/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250416.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Wednesday, April 16, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 76 Headlines 1236 SECOND AVENUE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Fuentes Says 360 USA: Cole Sues Over Website's Inaccessibility 3M COMPANY: Theall Personal Injury Suit Removed to N.D. Ala. AJB CLEANING: Fonseca and Olalla Seek Proper and Timely Wages ALLOVIR INC: Settlement Reached in Zerbato Suit ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Crawford Appeals Atty.'s Fees & Costs Ruling ASBURY THEOLOGICAL: Singh Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info BLUE GOLD: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Powers Suit Alleges BROCK GROUP: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Valentic Suit to 3rd Cir. BULLETPROOF 360: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Jones Claims CITIZENS NATIONAL: Files Appeal in Wiggins Class Suit CLUB 180: Streblow Sues Over Club's Illegal Activities & Operations CONCORD ORTHOPAEDICS: Giguere Sues Over Private Data Breach CROSSTOWN BREWING: Blanton Sues Over Unlawful Tip Sharing EXP REALTY: Filing for Class Certification in Martin Due May 6 FANNIE MAE: Appeals Order Upholding $600MM Jury Verdict GAINFUL HEALTH: Faces Hernandez Suit Over Website Inaccessibility GREATS BRAND: Jones Sues Over Website Inaccessibility ICON PLC: Retirement System Sues Over Share Price Drop JONES FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Anderson Securities Class Suit JONES FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Dixon Class Suit in Missouri JONES FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Zigler Gender Class Suit KANSAS CITY LIFE: Seeks More Time to File Writ of Certiorari KASPI.KZ: Faces Securities Suit over SEC Disclosures LEE UNIVERSITY: Campbell Sues Over Unprotected Private Information LINEAGE LOGISTICS: Appeals Arbitration Bid Ruling in Saul Suit LOANCARE LLC: Tederick Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 4th Cir. MAPLEBEAR INC: Garcia et al. Sue Over Alleged BIPA Violations MDL 2873: Prather Personal Injury Suit Transferred to D.S.C. MEDIFY AIR: Wertheimer Sues For Air Purifiers, Filters' False Ads MHM HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Munoz Suit Alleges MOVE INC: Bandy Appeals Partial Case Dismissal, Arbitration Order NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Ray Suit NATIONAL UNIVERSITY: Dawson Sues Over Unlawful Data Collection NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Ohio Fund Appeals Class Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir OBI SEAFOODS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Murrillo Says ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: "Alleman" Settlement Remains Pending for OK ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Appeals Period in SEPTA Suit Dismissal Expires ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Bank Faces PUTPCPL Suit in Pennsylvania PAYPAL INC: Fitzgerald et al. Sue Over Deceptive Business Practices PEREG NATURAL: Calcano Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind PLATFORM WASTE: Pharis Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages PLAYSTUDIOS INC: Continues to Defend Kuhk Class Suit in Washington PLAYSTUDIOS INC: Felipe Class Suit Settlement for Court OK POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Fails to Protect Minors' Info, Suit Alleges PRIME TIME: Faces Orr Suit Over Illegal Personal Data Collection PROFICIENT AUTO: Deluxe Auto Faces Former Employee's Suit in Calif. PROFICIENT AUTO: Sierra Files Counterclaim in Worker's Suit PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Bid to Dismiss MOVEit MDL Remains Pending PROSOURCEFIT HOLDINGS: Fernandez Balks at Website's Access Barriers PURPLE INNOVATION: Continues to Defend ADA Class Suit in New York PURPLE INNOVATION: Continues to Defend Labor Class Suit in Calif. PURPLE INNOVATION: Continues to Defend NOL Rights Plan Class Suit RB GLOBAL: Controls Construction Equipment Rental Prices, AXG Says SANATECH PRINTING: Chitiva Sues Over Labor Law Breaches SENTURE LLC: Roy Seeks to Recover Call Center Staff's Unpaid Wages SERPENTARIUM LLC: Faces Jones Suit Over Website's Access Barriers SHASTA ENTERPRISES: Ramirez Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Withheld Tips SHOE SHOW: Mercedes Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind SMITH SPORT: Visually Impaired Can't Access Website, Calcano Claims SNACK SHOP: Faces Guaman Suit Over Alleged Labor Law Violations SOUTHEAST SERIES: K.R. Sues Over Failure to Secure Clients' Info STYLE FORUM: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store SUNWARRIOR VENTURES: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Jones Claims TARGET CORP: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Sadler Suit to 3rd Cir. TOP ONE: Mercedes Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website TOV FURNITURE: Cazares Sues Over Website's ADA Noncompliance UNITED STATES: Montrois Files Appeal in Steel Suit UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: Sued Over Unauthorized Personal Info Access VIAND COFFEE: Alejandro Seeks to Recover Proper Wages WALGREENS BOOTS: Sends Unsolicited Marketing Emails, Stone Alleges ZEITGEIST INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Jackson Suit Says ********* 1236 SECOND AVENUE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Fuentes Says ----------------------------------------------------------- YERI FUENTES, individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 1236 SECOND AVENUE RESTAURANT CORP. d/b/a SILVER STAR RESTAURANT, 207-07 NORTHERN RESTAURANT CORP, d/b/a BAYSIDE DINER, ELIAS KATSIHTIS and SPIRIDON KATSIHTIS, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-02721 (S.D.N.Y., April 1, 2025) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Throughout his employment with the Defendants, Plaintiff Fuentes worked for defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he worked. Rather, Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked and failed to pay Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Further, Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff the required "spread of hours" pay for any day in which the spread of hours exceeds 10 hours a day, says the suit. The 1236 Second Avenue Restaurant Corp. owns and operates the Silver Star, a restaurant located at 1236 2nd Avenue, New York, New York. It consists of a restaurant with delivery, take out, and eat in service. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Marc S. Hepworth, Esq. David A. Roth, Esq. Rebecca Predovan, Esq. HEPWORTH, GERSHBAUM & ROTH, PLLC 192 Lexington Avenue, Suite 802 New York, NY 10016 Telephone: (212) 545-1199 Facsimile: (212) 532-3801 E-mail: Mhepworth@hgrlawyers.com Cgershbaum@hgrlawyers.com Droth@hgrlawyers.com Rpredovan@hgrlawyers.com 360 USA: Cole Sues Over Website's Inaccessibility ------------------------------------------------- HARON COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. 360 USA, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03463 (N.D. Ill., April 1, 2025) accuses the Defendant of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act. The case arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. Moreover, the Defendant failed to remove the numerous access barriers on its website, depriving the legally-blind users of the opportunity to make purchases on the website, says the suit. Headquartered in Irvine, CA, 361 USA, Inc. owns and maintains the website, https://361usa.com, which provides consumers with access to an array of goods and services, including, the ability to view and purchase different types of shoes for running, walking, basketball for both women and men. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law 3M COMPANY: Theall Personal Injury Suit Removed to N.D. Ala. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as SHANE THEALL, et al., Plaintiffs v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 01-CV-2025 900693.00, filed February 21, 2025, was removed from the Circuit Court for the Tenth Judicial Circuit, Jefferson County, Alabama to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, Southern Division, on April 2, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00488-GMB to the proceeding. The Plaintiffs seek to hold 3M and certain other Defendants liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, and/or selling aqueous film forming foams that Plaintiffs allege were used in firefighting activities, thereby causing injury to Plaintiffs. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: M. Christian King, Esq. Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq. W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq. Jacob M. Salow, Esq. LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C. The Clark Building 400 North 20th Street Birmingham, AL 35203-3200 Telephone: (205) 581-0700 E-mail: cking@lightfootlaw.com hprater@lightfootlaw.com lradney@lightfootlaw.com jsalow@lightfootlaw.com AJB CLEANING: Fonseca and Olalla Seek Proper and Timely Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- MILEIDIS KATIUSKA FONSECA, and WILSON ALBERTO OLALLA, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. AJB CLEANING SERVICES LLC, and JULIO ROBERTO BAQUERO, and YEIMMU AGUDELO-BAQUERO, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01783 (E.D.N.Y., April 1, 2025) asserts claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. According to the complaint, the Defendants employed Plaintiffs in Queens County, New York, as cleaners at a charter school. Allegedly, the Plaintiffs were not paid an overtime premium and were not paid weekly as required by federal and state law. In addition, the Plaintiffs were not provided with true and accurate wage statements, says the suit. Based in Newington, CT, AJB Cleaning Services, LLC provides cleaners to the Rochdale Early Advantage Charter School in Jamaica, NY. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Justin Cilenti, Esq. Peter Hans Cooper, Esq. CILENTI AND COOPER, PLLC 60 East 42nd Street, 40th Floor New York, NY 10165 Telephone: (212) 209-3933 Facsimile: (212) 209-7102 E-mail: pcooper@jcpclaw.com ALLOVIR INC: Settlement Reached in Zerbato Suit ----------------------------------------------- Allovir, 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 on March 3, 2025, the parties in "Zerbato v. AlloVir, Inc. et al.," No. 1:24-cv-10152 jointly informed the court that they had reached a settlement in principle, subject to the execution of a definitive settlement agreement and court approval. On March 4, 2025, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss as moot in light of the settlement in principle. On January 19, 2024, a purported stockholder of the Company filed said lawsuit against the company and two of its officers purportedly on behalf of a putative class of stockholders. On April 16, 2024, the court appointed stockholders Harry Levin and Julio Maurice Bueno as lead plaintiffs and their counsel as lead counsel in the action. On June 17, 2024, lead plaintiffs filed their amended complaint. In the amended complaint, lead plaintiffs assert claims purportedly on behalf of a putative class of stockholders consisting of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired company securities between January 11, 2023 and December 21, 2023, inclusive. The amended complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the related regulations, alleging that the defendants made false and misleading statements and omissions to investors relating to the company's three Phase 3 studies of the viral drug "posoleucel." The complaint seeks, among other things, damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees, expert fees and other costs. Defendants filed their motion to dismiss the amended complaint on August 16, 2024, which was fully briefed as of December 12, 2024. Oral argument on the motion to dismiss was held on February 19, 2025. AlloVir, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company developing allogeneic T-cell therapies to treat and prevent viral diseases. ARIZONA BEVERAGES: Crawford Appeals Atty.'s Fees & Costs Ruling --------------------------------------------------------------- KENNETH CRAWFORD is taking an appeal from a court order denying his motion for discovery expert fees and granting the Defendant's motion for attorney fees in the lawsuit entitled Kenneth Crawford, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Arizona Beverages USA LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:22-cv-00220-DWD, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff alleges consumer fraud claims against the Defendant related to its 20oz "Lite Arnold Palmer" beverage. On Apr. 15, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion for attorney fees, and incorporated a memorandum of law in support. On Apr. 30, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion for discovery expert fees. On Feb. 25, 2025, Judge David W. Dugan granted the Defendant's motion for attorney fees and denied the Plaintiff's motion for discovery expert fees. The Defendant was awarded the sum of $155,810.45 in attorney's fees and costs. The appellate case is captioned Kenneth Crawford v. Arizona Beverages USA LLC, Case No. 25-1526, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, filed on March 28, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellant KENNETH CRAWFORD, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Steffan Keeton, Esq. KEETON FIRM LLC 100 S. Commons Pittsburgh, PA 15212 Telephone: (888) 412-5291 Defendant-Appellee ARIZONA BEVERAGES USA LLC is represented by: Robert P. Donovan, Esq. STEVENS & LEE 669 River Drive Elmwood Park, NJ 07407 Telephone: (201) 857-6778 - and – Casey T. Grabenstein, Esq. SAUL EWING LLP 161 N. Clark Street Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: (312) 876-7810 ASBURY THEOLOGICAL: Singh Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info ------------------------------------------------------------- JOY SINGH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ASBURY THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-00103-REW-MAS (E.D. Ky., April 2, 2025) arises out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant, which held in its possession certain personally identifiable information of Plaintiff and other current and former students of Defendant -- the putative class members. According to the complaint, the data breach that occurred between June 1, 2024 and June 6, 2024, resulted from Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' private information with which was entrusted to Defendant. In addition, the Defendant failed to properly monitor the computer network and systems that housed the private information. Had Defendant's employees (presumably in the IT department) properly monitored its property, it would have discovered the intrusion sooner, says the suit. Through this complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to remedy these harms on behalf of herself and all similarly situated individuals whose Private Information was accessed during the data breach. Accordingly, Plaintiff sues Defendant seeking redress for its unlawful conduct, and asserting claims for: (i) negligence, (ii) breach of implied contract, (iii) breach of fiduciary duty, and (iv) unjust enrichment. Asbury Theological Seminary is a Kentucky non-profit corporation with its principal place of business located in Wilmore, Kentucky. Defendant is a graduate school of theology.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michele Henry, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MICHELE HENRY PLC 517 West Ormsby Avenue Louisville, KY 40203 Telephone: (502) 536-0085 E-mail: mhenry@michelehenrylaw.com - and - Leigh Montgomery, Esq. EKSM, LLP 4200 Montrose Blvd., Suite 200 Houston, TX 77006 Telephone: (888) 350-3931 Facsimile: (888) 276-3455 E-mail: lmontgomery@eksm.com BLUE GOLD: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, Powers Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- JOHN POWERS, individually and for others similarly situated v. BLUE GOLD MINE SERVICES, LLC d/b/a TYGART CONTRACTING, Case No. 1:25-cv-00031-TSK (N.D. W.Va., April 2, 2025) is a collective action brought by the Plaintiff to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act. According to the complaint, Plaintiff Powers and the other hourly employees regularly work more than 40 hours a workweek. However, Tygart does not pay them for all their hours worked, including overtime hours. Rather, Tygart requires Powers and the other Hourly Employees to suit out in protective clothing and safety gear necessary to safely perform their job duties "off the clock." Additionally, Tygart pays Powers and the other Hourly Employees non-discretionary bonuses, including safety and production bonuses, that Tygart fails to include in their regular rates of pay for overtime purposes, says the suit. Plaintiff Powers was employed by the Defendant as a scoop operator and roof bolter from approximately February 2022 through May 2024. Blue Gold Mine Services, LLC is a staffing company in the U.S.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Majestro, Esq. Graham B. Platz, Esq. POWELL & MAJESTRO P.L.L.C. 405 Capitol Street, Suite 807 Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 346-2889 Facsimile: (304) 346-2895 E-mail: amajestro@powellmajestro.com - and - 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 BROCK GROUP: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Valentic Suit to 3rd Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------- THE BROCK GROUP, INC., et al. are taking an appeal from a court order partially granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled Alan Valentic, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The Brock Group, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:21-cv-01789, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit was brought against the Defendants for violation of the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act by failing to pay the Plaintiff and similarly situated employees for time that they spent getting themselves to and from a drop-off point known as the Kiss & Drop or parking lots provided by the general contractor, and their jobsites. On Mar. 4, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class, which Judge W. Scott Hardy partially granted on Mar. 18, 2025. The Court held that the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) have been satisfied with respect to the re-formed class. The proposed class based upon the claims in Count I of the Complaint was certified pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and defined as follows: All non-exempt employees presently or formerly employed by Defendants at the Pennsylvania Petrochemicals Complex (aka "Shell Cracker Plant"), at any time during the period from November 3, 2018, through the present who worked more than forty hours in at least one work week and who were not authorized to directly access the Shell Cracker Plant during such time. The Plaintiff was appointed as Class Representative of the certified class. The law firms of Jubelirer, Pass & Intrieri, P.C. and Jacobs, Burns, Orlove & Hernandez, LLP were appointed as Class Counsel. The appellate case is captioned Alan Valentic v. The Brock Group, Inc. and Brock Industrial Services, LLC, Case No. 25-8015, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on April 1, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Respondent ALAN VALENTIC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Joseph S. Pass, Esq. Steven E. Winslow, Esq. Calder Buisch, Esq. Jacqueline Skye McCollum, Esq. Justin T. Romano, Esq. JUBELIRER, PASS & INTRIERI 219 Fort Pitt Boulevard Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 281-3850 Email: Jsp@jpilaw.com Sw@jpilaw.com Cmb@jpilaw.com Jsm@jpilaw.com Jtr@jpilaw.com - and – David Huffman-Gottschling, Esq. JACOBS BURNS ORLOVE & HERNANDEZ LLP 1 N. La Salle St., Suite 1620 Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone: (312) 327-3443 Email: Davidhg@jbosh.com Defendants-Petitioners THE BROCK GROUP, INC., et al. are represented by: Timothy K. Lewis, Esq. Christina Manfredi McKinley, Esq. Brandy S. Ringer, Esq. BLANK ROME LLP 501 Grant Street, Suite 850 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 932-2776 Facsimile: (412) 774-5311 Email: Timothy.Lewis@BlankRome.com Christina.McKinley@BlankRome.com Brandy.Ringer@BlankRome.com - and – Yaffa D. Stone, Esq. One Logan Square 130 North 18th Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 569-5476 Facsimile: (215) 832-5421 Email: Yaffa.Stone@BlankRome.com BULLETPROOF 360: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Jones Claims ---------------------------------------------------------------- CLAY LEE JONES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BULLETPROOF 360, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02693 (S.D.N.Y., April 1, 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 purchasing the coffee that Plaintiff wished to acquire from the website. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims under Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. Bulletproof 360, Inc. owns and operates the website, www.bulletproof.com, which offers nutrition products, supplements, and coffee designed to support mental and physical performance. [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 CITIZENS NATIONAL: Files Appeal in Wiggins Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------- CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK OF TEXAS has filed an appeal in the lawsuit entitled Angel Wiggins, individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Citizens National Bank of Texas, Defendant, Case No. DC-24-20768, in the 116th Judicial District Court in Texas. The appellate case is captioned Citizens National Bank of Texas vs. Angel Wiggins, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Case No. 25-00397, in the Texas Court of Appeals, Fifth Court of Appeals, filed on April 1, 2025. The case type is stated as miscellaneous/other civil.[BN] Plaintiff-Appellee ANGEL WIGGINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Michael K. Hurst, Esq. LYNN PINKER HURST & SCHWEGMANN, LLP 2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 2700 Dallas, TX 75201 Telephone: (214) 981-3838 Facsimile: (214) 981-3839 Email: mhurst@lynnllp.com Defendant-Appellant CITIZENS NATIONAL BANK OF TEXAS is represented by: Erin M. Brown, Esq. ADLER, COHEN, HARVEY, WAKEMAN & GUEKGUEZIAN LLP 2 Oliver Street, Suite 1005 Boston, MA 02109 Telephone: (617) 423-6674 Email: ebrown@adlercohen.com CLUB 180: Streblow Sues Over Club's Illegal Activities & Operations ------------------------------------------------------------------- CHUCK STREBLOW, SARAH HOUSTON, IMAGINATION INDUSTRIES, INC. dba THE AMERICAN DREAM BAR, JANE DOE DANCERS #1 - 7, JOHN DOE SECURITY GUARDS #1 - 5, JOHN & JANE DOE CUSTOMERS #1 - 11, and all similarly situated residential & commercial neighbors of Club 180, Plaintiffs v. CLUB 180, AM314, LLC, MATTHEW LONGCOR, AYDEN LONGCOR, NICHOLAS SCALISE dba DJ NEXT1, ERIC HAVERMANN, ELLIE JAEKE, EVRON, INC., SEVEN OAKS INVESTMENT CORP., HIGHLAND ASSOCIATES, INC., CTS, LLC, PTM, INC., NANCY WAGGENER, PAUL WAGGENER, BRAVO1 SECURITY, INC., MICHAEL ELAYAN, MIROSLAVA KOTSAN, STU SLEEPER aka STUPAC X, DAVID EKDAHL, CHAD MCMAHON, JAMES PULL, IVON PENNY, BLAIKE KOCA, MARLEY NYGAARD, ROMAN, JALIL TOOKHI, MALIK HARMON, ABDUL RAHMANZAI aka JAMAAL, DAVID LOOLOO, TONY PHAM, BREANNA PHAM-CARR, THROWBACK EMPIRE, LLC dba KRUSH ULTRA LOUNGE, BRE MANNING aka ROSE, BROOKE LEIBERT aka MALIBU, ELENA RHODD-MORALES aka STARR, CHRISTINA CRAFT aka SKYLA, KATHERINE TEDI SMITH aka SIENNA, ECHO, AMIRA, PERSUSIA, KINO, JESSIE, INDIE, NEA, PRETTY P, STORMIE, SANTANA, VOODOO LOUNGE, INC., KYRON O'BRIEN SR., TOAST, INC., COSTCO WHOLESALE CORP., and JOHN & JANE ROES #1-50, Defendants, Case No. 8:25-cv-00241 (D. Neb., April 1, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), and Nebraska Fair Employment Practices Act, assault and battery, sexual harassment, false advertising & deceptive practices, theft, negligence, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, breach of contract, unfair competition, nuisance, and conspiracy. The case arises from the Defendants' operation of an illegal enterprise named Club 180. The Defendants falsely advertised Club 180 as a membership club, but the Club is engaged in illegal activities such as selling cocaine and alcohol without license and facilitating prostitution, sex trafficking, and theft from employees and customers. Club 180 also offers customers traditional strip club dances and entertainment in addition to prostitution, cocaine and other illegal substances. The Plaintiffs bring this action to respectfully request that the Defendants be held accountable for the damages they have caused, that Club 180 be ordered to close immediately and that they be prohibited from opening another similar establishment in the future. Imagination Industries, Inc., doing business as The American Dream Bar, is a bar in Omaha, Nebraska. Club 180 is a strip club in Omaha, Nebraska. AM314, LLC is an owner and operator of Club 180 based in Omaha, Nebraska. Evron, Inc. is a property owner in Omaha, Nebraska. Seven Oaks Investment Corp. is a property owner in Omaha, Nebraska. Highland Associates, Inc. is a property owner in Omaha, Nebraska. CTS, LLC is a property owner in Omaha, Nebraska. PTM, Inc. is a property owner in Omaha, Nebraska. Bravo1 Security, Inc. is a security services provider in Omaha, Nebraska. Throwback Empire, LLC, doing business as Krush Ultra Lounge, is a night club located in Omaha, Nebraska. Voodoo Lounge, Inc. is a bar owner and operator in Omaha, Nebraska. Toast, Inc. is a credit processing service provider based in Massachusetts. Costco Wholesale Corp. is a retail company, based in Omaha, Nebraska. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Evan Spencer, Esq. EVAN SPENCER LAW, PLLC 305 Broadway, 7th Floor New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (917) 547-4665 Email: Evan@EvanSpencerLaw.com CONCORD ORTHOPAEDICS: Giguere Sues Over Private Data Breach ----------------------------------------------------------- LISA GIGUERE, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CONCORD ORTHOPAEDICS PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00124 ( D.N.H., April 1, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' protected health information and personally identifiable information stored within its information network. On or about March 25, 2025, the Plaintiff was notified of the data breach and of the impact to her PHI/PII via letter from Defendant. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, intrusion upon seclusion/invasion of privacy, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. Headquartered in Concord, NH, Concord Orthopaedics Professional Association is a professional profit corporation that provides comprehensive orthopedic and rheumatology care. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam H. Weintraub, Esq. WEINTRAUB LAW, LLC 170 Commerce Way, Suite 200 Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03801 Telephone: (603) 212-1785 Facsimile: (504) 708-4512 E-mail: aweintraub@ahwfirm.com - and - Andrew J. Shamis, Esq. Leanna Loginov, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, P.A. 14 NE 1st Avenue, Suite 705 Miami, FL 33132 Telephone: (305) 479-2299 E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com lloginov@shamisgentile.com CROSSTOWN BREWING: Blanton Sues Over Unlawful Tip Sharing --------------------------------------------------------- Lillie W. Blanton, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Crosstown Brewing Company, LLC; Will Goodwin, individually, and Clark Ortkiese, individually, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-02373 (W.D. Tenn., April 1, 2025) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act. On or about August 19, 2024, the Defendants hired Plaintiff Blanton as a food server. Throughout the period relevant to the complaint, the Plaintiff and all other similarly situated tipped employees have not received their statutorily required share of customer tips because of Defendants’ unlawful practice of paying a portion of those tips to kitchen staff, says the suit. Crosstown Brewing Company, LLC operates a brewery/taproom/restaurant in the Crosstown Concourse at 1264 Concourse Ave., Memphis, TN. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Philip Oliphant, Esq. THE ROLWES EMPLOYMENT LAW FIRM 1951 Mignon Avenue Memphis, TN 38107 Telephone: (910) 519-9135 Facsimile: (901) 979-2499 E-mail: poliphant@rolweslaw.com EXP REALTY: Filing for Class Certification in Martin Due May 6 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARIKA MARTIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. EXP REALTY OF CALIFORNIA, INC., Case No. 2:24-cv-03142-TLN-SCR (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Troy L. Nunley entered an order on class action proposed deadlines: Event Proposed Date Completion of Fact Discovery: Jan. 16, 2026 Expert Disclosures: Feb. 16, 2026 Expert Rebuttal Disclosures: March 4, 2026 Completion of Expert Discovery: April 6, 2026 Motion for Class Certification: May 6, 2026 Response in Opposition to Motion for Class June 8, 2026 Certification: Reply in Support of Motion for Class July 6, 2026 Certification: A copy of the Court's order dated April 2, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=EqgyZG at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ignacio J. Hiraldo, Esq. IJH LAW 1100 Town & Country Road Suite 1250 Orange, CA 92868 Telephone: (657) 200-1403 E-mail: ijhiraldo@ijhlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Jenny Yi, Esq. Sarah A. Zielinski, Esq. Amy Starinieri Gilbert, Esq. MCGUIREWOODS LLP Two Embarcadero Center, Suite 1300 San Francisco, CA 94111-3821 Telephone: (415) 844-9944 Facsimile: (415) 844-9922 E-mail: jyi@mcguirewoods.com szielinski@mcguirewoods.com agilbert@mcguiewoods.com FANNIE MAE: Appeals Order Upholding $600MM Jury Verdict ------------------------------------------------------- The Federal Housing Finance Agency, the Federal National Mortgage Association, and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation have filed their Notice of Appeal indicating they'll ask the D.C. Circuit to review Judge Royce C. Lamberth's recent pro-shareholder rulings 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.). "Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1) and 4(a), notice is hereby given that all defendants in the above-named cases appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Defendants appeal the final judgment entered on March 20, 2024 (13-cv-1053, ECF No. 428; 13-mc-01288, ECF No. 421), all errors of law, the Orders denying Defendants’ Rule 50(b) Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law dated March 14, 2025 (13-cv-1053, ECF Nos. 439, 440; 13-mc-01288, ECF Nos. 430, 431), and all earlier, merged judgments and orders, including, but not limited to, the Orders granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss following remand (13-cv-1053, ECF Nos. 82, 83; 13-mc-01288, ECF Nos. 84, 85); the Orders denying Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration of the Order on the Motion to Dismiss following remand (13-cv-1053, ECF No. 99; 13-mc-01288, ECF No. 104); the Orders granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (13-cv-1053, ECF Nos. 195, 206; 13-mc-01288, ECF Nos. 189, 198); the bench Orders denying Defendants’ Motions under Rule 50(a) and to decertify the classes in the first trial (Trial Tr. Oct. 31, 2022, Morning, 2449:3-2450-6, 13-cv-1053, ECF No. 283); the bench Order denying Defendants’ Motion under Rule 50(a) in the second trial (Trial Tr. Aug. 1, 2023, Afternoon, 1512:15, 13-cv-1053, ECF No. 379, 13-mc-01288, ECF No. 369); the Orders granting Plaintiffs’ Motion for Entry of Final Judgment (13-cv-1053, ECF No. 427; 13-mc-01288, ECF No. 420); and the Order Governing Plan of Allocation (13-cv1053, ECF No. 428-1; 13-mc-01288, ECF No. 421-1)." In March, Judge Lamberth entered an order upholding the $600 million jury verdict against FHFA, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac because the so-called Net Worth Sweep breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing with the enterprises' shareholders, as reported by Class Action Reporter on March 17, 2025. Plaintiffs are holders of common stock of Freddie Mac and junior preferred stock of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They filed suit in 2013 to challenge the so-called "Net Worth Sweep," arising from an amendment to the agreement between the United States Department of the Treasury and the FHFA in the FHFA's capacity as conservator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Under the Net Worth Sweep, each GSE was required to pay Treasury the difference between its net worth and a predetermined capital reserve each year, with that capital reserve decreasing until it reached zero in 2018. The Net Worth Sweep remains in place to the present day. Thus, the Third Amendment eliminated any future possibility for any non-Treasury stockholder -- including Plaintiffs in this case -- to receive dividends from the GSEs, because the GSEs owed their net worth to Treasury and would not take on further debt to pay dividends to other shareholders. On the day the Third Amendment was announced, the market valuation of the GSEs shares declined by $1.6 billion. By 2022, when this case went to trial for the first time, Plaintiffs' sole remaining claim was for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing based on the Net Worth Sweep, which allegedly harmed Plaintiffs by reducing the value of their preferred shares in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and their common shares in Freddie Mac. On August 14, 2023, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs, awarding a total of $612.4 million. Defendants have moved for Judgment as a Matter of Law under Rule 50(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, asking the Court set aside the jury's verdict and enter judgment in Defendants' favor. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs, in trying to prove the lost-value theory at trial, failed to introduce evidence: (1) attempting to show that current shareholders are worse off today than they would be absent the Third Amendment; (2) attempting to account for the substantial increases in share prices that occurred shortly after the Third Amendment; or (3) showing that the one-day decline in share prices on Aug. 17, 2012, was attributable solely to the Net Worth Sweep, as opposed to other terms of the Third Amendment. The Court finds Plaintiffs provided ample evidence for the jury to conclude that the Net Worth Sweep is causing harm to shareholders. The factual significance of the post-Third Amendment share price increases was properly turned over to the jury to determine, and the Court will not disturb the jury's conclusion -- that current shareholders experience harm from the Net Worth Sweep, despite the share price increase in the weeks following its announcement. Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs failed to isolate the effect of the Net Worth Sweep from the acceleration of the portfolio reduction, and therefore failed to eliminate the possibility that this other provision may have contributed to the stock price drop. According to the Court, the jury resolved this question in favor of Plaintiffs, and that conclusion was not unreasonable. The Court says as compared to the unprecedented Net Worth Sweep, a reasonable jury could conclude that a slight change in the pace of retained portfolio reduction was not a significant financial event. Thus, it will leave the jury's verdict undisturbed. Defendants further argues that all Plaintiffs who bought shares after the Third Amendment lack standing because they suffered no injury from the share price drop. The Court adheres to the law of the case: that claims challenging the Net Worth Sweep as a breach of the implied covenant in the shareholder certificates run with the shares, and thus are injuries experienced by all current shareholders, including post-Third Amendment purchasers. Therefore, Plaintiffs have identified an injury that satisfies the requirement for Article III standing. Defendants have now exhausted all procedural vehicles at their disposal before this Court. The Court stands by its prior rulings, and to the extent Defendants questioned the sufficiency of the evidence at trial, it is satisfied that a reasonable jury could come to the verdict that was rendered in this case. A copy of the Court's decision dated March 14, 2025, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=lECap1 from PacerMonitor.com. Defendant Federal Housing Finance Agency is represented by: Asim Varma, Esq. Jonathan L. Stern, Esq. David B. Bergman, Esq. Ian S. Hoffman, Esq. R. Stanton Jones, Esq. ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP 601 Massachusetts Ave. NW Washington, DC 20001 Tel: (202) 942-5000 E-mail: Asim.Varma@arnoldporter.com Jonathan.Stern@arnoldporter.com David.Bergman@arnoldporter.com Ian.Hoffman@arnoldporter.com Stanton.Jones@arnoldporter.com Attorney for the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation: Michael J. Ciatti, Esq. KING & SPALDING LLP 1700 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W. Washington, DC 20006 Tel: (202) 661-7828 Fax: (202) 626-3737 E-mail: mciatti@kslaw.com Attorney for the Federal National Mortgage Association: Meaghan VerGow, Esq. O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP 1625 Eye Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 Tel: (202) 383-5300 Fax: (202) 383-5414 E-mail: mvergow@omm.com GAINFUL HEALTH: Faces Hernandez Suit Over Website Inaccessibility ----------------------------------------------------------------- JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GAINFUL HEALTH, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02696 (S.D.N.Y., April 1, 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. Plaintiff Fernandez was injured when she attempted multiple times, most recently on August 29, 2024, to access Defendant’s website from Plaintiff’s home in an effort to shop for Defendant's products, but encountered barriers that denied the full and equal access to Defendant's online goods, content, and services. 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 purchasing the nutritional supplements. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks redress for Defendant's unlawful conduct and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. Gainful Health, Inc. owns and maintains the website, www.gainful.com, which offers protein powder and nutrition supplements for sale. [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 GREATS BRAND: Jones Sues Over Website Inaccessibility ----------------------------------------------------- CLAY LEE JONES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GREATS BRAND, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02688 (S.D.N.Y., April 1, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to make its website to be equally accessible to Plaintiff and other visually impaired individuals. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to provide its online content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen-reader technology. As a result, the Plaintiff has been denied full and equal access to and enjoyment of the goods, benefits, and services of the Defendant's website. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now asserts claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. Greats Brand, Inc. owns and maintains the website, www.greats.com, which offers handcrafted Italian shoes and accessories for sale. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 E-mail: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com ICON PLC: Retirement System Sues Over Share Price Drop ------------------------------------------------------ POLICE AND FIRE RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF THE CITY OF DETROIT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ICON PLC, STEPHEN CUTLER, and BRENDAN BRENNAN, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01807 (E.D.N.Y., April 2, 2025) is a class action on behalf of the Plaintiff and all persons and entities who purchased or acquired ICON ordinary shares between July 27, 2023 and January 13, 2025, asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. This case concerns Defendants' misrepresentations that ICON was benefitting from a significant industry-wide downturn during which the Company's current and prospective customers scaled back their outsourcing of clinical trial work to cut costs. Specifically, throughout the Class Period, the Defendants assured investors that ICON was "well positioned" to win business during the downturn due to the "depth and breadth of our capabilities," that the Company's "competitive position has never been better in being able to address our customer needs," that "we're taking market share" due to "our strong operational delivery," and that ICON was seeing "healthy," "stable," and "strong" demand, while touting a purportedly high volume of RFPs for clinical trial work from prospective customers as a sign that demand was strong. According to the complaint, the truth was far different. Rather than benefiting from the industry downturn, ICON experienced a significant decline in demand. Additionally, its two largest customers, including Pfizer, warned ICON for years that they intended to diversify their business away from the Company. Moreover, the "RFP flow" that Defendants touted as a sign of strong demand did not indicate anything of the sort. Instead, ICON executives knew that a significant portion of those RFPs only sought to gauge prevailing industry prices for clinical trial services and were never intended to lead to actual clinical trial work, says the suit. The news of the disappointing guidance and expected transition period due to industry headwinds caused the price of ICON ordinary shares to decline $17.75 per share, or 8.1%, from $217.99 per share on January 13, 2025, to $200.24 per share on January 14, 2025, the suit alleges. ICON plc conducts clinical trials for companies developing new drugs and medical devices based in Dublin, Ireland. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Javier Bleichmar, Esq. BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP 300 Park Avenue, Suite 1301 New York, NY 10022 Telephone: (212) 789-1340 Facsimile: (212) 205-3960 E-mail: jbleichmar@bfalaw.com - and - Nancy A. Kulesa, Esq. Ross Shikowitz, Esq. BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP 75 Virginia Road White Plains, NY 10603 Telephone: (914) 265-2991 Facsimile: (212) 205-3960 E-mail: nkulesa@bfalaw.com rshikowitz@bfalaw.com JONES FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Anderson Securities Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Jones Financial Cos. LLLP disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Anderson securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. On March 30, 2018, Edward Jones and its affiliated entities and individuals were named as defendants in a putative class action (Anderson, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. The lawsuit originally was brought under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), and the Exchange Act, as well as Missouri and California law and alleges that the defendants inappropriately transitioned client assets from commission-based accounts to fee-based programs. The plaintiffs requested declaratory, equitable, and exemplary relief, and compensatory damages. On July 9, 2019, the district court entered an order dismissing the lawsuit in its entirety without prejudice. On July 29, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which eliminated certain defendants, withdrew the Securities Act claims, added claims under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, as amended (the "Investment Advisers Act"), and certain additional state law claims, and reasserted the remaining claims with modified allegations. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs subsequently withdrew their Investment Advisers Act claims, and on November 12, 2019, the district court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss all other claims. The plaintiffs appealed the district court's dismissal of certain of their state law claims on jurisdictional grounds but did not appeal the dismissal of the remaining claims. On March 4, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of those state law claims. After further appellate proceedings in the Ninth Circuit, defendants filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, which was denied on January 18, 2022. On February 2, 2022, the defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' remaining state law claims. On May 9, 2022, the court dismissed the second amended complaint without prejudice. On May 31, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint alleging a single claim of breach of fiduciary duty under Missouri and California law against a single defendant, Edward Jones, which Edward Jones moved to dismiss on June 21, 2022. The district court denied the motion to dismiss in an order filed on October 26, 2022. Edward Jones filed its answer to the third amended complaint on November 14, 2022. On September 22, 2023, the plaintiffs moved for class certification. On the same date, Edward Jones moved for summary judgment on the plaintiffs' individual claims and to dismiss the third amended complaint on jurisdictional grounds. The district court entered an order denying the motion to dismiss on January 8, 2024 and held a hearing on Edward Jones' motion for summary judgment on May 23, 2024. On September 9, 2024, the district court entered an order granting Edward Jones' motion for summary judgment and denying all other pending motions as moot, including the motion for class certification. Plaintiffs have appealed the judgment in favor of Edward Jones, which appeal is pending. Edward Jones denies the plaintiffs' allegations and intends to continue to vigorously defend this lawsuit. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. operates as an investment management company. The Company offers wealth management, retirement savings, insurance, annuities, mutual funds, stocks, investment strategies, financial planning, and advisory services. Jones Financial serves customers in the United States and Canada. [BN] JONES FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Dixon Class Suit in Missouri ----------------------------------------------------------------- Jones Financial Cos. LLLP disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Dixon gender and race discrimination class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Gender and Race Discrimination Class Action. On March 9, 2022, Edward Jones and JFC were named as defendants in a lawsuit (Dixon, et al. v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., et al.) filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The lawsuit was brought by a then current financial advisor as a putative collective action alleging gender discrimination under the Fair Labor Standards Act, and by a former financial advisor as a putative class action alleging race discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. On April 25, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint reasserting the original claims with modified allegations and adding claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 alleging race/national origin, gender, and sexual orientation discrimination on behalf of putative classes of financial advisors. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on May 23, 2022, and on September 15, 2022, the court stayed further proceedings in the case pending a decision on the motion to dismiss. On March 31, 2023, the district court denied the motion to dismiss and lifted the stay of proceedings. Edward Jones and JFC filed an answer to the amended complaint on April 17, 2023. The first phase of discovery related to collective and class certification is proceeding. Edward Jones and JFC deny the allegations and intend to vigorously defend this lawsuit. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. operates as an investment management company. The Company offers wealth management, retirement savings, insurance, annuities, mutual funds, stocks, investment strategies, financial planning, and advisory services. Jones Financial serves customers in the United States and Canada. [BN] JONES FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend Zigler Gender Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Jones Financial Cos. LLLP disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Zigler gender discrimination class suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Edward Jones and JFC were named as defendants in a lawsuit brought by a former employee (Zigler v. Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P. et al.) in the Northern District of Illinois. The initial complaint filed on September 1, 2022 alleged putative class and collective claims under the Equal Pay Act of 1963 ("EPA"), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Illinois state laws of gender-based wage discrimination against a subset of female home office associates whom the plaintiff described as "home office financial advisor[s]." The plaintiff amended the complaint on November 29, 2022, seeking to expand the putative collective and class definitions to include all female home office associates in any role. Edward Jones and JFC filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on January 6, 2023. On June 9, 2023, the district court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss, permitting the plaintiff's EPA claim and related state-law claim to proceed in connection with only one of the roles she held during her employment by the firm, limiting the plaintiff's Title VII claim and related state-law claim to a disparate treatment theory of liability as opposed to a disparate impact theory, and accepting the plaintiff's agreement to dismiss JFC from the case without prejudice. Edward Jones filed its answer to the amended complaint on June 23, 2023. The first phase of discovery related to collective and class certification is proceeding. Edward Jones denies the allegations and intends to vigorously defend this lawsuit. The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. operates as an investment management company. The Company offers wealth management, retirement savings, insurance, annuities, mutual funds, stocks, investment strategies, financial planning, and advisory services. Jones Financial serves customers in the United States and Canada. [BN] KANSAS CITY LIFE: Seeks More Time to File Writ of Certiorari ------------------------------------------------------------ KANSAS CITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY filed on April 1, 2025, a request to extend time to file for a petition of writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court, under Case No. 24-941, seeking a review of a ruling of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in the case captioned Kansas City Life Insurance Company, Applicant vs. Christopher Y. Meek, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Case Nos. 23-03334, 23-0354. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the suit, filed on June 18, 2019, is a class action for breach of contract and conversion to recover amounts that the Defendant charged the Plaintiff and the proposed class in excess of amounts authorized by the express terms of their life insurance policies. The Defendant has allegedly caused material harm to Plaintiff and the proposed class by improperly draining monies they have accumulated in the cash values under their policies. Every unauthorized dollar taken from policy owners is one less dollar that can be used to: earn interest; pay future premiums; increase the death benefit; use as collateral for policy loans; or withdraw as cash, says the complaint. On July 1, 2021, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class, which Chief District Judge Beth Phillips granted on February 7, 2022. On March 13, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion for the Court to partially decertify or modify the class. On March 27, 2023, Judge Philips entered an Order granting in part and denying in part Plaintiff's and Defendant's October 20, 2022 motions for summary judgment. The Plaintiff was granted summary judgment on Counts I, II and III, but only as to liability; the Defendant was granted summary judgment on Count IV, and neither party's arguments regarding the statute of limitations was adopted. Also on March 27, an Order was entered finding as moot Defendant Kansas City Life Insurance Company's motion to partially decertify or modify the class in light of the Court's summary judgment ruling. On May 19, 2023, Defendant Kansas City Life Insurance Company moved for partial decertification of the class, to decertify as to individuals who did not suffer any overcharges after June 18, 2014. On June 20, 2023, Jude Philipps signed an Order (1) granting Defendant's motion to partially decertify class and (2) dismissing Count V without prejudice. On July 18, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration involving the June 20 Order. On September 14, 2023, a court order was entered (1) granting the Plaintiff's motion for partial reconsideration; and (2) adhering to prior decision. The Plaintiff's motion for partial reconsideration, was granted but the court adhered to its prior Order partially decertifying the class. On September 27, 2023, Judge Phillips signed an Order wherein the Plaintiff's July 18, 2023 motion for a new trial or, in the alternative, motion for additur was denied and the Plaintiff's motion to alter or amend judgment was granted. The Defendant's motion for decertification of the Class and to alter or amend the judgment was denied and the Defendant's renewed motion for Judgment as a matter of law on Count I was also denied. On October 24, 2023, the Plaintiff filed a petition seeking review of Court Orders dated February 7, 2022, March 27, 2023, June 20, 2023, September 14, 2023, and September 27, 2023. On January 10, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals ordered and adjudged that the judgment of the district court in this cause is affirmed in accordance with the opinion of the Court. However, it stated that this was a preliminary judgment and/or opinion and that jurisdiction is not recovered until the Mandate is issued by the U.S Court of Appeals. On January 31, 2025, the Mandate of the US Court of Appeals was filed in the case docket.[BN] Defendant-Petitioner KANSAS CITY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY is represented by: Lauren Suzanne Kuley, Esq. SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS (US) LLP 201 E. Fourth St. Suite 1900 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Email: lauren.kuley@squirepb.com KASPI.KZ: Faces Securities Suit over SEC Disclosures ---------------------------------------------------- Kaspi.kz, a Kazakhstani joint stock company, disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2025, that on December 20, 2024, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the company and certain of the its current officers by its alleged shareholders on behalf of purchasers of the company’s American Depository Shares (ADS) between the time of the IPO in 2024 and September 2024. The complaint alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and alleges that the company made false statements and/or omissions in its IPO prospectus and other SEC filings relating to business with Russian entities and related party transactions, and that as a result, the plaintiff suffered damages. Kaspi.kz operates an app-based mobile service that offers payments, marketplace and fintech solutions for both consumers and merchants in Kazakhstan. LEE UNIVERSITY: Campbell Sues Over Unprotected Private Information ------------------------------------------------------------------ LUCRESIA CAMPBELL, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEE UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00109 (E.D. Tenn., April 1, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its students and employees. On March 24, 2025, the Defendant sent Plaintiff and Class Members a Notice of Data Security Incident letter, informing them of the Data Breach that occurred in March 2024. Defendant waited over one year to notify Plaintiff and Class members about the Data Breach. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings this class action lawsuit on behalf all those similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' PII that it collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information had been subject to the unauthorized access by an unknown third party and precisely what specific type of information was accessed. Lee University is a private university based in Cleveland, TN. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: J. Gerard Stranch, IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Telephone: (615) 254-8801 E-mail: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com - and - Jeff Ostrow, Esq. KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A. One West Las Olas Blvd., Suite 500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 525-4100 E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com LINEAGE LOGISTICS: Appeals Arbitration Bid Ruling in Saul Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- LINEAGE LOGISTICS SERVICES, LLC, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting in part and denying in part their motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled Felicia Saul, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Lineage Logistics Services, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-01331-DJC-CSK, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff brings this action against the Defendants for violations of California's Labor Code and California's Business and Professions Code including failure to pay all regular wages, failure to provide meal breaks or compensation in lieu thereof, failure to authorize and permit rest breaks or compensation in lieu thereof, failure to reimburse expenses, failure to provide accurate wage statements, failure to pay all wages due upon termination, failure to comply with California Quota Laws, and unfair competition. On Aug. 16, 2024, the Defendants filed a motion to compel arbitration and dismiss, or alternatively stay the case, which Judge Daniel J. Calabretta granted in part and denied in part on Feb. 27, 2025. The Court ruled that the Plaintiff may proceed with her first and sixth causes of action on an individual basis, and must arbitrate her second, third, fourth, fifth, seventh, and eighth causes of action. As to the first and sixth cause of action, those claims were stayed pending the resolution of the claims that must be arbitrated. The appellate case is captioned Saul v. Lineage Logistics Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 25-2104, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 1, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on April 7, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on May 16, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on June 16, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Appellee FELICIA SAUL, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Ben Travis, Esq. BEN TRAVIS LAW, APC 4660 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92122 Defendants-Appellants LINEAGE LOGISTICS SERVICES, LLC, et al. are represented by: Samuel Eckman, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP 333 S. Grand Avenue Los Angeles, CA 90071 - and – Megan Cooney, Esq. GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP 3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1200 Irvine, CA 9261290071 - and – Alexandria Witte Rafizadeh, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 2049 Century Park East, 5th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90067 - and – Curtis A. Graham, Esq. LITTLER MENDELSON, PC 633 W. 5th Street, 63rd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 LOANCARE LLC: Tederick Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 4th Cir. ------------------------------------------------------------------ GARY TEDERICK, et al. are taking an appeal from court orders in the lawsuit entitled Gary Tederick, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Loancare, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:22-cv-00394-RAJ-DEM, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit is brought against the Defendant for violation of the fair debt collection provisions of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act (WVCCPA). On Jan. 27, 2023, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which Judge Raymond A. Jackson granted in part and denied in part on Oct. 2, 2023. The Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claim of fraud under West Virginia Code Sec. 46A-2-127 in Count 1 and unjust enrichment in Count 2 were granted. The Defendant's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claim of unfair or unconscionable conduct under West Virginia Code Sec. 46A-2-128 in Count 1 and conversion in Count 3 were denied. On Oct. 17, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. On Oct. 25, 2023, the Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, which the Defendant moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim on Nov. 8, 2023. On Mar. 21, 2024, Judge Jackson entered an Order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss. The motion to dismiss Counts II (Unjust Enrichment) and III (Conversion) was granted. The motion to dismiss Count I (WVCCPA claims) was denied. On Nov. 22, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, which Judge Jackson granted on Feb. 24, 2025. The Court concluded that the Plaintiffs cannot obtain relief under the WVCCPA. There is no genuine issue as to any material fact and LoanCare is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Thus, Summary Judgment was entered in LoanCare's favor. The appellate case is captioned Gary Tederick v. Loancare, LLC, Case No. 25-1315, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, filed on March 31, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants GARY TEDERICK, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq. Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES, P.C. 763 J. Clyde Morris Boulevard Newport News, VA 23601 Telephone: (757) 930-3660 - and – Anthony J. Majestro, Esq. POWELL & MAJESTRO, PLLC 405 Capitol Street P.O. Box 3081 Charleston, WV 25331 Telephone: (304) 346-2889 - and – Drew David Sarrett, Esq. CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES 626 East Broad Street Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 905-9900 - and – Andrew Skinner, Esq. Stephen Gibson Skinner, Esq. SKINNER LAW FIRM P.O. Box 487 Charles Town, WV 25414 Telephone: (304) 725-7029 Defendant-Appellee LOANCARE, LLC is represented by: Christopher Grafflin Browning, Jr., Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE LLP 305 Church at North Hills Street Raleigh, NC 27609 Telephone: (919) 835-4127 - and – Erica Calderas, Esq. Jacqueline Adele Meese-Martinez, Esq. HAHN, LOESER & PARKS, LLP 200 Public Square Cleveland, OH 44114 Telephone: (216) 621-0150 - and – John Curtis Lynch, Esq. Ethan G. Ostroff, Esq. TROUTMAN PEPPER LOCKE LLP 222 Central Park Avenue Virginia Beach, VA 23462 Telephone: (757) 687-7765 (757) 687-7541 MAPLEBEAR INC: Garcia et al. Sue Over Alleged BIPA Violations ------------------------------------------------------------- AMBER GARCIA; SIERRA WILSON; TERRY FRANCOIS; and VANIA MCINTYRE, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. MAPLEBEAR, INC. d/b/a INSTACART, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03757 (N.D. Ill., April 8, 2025) seeks to obtain redress for Plaintiffs and for other persons injured by Defendant's violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. Despite collecting, possessing, and otherwise using its Shoppers' facial biometric data, Defendant has failed to comply with BIPA's requirements. The Defendant discloses or otherwise disseminates the same data to its third-party software vendors, such as Mitek Systems or Persona Identities. However, the Defendant has failed to first inform Shoppers in writing that their biometric identifiers or biometric information would be collected or stored, failed to first inform Shoppers in writing of the specific purpose and the length of term for which the biometric identifiers or biometric information would be collected, stored and used, and failed to first receive a written release executed by Shoppers, all in violation of BIPA, says the suit. Headquartered in San Francisco, CA, Maplebear, Inc., d/b/a Instacart, operates an on-demand delivery service through a mobile phone application and website. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Thomas R. Kayes, Esq. LOEVY + LOEVY 311 N. Aberdeen St. Chicago, IL 60607 Telephone: (312) 243-5900 E-mail: kayes@loevy.com - and - Timothy P. Kingsbury, Esq. KINGSBURY LAW LLC 8 S. Michigan Ave., Ste. 2600 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 291-1960 E-mail: tim@kingsburylawllc.com MDL 2873: Prather Personal Injury Suit Transferred to D.S.C. ------------------------------------------------------------ The case styled as ROCKY PRATHER; JAMES ALLEN JR.; EVRIC ASBERRY; AUBREY RAY AUSTIN; WAYNE PAUL BACH; DAVID PATRICK BAIRD; KENYATTA CARTER; KAREN MARIE CATALANO; SANDRA CATER; MARIO COLLELO; ROBERT ALLEN COUCH; FRANCIS ENGLAND; BRUCE EYTON; NICOLE DANIELLE FREEMAN; TEONNA MAREE FRYE; STEVEN JOE GARCIA; GILBERT WILLIAM GRAJALES; CREIG GRIFFIN; ALAN GUILLOT; RICHARD ILARRINGTON JR.; MICHAEL PATRICK HART; STEVEN ANTHONY HASHIMOTO; REBECCA HAULENBEEK; SUNJUYUHWA HENDERSON; MELISSA MARIE HOLLAND-LOGAN; WILLIAM M HOLMES JR; DEREK HUGHES; WILLIAM ALEXANDER HURST; DEBORAH ANN KELLEY; DEBE KNUDSEN; THEODORE LEE; ANDRE MANGUM; JULIE MCGROTHA; NEIL MELTON; LINDA MARIE MILLER; NATALIE M. PARKER; DANIEL JOSEPH PEARCE; RALPH EDWARD PERDIGONE; OTIS PETRO; JACQUELINE PETTY; DENNIS KEITH PYEATT, SUSAN ROPELATO; JOSEPHINE RYALS; JAMES KIRK SHERWOOD; SCOTT CHARLES SIGALIS; WILLIAM ALFRED SMITH; ALEXIS SOMMA-HANSEN; DIANNE SOUTH; THOMAS JAMES STOKES SR.; GREGORY E STONE; TORI DONTA THOMPSON; CARLOS LEWIS TORRES; TERRY TREMBLAY; RANDY G. WARD; PATTIS WINGO; JOSHUA WRIGHT, Plaintiffs v. 3M COMPANY (f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company); AGC CHEMICALS AMERICAS INC.; AMEREX CORPORATION; ARCHROMA U.S. INC.; ARKEMA, INC.; BASF CORPORATION; BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT COMPANY; CARRIER GLOBAL CORPORATION; CHEMDESIGN PRODUCTS, INC.; CHEMGUARD, INC.; CHEMICALS, INC.; CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CHUBB FIRE, LTD; CLARIANT CORP.; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC.; DU PONT DE NEMOURS INC. (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; PERIMETER SOLUTIONS, LP; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor-in interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00370, was transferred from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama to the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina on April 2, 2025. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred this case to the District of South Carolina for inclusion in MDL 2873. Plaintiffs, Rocky Prather, et al., seek to hold Tyco and certain other Defendants liable based on their alleged conduct in designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, and/or selling aqueous film-forming foam that Plaintiffs allege caused them personal injuries. Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' AFFF contained per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, including perfluorooctanoic acid and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid, and that the use of these substances in AFFF caused contamination of the drinking water at Plaintiffs' homes and places of work, which in turn caused them personal injuries. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul, Minnesota.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Gregory M. Taube, Esq. NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH LLP 201 17th Street, NW, Suite 1700 Atlanta, GA 30363 Telephone: (404) 322-6000 Facsimile: (404) 322-6050 E-mail: greg.taube@nelsonmullins.com MEDIFY AIR: Wertheimer Sues For Air Purifiers, Filters' False Ads ----------------------------------------------------------------- SAHAR WERTHEIMER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MEDIFY AIR, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-03078 (C.D. Cal., April 8, 2025) arises from the false and misleading representations that Defendant made for years about its Medify MA-25, and MA-40 air purifiers, along with their respective replacement filters. According to the complaint, the Defendant represented that the Air Purifiers were equipped with "True" High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filters when in fact, they were not. Defendant also represented that the replacement filters it sells for the Air Purifiers are "True HEPA H13" or "HEPA H14" filters when in fact, they were not. Independent testing by Plaintiff's counsel has shown that the filters used in the Air Purifiers and the replacement filters do not meet HEPA standards. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now seeks a return of the HEPA-related premiums that Defendant charged for these products, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated purchasers, and asserts claims for: (i) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law; (ii) violation of California's False Advertising Law, (iii) violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act; (iv) fraud; and (v) unjust enrichment. Headquartered in Boca Raton, FL, Medify Air, LLC manufactures, distributes, advertises, and sells air purifiers and replacement filters. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Luke Sironski-White, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com lsironski@bursor.com - and - Greg Sinderbrand, Esq. SINDERBRAND LAW GROUP, P.C. 2829 Townsgate Road, Suite 100 Westlake Village, CA 91361 Telephone: (818) 370-3912 E-mail: greg@sinderbrandlaw.com MHM HEALTH: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Munoz Suit Alleges --------------------------------------------------------- LA-JONDA MUNOZ, individually and for others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. MHM HEALTH PROFESSIONALS, LLC d/b/a CENTURION PROFESSIONALS, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00596 (E.D. Va., April 8, 2025) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Munoz has worked for Defendant as a certified medical assistant in Lansing, KS since October 2020. Throughout her employment, Munoz has regularly worked more than 40 hours a workweek. Moreover, Defendant pays Munoz and the other class members additional forms of compensation including non-discretionary bonuses like bonuses for picking up additional shifts. However, the Defendant fails to include in their regular rates of pay for the purpose of calculating overtime. Headquartered in Sterling, VA, MHM Health Professionals provides medical and behavioral healthcare services to hospitals and community agencies. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Harris D. Butler, III, Esq. Craig J. Curwood, Esq. Zev H. Antell, Esq. Samantha R. Galina, Esq. BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 648-4848 Facsimile: (804) 237-0413 E-mail: harris@butlercurwood.com craig@butlercurwood.com zev@butlercurwood.com samantha@butlercurwood.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLP 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 E-mail: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com - and - William C. (Clif) Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 MOVE INC: Bandy Appeals Partial Case Dismissal, Arbitration Order ----------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES BANDY, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting in part the Defendants' motion to dismiss and motion to compel arbitration in the lawsuit entitled James Bandy, et al., individually and on behalf of and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Move, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-10492-SB-JPR, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the lawsuit, which was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, alleges that the Defendants sell lead generation services to licensed real estate agents across the United States that connect those real estate agents with potential home buyers. The Plaintiffs allege that the leads for potential home buyers sold to real estate agents included false and illegitimate leads. Based on those allegations, the Plaintiffs assert seven causes of action against the Defendants for: fraud (fraudulent inducement to enter a contract); breach of oral contract; breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing; fraud (misrepresentation); conversion; violation of the California Civil Legal Remedies Act (Notice Only); and unfair business practices. On Jan. 24, 2025, the Defendants filed motions to dismiss and compel arbitration, which Judge Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr. granted in part on Mar. 3, 2025. The Court dismissed Move Sales, Inc., OpCity, Inc., OpCity Acquisition, LLC, RIN, and RealSelect for lack of standing; dismissed NAR and News Corp. for lack of personal jurisdiction; and compelled Move and the Plaintiffs to arbitration. The Rule 12(b)(6) motion was denied as moot. The appellate case is captioned Bandy, et al. v. Move, Inc., et al., Case No. 25-2095, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on April 1, 2025. The briefing schedule in the Appellate Case states that: -- Appellant's Mediation Questionnaire was due on April 7, 2025; -- Appellant's Opening Brief is due on May 12, 2025; and -- Appellee's Answering Brief is due on June 10, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants JAMES BANDY, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Michael S. Traylor, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL TRAYLOR 9018 Balboa Boulevard, Suite 352 Northridge, CA 91325 Defendants-Appellees MOVE, INC., et al. are represented by: David Singer, Esq. Kate T. Spelman, Esq. JENNER & BLOCK, LLP 515 S. Flower Street, Suite 3300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 NATIONAL COLLEGIATE: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Ray Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION is taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled Shannon Ray, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Defendant, Case No. 1:23-cv-00425, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs brought this putative class action against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) for violation of Sec. 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. On Nov. 1, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify class. On Dec. 20, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion to exclude expert testimony of Dr. Orley Ashenfelter and Dr. Daniel Rasher on Class Certification. On Mar. 11, 2025, Senior District Judge William B. Shubb entered a Memorandum and Order granting the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification and denying the Defendant's motion to exclude expert testimony. The Court held that the Defendant has failed to establish that Dr. Ashenfelter's methodology is flawed or that there is a likelihood that he will improperly apply that method to the facts. Accordingly, the Defendant's motion to exclude Dr. Ashenfelter's expert report was denied. In addition, the Court found that the class certification requirements of Rules 23(a) and 23(b)(3) were satisfied. The certified class consists of: All persons who, from March 17, 2019, to June 30, 2023, worked for an NCAA Division I sports program other than baseball in the position of "volunteer coach," as designated by NCAA Bylaws. Plaintiffs Shannon Ray, Khala Taylor, Peter Robinson, Katherine Sebbane, and Rudy Barajas were appointed as class representatives. The law firms Gustafson Gluek, Kirby McInerney, and Fairmark Partners were appointed as co-lead class counsel. The appellate case is captioned Ray, et al. v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, Case No. 25-1952, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, filed on March 26, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Respondents SHANNON RAY, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Dennis Stewart, Esq. Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq. GUSTAFSON GLUEK, PLLC Canadian Pacific Plaza 600 W. Broadway, Suite 3300 San Diego, CA 92101 - and – Robert J. Gralewski, Jr., Esq. KIRBY MCINERNEY LLP 1420 Kettner Boulevard, Suite 100 San Diego, CA 92101 - and – Leonard Bruce Simon, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF LEONARD B. SIMON 655 W. Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 - and – Jamie Crooks, Esq. FAIRMARK PARTNERS, LLP 1001 G. Street, NW Suite 400 East Washington, DC 20001 Defendant-Petitioner NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION is represented by: Elaine Goldenberg, Esq. MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON, LLP 601 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Suite 500E Washington, DC 20001 - and – Carolyn Hoecker Luedtke, Esq. Justin Paul Raphael, Esq. MUNGER TOLLES & OLSON, LLP 560 Mission Street, 27th Floor San Francisco, CA 94105 NATIONAL UNIVERSITY: Dawson Sues Over Unlawful Data Collection -------------------------------------------------------------- JANIELLE DAWSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03498 (N.D. Ill., April 1, 2025) seeks to address Defendant's unlawful practice of integrating, installing and embedding third-party tracking technology, including the tracking technology of Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc., into nu.edu and its affiliated web properties. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant is knowingly disclosing to third parties its users' personally identifiable information, including their video-watching behavior, and allowing the third parties to intercept and obtain users’ federally-protected and confidential education records. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now asserts claims arising under the Video Privacy Protection Act, the Electronic Communications and Privacy Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, and the Illinois Eavesdropping Act. National University is a private nonprofit education system headquartered in San Diego, CA. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott R. Drury, Esq. DRURY LEGAL, LLC 6 Carriage Lane Highwood, IL 60040 Telephone: (312) 358-8225 E-mail: scott@drurylegal.com - and - Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. ARISOHN LLC 513 Eighth Avenue, #2 Brooklyn, NY 11215 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 E-mail: josh@arisohnllc.com NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Ohio Fund Appeals Class Suit Dismissal to 2nd Cir ------------------------------------------------------------------- OHIO CARPENTERS' PENSION FUND, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order dismissing the lawsuit entitled In Re Norfolk Southern Corporation Bond/Note Securities Litigation, Case No. 1:23-cv-04068-LAK-SLC, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The lawsuit is a putative class action against Norfolk Southern Corporation, individual Norfolk Southern officers and directors, and Norfolk Southern's underwriters concerning securities issued by Norfolk Southern. The Amended Complaint alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. All Defendants have moved to dismiss the amended complaint. In a thorough report and recommendation ("R&R"), Magistrate Judge Sarah Cave recommended that the motion be granted in part and denied in part. The Defendants object to so much of the R&R as recommended denial of a portion of their motion. On Feb. 27, 2025, Judge Lewis A. Kaplan sustained the Defendants' objections in substantial part of the R&R, and granted the motion to dismiss in its entirety. For the reasons stated in the R&R, the Court agreed that the Amended Complaint does not allege plausibly that Norfolk Southern violated any law or regulation or made any prior statement that triggered an obligation to disclose allegedly illegal or improper conduct. The Court held that the Defendants had no duty to disclose uncharged, purportedly illegal conduct. Accordingly, the Court granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss. The appellate case is entitled In Re Norfolk Southern Corporation Bond/Note Securities Litigation, Case No. 25-739, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, filed on April 1, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants OHIO CARPENTERS' PENSION FUND, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Alfred L. Fatale III, Esq. Guillaume Buell, Esq. Charles Wood, Esq. Charles J. Stiene, Esq. LABATON KELLER SUCHAROW LLP 140 Broadway New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 907-0700 Facsimile: (212) 818-0477 Email: afatale@labaton.com gbuell@labaton.com cwood@labaton.com cstiene@labaton.com Defendants-Appellees NORFOLK SOUTHERN CORPORATION, et al. are represented by: Jeremy Todd Adler, Esq. Michael G. Bongiorno, Esq. Ripley Shiarella, Esq. Samuel E. Frizell, Esq. Tamar Batya Kaplan−Marans, Esq. WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP 7 World Trade Center New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 230-8800 Email: jeremy.adler@wilmerhale.com michael.bongiorno@wilmerhale.com ripley.shiarella@wilmerhale.com samuel.frizell@wilmerhale.com tamar.kaplan-marans@wilmerhale.com OBI SEAFOODS: Fails to Protect Personal Info, Murrillo Says ----------------------------------------------------------- MARIELA MURRILLO, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OBI SEAFOODS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00588 (W.D. Wash., April 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff and other customers' personally identifiable information including, but not limited to, full names, Social Security numbers, demographic information, dates of birth, medical information, health insurance and claims information, government identifiers, bank account information, and, for some, the private information of employee/former employees' dependents and beneficiaries. On or about March 19, 2025, the Defendant notified State Attorneys General, Plaintiff, and many Class Members about the widespread data breach. While Defendant claims to have discovered the data breach as early as August 16, 2024, upon information and belief, the Defendant did not begin informing any or most of the victims of the data breach until mid-March 2025, about 7 months later. With this action, the Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it caused and will continue to cause Plaintiff and thousands of other similarly situated persons in a significant and preventable cyberattack, by which cybercriminals infiltrated Defendant's inadequately protected network servers and accessed and exfiltrated highly sensitive private information belonging to Plaintiff and Class Members which was being kept unprotected. Accordingly, the Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant seeking redress for its unlawful conduct and asserts claims on behalf of the Class for negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act. OBI Seafoods, LLC is a salmon-canning limited liability company, organized under the laws of Alaska.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kaleigh N. Boyd, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 E-mail: kboyd@tousley.com - and - Danielle L. Perry, Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 E-mail: dperry@masonllp.com ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: "Alleman" Settlement Remains Pending for OK --------------------------------------------------------------- On March 25, 2022, a customer of Orrstown Bank filed a putative class action complaint against the Bank in the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania, in a case captioned Alleman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Orrstown Bank. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Bank breached its account agreements by charging certain overdraft fees. The complaint seeks a refund of all allegedly improper fees, damages in an amount to be proven at trial, attorneys' fees and costs, and an injunction against the Bank's allegedly improper overdraft practices. This lawsuit is similar to lawsuits filed against other financial institutions pertaining to overdraft fee disclosures. On December 31, 2024, the Bank entered into a classwide settlement agreement. The Settlement Agreement provides for a payment by the Bank to the purported class in the amount of $478 thousand, in exchange for a mutual release of claims against all parties, and a stipulation that the lawsuit will be dismissed with prejudice. The Settlement Agreement does not include any admission of wrongdoing by the Bank. The Bank has agreed to settle the case in order to avoid the cost, risks and distraction of continued litigation. The proposed settlement contemplated by the Settlement Agreement is subject to preliminary and final court approval, Orrstown Financial Services, Inc., disclosed in a Form 10-K report for the year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Orrstown Financial Services, Inc. is a financial holding company that operates Orrstown Bank, a commercial bank providing banking and financial advisory services in Berks, Cumberland, Dauphin, Franklin, Lancaster, Perry and York Counties, Pennsylvania, and in Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Howard and Washington Counties, Maryland. It operates in the community banking segment and engages in lending activities, including commercial, residential, commercial mortgages, construction, municipal, and various forms of consumer lending, and deposit services, including checking, savings, time, and money market deposits. ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Appeals Period in SEPTA Suit Dismissal Expires ------------------------------------------------------------------ After years of litigation, on December 7, 2022, Orrstown Financial Services Inc. entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement to settle the putative class action lawsuit filed by the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority ("SEPTA") in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania against the Company, Orrstown Bank, certain current and former officers and directors of the Company and the Bank, the Company's former independent registered public accounting firm and the underwriters of the Company's March 2010 public offering of common stock asserting claims under the Federal securities laws. The Stipulation provided for a payment to the plaintiffs of $15.0 million, to which the Company contributed $13.0 million, a mutual release of claims against all parties, and a stipulation that the lawsuit would be dismissed with prejudice. On May 19, 2023, the Court issued an order which, among other things, gave final approval to the Stipulation and dismissed the lawsuit and all related claims with prejudice. The appeal period for this order expired on June 20, 2023, without any appeals having been filed. Orrstown Financial Services, Inc. is a financial holding company that operates Orrstown Bank, a commercial bank providing banking and financial advisory services in Berks, Cumberland, Dauphin, Franklin, Lancaster, Perry and York Counties, Pennsylvania, and in Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Howard and Washington Counties, Maryland. It operates in the community banking segment and engages in lending activities, including commercial, residential, commercial mortgages, construction, municipal, and various forms of consumer lending, and deposit services, including checking, savings, time, and money market deposits. ORRSTOWN FINANCIAL: Bank Faces PUTPCPL Suit in Pennsylvania ----------------------------------------------------------- On March 6, 2025, a customer of Orrstown Bank filed a putative class action complaint against the Bank in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, in a case captioned Pryde, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. Orrstown Bank. The complaint alleges, among other things, that the Bank violated the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, Regulation E and the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (PUTPCPL) when charging certain overdraft fees. The complaint seeks a refund of all allegedly improper fees, damages in an amount to be proven at trial, treble damages for violations of the PUTPCPL, attorneys' fees and costs, and an injunction against the Bank's allegedly improper overdraft practices. This lawsuit is similar to lawsuits filed against other financial institutions pertaining to overdraft fee disclosures. The Bank believes that the allegations and claims against the Bank are without merit. Based on information available at present, it is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate possible losses, or even a range of reasonably possible losses, in connection with the litigation. Accordingly, the Company has not recognized any liability associated with this action, 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. Orrstown Financial Services, Inc. is a financial holding company that operates Orrstown Bank, a commercial bank providing banking and financial advisory services in Berks, Cumberland, Dauphin, Franklin, Lancaster, Perry and York Counties, Pennsylvania, and in Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Howard and Washington Counties, Maryland. It operates in the community banking segment and engages in lending activities, including commercial, residential, commercial mortgages, construction, municipal, and various forms of consumer lending, and deposit services, including checking, savings, time, and money market deposits. PAYPAL INC: Fitzgerald et al. Sue Over Deceptive Business Practices ------------------------------------------------------------------- LILY FITZGERALD, IAN CROWLEY, ANTONIO MINICHIELLO, ALICIA FREEMAN, ANNABELLE REGAN, NICHOLAS MCDONALD, MICHAEL AMENTI, CALEB BRACKNEY, ABIGAIL ROSKIND, JORDAN LETURGEZ, and ANNABELLE CRUZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. PAYPAL, INC. and PAYPAL HOLDINGS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 5:25-cv-02993-SVK (N.D. Cal., April 1, 2025) arises from Defendants' deceptive practices in connection with its Honey browser extension. According to the complaint, PayPal falsely advertised that its Honey browser extension would help consumers "score the lowest price." Honey's deceptive business practices benefit PayPal to the detriment of consumers in that Honey's misrepresentations induce consumers to make purchases on which PayPal earns a commission. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs now seek redress for Paypal's unlawful conduct and assert claims for unjust enrichment, breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, and for violations of California Unfair Competition Law, California False Advertising Law, California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, New York General Business Law, Michigan Consumer Protection Act, Virginia Consumer Protection Act, Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act, West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act, New Hampshire Consumer Protection Act, Colorado Consumer Protection Act, District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act, Indiana Deceptive Consumer Sales Act, and Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act. Headquartered in San Jose, CA, PayPal Holdings, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that operates as a technology platform company. The company enables digital payments for consumers and merchants. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Adam M. Apton, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1160 Battery Street, East Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 1671 Telephone: (415) 373-2420 E-mail: aapton@zlk.com - and - Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq. Alyssa Tolentino, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 E-mail: cmaccarone@zlk.com atolentino@zlk.com PEREG NATURAL: Calcano Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind --------------------------------------------------------------- MARCOS CALCANO, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PEREG NATURAL FOODS INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02758 (S.D.N.Y., April 2, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. During Plaintiff's visits to the website, the last occurring on March 26, 2025, in an attempt to purchase Mixed Spices-Shawarma from Defendant and to view the information on the website, the Plaintiff encountered multiple access barriers that denied Plaintiff a shopping experience similar to that of a sighted person and full and equal access to the goods and services offered to the public and made available to the public. He was unable to locate pricing and was not able to add the item to the cart due to broken links, pictures without alternate attributes and other barriers on Defendant's website, says the suit. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Pereg Natural Foods Inc. operates the website that offers various condiments and spices.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal PLATFORM WASTE: Pharis Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages ------------------------------------------------------- TAYLOR PHARIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PLATFORM WASTE SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01054-SBP (D. Colo., April 2, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and unpaid compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Kentucky Wage and Hour Act. Although Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members have routinely worked (and continue to work) in excess of 40 hours per workweek, they were not paid overtime of at least one and one-half times their regular rates for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Platform Waste knowingly and deliberately failed to compensate Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members for all hours worked and the proper amount of overtime at the proper rate on a routine and regular basis during the relevant time period, says the suit. The Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective Members are those current and former hourly drivers and helpers who were employed by Platform Waste at any time from April 2, 2022, through the final disposition of this matter. Platform Waste Solutions, LLC is a full-service solid waste company providing waste collection, recycling, and disposal services to commercial, industrial, and residential customers throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Lauren E. Braddy, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 North Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com lauren@a2xlaw.com PLAYSTUDIOS INC: Continues to Defend Kuhk Class Suit in Washington ------------------------------------------------------------------ PlayStudios Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the Kuhk class suit in the Superior Court of the State of Washington. On February 20, 2024, Tyler Kuhk, a purported citizen of Washington, filed a class action lawsuit against PLAYSTUDIOS US, LLC in the Superior Court of the State of Washington for the County of King, alleging that PLAYSTUDIOS US, LLC makes available online games of chance that constitute illegal gambling under Washington law, that PLAYSTUDIOS US, LLC engaged in unfair and deceptive practices by advertising to and soliciting the general public in Washington state to play its unlawful online casino games of chance, and that PLAYSTUDIOS US, LLC was unjustly enriched by this conduct. The plaintiff seeks to recover all sums paid by Washington residents to PLAYSTUDIOS US, LLC in its online gambling games during an unspecified period of time under Washington's "Recovery of money lost gambling" statute, for treble damages under Washington's Consumer Protection Act, and for disgorgement and restitution of any money PLAYSTUDIOS US, LLC has retained through unlawful and/or wrongful conduct alleged in the lawsuit. The Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them; however, there can be no assurance that the Company will be successful in the defense of this litigation. The Company is not able to reasonably estimate the probability or amount of loss relating to this litigation and therefore has not made any accruals. Playstudios is the developer and operator of award-winning free-to-play casual games for mobile and social platforms. PLAYSTUDIOS INC: Felipe Class Suit Settlement for Court OK ---------------------------------------------------------- PlayStudios Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14, 2025, that the Felipe securities class suit settlement is subject to preliminary and final approval of United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Southern Division. On April 6, 2022, a class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, by a purported Company shareholder in connection with alleged federal securities law violations: Christian A. Felipe et. al. v. PLAYSTUDIOS, Inc. (the "Felipe Complaint"). On July 15, 2022, the Felipe Complaint was transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, Southern Division. On October 4, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an amendment to the Felipe Complaint. The Felipe Complaint names the Company, several current and former board members of the Company, board members and officers of Acies Acquisition Corp., and Andrew Pascal, the Company's Chairman and CEO, as defendants. The Felipe Complaint alleges misrepresentations and omissions regarding the state of the Company's development of the Kingdom Boss game and its financial projections and future prospects in the S-4 Registration Statement filed by Acies that was declared effective on May 25, 2021, the Proxy Statement filed by Acies on May 25, 2021, and other public statements that touted Old PLAYSTUDIOS' and the Company's financial performance and operations, including statements made on earnings calls and the Amended S-1 Registration Statement filed by the Company that was declared effective on July 30, 2021. The Felipe Complaint alleges that the misrepresentations and omissions resulted in stock price drops of 13% on August 12, 2021, and 5% on February 25, 2022, following (i) the Company's release of financial results for the second quarter of 2021, ended on June 30, 2021, and (ii) the filing of the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2021 and issuance of a press release summarizing financial results for the fourth quarter and year ended December 31, 2021, respectively. The Felipe Complaint seeks an award of damages for an unspecified amount. On January 20, 2025, the parties reached an agreement in principle to settle the matter. The settlement is subject to the parties' negotiation of a formal stipulation of settlement and all related documentation, which is currently in process. The settlement also will be subject to preliminary and final approval by the federal district court in which the case is pending. The matter will not be fully resolved until such approvals are issued, the case is dismissed, and judgment is entered by the court. Playstudios is the developer and operator of award-winning free-to-play casual games for mobile and social platforms. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS: Fails to Protect Minors' Info, Suit Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------------- S.H., minor, by and through their legal guardian Lisa Hegge; S.C., young adult, by and through their legal guardian, Casey Curtis; E.N., minor, by and through their legal guardian Kayla Nulf; M.B.H., by and through their legal guardian Sarah Blosser, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. POWERSCHOOL HOLDINGS, INC. and POWERSCHOOL LLC, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-10937-LVP-EAS (E.D. Mich., April 1, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act and the Michigan Identity Theft Protection Act. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiffs and similarly situated individuals stored within their computer system following a data breach in December 2024. The Defendants 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. PowerSchool Holdings, Inc. is a software company with its principal place of business located in Folsom, California. PowerSchool LLC is a software company with its principal place of business located in Folsom, California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: John P. Rondini, Esq. Matthew M. Jakubowski, Esq. Muhammad A. Siwani, Esq. BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C. 150 W. Second St., Suite 400N Royal Oak, MI 48067 Telephone: (248) 358-4400 Facsimile: (248) 358-3351 Email: jrondini@brookskushman.com mjakubowski@brookskushman.com msiwani@brookskushman.com PRIME TIME: Faces Orr Suit Over Illegal Personal Data Collection ---------------------------------------------------------------- ANNA ORR, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PRIME TIME HEALTHCARE LLC, a Nebraska limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-02871 (C.D. Cal., April 2, 2025) arises from the Defendants' violation of the California Trap and Trace Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant uses a trap and trace process by deploying the TikTok Software on its website, www.primetimehealthcare.com, because the Software is designed to capture the phone number, email, routing, addressing and other signaling information of website visitors, including Plaintiff's. As such, the TikTok Software is designed precisely to identify the source of the incoming electronic and wire communications to the website in violation of the California Trap and Trace Law. The Defendant also did not obtain consent from Plaintiff or any of the Class Members before using trap and trace technology to identify visitors of its website, says the suit. Prime Time Healthcare LLC is the proprietor of the website, an online platform that offers staffing services for healthcare workers.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert Tauler, Esq. Narain Kumar, Esq. TAULER SMITH LLP 626 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 927-9270 E-mail: robert@taulersmith.com nkumar@taulersmith.com PROFICIENT AUTO: Deluxe Auto Faces Former Employee's Suit in Calif. ------------------------------------------------------------------- In May 2024, a former employee filed claim against Deluxe Auto Carriers, Inc., a subsidiary of Proficient Auto Logistics, Inc., in Riverside County Superior Court in California. The putative class alleges that Deluxe failed to pay for meal and rest periods for time worked, off the clock work, overtime, business expenses, itemized wage statements, among other things. The Company is still evaluating this contingency and has included its best estimate of potential liability within accrued liabilities on the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2024, 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. The Company believes it is entitled to indemnification from the sellers of Deluxe for the potential liability relating to this contingency. PROFICIENT AUTO: Sierra Files Counterclaim in Worker's Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- In May 2020, an employee of Proficient Auto Logistics, Inc.'s Brokered segment filed claim against the Company's subsidiary, Sierra Mountain Group, Inc. and an officer of the Company in Sacramento County Superior Court in California. The putative class alleges that Sierra misclassified owner/operators as independent contractors, not as employees, in violation of the California Labor Code applicable to employees (meal and rest breaks, minimum wage, etc.). Sierra denies liability and filed a counterclaim against the Plaintiff for costs and attorneys' fees, 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. PROGRESS SOFTWARE: Bid to Dismiss MOVEit MDL Remains Pending ------------------------------------------------------------ On the evening of May 28, 2023, Progress Software Corporation learned that its MOVEit Transfer (the on-premise version) and MOVEit Cloud (a cloud-hosted version of MOVEit Transfer) products were attacked by a threat actor who compromised and exfiltrated personal data from various customer-controlled MOVEit Transfer environments (the "MOVEit Vulnerability"). As a result of the MOVEit Vulnerability, the Company is party to certain class action lawsuits filed by individuals who claim to have been impacted by the exfiltration of data from the environments of its MOVEit Transfer customers, which have been centralized in multi-district litigation in the District of Massachusetts. The MDL remains in a relatively early litigation stage in which motions to dismiss have been filed but not yet ruled upon, 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. In the event dismissals are not granted, the MDL is not expected to conclude within this fiscal year. The Company has also been cooperating with inquires and investigations from various governmental authorities, none of which have, as of this filing, resulted in any prosecution or enforcement actions. PSC is a Massachusetts-based software company that offers a wide range of software products and services to corporate and governmental entities throughout the United States and the world, including cloud hosting and secure file transfer services such as MOVEit Transfer. PROSOURCEFIT HOLDINGS: Fernandez Balks at Website's Access Barriers ------------------------------------------------------------------- JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PROSOURCEFIT HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02695 (S.D.N.Y., April 1, 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.prosourcefit.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. Prosourcefit Holdings, 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 PURPLE INNOVATION: Continues to Defend ADA Class Suit in New York ----------------------------------------------------------------- Purple Innovation Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the ADA class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On February 26, 2025, a consumer filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, against Purple LLC alleging website accessibility violations under the ADA and state law. The lawsuit seeks declaratory relief, class certification, attorneys' fees, costs, and other relief on behalf of the class. The Company denies all allegations and intends to vigorously defend against these claims. Purple Innovation, LLC operates as a technology company. The Company designs and manufactures cushions, pillows, and other comfort products. [BN] PURPLE INNOVATION: Continues to Defend Labor Class Suit in Calif. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Purple Innovation Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the labor class suit in California Superior Court in the County of Alameda. On July 24, 2024, a former part-time employee filed a class action lawsuit against Purple LLC in California Superior Court in the County of Alameda alleging failure to pay all wages, failure to pay overtime pay rate, failure to provide all meal periods, and other employment-related causes of action. The suit seeks damages, interest, attorneys' fees, costs and other relief on behalf of all non-exempt California employees of Purple LLC during the applicable statutory periods. On September 30, 2024, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding a claim for penalties under California's Private Attorneys General Act. Subsequent to this, Purple LLC and the plaintiffs agreed to mediate the claims and to stay formal discovery pending mediation, which is currently scheduled to take place on May 8, 2025. Purple LLC denies all allegations and intends to vigorously defend against these claims. Purple Innovation, LLC operates as a technology company. The Company designs and manufactures cushions, pillows, and other comfort products. [BN] PURPLE INNOVATION: Continues to Defend NOL Rights Plan Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Purple Innovation Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the NOL Rights Plan class suit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware. On February 10, 2025, a shareholder of the Company filed a class action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against Purple Inc. and the individual members of the Board alleging that Section 29 of the NOL Rights Plan violates Delaware General Corporate Law Sections 102(b)(7) and 141(a). The suit seeks declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees, costs, and other relief on behalf of the class. The Company denies all allegations and intends to vigorously defend against these claims. Purple Innovation, LLC operates as a technology company. The Company designs and manufactures cushions, pillows, and other comfort products. [BN] RB GLOBAL: Controls Construction Equipment Rental Prices, AXG Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ AXG ROOFING, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RB GLOBAL, INC.; ROUSE SERVICES LLC; UNITED RENTALS, INC.; SUNBELT RENTALS, INC.; HERC RENTALS INC.; HERC HOLDINGS INC.; H&E EQUIPMENT SERVICES, INC., and SUNSTATE EQUIPMENT CO., LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-03487 (N.D. Ill., April 1, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The case arises from the Defendants' alleged conspiracy to artificially increase construction equipment rental prices nationwide. According to the complaint, Defendant Rouse orchestrated a price-fixing scheme in the construction equipment rental market participated by Rental Company Defendants. Rouse and the Rental Company Defendants have violated and continue to violate U.S. antitrust laws. Instead of setting their rental rates independently, the Rental Company Defendants, who control much of the nation's construction equipment rental market, outsource rate-setting to a common entity-Rouse. By acting collectively through Rouse, the Rental Company Defendants eliminate competition between themselves. The Plaintiff brings this action to recover damages, trebled, as well as injunctive and other appropriate relief, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated. AXG Roofing, LLC is a construction company, headquartered in Illinois. RB Global, Inc. is a public company, headquartered in Illinois. Rouse Services LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of RB Global, Inc., headquartered in Beverly Hills, California. United Rentals, Inc. is a construction equipment rental company, headquartered in Connecticut. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. is a construction equipment rental company, headquartered in North Carolina. HERC Rentals Inc. is a construction equipment rental company, headquartered in Florida. HERC Holdings Inc. is a construction equipment rental company, headquartered in Florida. H&E Equipment Services, Inc. is a construction equipment rental company, headquartered in Louisiana. Sunstate Equipment Co., LLC is a construction equipment rental company, headquartered in Arizona. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Natasha J. Fernández-Silber, Esq. Abby Lemert, Esq. EDELSON PC 350 North LaSalle Street, 14th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 Telephone: (312) 589-6370 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 Email: nfernandezsilber@edelson.com alemert@edelson.com - and - Sarah R. LaFreniere, Esq. 1255 Union St. NE, Suite 850 Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 270-4777 Facsimile: (312) 589-6378 Email: slafreniere@edelson.com - and - Eric L. Cramer, Esq. Michaela Wallin, Esq. Zachary D. Caplan, Esq. Sarah Zimmerman, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 1818 Market Street, Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 875-3000 Email: ecramer@bm.net mwallin@bm.net zcaplan@bm.net szimmerman@bm.net - and - Daniel J. Walker, Esq. 1001 G Street, NW, Suite 400 East Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 559-9740 Email: dwalker@bm.net - and - Gary I. Smith, Jr., Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 580 California Street, 12th Floor San Francisco, CA 94101 Telephone: (415) 633-1908 Email: gsmith@hausfeld.com - and - Swathi Bojedla, Esq. 1200 17th Street N.W., Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 Email: sbojedla@hausfeld.com SANATECH PRINTING: Chitiva Sues Over Labor Law Breaches ------------------------------------------------------- HECTOR CHITIVA, Plaintiff v. SANATECH PRINTING, INC. and TAHA RAHMAN, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01803 (E.D.N.Y., April 1, 2025) is a class action seeking to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation, and other statutory damages for Plaintiff pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York Labor Law, and related provisions from Title 12 of New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations. The Plaintiff was employed primarily as a machine helper; he also glued books, among other tasks, under the direct supervision and control of Defendant Taha Rahman. In willful violation of their mandatory pay obligations under both federal and state law, Defendants not only underpaid Plaintiff's regular hourly rate but also systematically failed to pay Plaintiff the legally required overtime compensation for the period from November 13, 2023, through March 18, 2025. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings this action under the Wage Theft Prevention Act for Defendants' willful failure to provide written notice of wage rates in violation of said laws. SanaTech Printing, Inc. is engaged in commercial printing business in Woodside, NY. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 SENTURE LLC: Roy Seeks to Recover Call Center Staff's Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------------------ BENJAMIN ROY, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SENTURE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-00110-DCR (E.D. Ky., April 8, 2025) seeks to to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the provisions of Sections 207 and 216(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 as well as seeks to recover unpaid compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Kentucky Wage and Hour Act. Plaintiff Roy was employed by Senture as a call center employee in Kentucky. Throughout his employment with Senture, the Plaintiff did not receive compensation for all hours worked or the correct amount of overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek, says the suit. Headquartered in Kentucky, Senture, LLC is a subsidiary of Teleperformance, an outsourced customer contact service provider. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Clif Alexander, Esq. Austin W. Anderson, Esq. Carter Hastings, Esq. ANDERSON ALEXANDER, PLLC 101 N. Shoreline Blvd, Suite 610 Corpus Christi, TX 78401 Telephone: (361) 452-1279 Facsimile: (361) 452-1284 E-mail: clif@a2xlaw.com austin@a2xlaw.com carter@a2xlaw.com - and - Anne L. Gilday, Esq. THE LAWRENCE FIRM, PSC 535 Madison Ave., Suite 500 Covington, KY 41011 Telephone: (859) 578-9130 Facsimile: (859) 578-1032 E-mail: anne.gilday@lawrencefirm.com SERPENTARIUM LLC: Faces Jones Suit Over Website's Access Barriers ----------------------------------------------------------------- CLAY LEE JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE SERPENTARIUM, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02689 (S.D.N.Y., April 1, 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.snakemuseum.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 Serpentarium, 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 SHASTA ENTERPRISES: Ramirez Sues Over Unpaid Wages, Withheld Tips ----------------------------------------------------------------- JEILY RAMIREZ, DAYLIN RODRIGUEZ, MAILEY GARCIA, and ARLET LEON CASTELLANOS, on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs v. SHASTA ENTERPRISES, INC., d/b/a Night Trips Gentlemen's Club, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-00154-MTS (N.D. Okla., April 3, 2025) arises from the Defendant's alleged unlawful labor conduct in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the Oklahoma Protection of Labor Statute. According to the complaint, the Defendant failed to pay Plaintiffs and Class members at hourly rates for all hours worked as exotic dancers within the Defendant's Club in compliance with FLSA. The Defendant deducted, kept, or assigned earned tip wages Plaintiffs and Class members received from Defendant's customers while working as exotic dancers with the Club. Shasta Enterprises, Inc. owns and operates the Night Trips Gentlemen's Club located in Tulsa, Oklahoma.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jeffrey A. Taylor, Esq. 5621 North Classen Boulevard Oklahoma City, OK 73118 Telephone: (405) 286-1600 Facsimile: (405) 842-6132 E-mail: taylorjeff@MAC.com - and - Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER & GREENBERG, LLC 8757 Georgia Avenue, Suite 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 E-mail: GGreenberg@zagfirm.com SHOE SHOW: Mercedes Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------ LUIS MERCEDES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. SHOE SHOW, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02728 (S.D.N.Y., April 2, 2025) is a civil rights action against Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website, www.shoeshowmega.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers include but are 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 now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Shoe Show, Inc. operates the website and serves as a footwear retailer.[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 SMITH SPORT: Visually Impaired Can't Access Website, Calcano Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- MARCOS CALCANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SMITH SPORT OPTICS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02681 (S.D.N.Y., April 1, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York General Business Law. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://www.smithoptics.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. Smith Sport Optics, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 Email: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal SNACK SHOP: Faces Guaman Suit Over Alleged Labor Law Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- KATHY GUAMAN, Plaintiff v. SNACK SHOP LLC (DBA SNACK SHOP) and YUNIS N DIHYEM, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01802 (E.D.N.Y., April 1, 2025) is a class action seeking to recover, among other things, unpaid minimum and overtime wage compensation for Plaintiff pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff Guaman was employed primarily as a cashier by Defendants from approximately August 2023 until December 20, 2024. Despite the mandatory pay obligations under the FLSA and NYLL, the Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff her lawful overtime and minimum wages. In addition, the Defendants also failed provide any wage notices or statements throughout Plaintiff's entire period of employment, says the suit. Snack Shop LLC owns and operates a convenience store at 108-02A Roosevelt Ave, Queens, NY. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lina Stillman, Esq. STILLMAN LEGAL, P.C. 42 Broadway, 12th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 203-2417 Website: www.StillmanLegalPC.com SOUTHEAST SERIES: K.R. Sues Over Failure to Secure Clients' Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- K.R., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SOUTHEAST SERIES OF LOCKTON COMPANIES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-00423 (E.D. Mo., April 1, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence and negligence per se, breach of third-party beneficiary contract, invasion of privacy/intrusion upon seclusion, and unjust enrichment. 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 November 20, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Southeast Series of Lockton Companies, LLC is a company that provides insurance, risk management, and employee-benefit management services, with its principal place of business located in St. Louis, Missouri. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Maureen M. Brady, Esq. Lucy McShane, Esq. MCSHANE & BRADY, LLC 4006 Central Street Kansas City, MO 64111 Telephone: (816) 888-8010 Facsimile: (816) 332-6295 Email: mbrady@mcshanebradylaw.com lmcshane@mcshanebradylaw.com STYLE FORUM: Fernandez Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store ---------------------------------------------------------------- JACQUELINE FERNANDEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STYLE FORUM, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02698 (S.D.N.Y., April 1, 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.christopherguy.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. Style Forum, 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 SUNWARRIOR VENTURES: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Jones Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------- CLAY LEE JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SUNWARRIOR VENTURES, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02690 (S.D.N.Y., April 1, 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.sunwarrior.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. Sunwarrior Ventures, 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 TARGET CORP: Appeals Class Cert. Order in Sadler Suit to 3rd Cir. ----------------------------------------------------------------- TARGET CORPORATION, et al. are taking an appeal from a court order granting the Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled Krystal Sadler, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Target Corporation, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:23-cv-00030, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL") and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law ("NJWPL") by failing to pay her and similarly situated workers for all hours worked, including (1) pre-shift and post-shift time spent traveling to their assigned departments to clock in and out; and (2) time spent undergoing mandatory security screenings. On June 21, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a motion to certify class, which Judge Christine P. O'Hearn granted on Jan. 30, 2025. The Court held that the Plaintiff has satisfied the four class certification requirements set forth in Rule 23(a): numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. In addition, the Plaintiff has satisfied Rule 23(b)(3)'s requirements that (i) common questions of law or fact predominate over any questions affecting only individual members and (ii) a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. The appellate case is captioned Target Corporation, et al., Petitioners v. Krystal Sadler, Case No. 25-8012, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, filed on March 27, 2025. [BN] Plaintiff-Respondent KRYSTAL SADLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, is represented by: Matthew A. Luber, Esq. Tyler J. Burrell, Esq. Charles Joseph Kocher, Esq. Williams L. Carr, Esq. MCOMBER MCOMBER & LUBER, P.C. 39 E. Main Street Marlton, NJ 08053 Defendants-Petitioners TARGET CORPORATION, et al. are represented by: Patrick F. Hulla, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC 700 West 47th Street, Suite 500 Kansas City, MO 64112 Telephone: (816) 471-1301 Facsimile: (816) 410-1303 - and – Rebecca J. Rosen, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, PC 1735 Market Street, Suite 3000 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 970-9484 TOP ONE: Mercedes Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------ LUIS MERCEDES, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TOP ONE INTERNATIONAL CORP., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02729 (S.D.N.Y., April 2, 2025) is a civil rights action against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website, www.nywatchstore.com, to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law. According to the complaint, the website contains access barriers that prevent free and full use by the Plaintiff using keyboards and screen-reading software. These barriers include but are 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 now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Top One International Corp. owns, operates, and controls the website that offers a wide selection of brand-name wristwatches and accessories.[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 TOV FURNITURE: Cazares Sues Over Website's ADA Noncompliance ------------------------------------------------------------ AMELIA CAZARES, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. Tov Furniture, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00474-JPS (E.D. Wis., April 1, 2025), asserts claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff brings this civil rights action against Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant is denying blind and visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods and services it provides to its non-disabled customers through its website, says the Plaintiff. Headquartered in Cedarhurst, NY, Toy Furniture, Inc. owns and maintains the commercial website, https://tovfurniture.com, which offers furniture and home decor. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Davis B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street, Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (630) 478-0856 E-mail: Dreyes@ealg.law UNITED STATES: Montrois Files Appeal in Steel Suit -------------------------------------------------- BRITTANY MONTROIS, et al. are taking an appeal from court orders in the lawsuit entitled Adam Steele, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. United States of America, Defendant, Case No. 1:14-cv-01523-RCL, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The Plaintiffs filed this complaint against the Defendant to recover annual payments delineated as user fees to receive and renew a preparer tax identification number ("PTIN") to be placed on tax returns prepared by tax return preparers for others for compensation, and to prohibit the U.S. Treasury Department from charging such fees in the future. On Jan. 24, 2023, Judge Royce C. Lamberth entered an Order granting in part and denying in part the Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment; granting the Defendant's Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal; granting in part and denying in part the Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment; granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal; denying the Plaintiffs' Motion to Modify; granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File Document Under Seal; granting the Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to File; and denying the Plaintiffs' Motion to Take Judicial Notice. On Apr. 6, 2023, Judge Lamberth entered an Order granting the Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend/Correct. On Sept. 25, 2023, Judge Lamberth entered an Order denying the Plaintiffs' Motion for Judgment and Motion to Clarify. On Mar. 24, 2025, Judge Lamberth granted the Plaintiffs' Motion for Final Judgment as to Count 2 in their Second Amended Class Action Complaint. The appellate case is captioned Brittany Montrois, et al. v. USA, Case No. 25-5090, in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, filed on March 28, 2025. [BN] Plaintiffs-Appellants BRITTANY MONTROIS, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, are represented by: Allen Buckley, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF ALLEN BUCKLEY LLC 2900 Paces Ferry Road, Suite C-2000 Atlanta, GA 30339 - and – Deepak Gupta, Esq. GUPTA WESSLER LLP 2001 K. Street, NW, Suite 850 North Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 888-1741 - and – William Henry Narwold, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC One Corporate Center 20 Church Street, 17th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 882-1681 Defendant-Appellee UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is represented by: DOJ Appellate Counsel U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530 Telephone: (202) 514-2000 UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: Sued Over Unauthorized Personal Info Access ------------------------------------------------------------------- JANE DOE 1, JANE DOE 2, JANE DOE 3, JANE DOE 4, JANE DOE 5, JANE DOE 6, JANE DOE 7, JANE DOE 8, JANE DOE 9, JANE DOE 10, and JANE DOE 11, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN; the UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN; KEFFER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC, and MATTHEW WEISS, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-10946-JJCG-APP (E.D. Mich., April 2, 2025) seeks justice for the unauthorized access and misuse of personal information -- an abuse so severe that student-athletes are now receiving formal notification from the U.S. Department of Justice that their private information has been exposed, including Plaintiffs Jane Doe 10 and Jane Doe 11. According to the complaint, students and alumni connected to the University of Michigan from 2015 to 2023 -- many of them student-athletes -- have been subjected to a deeply troubling and unlawful breach of privacy, stemming from the actions of former University of Michigan football co-offensive coordinator and quarterback coach Matthew Weiss, whose violations of their privacy were facilitated by yet another recent incident of institutional negligence. The Regents and University breached their duty of care when University personnel failed to supervise and monitor Weiss adequately, resulting in the unlawful invasion of privacy of Plaintiffs and over a thousand others. Defendant Keffer breached its duty of care when it failed to have adequate measures in place to prevent the hacking by Weiss, resulting in the unlawful invasion of privacy of Plaintiff and over a thousand others. The Regents also breached their general supervision privileges over the University's expenditures after they failed to ensure that the University's millions of public dollars were allocated to protect the privacy of students, including student-athletes', private images and information, asserts the suit. The University of Michigan is a public university organized and existing under the laws of the State of Michigan. Keffer Development Services, LLC provides software solutions in the sports medicine industry.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lisa M. Esser, Esq. Richard L. Groffsky, Esq. Jason J. Thompson, Esq. Matthew G. Curtis, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Towne Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Telephone: (248) 355-0300 E-mail: LEsser@sommerspc.com rgroffsky@sommerspc.com JThompson@sommerspc.com MCurtis@sommerspc.com - and - Megan Bonanni, Esq. Kevin M. Carlson, Esq. Beth M. Rivers, Esq. Danielle Y. Canepa, Esq. PITT MCGEHEE PALMER BONANNI & RIVERS 117 W. Fourth Street, Suite 200 Royal Oak, MI 48067 Telephone: (248) 398-9800 E-mail: mbonnani@pittlawpc.com kcarlson@pittlawpc.com brivers@pittlawpc.com dcanepa@pittlawpc.com VIAND COFFEE: Alejandro Seeks to Recover Proper Wages ----------------------------------------------------- SANTIAGO CARRERA ALEJANDRO, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VIAND COFFEE SHOP OF 61 ST., INC. (d/b/a VIAND COFFEE SHOP), GEORGE KONTOGIANNIS, and THEODORE KATSIHTIS, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-02718 (S.D.N.Y., April 1, 2025) alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law. Plaintiff Carrera was employed as a dishwasher at Defendants' diner. Allegedly, Plaintiff worked for Defendants in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage, overtime, and spread of hours compensation for the hours that he worked. Moreover, the Defendants failed to maintain accurate recordkeeping of the hours worked, failed to pay Plaintiff appropriately for any hours worked, either at the straight rate of pay or for any additional overtime premium. Viand Coffee Shop of 61 St., Inc. owns, operates, or controls a diner located at 673 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10065 under the name “Viand Coffee Shop”. [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 WALGREENS BOOTS: Sends Unsolicited Marketing Emails, Stone Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------------ WINSTON STONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WALGREENS BOOTS ALLIANCE, INC., Defendant, Case No. _______ (Mass. Super., April 1, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of section 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act and the consumer protection laws of Massachusetts. The case arises from the Defendant's practice of sending marketing emails to customers, including the Plaintiff, despite numerous attempts to unsubscribe from Walgreens emails by clicking the "unsubscribe" link at the bottom of the email. The Plaintiff brings this action to enjoin the Defendant's harassment of its customers and recover damages on behalf of all others similarly situated. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. is a retail company doing business in Massachusetts. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David S. Godkin, Esq. James E. Kruzer, Esq. BIRNBAUM & GODKIN, LLP 1 Marina Park Drive, Suite 1410 Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 307-6100 Email: godkin@birnbaumgodkin.com kruzer@birnbaumgodkin.com - and - Philip L. Fraietta, Esq. Matthew A. Girardi, Esq. Julian C. Diamond, 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 mgirardi@bursor.com jdiamond@bursor.com ZEITGEIST INC: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Jackson Suit Says ------------------------------------------------------------------- SYLINIA JACKSON, on behalf of herself and all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZEITGEIST, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02884 (S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2025) arises from Defendant's failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its interactive website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant failed to make its website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, depriving Plaintiff and other blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services. Accordingly, the Plaintiff now brings this class action and asserts claims for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York State General Business Law. Headquartered in King of Prussia, PA, Zeitgeist, Inc. designs and manufactures watches, eyewear & bags. The company owns and maintains the website, https://lilienthal-berlin.com, which allows its customers to view and purchase its products. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES PLLC 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, NY 10003 Telephone: (212) 228-9795 Facsimile: (212) 982-6284 E-mail: Jeffrey@Gottlieb.legal Dana@Gottlieb.legal Michael@Gottlieb.legal ********* 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 ***