, MS 39095
Telephone: (662) 834-2488
E-mail: dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com
KBRiley@barrettlawgroup.com
saldridge@barrettlawgroup.com
- and -
Charles J. LaDuca, Esq.
Christian Hudson, Esq.
CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP
2445 M Street NW, Suite 740
Washington, DC 20037
Telephone: (202) 789-3960
E-mail: charlesl@cuneolaw.com
christian@cuneolaw.com
ORACLE CORP: Faces Data Breach Class Action Suit in W.D. Tex.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Connor Jones, writing for The Register, reports that specialist
class action lawyers have launched proceedings against Oracle in
Texas over two alleged data breaches.
Floridian Michael Toikach is the named plaintiff in law firm Shamis
& Gentile's class action against the cloud giant, which is seeking
to represent others who are similarly affected.
Lawyers demanded a jury trial in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas, where Oracle's headquarters are located
in Austin.
One of the primary claims made by the plaintiffs, among many
others, is that Oracle violated Texas state data breach
notification laws in not informing the alleged victims of a breach
within 60 days of becoming aware of one.
The case specifically refers to an alleged breach of Oracle Cloud,
and it also alludes to health information being affected in the
alleged Oracle Health breach, although this doesn't appear to be
the main focus of the case.
Oracle's alleged security failings were blamed for the loss of
personally identifiable information (PII) and a "wide variety" of
personal health data, and Oracle's silence on the matter
exacerbates these claims, the case argues.
Toikach alleges that Oracle has not yet informed him or other
customers of a breach, clarified whether it was able to maintain
the security of his data, or explained how the alleged incident
occurred.
"All of this information is vital to victims of a data breach, let
alone a data breach of this magnitude due to the sensitivity and
wide array of information compromised in this specific breach," the
case [PDF] reads.
The plaintiff additionally made a flurry of claims about Oracle's
security posture, including alleging a failure to design and
implement adequate network security, train staff on data security,
detect an intrusion within a reasonable time frame, or use security
tools capable of preventing this kind of attack.
Lawyers cited various articles highlighting data breach victims'
negative financial experiences, arguing that Toikach anticipates
"spending considerable time and money on an ongoing basis to try to
mitigate and address harms caused by the data breach."
"As a result of the data breach, plaintiff is at a present risk and
will continue to be at increased risk of identity theft and fraud
for years to come."
Toikach and others who may join the case are seeking financial
compensation for out-of-pocket costs and damages, as well as
commitments from Oracle to improve its security posture.
The Broward County resident claims to take data protection
seriously and is very careful about sharing his private
information, which he typically stores in a safe and secure
location, according to the complaint.
"Plaintiff greatly values his privacy, and would not have provided
his private information, undertaken the services, and paid the
amounts that he did if he had known that his private information
would be maintained using inadequate data security systems."[GN]
ORACLE CORPORATION: Toikach Over Failure to Secure Clients' Info
----------------------------------------------------------------
MICHAEL TOIKACH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ORACLE CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-00477 (W.D. Tex., March 31, 2025) is a class action against
the Defendant for negligence and negligence per se, breach of
third-party beneficiary contract, unjust enrichment, and breach of
fiduciary duty.
The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and
safeguard the personally identifiable information and personal
health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated
individuals stored within its network systems following a data
breach on or around January 22, 2025. The Defendant also failed to
timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals
about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the
Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through
access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties,
says the suit.
Oracle Corporation is a cloud technology company, with its
principal place of business in Austin, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A.
14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
Email: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
OVERTURE SYSTEMS: Faces Layne Suit Over Website Inaccessibility
---------------------------------------------------------------
DALE LAYNE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. OVERTURE SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-01773 (E.D.N.Y., March 31, 2025) arises from Defendant's
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people.
Due to Defendant's failure to build the Website in a manner that is
compatible with screen access programs, Plaintiff was unable to
understand and properly interact with the Website and was thus
denied the benefit of booking a spa session. Accordingly, the
Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and
asserts claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the
New York City Human Rights Law.
Overture Systems, Inc. owns and operates the website,
www.brooklyn-spa.com, which offers beauty treatments and wellness
services. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
OXFORD RISK: Faces VLSI Breach of Contract Suit in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Oxford Risk
Management Group LLC. The case is captioned as VLSI Technology LLC
vs. Oxford Risk Management Group LLC, et al., Case No.
2025-0297-BWD (Del. Ch. Ct., March 19, 2025).
The nature of suit states Breach of Contract.
The case is assigned to the Hon. Bonnie W. David.
Oxford Risk specializes in conducting captive feasibility analysis
and coordination of turn-key captive insurance company
arrangements.[BN]
OXY USA INC: New Mexico Court Refuses to Dismiss Snyder Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lawsuit captioned SNYDER RANCHES, INC., Plaintiff v. OXY USA
INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:23-cv-00636-MLG-GBW (D.N.M.), Judge
Matthew L. Garcia of the U.S. District Court for the District of
New Mexico issued an Memorandum Opinion and Order denying the
Defendant's motion to dismiss.
Plaintiff Snyder Ranches, Inc., owns three natural gas wells in
Eddy County, New Mexico, which Defendant Oxy USA Inc. operates. As
the operator, Oxy has a statutory obligation under the New Mexico
Oil and Gas Proceeds Payment Act ("NMPPA" or "the Act"), to pay
Snyder the proceeds arising from the sale of oil and gas connected
to those wells. Oxy also has a corresponding duty to pay interest
on those proceeds if made untimely (as defined in the NMPPA).
Snyder alleges Oxy failed to comply with this second obligation and
raises two theories of liability: (1) negligence per se, asserting
that Oxy failed to pay statutory interest on payments under the
NMPPA to itself and other well owners and (2) fraud, claiming Oxy
misrepresented and or omitted key details on their monthly check
stubs. It seeks damages and equitable relief on behalf of itself
and a putative class.
Oxy moves to dismiss all but one portion of Snyder's claims.
Specifically, Oxy requests dismissal of Snyder's negligence per se
claim regarding payments of the putative class that were allegedly
held in suspense under Section 70-10-4. It also contends that
Snyder's fraud claim should be thrown out because it is precluded
by the parties' contract and is inconsistent with the NMPPA.
Lastly, Oxy requests the Court dismiss all claims for equitable
relief asserting that they are legally incognizable.
In support of its motion, Oxy first contends that Snyder offers no
factual support for its allegations and that the negligence per se
averments in the First Amended Class Action Complaint ("Amended
Complaint") are naked assertions with no factual enhancement.
Judge Garcia opines that to be sure, Snyder's Amended Complaint
could be more detailed, but it contains several allegations that,
when viewed as a collective whole, provide a sufficient basis to
substantiate Snyder's claims. And at this stage of the litigation,
that is enough, Judge Garcia points out.
Oxy next challenges Snyder's standing to bring claims on behalf of
putative class members whose payments were held in suspense or
escheated under Section 70-10-4. It reasons that Snyder should not
be permitted to represent these putative class members because the
operative complaint does not allege that Snyder's payments were
held in suspense or escheated. Snyder responds that the question is
better suited for class certification.
The Court joins the majority and holds that the class certification
is preferable to the standing approach. Accordingly, applying that
analysis to the facts presented, the Court notes it is undisputed
Snyder has standing to litigate its negligence per se claim. So,
whether Snyder may represent the putative class on the allegations
related to suspended or escheated funds will be assessed on the
criteria encompassed in Rule 23. Resolution of Oxy's request to
dismiss Snyder's claims for unpaid interest on payments held in
suspense is, therefore, better dealt with during class
certification.
Snyder's Amended Complaint alleges Oxy failed to inform owners that
they were owed statutory interest, in that, Oxy did not indicate
(1) whether statutory interest was included on their check stubs,
(2) the amount of such interest, or (3) explain how such a sum was
calculated. Oxy denies it had any affirmative legal obligation to
provide Snyder (or any putative class members) with information
about interest owed or paid.
The Court finds that Snyder has sufficiently plead fraud claims to
clear the low hurdle imposed at the motion to dismiss stage.
Snyder asks the Court for equitable remedies in the form of an
accounting, an order directing Oxy to disgorge any benefits derived
from the allegedly improper and unlawful use of Snyder's statutory
interest payments, and a permanent injunction ordering Oxy to pay
statutory interest in any future late payments.
Judge Garcia holds that the form of relief Snyder may be afforded,
should it prevail on the merits, will be determined at a later
date. For now, "it is premature to determine whether one or all of
the bases for equitable relief has merit," Judge Garcia opines,
citing Chieftain Royalty Co. v. Marathon Oil Co., No. CIV-17-334,
2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 96860, at *12 (E.D. Okla. June 7, 2018).
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/3h9fse6d from PacerMonitor.com.
PACIFICORP: Appeals Class Action Ruling Over 2020 Oregon Wildfires
------------------------------------------------------------------
April Ehrlich, writing for OPB, reports that PacifiCorp has filed a
long-awaited appeal to a class action ruling that has so far
awarded millions of dollars to people harmed by wildfires in 2020.
In 2023, a jury found PacifiCorp was reckless and acted in "gross
negligence" in starting multiple wildfires across Oregon during
Labor Day Weekend in 2020. The company failed to cut power to
customers during a windstorm despite warnings from Oregon fire
officials.
In addition to the 17 plaintiffs who sued the company in that case,
the jury found a broader class of thousands of people can bring
additional claims against PacifiCorp for those wildfires. So far,
separate juries have awarded about $315 million to more than 50
people through individual trials. Those trials are ongoing, and the
company could ultimately be liable for billions of dollars in
damages.
In its appeal filed Tuesday, April 1, 2025, PacifiCorp argued that
thousands of people and businesses across the state should have
never been grouped together into a class-action certification. The
company also contends there is no proof showing it is at fault for
causing fires across multiple regions, including in the Santiam
Canyon, Southern Oregon, and the coast. PacifiCorp has repeatedly
made these arguments in court.
PacifiCorp is owned by the trillion-dollar multinational
conglomerate Berkshire Hathaway, and it's the parent company of
Pacific Power, a utility that supplies electricity to more than
620,000 Oregonians across the state.
"(C)lass treatment is not a good fit for managing wildfire claims,
and the company strongly believes it is important for the Oregon
Court of Appeals to review the issues raised on appeal," Ryan
Flynn, Pacific Power president, said in a statement.
Plaintiffs attorneys said they were not surprised by the appeal, or
the arguments within it.
"PacifiCorp's arguments on appeal are the same ones they have been
making and losing for years," attorney Cody Berne said in an email
to OPB.
PacifiCorp's appeal comes as the company is pushing lawmakers in
multiple states, including Oregon, to pass legislation that would
protect it from some lawsuits when its equipment sparks wildfires.
The appeal also comes two weeks after the Oregon Department of
Forestry published a report saying the agency did not find evidence
showing the utility's equipment started the deadly Santiam Canyon
fires, refuting earlier reports by U.S. Forest Service workers who
were first on scene.
The utility cites the forestry department's report as one of the
reasons it believes this civil case and subsequent judgements
should be revoked, saying it "completely exonerated PacifiCorp."
The timing of PacifiCorp's appeal is likely due to court processes
determining appeal deadlines. Defendants typically have 30 days
after a judgement or order to file a notice of appeal. Attorneys
representing wildfire victims said PacifiCorp has repeatedly
delayed this process through court filings. PacifiCorp attorneys
said they have followed typical court procedure.
In a press release, PacifiCorp said it expects the Oregon Court of
Appeals to address its arguments in 2026. [GN]
PADDYWAX LLC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Fernandez Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
FELIPE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PADDYWAX, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-02636 (S.D.N.Y., March 31, 2025) arises from Defendant's
failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to
be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people.
The Plaintiff wanted to purchase home accessories including the
"holiday town incense cone holder" at Defendant's website but he
encountered accessibility barriers and was not able to complete the
purchase. Due to Defendant's failure to build the website in a
manner that is compatible with screen access programs, Plaintiff
was unable to understand and properly interact with the website.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's
conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law.
PaddyWax, LLC owns and operates the website, which serves as an
online store renowned for offering a wide range of candles and home
fragrance products. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
PARAGON 28: M&A Investigates Proposed Merger With Zimmer Biomet
---------------------------------------------------------------
Monteverde & Associates PC (the "M&A Class Action Firm"), has
recovered millions of dollars for shareholders and is recognized as
a Top 50 Firm in the 2024 ISS Securities Class Action Services
Report. We are headquartered at the Empire State Building in New
York City and are investigating:
-- Paragon 28, Inc. (NYSE: FNA), relating to the proposed merger
with Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement,
Zimmer Biomet will acquire all outstanding shares of Paragon 28
common stock for $13.00 per share. Paragon 28 shareholders will
also receive a non-tradeable contingent value right entitling
holders to receive up to $1.00 per share in cash if certain revenue
milestones are achieved.
ACT NOW. The Shareholder Vote is scheduled for April 16, 2025.
Click here for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/paragon-28-inc-fna/. It is free and
there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- Beacon Roofing Supply, Inc. (NASDAQ: BECN), relating to the
proposed merger with QXO, Inc. Under the terms of the agreement,
Beacon shareholders will receive $124.35 per share in cash.
ACT NOW. The Tender Offer expires on April 14, 2025.
Click here for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/beacon-roofing-supply-inc-becn/. It
is free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- Quanterix Corporation (NASDAQ: QTRX), relating to the proposed
merger with Akoya Biosciences. Under the terms of the agreement,
Akoya shareholders will receive 0.318 shares of Quanterix common
stock for each share of Akoya common stock owned. Quanterix
shareholders will own approximately 70% of the combined company.
Click here for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/quanterix-corporation-qtrx/. It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
-- Playa Hotels & Resorts N.V. (NASDAQ: PLYA), relating to the
proposed merger with Hyatt Hotels Corporation. Under the terms of
the agreement, Hyatt will acquire all outstanding shares of Playa
for $13.50 per share in cash.
ACT NOW. The Tender Offer expires on April 25, 2025.
Click here for more
https://monteverdelaw.com/case/playa-hotels-resorts-n-v-plya/ It is
free and there is no cost or obligation to you.
NOT ALL LAW FIRMS ARE THE SAME. Before you hire a law firm, you
should talk to a lawyer and ask:
1. Do you file class actions and go to Court?
2. When was the last time you recovered money for
shareholders?
3. What cases did you recover money in and how much?
About Monteverde & Associates PC
Our firm litigates and has recovered money for shareholders…and
we do it from our offices in the Empire State Building. We are a
national class action securities firm with a successful track
record in trial and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme
Court.
No company, director or officer is above the law. If you own common
stock in any of the above listed companies and have concerns or
wish to obtain additional information free of charge, please visit
our website or contact Juan Monteverde, Esq. either via e-mail at
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212) 971-1341.
Contact:
Juan Monteverde, Esq.
MONTEVERDE & ASSOCIATES PC
The Empire State Building
350 Fifth Ave. Suite 4740
New York, NY 10118
United States of America
jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com
Tel: (212) 971-1341 [GN]
PARSONS DISCOUNT: Ramos Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages for Store Employees
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ABUNDIO MARTINEZ RAMOS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PARSONS DISCOUNT STORE INC. (D/B/A
C MART), PHANTASTIC ON SALE INC. (D/B/A FANTASTIC SAVERS), and CHAO
HUANG, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01667 (E.D.N.Y., March 26,
2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including
failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages,
failure to pay spread-of-hours compensation, failure to comply with
notice and recordkeeping requirements, failure to furnish accurate
wage statements, and failure to reimburse business expenses.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendants as a stocker and
general store assistant from approximately 2012 until February 26,
2025.
Parsons Discount Store Inc., doing business as C Mart, is a
discount store owner located at 84-16 Parsons Blvd., Queens, New
York.
Phantastic On Sale Inc., doing business as Fantastic Savers, is a
discount store owner located at 89-89 Union Turnpike, Queens, New
York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
PENNSYLVANIA STATE: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Hudson Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
MELANIE HUDSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PENNSYLVANIA STATE EDUCATION ASSOCIATION (PSEA), Case
No. 2025-CV-02411 (Pa. Com, Plea., Dauphin Cty., March 19, 2025)
arises out of a cyberattack and data breach involving PSEA, which
collected and stored certain personally identifiable information
(PII) and private health information of the Plaintiff and Class
Members, all of whom had PII and/or PHI on PSEA servers.
Accordingly, once it was entrusted with safeguarding Class Members'
PII, PHI and other sensitive data, PSEA assumed a non-delegable
duty to ensure that this information was reasonably kept safe from
the foreseeable event of a data security incident. PSEA breached
that duty. In a letter dated March 17, 2025, PSEA acknowledged
having "experienced a security incident on or about July 6, 2024."
In September of 2024, certain websites reported that PSEA's servers
had been hacked by the Rhysida ransomware group. PSEA reported to
the Maine Attorney General that the Data Breach affected 517,487
individuals.
The information includes at a minimum Class Members' dates of
birth, driver's license or state IDs, Social Security numbers,
account numbers, account PINs, security codes, passwords and
routing numbers, payment card numbers, payment card PINs and
payment card expiration dates, passport numbers, taxpayer ID
numbers, usernames and passwords, health insurance information and
medical information.
Social Security numbers are particularly valuable to criminals like
those who targeted PSEA in the Data Breach. This information can be
sold and traded on the dark web black market. The loss of a Social
Security number is especially troubling because it cannot be easily
changed and can be misused in a range of nefarious activities, such
as filing fraudulent tax returns to steal tax refund payments,
opening new accounts to take out loans, and other forms of identity
theft, says the suit.
The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of herself
and all those similarly situated to address PSEA's inadequate
safeguarding of Class Members' PII and PHI that is collected and
maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice
to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information was
unsecured and left open to the unauthorized access of any unknown
third party.
Plaintiff Hudson is an adult individual and citizen of
Pennsylvania. She resides in the borough of Collingdale, which is
in Delaware County. She is a long-time member of the PSEA. On March
18, 2025, Ms. Hudson received a "Notice of Data Security Incident"
from PSEA via email.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
Samantha E. Holbrook, Esq.
SHUB JOHNS & HOLBROOK LLP
Four Tower Bridge
200 Barr Harbor Drive, Suite 400
Conshohocken, PA 19428
Telephone: (610) 477-8380
E-mail: bjohns@shublawyers.com
sholbrook@shublawyers.com
- and -
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
Bart D. Cohen (PA ID 57606)
1622 Locust Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Phone: (267) 973-4855
bcohen@baileyglasser.com
PEPPERIDGE FARM: S.D. New York Refuses to Toss Ward Consumer Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Andrew L. Carter, Jr., of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York denies the Defendant's motion to
dismiss the lawsuit entitled VERONIKA WARD, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PEPPERIDGE
FARM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00078-ALC-RFT (S.D.N.Y.).
Plaintiff Veronika Ward brings this putative class action against
food manufacturer Pepperidge Farm, Inc., alleging that Pepperidge
Farm participated in deceptive business practices and false
advertising of its Goldfish Flavor Blasted Baked Snack Crackers.
Plaintiff Ward argues that the statement on the label, "No
Artificial Flavors or Preservatives," is materially misleading
given the presence of citric acid in the product. Pepperidge Farm
moves to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Plaintiff Veronika Ward is a citizen and resident of New York City.
Defendant Pepperidge Farm, Inc., is a corporation organized under
the laws of Connecticut with its principal place of business
located in Connecticut. The Defendant formulates, advertises,
manufactures, and sells Goldfish Flavor Blasted Baked Snack
Crackers ("Product") throughout New York and the entire United
States.
The Defendant sells the Product with the statement "No Artificial
Flavors or Preservatives" displayed on the packaging. Citric acid
is one of the ingredients in the Product. Ms. Ward purchased the
Product on numerous occasions within the last three years. Most
recently, she purchased the "Xtra Cheddar" flavor of the Product
from a Walgreens pharmacy in New York City in October 2023.
Ms. Ward alleges that the statement "No Artificial Flavors or
Preservatives" is misleading because the Product contains citric
acid, which is an artificial preservative. If she had known of the
alleged misrepresentation, Ward alleges she would not have
purchased the Product or paid so much for it.
Plaintiff Ward commenced this action on Jan. 5, 2024. The complaint
asserts several causes of action: (1) violations of N.Y. General
Business Law ("GBL") sections 349 and 350; (2) breach of express
warranty; and (3) unjust enrichment. She seeks certification of the
class, injunctive relief, monetary and statutory damages, and
attorneys' fees.
On May 13, 2024, the Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Plaintiff opposed on
June 10, 2024, and the Defendant filed a reply on July 8, 2024. On
Oct. 24 and Nov. 18, 2024, and March 14, 2025, the Plaintiff filed
notices of supplemental authority. The Defendant submitted a notice
of supplemental authority on March 14, 2025.
The Defendant does not dispute that Ward has met her burden to
plead consumer-oriented conduct and injury. The Defendant only
contests that it made a materially misleading representation. The
Defendant argues that Ward has failed to sufficiently plead that
citric acid is a preservative and that it is artificial.
The Court disagrees. Judge Carter finds that the Plaintiff has
sufficiently alleged that citric acid is a preservative and is
artificial. Considering industry practices, the production process,
and the chemical differences, the Court finds Ward has sufficiently
alleged that the citric acid used in the Product is artificial.
Even if Ward alleges the citric acid in the Product to be an
artificial preservative, the Defendant argues that the ingredient
list and Nutrition Facts visible on the Product's packaging render
it implausible that a reasonable consumer would be deceived by the
statement "No Artificial Flavors or Preservatives."
Judge Carter also finds, among other things, that Ward has
sufficiently alleged that the Product's packaging is deceptive.
Although uncontested, the Court notes that Ward has also stated an
injury, given her allegation that "she would not have purchased the
Product, or, at the very least, would have only been willing to
purchase the Product at a lesser price" had she known it contained
an artificial preservative. Therefore, Ward adequately pleads a
materially misleading representation under GBL sections 349 and
350.
For the reasons stated in the Opinion & Order, the Court denies the
Defendant's motion to dismiss. The Clerk of Court is directed to
terminate the motion at ECF No. 15. The case will be referred to
Magistrate Judge Robyn F. Tarnofsky for general pretrial matters in
a separate order.
A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion & Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/4dxf7run from PacerMonitor.com.
PHILADELPHIA CORP: Settlement in Matthews Suit Gets Final Court Nod
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John F. Murphy of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted plaintiff's motion for
final approval of the class action settlement and other related
relief in the case captioned as NEQUAVA MATTHEWS, on behalf of
herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PHILADELPHIA
CORPORATION FOR AGING, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-04632-JFM (E.D.
Pa.).
The Court certifies a settlement class and collective action
comprised of all individuals who (i) were employed by Defendant
Philadelphia Corporation for Aging ("Defendant") as OAPS
Investigators between November 18, 2019 and August 20, 2024 and
(ii) have returned consent forms per the procedures endorsed in the
Court's preliminary approval order. This settlement
class/collective includes (i) the 45 individuals identified in the
table attached to Nicole Bench's declaration, see DI 76-1 at Ex. D,
and (ii) any additional individuals who return timely consent forms
in an envelope postmarked on or before March 3, 2025. The Court
finds that this settlement class/collective (i) satisfies all of
the class certification requisites described in Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) and (ii) consists of individuals
who are "similarly situated" under the factors described in Zavala
v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., 691 F.3d 527, 536-37 (3d Cir. 2012).
The Court approves the settlement as "fair, reasonable, and
adequate" under the criteria described in Civil Rule 23(e)(2).
The Court approves the settlement's release of Fair Labor Standards
Act claims as a fair and reasonable resolution of a bona fide
dispute over FLSA provisions.
The Court approves the requested $7,500.00 service award payment
from the settlement funds to Plaintiff.
The Court appoints Winebrake & Santillo, LLC ("W&S") to serve as
class counsel and finds that such appointment is justified under
the criteria described in Civil Rule 23(g)(1).
The Court approves the $330,000.00 payment from the settlement fund
to W&S as compensation for all combined attorney's fees, litigation
costs/expenses, and third-party settlement administration expenses.
The Court finds that the $307,296.99 portion of this payment
attributable to W&S's attorney's fees to be reasonable when viewed
against W&S's reported fee lodestar of $385,739.002 and the various
factors described in Gunter v. Ridgewood Energy Corp., 223 F.3d
190, 195 n. 1 (3d Cir. 2000).
Members of the settlement class/collective described in paragraph 1
supra are barred from asserting against Defendant or any other
released parties (as described in the Agreement) any claims falling
within the release described at Section III.5.b of the Agreement,
see DI 75-1, and in the consent forms as signed by each of the
class members and filed with the Court.
This action is dismissed with prejudice, although the Court retains
jurisdiction for the limited purpose of enforcing the settlement's
terms.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=z7PLxy from PacerMonitor.com.
PHILADELPHIA, PA: E.D. Pennsylvania Dismisses Newton v. PAPPD
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Karen Spencer Marston of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania dismisses the lawsuit entitled
DEVON DEVON NEWTON, Plaintiff v. PHILADELPHIA PENNSYLVANIA ADULT
PROBATION AND PAROLE DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants, Case No.
2:25-cv-00908-KSM (E.D. Pa.).
Pro se Plaintiff Devon Newton brings this civil action against the
Philadelphia Adult Probation and Parole Department ("PAPPD") and
Probation Officers Eric Corey Jr. and Sinai Hill. He also seeks
leave to proceed in forma pauperis. For reasons set forth in this
Order, the Court grants Newton's application to proceed in forma
pauperis and dismisses his Complaint with prejudice for failure to
state a claim.
As best as the Court can understand his allegations, Newton asserts
that a sentence he received in a state court criminal matter,
Commonwealth v. Newton, CP-51-CR-0005064-2022, included terms of
probation that violated his civil rights. In particular, Newton
challenges a "stay away order" preventing him from contacting his
son and the mother of his child. He asserts that "the probation
[in] Case Docket Number CP-51-CR-0005064-2022 is an extreme passive
oppressive hindrance in my life separating my family and my better
half away from [me]." He also claims that the probation is
passively and oppressively holding him in captivity.
Mr. Newton expresses his intention to bring "a civil rights class
action suit against" the named Defendants but does not specifically
state the relief he seeks for his claims.
Judge Marston notes that Newton's handwritten Complaint does not
contain a caption; however, he identifies the Defendants in the
body of the Complaint. The Clerk of Court entered his name on the
docket, including the double first name, as he wrote it in his
Complaint but did not list Officers Corey and Hill as Defendants.
Because Newton is unable to pay the filing fee in this matter, the
Court grants him leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Because of
this, 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) requires the Court to
dismiss the Complaint if it fails to state "a claim on which relief
may be granted." The Complaint is comprised of a letter to the
Court and a copy of a May 7, 2024 motion, apparently filed in
Commonwealth v. Newton, in which Newton sought reconsideration of
his sentence and a "stay away order" in particular.
Liberally construed, Judge Marston notes that Newton's Complaint
contests the conditions of his probation, arguing that they violate
his right to family unity. The Court, thus, interprets the
Complaint as asserting violations of the Ninth and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution. The vehicle by which
federal constitutional claims may be brought in federal court is 42
U.S.C. Section 1983.
Although difficult to follow at times, Judge Marston says Newton's
Complaint clearly challenges the terms of his probation,
specifically the stay away order barring him from having contact
with his child and the mother of his child. Because he cannot seek
such relief through Section 1983, any attempt to amend his Section
1983 claims would be futile, and his claims are dismissed with
prejudice, Judge Marston holds.
Judge Marston notes that the publicly available docket for Newton's
criminal case reflects that the sentence for his Sept. 7, 2023
conviction by way of a nolo contendere plea included a three-year
term of probation during which he was not to have contact with the
victim of the crime, who is not named (presumably either his child
or the mother of his child), unless authorized by the court. He was
also required to complete domestic violence therapy, among other
conditions. On Oct. 17, 2024, Newton was found in violation of
these conditions and sentenced to an additional term of probation.
The Complaint does not include a request for damages, so the
Court's analysis could stop here. Nevertheless, the Court notes
that even if Newton had included such a request--or the Court
broadly interpreted his Complaint to include one--his Section 1983
claims against the PAPPD and Officers Corey and Hill would still
fail.
Because the Court of Common Pleas--and by extension, subdivisions
of the court like the PAPPD--are not subject to liability for
damages under Section 1983, Newton's claim for damages against the
PAPPD (to the extent there is one) must be dismissed with
prejudice, Judge Marston holds. Similarly, Newton's claims against
Probation Officers Eric Corey Jr. and Sinai Hill fail for two
reasons.
First, Judge Marston explains, Newton does not allege any facts
related to these Defendants. Second, even if Newton had alleged
facts concerning the involvement of Officers Corey and Hill, his
claims as to these Defendants would likely still fail because
probation and parole officers are generally entitled to some degree
of immunity when carrying out their adjudicatory or administrative
duties.
Because Newton does not seek damages under Section 1983, and even
if he meant to, Judge Marston finds he has not plausibly stated
claims for such relief, his Complaint is also dismissed on this
ground.
The Court dismisses the Complaint with prejudice because the relief
Newton seeks is not available in a civil rights action under
Section 1983. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3eu8ra7p from PacerMonitor.com.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ywxxbjpj from PacerMonitor.com.
PPL CORPORATION: Class Settlement in Binder Gets Initial Nod
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAVID B. BINDER, et al.,
v. PPL CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-00133-MRP (E.D. Pa.),
the Hon. Judge Mia Roberts Perez entered an order granting
unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action
settlement:
A hearing is scheduled at the James A. Byrne United States
Courthouse, the Honorable District Court Judge Mia Roberts Perez
presiding.
All valid Former Participant Claim Forms must be received by the
Settlement Administrator with a postmark date no later than July
22, 2025, or electronically submitted online at the website
maintained by the Settlement Administrator no later than July 22,
2025.
The litigation arises out of a class action alleging breaches of
fiduciary duties against the Defendants under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), with respect to
their management, operation, and administration of the PPL Employee
Savings Plan, the PPL Deferred Savings Plan, the PPL Employee Stock
Ownership Plan, and the LG&E and KU Savings Plan.
The Defendants deny and continue to deny the allegations, claims,
and contentions of the Class Representatives, deny that they are
liable at all to the Class, and deny that the Class or the Plans
have suffered any harm or damage.
PPL is an energy company headquartered in Allentown, Pennsylvania
in the Lehigh Valley region of eastern Pennsylvania.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 3, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fbMz82 at no extra
charge.[CC]
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces False Advertising Class Action Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matt Simons, writing for Courthouse News Service, reports that
nearly one-third of Americans don't get enough sleep. But what
could a good night's sleep cost you in the long run?
Such are the issues at stake in a suit filed by customers who claim
that Procter & Gamble misleadingly markets, labels, and packages
its ZzzQuil nighttime sleep aid products as "non-habit forming."
A federal judge Friday, April 4, declined to dismiss the
plaintiffs' false advertising class action against the drug
company.
The consumers claim that many of Procter & Gamble's sleep aid
products contain diphenhydramine hydrochloride, an antihistamine
some health organizations say could lead consumers to become
dependent on it. This, they claim, directly contradicts the
company's advertising efforts.
In his 14-page order, U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar ruled that
the customers had presented sufficient evidence to continue to
pursue their claims.
"While P&G raises several challenges to the methodology,
limitations and comparability of the scientific sources (which P&G
has moved to incorporate by reference), the Court finds that the
sources discussed above sufficiently support plaintiffs' claims
regarding habit formation for diphenhydramine consumption," the
Barack Obama appointee ruled.
Tigar's decision contrasts his previous ruling, in which he
admonished the plaintiffs for lacking clinical studies to support
their claims.
Specifically, the court previously determined that even though the
plaintiffs cited numerous articles discussing the rise of the sleep
aid industry and how habits are created, they only mentioned one
source directly addressing whether ZzzQuil products and
diphenhydramine could cause habit formation — and this single
article did not include citations to any clinical studies.
"Plaintiffs have since amended their complaint to include citations
to a variety of scientific studies and articles," Tigar said.
The plaintiffs have also enlisted the aid of Dr. Antonia Nemanich,
a medical toxicologist and emergency physician, as an expert to
support their claims regarding the habit-forming nature of
diphenhydramine.
Tigar ultimately rejected Procter & Gamble's arguments that the
lawsuit lacked evidence to establish ZzzQuil or diphenhydramine
could be habit-forming when taken as directed, concluding that the
plaintiffs successfully stated a claim for violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law, False Advertising Law, and
Legal Remedies Act.
"Discovery may expose that those studies contain vital flaws, but
it is enough for now that the studies do not plainly refute the
allegations in the complaint," the judge ruled.
Tigar also moved forward with the plaintiffs' warranty and unjust
enrichment claims.
Attorneys for both sides did not immediately respond to a request
for comment.
This case was filed in the Northern District of California. [GN]
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Maggio Sues Over Deceptive Product Marketing
--------------------------------------------------------------
BREANNE MAGGIO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY and RAINFOREST
ALLIANCE, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-02667 (S.D.N.Y., March
31, 2025) arises from Defendants' false and deceptive marketing
representations of Charmin toilet paper and Puffs tissue products.
According to the complaint, reasonable consumers seeking to buy
sustainable and responsibly sourced paper products are misled both
by Procter & Gamble's advertising and marketing of Charmin and
Puffs products as unqualifiedly "sustainable" and Rainforest
Alliance's independent representations that the products are
RA-certified, when they are not. Moreover, P&G sources Charmin and
Puffs from mills that engage in environmentally destructive and
unsustainable logging practices that lead to extensive forest
degradation, including clearcutting of the climate-critical and
biodiverse Canadian Boreal Forest.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings her claims against Defendants
individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly
situated for (1) violations of the New York General Business Law
Section 349; (2) violations of the New York General Business Law
Section 350, (3) violations of all other state consumer protection
statutes, (4) breaches of express warranty, (5) breaches of implied
warranty, and (6) unjust enrichment.
P&G is a consumer goods company that manufactures and sells several
products including tissue products, which are both sold in store
and through online retailers. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kim E. Richman, Esq.
1 Bridge Street, Suite 83
Irvington, NY 10533
Telephone: (914) 693-2018
E-mail: krichman@richmanlawpolicy.com
PROFESSIONAL FINANCE: Plaintiffs Seeks Final OK of Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARITZA RODRIGUEZ, et al.,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
PROFESSIONAL FINANCE COMPANY, INC., Case No. 1:22-cv-01679-RMR-STV
(D. Colo.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order granting
final approval of the settlement and certifying the Settlement
Class.
The settlement provides for relief for the Class defined as
follows:
"All persons whose personally identifiable information was
identified as included in the Data Security Incident and to
whom notice of the Data Security Incident was sent."
The Class is comprised of approximately 2,000,000 individuals,
with roughly 1,300,000 being SSN Subclass Members and roughly
700,000 being non-SSN Subclass Members.
Excluded from the Class are PFC and its affiliates,
successors, heirs, and assigns.
Also excluded from the Class are members of the judiciary to
whom this case is assigned, their families and members of
their staff.
Accordingly, the Parties engaged in prolonged settlement
discussions due to financial constraints of the Defendant. PFC
provided discovery materials regarding its financial position and
its wasting insurance policy. Due to the financial circumstances of
PFC, the Parties elected to settle the case themselves rather than
dedicate any of the limited financial resources to the cost of a
private mediator. This factor favors final approval.
Professional Finance operates as a debt management company.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 3, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=BnE4HF at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Terence R. Coates, Esq.
Dylan J. Gould, Esq.
MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC
119 East Court Street, Suite 530
Cincinnati, OH 45202
Telephone: (513) 651-3700
Facsimile: (513) 665-0219
E-mail: tcoates@msdlegal.com
dgould@msdlegal.com
- and -
Joseph M. Lyon, Esq.
THE LYON FIRM, ALC
2754 Erie Avenue
Cincinnati, OH 45208
Telephone: (513) 381-2333
Facsimile: (513) 766-9011
E-mail: jlyon@thelyonfirm.com
- and -
Jean S. Martin, Esq.
Francesca Kester Burne, Esq.
MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX
LITIGATION GROUP
201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
Tampa, FL 33602
Telephone: (813) 223-5505
E-mail: jeanmartin@ForThePeople.com
fburne@ForThePeople.com
PROVEN WINNERS: Faces Miller Suit Over Website's Access Barriers
----------------------------------------------------------------
KIMBERLY MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PROVEN WINNERS NORTH AMERICA LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:25-cv-00271 (W.D.N.Y., March 27, 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.provenwinners.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.
Proven Winners North America LLC is a company that sells online
goods and services in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. LaBollita, Esq.
Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC
150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
New York, NY 10003
Telephone: (212) 228-9795
Facsimile: (212) 982-6284
Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal
Dana@Gottlieb.legal
Michael@Gottlieb.legal
PROVIDENCE HEALTH: Faces Angulo Class Action Suit in E.D. Wash.
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Providence Health &
Services Washington. The case is captioned as Kirk Summers, Maryann
Sumerlin, Raymond Sumerlin, Jr., Christine Bash, Eben Nesje, Eric
Keller and Caroline Angulo, single persons individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated; John/Jane Does, and any
marital communities thereof; Martin Whitney a married couple and on
behalf of others similarly situated; and Sherryl Whitney a married
couple and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Providence
Health & Services Washington, et al., Case No. 4:25-cv-05029-SAB
(E.D. Wash., March 19, 2025).
The case is assigned to the Hon. Chief Judge Stanley A Bastian.
The nature of suit states Personal Injury and Medical Malpractice.
Providence Health is a not-for-profit Catholic healthcare system
headquartered in Renton, Washington. The health system includes 51
hospitals, more than 800 non-acute facilities, and numerous
assisted living facilities in the western half of the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
William A Gilbert, Esq.
Ashley A Richards, Esq.
Beth M Bollinger, Esq.
GILBERT LAW FIRM
421 West Riverside Avenue, Suite 1400
Spokane, WA 99201
Telephone: (509) 321-0750
Facsimile: (509) 343-3315
E-mail: bill@wagilbert.com
ashley@wagilbert.com
beth@wagilbert.com
Movant MultiCare Health System is represented by:
Michelle L. Hyer, Esq.
Eric A. Norman, Esq.
FAVROS LAW
3131 Elliott Avenue, Suite 300
Seattle, WA 98121
Telephone: (206) 515-2153
E-mail: michelleh@favros.com
Defendants Jane Doe Dreyer, and Providence Health and Services
Washington doing business as: Providence St Mary Medical Center a
non-profit Washington corporation, are represented by:
Jennifer K. Oetter, Esq.
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP
888 SW 5th Avenue. Suite 900
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone: (971) 712-2800
Facsimile: (971) 712-2801
E-mail: jennifer.oetter@lewisbrisbois.com
- and -
Kenneth E. Payson, Esq.
Ross Siler, Esq.
Jordan C Harris, Esq.
Caleah N Whitten, Esq.
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP - SEA
920 Fifth Avenue, Suite 3300
Seattle, WA 98104-1610
Telephone: (206) 622-3150
E-mail: kenpayson@dwt.com
ross.siler@dwt.com
caleahwhitten@dwt.com
jordanharris@dwt.com
- and -
James McPhee, Esq.
Jeffrey Ryan Galloway, Esq.
Steven Joseph Dixson, Esq.
WITHERSPOON BRAJCICH MCPHEE PLLC
601 West Main Avenue, Suite 1400
Spokane, WA 99201
Telephone: (509) 455-9077
Facsimile: (509) 624-6441
E-mail: jmcphee@workwith.com
jgalloway@workwith.com
sdixson@workwith.com
- and -
Matthew W. Daley, Esq.
PAINE HAMBLEN
717 West Sprague Avenue, Suite 1200
Spokane, WA 99201
Telephone:(509) 455-6000
E-mail: mwd@painehamblen.com
Defendants Dr. Daniel Elskens, DO husband and the marital community
thereof, and Jane Doe, Elskens' wife and the marital community
thereof, are represented by:
Ronald A. Van Wert, Esq.
Stephen Maurice Lamberson, Esq.
ETTER MCMAHON LAMBERSON VAN WERT & ORESKOVICH PC
618 West Riverside Avenue, Suite 210
Spokane, WA 99201
Telephone: (509) 747-9100
Facsimile: (509) 623-1439
E-mail: rvw@ettermcmahon.com
lambo74@ettermcmahon.com
RCM TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement in Gray Suit Gets Final Court Okay
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Josephine L. Staton of the United States District
Court for the Central District of California granted the
plaintiff's motion for final approval of the class action and PAGA
settlement in the case captioned as BARBARA GRADY, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. RCM
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:22-cv-00842 JLS-SHK (C.D.
Cal.).
The Court grants certification of the Settlement Class. The
Settlement Class is defined as "All individuals employed as
non-exempt, hourly paid nurses by Defendant RCM in California at
any time between March 1, 2020 and March 7, 2023 and assigned by
RCM to work at COVID-19 testing or vaccination sites for San
Bernardino County (including Arrowhead Regional Medical Center), or
K-12 schools for LAUSD or Ginkgo."
The Court grants final approval of the Settlement as fair, adequate
and reasonable.
The Court approves a PAGA Payment of $165,841.
The Court grants the $39,220 in administration costs requested by
JND Legal Administration and permits the filing of a petition for
payment of additional costs to JND in the event of a second or
third settlement distribution and/or additional, unanticipated
administration costs.
The Court grants a Service Award of $5,000 to the named-Plaintiff
and Class Representative, Plaintiff Barbara Ann Grady.
The Court grants attorneys' fees of $414,602, plus reimbursement of
attorneys' litigation costs and expenses of $47,768.17, as
reasonable.
The Court orders that ten percent (10%) of the attorneys' fees
awarded be withheld pending Class Counsel's submission of a
Post-Distribution Status Report within 21 days after the
substantial completion of distribution to the Settlement Class
Members.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=0ahP65 from PacerMonitor.com.
RESORT DATA: Faces Rayner Suit Over Data Security Failures
----------------------------------------------------------
SAMUEL RAYNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. RESORT DATA PROCESSING, INC., Defendant,
Case No. 1:25-cv-01031-JLK (D. Colo., March 31, 2025) arises from
Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's
and thousands of Class Members' sensitive personal identifiable
information.
Due to Defendant's deficient data security, hackers accessed
Defendant's network servers and systems and exfiltrated Plaintiff's
and Class Members' PII stored therein, including their names,
financial account numbers or credit/debit card numbers, and Social
Security numbers, causing widespread injuries and damages to
Plaintiff and Class Members. To recover for the harms caused by the
data breach, Plaintiff now brings claims for negligence/negligence
per se, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, invasion of
privacy/intrusion upon seclusion, and unjust enrichment, says the
suit.
Headquartered in Edwards, CO, Resort Data Processing, Inc. operates
as a hospitality technology company. It provides property
management software solutions for resorts, hotels, vacation
rentals, and campgrounds. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Las Olas Blvd, Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-3200
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
ROUNDPOINT MORTGAGE: Class Cert. Bid Filing Due Jan. 15, 2026
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as GARY VENTLING, in his own
right and as representative of a class of persons similarly
situated, v. ROUNDPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING, LLC, Case No.
1:24-cv-00158-SWS (D. Wyo.), the Hon. Judge Scott Klosterman
entered a class certification scheduling order as follows:
Event Deadline
Motions for leave to amend or add Aug. 29, 2025
additional parties:
Plaintiff's Class Certification Motion: Jan. 15, 2026
Defendant's Class Certification Response: Feb. 26, 2026
The Plaintiff Ventling alleges that Defendant has a pattern and
practice of failing to timely credit mortgage payments, and instead
assesses late fees despite borrowers paying on or before the end of
the grace period.
Between the time Defendant began servicing his mortgage in April
2023 and January 2024, Defendant assessed late fees on his account,
despite records showing he paid on time.
On behalf of a nationwide class of similarly situated borrowers,
the Plaintiff brings claims for breach of contract.
RoundPoint offers reverse mortgage and insurance.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 2, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=djrdHF at no extra
charge.[CC]
SAFAVIEH INTERNATIONAL: Website Inaccessible to Blind, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SAFAVIEH INTL, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-01760 (S.D.N.Y., March 31, 2025) alleges violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights
Law.
The Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against Defendant for
the failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website
to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and
other blind or visually-impaired people.
Safavieh Intl, Inc. offers the website, www.safaviehhome.com, which
serves as an online store for luxury furniture, rugs, and home
decor. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
SAINT JOSEPH'S: Faces Lander Suit Over Private Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------
BRYNNE LANDER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRUSTEES OF ST. JOSEPH'S COLLEGE d/b/a SAINT
JOSEPH'S COLLEGE OF MAINE, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00119-KFW
(D. Me., March 31, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to
safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information.
Between December 15, 2023 and January 24, 2024, hackers targeted
and accessed Defendant's network servers without authorization and
stole Plaintiff's and Class Members' private information. Although
the data breach took place for over a month, and lasted through
January 24, 2024, the Defendant failed to notify affected
individuals that their private information was compromised until
approximately March 21, 2025. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings
claims for negligence/negligence per se, breach of implied
contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment, and
seeks to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of the private
information in its care.
Saint Joseph's College of Maine is a private Catholic college in
Standish, ME. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
David E. Bauer, Esq.
443 Saint John Street
Portland, ME 04102
Telephone: (207) 804-6296
E-mail: david.edward.bauer@gmail.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Telephone: (954) 525-4100
E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
SAM NATURAL: Faces Mendez Wage-and-Hour Suit in E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------
ANGEL MENDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SAM NATURAL DELI CORP. (d/b/a NATURAL DELI),
BK NATURAL DELI CORP. (d/b/a NATURAL DELI), MATHANNA ABDO, and FITO
DOE, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01692 (E.D.N.Y., March 27, 2025)
is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to
pay minimum wages, failure to pay overtime wages, failure to comply
with notice and recordkeeping requirements, failure to furnish
accurate wage statements, and failure to timely pay wages.
The Plaintiff was employed as a deli worker, counter attendant, and
cashier at the deli located at 281 Nostrand Avenue, Brooklyn, New
York from approximately October 10, 2021, until on or about April
30, 2024.
SAM Natural Deli Corp., doing business as Natural Deli, is a
restaurant owner and operator located at 281 Nostrand Avenue,
Brooklyn, New York.
BK Natural Deli Corp., doing business as Natural Deli, at 281
Nostrand Avenue, Brooklyn, New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael Faillace, Esq.
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4510
New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 317-1200
Facsimile: (212) 317-1620
SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY, CA: Imo Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
VIRGINIA IMO, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN; and DOES 1 through
100, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-at-00422 (E.D. Cal., March 31, 2025)
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other compensation
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as an hourly non-exempt
employee. Allegedly, the Defendants did not include the employer
paid benefits premiums paid for Plaintiff and all similarly
situated individuals when calculating their "regular rate" in
violation of the FLSA. As a result, the Defendants impermissibly
lowered the "regular rate" of pay and improperly reduced the amount
of overtime compensation required to be paid to Plaintiff and all
similarly situated individuals under the FLSA, says the suit.
County of San Joaquin is a political subdivision of the State of
California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Paul K. Haines, Esq.
Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
Matthew K. Moen, Esq.
Ian T. Mallery, Esq.
HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180
El Segundo, CA 90245
Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com
mmoen@haineslawgroup.com
imallery@haineslawgroup.com
SANA BIOTECHNOLOGY: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP notifies investors in Sana Biotechnology,
Inc. ("Sana Biotechnology, Inc." or the "Company") (NASDAQ: SANA)
of a class action securities lawsuit.
CLASS DEFINITION: The lawsuit seeks to recover losses on behalf of
Sana Biotechnology, Inc. investors who were adversely affected by
alleged securities fraud between March 17, 2023 and November 4,
2024. Visit link for more information:
https://zlk.com/pslra-1/sana-biotechnology-inc-lawsuit-submission-form?prid=140706&wire=3
SANA investors may also contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. via email at
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500.
CASE DETAILS: The filed complaint alleges that defendants made
false statements and/or concealed that: (i) Sana was at significant
risk of having insufficient funds to maintain its current
operations and advance one or more of its product candidates; (ii)
SC291 in oncology, SC379, and SG299 were less promising than
defendants had led investors to believe; (iii) in order to preserve
cash and advance its more promising product candidates, Sana was
likely to decrease funding for and/or discontinue SC291 in
oncology, SC379, and SG299, as well as significantly reduce its
headcount; (iv) accordingly, defendants overstated Sana's financial
capacity to maintain its current operations and advance its
existing product candidates; and (v) as a result, defendants'
public statements were materially false and/or misleading at all
relevant times.
WHAT'S NEXT? If you suffered a loss in Sana Biotechnology, Inc.
during the relevant time frame, you have until May 20, 2025 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability
to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff.
NO COST TO YOU: If you are a class member, you may be entitled to
compensation without payment of any out-of-pocket costs or fees.
There is no cost or obligation to participate.
WHY LEVI & KORSINSKY: Over the past 20 years, the team at Levi &
Korsinsky has secured hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved
shareholders and built a track record of winning high-stakes cases.
Our firm has extensive expertise representing investors in complex
securities litigation and a team of over 70 employees to serve our
clients. For seven years in a row, Levi & Korsinsky has ranked in
ISS Securities Class Action Services' Top 50 Report as one of the
top securities litigation firms in the United States.
CONTACT:
Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
Ed Korsinsky, Esq.
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
jlevi@levikorsinsky.com
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com [GN]
SELECT PORTFOLIO: Evans Must File Class Cert Bid by April 25
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Evans v. Select Portfolio
Servicing, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-05985 (E.D.N.Y., Filed
Oct. 25, 2018), the Hon. Judge Pamela K. Chen entered an order
-- The Plaintiffs shall serve their opening April 25, 2025
motion for class certification, and SPS
shall serve its opening motion for summary
judgment against the individual Plaintiffs
by:
-- SPS shall serve its opposition to class May 22, 2025
certification, and Plaintiffs shall serve
their opposition to SPS's motion for
summary judgment.
-- The parties shall serve their respective June 10, 2025
reply briefs, if any, on each other
before 4 p.m. ET , and then shall file
their respective briefs with the Court
by 5 p.m.
The suit alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Act.
Select is a loan servicing company founded in 1989 as Fairbanks
Capital Corp. with operations in Salt Lake City, Utah and
Jacksonville, Florida.[CC]
SERITAGE GROWTH: Continues to Defend Zhengxu He Suit in N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------------
Seritage Growth Properties disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024 filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission that on July 1, 2024, a
purported shareholder of the Company filed a class action lawsuit
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
captioned Zhengxu He, Trustee of the He & Fang 2005 Revocable
Living Trust v. Seritage Growth Properties, Case No. 1:24:CV:05007,
alleging that the Company, the Company's Chief Executive Officer,
and the Company's Chief Financial Officer violated the federal
securities laws.
The complaint seeks to bring a class action on behalf of all
persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Company
securities between July 7, 2022 and May 10, 2024. The complaint
alleges that the defendants violated federal securities laws by
issuing false, misleading, and/or omissive disclosures concerning
the Company’s alleged lack of effective internal controls
regarding the identification and review of impairment indicators
for investments in real estate and the Company’s value and
projected gross proceeds of certain real estate assets. The
complaint seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified amount to be
proven at trial, an award of reasonable costs and expenses to the
plaintiff and class counsel, and such other and further relief as
the court may deem just and proper.
On or around January 15, 2025, another purported shareholder of the
Company filed a derivative lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Maryland, captioned Paul Sidhu v. Seritage Growth
Properties, Case No. 1:25-cv-00152. On or around January 20, 2025,
another purported shareholder of the Company filed a derivative
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland,
captioned James Wallen v. Seritage Growth Properties, Case No.
1:25-cv-00190.
The Derivative Actions allege the same or similar claimed acts and
omissions underlying the Securities Action, assert breach of
fiduciary duty and other claims against the Company’s Chief
Executive Officer, the Company’s Chief Financial Officer, and
current and former members of the Company’s Board of Trustees,
and name the Company as a nominal defendant. The complaint in each
of the Derivative Actions seeks compensatory damages in an
unspecified amount to be proven at trial, an order directing the
Company and the individual defendants to reform and improve the
Company’s corporate governance and internal procedures,
restitution from the individual defendants, an award of costs and
expenses to the plaintiff and reasonable attorneys’ and
experts’ fees, costs, and expenses, and such other and further
relief as the court may deem just and proper. On February 13, 2025,
the parties to the Derivative Actions filed a stipulation and
proposed order seeking to consolidate the Derivative Actions and
appoint lead counsel. The Company intends to vigorously defend
itself against the allegations in these lawsuits.
Headquartered in New York, NY, Seritage operates as a real estate
investment trust. Its Class A Common shares trade on the New York
Stock Exchange under the symbol "SRG."
SILVER-SPRING HOME: Underpays Healthcare Workers, Williams Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
TINA WILLIAMS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SILVER-SPRING HOME HEALTHCARE SERVICES INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-01480 (S.D. Tex., March 31, 2025) is a
class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Ms. Williams has worked for Silver-Spring since November 2021.
Silver-Spring Home Healthcare Services Inc. is a healthcare
services provider based in Spring, Texas. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Matthew S. Parmet, Esq.
PARMET PC
2 Greenway, Ste. 250
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 999-5228
Email: matt@parmet.law
SLEEP LOFT: Hernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store
---------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE SLEEP LOFT, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:25-cv-01766 (E.D.N.Y., March 31, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act 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,
www.thesleeploft.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: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages,
incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels
for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be
performed solely with a mouse.
The Plaintiff 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.
The Sleep Loft, LLC is a company that sells online goods and
services in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
SOHO ART: Visually Impaired Can't Access Website, Layne Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DALE LAYNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SOHO ART MATERIAL, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-01771 (E.D.N.Y., March 31, 2025) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act 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,
www.sohoartmaterials.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: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages,
incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels
for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be
performed solely with a mouse, says the suit.
The Plaintiff 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.
Soho Art Material, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and
services in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
SOLAR MOSAIC: Wins Bid to Compel Arbitration in Sauer, et al. Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Julie S. Sneed of the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida granted the defendants' motion to compel
arbitration and stay proceedings in the case captioned as CHARLES
JOSEPH SAUER, JOHN WOOD, ANGELA LEON, GRETCHEN WALLACE, ERICK
BRAUKS, DAVINA MESSINA, RONALD MESSINA, KEITH CHAMBERS, DAHNAH
CHAMBERS, CLEO FLEMING, ROBERT FLEMING and KRISTEN LOTHIAN,
Plaintiffs, v. SOLAR MOSAIC, LLC and SOLAR MOSAIC, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 6:24-cv-2309-JSS-LHP (M.D. Fla.).
Plaintiffs Charles Joseph Sauer, John Wood, Angela Leon, Gretchen
Wallace, Erick Brauks, Davina Messina, Ronald Messina, Keith
Chambers, Dahnah Chambers, Cleo Fleming, Robert Fleming, and
Kristen Lothian filed a class action complaint on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, alleging violations
of the Truth in Lending Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1640, deceptive and
unfair trade practices, and fraudulent inducement against
Defendants Solar Mosaic, LLC and Solar Mosaic, Inc. regarding
consumer loan agreements for the purchase of residential solar
energy panels.
Defendants pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. Secs.
1–16, move to compel arbitration of Plaintiffs' claims on an
individual basis in accordance with the arbitration provisions
contained in the parties' loan agreements, and to stay this action
pending completion of arbitration.
On Feb. 24, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a Stipulation to Arbitration and
to Stay in which Plaintiffs represent they consent to the relief
requested in the Motion. As such, on March 5, 2025, United States
Magistrate Judge Leslie Hoffman Price entered a Report and
Recommendation recommending that Defendants' Motion be granted.
Neither party has filed an objection to the Report and
Recommendation, and the time to do so has now passed.
Upon conducting a careful and complete review of the Magistrate
Judge's findings, conclusions, and recommendations, and giving de
novo review to matters of law, the Court adopts the report and
recommendation in full.
The parties must submit Plaintiffs' claims to arbitration on an
individual basis pursuant to the binding arbitration provisions as
set forth Case 6:24-cv-02309-in the loan agreements.
This case is stayed pending the outcome of arbitration.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6tFi3w from PacerMonitor.com.
SOUNDHOUND AI: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Deadline Due May 27
----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP (www.ktmc.com)
informs investors that a securities class action lawsuit has been
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California against SoundHound AI, Inc. ("SoundHound") (NASDAQ:
SOUN) on behalf of those who purchased or otherwise acquired
SoundHound securities between May 10, 2024, and March 3, 2025,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lead plaintiff deadline is May
27, 2025.
CONTACT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP:
If you suffered SoundHound losses, you may visit the link:
https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/soundhound-ai-inc?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=soun&mktm=r
You can also contact attorney Jonathan Naji, Esq. by calling (484)
270-1453 or by email at info@ktmc.com.
DEFENDANTS' ALLEGED MISCONDUCT:
The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
that: (1) the material weaknesses in SoundHound's internal controls
over financial reporting impaired SoundHound's ability to
effectively account for corporate acquisitions; (2) in addition,
SoundHound overstated the extent to which it had remediated, and/or
its ability to remediate, the material weaknesses in its internal
controls over financial reporting; (3) as a result of the foregoing
material weaknesses, SoundHound's reported goodwill following an
acquisition of Amelia Holdings, Inc. in August 2024, was inflated
and would need to be corrected; (4) further, SoundHound would
likely require extra time and expense to effectively account for
the acquisitions of Amelia Holdings, Inc. and SYNQ3 (which was
acquired in January 2024, before the beginning of the Class
Period); (5) the foregoing increased the risk that SoundHound would
be unable to timely file certain financial reports with the SEC;
and (6) as a result, SoundHound's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times.
THE LEAD PLAINTIFF PROCESS:
SoundHound investors may, no later than May 27, 2025, seek to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class through
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP or other counsel, or may choose
to do nothing and remain an absent class member. A lead plaintiff
is a representative party who acts on behalf of all class members
in directing the litigation. The lead plaintiff is usually the
investor or small group of investors who have the largest financial
interest and who are also adequate and typical of the proposed
class of investors. The lead plaintiff selects counsel to represent
the lead plaintiff and the class and these attorneys, if approved
by the court, are lead or class counsel. Your ability to share in
any recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to
serve as a lead plaintiff.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP encourages SoundHound investors
who have suffered significant losses to contact the firm directly
to acquire more information.
VISIT LINK TO SIGN UP FOR THE CASE:
https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/soundhound-ai-inc?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=soun&mktm=r
ABOUT KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP:
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP prosecutes class actions in
state and federal courts throughout the country and around the
world. The firm has developed a global reputation for excellence
and has recovered billions of dollars for victims of fraud and
other corporate misconduct. All of our work is driven by a common
goal: to protect investors, consumers, employees and others from
fraud, abuse, misconduct and negligence by businesses and
fiduciaries. The complaint in this action was not filed by Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP. For more information about Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP please visit www.ktmc.com.
CONTACT:
Jonathan Naji, Esq.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP
280 King of Prussia Road
Radnor, PA 19087
(484) 270-1453
info@ktmc.com [GN]
SOUTH CAROLINA: Court Dismisses Federal Claim in AAC v. Gietz
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mary Geiger Lewis of the U.S. District Court for the District
of South Carolina, Columbia Division, issued a Memorandum Opinion
and Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss as to the
Plaintiff's federal claim in the lawsuit entitled AMERICAN
ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION OF SC, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. JOHN GIETZ, JAMES WESTBURY, SANDRA
BLACK, JESSE LAINTZ, JOEL M. DEASON, LEXINGTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S
DEPARTMENT, and SHERIFF BRYAN "JAY" KOON, in his official capacity,
Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-01099-MGL (D.S.C.).
Plaintiff American Acceptance Corporation of SC (AAC), on behalf of
itself and all others similarly situated, filed this putative class
action in the Lexington County Court of Common Pleas against
Defendants John Gietz, James Westbury, Sandra Black, Jesse Laintz,
Joel M. Deason, Lexington County Sheriff's Department (LCSD), and
Sheriff Bryan "Jay" Koon, in his official capacity. The Plaintiff
alleges violations of its due process rights under 42 U.S.C.
Section 1983 (Section 1983), as well as a claim and delivery cause
of action under state law.
The Defendants removed the matter to this Court in accordance with
28 U.S.C. Section 1446. The Court has jurisdiction over AAC's
Section 1983 claims as per 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 and over the
state law claim as per 28 U.S.C. Section 1367.
Pending before the Court is Defendants' motion to dismiss AAC's
amended complaint. Having considered the motion, the response, the
reply, the record, and the applicable law, the Court rules that the
Defendants' motion to dismiss will be granted as to AAC's Section
1983 claim.
After a shootout between rival motorcycle gangs tragically ended in
the death of Timothy Brock, LCSD commenced an investigation into
Brock's killing. At the scene of the crime, LCSD collected Brock's
motorcycle, which he was riding when he was shot. LCSD later seized
the motorcycle of suspect Shane Andrzejewski under a facially valid
warrant. But, LCSD failed to notify AAC, the lienholder of the
motorcycles, of their seizure. AAC claims it subsequently learned
about the seizures through news media.
As the result of LCSD's investigation, the state charged
Andrzejewski with one count of murder, seven counts of attempted
murder, and one count of conspiracy. While Andrzejewski's charges
were pending, AAC contacted Laintz, a captain at LCSD. Laintz
advised AAC would be unable to recover the motorcycles for several
years and instructed two other officers, Westbury and Black, to
assist AAC in handling the matter.
AAC, thereafter, submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
request for all related incident reports. AAC also filed claim and
delivery actions against Koon in the Lexington County Court of
Common Pleas, alleging it was entitled to legal possession of the
motorcycles.
The prosecutor apparently subsequently informed Deason he could
release the motorcycles, which Deason relayed to AAC's counsel.
But, the prosecutor later changed his mind. Accordingly, Deason
filed motions to dismiss the claim and delivery actions and emailed
AAC's counsel, "Sorry to send conflicting messages, but the
prosecutor changed his mind and asked me to advocate to hold on to
[the motorcycles] after initially saying we could let them go."
The circuit judge dismissed the actions without prejudice on the
most limited grounds--improper service--and granted AAC leave to
perfect service upon the South Carolina Attorney General, rather
than LCSD.
AAC later filed this matter in the Lexington County Court of Common
Pleas, seeking declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief under
Section 1983, as well as claim and delivery under state law. The
Defendants removed the action and filed a motion to dismiss AAC's
amended complaint.
As an initial matter, AAC brings a Section 1983 claim for
declaratory and injunctive relief against all Defendants. To the
extent this claim is brought against Koon in his official capacity,
however, Judge Lewis holds that it is duplicative of the claim
brought against LCSD and should, thus, be dismissed. The Court
will, therefore, proceed to consider this claim as against LCSD
rather than Koon.
In the amended complaint, AAC avers it is the practice and custom
of the Defendants to ignore the rights of owners and lienholders to
notice and an opportunity to be heard. AAC contends, among other
things, that the Defendants' failure to hold a prompt hearing
regarding the seizures has deprived AAC of its procedural due
process rights.
The Court agrees with AAC it had a protected property interest in
the motorcycles. AAC has, thus, satisfied the first element of
stating a Section 1983 procedural due process claim.
Judge Lewis finds that AAC is unable to demonstrate a procedural
due process violation occurred because the Defendants' seizure of
the motorcycles complied with the Fourth Amendment in the first
instance. Judge Lewis explains that the motorcycle contained
evidence of a crime, justifying its seizure under the automobile
exception. And, the seizure of Andrzejewski's motorcycle was
supported by a facially valid warrant, which AAC has failed to
challenge. Therefore, the Court is convinced neither the initial
seizures of the motorcycles nor their retention during the pendency
of the investigation and related proceedings violated AAC's
procedural due process rights.
For all these reasons, the Court holds AAC has failed to state a
Section 1983 procedural due process claim. The Court will, thus,
grant the Defendants' motion to dismiss this claim. Because this
issue is dispositive, it is unnecessary for the Court to address
the other arguments advanced by the parties.
Based on the discussion and analysis in the Memorandum Opinion and
Order, the Court rules that the Defendants' motion to dismiss is
granted as to AAC's Section 1983 claim, which is dismissed with
prejudice. Further, AAC's state law cause of action for claim and
delivery is remanded to the Lexington County Court of Common Pleas
for adjudication there.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order is
available at https://tinyurl.com/73ywvb9e from PacerMonitor.com.
SPIRE GLOBAL: Court Holds Arguments on Bid to Junk Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 20, 2024, Spire Global Inc. and two of its executive
officers were named as defendants in a purported federal securities
law class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, captioned Michal Bousso v. Spire
Global, Inc. et al., Court File No. 1:24-cv-1458.
On October 14, 2024, a second plaintiff filed a similar lawsuit
against the Company and three current or former executive officers,
also in the United States District Court for the Eastern District
of Virginia, captioned Kohei Tagawa v. Spire Global, Inc. et al.,
Court File No. 1:24-cv-1810.
On November 22, 2024, the court consolidated the Bousso Lawsuit and
the Tagawa Lawsuit, appointed Michal Bousso as lead plaintiff, and
renamed the case to "In re Spire Global, Inc. Securities
Litigation," Master File No. 1:24-cv-1458-MSN-WEF. On December 23,
2024, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the Master
Securities Lawsuit, which alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act (and Rule 10b-5 thereunder), arising from
or relating to the Company's announcements in August 2024 that
certain of its previously issued audited and unaudited financial
statements should not be relied upon. Plaintiff alleges that the
Company and the individual defendants made false or misleading
statements relating to (1) how revenue was recognized for pre-space
services for certain space contracts, and (2) how costs for certain
contracts were characterized. The plaintiff seeks to represent a
class of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's common stock between May 11, 2022 and August 14, 2024.
The plaintiff seeks damages and other relief, including attorneys'
fees and costs. The defendants are vigorously defending this
lawsuit.
On January 22, 2025, the defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint in its entirety. The court in the Master Securities
Lawsuit held argument on the motion to dismiss on March 14, 2025.
After hearing argument from both sides, the court issued its order
on the record dismissing the Master Securities Lawsuit without
prejudice. The court granted the plaintiff 30 days to consider
whether to amend.
Spire Global is a provider of satellite data, analytics and
services. The Company operates a proprietary constellation of
multi-purpose nanosatellites and provides subscription access to
its data for a range of commercial applications such as shipping
vessel monitoring, aviation guidance, and weather forecasting.
SPORTSMAN'S MARKET: Blind Can't Access Online Store, Pittman Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DEBBIE PITTMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SPORTSMAN'S MARKET, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:25-cv-03207 (N.D. Ill., March 26, 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://sportystoolshop.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, changing of content without advance
warning, inaccurate alt-text on graphics, the lack of navigation
links, the lack of adequate labeling of form fields, the denial of
keyboard access for some interactive elements, 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.
Sportsman's Market, 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
SPRUCE POWER: Court OKs $4.75MM Settlement in Delaware Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
On September 20, 2021, and October 19, 2021, two class action
complaints were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery against
certain of Spruce Power Holding Corporation's current officers and
directors, and the sponsor of its special purpose acquisition
company merger, Pivotal Investment Holdings II LLC.
The actions were consolidated, and a consolidated amended complaint
was filed on January 31, 2022, alleging various breaches of
fiduciary duty, and aiding and abetting breaches of fiduciary duty,
for purported actions relating to the negotiation and approval of
the December 21, 2020, merger and organization of XL Hybrids, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation to become XL Fleet, and purportedly
materially misleading statements made in connection with the
merger.
On August 19, 2022, defendants moved to dismiss the second amended
complaint, which was granted in part and denied in part on June 9,
2023. The parties then engaged in discovery.
On November 13, 2024, the Company filed a stipulation and
settlement agreement seeking court approval to settle this matter
in full for $4.75 million. On March 26, 2025, the court approved
the stipulation and settlement agreement, the Company disclosed in
a Form 10-K Report for fiscal year ended December 31, 2024 filed
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.
Spruce Power Holding Corporation and its subsidiaries is an owner
and operator of distributed solar energy assets across the United
States, offering subscription-based services to approximately
75,000 home solar assets and contracts, making renewable energy
more accessible to everyone.
SPRUCE POWER: Pays $15MM Settlement in NY Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Beginning on March 8, 2021, two putative class action complaints
were filed in the federal district court for the Southern District
of New York against Spruce Power Holding Corporation and certain of
its current officers and directors.
The cases were consolidated as In re XL Fleet Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 1:21-cv-02171, a lead plaintiff was appointed
in June 2021. On July 20, 2021, an amended complaint was filed
alleging that certain public statements made by the defendants
between October 2, 2020, and March 2, 2021, violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.
Following negotiations with a mediator, in September 2023, the
Company and the plaintiffs agreed on a settlement in principle in
the aggregate amount of $19.5 million, and on December 6, 2023, the
lead plaintiff and the defendants entered into a stipulation and
agreement of settlement requiring us to pay the Settlement Amount
to resolve the class action litigation and the related legal fees
and administration costs.
On April 30, 2024, the New York Court approved a final settlement.
The Settlement Amount was offset by approximately $4.5 million of
related loss recoveries from the Company's directors and officers
liability insurance policy with third parties, which was paid out
in February 2024. The Company paid the $15.0 million net settlement
amount to the settlement claims administrator in February 2024, the
Company disclosed in a Form 10-K Report for fiscal year ended
December 31, 2024 filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.
Spruce Power Holding Corporation and its subsidiaries is an owner
and operator of distributed solar energy assets across the United
States, offering subscription-based services to approximately
75,000 home solar assets and contracts, making renewable energy
more accessible to everyone.
STAKE CENTER: Holtsclaw Seeks to Extend Class Cert Bid Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as BRIAN HOLTSCLAW,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
STAKE CENTER LOCATING, LLC, a Utah limited liability company, Case
No. 1:24-cv-00490-RMR-SBP (D. Colo.), Holtsclaw asks the Court to
enter an order extending the deadline for filing for class
certification.
In response, SCL elected to conduct a smear campaign as opposed to
addressing whether it had good cause for withholding this
information or whether an extension is warranted. In other words,
SCL avoids the real issues (such as whether it’s able to withhold
class information it admits withholding) in favor of slinging mud.
1 Holtsclaw started the process to compel this information (as
required by Magistrate Prose's procedures) which is necessary to
support his motion for class certification. At bottom, good cause
exists for the requested extension.
Despite SCL's naysaying, Holtsclaw and his Counsel have been
diligent. Because the relevant documents are in SCL’s possession,
Holtsclaw had to obtain their production before he could
meaningfully depose SCL's witnesses. Despite requests and
agreements between the parties, production didn’t occur until
January 7, 2025.
Holtsclaw received SCL's document production in January and moved
to compel in February. There’s no delay. The primary information
subject to the motion to compel was discovered during a deposition
8 days prior to the class certification deadline. SCL admitted
deposition scheduling was challenging for its clients. Doc. 37. As
addressed above, none of the reasons considered in denying an
extension by Tenth Circuit cases are present. Holtsclaw’s request
for an extension is reasonable under the circumstances, and should
be granted.
Stake Center is engaged in high-risk infrastructure and fiber optic
network locating.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 2, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Xa5AZf at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
Richard M. Schreiber, Esq.
JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 352-1100
Facsimile: (713) 352-3300
E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com
adunlap@mybackwages.com
rschreiber@mybackwages.com
- and -
Brian D. Gonzales, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES,
PLLC
2580 East Harmony Road, Suite 201
Fort Collins, CO 80528
Telephone: (970) 214-0562
E-mail: bgonzales@coloradowagelaw.com
- and -
Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025
Houston, TX 77046
Telephone: (713) 877-8788
E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com
STELLAE INTERNATIONAL: Rivas Sues Over Untimely Payment of Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
SORAIDA LOPEZ RIVAS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STELLAE INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01716 (E.D.N.Y., March 27, 2025) is a
class action against the Defendant for failure to timely pay wages
in violation of the New York Labor Law.
The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a manual laborer at
a warehouse facility located in Melville, New York from November
2015 through June 2024.
Stellae International, Inc. is an international logistics company
doing business in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Artemio Guerra, Esq.
HKM EMPLOYMENT ATTORNEYS LLP
153 Main Street, Suite 201
New Paltz, NY 12561
Telephone: (212) 439-5127
Email: aguerra@hkm.com
SUN AND SKY: Faces Layne Suit Over Online Store's Access Barriers
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DALE LAYNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SUN AND SKY SPA 24-7, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:25-cv-01771 (E.D.N.Y., March 31, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act 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,
www.sun-and-sky-spa.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: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages,
incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels
for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be
performed solely with a mouse.
The Plaintiff 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.
Sun and Sky Spa 24-7, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and
services in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
SUNRISE BRANDS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Hernandez Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
TIMOTHY HERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUNRISE BRANDS, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:25-cv-01765 (E.D.N.Y., March 31, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act 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, www.tags.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:
missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly
formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for
interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be
performed solely with a mouse.
The Plaintiff 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.
Sunrise Brands, LLC is a company that sells online goods and
services in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
SYNERGY CHC CORP: $340K Settlement in "Valenti" Fully Paid
----------------------------------------------------------
On July 25, 2022, plaintiff Barbara Valenti filed a putative class
action complaint against Synergy CHC Corp. in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Case No.
1:22-cv-4361-BMC, for alleged violations of New York General
Business Law Sections 349 and 350, arising out of advertising for
the FOCUSfactor product.
On August 18, 2022, Synergy filed a motion to dismiss and a motion
to strike class claims. Valenti's counsel filed an opposition to
the motions on August 30, 2022, and Synergy withdrew the motions on
September 1, 2022. Synergy filed an answer to the complaint on
September 16, 2022. On December 29, 2022, and while denying all
liability, Synergy settled with Valenti for a payment of $340,000
to be paid in twelve installments ending on December 1, 2023, in
exchange for a full release of Valenti's individual claims.
On December 29, 2022, plaintiff filed a stipulation of voluntarily
dismissal of the individual claims with prejudice.
During 2023, the Company has fully paid $340,000, per the
agreement, the Company disclosed in a Form 10-K report filed with
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2024.
Synergy CHC Corp. (OTCQB: SNYR), a consumer health care company,
markets and distributes various consumer branded products
primarily in the health and wellness industry in North America.
The Company was formerly known as Synergy Strips Corp. and changed
its name to Synergy CHC Corp. in August 2015. Synergy CHC Corp.
was founded in 2012 and is headquartered in Westbrook, Maine.
SYSCO KANSAS: Harms Seeks Conditional Cert. of FLSA Collective
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY HARMS, and MICHAEL
TUTTLE, On behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, v.
SYSCO KANSAS CITY, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-02452-KHV-TJJ (D. Kan.),
the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order to:
(1) conditionally certify the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
Collective consisting of:
"All persons currently and formerly employed by the
Defendant or contracted on behalf of the Defendant in the
position of "Order Selector" or position with similar job
duties, who worked at the same location as the party
plaintiffs, who worked the night or "outbound" shift,
during the last three (3) years from the date of the
tolling agreement entered on Feb. 1, 2024, through the
present, on behalf of the Defendant.";
(2) directing the Defendant to identify all putative collective
members who worked as Order Selectors or similar positions
any time from Feb. 1, 2021, through the final judgment;
(3) directing the Defendant to produce to the Plaintiff a
computer-readable data file containing the names,
addresses, dates of employment, job titles, e-mail
addresses, and telephone numbers for each such current or
former employee within 14 days after the Court's Order; and
(4) directing the issuance by mail, email, and text message of
the Plaintiff's proposed Notice and Consent Form, attached
as Exhibit 4 to the contemporaneously filed Memorandum in
Support of this Motion, to each such person, along with a
reminder notice 30 days prior to the close of the 90-day
opt-in period.
Sysco City sells, markets, and distributes food products and
equipment.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 3, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pzHiwZ at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Ryan M. Paulus, Esq.
M. Katherine Paulus, Esq.
Drew Russell, Esq.
CORNERSTONE LAW FIRM
5821 NW 72nd Street
Kansas City, MO 64151
Telephone: (816) 581-4040
Facsimile: (816) 741-8889
E-mail: r.paulus@cornerstonefirm.com
m.paulus@cornerstonefirm.com
d.russell@cornerstonefirm.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Patrick F. Hulla, Esq.
Brodie W. Herrman, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
700 W. 47th Street, Ste. 500
Kansas City, MO 64112
Telephone: (816) 471-1301
Facsimile: (816) 471-1303
E-mail: Patrick.Hulla@ogletree.com
Brodie.Herrman@ogletree.com
TAKATA CORP: Motion in Limine Granted as to Sims Airbag Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned as WILLIAM HARRISON SIMS, Plaintiff, v. BMW
OF NORTH AMERICA LLC and BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AG, Defendants,
Case No: 6:22-cv-1685-PGB-UAM (M.D. Fla.), Judge Paul G. Byron of
the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
granted plaintiff's motion in limine as to submission of a claim to
the Takata Airbag Individual Restitution Fund and Tort Compensation
Trust Fund.
Plaintiff seeks to exclude evidence, argument, and reference to
Plaintiff's submission of a claim to the IRF Fund and Trust Fund.
When Takata Corporation entered into a plea agreement with the
United States in 2017, two restitution funds were created. The IRF
fund was created to compensate people who have suffered personal
injury or wrongful death as a result of a defective airbag
inflator. Takata's Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Plan of Reorganization
created the Trust Fund, compensating individuals injured or killed
by defective airbag inflators. A claimant may seek compensation
from both the IRF and the Trust Fund.
Plaintiff submits that evidence or argument concerning the amount
of money he received from the IRF and Trust Fund violates the
collateral source rule. Defendants concede the rule bars evidence
of the payments received by Plaintiff. The Court agrees that the
sum of money paid by the IRF and/or the Trust Fund to Plaintiff is
inadmissible under the collateral source rule.
Plaintiff also seeks to exclude evidence or argument relating to
the submission of the claim form itself, including any attachments.
Defendants argue that Plaintiff's application to the IRF and the
Trust Fund contains a trove of information relevant to Plaintiff's
injuries, the Subject Incident, and Plaintiff's claims in this
case, including an itemization of past and future expenses.
Defendants also argue that the fact that Plaintiff sought recovery
from the Takata trusts is relevant to rebutting his claim that
Takata was not responsible for the design or manufacture of the
airbag inflator. However, Defendants' generalized assertion that
Plaintiff's application contains a trove of information is
unpersuasive. As the Court has noted in previous orders,
Defendants' failure to develop their argument amounts to a waiver.
Aside from the itemized expenses, Defendants fail to cite a single
document submitted in support of Plaintiff's claim that is relevant
to any issue in dispute, the Court finds.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gLW75f from PacerMonitor.com.
About TK Holdings
Japan-based Takata Corporation (TYO:7312) --
http://www.takata.com/en/-- develops, manufactures, and sells
safety products for automobiles. The Company offers seatbelts,
airbags, steering wheels, child seats, and trim parts.
Headquartered in Tokyo, Japan, Takata operates 56 plants in 20
countries with approximately 46,000 global employees worldwide. The
Company has subsidiaries located in Japan, the United States,
Brazil, Germany, Thailand, Philippines, Romania, Singapore, Korea,
China, and other countries. Takata Corp. filed for bankruptcy
protection in Tokyo and the U.S., amid recall costs and lawsuits
over its defective airbags. Takata and its Japanese subsidiaries
commenced proceedings under the Civil Rehabilitation Act in Japan
in the Tokyo District Court on June 25, 2017.
Takata's main U.S. subsidiary TK Holdings Inc. and 11 of its U.S.
and Mexican affiliates each filed voluntary petitions under Chapter
11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. D. Del. Lead Case No.
17-11375) on June 25, 2017. Together with the bankruptcy filings,
Takata announced it has reached a deal to sell all its global
assets and operations to Key Safety Systems (KSS) for US$1.588
billion.
Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu is Takata's counsel in the Japanese
proceedings. Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP and Richards, Layton &
Finger, P.A., are serving as counsel in the U.S. cases.
PricewaterhouseCoopers is serving as financial advisor, and Lazard
is serving as investment banker to Takata. Ernst & Young LLP is
tax advisor. Prime Clerk is the claims and noticing agent. The
Debtors Meunier Carlin & Curfman LLC, as special intellectual
property counsel.
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP is serving as legal
counsel, KPMG is serving as financial advisor, Jefferies LLC is
acting as lead financial advisor. UBS Investment Bank also
provides financial advice to KSS.
On June 28, 2017, TK Holdings, as the foreign representative of the
Chapter 11 Debtors, obtained an order of the Ontario Superior Court
of Justice (Commercial List) granting, among other things, a stay
of proceedings against the Chapter 11 Debtors pursuant to Part IV
of the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act. The Canadian Court
appointed FTI Consulting Canada Inc. as information officer. TK
Holdings, as the foreign representative, is represented by McCarthy
Tetrault LLP.
The U.S. Trustee has appointed an Official Committee of Unsecured
Trade Creditors and a separate Official Committee of Tort
Claimants.
The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors has selected
Christopher M. Samis, Esq., L. Katherine Good, Esq., and Kevin F.
Shaw, Esq., at Whiteford, Taylor & Preston LLC, in Wilmington,
Delaware; Dennis F. Dunne, Esq., Abhilash M. Raval, Esq., and Tyson
Lomazow, Esq., at Milbank Tweed Hadley & McCloy LLP, in New York;
and Andrew M. Leblanc, Esq., at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy
LLP, in Washington, D.C., as its bankruptcy counsel. The Committee
has also tapped Chuo Sogo Law Office PC as Japan counsel. The
Official Committee of Tort Claimants selected Pachulski Stang Ziehl
& Jones LLP as counsel. Gilbert LLP will evaluate the insurance
policies. Sakura Kyodo Law Offices is serving as special counsel.
Roger Frankel, the legal representative for future personal injury
claimants of TK Holdings Inc., et al., tapped Frankel Wyron LLP and
Ashby & Geddes PA to serve as co-counsel.
Takata Corporation ("TKJP") and affiliates Takata Kyushu
Corporation and Takata Services Corporation commenced
Chapter 15 cases (Bankr. D. Del. Case Nos. 17-11713 to 17-11715) on
Aug. 9, 2017, to seek U.S. recognition of the civil rehabilitation
proceedings in Japan. The Hon. Brendan Linehan Shannon oversees the
Chapter 15 cases. Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, serves as
Takata's counsel in the Chapter 15 cases. In February 2018, the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court confirmed the Fifth Amended Chapter 11 Plan
of Reorganization filed by TK Holdings, Inc. ("TKH"), Takata's main
U.S. subsidiary, and certain of TKH's subsidiaries and affiliates.
TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL: KPH Healthcare Sues Over Alleged Conspiracy
------------------------------------------------------------------
KPH HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC. A/K/A KINNEY DRUGS, INC.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff v. TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY LIMITED, TAKEDA
PHARMACEUTICALS U.S.A., INC., TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS AMERICA, INC.,
TWI PHARMACEUTICALS INC., and TWI PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-02966 (N.D. Cal., March 31, 2025)
arises out of Defendants' alleged horizontal conspiracy and
agreement to restrain competition in the market for the
pharmaceutical product Dexilant (active ingredient:
dexlansoprazole) and its generic equivalents.
The Defendants, which are competing pharmaceutical manufacturers,
entered into a "reverse payment agreement," whereby a patent holder
pays an alleged or potential infringer to stay off the market, to
not challenge its patents, or to otherwise not compete with the
patent holder in the market for the patented product. Accordingly,
the Plaintiff seeks to hold Takeda and TWi accountable for their
unlawful conduct, which prevented free and fair competition and
caused significant financial harm to direct purchasers of Dexilant
and its generic equivalents, including Plaintiff and all others
within the putative class. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants
violated the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act.
Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited is a multinational
pharmaceutical company. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael P. Lehmann
HAUSFELD LLP
580 California Street, 12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 633-1908
E-mail: mlehmann@hausfeld.com
- and -
Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq.
HAUSFELD LLP
1200 17th Street, N.W., Suite 600
Washington, DC 20036
Telephone: (202) 540-7200
Facsimile: (202) 540-7201
E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeld.com
- and -
Michael L. Roberts, Esq.
Erich P. Schork, Esq.
Christopher Sanchez, Esq.
Stephanie Egner Smith, Esq.
ROBERTS LAW FIRM US, PC
1920 McKinney Ave., Suite 700
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: (501) 821-5575
E-mail: mikeroberts@robertslawfirm.us
erichschork@robertslawfirm.us
chrissanchez@robertslawfirm.us
stephaniesmith@robertslawfirm.us
TARGET CORP: Navarro Suit Moved From E.D. California to Minnesota
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jennifer L. Thurston of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California transfers the lawsuit captioned
GRACE NAVARRO, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly
situated, and the general public, Plaintiff v. TARGET CORPORATION,
Defendant, Case No. 1:24-cv-00280-JLT-SAB (E.D. Cal.), to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota.
The Defendant moved to dismiss this action for lack of standing and
failure to state a claim. Next, the Defendant moved to change venue
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a) from the Eastern District of
California to the District of Minnesota.
The magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations to grant
the motion to change venue and deny the motion to dismiss as moot.
The Plaintiff filed objections, and the Defendant filed a response
thereto.
According to 28 U.S.C. Section 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has
conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the entire
file, the Court agrees that the motion to transfer should be
granted but departs from the magistrate judge's reasoning in one
respect. The findings and recommendations wrestled at length with
the question of whether the first-to-file rule should give way to
the transfer-of-venue analysis under 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a),
ultimately suggesting that the first-to-file rule does not apply
under the present circumstances.
Though the magistrate judge's reasoning on this point is not
illogical, the Court finds it unnecessary to rule definitively on
this complex issue here because transfer is appropriate even if the
first-to-file rule applies.
As the Plaintiff concedes, factors that may warrant departure from
the first-to-file rule include convenience to the parties or sound
judicial administration, both of which are key to the magistrate
judge's reasoning under the Section 1404(a) analysis provided in
the findings and recommendations.
The findings and recommendations gave considerable weight to the
fact that there are three other, similar class actions now pending
in the District of Minnesota, all of which have now been related
and assigned to the same district and magistrate judges: Miller v.
Target Corp., No. 24-cv-01323-ECTJFD, Order of Reassignment of
Related Cases, ECF No. 32 (D. Minn. Aug. 21, 2024); Hill-Horse v.
Target Corp., No. 24-cv-02197-ECT-JFD, Order of Reassignment of
Related Cases, ECF No. 21 (D. Minn. Aug. 21. 2024); O'Dea v. Target
Corp., No., 24-cv-04095-ECT-JFD, Order of Reassignment of Related
Cases, ECF No. 21 (D. Minn. Dec. 10, 2024).
In her objections, the Plaintiff cites Gunaratna v. Dr. Dennis
Gross Skincare LLC, No. CV 20-2311-MWF (GJSx), 2023 WL 5505032, at
*10–11 (July 20, 2023), to diminish the import of the three other
Minnesota cases. Gunaratna was a false advertising California class
action in which the Plaintiffs purported to represent a
California-only class.
In a later-filed case, the same counsel that represented the
Gunaratna plaintiffs filed a putative class action in the Southern
District of New York based on similar factual allegations on behalf
of a nationwide class that excluded California consumers. Gunaratna
is inapposite here, where the three cases pending in Minnesota are
substantially similar to this action--so much so that the Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation specifically encouraged efforts by the
parties to "organize the litigation on a defendant-specific
basis."
Judge Thurston finds that the Plaintiff's other objections are also
unpersuasive. She asserts, for example, that the findings and
recommendations express extensive concern for the Defendant's
ability to contain expenses, with no similar concern for the
Plaintiff. This is not a fair assessment of the magistrate judge's
reasoning, which acknowledged that certain convenience issues cut
both ways but ultimately concluded there would likely be few
non-party witnesses in California and that convenience would
otherwise be maximized and costs minimized overall by transferring
this case to Minnesota, again because three other similar class
actions are pending there. Overall, the Court agrees that it is
appropriate to exercise its discretion to transfer this matter to
the District of Minnesota.
Accordingly, the Court adopts the findings and recommendations
filed Nov. 4, 2024, based on the modified reasoning articulated in
this Order. The Court grants the Defendant's motion to transfer
venue, and transfers this matter to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota.
The Defendant's motion to dismiss is denied as moot.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/3wz9fz9m from PacerMonitor.com.
TILLAMOOK COUNTY: High Court Reverses Class Suit Disqualification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gosia Wozniacka of The Oregonian/OregonLive reports that the Oregon
Supreme Court has reversed a lower court ruling, saying the state's
Court of Appeals should reconsider disqualifying a class-action
case that accuses the Tillamook County Creamery Association of
"greenwashing" practices.
The highest court ruled that customers who say they suffered a
financial loss by buying Tillamook products would not need to prove
they were convinced by the company's alleged misleading ads to buy
the products.
The decision, issued Thursday, April 3, -- a year after the case
was argued at the Lewis & Clark Law School -- is a victory for the
plaintiffs. But it does not settle whether a class action will be
certified nor does it address any of the 'greenwashing' claims in
the case.
A class action case allows a group of people to file a suit on
behalf of others who have suffered similar losses. If the lawsuit
is successful, they can all file for damages.
In the Tillamook case, filed in 2019 in Multnomah County, four
Oregon consumers alleged they had purchased Tillamook products
because they formed a positive belief based on the 110-year-old
farmer-owned dairy cooperative's advertising that the milk the
company used to make its cheese and ice cream came from small
family dairies whose cows graze on the Oregon coast's pastures --
when in fact most of Tillamook's milk comes from an industrial
dairy in eastern Oregon.
The lawsuit also alleged that Tillamook's misrepresentations
allowed the company to charge a "premium" price for its products --
a premium paid by anyone who bought the products, regardless of
whether they saw the company's marketing and advertising.
A Multnomah County Circuit Court judge dismissed the case, saying
it doesn't qualify for a class-action status because everyone who
joined the class-action suit would have had to view the ads and
rely on their representations when buying Tillamook products to be
financially hurt by the premiums. The Oregon Court of Appeals in
August 2022 affirmed that decision.
But the state's highest court ruled that not everyone who joined
the class-action suit would have had to view the ads and rely on
their representations to buy Tillamook products in order to be hurt
financially by the premium price.
The Tillamook County Creamery Association said in a statement that
"the ruling is not a final decision on the merits and does not
confirm that this case justifies a trial, it is simply the latest
development in a lengthy judicial process."
The cooperative said it "adamantly disagrees" with the allegations
made in the lawsuit and that it has never hidden the fact that not
all of its milk and products originate from Tillamook County.
Owned by 60 farmers and employing 900 people in Oregon alone, the
cooperative runs two processing plants, one in Tillamook and one in
Boardman, and operates the iconic Tillamook Creamery visitor center
on the coast.
In 2022, the cooperative exceeded $1.2 billion in retail sales. Its
products are found in most supermarkets across the U.S.
Two thirds of its milk comes from Columbia River Dairy outside
Boardman, which is owned by Boardman-based Threemile Canyon Farms,
Oregon's largest industrial dairy operation and one of the largest
in the U.S. Columbia River Dairy is a confined animal feeding
operation and has a permit to hold 28,000 cows. [GN]
TRACER BULLET: Fernandez Sues Over Website's Access Barriers
------------------------------------------------------------
FELIPE FERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRACER BULLET, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 1:25-cv-02645 (S.D.N.Y., March 31, 2025) is a class action
against the Defendants for violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act 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,
www.mugsyjeans.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: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages,
incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels
for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be
performed solely with a mouse. missing alt-text, hidden elements on
web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups,
unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that
some events be performed solely with a mouse.
The Plaintiff 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.
Tracer Bullet, LLC is a company that sells online goods and
services in New York. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rami Salim, Esq.
STEIN SAKS, PLLC
One University Plaza, Suite 620
Hackensack, NJ 07601
Telephone: (201) 282-6500
Facsimile: (201) 282-6501
Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com
TRADE DESK: Tracks and Collects Users' Data, Turner Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
JENNIFER TURNER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. THE TRADE DESK, INC., Defendant, Case No.
2:25-cv-02799 (C.D. Cal., March 31, 2025) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of common law invasion of privacy,
Section 1 of the California Constitution, the California Invasion
of Privacy Act, and the Comprehensive Computer Data Access and
Fraud Act, unjust enrichment, and injunctive relief.
The case arises from the Defendant's unlawful practice of
collecting and monetizing directly identifiable user data from
millions of U.S. residents without their knowledge using a new form
of online tracking tool called Unified ID and its recent version
Unified ID 2.0. UID1 and UID2 were wildly successful and can be
found across websites, mobile applications, TV products, and
streaming services. Because these identifiers are both unique and
persistent, the Defendant created a way to track users everywhere,
suit says.
The Plaintiff and Class members had no knowledge that the Defendant
was using unique identifiers to track them across the web, mobile
applications, and other internet-connected devices, or that it was
using this data to facilitate highly specific targeted advertising.
As a result of the Defendant's unlawful practice, the privacy of
the Plaintiff and Class members were invaded, the suit added.
The Trade Desk, Inc. is a technology company, with its principal
place of business located in Ventura, California. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James M. Wagstaffe, Esq.
ADAMSKI MOROSKI MADDEN CUMBERLAND & GREEN LLP
P.O. Box 3835
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403
Telephone: (805) 543-0990
Facsimile: (805) 543-0980
- and -
Christian Levis, Esq.
Amanda Fiorilla, Esq.
Rachel Kesten, Esq.
Yuanchen Lu, Esq.
LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C.
44 South Broadway, Suite 1100
White Plains, NY 10601
Telephone: (914) 997-0500
Facsimile: (914) 997-0035
Email: clevis@lowey.com
afiorilla@lowey.com
rkesten@lowey.com
ylu@lowey.com
TRAVISMATHEW LLC: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Dalton Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JULIE DALTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TRAVISMATHEW, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
0:25-cv-01170 (D. Minn., March 31, 2025) is a class action against
the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act.
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,
www.travismathew.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: insufficient screen reader-accessible text equivalent
for important non-text images; fails to narrate the original price
or promotional price of products available; unclear purpose of
certain links from their context or associated narration; and using
visual cues as the only means of conveying information, making the
information unavailable to screen reader users, 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.
travisMathew, LLC is a company that sells online goods and services
in Minnesota. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
Jason Gustafson, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
80 South 8th Street, Suite 900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (763) 515-6110
Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com
chad@throndsetlaw.com
jason@throndsetlaw.com
TREEHOUSE FOODS: Patora Sues Over Sale of Contaminated Food Product
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JEANNIE PATORA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. TREEHOUSE FOODS, INC., Defendant, Case No.
7:25-cv-02588 (S.D.N.Y., March 28, 2025) is a class action against
the Defendant for negligence, negligent misrepresentation, breach
of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability,
fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment, and violations of the
New York General Business Law.
The case arises from the Defendant's manufacturing, marketing, and
distribution of frozen breakfast products contaminated with
Listeria monocytogenes, a harmful bacterium which causes the
infection listeriosis and can lead to severe symptoms. The
Defendant marketed and advertised the products as being fit or
suitable for human consumption, represented that the products
provide nutrition and/or guaranteed the products for taste and
nutrition. The Defendant's marketing and advertising of the
products are false, deceptive, and misleading to reasonable
consumers because they were or could have been contaminated with L.
monocytogenes. Had the Plaintiff and similarly situated consumers
known the truth, they would not have purchased the products.
Treehouse Foods, Inc. is a manufacturer of frozen breakfast food
products, with its principal place of business in Oak Brook,
Illinois. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC
85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200
Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
Telephone: (845) 483-7100
Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com
UBP BAY CITY: Howard Suit Removed to E.D. Michigan
--------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as William Howard; Jason Duemler; Nicole
Duemler; Ann Duemler; Michael Lutz; Sherri Howell; Rochelle Jammer;
and Mark Kohlhorst, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. UBP BAY CITY, LLC d/b/a BAY CITY BRIDGE
PARTNERS and CITY OF BAY CITY, Case No. VCU318397 was removed from
the 18th Circuit Court for the County of Bay, Michigan, to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
on April 1, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-10926-MAG-DRG.
On January 1, 2025, with Completion having occurred the previous
year, UBP began to collect tolls from non-Bay City residents for
use of the Independence Bridge. The Complaint (incorrectly) alleges
that "Completion" had not occurred by January 1, 2025, and hence no
tolls should have been collected for use of the Independence Bridge
as of that date.
The Complaint further alleges that UBP supposedly made "repeated
public representations"--including that "toll rates would be
reasonable and affordable and that "Independence Bridge would be
available for use without significant disruptions"--and that
"contrary to these representations, UBP failed to make Independence
Bridge an operational crossing by repeatedly closing it during
overnight hours since January 1, 2025."[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Benjamin W. Jeffers, Esq.
HICKEY HAUCK BISHOFF JEFFERS & SEABOLT, PLLC
1 Woodward Ave Suite 2000
Detroit, MI 48226
Phone: (313) 964-8600
Fax: (313) 964-8601
Email: bjeffers@hhbjs.com
- and -
Elizabeth B. Herrington, Esq.
Mohamed Awan, Esq.
Michael W. Fakhoury, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
101 North Wacker Drive, Suite 2800
Chicago, IL 60606-1511
Phone: (312) 324-1445
Fax: (312) 324-1001
Email: beth.herrington@morganlewis.com
mohamed.awan@morganlewis.com
michael.fakhoury@morganlewis.com
- and -
Michael J. Ableson, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
101 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10178-0060
Phone: (212) 309-60000
Fax: (212) 309-6001
Email: michael.ableson@morganlewis.com
UNIFIN INC: E.D. New York Grants Bid to Dismiss Obstfeld FDCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Dora L. Irizarry of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York issued a Memorandum and Order granting the
Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit styled LOU OBSTFELD,
individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff
v. UNIFIN, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-09492-DLI-JRC
(E.D.N.Y.).
On Dec. 27, 2023, Plaintiff Lou Obstfeld commenced this class
action lawsuit against Unifin, Inc., alleging violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ("FDCPA"). The Defendant moved
to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) for lack of standing and failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
For the reasons set forth in this Memorandum and Order, the Court
rules that the Defendant's motion is granted because the Plaintiff
lacks Article III standing to bring this action and, thus, the
Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court
"lacks the power to adjudicate the merits of the case" pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(6) and will not address the Defendant's motion on this
ground, citing Carter v. HealthPort Techs., LLC, 822 F.3d 47, 54-55
(2d Cir. 2016).
The Plaintiff incurred and defaulted on a debt with Chase Bank USA
N.A., which then sold the debt to Pinnacle Credit Services, LLC.
Pinnacle contracted the Defendant for the purpose of collecting on
the debt. On April 6, 2023, the Defendant mailed a letter to the
Plaintiff regarding the debt. Among other things, the letter
informed the Plaintiff that he has an outstanding $54,157.29 debt
balance and the "creditor or debt collector believes that the legal
time limit (statute of limitations) for suing [him] to collect this
debt may have expired."
The Plaintiff alleges that the letter is confusing regarding
whether he will be sued and failed to clarify whether interest is
accruing. The Plaintiff asserts that the letter violates the FDCPA
because it makes a false representation in an attempt to collect on
the debt and deceptively misrepresents the legal status of the
debt. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant's alleged violations
caused him emotional and mental anguish stemming from the anxiety
surrounding the legal ramifications of the outstanding debt.
The Defendant moved to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of standing, and 12(b)(6) for failure
to state a claim.
The Defendant contends that the Plaintiff lacks Article III
standing to bring this FDCPA action because his injuries have no
"close common-law analogue," and, thus, has not suffered a concrete
harm. The Plaintiff alleges four harms he claims establish
standing: (1) failing to receive required information; (2)
financial consequences stemming from an effort to mitigate the risk
of future financial harm; (3) detrimental reliance on the
Defendant's letter related to the common law analogue of fraudulent
misrepresentation; and (4) emotional harms following his receipt of
the letter. However, none of these purported harms confer Article
III standing on the Plaintiff.
Judge Irizarry finds that the Plaintiff's claims of expenses and
emotional harms related to the debt collection letter fail to
establish standing because he failed to show a substantial risk of
future harm. Therefore, the Plaintiff has failed to allege
plausibly any risk of future harm, much less a "substantial risk"
of future harm, and his purported harms of incurring expenses to
mitigate the risk of debt collection and emotional damage will not
support constitutional standing.
Judge Irizarry also finds that the Plaintiff has failed to plead
plausibly an informational injury. The Plaintiff argues that the
"time and money" he expended to mitigate the risk of financial harm
caused by the Defendant's omission or use of confusing language in
the letter is analogous to fraudulent misrepresentation. Judge
Irizarry opines that the Plaintiff's arguments are unavailing.
The Plaintiff failed to plead plausibly that the Defendant: (1) has
or will sue him to collect on the debt; or (2) falsely claimed it
will not sue the Plaintiff; or (3) that the Plaintiff relied on the
letter to his detriment, Judge Irizarry holds. Nor has the
Plaintiff made any allegations that the potential accrual of
interest has happened and that it was an omission. Accordingly, the
Plaintiff has failed to allege that he suffered a concrete injury
and, thus, lacks standing.
For these reasons, the Court grants the Defendant's motion to
dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order is available
at https://tinyurl.com/4mby57yj from PacerMonitor.com.
UNION PACIFIC: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Black Due Sept. 19
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as FAYE BLACK and JEANNINE
TOLSON individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
v. UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Case No. 6:23-cv-01218-EFM-ADM
(D. Kan.), the Hon. Judge Eric Melgren entered an order that the
Magistrate Judge's Orders denying Plaintiffs' Second Motion to
Amend the Scheduling Order, and the Third Amended Scheduling Order:
The Court further entered the following scheduling order:
Event Deadline/Setting
Physical and mental examinations completed: April 12, 2025
Jointly filed mediation notice or March 17, 2025
confidential settlement reports to
magistrate judge:
Deadline to disclose Plaintiffs' class June 13, 2025
experts and production of reliance
materials:
Mediation completed: June 2, 2025
Deadline to complete class certification Aug. 22, 2025
expert depositions and class certification
discovery completed:
Deadline to file motions for class Sept. 19, 2025
certification and motions to exclude
testimony of class certification experts:
Union Pacific operates in the railroad business in the United
States.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 2, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AIT8xq at no extra
charge.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Bid to Provide Plaintiffs' Identifying Info Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as SVITLANA DOE, et al., v.
KRISTI NOEM, in her official capacity as Secretary of Homeland
Security, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-10495-IT (D. Mass.), the Hon.
Judge Indira Talwani entered an order denying the Defendants'
motion for an order to provide identifying information for the
Individual Plaintiffs.
No later than April 5, 2025, the Plaintiffs shall disclose their
identities to this court under seal to facilitate a recusal check.
The remaining individual the Plaintiff, proceeding as Miguel Doe,
has submitted a declaration (with his name redacted) attesting to
risks he faces in his native country (Nicaragua) and stating that
he seeks to proceed pseudonymously for fear that the United States
government will retaliate against him and his family for his
participation in this lawsuit by, for example, initiating
deportation proceedings.
Based on the risks Miguel Doe faces compared to the minimal
prejudice to Defendants in not knowing his identity at this stage,
the court declines to order him to provide his identity to the
Defendants at this time.
Therefore, the Defendants' motion for an order to provide
identifying information for the Individual Plaintiffs is denied as
moot as to 16 of the 17 individual Plaintiffs and as unwarranted at
this time as to Miguel Doe.
The Defendants include TODD M. LYONS, in his official capacity as
the Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement; PETE R.
FLORES, in his official capacity as Acting Commissioner of U.S.
Customs and Border Protection; KIKA SCOTT, in her official capacity
as the Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Director of
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; and DONALD J. TRUMP, in
his official capacity as President of the United States.
A copy of the Court's memorandum and order dated April 2, 2025, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zKjSZ2
at no extra charge.[CC]
UNITED STATES: Court Narrows Claims in Lambro FLSA Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Zachary N. Somers of the United States Court of Federal
Claims granted in part and denied in part the United States' motion
for judgment on the pleadings in the case captioned as JASON
LAMBRO, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, No. 21-1447 C
(Fed. Cl.).
In its Sept. 13, 2024 order, the Court directed the parties to
brief whether Plaintiff's case is barred by the applicable statute
of limitations. Plaintiff's case stems from his allegation that the
U.S. Agency for Global Media ("USAGM") willfully misclassified him
and other similarly situated individuals as independent contractors
rather than as employees. Consequently, Plaintiff alleges that he
and similarly situated individuals did not receive benefits to
which they were entitled as employees under the Fair Labor
Standards Act. The government, in its supplemental brief, argues
that, because Plaintiff failed to timely file a written consent to
become a party plaintiff to a collective action under the FLSA, his
suit was not commenced within the FLSA's statute of limitations.
Plaintiff Jason Lambro, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, filed a complaint on Jan. 28, 2021, against the United
States under the FLSA. Mr. Lambro is the only named plaintiff in
the operative complaint. Plaintiff's claim stems from his work as a
studio technician for Voice of America, an affiliate of USAGM, from
2002 to approximately July 2020. According to Plaintiff, Plaintiff
and members of the putative collective performed work for USAGM
through a series of purchase order agreements that formally
described Plaintiff and the putative collective members as
independent contractors, but those agreements, allegedly, created
an employee-employer relationship between the parties.
Consequently, Plaintiff and putative collective members assert that
were denied benefits available to federal employees under the FLSA
due to USAGM's misclassification of their employment status. In
addition, they allege that USAGM's conduct was willful because it
was put on notice by a 2014 audit by the U.S. Department of State's
Office of the Inspector General ("OIG") that USAGM's contracting
practices were in violation of the FLSA. Nevertheless, according to
Plaintiff, USAGM continued to hire Plaintiff and the Class Members
as purchase order vendors or non-personal service contractors when
advised that such a decision was improper and failed to properly
convert Plaintiff's and the Class Members' contracts into personal
service contracts and award them FLSA benefits. Thus, Plaintiff and
putative collective members request, inter alia, an award of
damages including any difference in compensation Plaintiff and the
Class Members would have earned, but for the Defendant's illegal
misclassification.
In its motion, the government asserts that Plaintiff's collective
action was not commenced until June 18, 2024, the date on which he
filed with the Court his written consent to be a party plaintiff to
a collective action. According to the government, because the
collective action was not commenced until June 18, 2024, the
collective action (including Plaintiff's individual claims) must be
dismissed because Plaintiff's claims fall outside of even the
FLSA's longer three-year statute of limitations for willful
violations. In response, Plaintiff contends that a named plaintiff
to an FLSA collective does not need to file a separate written
consent to commence a collective action. According to Plaintiff,
for a claimant named in the complaint, the complaint itself
operates as the claimant's written consent. Therefore, Plaintiff's
January 28, 2021, complaint, which lists him as the sole named
plaintiff, commenced a collective action within the FLSA's statute
of limitations.
Plaintiff filed his complaint on Jan. 28, 2021, but he did not file
his written consent to become a party plaintiff to an FLSA
collective action until June 18, 2024. Accordingly, the
commencement of Plaintiff's collective action is governed by
section 256(b). And because his consent was not filed until June
18, 2024, the action is not considered to be commenced in the case
of Plaintiff until June 18, 2024. 29 U.S.C. Sec. 256. Therefore,
Plaintiff's collective action is time-barred because his claims end
in approximately July 2020, which is outside the FLSA's three-year
statute of limitations for willful violations.
The government categorically asserts that equitable tolling is not
available under the FLSA as against the United States. The
government further argues that even if available, Plaintiff cannot
invoke equitable tolling in the instant case because he has not
satisfied both prongs of the equitable tolling standard. In
response, Plaintiff notes that every Circuit that has decided
whether equitable tolling is available for FLSA plaintiffs has
ruled that it is, under the right circumstance and that if
equitable tolling is available as against any defendant, it is
available as against the United States. Moreover, Plaintiff reasons
that equitable tolling is warranted because the government
misinformed Plaintiff of his rights, or Plaintiff did not know of
his rights. Therefore, Plaintiff asserts that the Court must toll
the statute of limitations until Plaintiff knew of his rights under
the FLSA, which, according to Plaintiff, occurred after the Federal
Circuit's decision in this case.
The Court must dismiss Plaintiff's collective action claims because
they fall outside the FLSA's statute of limitations and because
Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that his collective action claims
are entitled to equitable tolling.
Having dismissed Plaintiff's collective action as untimely and
denied Plaintiff's motion to amend his complaint as futile, only
the disposition of Plaintiff's individual claims remains. In its
motion for judgment on the pleadings or for summary judgment, the
government urges the Court to enter judgment in favor of the United
States and dismiss this case altogether. The government asserts
that Plaintiff solely asserted a collective action, and Plaintiff's
case must be dismissed in its entirety since no outstanding claims
remain for judgment.
Plaintiff responds by noting that his current operative complaint
breaks out separate allegations related to the class of similarly
situated putative employees. Plaintiff asserts that the operative
complaint "unambiguously makes out his individual claims for
misclassification and unpaid overtime. Plaintiff points to portions
of the complaint that address his specific allegations that he
worked for VOA under a series of unlawful purchase order
agreements, was denied benefits enjoyed by federal employees, and
created a limited liability company to contract with the
government. Therefore, Plaintiff asserts that his "individual
claims survive, even if the Court finds that his ability to
represent the collective is statutorily barred."
The Court finds that Plaintiff has asserted individual claims under
the FLSA because his individual claims are described in sufficient
detail. Accordingly, even though the collective action that
Plaintiff attempted to bring must be dismissed as time-barred,
Plaintiff may proceed on his individual claims.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wjkqZP
Counsel for Plaintiff:
Joseph A. Whitcomb, Esq.
WHITCOMB, SELINSKY, MCAULIFFE P.C.
300 Union Boulevard, Suite 200
Lakewood, CO 80228
E-mail: joe@whitcomblawpc.com
Counsel for Defendant:
Matthew J. Carhart
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington DC 20530-0001
UNITED STATES: Issuance of Class Notice in Ritter FLSA Suit Granted
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TYRONE RITTER, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES,
Defendant, No. 24-1608C (Fed. Cl.), Judge Stephen S. Schwartz of
the U.S. Court of Federal Claims granted the parties’ joint
motion to issue court-authorized notice in a collective action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), allowing similarly
situated FEMA field representatives to opt in. The Court also
approved the parties' request to stay proceedings pending
resolution of the notice process.
Ritter, a former FEMA employee, filed suit against the United
States in March 2024, alleging that the Federal Emergency
Management Agency violated the FLSA by failing to properly
compensate a specific category of employees—Damage Inspectors
Program Specialists (Field Representative–Disaster Inspection),
identified by position description numbers QZ8252 and K23007)—for
overtime worked. These employees were engaged in disaster response
across the United States and were often deployed for long shifts
and extended hours in emergency environments.
Ritter brought the case as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. §
216(b), seeking to represent:
All persons employed by FEMA from January 20, 2020, to the present
day as Damage Inspectors Program Specialists (Field
Representative–Disaster Inspection), under position descriptions
QZ8252 and K23007, who were subject to the same compensation
policies and practices.
Ritter is the proposed class representative. His counsel includes
attorneys from Outten & Golden LLP and the Public Justice Center,
known for wage-and-hour class and collective litigation.
In their joint motion filed on February 29, 2025, both parties
asked the Court to issue notice to the defined group of potential
opt-in plaintiffs and to stay the proceedings until after the
notice and consent process concluded. They also requested a
protective order to govern the exchange of employee contact data
needed to facilitate outreach.
While both parties advocated for conditional certification using
the common two-step approach from Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 118
F.R.D. 351 (D.N.J. 1987), Judge Schwartz rejected that framework.
He emphasized that conditional certification is not a requirement
under FLSA or binding authority in the Court of Federal Claims.
Instead, he followed the approach he laid out in Valte v. United
States, 155 Fed. Cl. 561 (2021), treating notice as a case
management tool rather than a procedural prerequisite tied to Rule
23 class actions.
At a March 3, 2025, hearing, the parties stipulated that all
individuals who would receive notice held the same job title and
were subject to the same employment conditions and pay policies as
Ritter. Judge Schwartz found that under these facts, the
“similarly situated” standard of § 216(b) was clearly met. He
further held that issuing notice would facilitate timely
participation, prevent duplicative litigation, and support orderly
scheduling—all in line with the goals of FLSA.
The Court granted the motion for issuance of notice and the
accompanying stay. Judge Schwartz ordered the parties to submit a
proposed protective order by April 10, 2025, and directed the
government to produce a list of eligible workers—including names,
addresses, emails, and phone numbers—within 14 days of that order
being entered.
Notice will be sent by first-class mail, email, and text message,
and recipients will have 60 days to return consent-to-join forms in
the format attached to the motion. The Court retained oversight of
all communications with prospective opt-ins and ordered the parties
to notify the Court of the issuance date within seven days after
notice is sent.
Judge Schwartz emphasized that while the parties’ legal framing
was incorrect, the Court was obliged to apply the proper standard
regardless. Citing Kamen v. Kemper Financial Services, Inc., 500
U.S. 90 (1991), and reaffirming principles from Valte, the opinion
clarified that judicial discretion governs notice, not procedural
rules borrowed from unrelated class action doctrines.
The ruling marks a win for workers alleging unpaid overtime under
federal disaster programs and clarifies the approach for similarly
situated federal employees seeking collective relief under the
FLSA. It also adds to a growing body of Court of Federal Claims
decisions treating FLSA notice as a practical, case-management
issue rather than one requiring formal certification.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/56a6fhp5
Michael J. Scimone -- mscimone@outtengolden.com & Ossai Miazad --
omiazad@outtengolden.com -- OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP, New York, New
York; Caitlin Kline -- ckline@publicjustice.org -- PUBLIC JUSTICE
CENTER, Baltimore, Maryland; Counsel for Plaintiff
R. Benjamin Cassady -- r.benjamin.cassady@usdoj.gov -- U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C.; Counsel for the United
States
UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Agrees to $3.49-Mil. TCPA Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that UnitedHealthcare agreed to a $3.49
million class action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it
violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) by
placing calls to consumers about its Optum HouseCalls program.
The UnitedHealthcare settlement benefits individuals who received a
call from the company regarding its Optum HouseCalls program that
used an artificial or prerecorded voice and was directed to a
cellular telephone number not associated with a UnitedHealthcare
member or planholder between Oct. 12, 2019, and Feb. 10, 2025.
According to the class action lawsuit, UnitedHealthcare violated
the TCPA by placing calls to consumers about its Optum HouseCalls
program without their consent. The plaintiffs in the case allegedly
received multiple calls regarding the Optum HouseCalls program,
even though they were not members of a UnitedHealthcare health
plan.
Optum is a health services company that is part of UnitedHealth
Group. Optum HouseCalls is a service that sends a health care
professional to a member's home to conduct an annual wellness
visit.
UnitedHealthcare has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to pay
$3.49 million to resolve the TCPA class action lawsuit.
Under the terms of the UnitedHealthcare settlement, class members
can receive an equal share of the net settlement fund. Class
members who submit a valid claim form are estimated to receive
between $50 and $125. Exact payments will vary depending on the
number of participating class members and the amount deducted for
various costs.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is April 25, 2025.
The final approval hearing for the UnitedHealthcare robocalls
settlement is scheduled for July 10, 2025.
To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid
claim form by April 25, 2025.
Who's Eligible
Individuals who received a call from UnitedHealthcare regarding the
Optum HouseCalls program that used an artificial or prerecorded
voice and was directed to a cellular telephone number not
associated with a UnitedHealthcare member or planholder between
Oct. 12, 2019, and Feb. 10, 2025.
Potential Award
$50 to $125 (estimated)
Proof of Purchase
N/A
Claim Form
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
04/25/2025
Case Name
Johnson v. United HealthCare Services Inc., Case No.
5:23-cv-00522-GAP-PRL, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida
Final Hearing
07/10/2025
Settlement Website
OptumHouseCallsTCPAClassActionSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Johnson v. United HealthCare Services Settlement
Administrator
P.O. Box 301172
Los Angeles, CA 90030-1172
info@OptumHouseCallsTCPAClassActionSettlement.com
(833) 419-3898
Class Counsel
Aaron D. Radbil
GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
Defense Counsel
Carolyn A. DeLone
HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP [GN]
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: Coach Faces Data Breach Class Action Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Garcia of Detroit Free Press reports that eleven women have
filed yet another federal class action lawsuit against former
Michigan football coach Matt Weiss and the university, claiming
Weiss illegally accessed their personal data and the university
failed to protect them.
The total is now 17 victims who've come forward in five separate
class action suits, with this the most recent after attorneys Megan
Bonanni and Lisa Esser-Weidenfeller filed the suit against Weiss,
the University of Michigan, the school's regents and Keffer
Development Services, a database manager, on behalf of 11 Jane Does
on Wednesday, April 2, in the United States District Court Eastern
District of Michigan Southern Division.
Among the victims, 10 were former athletes at U-M either in Ann
Arbor or the Dearborn location including seven soccer players, two
gymnasts and a volleyball player. The 11th victim was a former
volleyball player at Maryland and Loyola-Chicago.
Weiss, previously the Michigan football team's quarterbacks coach
and co-offensive coordinator under former head coach Jim Harbaugh,
was indicted in March by the Department of Justice on 24 felony
counts, including 14 of unauthorized access to computers and 10 of
aggravated identity theft.
The FBI has been looking into Weiss since he was let go from U-M
more than two years ago. He faces up to five years for each charge
with a computer (potential of 70 years) and up to two years for
each count of identity theft (another potential 20 years).
According to the U.S. Attorney's Office, Weiss, 42, of Ann Arbor,
pulled off his scheme over eight years, between 2015 and 2023,
during which he broke into student-athlete databases maintained by
a third-party vendor.
"This case marks yet another disturbing failure by the University
of Michigan to protect its students -- particularly
student-athletes -- from serious breaches of privacy and trust,"
read a joint statement from Bonanni and Esser-Weidenfeller emailed
to the Free Press. "For nearly a decade, individuals connected to
the University have suffered the unauthorized access and misuse of
their personal information, allegedly by former football
co-offensive coordinator Matthew Weiss and enabled by institutional
negligence."
According to court documents, Weiss allegedly hacked a database
maintained by Keffer Development Services which allowed him access
to the sensitive personal and medical records of more than 150,000
students.
Per the indictment, after he accessed the database of
student-athletes at more than 100 universities, he downloaded
"personal, intimate, digital photographs and videos" of unwitting
women, and after gaining access to certain accounts, he would
return to them later -- sometimes months and, in some cases, years
later -- to look for additional photos and videos.
U-M is listed in the filing and provided this response to the Free
Press:
"Count 23 of the indictment is specific to the University of
Michigan and alleges that Weiss accessed protected UM computers
without or in excess of authorization from December 21, 2022 to
December 23, 2022," said U-M director of public affairs Kay Jarvis.
"Upon learning of potentially concerning activity in its systems,
the University promptly placed Mr. Weiss on leave, forwarded this
matter to law enforcement authorities and moved forward with Mr.
Weiss' termination on January 21, 2023."
One of the Jane Does also provided a statement to the attorneys,
which they forwarded along to the Free Press. She was also a victim
of Dr. Larry Nassar's abuse through USA Gymnastics at Michigan
State, and she says this latest situation has made her re-live that
trauma as well as lose faith in her leadership.
"Being a student-athlete has been one of the greatest honors of my
life. But it has also brought some of my deepest pain. The very
institutions that were meant to protect me failed -- first with Dr.
Larry Nassar, and now again with Matt Weiss," Doe said. "I'm coming
forward and taking legal action because no one should have to go
through what I've experienced. These institutions must be held
accountable, and I want to help create lasting change so future
student-athletes are protected, respected, and truly safe." [GN]
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: Fails to Secure Athletes' Data, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JANE ROE CLF 001, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MATTHEW WEISS; THE REGENTS OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN; THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN; KEFFER
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
2:25-cv-10870-JJCG-CI (E.D. Mich., March 27, 2025) is a class
action against the Defendants for invasion of privacy; intrusion
upon seclusion; negligence; negligent hiring, training, and
supervision; violations of Stored Communications Act, Civil Rights
Under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, Michigan Compiled Law (MCL), and
Michigan Identity Theft Protection Act, and declaratory judgment
and injunctive relief.
The case arises from the Regents' and Keffer's failure to consider
or implement any security measures to protect the personal,
private, and intimate images and information of the Plaintiff and
similarly situated student athletes in the University. As a result
of the Regents' and Keffer's failures, Defendant Weiss accessed the
personal, private, and intimate images and information entrusted to
the Regents and Keffer by the Plaintiff and others similar to them.
The Plaintiff and thousands of others have had their privacy
illegally invaded, suit says.
The University of Michigan is a public university in Michigan.
Keffer Development Services, LLC is a provider of software
solutions, headquartered in Pennsylvania. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Ryan J. Clarkson, Esq.
Yana Hart, Esq.
Bryan P. Thompson, Esq.
CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C.
22525 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90265
Telephone: (213) 788-4050
Facsimile: (213) 788-4070
Email: rclarkson@clarksonlawfirm.com
yhart@clarksonlawfirm.com
bthompson@clarksonlawfirm.com
VCE THEATERS: Filing for Class Cert Bid Due July 31
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Atkins v. VCE Theaters,
LLC, et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01332 (D. Or., Filed Sept. 13, 2023),
the Hon. Judge Stacie F. Beckerman entered an order adopting the
parties' proposed case management schedule:
-- Discovery on all individual and collective claims, and pre-
certification class discovery, is to be completed by June 30,
2025.
-- Motion for class certification to be filed by July 31, 2025.
Response is due by Aug. 21, 2025. Reply is due by Sept. 2,
2025.
-- Further deadlines will be set after resolution of the class
certification motion.
The nature of suit states civil rights – employment.[CC]
VITALANT: McElroy Suit Removed to N.D. California
-------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Kim J. McElroy, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, and the general public v. VITALANT, an
Arizona corporation and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
24CV002138 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Napa, to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on April 1, 2025, and
assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-02996.
The Complaint asserts claims for: Failure to Provide Meal Periods;
Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Failure to Pay Hourly Wages and
Overtime; Failure to Pay Proper Reporting Time Wages; Failure to
Pay Proper Vacation Wages; Failure to Provide Accurate Written Wage
Statements; Failure to Timely Pay All Final Wages; Failure to
Indemnify; Failure to Pay Wages Due, Negotiable and Payable in Cash
on Demand; and Unfair Competition.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Thomas M. McInerney, Esq.
Carolyn B. Hall, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 900
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: 415-442-4810
Facsimile: 415-442-4870
Email: thomas.mcinerney@ogletree.com
carolyn.hall@ogletree.com
WAKE COUNTY, NC: Bid to Bifurcate Discovery in McDougal Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LISA ALISON MCDOUGAL and
PATRICIA GEARY OVERMAN, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. WAKE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA, Case No.
5:23-cv-00689-D-KS (E.D.N.C.), the Hon. Judge Kimberly Swank
entered an order denying the Defendant's motion to bifurcate
discovery.
The Defendant has not shown good cause for bifurcation. Nor has the
Defendant proffered any reason to warrant modification of the
court's order establishing procedures for discovery in this case.
The court finds that bifurcation would not serve the interests of
efficiency and judicial economy, especially given the interrelation
between the Plaintiffs' individual claims and the purported class
claims as well as the procedural posture of the case.
The Plaintiffs are medics employed by Wake County's Department of
Emergency Medical Services. They filed this action on Nov. 30, 2023
and filed an amended complaint on Feb. 26, 2024. They sue, on
behalf of themselves and similarly situated individuals, asserting
employment discrimination claims against Wake County.
On Sept. 5, 2024, the court entered an order granting in part and
denying in part Defendant's partial motion to dismiss.
Wake County is the largest county in the Research Triangle region
of North Carolina and is home to Raleigh, North Carolina's state
capital.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 3, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vXyarn at no extra
charge.[CC]
WASHINGTON DC: Class Cert Discovery in Brown Suit Due June 6
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Brown v. GOVERNMENT OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Case No. 1:15-cv-01380 (D.C.C.), the Hon.
Judge entered an order on motion for extension of time to complete
discovery set/reset deadlines/hearings:
-- Discovery on class certification and liability shall close on
June 6, 2025.
-- The briefing schedule laid out in the Court's Scheduling
Order, as well as the post-discovery status conference and
oral argument scheduled for July 22, 2025, are vacated.
-- The parties shall appear for a post-discovery status
conference on July 1, 2025.
-- The conference will be on the record before Judge Jia M. Cobb
and conducted via Zoom.
The suit alleges violation of the Civil Rights Act.
The District of Columbia (DC) government operates under a
mayor-council system, with a mayor and a 13-member council, as
established by the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, which
devolves certain powers of the United States Congress to the local
government.[CC]
WELLS FARGO: Henzel Seeks to Seal Reply & Referenced Exhibit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Henzel v. Wells Fargo
Bank, N.A. (re J&J Investment Litigation), Case No.
2:22-cv-00529-GMN-NJK (D. Nev.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to
enter an order granting the motion to seal the reply and referenced
exhibit.
The Plaintiffs file this motion to seal to comply with Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 5.2(a) and the Local Rules.
Wells Fargo is a full-service bank.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 3, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=zCoy2P at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
Jordan Elias, Esq.
Tom Watts, Esq.
Jordan Isern, Esq.
GIRARD SHARP LLP
601 California Street, Suite 1400
San Francisco, CA 94108
Telephone: (415) 981-4800
Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
E-mail: dgirard@girardsharp.com
jelias@girardsharp.com
tomw@girardsharp.com
jisern@girardsharp.com
- and -
Eric Gibbs, Esq.
David K. Stein, Esq.
Spencer S. Hughes, Esq.
Emily Beale, Esq.
GIBBS MURA LLP
1111 Broadway, Suite 2100
Oakland, CA 94607
Telephone: (510) 350-9700
Facsimile: (510) 350-9701
E-mail: ehg@classlawgroup.com
ds@classlawgroup.com
shughes@classlawgroup.com
eb@classlawgroup.com
- and -
Robert L. Brace, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT L. BRACE
1807 Santa Barbara St.
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Telephone: (805) 886-8458
E-mail: rlbrace@rusty.lawyer
- and -
Miles N. Clark, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MILES N. CLARK,
LLC
5510 S. Fort Apache Rd., Suite 30
Las Vegas, NV 89148-7700
Telephone: (702) 856-7430
E-mail: miles@milesclarklaw.com
- and -
Jarrod L. Rickard, Esq.
Katie L. Cannata, Esq.
SEMENZA KIRCHER RICKARD
10161 Park Run Drive, Suite 150
Las Vegas, NV 89145
- and -
Jeffrey C. Schneider, Esq.
Jason K. Kellogg, Esq.
Marcelo Diaz-Cortes, Esq.
LEVINE KELLOGG LEHMAN
SCHNEIDER + GROSSMAN LLP
100 SE 2nd Street
Miami Tower, 36th Floor
Miami, FL 33131
The Defendant is represented by:
Joseph G. Went, Esq.
Sydney R. Gambee, Esq.
HOLLAND & HART LLP
9555 Hillwood Drive, 2nd Floor
Las Vegas, NV 89134
Telephone: (702) 669-4600
Facsimile: (702) 669-4650
E-mail: jgwent@hollandhart.com
srgambee@hollandhart.com 1
- and -
K. Issac deVyver, Esq.
Alicia A. Baiardo, Esq.
Anthony Q. Le, Esq.
Molly M. White, Esq.
Karla L. Johnson, Esq.
Katelyn M. Fox, Esq.
MCGUIREWOODS LLP
1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 315-8200
Facsimile: (310) 315-8210
E-mail: KdeVyver@mcguirewoods.com
ABaiardo@mcguirewoods.com
ALe@mcguirewoods.com
mwhite@mcguirewoods.com
kjohnson@mcguirewoods.com
kfox@mcguirewoods.com
- and -
Michael R. Ayers
QUINTAIROS, PRIETO, WOOD &
BOYER, P.A.
2370 Corporate Circle Ste. 160
Henderson, NV 89074
E-mail: michael.ayers@qpwblaw.com
WILLIAM LEE HOLLADAY: Jackson Suit Removed to S.D. Alabama
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Hannah Jackson, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. WILLIAM LEE HOLLADAY, III; et al, Case
No. 16-CV-2021-000004 was removed from the Circuit Court of Clarke
County, Alabama, to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Alabama on April 1, 2025, and assigned Case
No. 1:25-cv-00126-JB-M.
This action arises out of an alleged identity theft scheme
involving the wrongful enrollment of students in Alabama virtual
schools to defraud the Alabama State Department of Education
("ALSDE"). The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants used incentives
like laptops, money, and other resources to induce private schools
to supply them with students' personal information. Plaintiff
further alleges that through the wrongful enrollment of students,
Defendants stole the personal information of students and funneled
funding from the ALSDE into their own pockets via private shell
companies.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Eric J. Artrip, Esq.
MASTANDO & ARTRIP, LLC
301 Holmes Ave NE, Suite 100
Huntsville, al 35801
Phone: (256) 532-2222
Email: atrip@mastandoartrip.com
- and -
Will League, Esq.
TIMBERLAKE & LEAGUE, P.C.
125 Holmes Ave., NW
Huntsville, AL 35801
Phone: (256) 536-0770
Email: league@law-injury.com
The Defendants are represented by:
M. Warren Butler, Esq.
STARNES DAVIS FLORIE LLP
11 North Water Street, Suite 20290
Mobile, AL 36602
Phone: (251) 433-6049
Email: wbutler@starneslaw.com
WISCONSIN: Bid for Summary Judgment Granted in Howard v. Ashworth
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Pamela Pepper of the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Wisconsin grants the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment in the lawsuit styled JOSHUA HOWARD, Plaintiff v.
ANTHONY ASHWORTH, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:20-cv-01850-PP
(E.D. Wis.).
Plaintiff Joshua Howard, who is incarcerated at Fox Lake
Correctional Institution, filed a complaint alleging that the
Defendants had violated his constitutional rights when he was
incarcerated at Waupun Correctional Institution. The Court screened
the complaint and allowed the Plaintiff to proceed on claims that
Anthony Ashworth and Scott Eckstein--at the direction of Edward
Wall and Steven Weirenga--allegedly intercepted the Plaintiff's
correspondence with Peg Swan and Jeff Poff in retaliation for the
Plaintiff's assistance to Swan with her advocacy for individuals
incarcerated at Waupun and the class action lawsuit the Plaintiff
and Poff were preparing.
The Court also allowed the Plaintiff to proceed on claims that
Ashworth, Eckstein and Cory Sabish retaliated against him for his
proposed class action against Waupun and for providing assistance
and information to Swan regarding the abuse of individuals
incarcerated at Waupun.
Specifically, the Court allowed the Plaintiff to proceed on claims
that (1) Ashworth and Eckstein destroyed evidence during their
investigation of the Plaintiff's Conduct Report 2471890; (2) Sabish
disposed of the twelve-page exculpatory letter the Plaintiff
submitted as evidence at his hearing; (3) Sabish issued a revised
finding of guilt based on evidence he received after the hearing;
(4) Ashworth and Eckstein provided evidence to Sabish "post-due
process hearing so that he could supplement the record and his
findings, ex parte"; and (5) Sabish provided a supplemental
certiorari record which was "added to the record on appeal, ex
parte," and which omitted several exculpatory documents.
On July 19, 2023, the Court denied the Defendants' motion for
summary judgment on exhaustion grounds and clarified that the
Plaintiff could proceed on his claim that Ashworth and Eckstein
issued the Plaintiff Conduct Report 2471890 in retaliation for
communicating with Peg Swan, a prison advocate.
The Defendants have filed a merits-based motion for summary
judgment. Along with the Plaintiff's response to the Defendants'
motion, he filed a motion to dismiss Defendants Wall and Weirenga.
The Court will grant that motion and dismiss Wall and Weirenga,
grant the Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to the
remaining Defendants and dismiss the case.
The Defendants contend that the statute of limitations bars the
Plaintiff's retaliation claims against Ashworth and Eckstein
regarding his intercepted mail with Swan and Poff. They also argue
that these claims fail because the mail was intercepted for
legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons.
Next, the Defendants assert that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars
the Plaintiff's retaliation claims related to the disciplinary
process. They also argue, among other things, that the Court should
dismiss these claims because the evidence does not support them.
The Defendants maintain that the Plaintiff cannot recover
compensatory or punitive damages, and that they are entitled to
qualified immunity.
Although the Court agrees that the Plaintiff's retaliation claims
relate to the state court decisions and contain overlapping facts,
Judge Pepper holds that the Defendants have not demonstrated that
Rooker-Feldman bars the claims. They have not shown that the
Plaintiff had the opportunity to raise the retaliation claims in
state court nor have they shown that the state court judgment
caused the Plaintiff's injury regarding the retaliation claims. The
Court cannot conclude that Rooker-Feldman bars the Plaintiff's
retaliation claims.
Judge Pepper finds that the record does not support a finding that
Sabish disposed of the twelve-page letter, let alone that he did it
in retaliation for the Plaintiff's protected activity. Sabish was
the hearing officer assigned to conduct the Plaintiff's
disciplinary hearing. The Plaintiff has not submitted evidence to
support an inference that Sabish took any action to retaliate
against the Plaintiff for his correspondence with Swan or his
proposed class action.
Even if he had, Judge Pepper points out, the Plaintiff lacks
evidence that Sabish disposed of the letter. And the Court of
appeals determined that even if the letter was disposed of, it
would have been harmless because the Plaintiff's statement at the
hearing described the letter and because Sabish's guilty finding
did not rely on the letter. So the exclusion of the letter from the
record was harmless and would not amount to a serious deprivation
to support a retaliation claim. The Court will grant the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to this retaliation
claim against Sabish.
The Court also must dismiss the Plaintiff's claim that Sabish
retaliated against him by submitting a revised finding of guilt
based on evidence provided to him by Ashworth and Eckstein after
the hearing. Judge Pepper opines that the record does not support
the Plaintiff's assertion that Ashworth or Eckstein provided new
evidence to Sabish or that Sabish had an improper motive in
updating the guilty finding of the conduct report.
Rather, Judge Pepper points out, the record shows that Sabish
followed the instructions of the Office of the Secretary and the
corrections complaint examiner to be more specific as to the
evidence he relied on for his decision on Conduct Report 2471890.
Sabish requested from a "Ms. Reisen" the "contraband" evidence for
the conduct report and issued a revised finding of guilt describing
the evidence on which he relied. The Court will grant the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to this claim.
Judge Pepper also finds, among other things, that the Plaintiff's
assertion that Ashworth and Eckstein overcharged him in retaliation
for his reports to Swan and his proposed class action lawsuit is
mere speculation and does not support an inference that Ashworth
had a retaliatory motive in issuing the Plaintiff the conduct
report. The Court will grant the Defendants' motion for summary
judgment as to this claim.
Accordingly, the Court grants the Defendant's motion for summary
judgment. The Court grants the Plaintiff's motion to dismiss Wall
and Weirenga. The Court orders that this case is dismissed. The
Clerk will enter judgment, accordingly.
Judge Pepper explains that this order and the judgment to follow
are final. A dissatisfied party may appeal this Court's decision to
the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit by filing in this
court a notice of appeal within 30 days of the entry of judgment.
This Court may extend this deadline if a party timely requests an
extension and shows good cause or excusable neglect for not being
able to meet the 30-day deadline.
If the Plaintiff appeals, he will be liable for the $605 appellate
filing fee regardless of the outcome of the appeal. If the
Plaintiff seeks to proceed on appeal without prepaying the
appellate filing fee, he must file a motion in this court. The
Plaintiff may be assessed a "strike" by the Court of Appeals if it
concludes that his appeal has no merit. If the Plaintiff
accumulates three strikes, he will not be able to file a case in
federal court (except a petition for habeas corpus relief) without
prepaying the full filing fee unless he demonstrates that he is in
imminent danger of serious physical injury.
Under certain circumstances, a party may ask this Court to alter or
amend its judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or
ask for relief from judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
60(b). Any motion under Rule 59(e) must be filed within 28 days of
the entry of judgment. The Court cannot extend this deadline.
Any motion under Rule 60(b) must be filed within a reasonable time,
generally no more than one year after the entry of the judgment.
The Court cannot extend this deadline.
The Court expects parties to closely review all applicable rules
and determine, what, if any, further action is appropriate in a
case.
A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at
https://tinyurl.com/ypn4yuad from PacerMonitor.com.
YARDI SYSTEMS: Sentinel Has Until April 21 to Respond to Duff Suit
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington extended the time for Defendant
Sentinel Real Estate Corporation to answer, move, or otherwise
respond to the consolidated class action complaint in the action
captioned as MCKENNA DUFFY, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. YARDI SYSTEMS, INC., et
al., Defendants, (In re YARDI REVENUE MANAGEMENT ANTITRUST
LITIGATION) Case No. 2:23-cv-01391-RSL (W.D. Wash.) from April 2,
2025, to April 21, 2025.
The Parties agree that this stipulation and extension does not
constitute a waiver of any claim, right or defense.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=wpM5NB from PacerMonitor.com.
Attorneys for Plaintiff:
Rio S. Pierce, Esq.
HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
715 Hearst Ave, Ste 202
Berkeley, CA 94710
Phone: (510) 725-3000
E-mail: riop@hbsslaw.com
- and -
Steve W. Berman, Esq.
Theodore J Wojcik, Esq.
Stephanie A Verdoia, Esq.
Xiaoyi Fan, Esq.
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 623-7292
Email: steve@hbsslaw.com
tedw@hbsslaw.com
stephaniev@hbsslaw.com
kellyf@hbsslaw.com
Attorneys for Defendant Sentinel Real Estate Corporation:
Molly A. Terwilliger, Esq.
MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
1301 Second Avenue, Suite 3000
Seattle, WA 98101
Phone: (206) 274-6400
E-mail: molly.terwilliger@morganlewis.com
Arthur J. Burke, Esq.
Sheila R. Adams James, Esq.
DAVIS POLK & WARDWELL LLP
450 Lexington Avenue
Phone: (212) 450-4000
Email: arthur.burke@davispolk.com
sheila.adams@davispolk.com
ZELIS HEALTHCARE: Conspires to Restrain Trade, Pacific Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
PACIFIC INPATIENT MEDICAL GROUP, INC., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZELIS HEALTHCARE, LLC,
ZELIS CLAIMS INTEGRITY LLC, ZELIS NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC, AETNA,
INC., THE CIGNA GROUP, ELEVANCE HEALTH, INC., HUMANA, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-10734 (D. Mass., March 28, 2025) is a
class action against the Defendants for violation of Section 1 of
The Sherman Act.
The case arises from a continuing horizontal agreement between and
among Zelis, the Commercial Payer Defendants, and all of their
co-conspirators to unreasonably restrain interstate trade and
commerce in the out-of-network Commercial Payer Market. According
to the complaint, the Defendants conspired to knowingly and
collectively use Zelis's repricing tools to collusively fix payment
amounts for healthcare services performed by OON providers in the
United States. This conspiracy has caused the Plaintiff to be paid
at artificially suppressed payment levels for performance of OON
healthcare services during the Class Period, says the suit.
Pacific Inpatient Medical Group, Inc. is a healthcare services
provider with its principal place of business in San Francisco,
California.
Zelis Healthcare, LLC is a healthcare company based in
Massachusetts.
Zelis Claims Integrity LLC is a healthcare company based in
Massachusetts.
Zelis Network Solutions, LLC is a healthcare company based in
Massachusetts.
Aetna, Inc. is an insurance provider based in Connecticut.
The Cigna Group is an insurance provider based in Connecticut.
Elevance Health, Inc. is an insurance provider based in Indiana.
Humana, Inc. is an insurance provider based in Kentucky. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
C. Andrew Dirksen, Esq.
CERA LLP
529 Main St., Suite P200
Boston, MA 94111
Telephone: (857) 453-6555
Email: cdirksen@cerallp.com
- and -
Solomon B. Cera, Esq.
CERA LLP
50 California Street, Suite 1500
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 777-2230
Email: scera@cerallp.com
- and -
Maureen Forsyth, Esq.
Jason S. Hartley, Esq.
Jason M. Lindner, Esq.
Kenneth Frost, Esq.
HARTLEY LLP
101 W. Broadway, Ste 820
San Diego, CA 92101
Telephone: (619) 400-5822
Email: hartley@hartleyllp.com
lindner@hartleyllp.com
forsyth@hartleyllp.com
frost@hartleyllp.com
- and -
Daniel J. Mogin, Esq.
MOGIN LAW LLP
4225 Executive Square, Suite 600
La Jolla, CA 92037
Telephone: (619) 687-6611
Email: dmogin@moginlawllp.com
- and -
Daniel R. Karon, Esq.
KARON LLC
631 W. St. Clair Ave.
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 622-1851
Email: dkaron@karonllc.com
- and -
Katrina Carroll, Esq.
Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
CARROLL SHAMBERG LLC
111 W. Washington Street, Suite 1240
Chicago, IL 60602
Telephone: (872) 215-6205
Email: katrina@csclassactions.com
kyle@csclassactions.com
ZUFFA LLC: Seeks Denial of Johnson's Class Certification Bid
------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Kajan Johnson, Clarence
Dollaway, and Tristan Connelly, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. Zuffa LLC, TKO Operating Company, LLC
f/k/a Zuffa Parent LLC (d/b/a Ultimate Fighting Championship and
UFC) and Endeavor Group Holdings, Inc., Case No.
2:21-cv-01189-RFB-BNW (D. Nev.), the Defendants ask the Court to
enter an order denying class certification or, in the alternative,
striking the Plaintiffs' overbroad class allegations.
The Plaintiffs bring this action individually and on behalf of a
proposed class of:
"All persons who competed in one or more live professional UFC-
promoted MMA bouts taking place or broadcast in the United
States from July 1, 2017, until the illicit scheme alleged
herein ceases."
The alleged class includes approximately 1,388 fighters.
The case is brought by three Plaintiffs—Kajan Johnson, Clarence
Dollaway and Tristan Connelly on behalf of a putative class. None
of the Named Plaintiffs signed Promotion Agreements with Defendant
Zuffa, LLC that include arbitration agreements or class-action
waivers.
Zuffa was an American sports promotion company specializing in
mixed martial arts.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 2, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7aszlq at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
William A. Isaacson, Esq.
Karen L. Dunn, Esq.
Jessica Phillips, Esq.
Brette M. Tannenbaum, Esq.
Yotam Barkai, Esq.
PAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON &
GARRISON LLP
2001 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006
E-mail: wisaacson@paulweiss.com
kdunn@paulweiss.com
jphillips@paulweiss.com
btannenbaum@paulweiss.com
ybarkai@paulweiss.com
- and -
Donald J. Campbell, Esq.
J. Colby williams, Esq.
CAMPBELL & WILLIAMS
700 South 7th Street
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Telephone: (702) 382-5222
E-mail: djc@campbellandwilliams.com
jcw@campbellandwilliams.com
- and -
Christopher S. Yates, Esq.
Aaron T. Chiu, Esq.
Sean M. Berkowitz, Esq.
Laura Washington, Esq.
David L. Johnson, Esq.
LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
505 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94111
Telephone: (415) 395-8095
E-mail: chris.yates@lw.com
aaron.chiu@lw.com
sean.berkowitz@lw.com
laura.washington@lw.com
david.johnson@lw.com
ZURICH AMERICAN: Pretrial Scheduling Order Entered in Hales Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRYSTAL HALE, v. ZURICH
AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:24-cv-02554-CKD (E.D. Cal.),
the Hon. Judge Carolyn Delaney entered a pretrial scheduling order
as follows:
-- All discovery on plaintiff's individual claims shall be
completed by Aug. 8, 2025.
-- The deadline for filing any dispositive or other non-discovery
motion on plaintiff's individual claims is Sept. 26, 2025.
The purported wage-and-hour class action, filed by plaintiff
Krystal Hale, was removed from the Sacramento Superior Court on
September 9, 2024.
The Plaintiff alleges that she was employed by defendant as a
Claims Associate from March 2022 to May 2024. (She alleges that,
for the duration of her employment, Zurich "misclassified [her] as
a salaried, exempt employee."
The Plaintiff asserts four causes of action: (1) failure to pay
overtime wages, in violation of the California Labor Code; (2)
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, in violation
of the Labor Code; (3) failure to reimburse employees for all
work-related expenses, in violation of the Labor Code; and (4)
unfair business practices in violation of California’s Business
and Professions Code, the Labor Code, and applicable state wage
orders.
The Plaintiff seeks class certification for the following proposed
class:
"all current and former Claims Associates/Adjusters employed
by the Defendant in the State of California and classified as
exempt from overtime at any time Aug. 9, 2020 to the present."
Zurich offers property and casualty insurance products.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 3, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yqVgyq at no extra
charge.[CC]
[] Lithuania Court Accepts Class Suit from 24 Asylum Seekers
------------------------------------------------------------
Salma Ben Mariem, writing for JURIST News, reports that Amnesty
International welcomed on Wednesday, April 2,2025, the decision of
Lithuania's Supreme Administrative Court to accept a class action
lawsuit from 24 asylum seekers who were arbitrarily detained by
Lithuanian authorities between 2021 and 2022. The organization
praised the ruling as a significant step toward justice and
reparation for asylum seekers who have faced mistreatment and human
rights abuses.
Amnesty International stated that the court's decision marks
notable progress in holding European Union (EU) member states
accountable for violating the rights of refugees and maintaining
hostile migration policies. The organization detailed that the
refugees who filed the claim were subjected to poor detention
conditions in prison-like centers, faced harassment and unlawful
detention, and were denied the right to question the legality of
their detention.
The case dates back to June 2024 when a group of 24 individuals
filed a class action before the Regional Administrative Court,
seeking compensation for their prolonged arbitrary detention by
Lithuanian authorities following the country's announcement of a
state of emergency in response to irregular crossings at the
Belarusian border in 2021. The regional court initially rejected
the lawsuit because claimants failed to produce their detention
orders. The asylum seekers appealed, however, and argued that this
rejection violated their right to an effective judicial remedy
since Lithuanian authorities did not provide or serve the required
detention orders. The appeals court overturned the regional court's
decision and accepted the claimants' action, which the Supreme
Administrative Court upheld in its ruling.
Amnesty International has previously criticized Lithuanian policies
that legalize both the automatic detention of refugees crossing
irregularly into the country and pushbacks in response to the
influx of migrants in 2021. According to the organization's report,
thousands of refugees from countries such as India, Cameroon,
Nigeria, Syria, and Iraq were arbitrarily detained by Lithuanian
authorities for over a year without the ability to challenge their
detention during the first six months.
Relatedly, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled in 2022
that a Lithuanian law permitting the automatic detention of
refugees and denying them the right to asylum was contrary to EU
law, including the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Additionally,
the Lithuanian Constitutional Court ruled that the law imposing
automatic detention on all individuals seeking asylum during the
initial six-month period violated the right to liberty guaranteed
by Article 20 of the Lithuanian Constitution, but the state failed
to implement mechanisms for providing reparation to the victims.
Following the Supreme Administrative Court's ruling, asylum seekers
who experienced arbitrary detention in Lithuania in 2021-2022 have
until June 10 to join the class action lawsuit and seek reparation
for the harm they endured. [GN]
[^] CA Updates Announces Most Active Class Action Firms of 2024
---------------------------------------------------------------
Class Action Updates has published a two-part report featuring
"Most Active Class Action Firms of 2024," a resource list that
identifies 35 of the nation's busiest class action practices.
In the first part, CA Updates names 20 of the most active class
action law firms that represent plaintiffs. The report is
available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YonmXb
CA Updates also lists down 15 of the busiest class action law firms
that assist defendants. The report is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uGqapu
CA Updates posts every Monday. Subscribe to CA Updates to receive
the latest news from the class action industry. Visit
https://classactionupdates.substack.com for more information.
For comments and coverage suggestions, contact:
Yusef Siddiqui
Tel: (503) 915-9225
E-mail: yusef@beardgroup.com
Or
Christopher Patalinghug
Tel: (240) 629-3300
E-mail: tope@beardgroup.com
Founded in 1986, Beard Group, Inc., is a leading publisher of
business, law and finance books.
*********
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 ***