/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250417.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Thursday, April 17, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 77 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Butte-Silver Bow Sues over PFAS-Containing Gear 3M COMPANY: Molitor Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama AAVC: Sued Over Illegal Subverting of Competition ABEO SOLUTIONS: Yukna Alleges Data Privacy Violations AIR LINE PILOTS: Reynolds Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois AIRPORT MANAGEMENT: Must File Class Cert Opposition by April 18 AKA TREE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Yeoman Alleges ALLARITY THERAPEUTICS: "Mukeljic" Suit Dismissed AMBASSADOR GROUP: Class Settlement in DOYBI Gets Final Nod AMEREN ILLINOIS: Hawkins Balks at Workplace Race Discrimination AMICA MUTUAL: Bid for Prelim OK of Settlement Tossed w/o Prejudice ASP ISOTOPES: Intends to Defend "Corredor" Shareholder Suit ASPYR MEDIA: Mickelonis Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification AUSTIN SHERMAN: Standing Order Entered in Dunn Class Action AXT INC: Continues to Defend Shareholder Class Suit in New York BAKKT HOLDINGS: Faces Frankin Class Suit Over Share Price Drop BETTERHELP INC: Class Cert Briefing Deadlines Continued BETTERHELP INC: Class Cert Briefing Deadlines Continued in C.M. BETTERHELP INC: Class Cert Briefing Deadlines Continued in R.S. BIOVENTUS INC: Settlement Reached in Ciarciello Securities Suit BLUE RIDGE BANKSHARES: Settles Securities Suit after Mediation BOBA GUYS: Boba Pearls Contains Toxic Chemicals, Totten Says CANOPY GROWTH: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit CARIBOU BIOSCIENCES: Court Approves Settlement in Bergman Suit CARIBOU BIOSCIENCES: Faces Saylor Shareholder Suit over Disclosures CASA AZUL: Property Inaccessible to Disabled People, Wade Says CHUBB LTD: Must Oppose Class Cert. by April 25 CORNERSTONE BUILDING: Continues to Defend Water Island Class Suit CPI AEROSTRUCTURES: "Rodriguez" Terminated Following Settlement OK CROWDSTRIKE HOLDINGS: Airline Sensor-Related Suit Consolidated CROWDSTRIKE HOLDINGS: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Suit CS CONTRACT: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Response DELTA AIR LINES: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to June 30 DOCKSIDE CONDOMINIUMS: May Face Class Suit Over Tortious Conduct DONE GLOBAL: Bid for Class Certification Due March 13, 2026 FA BARTLETT: Parties in Bowen Seek to Amend Class Cert Briefing FASHION NOVA: Faces Hernandez Class Suit Over Fake Regular Prices FIRST COMMUNITY BANKSHARES: To Settle Securities Suit for $4.8MM FLORIDA: Immigrant Coalition Seeks to Enjoin S.B. 4C Enforcement GEORGE JUNIOR: Dismissed from Clark Class Action GRINDR INC: Settlement in Data Privacy Suit for Court OK HEALTHLINE MEDIA: Velasco Sues Over Data Privacy Violations HP INC: Zimmerman, et al., Appointed as Class Counsel in MEHC IMMUNITYBIO INC: Settlement Class Gets Provisional Certification INTRASYSTEMS LLC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Hochberg Says KRAFT HEINZ: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Sisca Suit Due July 9 LEAD DOG: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Reply LEE UNIVERSITY: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Vaught Alleges LENDINGTREE LLC: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment v. Sapan LIBERTY MUTUAL: Blain's Bid for Class Cert Tossed w/o Prejudice LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend Grink Class Suit in N.J. LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend Morgan Class Suit in Texas LIVE NATION: Amended Bid to Compel Arbitration in Paxson OK'd LOS ANGELES, CA: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Berg Due Sept. 12 MAIDEN HOLDINGS: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal MCA MERRILLVILLE: Napoleon Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class MCGILL UNIVERSITY: Student Sues Over Discrimination, Antisemitism MDL 2724: Settlement in Antitrust Suit Gets Initial Nod MINT URBAN: Jury Rules Payment of $13.5M in Property False Ads Suit NATIONWIDE INSURANCE: Court Dismisses Nutt Class Suit NONSTOP ADMINISTRATION: Settlement Class Gets Certification NORTHEAST ORTHOPAEDICS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Wallen Says NORWOOD FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend MOVEit Class Suit OS RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Yarbrough Alleges PACIFIC GAS: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Capitola Village Explosion PROMPTCARE COMPANIES: Hicks Seeks Hourly Workers' Unpaid Wages RCP MEATS: Wee-Ellis Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind SLEEP NUMBER CORP: Faces Consumer Suit in California SOAREN MANAGEMENT: Faces Gill Class Over Loansharking Scheme SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended SPROUTS FARMER'S: Butter Products Contain Toxic Cadmium, Hart Says STAPLES CONTRACT: Class Cert. Filing in Felix Continued to June 2 SYSTEM1 INC: Settlement Reached in Consumer Subscription Suit TAPESTRY INC: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Ayala Due July 25 TESLA INC: Hinton Suit Removed from State Court to C.D. Cal. TOWN AND COUNTRY BANK: Settlement Reached in Securities Suit TRUECARE PROPERTY: Disclose Data Without Consent, Wright Alleges TRULIEVE HOLDINGS: Faces Class Suit Over THC Content in Edibles TRULIEVE HOLDINGS: Faces Class Suit Over THC Content in Edibles ULTA BEAUTY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, El Sayed Suit Claims UNIVERSAL MUSIC: Shah Sues Over Illegal Wiretapping UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Dawson Sues Over Data Privacy Violations VIATRIS INC: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit VIP PRO: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind Users, Wills Says WEBY CORP: Jones Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind WINDSOR FASHIONS: Initial Case Order Entered in Petersen Suit XPONENTIAL FITNESS: Continues to Defend Federal Securities Suit XPONENTIAL FITNESS: McGill Class Suit Settlement for Court Approval YAHOO INC: Baker Sues Over Unlawful Interception of Communications ZELIS HEALTHCARE: Danny Bachoua Sues Over Destructive Market ZR CONSULTING: Mott Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia ZWILLING J.A.: Rodriguez Removed from State Ct. to C.D. Cal. [^] Most Active Class Action Firms of 2024 Announced ********* 3M COMPANY: Butte-Silver Bow Sues over PFAS-Containing Gear ----------------------------------------------------------- The City and County of Butte-Silver Bow, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY (F/K/A MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY); DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC; CORTEVA, INC.; GLOBE MANUFACTURING COMPANY, LLC; W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC.; and LION GROUP, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-00036-KLD (D. Mont., April 3, 2025), is brought against Defendants for harm resulting from the sale of turnout gear containing PFAS to fire departments and fire responding agencies. 3M and Chemours intentionally manufactured, distributed, marketed, and/or sold PFAS to companies, including Defendants Globe, Gore, and Lion, which also manufacture, distribute, or sell turnout gear without disclosing to Plaintiffs and the putative class the dangers of PFAS that were known to each of those entities. For decades, while fully aware of the health risks posed by PFAS products, Defendants, through a common enterprise (the "PFAS Concealment Enterprise"), sold PFAS-infused products to fire departments and public entities that respond to fires without disclosing the toxicity of turnout gear. Defendants never disclosed to fire departments and public entities using turnout gear that PFAS in turnout gear is extremely dangerous to health, property, and the environment. Instead, those entities collaborated to conceal the truth and such concealment was a common purpose of the PFAS Concealment Enterprise. Although some Defendants have paid billions of dollars as a result of water pollution from their PFAS production, Defendants in this action have not paid a dime for selling turnout gear infused with PFAS to fire departments. Plaintiff files this action to remedy that injustice. The presence of PFAS in turnout gear requires that the PFAS-impregnated gear be replaced as soon as possible. The cost of turnout gear (excluding respirators) is approximately $3,000 per suit, with many departments providing two suits for each firefighter. There are approximately 1,042,000 firefighters in the United States, so replacement costs could and should run into the billions. The Plaintiff, on behalf of a class of fire departments and responding agencies who bought turnout gear treated/infused with PFAS, brings claims under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act ("RICO") and various state laws seeking damages in the form of money to replace turnout gear and a corrective notice to all members of the class that provides a proper warning regarding the dangers of PFAS infused turnout gear, says the complaint. The Plaintiff, the City and County of Butte-Silver Bow, in the state of Montana, is a consolidated city and county government. 3M Company ("3M"), formerly known as Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company, is a Delaware corporation that does business throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. Bliven, Esq. BLIVEN LAW FIRM, PC 704 S. Main Kalispell, MT 59901 Phone: (406) 755-6828 Email: mike@blivenlawfirm.com - and - John Heenan, Esq. HEENAN & COOK 1631 Zimmerman Trail Billings, MT 59102 Phone: (406) 839-9091 Email: john@lawmontana.com - and - Steve W. Berman, Esq. Craig R. Spiegel, Esq. HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP 1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 623-7292 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 Email: steve@hbsslaw.com craigs@hbsslaw.com 3M COMPANY: Molitor Suit Removed to N.D. Alabama ------------------------------------------------ The case styled as John Molitor, et al., and others similarly situated, and also on behalf of all aggrieved employees v. 3M COMPANY, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co.; 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 CORPORATION; CORTEVA, INC.; DAIKIN AMERICA, INC.; DEEPWATER CHEMICALS, INC., DUPONT DE NEMOURS INC., (f/k/a DOWDUPONT INC.); DYNAX CORPORATION; E. I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY; JOHNSON CONTROLS, INC.; KIDDE PLC; NATION FORD CHEMICAL COMPANY; NATIONAL FOAM, INC.; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY; TYCO FIRE PRODUCTS LP, as successor in interest to The Ansul Company; UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION; UTC FIRE & SECURITY AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC. (f/k/a GE Interlogix, Inc.), inclusive, Case No. 01-CV-2025-900751.00 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 on April 2, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00487-JHE. 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 ("AFFF") that Plaintiffs allege were used in firefighting activities, thereby causing injury to Plaintiffs.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: M. Christian King, Esq. Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq. W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq. LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C. The Clark Building 400 North 20th Street Birmingham, AL 35203-3200 Phone: (205) 581-0700 Email: cking@lightfootlaw.com hprater@lightfootlaw.com lradney@lightfootlaw.com AAVC: Sued Over Illegal Subverting of Competition ------------------------------------------------- Riley Amore; and Caroline Parker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF VETERINARY CLINICIANS (AAVC); SOLUTION INNOVATIONS, INC.; VCA ANIMAL HOSPITALS, INC.; BLUEPEARL OPERATIONS, LLC; MEDVET ASSOCIATES, LLC; RED BANK VETERINARY HOSPITAL, P.C.; UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA SCHOOL OF VETERINARY MEDICINE; CUMMINGS SCHOOL OF VETERINARY MEDICINE AT TUFTS UNIVERSITY; PATHWAY VET ALLIANCE, LLC; THE ANIMAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC., Case No. 7:25-cv-00229-EKD-CKM (W.D. Va., April 2, 2025), is brought against the Defendants who are a consortium of organizations that have illegally subverted the system of free competition in the U.S. labor market for veterinary interns and residents. Instead of competing to hire veterinary interns and residents and allowing these individuals to negotiate better terms of employment and move between employers, Defendants have collectively designed and agreed to participate in a scheme that intentionally suppresses competition by forcing all such individuals to apply for employment through a system called the Veterinary Internship and Residency Matching Program (the "VIRMP"). The rules of VIRMP eliminate the prospective employees' ability to negotiate over the terms of employment they are offered, restricts them from moving between employers after they are hired, bars them from applying for veterinary internship and residency positions outside of the VIRMP, and provides the means for Defendants to police their co-conspirators compliance with these rules. The VIRMP, in conjunction with the rules that govern it, is an anticompetitive agreement between virtually every employer of veterinary interns and residents in the United States, as well as the American Association of Veterinary Clinicians, and Solution Innovations, Inc. The employers and institutions comprising and participating in the VIRMP further conspire to suppress, fix, stabilize, and standardize the compensation of veterinary interns and residents by exchanging competitively sensitive compensation information regarding residents' salaries and other employment benefits. As a result of this anticompetitive conspiracy, veterinary interns and residents have suffered from artificially suppressed wages and employment benefits and been unable to improve their working conditions. The Plaintiffs bring this action, individually and on behalf of the proposed Class, to seek redress for the harm caused by Defendants' breach of the Sherman Act and to stop their illegal conspiracy, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed as veterinary interns. The Defendant AAVC is a membership organization with both individual veterinary clinician members and institutional members.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Roman Lifson, Esq. David B. Lacy, Esq. CHRISTIAN & BARTON, LLP 901 E. Cary Street, Suite 1800 Richmond, VA 23219 Phone: (804) 697-4100 Fax: (804) 697-6112 Email: rlifson@cblaw.com dlacy@cblaw.com - and - Frank S. Hedin, Esq. Julie Holt, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 610 Miami, FL 33131 Phone: (305) 357-2107 Email: fhedin@hedinllp.com jholt@hedinllp.com - and - Tyler K. Somes, Esq. HEDIN LLP 1100 15th Street NW, Ste 04-108 Washington, D.C. 20005 Phone: (202) 900-3331 Email: tsomes@hedinllp.com - and - Matthew J. Perez, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 24th Floor Phone: (212) 233-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 Email: matt.perez@scott-scott.com - and - Patrick McGahan, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 156 South Main Street P.O. Box 192 Colchester, CT 06145 Phone: (860) 537-5537 Facsimile: (860) 537-4432 Email: pmcgahan@scott-scott.com ABEO SOLUTIONS: Yukna Alleges Data Privacy Violations ----------------------------------------------------- KRISTIN YUKNA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ABEO SOLUTIONS, LLC D/B/A CRYSTAL PRACTICE MANAGEMENT; SCHEDULE YOUR EXAM, LLC; and MORFOOT FAMILY EYE CARE LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-03658 (April 4, 2025) alleges violation of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that unbeknownst to the Plaintiff and other visitors to the Defendants' websites, their private personal and health information was not actually being kept private. Each of the Plaintiff and Class Members used the Portal and had their personal Sensitive Health Information tracked by Defendants using the Tracking Tools. However, the Defendants never obtained authorization from the Plaintiff or Class Members to share their Sensitive Health Information with third parties. At all times relevant to this action, the Plaintiff and Class Members gave no informed consent for information about their Sensitive Health Information to be transmitted to the third parties, including the largest advertiser and compiler of user information, says the suit. Abeo Solutions Inc. is a software development, hospitals & clinics, and software company. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kyle McLean, Esq. Tyler J. Bean, Esq. Sonjay C. Singh, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 745 Fifth Avenue, Suite 500 New York, NY 10151 Telephone: (212) 532-1091 Email: kmclean@sirillp.com tbean@sirillp.com ssingh@sirillp.com AIR LINE PILOTS: Reynolds Suit Transferred to N.D. Illinois ----------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jessica Reynolds, and others similarly situated v. Air Line Pilots Association, International, Case No. 2:24-cv-01422 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on April 2, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-03553 to the proceeding. The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Railway Labor Act. The Air Line Pilots Association, International -- https://www.alpa.org/ -- is the largest pilot union in the world, representing more than 79,000 pilots from 42 US and Canadian airlines.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shmuel Shmelke Kleinman, Esq. Frank Bartela, Esq. Patrick J. Perotti, Esq. Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq. DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A. 60 South Park Place Painesville, OH 44077 Phone: (440) 352-3391 Email: skleinman@dworkenlaw.com fbartela@dworkenlaw.com pperotti@dworkenlaw.com nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com The Defendant is represented by: Julie C Ford, Esq. DOLL, JANSEN & FORD 111 West First Street, Suite 1100 Dayton, OH 45402-1156 Phone: (937) 461-5310 Email: jford@djflawfirm.com - and - Evin Farber Isaacson, Esq. Jim K. Lobsenz, Esq. Joshua J. Ellison, Esq. AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, INT'L 7950 Jones Branch Drive, Ste. 400s McLean, VA 22102 Phone: (703) 481-2440 Email: evin.isaacson@alpa.org Jim.Lobsenz@alpa.org Joshua.Ellison@alpa.org AIRPORT MANAGEMENT: Must File Class Cert Opposition by April 18 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SHUNDREA HARDY, v. AIRPORT MANAGEMENT SERVICES, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-03945-FLA-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando Aenlle-Rocha entered an order approving stipulation to set briefing schedule and hearing date on motion for class certification: 1. The Plaintiff Shundrea Hardy's deadline to file a motion for class certification shall be March 28, 2025. 2. The Defendant Airport Management Services, LLC's deadline to file an opposition to the Motion shall be April 18, 2025. 3. The Plaintiff's deadline to file a reply brief in support of the Motion shall be April 25, 2025. 4. A hearing on the motion is set for May 9, 2025, at 1:30 p.m. A copy of the Court's order dated March 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bemhRj at no extra charge.[CC] AKA TREE: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Yeoman Alleges --------------------------------------------------- JUSTIN YEOMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. AKA TREE SERVICE, LLC; and JACOB SOLTYSIAK, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-00086-RWS (N.D. Ga., April 4, 2025) seeks to recover from the Defendants unpaid wages and overtime compensation, interest, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff Yeoman was employed by the Defendants as a laborer. AKA Tree Service, LLC offers tree removal, tree trimming, stump grinding, lot clearing, and tree services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Carlos V. Leach, Esq. Jordan P. Rose, Esq. THE LEACH FIRM, P.A. 1560 N. Orange Ave., Suite 600 Winter Park, FL 32789 Telephone: (407) 574-4999 Facsimile: (833) 423-5864 Email: cleach@theleachfirm.com jrose@theleachfirm.com ppalmer@theleachfirm.com ALLARITY THERAPEUTICS: "Mukeljic" Suit Dismissed ------------------------------------------------ On September 13, 2024, a purported class action captioned Osman Mukeljic v. Allarity Therapeutics, Inc., et al, 1:24-cv-06952, was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Allarity Therapeutics, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers. The complaint alleged, among other things, that defendants made false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose information related to Dovitinib NDA's continued regulatory prospects and purported misconduct in connection with the Dovitinib NDA and/or the Dovitinib-DRP PMA. The complaint asserted violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder against all defendants as well as violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants. On February 26, 2025, the Company issued a press release announcing the dismissal of this class action lawsuit, 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. Allarity Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: ALLR), is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company, engages in developing oncology therapeutics using drug-specific companion diagnostics generated by its drug response predictor technology. Its drug candidates include Stenoparib, a poly-ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitor that is in Phase 2 clinical trials for ovarian cancer; Dovitinib, a pan- tyrosine kinase inhibitor for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma; IXEMPRA, a microtubule inhibitor for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer; LiPlaCis, a liposomal formulation of cisplatin, which is in Phase 2 clinical trials for metastatic breast cancer; and 2X-111, a liposomal formulation of doxorubicin that is in Phase 2 clinical trials for metastatic breast cancer and glioblastoma multiforme. The company was incorporated in 2004 and is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts. AMBASSADOR GROUP: Class Settlement in DOYBI Gets Final Nod ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DEL OBISPO YOUTH BASEBALL, INC. d/b/a DANA POINT YOUTH BASEBALL, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated individuals and entities, v. THE AMBASSADOR GROUP LLC d/b/a AMBASSADOR CAPTIVE SOLUTIONS, et al., Case No. 8:21-cv-00199-SPG-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett entered an order as follows: 1. Granting the Plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class action settlement; 2. Certifying the Settlement Class, as described supra section I.C.1 for settlement purposes only; 3. Approving the amended settlement agreement; 4. Appointing the Plaintiff DPYB as Class representative; 5. Appointing Michael F. Ram and Marie N. Appel of Morgan & Morgan Complex Litigation Group and Gretchen M. Nelson and Gabriel S. Barenfeld of Nelson & Fraenkel LLP as Class Cousel. 6. Appointing CPT Group, Inc., as the Settlement Administrator; 7. Granting a service award of $1,000 to the class representative; and 8. Granting the fees motion, awarding attorneys' fees and expenses of $ 65,000 to Class Counsel. No later than 14 calendar days from the date of this order, the Plaintiffs' counsel shall submit to the Court a proposed judgment in accordance with this order. The Court finds that the parties have negotiated the Amended Settlement Agreement at arm's length. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of approval of the proposed Settlement. The Amended Settlement Agreement seeks to certify a nationwide settlement class ("Settlement Class") defined as: "All members of PONY National that purchased a general commercial, accident, directors' and officers', auto and/or other type of policy bounded by Gagliardi Insurance Services, Inc. and that made such purchase in the United States on or after Jan. 1, 2018 through Jan. 28, 2021." Excluded from the Settlement Class are "(i) Ambassador and its officers and directors; (ii) all Settlement Class Members who timely and validly request exclusion from the Settlement Class; and (iii) the Judge or Magistrate Judge to whom the action is assigned and, any member of those Judges' staffs or immediate family members." The case is a nationwide class action lawsuit brought by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff is a nonprofit organization that provides "the means for community youth in South Orange County to develop qualities and attributes through baseball." The Plaintiff is a member of "Protect Our Nation’s Youth Baseball, Inc.," a larger nonprofit organization that is comprised of over 500,000 players in 4,000 leagues located throughout the United States and in more than 40 countries On January 28, 2021, the Plaintiff filed its Class Action Complaint against Defendants Ambassador, White, Performance, and Goldenstar, alleging five causes of action: (1) Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO); (2) conversion; (3) unjust enrichment; (4) unfair competition; and (5) negligence. Ambassador is a property investment, development, asset management, capital raising, and advisory business. A copy of the Court's order dated March 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=n72tun at no extra charge.[CC] AMEREN ILLINOIS: Hawkins Balks at Workplace Race Discrimination --------------------------------------------------------------- SOLOMON HAWKINS, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMEREN ILLINOIS COMPANY, JEFFREY B. BURK, INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF ELECTRICAL WORKERS, ANTHONY COOK, JAKE ELLIS, and KYLE STORM, Case No. 3:25-cv-00503 (S.D. Ill., April 2, 2025) is a class action suit brought to remedy a pervasive policy and practice of race discrimination and harassment instituted and maintained by the Defendants in a continuing violation of federal law on behalf of all prospective, former, current, and future Black non-management applicants for and employees within Ameren Illinois' Apprentice and Skilled Craft workforce. The Plaintiff, and the class he seeks to represent, alleges that Ameren and Jeffrey Burk employ discriminatory company-wide policies and practices regarding hiring, testing, training, assigning duties and overtime opportunities, reviewing, evaluating, following union contracts, extending probationary terms, implementing discipline, and other opportunities. These discriminatory practices unlawfully prevent the hiring of Black individuals; segregate Ameren's workforce; deny Black employees income and advancement opportunities; and cause the probation extension, discipline, or termination of Black employees because of their race. The Plaintiff, and the class he seeks to represent, alleges that IBEW and Tony Cook employ discriminatory union-wide policies and practices regarding representation of Black applicants for and employees within Ameren, through IBEW's individual actions and working in concert with Ameren. These discriminatory practices unlawfully prevent the hiring of Black individuals, segregate Ameren's workforce, deny Black individuals income and advancement opportunities, and cause the discipline or termination of Black individuals because of their race, says the suit. The Plaintiff, and the class he seeks to represent, alleges that Ameren, Jeffrey Burk, IBEW, and Tony Cook worked in concert to effectuate company-wide and union-wide policies and practices that created systemic discrimination, segregation, harassment and retaliation of Black individuals within Ameren's Apprentice and Skilled Craft workforce. This lawsuit is brought by the Plaintiff on behalf of himself and other Black individuals who applied at, work for, or previously worked for Ameren and have been harmed by Defendant's company-wide pattern or practice of race discrimination and discriminatory policies and practices. The action seeks class-wide injunctive relief and an end to the Defendants' discriminatory practices. AMEREN ILLINOIS COMPANY is an is an American power company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Diana E. Wise, Esq. WISE LAW LLC W Highway 50, No. 601 O'Fallon, IL 62269 Telephone: 217-556-8036 E-mail: dwise@wiseconsumerlaw.com AMICA MUTUAL: Bid for Prelim OK of Settlement Tossed w/o Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Chase Whitehead, v. Amica Mutual Insurance Company, Case No. 2:22-cv-01978-DJH (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Diane J. Humetewa entered an order denying without prejudice the Plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement and certification of the Settlement Class. Further, the Court gives the Plaintiff leave to affirmatively show how it has satisfied all the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b). Because the Plaintiff has failed to meet its burden of affirmatively showing that it has satisfied all the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b), the Court said it cannot certify the class. The case alleges a theory of liability concerning the stacking of multi-vehicle insurance coverage under A.R.S. section 20-259.01. In October 2022, the Plaintiff sought class certification in Maricopa County Superior Court on behalf of himself and those individuals with stacked uninsured motorist ("UM") or underinsured motorist ("UIM") policies with Defendant alleging claims of breach of insurance contract and bad faith under A.R.S. section 20-259.01. The Plaintiff alleged that he was injured in an automotive collision that resulted in over $160,000 in damages, fault was uninsured. The Plaintiff had a policy with Defendant that insured two vehicles at $100,000 per person and an aggregate limit of $300,000 per collision. The Plaintiff alleged that Defendant would not allow him to stack the two vehicles' coverages despite not complying with A.R.S. section 20-259.01(H). and the non-party at Under the Settlement Agreement, the Defendant would pay a maximum settlement amount of $2,8750,000.00. The Settlement Agreement provides for the following allocation of the Settlement Fund: (1) up to $15,300 to the Settlement Administrator, Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc.; (2) $7,500 to the Class Representative; (3) 30% to be paid to Class Counsel for attorneys' fees; and (4) estimated litigation costs of up to $13,000.00. Under the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the proposed Settlement Class is composed of: "All persons insured under an insurance policy issued by the Defendant in Arizona that covered more than one vehicle for uninsured or underinsured motor vehicle insurance, and who received the limit of liability for the uninsured or underinsured benefits for only one unit of (or one vehicle's) UM or UIM coverage during the Class Period." Amica Mutual offers auto, home and life insurance. A copy of the Court's order dated March 20, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=PNWiUv at no extra charge.[CC] ASP ISOTOPES: Intends to Defend "Corredor" Shareholder Suit ----------------------------------------------------------- On December 4, 2024, a purported stockholder of ASP Isotopes Inc. filed a putative securities class action on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities between October 30, 2024 through November 26, 2024 against ASP Isotopes Inc. and certain of its executive officers in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Corredor v. ASP Isotopes Inc., et al., Case No. 1:24-cv-09253 (S.D.N.Y)). The Securities Class Action alleges that the Company, its chief executive officer and chief financial officer made materially misleading or false statements or omissions regarding the Company's business and asserts purported claims under §§ 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages, attorney's fees and costs. The 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 that the Defendants intend to vigorously defend against the Securities Class Action; however, the Company said it cannot be certain of the outcome and, if decided adversely to the Company, its business and financial condition may be adversely affected. ASPYR MEDIA: Mickelonis Suit Seeks Rule 23 Class Certification -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Malachi Mickelonis, Joseph Afilani, Jacob Alva-Melville, Micaiah Flores, Matthew Gorka, Jared Hilliard, Charles Kirk, David Kirkland, Yale Liebowitz, Jacob Mueller, Kevin Munoz, Colebie Niedermeier, Joshua Palmer, Bryce Phillips, Christopher Sousa, Rolando Vazquez, Adrian Villa, Brian Walsh, and Nicholas Yee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Aspyr Media, Inc.; and Does 1-5, Case No. 8:23-cv-01220-MWC-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs, on May 9, 2025 at 1:30 p.m., will move for an order granting certification under Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the following classes: California Class: "All persons in the State of California who purchased KOTOR II for Nintendo Switch during the relevant statute of limitations period." Arizona Class: "All persons in the State of Arizona who purchased KOTOR II for Nintendo Switch during the relevant statute of limitations period." Colorado Class: "All persons in the State of Colorado who purchased KOTOR II for Nintendo Switch during the relevant statute of limitations period." Florida Class: "All persons in the State of Florida who purchased KOTOR II for Nintendo Switch during the relevant statute of limitations period." Georgia Class: "All persons in the State of Georgia who purchased KOTOR II for Nintendo Switch during the relevant statute of limitations period." Illinois Class: "All persons in the State of Illinois who purchased KOTOR II for Nintendo Switch during the relevant statute of limitations period." Nevada Class: "All persons in the State of Nevada who purchased KOTOR II for Nintendo Switch during the relevant statute of limitations period." New Jersey Class: "All persons in the State of New Jersey who purchased KOTOR II for Nintendo Switch during the relevant statute of limitations period." Ohio Class: "All persons in the State of Ohio who purchased KOTOR II for Nintendo Switch during the relevant statute of limitations period." Oregon Class: "All persons in the State of Oregon who purchased KOTOR II for Nintendo Switch during the relevant statute of limitations period. South Carolina Class: "All persons in the State of South Carolina who purchased KOTOR II for Nintendo Switch during the relevant statute of limitations period. Texas Class: "All persons in the State of Texas who purchased KOTOR II for Nintendo Switch during the relevant statute of limitations period. Washington Class: "All persons in the State of Washington who purchased KOTOR II for Nintendo Switch during the relevant statute of limitations period." The Plaintiffs also move for an order granting class certification under Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) of the following class: California Class: "All persons in the State of California who purchased KOTOR II for Nintendo Switch during the relevant statute of limitations period." Further, the Plaintiffs also will move the Court to appoint them as Class representatives and to appoint Ray Kim Law, APC as class counsel. The Plaintiffs bring false advertising claims based on unfair and deceptive acts and practices ("UDAP") statutes of thirteen states. Aspyr is an American video game developer and publisher. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated March 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=UJaJfi at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Raymond Y. Kim, Esq. RAY KIM LAW, APC 112 E. Amerige Avenue, Suite 240 Fullerton, CA 92832 Telephone: (833) 729-5529 Facsimile: (833) 972-9546 E-mail: ray@raykimlaw.com AUSTIN SHERMAN: Standing Order Entered in Dunn Class Action ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LARRY DUNN, v. AUSTIN SHERMAN, et al., Case No. 2:25-cv-02150-FLA-ADS (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando Aenlle-Rocha entered a standing order as follows: The Plaintiff shall promptly serve the complaint in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and file the proofs of service pursuant to Local Rule 5-3.1. All documents filed in state court, including documents appended to the complaint, answers, and motions, must be re-filed in this court as a supplement to the notice of removal. Discovery Matters Referred to United States Magistrate Judge All discovery matters are referred to the assigned Magistrate Judge, who will hear all discovery disputes. A copy of the Court's order dated March 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=OmvBtK at no extra charge.[CC] AXT INC: Continues to Defend Shareholder Class Suit in New York --------------------------------------------------------------- AXT 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 shareholder class suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. On May 6, 2024, a putative shareholder class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of persons or entities who purchased or acquired its publicly traded securities, against the Company, Morris S. Young, its Chief Executive Officer, and Gary L. Fischer, its Chief Financial Officer. The court transferred the case to the Northern District of California, where its headquarters are located. A lead plaintiff has been appointed and an amended complaint was filed. The amended complaint asserts a putative class period from March 24, 2021 and April 3, 2024, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The amended complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the defendants, and seeks unspecified monetary relief, interest, and attorneys' fees. Defendants' motion to dismiss is fully briefed and pending before the Court. It is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the final outcomes of these litigations or to reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss with respect to these litigations. The Company believes this claim to be meritless and intends to vigorously defend against it. AXT, Inc. -- http://www.axt.com/-- designs, develops, manufactures, and distributes compound and single element semiconductor substrates.[BN] BAKKT HOLDINGS: Faces Frankin Class Suit Over Share Price Drop -------------------------------------------------------------- GUY SERGE A. FRANKIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BAKKT HOLDINGS, INC., GAVIN MICHAEL, ANDREW MAIN, and KAREN ALEXANDER, Case No. 1:25-cv-02753 (S.D.N.Y., April 2, 2025) is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired Bakkt securities between March 25, 2024, and March 17, 2025, pursuing claims against the Defendants under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Prior to its acquisition of Bakkt Crypto, revenue generated from the Company's crypto services had been immaterial; however, in the year ending Dec. 31, 2023, revenue from crypto services became a significant driver of the Company's business, accounting for 93.2% of the Company's revenue. Separately, the Company also operates a "Loyalty Solutions" segment which enables point redemption and fulfillment (including travel reservations). On March 17, 2025, after market close, Bakkt disclosed Webull was terminating its commercial agreement with the Company, effective June 14, 2025. The Company revealed that in the prior nine months ended September 30, 2024, and the full year ended December 31, 2023, Webull made up 74% of Bakkt's crypto services revenue. In that same period, the Company derived 98% of its revenue from crypto services. The Company also disclosed that Bank of America was terminating its loyalty services contract with the Company, effective April 22, 2025. The Company revealed Bank of America made up 17% of Bakkt's loyalty services revenue in the prior nine months ended September 30, 2024. The customer cancellations will collectively result in a 73% loss in top line revenue going forward. On this news, the Company's share price fell $3.50 or 27.3%, to close at $9.33 per share on March 18, 2025, on unusually heavy trading volume. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, the Defendants misrepresented the stability and/or diversity of its crypto services revenue. As a result of the Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, the Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the suit. The Plaintiff purchased Bakkt securities during the Class Period, and suffered damages as a result of the federal securities law violations and alleged false and/or misleading statements and/or material omission. Bakkt is a technology company which builds software related to the selling, buying, and storage of cryptocurrency. In April 2023, the Company acquired Apex Crypto LLC, a platform for integrated crypto trading, which it renamed Bakkt Crypto. This acquisition provided the Company significant new clients and financial technology partners including Webull Pay LLC.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rebecca Dawson, Esq. GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP 230 Park Ave, Suite 358 New York, NY 10169 Telephone: (213) 521-8007 E-mail: rdawson@glancylaw.com - and - Robert V. Prongay, Esq. Charles H. Linehan, Esq. Frank R. Cruz, Esq. THE LAW OFFICES OF FRANK R. CRUZ 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 201-9150 Facsimile: (310) 201-9160 BETTERHELP INC: Class Cert Briefing Deadlines Continued ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Doe v. BetterHelp, Inc. (RE BETTERHELP, INC. DATA DISCLOSURE CASES), Case No. 3:23-cv-01096 (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order continuing the briefing deadlines for the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and the hearing date by five weeks. BetterHelp is a mental health platform that provides direct online counseling and therapy services via web or phone text communication. A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=4A61ji at no extra charge.[CC] BETTERHELP INC: Class Cert Briefing Deadlines Continued in C.M. --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as C.M. v. BetterHelp, Inc. (RE BETTERHELP, INC. DATA DISCLOSURE CASES), Case No. 3:23-cv-01033 (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order continuing the briefing deadlines for the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and the hearing date by five weeks. BetterHelp is a mental health platform that provides direct online counseling and therapy services via web or phone text communication. A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=WUzkFT at no extra charge.[CC] BETTERHELP INC: Class Cert Briefing Deadlines Continued in R.S. --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as R.S. v. BetterHelp, Inc. (RE BETTERHELP, INC. DATA DISCLOSURE CASES), Case No. 3:23-cv-01839 (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Richard Seeborg entered an order continuing the briefing deadlines for the plaintiffs' motion for class certification and the hearing date by five weeks. BetterHelp is a mental health platform that provides direct online counseling and therapy services via web or phone text communication. A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KWjAL7 at no extra charge.[CC] BIOVENTUS INC: Settlement Reached in Ciarciello Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Bioventus Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 11, 2025, that the parties in a shareholder litigation settled for $15.3 million. The company and certain of its current and former directors and officers were initially named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit filed in the Middle District of North Carolina captioned "Ciarciello v. Bioventus, Inc.," No. 1:23–CV–00032-CCE-JEP filed on January 12, 2023. The complaint asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act and generally alleges that the Company failed to disclose certain information regarding rebate practices, its business and financial prospects, and the sufficiency of internal controls regarding financial reporting. On April 12, 2023, the court appointed Wayne County Employees' Retirement System as lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff's amended consolidated complaint was filed with the Court on June 12, 2023. On July 17, 2023, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint raising a number of legal and factual deficiencies with the amended and consolidated complaint. In response to the company's motion to dismiss, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on July 31, 2023. The defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint on August 21, 2023, which the court granted in part and denied in part on November 6, 2023. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s Securities Act claims, but allowed the plaintiff's Exchange Act claims to proceed into discovery. On July 15, 2024, a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement by and between the lead plaintiff and the defendants was filed with the court and it preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement on August 13, 2024. It entered judgment on December 18, 2024, granting final approval of the terms of the Settlement Agreement and dismissing all claims against the defendants, including the company. Bioventus Inc. functions as a holding company with no direct operations, material assets or liabilities other than the equity interest in BV LLC, a limited liability company that operates as a partnership. BLUE RIDGE BANKSHARES: Settles Securities Suit after Mediation -------------------------------------------------------------- Blue Ridge Bankshares, Inc. 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 the parties in a putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (No. 1:23-cv-08944) engaged in non-binding mediation on December 5, 2024, during which the parties agreed in principle to settlement terms for $2.5 million. On February 4, 2025, the plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the proposed class action settlement, which, if granted, will settle the action and any claims related to the Action or that could have been brought in the action by the parties, the parties’ counsel, or settlement class members. On December 5, 2023, an alleged shareholder of the company commenced said class action on behalf of himself and any persons or entities who purchased the publicly traded stock of the company between February 3, 2023 and October 31, 2023, both dates inclusive. The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws against the company and certain of its current and former officers based on alleged material misstatements and omissions related to accounting judgments in the company’s SEC filings. The complaint seeks certification of a class action, unspecified damages, and attorney’s fees. The putative class representative filed an amended complaint, and the company filed a letter seeking permission to file a motion to dismiss. The court has not yet ruled on the motion. Blue Ridge Bankshares, Inc. conducts its business activities primarily through its wholly-owned subsidiary bank, Blue Ridge Bank, National Association and its wealth and trust management subsidiary, BRB Financial Group, Inc. It exists primarily for the purposes of holding the stock of its subsidiaries. BOBA GUYS: Boba Pearls Contains Toxic Chemicals, Totten Says ------------------------------------------------------------ JAMES TOTTEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. BOBA GUYS INC., Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-02992 (N.D. Cal., April 1, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of himself and other similarly situated consumers who purchased Defendant's drinks, including but not limited to Boba Guys-branded products containing tea and boba pearls, which are misleadingly marketed as "next level quality" and "free of artificial ingredients" despite containing high levels of plastic chemicals -- namely, bisphenol A, a toxic ingredient used to make plastics harder. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, recent third-party testing revealed that the Products contained, or risked containing, high levels of toxic, BPA, a chemical on California's Proposition 65 list that must be disclosed when present because of its known reproductive toxicity. The Defendant's Product was more than 32,000 percent above what the European Food Safety Authority deems safe for BPA consumption. The amounts found were also higher than California's maximum allowable dose of dermal BPA exposure, which is micrograms per day, lower than the European Food Safety Authority's safe level. The Defendant had a duty to disclose because of its exclusive and superior knowledge concerning the hazardous nature of the Products. Nonetheless, the Defendant concealed that the Products contained or risked containing BPA in order to maximize its own profits, says the suit. Boba Guys Inc. operates cafes that offer boba milk beverages. Its cafes also offer various flavored organic milk tea, tea-based drinks, and snacks. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: L. Timothy Fisher, Esq. Julia K. Venditti, Esq. Joshua R. Wilner, Esq. Joshua B. Glatt, Esq. BURSOR & FISHER, P.A. 1990 North California Blvd., 9th Floor Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Telephone: (925) 300-4455 Facsimile: (925) 407-2700 Email: ltfisher@bursor.com jvenditti@bursor.com jwilner@bursor.com jglatt@bursor.com CANOPY GROWTH: Faces Securities Class Action Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------- Gainey McKenna & Egleston announces that a securities class action lawsuit has been filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Canopy Growth Corporation ("Canopy" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: CGC) securities between May 30, 2024 and February 6, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint alleges that Defendants failed to disclose that: (i) Canopy had incurred significant costs producing Claybourne pre-rolled joints in connection with the Claybourne product launch in Canada; (ii) the foregoing costs, in addition to certain indirect costs that Canopy incurred in connection with its Storz & Bickel vaporizer devices, were likely to have a significant negative impact on the Company's gross margins and overall financial results; and (iii) accordingly, defendants had overstated the efficacy of Canopy's cost reduction measures and the health of its gross margins while downplaying issues with the same. On February 7, 2025, Canopy announced disappointing financial results "primarily due to the incremental costs related to the Claybourne infused pre-roll launch in Canada, and an increase in indirect costs of Storz & Bickel vaporizer devices[.]" On this news, Canopy's share price fell 27.24%, to close at $2.02 on February 7, 2025. Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Canopy should contact the Firm prior to the June 3, 2025 lead plaintiff motion deadline. A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If you wish to discuss your rights or interests regarding this class action, please contact Thomas J. McKenna, Esq. or Gregory M. Egleston, Esq. of Gainey McKenna & Egleston at (212) 983-1300, or via e-mail at tjmckenna@gme-law.com or gegleston@gme-law.com. Please visit our website at http://www.gme-law.comfor more information about the firm. [GN] CARIBOU BIOSCIENCES: Court Approves Settlement in Bergman Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Caribou Biosciences, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2025, that on April 22, 2024, the company reached an agreement in principle with plaintiffs to settle a putative class action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the company and certain of its officers and current and former members of its board of directors captioned, "Bergman v. Caribou Biosciences, Inc., et al.," Case Number 4:23-cv-01742-YGR, for $3.9 million in exchange for a full release of the putative class' claims against the company and all its current and former officers, current and former members of the board of directors, the IPO underwriters, and the other named defendant. On February 18, 2025, the court issued an order granting final approval of the settlement. The Bergman complaint, filed in April 11, 2023, challenges disclosures regarding the company’s business, operations, and prospects, specifically with respect to the alleged durability of the therapeutic effect of its allogeneic anti-CD19 CAR-T cell therapy drug, "CB-010" and the product candidate’s clinical and commercial prospects, in alleged violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. On September 18, 2023, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding the IPO underwriters as defendants and making substantially the same allegations as the original complaint. On November 14, 2023, the company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim. Motion to dismiss briefing was completed on February 21, 2024. Caribou Biosciences, Inc. is a clinical-stage Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR) genome-editing biopharmaceutical company. CARIBOU BIOSCIENCES: Faces Saylor Shareholder Suit over Disclosures ------------------------------------------------------------------- Caribou Biosciences, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2025, that on December 24, 2024, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the company and certain of its current and former officers captioned "Saylor v. Caribou Biosciences, Inc., et al.," Case No. 3:24-cv-09413 The alleged class period is July 14, 2023, to July 16, 2024. Said complaint challenges disclosures regarding Caribou’s business, operations, and prospects, specifically with respect to the alleged safety, efficacy, and durability of CB-010, CB-010’s clinical results and commercial prospects, and our financial statements, in alleged violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The lawsuit is at the preliminary stage of the proceedings. Caribou Biosciences, Inc. is a clinical-stage Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR) genome-editing biopharmaceutical company. CASA AZUL: Property Inaccessible to Disabled People, Wade Says -------------------------------------------------------------- ELIZABETH WADE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CASA AZUL CANTINA LLC dba FRIDA MEXICAN CUISINE, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-02928 (C.D. Cal., April 3, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendants' Frida Mexican Cuisine located at 10853 Lindbrook Drive, Los Angels, California 90024, is not accessible to mobility-impaired individuals in violation of ADA. Casa Azul Cantina LLC dba Frida Mexican Cuisine is a chain of Mexican restaurants. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Aaron M. Clefton, Esq. CLEFTON DISABILITY LAW 2601 Blanding Ave, Suite C#336 Alameda, CA 94501 Telephone: (510) 832-500 Email: info@cleftonlaw.com CHUBB LTD: Must Oppose Class Cert. by April 25 ---------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Purcell v. Chubb Ltd., et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-04927 (N.D. Cal., Filed Sept. 26, 2023), the Hon. Judge James Donato entered an order granting the parties' request for additional time to file the class certification briefs. -- The Defendants may oppose certification by April 25, 2025. -- The Plaintiff may file a reply brief by May 15, 2025. -- The hearing set for May 29, 2025, is vacated. -- A hearing on certification is set for 10:00 a.m., Sept. 25, 2025, in Courtroom 11. The nature of suit states diversity-contract dispute. Chubb is a global insurance company providing commercial and personal property and casualty insurance, personal accident and supplemental health insurance, reinsurance, and life insurance.[CC] CORNERSTONE BUILDING: Continues to Defend Water Island Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cornerstone Building Brands 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 Water Island Merger class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. In June 2023, a purported former stockholder filed a class action complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that the Company's disclosures issued in connection with the Merger were materially misleading in violation of Section 14(a) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint is captioned Water Island Merger Arbitrage Institutional Commingled Master Fund, L.P. v. Cornerstone Building Brands et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-00701 (D. Del.). The complaint alleges that the Company's directors and officers issued misleading disclosures, which caused stockholders to approve the Merger at an unfair price. The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages, interest, attorney's fees, expenses and costs. On December 8, 2023, the defendants moved to dismiss the operative complaint, and, in the alternative, to stay in litigation. On September 30, 2024, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice. On October 15, 2024, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which the defendants again moved to dismiss or stay on November 26, 2024. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these claims. Cornerstone Building Brands, Inc. is a holding company based in North Carolina. CPI AEROSTRUCTURES: "Rodriguez" Terminated Following Settlement OK ------------------------------------------------------------------ A consolidated class action lawsuit captioned Rodriguez v. CPI Aerostructures, Inc., et al., No. 20-cv-01026 was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against CPI Aerostructures, Inc.; Douglas McCrosson, the Company's former Chief Executive Officer; Vincent Palazzolo, the Company's former Chief Financial Officer; and the two underwriters of the Company's October 16, 2018 offering of common stock, Canaccord Genuity LLC and B. Riley FBR. The Amended Complaint in the action asserted claims on behalf of two plaintiff classes: (i) purchasers of the Company's common stock issued pursuant to and/or traceable to the Company's offering conducted on or about October 16, 2018; and (ii) purchasers of the Company's common stock between March 22, 2018 and February 14, 2020. The Amended Complaint alleged that the defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act by negligently permitting false and misleading statements to be included in the registration statement and prospectus supplements issued in connection with its October 16, 2018 securities offering. The Amended Complaint also alleged that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by the SEC, by making false and misleading statements in the Company's periodic reports filed between March 22, 2018 and February 14, 2020. Plaintiff sought unspecified compensatory damages, including interest; rescission or a rescissory measure of damages; unspecified equitable or injunctive relief; and costs and expenses, including attorney's fees and expert fees. On February 19, 2021, the Company moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. Plaintiff submitted a brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss on April 23, 2021. On May 20, 2021, the parties reached a settlement in the amount of $3,600,000, subject to court approval. On July 9, 2021, Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. On November 10, 2021, a magistrate judge recommended that the court grant the motion for preliminary approval in its entirety. The Court adopted the recommendation on May 27, 2022, and entered an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement on June 7, 2022. On August 5, 2022, the Plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for final approval. The magistrate judge held a hearing on the final approval motion on September 9, 2022. On February 16, 2023, the magistrate judge recommended that the Court grant the final approval motion in its entirety. The Court adopted that recommendation in its entirety on March 10, 2023, and terminated the case on March 13, 2023. On May 5, 2023, the Settlement Amount was transferred to plaintiff's counsel from the escrow account established for this purpose, 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. Founded in 1980, CPI Aerostructures, Inc. is an aviation and aerospace firm producing structural aircraft assemblies, servicing the commercial and military sector of the aircraft industry. The company is based in Edgewood, New York. CROWDSTRIKE HOLDINGS: Airline Sensor-Related Suit Consolidated -------------------------------------------------------------- Crowdstrike Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2025, that on August 19, 2024, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the company in federal court in the Western District of Texas alleging, among other things, negligence in the design and testing of their "Falcon" sensor and tortious interference between certain airline customers and their airline. On November 6, 2024, this lawsuit was consolidated with another lawsuit filed on August 5, 2024 and was administratively closed. The complainants seek certification of a nationwide class (or alternatively a class of Iowa citizens) who had a flight delayed or canceled on a specified airline during a specific period of time and are seeking unspecified monetary damages, costs and attorneys’ fees. CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc. is a global cybersecurity company that delivers cybersecurity's AI-native platform for the XDR era, purpose-built to stop breaches using a unified platform that provides cloud-delivered protection of endpoints, cloud workloads, identity, and data via a software as a service subscription-based model. CROWDSTRIKE HOLDINGS: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated Suit ---------------------------------------------------------- Crowdstrike Holdings, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2025, that on August 5, 2024, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against the company in federal court in the Western District of Texas alleging, among other things, negligence and violations of the California Unfair Competition Law. On November 6, 2024, this lawsuit was consolidated with another lawsuit and interim class counsel was appointed. On December 6, 2024, a consolidated class action complaint was filed. On February 4, 2025, CrowdStrike, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. The complainants seek certification of a nationwide class, as well as sub-classes of certain California, Ohio, and Pennsylvania citizens, who had a flight delayed or canceled during a specified period of time and are seeking unspecified monetary damages, certain injunctive relief, costs and attorneys’ fees. CrowdStrike Holdings, Inc. is a global cybersecurity company that delivers cybersecurity’s AI-native platform for the XDR era, purpose-built to stop breaches using a unified platform that provides cloud-delivered protection of endpoints, cloud workloads, identity, and data via a software as a service subscription-based model. CS CONTRACT: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Response ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Russell v. CS Contract Solutions, LLC, et al., Case No. 8:24-cv-02421 (M.D. Fla., Filed Oct. 18, 2024), the Hon. Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywel entered an endorsed order granting motion for extension of time to file response to motion to certify class by April 25, 2025. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Defendant offers staffing solutions.[CC] DELTA AIR LINES: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended to June 30 -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MARSHA R. DEVANEY, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, v. DELTA AIR LINES, INC. and THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF DELTA AIR LINES, INC., Case No. 2:21-cv-02186-RFB-EJY (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting stipulation extending the remaining deadlines by approximately 60 days and setting the following proposed deadlines as follows: Event Deadlines Disclose plaintiff's expert witnesses: May 30, 2025 Disclose defendants' expert witnesses: June 30, 2025 File class certification motion: June 30, 2025 File opposition to class certification Aug. 15, 2025 motion: File reply supporting class Sept. 15, 2025 certification motion: Complete expert discovery: Oct. 17, 2025 On Dec. 10, 2021, the Plaintiff filed her Class Action Complaint, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Delta Air provides scheduled air transportation for passengers, freight, and mail over a network of routes. A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ETwIKS at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Robert A. Izard, Esq. Christopher M. Barrett, Esq. IZARD KINDALL & RAABE 29 S. Main Street, Suite 305 West Hartford, CT 06107 - and - Michael J. Gayan, Esq. CLAGGET & SYKES 4101 Meadows Lane, Ste. 100 Las Vegas, NV 89107 Telephone: (702) 333-7777 E-mail: mike@claggetlaw.com - and - Douglas P. Needham, Esq. MOTLEY RICE LLC One Corporate Center 20 Church Street, 17th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 Telephone: (860) 218-2720 E-mail: dneedham@motleyrice.com - and - Gregory Y. Porter, Esq. Mark G. Boyko BAILEY & GLASSER LLP 1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230 Washington, DC 20007 The Defendants are represented by: Melissa D. Hill, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 101 Park Avenue New York, NY 10178 Telephone: (212) 309-6000 Facsimile: (212) 309-6001 E-mail: melissa.hill@morganlewis.com - and - Scott M. Mahoney, Esq. FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLP 300 South Fourth Street, Suite 1500 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Telephone: (702) 252-3131 Facsimile: (702) 252-7411 E-mail: smahoney@fisherphillips.com DOCKSIDE CONDOMINIUMS: May Face Class Suit Over Tortious Conduct ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jameson Moyer, writing for Count On News 2, reports that over a month after residents in the Dockside condominiums and townhomes were promptly evacuated from their homes, attorneys announced Tuesday, April 8, they are launching a class action investigation into the matter on behalf of evacuated owners. Attorneys for Anastopoulo Law Firm and J. Davis Law, P.C. held a press conference on April 9 to share initial results from their ongoing investigation into the evacuation and whether there was tortious conduct or legal wrongdoings. A class action investigation is the first step towards a class action suit where attorneys gather evidence and information. Amid the ongoing investigation, the attorneys have launched a website for individuals to submit information relating to the evacuation at www.DocksideLawsuit.com. "What we know at this point is that the owners of these units are not getting many answers, and when your entire life is inside of a building you cannot enter, not getting answers is not an option. That is why we have been retained to seek those answers, and we will leave no stone unturned in getting to the bottom of what happened at Dockside," said Roy T. Willey, IV. Residents were told to evacuate the condo tower and surrounding townhomes on February 27, after the City of Charleston informed the Dockside Board of Directors that residents had to leave due to safety concerns. Officials cited concrete slabs that they described as "significantly overstressed" as the reason for the evacuation order, saying, "the structure has insufficient capacity to continue to be safely occupied until substantial structural strengthening is implemented." At the time of the vacate order, the building's 112 units were between 60-70% occupied. Residents described a hasty exit, during which they were asked to leave large items like furniture until a later date. In late March, former occupants were informed that starting Apr. 14, they could return to move out their bigger belongings. [GN] DONE GLOBAL: Bid for Class Certification Due March 13, 2026 ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as M. H. v. Done Global Inc., Case No. 3:24-cv-03040 (N.D. Cal., Filed May 20, 2024), the Hon. Judge Rita F Lin entered an order setting the following case schedule through class certification: -- Initial Disclosures due by: April 2, 2025 -- Last day to amend the pleadings is: June 20, 2025 -- Plaintiff's Class Certification Dec. 12, 2025 Expert Disclosures due by: -- Defendant's Class Certification Jan. 16, 2026 Expert Disclosures due by: -- Plaintiff's Rebuttal Expert Jan. 30, 2026 Disclosures re Class Certification due by: -- Close of Class Certification Dec. 27, 2026 Expert Discovery is: -- Motion for Class Certification/ March 13, 2026 Daubert Motions re Class Certification Experts due by: -- Opposition due by: April 10, 2026 -- Reply due by: April 24, 2026 -- Class Certification Motion May 19, 2026 Hearing set for: The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Injury -- Other Personal Injury.[CC] FA BARTLETT: Parties in Bowen Seek to Amend Class Cert Briefing --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM BOWEN, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. THE F.A. BARTLETT TREE EXPERT COMPANY, a Connecticut Corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Case No. 2:24-cv-10027-WLH-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order amending the Class Certification Briefing Schedule, as follows: Event Current New Proposed Deadline Date Plaintiff's Motion for May 5, 2025 June 18, 2025 Class Certification: Defendant's Opposition to June 2, 2025 July 16, 2025 Class Certification: Plaintiff's Reply to June 16, 2025 July 30, 2025 Defendant's Opposition to Class Certification: Hearing on Motion for July 11, 2025 Aug. 22, 2025 Class Certification: The parties are currently in the process of scheduling Defendant's 30(b)(6) deposition(s) and the deposition of Mr. Gotzmer to take place by April 18, 2025. In light of the Defendant's inability to produce the class data in a timely manner as of the date of the stipulation, and the Plaintiff's need to take the depositions described above before filing a motion for class certification, the Parties stipulate to a continuance of the class certification briefing schedule and hearing date on Plaintiff's anticipated Motion for Class Certification. On Oct. 16, 2024, Plaintiff filed this instant class action in Santa Barbara County Superior Court against Defendant, alleging the following causes of action: (1) minimum wage violations; (2) failure to pay all overtime wages; (3) meal period violations; (4) rest period violations; (5) failure to reimburse all necessary business expenses; (6) wage statement violations; (7) waiting time penalties; and (6) unfair competition On Feb. 20, 2025, the Plaintiff's counsel sent an email to the Defendant's counsel asking for a timeline regarding a response to The Plaintiff's Request for production of timekeeping and payroll records for the putative class. FA Bartlett is a residential and commercial tree and shrub care company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated March 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HbRJlP at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Paul K. Haines, Esq. Sean M. Blakely, Esq. Joel M. Gordon, Esq. HAINES LAW GROUP, APC 2155 Campus Drive, Suite 180 El Segundo, CA 90245 Telephone: (424) 292-2350 Facsimile: (424) 292-2355 E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com sblakely@haineslawgroup.com jgordon@haineslawgroup.com The Defendants are represented by: David L. Cheng, Esq. Min K. Kim, Esq. FORD HARRISON LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Telephone: (213) 237-2400 Facsimile: (213) 237-2401 E-mail: dcheng@fordharrison.com mkim@fordharrison.com FASHION NOVA: Faces Hernandez Class Suit Over Fake Regular Prices ----------------------------------------------------------------- EVELYN HERNANDEZ, KENITA HEARNE, SELENA FLORES, BRIANNA CLARK, and ALIZ HOLLY, each individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. FASHION NOVA, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00589 (W.D. Wash., April 2, 2025) alleges that Fashion Nova advertised fake sales, fake regular prices, and fake discounts based on the fake regular prices. Fashion Nova makes, sells, and markets clothing and accessory products. The Products are sold nationwide through Defendant's website, FashionNova.com. Fashion Nova's website prominently advertises sales. These advertisements include purported regular prices, purported discounts, and often countdown timers that purportedly show when the sales end. Accordingly, these advertisements are false and misleading. The sales are not limited in time, and the discounts continue to be available. The strikethrough prices do not actually represent the regular prices that most consumers are paying. The regular price is actually the purported discounted price. The Plaintiffs bought purportedly discounted clothing Products from the Fashion Nova website and were deceived by Fashion Nova's misleading sales. This caused Plaintiffs to buy Products they would not otherwise have bought and to overpay for the Products. The Plaintiffs bring this case for themselves and other customers nationwide who purchased deceptively advertised Fashion Nova Products. The Defendant makes, sells, and markets clothing and accessories. Fashion Nova sells its Products directly to consumers online, through its website FashionNova.com. The Defendant's website creates an illusion that customers are receiving a limited-time discount. Advertised "sale" prices are important to consumers. Consumers are more likely to purchase an item if they know that they are getting a good deal. Further, if consumers think that a sale will end soon, they are likely to buy now, rather than wait, comparison shop, and buy something else. While there is nothing wrong with a legitimate sale, a fake one—that is, one with made-up regular prices, made-up discounts, and made-up expirations—is deceptive and illegal, says the suit. FASHION NOVA, LLC is an American fast fashion retail company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christin Cho, Esq. Simon Franzini, Esq. Jonas Jacobson, Esq. DOVEL & LUNER, LLP 201 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 600 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Telephone: (310) 656-7066 Facsimile: (310) 656-7069 E-mail: christin@dovel.com simon@dovel.com jonas@dovel.com FIRST COMMUNITY BANKSHARES: To Settle Securities Suit for $4.8MM ---------------------------------------------------------------- First Community Bankshares, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7, 2025, that on May 6, 2024, the bank agreed to settle a putative class action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, filed on June 24, 2022. Under the settlement, which is subject to documentation and preliminary and final court approval, the bank agreed to establish a $4.80 million settlement fund and forgive up to $500,000 in assessed but unpaid fees. Attorneys' fees, settlement administration expenses, and settlement payments to eligible class members will be paid from the settlement fund. The civil action alleges the bank breached its deposit account agreements and was unjustly enriched by collecting overdraft fees with respect to certain debit card transactions and by assessing more than one nonsufficient funds fee on items presented multiple times for payment. Under the settlement, which is subject to documentation and preliminary and final court approval. First Community Bankshares, Inc. is a financial holding company that offers wealth management and investment advice through its Trust Division and wholly owned subsidiary First Community Wealth Management. FLORIDA: Immigrant Coalition Seeks to Enjoin S.B. 4C Enforcement ---------------------------------------------------------------- FLORIDA IMMIGRANT COALITION; FARMWORKER ASSOCIATION OF FLORIDA, INC.; Y.M.; and V.V., v. JAMES UTHMEIER, in his official capacity as the Attorney General of the State of Florida, et al., Case No. 1:25-cv-21524 (S.D. Fla., April 2, 2025) challenges Florida's Senate Bill 4-C ("S.B. 4C"), now codified at Fla. Stat. sections 811.101-.103 (2025), which purports to give Florida state officials unprecedented power to arrest, detain, and prosecute noncitizens in the State of Florida. Accordingly, the State of Florida has created its own immigration crimes, completely outside the federal immigration system. State police will arrest noncitizens for these entry and re-entry crimes; state prosecutors will bring charges in state courts; and state judges will determine guilt and impose sentences. The federal government has no control over, nor any role at all in, these arrests and prosecutions. S.B. 4C allegedly violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. Immigration is a quintessentially federal authority. Congress has created a carefully calibrated immigration system over time, engaging in debate and grappling with nuances to produce the detailed provisions governing people's entry into the United States and their right to remain here. And Congress placed all the relevant tools and decision-making authority in the hands of federal officials—in keeping with the federal government's well established exclusive immigration powers and the sensitive foreign policy implications of these powers. S.B. 4C jettisons this system, grasping control over immigration from the federal government and giving State officers the power to prosecute immigration crimes on their own. In doing so, S.B. 4C declares the State off-limits to entire categories of immigrants, many of whom have or are seeking federal permission to be in the United States. S.B. 4C also violates the Commerce Clause because it impermissibly regulates people's entry into Florida, and it imposes unacceptable burdens on interstate and foreign commerce, the suit contends. The Plaintiffs file this complaint for declaratory and permanent injunctive relief. The Plaintiffs will seek a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to enjoin enforcement of S.B. 4C immediately. The Defendants include NICHOLAS B. COX, in his official capacity as the Florida Statewide Prosecutor; GINGER BOWDEN MADDEN, in her official capacity as State Attorney for the First Judicial Circuit of Florida; JACK CAMPBELL, in his official capacity as State Attorney for the Second Judicial Circuit of Florida; JOHN DURRETT, in his official capacity as State Attorney for the Third Judicial Circuit of Florida; MELISSA NELSON, in her official capacity as State Attorney for the Fourth Judicial Circuit of Florida; WILLIAM GLADSON, in his official capacity as State Attorney for the Fifth Judicial District of Florida; BRUCE BARTLETT, in his official capacity as State Attorney for the Sixth Judicial Circuit of Florida; R.J. LARIZZA, in his official capacity as State Attorney for the Seventh Judicial Circuit of Florida; BRIAN S. KRAMER, in his official capacity as State Attorney for the Eighth Judicial Circuit of Florida; MONIQUE H. WORRELL, in her official capacity as State Attorney for the Ninth Judicial Circuit of Florida; BRIAN HAAS, in his official capacity as State Attorney for the Tenth Judicial Circuit of Florida; KATHERINE FERNANDEZ RUNDLE, in her official capacity as State Attorney for the Eleventh Judicial Circuit of Florida; ED BRODSKY, in his official capacity as State Attorney for the Twelfth Judicial Circuit of Florida; SUSAN S. LOPEZ, in her official capacity as State Attorney for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida; LARRY BASFORD, in his official capacity as State Attorney for the Fourteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida; ALEXCIA COX, in her official capacity as State Attorney for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida; DENNIS W. WARD, in his official capacity as State Attorney for the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida; HAROLD F. PRYOR, in his official capacity as State Attorney for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit of Florida; WILLIAM SCHEINER, in his official capacity as State Attorney for the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida; THOMAS BAKKEDAHL, in his official capacity as State Attorney for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida; and AMIRA D. FOX, in her official capacity as State Attorney for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit of Florida.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Cody Wofsy, Esq. Spencer Amdur, Esq. Hannah Steinberg, Esq. Oscar Sarabia Roman, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT 425 California Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94104 Telephone: (415) 343-0770 E-mail: cwofsy@aclu.org samdur@aclu.org hsteinberg@aclu.org osarabia@aclu.org - and - Amy Godshall, Esq. Daniel B. Tilley, Esq. Amien Kacou, Esq. ACLU FOUNDATION OF FLORIDA, INC. 4343 West Flagler Street, Suite 400 Miami, FL 33134 Telephone: (786) 363-2700 E-mail: agodshall@aclufl.org dtilley@aclufl.org akacou@aclufl.org - and - Omar Jadwat, Esq. Grace Choi, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS PROJECT 125 Broad St., 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 549-2660 E-mail: ojadwat@aclu.org gchoi@aclu.org - and - Paul R. Chavez, Esq. Anne Janet Hernandez Anderson, Esq. Evelyn Wiese, Esq. Christina Isabel LaRocca, Esq. AMERICANS FOR IMMIGRANT JUSTICE 6355 NW 36 Street, Suite 309 Miami, FL 33166 Telephone: (305) 576-6273 E-mail: pchavez@aijustice.org ajhernandez@aijustice.org ewiese@aijustice.org clarocca@aijustice.org GEORGE JUNIOR: Dismissed from Clark Class Action ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as QUINTIS CLARK, et al., v. GEORGE JUNIOR REPUBLIC, GEORGE JUNIOR REPUBLIC REALTY, GEORGE JUNIOR REPUBLIC IN PENNSYLVANIA, GEORGE JUNIOR REPUBLIC IN INDIANA, INC. and JOHN/JANE DOES 1-100, Case No. 2:23-cv-00922-KBH (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Kelley B. Hodge will grant the Defendants' motion to dismiss as to George Junior Republic in Indiana and George Junior Republic Realty as to all claims. George Junior Republic in Indiana and George Junior Republic Realty are dismissed from this case. The Court will grant the Defendants' motion to dismiss as to George Junior Republic and George Junior Republic in Pennsylvania as to the breach of fiduciary duty claim (Count 13) and request for a writ of mandamus only. The Court denies the Defendants' motion to dismiss as to all other claims (Counts 1-12, 14). The Court finds that there are sufficient allegations pled in the Amended Complaint for the vicarious liability claim to survive. The Plaintiffs bring a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. The class, at present, is defined as: "All persons who are currently and/or have previously attended, resided, and/or were court ordered into placement, at any George Junior Republic, juvenile facility, juvenile detention, juvenile placement, and/or holding facility, in any state, Commonwealth, or jurisdiction, and while at any or in connection with any of the Defendants' facility(ies) were subjected to either physical, mental, and/or sexual abuse by any of the named Defendants, and/or their staff members, volunteers, agents, servants, employees, or the like while juveniles, and/or either had their educational opportunities deprived, are having their educational opportunities deprived, and/or are at threat to have their educational opportunities deprived (the "Class")." The Plaintiffs filed a Class Action Complaint on March 10, 2023, against all Defendants. The Plaintiffs filed an Amended Class Action Complaint on June 30, 2023. The Defendants filed this Motion to Dismiss on July 20, 2023. The Plaintiffs include CHARLES SLADE, III, ALEXANDER GRANGER, JESSE MYERS, DONTE WEBB, STANLEY POSTELL, HOLDEN HASTINGS, ISRAEL BERRIOS, JOSEPH ALBINO, KEYON LUCAS, OMONTAY MONROE and ESTES WALKER. George Junior is a custodial facility for the placement of juvenile court-adjudicated youths, aged 8-18, and other at-risk youths. A copy of the Court's memorandum dated March 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7T6O1E at no extra charge.[CC] GRINDR INC: Settlement in Data Privacy Suit for Court OK -------------------------------------------------------- Grindr Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7, 2025, that following a case management conference on October 7, 2024, the Israeli Central District Court directed the plaintiff to file its reply to Grindr's opposition by November 11, 2024. The parties have reached a settlement in principle subject to formal documentation and court approval. In December 2020, Grindr was named in a statement of claim and petition for certification of a class action. The statement of claims generally alleges that Grindr violated users' privacy by sharing information with third parties without their explicit consent. The petitioner asserts several causes of action under Israeli law, including privacy breaches, unlawful enrichment, and negligence, as well as causes of action under California law, including privacy violations under the California Constitution and California common law, negligence, violation of the Unfair Competition Law, and unjust enrichment. The statement of claims seeks various forms of monetary, declaratory, and injunctive relief, in addition to certification as a class action. In June 2021, the petitioner attempted service of the statement of claims and the associated filings (all in translated form as required under applicable law) on Grindr. In November 2021, Grindr filed an initial response to the plaintiff's Statement of Claim challenging the effectiveness of service. The plaintiff then filed opposition to Grindr's service-related motion, raising a series of technical challenges. During the Israeli court hearing in January 2022, the Israeli court directed the plaintiff to start the service process from the beginning by seeking court permission to pursue international service on Grindr. On February 8, 2022, the Court formally permitted the plaintiff, in ex parte, to serve the company outside the jurisdiction. On March 30, 2022, Grindr received a package via U.S. Mail with the case documents. Grindr's local Israeli counsel prepared a motion seeking the court's preliminary ruling on the question of applicable law. On July 5, 2022, the company filed a motion to determine the governing law. On December 22, 2022, Grindr filed its response over the class certification, which opposes class certification and included both employee and expert opinions. Grindr Inc. is headquartered in Los Angeles, California and manages and operates the Grindr app, a global LGBTQ social network platform serving and addressing the needs of the LGBTQ queer community. HEALTHLINE MEDIA: Velasco Sues Over Data Privacy Violations ----------------------------------------------------------- VIANCA VELASCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. HEALTHLINE MEDIA, LLC; and DOES 1 through 25, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-02940 (C.D. Cal., April 3, 2025) alleges violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant installed on its Website software created by TikTok in order to identify website visitors. The TikTok Software acts via a process known as "fingerprinting." Put simply, the TikTok Software collects as much data as it can about an otherwise anonymous visitor to the Website and matches it with existing data TikTok has acquired and accumulated about hundreds of millions of Americans. The Defendant did not obtain Class Members' express or implied consent to be subjected to data sharing with TikTok for the purposes of fingerprinting and de-anonymization, says the suit. Healthline Network provides consumers with information on specific health conditions and medications via its website. [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 Email: robert@taulersmith.com nkumar@taulersmith.com HP INC: Zimmerman, et al., Appointed as Class Counsel in MEHC ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MOBILE EMERGENCY HOUSING CORP., TRACK RAT ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a PERFORMANCE AUTOMOTIVE & TIRE CENTER, and DAVID JUSTIN LYNCH, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. HP INC. d/b/a/ HP COMPUTING AND PRINTING INC., a Delaware Corporation, Case No. 5:20-cv-09157-SVK (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Susan Van Keulen entered an order a final order and judgment: The Court reaffirms the findings in its Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification that all prerequisites for maintenance of a class action set forth in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2) are satisfied. The Court makes final (i) its appointments of Thomas Zimmerman, Jr., Jeffrey Blake, and Mark Javitch as Class Counsel, and Mobile Emergency Housing Corp., Track Rat Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Performance Automotive & Tire Center, and David Justin Lynch as the Class Representatives; and (ii) its certification of the injective classes (the "Class"), as follows: a. All persons and entities who, during the period Nov. 1, 2020 through Oct. 1, 2021: (1) resided in the United States; (2) owned a Class Printer; (3) used a third-party cartridge in the printer; (4) viewed a "Supply Problem" error message on the printer at a time when the printer was using a third- party cartridge; and (5) did not view any disclosures from HP regarding the potential for printers using third-party cartridges to cease functioning before they viewed the " Supply Problem" error message." b. All persons and entities who, during the period Nov. 1, 2020 through Oct. 1, 2021: (1) resided in California; (2) owned a Class Printer; (3) used a third-party cartridge in the printer; (4) viewed a "Supply Problem" error message on the printer at a time when the printer was using a third-party cartridge; and (5) did not view any disclosures from HP regarding the potential for printers using third-party cartridges to cease functioning before they viewed the "Supply Problem" error message." c. All persons and entities who, during the period Jan. 1, 2017 through Oct. 1, 2021: (1) resided in the United States; (2) owned a Class Printer; (3) had HP collect their printer's data; and (4) did not view any disclosures about HP's data- collection practices before HP collected their printer's data. d. All persons and entities who, during the period Jan. 1, 2017 through Oct. 1, 2021: (1) resided in California; (2) owned a Class Printer; (3) had HP collect their printer's data; and (5) did not view any disclosures about HP's data-collection practices before HP collected their printer's data. Excluded from the Class are any Judge or Magistrate presiding over this action and members of their immediate families; HP, its officers, directors, and affiliates at all relevant times, members of their immediate families and their legal representatives, and any entity in which HP had or has a controlling interest; the Plaintiffs' counsel; and the legal representatives, successors, and assigns of any such excluded persons and entities. The Court has considered the sole objection to the Settlement made by Alex Wright. The Court overrules this objection as it failed to comply with the requirements set forth in the Preliminary Approval Order, and it is also substantively without merit. The Action is dismissed, with prejudice. HP Inc. is an American multinational information technology company. A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=s71Rps at no extra charge.[CC] IMMUNITYBIO INC: Settlement Class Gets Provisional Certification ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Salzman v. ImmunityBio, Inc. et al. (RE IMMUNITYBIO, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION), Case No. 3:23-cv-01216-GPC-VET (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Gonzalo Curiel entered an order: (1) provisionally approving certification of the proposed settlement class; (2) appointing class counsel; (3) conditionally approving the proposed notice form and proof of claim form; (4) approving lead plaintiff’s plan of allocation; and (5) granting preliminary approval of class action settlement The Court provisionally certifies, for purposes of the Settlement only, the following Settlement Class: "All Persons, except those expressly excluded below, who purchased or otherwise acquired ImmunityBio securities during the Class Period of March 10, 2021 to May 10, 2023, both dates inclusive." Excluded from the Class are: (i) all Defendants; (ii) members of the immediate families of the Defendants; (iii) the subsidiaries and affiliates of any Defendants; (iv) any person or entity who is a partner, executive officer, director or controlling person of any of the Defendants; (v) any entity in which any Defendant has a controlling interest; and (vi) the legal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns of any such excluded party. Also excluded from the Settlement Class are any Settlement Class members who or which submit a valid request for exclusion from the Settlement Class that is accepted by the Court. ImmunityBio is a vertically-integrated biotechnology company developing next-generation therapies and vaccines. A copy of the Court's order dated March 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HIuAys at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. Justin D. D'Aloia, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, NY 10016 - and - Corey D. Holzer, Esq. HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC 211 Perimeter Center Parkway, Suite 1010 Atlanta, GA 30346 The Defendants are represented by: Gregory L. Watts, Esq. WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, P.C. 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100 Seattle, WA 98104-7036 INTRASYSTEMS LLC: Fails to Secure Personal Info, Hochberg Says -------------------------------------------------------------- TYLER HOCHBERG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. INTRASYSTEMS, LLC and ALLEGHENY HEALTH NETWORK, Case No. 2:25-cv-00449-NR (D. Mass., April 2, 2025) alleges that the Defendants failed to properly secure and safeguard individuals' highly valuable personally identifiable information and protected health information including individuals' names, dates of birth, addresses, Social Security numbers, financial account numbers (but no access codes), health insurance identification numbers and other health insurance information, and treatment information including diagnoses, provider's information, treatments/procedures, date(s) of service, prescription information, and medical device serial numbers, as applicable. Accordingly, businesses that handle PII and PHI owe a duty to the individuals to whom that data relates. This duty arises because it is foreseeable that its exposure to unauthorized persons --especially to hackers with nefarious intentions -- will result in harm to the individuals to whom the information relates. The harm resulting from a data privacy breach manifests in a number of ways, including identity theft and financial or medical fraud. The exposure of a person’s PII or PHI through a data breach ensures that such person will be at a substantially increased and certainly impending risk of identity theft crimes compared to the rest of the population, potentially for the rest of their lives, says the suit. Defendant IntraSystems is an IT consulting company, managed services provider, and systems integrator that specializes in the deployment, management, and delivery of IT infrastructure, managed services, help desk services, cybersecurity services and assessments, virtualization services, security, and cloud solutions. Defendant AHN is a health network that offers a broad spectrum of care and services. It has 14 hospitals and more than 200 primary- and specialty-care practices in more than 300 clinical locations and offices.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Leviton, Esq. Brendan Jarboe, Esq. BLOCK & LEVITON LLP 260 Franklin Street, Ste 1860 Boston, MA 02110 Telephone: (617) 398-5600 E-mail: jason@blockleviton.com brendan@blockleviton.com - and - Gary F. Lynch, Esq. Nicholas A. Colella, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Telephone: (412) 322-9243 E-mail: gary@lcllp.com nick@lcllp.com KRAFT HEINZ: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Sisca Suit Due July 9 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Sisca v. Kraft Heinz Foods Company, Case No. 2:24-cv-00813 (E.D.N.Y., Filed Feb. 3, 2024), the Hon. Judge Nusrat J. Choudhury entered an order extending discovery deadlines as follows: -- Identification of case-in-chief experts, service of Rule 26 disclosures and a motion for class certification are due by July 9, 2025. -- Identification of rebuttal experts and service of Rule 26 disclosures are due by Aug. 8, 2025. -- Completion of depositions is due by Aug. 22, 2025. -- Commencement of summary judgment motion practice is due by Oct. 8, 2025. -- The pretrial conference scheduled for Sept. 9, 2025, is adjourned to Jan. 13, 2026. The nature of suit states Torts -- Personal Property -- Other Fraud. Kraft operates as a food and beverage company. The Company offers sauces, meals, soups, snacks, and infant nutrition products. [CC] LEAD DOG: Court Extends Time to File Class Cert Reply ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Slendak v. Lead Dog Pizza, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-03988 (D.S.C., Filed July 17, 2024), the Hon. Judge Mary Geiger Lewis entered an order granting motion for extension of time to file response/reply regarding motion to certify class. The suit alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Defendant is a local franchise of Domino's Pizza.[CC] LEE UNIVERSITY: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Vaught Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ CHRISTOPHER VAUGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. LEE UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00108 (E.D. Tenn., April 1, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its students and employees. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant maintained, used, and shared the personally Identifiable Information in a reckless manner. In particular, the PII was used and transmitted by Defendant in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks. As a result of the Data Breach, the Plaintiff and Class Members have been exposed to a heightened and imminent risk of fraud and identity theft. Plaintiff and Class Members must now and in the future closely monitor their financial accounts to guard against identity theft, says the suit. Lee University provides educational services. The University offers degree programs in arts, sociology, biology, chemistry, economics, environmental studies, computer science, history, mathematics, philosophy, physics, political science, and psychology. [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 Email: 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 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com LENDINGTREE LLC: Wins Bid for Summary Judgment v. Sapan ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as PAUL SAPAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LENDINGTREE, LLC, Case No. 8:23-cv-00071-JWH-DFM (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge John Holcomb entered an order granting the Defendant's motion for summary judgment: 1. LendingTree's motion for summary judgment motion is granted. 2. Sapan's class certification motion, LendingTree's stay motion, and the parties' joint motion to modify the Court's Scheduling Order are each denied as moot. 3. Judgment shall issue accordingly. In sum, there is no genuine dispute regarding whether Lending Tree could be vicariously liable for any TCPA violation committed by the entity that called Sapan, whether or not that the entity was one of Lending Tree's marketing affiliates. Sapan commenced this action in Jan. 2023. In his Complaint, Sapan asserts one claim for relief under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 ("TCPA"). LendingTree provides online tools to aid consumers in their financial decisions. A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9MPlo3 at no extra charge.[CC] LIBERTY MUTUAL: Blain's Bid for Class Cert Tossed w/o Prejudice --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as SARAH BLAIN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 3:22-cv-00970-AJB-MMP (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Anthony Battaglia entered an order: -- granting Liberty Mutual's motion to exclude, -- denying without prejudice the Plaintiff's motion for class certification, -- granting Liberty Mutual's request for judicial notice for the limited purpose of recognizing it exists, and -- granting Liberty Mutual's motion to stay the proceedings. The parties are directed to file a joint status report no later than the earlier of (1) 120 days from the docketing of this Order OR (2) seven days after a ruling issued in either Davis v. CSAA Ins. Exch., No. A169729, by the California Court of Appeal and/or of Day v. GEICO, No. 24-2201, by the Ninth Circuit. Having resolved the other pending motions, the Court finds that judicial efficiency and the potential hardship of proceeding outweigh the minimal potential damage to Plaintiff that may possibly be incurred by imposing a stay. Accordingly, having considered and weighed the applicable Landis factors, the Court grants Liberty Mutual's motion to stay the proceedings. The Plaintiff, who has held and currently holds a policy for personal auto insurance from Liberty Mutual, alleges that Liberty Mutual failed to issue adequate refunds in response to the COVID-19 crisis. The Plaintiff seeks to certify the following class: "All California residents who purchased personal automobile insurance from Liberty Mutual covering any portion of the time period from March 1, 2020 to June 11, 2021." Liberty offers auto, vehicles, properties, life, and small business insurance. A copy of the Court's order dated March 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=p5yiTj at no extra charge.[CC] LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend Grink Class Suit in N.J. -------------------------------------------------------------- The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company 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 Grink class suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Kelly Grink v. Virtua Health and Lincoln National Corporation et al., No. 1:24-cv-09919, is a putative class action filed on October 18, 2024, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. On March 7, 2025, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which, inter alia, added an additional named plaintiff (Steven Molnar) and additional named defendants, including Lincoln Retirement Services Company, LLC, and [The] Lincoln National Life Insurance Company. Plaintiffs Kelly Grink, Diane Trump and Steven Molnar are participants in Virtua Health's defined contribution plans. Plaintiffs seek to represent all current and former participants or beneficiaries of Virtua's 401(k) savings plan and 403(b) retirement program (together, the "Plans") who invested in the Plans' fixed annuity option in the six years prior to the filing of this lawsuit. Lincoln offers a fixed annuity investment option to plan participants through its group annuity contract with the Plans. Lincoln also provides recordkeeping and administration services to the Plans. Plaintiffs allege that the Virtua defendants acted in breach of their fiduciary duty including by maintaining the Plans' investment in the Lincoln stable value fund when other investment providers are alleged to have provided superior alternatives at substantially lower cost. Plaintiffs allege that the Lincoln defendants were at all relevant times fiduciaries to the Plans and were parties in interest to a prohibited transaction under ERISA. The action seeks relief against the Lincoln defendants including the disgorgement of any profits they received as a result of the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, together with plaintiffs' attorney's fees and costs, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such other equitable or remedial relief as the court deems appropriate. The Company is vigorously defending this matter. Lincoln National is a corporation organized under Indiana law and is responsible for drafting, issuing, and administering group policies of life and AD&D insurance.[BN] LINCOLN NATIONAL: Continues to Defend Morgan Class Suit in Texas ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company 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 Morgan class suit in the District Court of the 14th Judicial District of Dallas County, Texas. Henry Morgan et al. v. Lincoln National Corporation d/b/a Lincoln Financial Group, et al, filed in the District Court of the 14th Judicial District of Dallas County, Texas, No. DC-23-02492, is a putative class action that was filed on February 22, 2023. Plaintiffs Henry Morgan, Susan Smith, Charles Smith, Laura Seale, Terri Cogburn, Laura Baesel, Kathleen Walton, Terry Warner, and Toni Hale ("Plaintiffs") allege on behalf of a putative class that Lincoln National Corporation d/b/a Lincoln Financial Group, LNL and LLANY (together, "Lincoln"), FMR, LLC, and Fidelity Product Services, LLC ("Fidelity") created and marketed misleading and deceptive insurance products with attributes of investment products. The putative class comprises all individuals and entities who purchased Lincoln OptiBlend products that allocated account monies to the 1-Year Fidelity AIM Dividend Participation Account, between January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2022. Plaintiffs assert the following claims individually and on behalf of the class, (1) violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act against Lincoln; (2) common-law fraud against Lincoln; (3) negligent misrepresentation against Lincoln and Fidelity; and (4) aiding and abetting fraud against Fidelity. Plaintiffs allege they suffered damages from "a missed investment return of approximately 5-6%" and mitigation damages. They seek actual, consequential and punitive damages, as well as pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, attorney's fees and litigation costs. On March 31, 2023, the Lincoln defendants filed a notice of removal removing the action from the 14th Judicial District of Dallas County, Texas, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. On May 8, 2023, the Lincoln defendants and the Fidelity defendants filed motions to dismiss, which remain pending. The Company is vigorously defending this matter. Lincoln National is a corporation organized under Indiana law and is responsible for drafting, issuing, and administering group policies of life and AD&D insurance.[BN] LIVE NATION: Amended Bid to Compel Arbitration in Paxson OK'd ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ERIN J. PAXSON, v. LIVE NATION ENTERTAINMENT, INC., et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-00907-APG-EJY (D. Nev.), the Hon. Judge Andrew Gordon entered an order: -- granting the Defendants' amended motion to compel arbitration, -- denying as moot the Plaintiff Erin Paxson's motion for class certification, and -- denying Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a sur-reply. The Plaintiff Erin J. Paxson's claims are dismissed without prejudice to pursue them in arbitration. The clerk of court is ordered to close this case. The arbitration agreement is valid and not illusory. I therefore grant Live Nation's motion to compel arbitration. Judge Gordon denied Paxson's motion for leave to file a sur-reply because Live Nation did not raise new issues or present materially new evidence that require further argument. Because neither party has requested a stay, I dismiss Paxson's claims without prejudice because she must arbitrate them The Plaintiff brings a class action suit against Live Nation for claims arising from the 2022 Lovers and Friends music festival. She alleges claims for (1) breach of contract, (2) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, (3) unjust enrichment, and (4) violations of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act. She alleges that these violations occurred when Live Nation employees allegedly caused a stampede at the festival and organizers subsequently failed to issue refunds to her and other attendees. Live Nation produces live concerts and sells tickets to those events over the Internet. A copy of the Court's order dated March 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HahhPE at no extra charge.[CC] LOS ANGELES, CA: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Berg Due Sept. 12 --------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Krizia Berg et al., v. County of Los Angeles et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-07870-DMG-PD (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Dolly Gee entered an order as follows: The parties shall resume and complete expert discovery, as the expert discovery deadline had not yet passed when the case was stayed. The Court also reopens non-expert discovery on the limited issue of LASD's response to Penal Code section 13652. All discovery shall be completed by no later than Friday, June 20, 2025. If Plaintiffs wish to file a Third Amended Complaint, they shall file a regularly noticed motion for leave to amend consistent with Local Rules 7 and 15-1. Any motion for leave to amend shall be filed by no later than Friday, July 11, 2025, with a hearing date no later than Aug. 15, 2025. Renewed Class Certification Motion and Dispositive Motion Cut-Off: The parties shall brief the dispositive motion and the renewed motion for class certification simultaneously, as follows: Sept. 12, 2025: Deadline for Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification ("MFC") and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment ("MSJ") Oct. 10, 2025: Deadline for Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' MSJ and Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' MFC Nov. 7, 2025: Deadline for Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of their MFC and Deadlines' Reply in Support of their MSJ Dec. 5, 2025 at 2:00 p.m.: Hearing on Plaintiffs' MFC and Defendants' MSJ. A copy of the Court's order dated March 19, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Z0VKjG at no extra charge.[CC] MAIDEN HOLDINGS: Dismissal of Securities Suit Under Appeal ---------------------------------------------------------- Maiden Holdings, Ltd. disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2025, that dismissal of a putative class action complaint filed against Maiden Holdings, Arturo M. Raschbaum, Karen L. Schmitt, and John M. Marshaleck in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on February 11, 2019 is currently on appeal at the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. On February 19, 2020, the court appointed lead plaintiffs, and on May 1, 2020, lead plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint. The Amended Complaint asserts violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 (and Section 20(a) for control person liability) arising in large part from allegations that Maiden failed to take adequate loss reserves in connection with reinsurance provided to AmTrust Financial Services, Inc. Plaintiffs further claim that certain of Maiden Holdings' representations concerning its business, underwriting and financial statements were rendered false by the allegedly inadequate loss reserves, that these misrepresentations inflated the price of Maiden Holdings' common stock, and that when the truth about the misrepresentations was revealed, the company's stock price fell, causing plaintiffs to incur losses. On September 11, 2020, a motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of all defendants. On August 6, 2021, the court issued an order denying, in part, defendants' motion to dismiss, ordering Plaintiffs to file a shorter amended complaint no later than August 20, 2021, and permitting discovery to proceed on a limited basis. On February 7, 2023, the District Court denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the District Court's decision denying plaintiffs' objection to the Magistrate Judge's December 2021 ruling on discovery. On May 26, 2023, the company filed a Renewed Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended Complaint or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment, which has been fully briefed. On December 19, 2023, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted summary judgment on plaintiffs' claim for securities fraud under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act to Maiden Holdings, Ltd. and individual defendants Arturo Raschbaum, Karen Schmitt, and John Marshalek. The court held that the factual record failed to support, as a matter of law, plaintiffs' allegations that the defendants had made false statements regarding the company's loss reserves. The court also dismissed plaintiffs' claims that the individual defendants were liable as control persons under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act for any such alleged false statements. Plaintiffs have appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Maiden Holdings is a Bermuda-based holding company that provides a full range of legacy services to small insurance companies, particularly those in run-off or with blocks of reserves that are no longer core, working with clients to develop and implement finality solutions including acquiring entire companies that enable our clients to meet their capital and risk management objectives. MCA MERRILLVILLE: Napoleon Suit Seeks to Certify Rule 23 Class -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KRISTEN NAPOLEON on Behalf of Herself and All Others Similarly Situated, v. MCA MERRILLVILLE DELI, INC. and MCA VALPARAISO DELI, INC., MCA SCHERERVILLE DELI, INC., MCA BLOOMINGDALE, INC., MCA ELIGIN, INC, MCA ALGONQUIN, INC., MCA SCHAUMBURG, INC., KEYSTONE MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC. and JAY PUNUKOLLU, Case No. 2:24-cv-00093-PPS-APR (N.D. Ind.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order: -- certifying the following Plaintiff Class in this action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3): "All present and former hourly employees of the MCA Merrillville Deli, Inc., MCA Schererville Deli, Inc. and MCA Valparaiso Deli, Inc. who worked over 40 hours in a workweek between Oct. 28, 2019 and Oct. 27, 2024 and were not paid overtime premium wages." -- directing the Defendants to submit to Plaintiff via e-mail a separate Word or Excel document within 10 days of the Court's Order certifying this class action the following information for each proposed class member: the time keeping records for all employees from Oct. 28, 2019 to Oct. 27, 2024 if not already provided, their full names, home addresses, telephone and cell phone numbers, dates of employment, location of employment, and dates of birth of all potential plaintiffs; and -- approving the proposed Notice of Class Action submitted for the Court's review. I A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated March 23, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=gigTFr at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ronald E. Weldy, Esq. WELDY LAW 11268 Governors Lane Fishers, IN 46037 Telephone: (317) 842-6600 E-mail: rweldy@weldylegal.com MCGILL UNIVERSITY: Student Sues Over Discrimination, Antisemitism ----------------------------------------------------------------- CBC News reports that a McGill University undergrad is hoping to launch a class-action lawsuit against the school for allegedly failing to protect Jewish students from antisemitism and discrimination on campus since Oct. 8, 2023. Backed by a Montreal law firm and B'nai Brith Canada, the application to launch a class action was filed in Superior Court on April 8. It has not yet been authorized. The lawsuit is seeking reimbursement of 33 per cent of the aggregate tuition and student fees paid by each class member in respect of the period since October 8, 2023, and punitive damages in the amount of $5 million for harm suffered by the class as a whole. The lawsuit is asking that all Jewish students registered at McGill University be included, be they undergraduate, masters, continuing education, doctoral or post-doctoral students. It estimates that there could be about 4,000 plaintiffs. The applicant seeking authorization in this case is David Cobrin, who is being represented by Fishman Flanz Meland Paquin LLP. Cobrin alleges that McGill University failed to enforce its own policies to protect Jewish students from harassment, discrimination and antisemitism, particularly since the October 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel. McGill is accused of breaching its obligations under its Code of Student Conduct and other internal policies by allowing an environment of antisemitic sentiment and not taking adequate disciplinary or preventive measures, the lawsuit says. The lawsuit is seeking financial compensation for affected students and asks the court to compel McGill to meaningfully enforce its policies to ensure Jewish students are protected and that anti-Zionism is recognized as "a manifestation of antisemitism." "B'nai Brith Canada is supporting McGill's Jewish students because the university has allowed the situation to get out of hand," said Henry Topas, B'nai Brith Canada's regional director for Quebec in a statement. "Radicalized individuals, both students and non-students, are preventing Jewish students from obtaining the university experience to which they are entitled." The lawsuit cites dozens of examples of what it says contributed to harassment, discrimination and antisemitism on campus, including a two-and-a-half-month, pro-Palestinian encampment on the school's lower field that called for the school to divest from Israel-related funds. It cites an Instagram post allegedly made the day after the attack on Oct. 8, 2023, by Students in Solidarity with Palestinian Human Rights (SPHR). It was an official student club at the time. It described Hamas' assault and taking of hostages as "heroic" and urged people to "celebrate the resistance's success," the lawsuit says. In the years since, tensions on campus have escalated and at times become violent. The application cites several Instagram posts made by SPHR, protests, vandalism and decisions made by the school and governing bodies, such as the Students' Society of McGill University (SSMU). "Since Oct. 8, 2023, applicant feels that he has not received the full extent of the university experience to which he has a right and legitimate expectation," the application states. McGill University declined a request for comment Tuesday evening, April 8. [GN] MDL 2724: Settlement in Antitrust Suit Gets Initial Nod ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE: GENERIC PHARMACEUTICALS PRICING ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No. 2:16-md-02724-CMR (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Cynthia Rufe entered an order preliminarily approving the Settlement: "All persons or entities, and their successors and assigns, that directly purchased one or more of the Named Generic Drugs from one or more Current or Former Defendants in the United States and its territories and possessions, at any time during the period from May 1, 2009 until Dec. 31, 2019." Excluded from the Settlement Class are Current and Former Defendants and their present and former officers, directors, management, employees, subsidiaries, or affiliates, judicial officers and their personnel, and all governmental entities. The settlement amounts consist of a $265,000,000 monetary payment, which has been reduced to $233,200,000 to account for the opt-outs but may be increased to as much as $295,551,850 under the most favored nation clause. A copy of the Court's memorandum opinion dated March 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=qaJwzL at no extra charge.[CC] MINT URBAN: Jury Rules Payment of $13.5M in Property False Ads Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------- Mary Salmonsen, writing for MultiFamily Dive, reports that following an eight-day trial in the U.S. District Court of Colorado, a jury has ruled that the owners and former operator of the Mint Urban Infinity Apartments in Denver must pay a total of over $13.5 million to their current and former tenants for violating the state's warranty of habitability law, according to Denver7. Over 200 current and former Mint Urban tenants filed a class action lawsuit against Denver-based Cardinal Group Management and New York City-based Glendale Properties I and II -- holding companies for Singapore-based Mapletree Investments -- on Oct. 22, 2021, according to court documents. Neither Cardinal nor Mapletree have responded to requests for comment from Multifamily Dive. The plaintiffs claimed that Mint Urban -- a nine-building, 561-unit property -- had been misrepresented to them in Cardinal's advertising, which allegedly promoted the property's newly renovated pool, elevators and air conditioning. Instead, they allegedly found all three of these amenities were either nonfunctional or frequently broken. In the lawsuit, plaintiffs also reported chronic issues with the property's plumbing, broken doors and door locks, broken air conditioning, leaking roofs, cracks and holes, overflowing trash receptacles and dumpsters, broken lighting, unsanitary common areas and broken and unsanitary laundry facilities. Specific incidents at the property include an entire summer in which the air conditioning did not function and a period in which the property did not have a front door for six months, according to Denver7. "Defendants refused to make necessary repairs, including with respect to critical, featured amenities like elevators and air conditioning, as required by Colorado law and/or their form lease agreements," the lawsuit reads. "Indeed, despite knowing about the need for such repairs for years, defendants refused to authorize and perform them, choosing instead to continue to falsely advertise to tenants prospective and current alike that such amenities were fully functioning and available." The property also allegedly charged tenants a pest control fee of $2 per month, even if it did not render pest control services, and a move-out fee of twice the unit's rent if they did not provide 60 days' written notice of intent to move out, according to the lawsuit. The plaintiffs sought to prevent the defendants from collecting this move-out fee, collecting rent, advertising the property or charging fees until the issues were remedied, according to court documents. They also sought damages for breaches of "legal and contractual duties." In its response to the complaint, Cardinal denied the majority of the plaintiffs' allegations about the condition of the property or that they had misrepresented it in advertising. Glendale Properties, in its response to the court, stated that supply chain issues related to the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as staffing issues, contributed to delays in the property's repairs during that period. It also claimed that it allowed residents to break their leases penalty-free during the long air conditioning outage. In the trial, which began on March 3, a jury ruled that Cardinal and the owners had violated Colorado's warranty of habitability law, which obligates landlords to fulfill specific requirements to make a property fit for human habitation. These include weather protection, appropriate extermination for pests and maintaining public spaces in good repair. The award is equivalent to a 31.42% rent reduction for all tenants living at Mint Urban between Oct. 22, 2018 and June 28, 2022, plus damages of $200 per unit per month during this timeframe, according to CBS Colorado. The plaintiffs' legal team estimates that more than 2,000 tenants would benefit from this ruling. Cardinal, ranked No. 34 on the NMHC Top 50 Managers list, manages more than 54,000 units across the country. Atlanta-based Cortland took over management of Mint Urban Infinity Apartments from Cardinal in 2022. Cortland is not named in the lawsuit. [GN] NATIONWIDE INSURANCE: Court Dismisses Nutt Class Suit ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Lisa A. Nutt, v. Nationwide Insurance Company of America, et al., Case No. 2:24-cv-02228-ROS (D. Ariz.), the Hon. Judge Roslyn Silver entered an order declining to address class certification prior to resolving Article III standing. The Plaintiff has not alleged any injury from the Moving Defendants nor does Plaintiff raise other arguments as to why she has individual standing to sue the Moving Defendants. The claims against the Moving Defendants are dismissed. Accordingly, the Moving Defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is granted. The Court further entered an order directing the Clerk of Court to terminate the Defendants Nationwide Affinity Insurance Company of America, Nationwide Assurance Company, Nationwide General Insurance Company, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, Nationwide Property & Casualty Insurance Company, Allied Property & Casualty Insurance Company, AMCO Insurance Company, Depositors Insurance Company, Titan Insurance Company, and Victoria Fire & Casualty Company from this case. The Plaintiff alleges the Defendants did not allow insured customers to "stack" UM and UIM coverages. On Aug. 11, 2021, the Plaintiff suffered injuries in excess of $125,000 as a result of a motorcycle accident. At the time of the accident, the Plaintiff had a Nationwide America auto insurance policy providing the Plaintiff with UIM benefits of $25,000 per person and $50,000 per occurrence for each of six vehicles. The Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of individuals challenging similar stacked UM/UIM claims at Nationwide America and linked companies. Nationwide offers insurance, retirement and investing products. A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vytrn8 at no extra charge.[CC] NONSTOP ADMINISTRATION: Settlement Class Gets Certification ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JOHN PRUTSMAN, AMIRA MARTZ, SIMCHA RINGEL, NAIOMI MARDEN, ALANA BALAGOT, CORINNE WARREN, SUNNY LAI, AND DAVID KLEIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, V. NONSTOP ADMINISTRATION AND INSURANCE SERVICES, INC.; INCLUSIVE, Case No. 3:23-cv-01131-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Rita Lin entered a final approval order as follows: 1. The final approval motion and the fees, costs, and service awards motion are granted. 2. The Court certifies, for settlement purposes only, a Settlement Class defined as follows: "All individuals within the United States of America whose PHI/PII was exposed to unauthorized third parties as a result of the data breach discovered by Defendant on Dec. 22, 2022." 3. The Court appoints John Prutsman, Amira Martz, Simcha Ringel, Naiomi Marden, Alana Balagot, Corrine Warren, Sunny Lai, and David Klein as Class Representatives of the Settlement Class pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23(a). 4. The Court appoints the Plaintiffs' attorneys Gary M. Klinger of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC; and Scott E. Cole of Cole & Van Note as Settlement Class Counsel. 5. Class Counsel are awarded attorneys' fees in the amount of $400,000.00 and litigation costs in the amount of $14,696.96. Nonstop Administration was founded with the mission to reduce health insurance costs for nonprofits and their employees. A copy of the Court's order dated March 18, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=tCr980 at no extra charge.[CC] NORTHEAST ORTHOPAEDICS: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Wallen Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES WALLEN, individually and on behalf of his minor child, A.W., and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NORTHEAST ORTHOPAEDICS ALLIANCE, PLLC; and CONCORD ORTHOPAEDICS PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-00128 (D.N.H., April 3, 2025) is an action against the Defendant for its failure to properly secure and safeguard sensitive information of its customers and patients. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendants failed to fulfill their duties and obligations, as unauthorized cybercriminals accessed and stole vast quantities of Private Information belonging to Defendants' patients, including Plaintiffs and Class members. The Data Breach—and the successful exfiltration of Private Information—were the direct, proximate, and foreseeable results of multiple failings on the part of Defendants. The Data Breach occurred because Defendants failed to implement reasonable security protections to safeguard their information systems and databases, especially by utilizing software programs with security deficiencies. As a result of Defendants' negligent, reckless, intentional, and unconscionable failure to adequately satisfy their contractual, statutory, and common-law obligations, the Plaintiffs and Class members suffered injuries, says the suit. Northeast Orthopaedics Alliance, PLLC offers comprehensive medical management of all orthopaedic conditions with special attention to personalized patient care. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam H. Weintraub, Esq. WEINTRAUB LAW, LLC 170 Commerce Way, Suite 200 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Telephone: (603) 212-1785 Facsimile: (504) 708-4512 Email: aweintraub@ahwfirm.com - and - Daniel O. Herrera, Esq. Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq. CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP 135 S. LaSalle, Suite 3210 Chicago, IL 60603 Telephone: (312) 782-4880 Facsimile: (312) 782-4485 Email: dherrera@caffertyclobes.com nhagman@caffertyclobes.com NORWOOD FINANCIAL: Continues to Defend MOVEit Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------- Norwood Financial Corp. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14, 2025, that the Company continues to defend itself from the MOVEit customer data security breach class suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. On February 20, 2024, the Company was notified of a Complaint entitled Ian Werkmeister vs. Wayne Bank, filed on February 12, 2024 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania seeking class action status. The Plaintiff is seeking monetary recovery and other relief on behalf of themselves and one or more putative classes of other individuals similarly situated. The Complaint arises out of a widely reported data security incident involving MOVEit, a file sharing software used globally by government agencies, enterprise corporations, and financial institutions. In October of 2023, Wayne Bank was notified by its third-party information service provider of a cyber-incident that involved unauthorized access to Wayne Bank customer information in one of the vendor's file transfer applications. The incident involved vulnerabilities discovered in MOVEit Transfer, a file transfer software used by the Bank's vendor to support services provided by the vendor to Wayne Bank and its related institutions. MOVEit is a commonly used secure Managed File Transfer software, which supports file transfer activities used by thousands of organizations around the world, including government agencies and major financial firms. The vulnerability discovered in MOVEit did not involve any of Wayne Bank's internal systems and did not impact the Bank's ability to service its customers. The MOVEit cases have since been transferred and consolidated in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts and are now entitled MOVEit Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. On July 23, 2024, on behalf of all of the Defendants (including the Company) in this case, an omnibus Motion to Dismiss the cases for lack of Article III standing pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure was filed with the Court. A hearing on this motion was held on October 9, 2024. On December 12, 2024, Judge Burroughs denied the defendants' Rule 12(b)(1) motion in large part. The Court has ordered that a bellwether process be used to test claims and defenses. Because Wayne Bank is not a bellwether defendant, its obligations will be much lessened but will include, among other things, modest discovery. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted in the Complaint and intends to vigorously defend itself against such Complaint. Norwood Financial Corp is the holding company for Wayne Bank that offers wide variety of personal, business credit services, and trust and investment products to consumer, commercial, and nonprofit organizations and municipalities. [BN] OS RESTAURANT: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Yarbrough Alleges ----------------------------------------------------------- TREMAYNE YARBROUGH, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. OS RESTAURANT SERVICES, LLC; FLEMING'S PRIME STEAKHOUSE & WINE BAR; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV09771 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 3, 2025) is an action against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages, overtime compensation, authorize and permit meal and rest periods, provide accurate wage statements, and reimburse necessary business expenses. Plaintiff Yarbrough was employed by the Defendants as a waiter. OS Restaurant Services, LLC operates as a statehouse restaurant. [BN] James R. Hawkins, Esq. Christina M. Lucio, Esq. JAMES HAWKINS APLC 9880 Research Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92618 Telephone: (949) 387-7200 Facsimile: (949) 387-6676 Email: james@Jameshawkinsaplc.com christina@Jameshawkinsaplc.com PACIFIC GAS: Faces Class Lawsuit Over Capitola Village Explosion ---------------------------------------------------------------- Max Chun, writing for Lookout Santa Cruz, reports that a Sacramento-based law firm has filed a class action lawsuit against Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) on behalf of residents and business owners in Capitola Village, after a major explosion that occurred early on Christmas morning 2024. Central Fire District and Capitola Police responded to a structure fire in Capitola Village that began at about 5:10 a.m. on Christmas morning. It started behind El Toro Bravo Mexican restaurant on the 100 block of Monterey Avenue. Village residents who witnessed the incident confirmed that an explosion caused the fire. One resident allegedly suffered serious injuries as a result of the incident. The complaint alleges that the explosion was caused by a failure in PG&E's underground utility infrastructure. The plaintiffs say that overheating in the wiring melted through a gas service line, which was in the same underground trench as the electrical wiring. They allege that gas was emitting for around two hours before igniting and severely damaging the surrounding properties. "This was an entirely preventable disaster caused by infrastructure that should have been safely maintained and compliant with the law," said Bill Kershaw, founding partner at Kershaw Talley Barlow, the law firm representing the Capitola residents and business owners. "This community deserves answers and improvements to bring non-compliant underground utility lines into compliance with the Public Utility Commissions General Orders and to make sure Capitola Village is safe and that this never happens again." The law firm also wrote in a statement that it is investigating individual claims of residents and nearby business owners harmed by the incident and will file additional lawsuits. In a statement sent to Lookout, PG&E said it is aware of the lawsuits tied to the incident, and that it is confident in the safety of the local gas system. The company is replacing equipment as "an additional layer of protection for the community." Two investigations are underway -- one by a PG&E team and another by Exponent, a third party engineering firm, to "understand what factors contributed to this safety incident." [GN] PROMPTCARE COMPANIES: Hicks Seeks Hourly Workers' Unpaid Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- KRISTA HICKS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. THE PROMPTCARE COMPANIES, INC., d/b/a PROMPT CARE COMPANIES INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-02241 (D.N.J., April 2, 2025) seeks to recover unpaid wages and other damages for the Plaintiff and similarly situated non-exempt hourly positions including but not limited to respiratory therapists and similarly situated hourly positions (Hourly Workers) who work or have worked for PromptCare. To conduct their operations, Prompt Care operates over 40 locations and employs over 300 Hourly Workers. Accordingly, the Defendant has compensated Plaintiff and all other Hourly workers on an hourly basis. The Defendant has also paid Plaintiff and all other Hourly Workers stipends for signing up to be "on call". The stipend was to compensate employees for agreeing to be "on call", but not for time actually worked while "on call." As such, this stipend didn't cover Plaintiff and other Hourly Workers' hours worked while "on call" at their regular rate of pay for hours up to and including 40 per workweek, or at their overtime rate of pay for hours over 40 per work week. The Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and similarly situated Hourly Workers who elect to opt-in to this action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and specifically, the collective action provision of 29 U.S.C. section 216(b) to remedy violations of the wage and hour provisions of the FLSA by Defendant that have deprived Plaintiff and similarly situated employees of their lawfully earned wages. Headquartered in New Providence, New Jersey, Prompt Care provides respiratory products and infusion therapy services throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Dana M. Cimera, Esq. Brian S. Schaffer, Esq. FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP 28 Liberty Street, 30th Floor New York, NY 10005 Telephone: (212) 300-0375 E-mail: bschaffer@fslawfirm.com dcimera@fslawfirm.com RCP MEATS: Wee-Ellis Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------- MELCHION WEE-ELLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RCP MEATS, INC., Defendant, Case 2:25-cv-01870-NGG-JMW (E.D.N.Y., April 4, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, https://www.chubsmeats112.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. RCP Meats, Inc. operates as a butcher Shop and meat market in Medford, Ronkonkoma and Smithtown NY, offering premium meats, gourmet food, and catering. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael H. Cohen, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (917) 437-3737 Email: mcohen@ealg.law SLEEP NUMBER CORP: Faces Consumer Suit in California ---------------------------------------------------- Sleep Number Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7, 2025, that on September 27, 2024, a purported customer served a putative class action complaint on behalf of themself and a putative class of California consumers against Sleep Number in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California alleging that its beds are perpetually on sale in violation of California law. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief, damages and attorney's fees. Sleep Number is a wellness technology company to help solve sleep problems, by providing individualized temperature control for each sleeper through its smart beds, marketing and selling its innovations directly to new and existing customers through direct-to-consumer retail touch points. SOAREN MANAGEMENT: Faces Gill Class Over Loansharking Scheme ------------------------------------------------------------ ALICE GILL, RACHEL BUTLER, MORGAN RICE, PATREESE WILLIAMS, JESSE WILSON, GLORIA APPIAH, DOROTHEA FULMORE, DARLENE MOORE, JEROME COLE, RUBEN VILLANUEVA, JOSE ROSARIO, ANDREW FUENTES, SPENCER THOMPSON, JOSEPH GREENWOOD, KATHLEEN ZACCHEO, JEREMY RICKABAUGH, and NICOLE MATOS, on behalf of themselves and all individuals similarly situated v. SOAREN MANAGEMENT, LLC, KRAKEN HOLDINGS, LLC, GENA KAKKAK, JOEY AWONOHOPAY, SPENCER GAUTHIER, MICHAEL FISH, JR., DANA WAUBANASCUM, JOAN DELABREAU, REBECCA BRUNETTE, DAYNELL GRIGNON, RANDY CHEVALIER, and CRYSTAL CHAPMAN-CHEVALIER, and JOHN DOES Nos. 1-15,Case No. 1:25-cv-00489-BBC (E.D. Wisc., April 2, 2025) alleges that Defendants engaged in usury and loansharking schemes. According to the complaint, the schemes are commonly referred as "tribal lending" business model, or more colloquially, as a "rent-a-tribe" scheme, a "recent incarnation of payday lending companies regulation-avoidance." These non-tribal payday lenders and third-party funders wishing to use this model to circumvent state legal prohibitions on usurious lending go searching for a small, easily dominated tribe that will be willing to serve as the consumer-facing façade for the usury scheme, in return for receiving a small portion of the revenue generated and, often, some call-center jobs. In this case, non-tribal payday lender Fineday holds itself out as a tribal lending entity owned and operated by the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin. Fineday is wholly owned by Wolf River Development Company. According to its website, Wolf River's purpose is "to investigate, review, consider, pursue and conduct any nongaming commercial activity of the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin deemed advisable by the [Wolf River] Board of Directors in order to generate profit, whether on or off the Menominee Reservation." Defendants Soaren Management, LLC and Kraken Holdings, LLC, and their non-tribal owners, managers, and investors, are the true operators of the Fineday usurious lending scheme and provide the day-to-day management, operation, investment, and customer service functions of the enterprise from their headquarters in Arizona, far from the Tribe's reservation. The Defendants have actively participated in the scheme and have conspired with each other and others to repeatedly violate state lending statutes resulting in the collection of unlawful debt from Plaintiffs and the members of the class, the lawsuit says. SOAREN MANAGEMENT, LLC is a financial firm providing financial products and services via proprietary underwriting and loan management.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas Scott-Railton, Esq. Matthew W.H. Wessler, Esq. GUPTA WESSLER LLP 2001 K Street NW, Suite 850 North Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 888-1741 Facsimile: (202) 888-7792 E-mail: thomas@guptawessler.com matt@guptawessler.com - and - Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq. Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq. Matthew G. Rosendahl, Esq. KELLY GUZZO PLC 3925 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202 Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 424-7572 Facsimile: (703) 591-0167 E-mail: kkelly@kellyguzzo.com aguzzo@kellyguzzo.com matt@kellyguzzo.com SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Filing for Class Cert Bid Extended ------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as ARTHUR ANDERSON and MANUEL RIVERA, Individually and as Representatives of a Class of Similarly Situated Persons, v. SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO., et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-00214-S (N.D. Tex.), the Hon. Judge Karen Gren Scholer entered an order granting in part and denying in part the joint motion to: (1) extend the time for filing a class certification motion; (2) extend the time for briefing the motion to dismiss; and (3) stay discovery pending decision on the Defendants' anticipated motion to dismiss. The Court grants the Motion to the extent that the parties seek to suspend the 90-day deadline to move for Class Certification under Local Rule 23.2. That deadline is suspended. The parties are ordered to propose a new deadline in a Joint Report submitted pursuant to FRCP Rule 26(f) and Section III(A) of the Court's Judge Specific Requirements before the FRCP Rule 26 Scheduling Conference, which will be set by separate order. To the extent the parties request extended briefing deadlines on an anticipated motion to dismiss that has not yet been filed and request a stay of discovery pending resolution of that motion to dismiss, the Court denies the Motion as premature and without prejudice to its refiling once a motion to dismiss has indeed been filed. Southwest is a major airline in the United States that formerly operated on a low-cost carrier model. A copy of the Court's order dated March 17, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XZAvtI at no extra charge.[CC] SPROUTS FARMER'S: Butter Products Contain Toxic Cadmium, Hart Says ------------------------------------------------------------------ CARYN HART and AMANDA GLOVER, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. SPROUTS FARMER'S MARKET, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-00792-BEN-MSB (S.D. Cal., April 2, 2025) alleges that the Defendant misled consumers about the health benefits and quality of butter products and failed to disclose that the Products contain unsafe and unlawful levels of cadmium -- a known human carcinogen that is linked to a myriad of health issues. The Defendant manufactures, distributes, and sells a line of sunflower butter products, including Sprouts Creamy Unsweetened Sunflower Butter, Sprouts Organic Creamy Unsalted & Unsweetened Sunflower Butter, and Sprouts Creamy Sunflower Butter. The Defendant represents that the Products are safe for children and consumers and made with non-toxic ingredients. Specifically, the Defendant labels the Products with bright sunflowers and the following statements: "School Friendly" and "Made in small batches with roasted sunflower seeds." The Products' labels further contain a long list of undesired items that the Products boastfully do not contain, including "Non-GMO," "BPA Free," and "Free From" peanuts, tree-nuts, dairy, eggs, fish, sesame, shellfish, wheat, and soy. Accordingly, testing revealed that the Sprouts Organic Creamy Unsalted & Unsweetened Sunflower Butter product tested positive for 26.56 micrograms of cadmium per serving and the Sprouts Creamy Sunflower Butter product tested positive for 11.84 micrograms of cadmium per serving. In California, products that test positive for more than 4.1 micrograms of cadmium must display a Proposition 65 warning label. However, the Defendant fails to disclose the high levels of cadmium in the Products thereby deceiving consumers. The Defendant also makes protein claims on the front of the Product labels, but fails to include the percent of daily value for protein in the Nutrition Facts Panel, says the suit.[BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lilach H. Klein, Esq. Craig W. Straub, Esq. Zachary M. Crosner, Esq. CROSNER LEGAL, P.C. 9440 Santa Monica Blvd. Suite 301 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Telephone: (866) 276-7637 Facsimile: (310) 510-6429 E-mail: lilach@crosnerlegal.com craig@crosnerlegal.com zach@crosnerlegal.com STAPLES CONTRACT: Class Cert. Filing in Felix Continued to June 2 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JAVIER FELIX, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated, and as an aggrieved employee pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"), v. STAPLES CONTRACT & COMMERCIAL LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 5:24-cv-01968-KK-SP (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Kenly Kiya Kato entered an order continuing the Plaintiff's deadline to file a motion for class certification from April 16, 2025 to June 2, 2025. No further extensions will be granted, says the Court. Staples Contract specializes in providing office supplies, furniture, and technology solutions to businesses. A copy of the Court's order dated March 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KNjS4E at no extra charge.[CC] SYSTEM1 INC: Settlement Reached in Consumer Subscription Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- System1, Inc. 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 in October 2023, a putative California class action complaint was filed against the company alleging violations of California's Auto Renewal Law requirements related to the marketing and sale of its subscription service offerings for anti-virus and ad-blocking software to consumers. Parties reached a settlement agreement during September 2024 and paid $2.5 million during December 2024. The complaint alleges claims under California’s false advertising and unfair competition laws and primarily alleges that the marketing and sales checkout flows for software did not clearly and conspicuously disclose that purchases would auto-renew after the applicable promotional period. SYSTEM1 operates an omnichannel customer acquisition platform using its proprietary responsive acquisition marketing platform (RAMP) through relationships with third party advertisers and advertising networks. TAPESTRY INC: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Ayala Due July 25 --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as CARLOS AYALA, et al., v. TAPESTRY, INC., et al., Case No. 3:24-cv-01052-BAS-DEB (S.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Daniel Butcher entered an order granting the parties' joint motion regarding class certification briefing schedule. The Motion for Class Certification is due July 25, 2025. The Court issues the following briefing schedule for the class certification motion: (1) Defendants' opposition must be filed no later than Aug. 22, 2025; and (2) The Plaintiffs' reply shall be filed no later than Sept. 19, 2025. Tapestry is an American multinational fashion holding company. A copy of the Court's order dated March 21, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3SPrF2 at no extra charge.[CC] TESLA INC: Hinton Suit Removed from State Court to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit captioned as NYREE HINTON, an individual v. TESLA, INC., TESLA FINANCE LLC, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. 25STCV03746 (Filed Feb. 10, 2025) was removed from the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 2, 2025. The C.D. Cal. Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02877 to the proceedings. The Plaintiff alleges he purchased a used 2020 Tesla Model Y from an unrelated third-party in Georgia, and claims that he believes Tesla has, among other things, designed an algorithm or other software into his car which causes it to fraudulently record more miles on the odometer than were actually driven. This allegedly causes the various warranties of his vehicle and others to prematurely terminate when they hit warranty mileage caps, thus allowing Tesla to improperly deny warranty coverage for repairs that would have been covered if the odometer had been correct, says the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff asserts various California contract and fraud-type claims on behalf of a proposed California class. Defendants deny all material allegations in the Complaint, deny the existence of any such software, deny that class treatment is appropriate, and deny they have harmed Plaintiff or any member of the putative class or that they are entitled to any relief. Tesla, Inc. is an American multinational automotive and clean energy company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher R. Rodriguez, Esq. Andrew D. Bluth, Esq. John R. Ternieden, Esq. SINGLETON SCHREIBER, LLP 1414 K Street, Suite 470 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916) 248-8478 Facsimile: (619) 255-1515 E-mail: crodriguez@signletonschreiber.com abluth@singletoscrheiber.com jternieden@signletonscheiber.com The Defendant is represented by: Aengus H. Carr, Esq. TESLA, INC. 3000 Hanover St. Palo Alto, CA 94304 Telephone (650)-681-5000 E-mail: aecarr@tesla.com TOWN AND COUNTRY BANK: Settlement Reached in Securities Suit ------------------------------------------------------------ HBT Financial, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 28, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7, 2025, Town and Country Bank reached an agreement in principle to settle a purported class action lawsuit filed in October 2023, in the Circuit Court of Sangamon County, Illinois in which the it would make a one-time cash payment of $0.3 million, without admitting fault, to release the bank from further liability and claims in the case. The plaintiff, a customer of Town and Country Bank, which previously merged with HBT, alleges that it breached its contract with the plaintiff by charging overdraft fees for transactions that were authorized on a positive account balance, but when settled, settled into a negative balance. A definitive settlement agreement reflecting the terms of the agreement in principle was approved by the Court on July 9, 2024. The Bank made the one-time cash payment of $0.3 million during the third quarter of 2024. HBT Financial, Inc. is headquartered in Bloomington, Illinois and is the holding company for Heartland Bank and Trust Company. On February 1, 2023, HBT Financial completed its acquisition of Town and Country Financial Corporation, the holding company for Town and Country Bank. TRUECARE PROPERTY: Disclose Data Without Consent, Wright Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- AMY WRIGHT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRUECARE PROPERTY HOLDINGS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00786-JES-BLM (S.D. Cal., April 1, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for disclosing confidential personally identifiable information and protected health information to Meta Platforms, Inc., via a tracking pixel, Meta Pixel, in violation of various common and statutory data privacy laws. According to the complaint, unbeknownst to the Plaintiff and Class Members, the Defendant shares Website visitors' personal information with Meta using a "Meta Pixel" which is a snippet of programming code that, once installed on a webpage, sends information to Meta. The Defendant's practice of sharing consumers' Private Information with Meta without their consent, and its failure to disclose this practice, caused the Defendant to profit from advertising revenue it would otherwise not have received, says the suit. Truecare Group, Ltd. owns and operates a hospice. The Company provides care for residents with learning disabilities, mental health disorders, and complex emotional and behavioral needs. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Joshua B. Swigart, Esq. Noah J. Larsh, Esq. SWIGART LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (866) 219-3343 Facsimile: (866) 219-8344 Email: Josh@SwigaiiLawGroup.com Noah@SwigaiiLawGroup.com - and - Daniel G. Shay, Esq. SHAY LEGAL, APC 2221 Camino del Rio S, Ste 308 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 222-7429 Email: Dan@ShayLegal.com TRULIEVE HOLDINGS: Faces Class Suit Over THC Content in Edibles --------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed class action lawsuit accuses Trulieve of marketing and selling edible marijuana-infused products with tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) levels that exceed legal limits in Arizona and Florida. The 42-page lawsuit centers on Trulieve's sale of marijuana edibles and edible marijuana oil products, including Rick Simpson oil and full spectrum hash oil. According to the case, Trulieve's dispensaries sell ingestible oil products under brand names such as Roll One and Momenta, available in 300-milligram, 500-milligram, 1-gram and 2.5-gram syringes or "Dablicators." The lawsuit argues that these products contain THC at levels well above the legally allowed limit of 100 milligrams per package in Arizona and 200 milligrams per package in Florida. Similarly, Trulieve's "macro dose" edibles -- sold under brands such as JAMS Jellies, XBites, Tipsy Turtle and Brix -- contain THC levels that exceed state-imposed per-package limits, the filing contends. The class action suit alleges that Trulieve misleadingly markets its edible oil products as marijuana concentrates or extracts to deceive regulators and duck the per-package THC caps for marijuana-infused food items imposed by state law. Because concentrates are not subject to any per-package THC limits, the defendants have been able to sell "far more THC in a single Edible package than is allowed by law," the complaint asserts. Product listings on the Trulieve dispensary website characterize the edible oils as concentrates, meaning it is "nearly impossible for the average consumer to ascertain that the Edible Oils are actually Edible products that should be sold in far smaller quantities," the filing contends. Likewise, Trulieve's gummies and other marijuana edibles are falsely advertised as appropriately dosed and legally compliant, the case claims. "The listings do not in any way identify the products as being subject to the limitations imposed upon Edibles, that they exceed those limitations, or their status as unlawful marijuana products," the suit charges. As a result, consumers are misled into believing the items are legal and safe to use rather than improperly labeled edibles that contain "up to 10 times" the lawful per-package limit for THC, the Trulieve lawsuit alleges. As the complaint tells it, standard packages of edibles typically contain 100 milligrams of THC, divided into 10 or more servings. "By contrast, a single 1-gram syringe of the Edible Oils [Trulieve] sell[s] can contain as much THC as 10 standard Edible packages," the filing says. "In other words, 1 gram of Edible Oils can contain as much THC as 100 standard servings of Edibles." The case claims that Trulieve's deceptive conduct puts unwitting customers at risk of THC overconsumption and legal action for the possession of illegal products. The lawsuit looks to represent all individuals who, within the applicable statute of limitations period, purchased allegedly illegal edibles from any Trulieve dispensary in Arizona, Florida or other similarly situated states. [GN] TRULIEVE HOLDINGS: Faces Class Suit Over THC Content in Edibles --------------------------------------------------------------- Kelsey McCroskey, writing for ClassAction.org, reports that a proposed class action lawsuit accuses Trulieve of marketing and selling edible marijuana-infused products with tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) levels that exceed legal limits in Arizona and Florida. The 42-page lawsuit centers on Trulieve's sale of marijuana edibles and edible marijuana oil products, including Rick Simpson oil and full spectrum hash oil. According to the case, Trulieve's dispensaries sell ingestible oil products under brand names such as Roll One and Momenta, available in 300-milligram, 500-milligram, 1-gram and 2.5-gram syringes or "Dablicators." The lawsuit argues that these products contain THC at levels well above the legally allowed limit of 100 milligrams per package in Arizona and 200 milligrams per package in Florida. Similarly, Trulieve's "macro dose" edibles -- sold under brands such as JAMS Jellies, XBites, Tipsy Turtle and Brix -- contain THC levels that exceed state-imposed per-package limits, the filing contends. The class action suit alleges that Trulieve misleadingly markets its edible oil products as marijuana concentrates or extracts to deceive regulators and duck the per-package THC caps for marijuana-infused food items imposed by state law. Because concentrates are not subject to any per-package THC limits, the defendants have been able to sell "far more THC in a single Edible package than is allowed by law," the complaint asserts. Product listings on the Trulieve dispensary website characterize the edible oils as concentrates, meaning it is "nearly impossible for the average consumer to ascertain that the Edible Oils are actually Edible products that should be sold in far smaller quantities," the filing contends. Likewise, Trulieve's gummies and other marijuana edibles are falsely advertised as appropriately dosed and legally compliant, the case claims. "The listings do not in any way identify the products as being subject to the limitations imposed upon Edibles, that they exceed those limitations, or their status as unlawful marijuana products," the suit charges. As a result, consumers are misled into believing the items are legal and safe to use rather than improperly labeled edibles that contain "up to 10 times" the lawful per-package limit for THC, the Trulieve lawsuit alleges. As the complaint tells it, standard packages of edibles typically contain 100 milligrams of THC, divided into 10 or more servings. "By contrast, a single 1-gram syringe of the Edible Oils [Trulieve] sell[s] can contain as much THC as 10 standard Edible packages," the filing says. "In other words, 1 gram of Edible Oils can contain as much THC as 100 standard servings of Edibles." The case claims that Trulieve's deceptive conduct puts unwitting customers at risk of THC overconsumption and legal action for the possession of illegal products. The lawsuit looks to represent all individuals who, within the applicable statute of limitations period, purchased allegedly illegal edibles from any Trulieve dispensary in Arizona, Florida or other similarly situated states. [GN] ULTA BEAUTY: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, El Sayed Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------------- ALIANA EL SAYED, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ULTA BEAUTY COSMETICS, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03670 (N.D. Ill., April 4, 2025) seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Ulta Beauty, Inc. operates a chain of beauty stores. The Company offers cosmetics, fragrance, skin, and hair care products, as well as salon services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Eisenband, Esq. EISENBAND LAW, P.A. 515 E. Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 120 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 533-4092 Email: MEisenband@Eisenbandlaw.com - and - Manuel S. Hiraldo, Esq. HIRALDO P.A. 401 E. Las Olas Boulevard Suite 1400 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 400-4713 Email: mhiraldo@hiraldolaw.com UNIVERSAL MUSIC: Shah Sues Over Illegal Wiretapping --------------------------------------------------- VISHAL SHAH; and CHRISTINE WILEY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP, INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-03095-SVK (N.D. Cal., April 4, 2025) alleges violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. According to the Plaintiffs in the complaint, the Defendant's Websites caused the Plaintiffs and Class members' browsers to store the Third Parties' cookies and to transmit those cookies alongside Private Communications—including their browsing history, visit history, website interactions, user input data, demographic information, interests and preferences, shopping behaviors, device information, referring URLs, session information, user identifiers, and/or geolocation data—to the Third Parties without Plaintiffs' and Class members' consent. By configuring the Websites in this manner, the Defendant willfully aided, agreed with, employed, permitted, or otherwise enabled the Third Parties to wiretap Plaintiffs and Class members using the Third Parties' cookies and to accomplish the wrongful conduct. niversal Music Group, Inc. provides recorded music, music publishing, and merchandising services. The Company develops, manufactures, markets, sells, and distributes recorded music through a network of subsidiaries, joint ventures, and licensees. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Seth A. Safier, Esq. Marie A. McCrary, Esq. Todd Kennedy, Esq. Kali R. Backer, Esq. GUTRIDE SAFIER LLP 100 Pine Street, Suite 1250 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 639-9090 Facsimile: (415) 449-6469 Email: seth@gutridesafier.com marie@gutridesafier.com todd@gutridesafier.com kali@gutridesafier.com UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Dawson Sues Over Data Privacy Violations --------------------------------------------------------------- JANIELLE DAWSON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03497 (N.D. Ill., April 1, 2025) alleges violation of the Video Privacy Protection Act, the Electronic Communications and Privacy Act, and the Illinois Eavesdropping Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant is engaged in the practice of integrating, installing and embedding third-party tracking technology, including the tracking technology of Meta Platforms, Inc., formerly known as Facebook, Inc. ("Facebook"), into phoenix.edu (the "Website") and thereby: (a) knowingly disclosing to third parties its users' personally identifiable information ("PII"), including their video-watching behavior; and (b) allowing the third parties to intercept and obtain users' federally-protected and confidential education records. The University of Phoenix Inc. offers degrees in both undergraduate and graduate level curriculum. The University offers programs including undergraduate degree programs in nursing and business as well as Graduate degree programs in social sciences and natural sciences. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Scott R. Drury, Esq. DRURY LEGAL, LLC 6 Carriage Lane Highwood, IL 60040 Telephone: (312) 358-8225 Email: scott@drurylegal.com - and - Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq. ARISOHN LLC 513 Eighth Avenue, #2 Brooklyn, NY 11215 Telephone: (646) 837-7150 Email: josh@arisohnllc.com VIATRIS INC: Faces Securities Fraud Class Action Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------- Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased Viatris Inc. ("Viatris" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: VTRS) securities between August 8, 2024, to February 26, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Viatris investors have until June 3, 2025 to file a lead plaintiff motion. What Happened? On December 23, 2024, Viatris disclosed that "following an inspection by the U.S. FDA" at the Company's manufacturing facility in Indore "the Agency has issued a Warning Letter, and an Import Alert related to this facility" which "affects 11 actively distributed products that will no longer be accepted into the U.S. until the Warning Letter is lifted." Then, on February 27, 2025, Viatris released its fourth quarter and full year 2024 financial results, reporting, among other things, financial guidance metrics for fiscal year 2025 with "anticipated negative impact from the Indore facility of ~$500 million to total revenues and ~$385 million to adjusted EBITDA." On this news, Viatris' stock price fell $1.71, or 15.2%, to close at $9.53 per share on February 27, 2025, thereby injuring investors. What Is The Lawsuit About? The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Viatris' efforts to downplay the ramifications of the Indore facility's failed FDA inspection fell short of reality; (2) the impact to the Company's projected fiscal year 2025 finances from the combination of the ongoing remediation efforts at the facility, the inability for the facility to manufacture and ship key products for the Company, particularly Lenalidomide, the inability for Viatris to convince the FDA to expand the exempt list to include such drugs, and an associated impact on shipments to other regions from the Indore facility was significant and resulted in much more than "a little bit" of a headwind; and (3) as a result, Defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times. Contact Us To Participate or Learn More: If you purchased Viatris securities, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact us: Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020, Telephone: (215) 638-4847 Email: howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com Visit our website at: www.howardsmithlaw.com. [GN] VIP PRO: Web Site Not Accessible to Blind Users, Wills Says ----------------------------------------------------------- LAURENCE WILLS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. VIP PRO AUDIO, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01844 (E.D.N.Y., April 3, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.vipproaudio.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. VIP Pro Audio Inc. offers electronic, audio, and lighting equipment and services. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com WEBY CORP: Jones Suit Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind -------------------------------------------------------------- CLAY LEE JONES, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. WEBY CORP., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02692 (S.D.N.Y., April 1, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.gritroutdoors.com, is not fully or equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, including the Plaintiff, in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Web site will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. Weby Corp. is an omni-channel retailer that strives to be the personal gear outfitter of every shooter, sportsman, and outdoor enthusiast. [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 WINDSOR FASHIONS: Initial Case Order Entered in Petersen Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as AISHIA PETERSEN, v. WINDSOR FASHIONS HOLDINGS, LLC, Case No. 6:25-cv-00469-JSS-DCI (M.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Julien Sneed entered an initial case order as follows: The court screens every case to identify parties and interested corporations in which any assigned judge may be a shareholder, as well as for other matters that might require consideration of recusal. Accordingly, no later than 14 days from the date of this Order, each party, pro se party, governmental party, intervenor, non-party movant, and Rule 69 garnishee shall file the attached Disclosure Statement and Certification as required under Local Rule 3.03. Any party or entity that appears after the date of this Order must file the Disclosure Statement within 14 days of appearance. Under Local Rule 2.0l(b)(l)(G), all attorneys appearing before this court are required to register for CM/ECF docketing within 14 days of their entry of appearance in any action pending before this court. Counsel are directed to the website located at www.flmd.uscourts.gov under “CM/ECF” where they are to request their password from the court. Pro se parties are exempt from the electronic filing requirement. Consent to Trial by Magistrate Judge: Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73, the parties may consent to have the assigned United States Magistrate Judge conduct any and all further proceedings in this case, including the trial (and can provide a date certain for trial, unlike the District Court.). If the parties wish to consent, they are directed to fill out the attached Magistrate Consent Form and file the form with this court Windsor Fashions retails women's apparels. A copy of the Court's order dated March , 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=W3ECsO at no extra charge.[CC] XPONENTIAL FITNESS: Continues to Defend Federal Securities Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Xponential Fitness 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 federal securities class suit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. On February 9, 2024, a federal securities class action lawsuit was filed against the Company and certain of the Company's officers in the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The complaint alleged, among other things, violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, regarding misstatements and/or omissions in certain of the Company's financial statements, press releases, and SEC filings made during the putative class period of July 26, 2021 through December 7, 2023. On July 26, 2024, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding three Company directors as defendants, as well as the underwriters from the Company's April 6, 2022 secondary offering, additionally bringing claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act, and alleging a putative class period of July 23, 2021 through May 10, 2024. It is possible that additional lawsuits will be filed, or allegations received from stockholders, with respect to these same or other matters and also naming the Company and/or its officers and directors as defendants. The Company intends to vigorously defend against these lawsuits, but there can be no assurance that it will be successful in any defense. Xponential Fitness, Inc. is a holding company based in California. XPONENTIAL FITNESS: McGill Class Suit Settlement for Court Approval ------------------------------------------------------------------- Xponential Fitness 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 McGill class suit settlement is subject to the approval of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. On November 22, 2023, former employees of a former franchisee of the Company filed a putative class action complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, captioned Shannon McGill et al. v. Xponential Fitness LLC, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-03909, against the Company, as well as against a former franchisee of the Company and the franchisee's legal entity, MD Pro Fitness, LLC. The complaint alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, as well as employment laws from different states in connection with the franchisee's owner-operated studio locations. The Company was served with the complaint on December 4, 2023. On December 17, 2024, as a result of mediation, the Company and the plaintiffs agreed in principle to settle this matter. The parties are negotiating the settlement agreement, which is subject to court approval. The Company recorded an accrual in anticipation of this settlement, which is included in accrued expenses in the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2024. Xponential Fitness, Inc. is a holding company based in California. YAHOO INC: Baker Sues Over Unlawful Interception of Communications ------------------------------------------------------------------ Tyler Baker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. YAHOO INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-02797 (S.D.N.Y., April 3, 2025), is brought against the Defendant's interception of the contents of their communications with third parties through its tracking technology and installation of a tracking device on each of the websites they use across the internet in violation of New York's General Business Law, California's Invasion of Privacy Act, as well as other laws. Yahoo's value was derived from the new forms of persistent, user-based online tracking it developed through these acquisitions. Specifically, in 2020--after Apple and Google announced they would eventually phase out third-party cookies and Apple would restrict the use of mobile identifiers--Yahoo released a new, unified way to track users across platforms and devices. This solution is called Yahoo ConnectID (formerly known as "Verizon Media Connect ID"), built on Yahoo's Identity Graph. Rather than relying on cookies or mobile identifiers, the Yahoo ConnectID is an email-based persistent identifier. When a user logs in or provides an email (a form of personally identifiable information ("PII")) to an online service offered by Yahoo or one of its partners, Yahoo intercepts and assigns a Yahoo ConnectID to that user based on their email address. Through Yahoo ConnectID--and complimentary products (described briefly above)--Yahoo has been secretly harvesting and monetizing directly identifiable user data from millions of U.S. residents without their knowledge and consent. The Plaintiffs did not consent to Yahoo intercepting their unique identifiers and other personal data, assigning, and using unique identifiers to track him across internet enabled services and devices, or intercepting and using the contents of their private communications for profit, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs have several online accounts at sites that use Yahoo's tracking technology. Yahoo is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located in New York City.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christian Levis, Esq. Amanda Fiorilla, Esq. LOWEY DANNENBERG, P.C. 44 South Broadway, Suite 1100 White Plains, NY 10601 Phone: (914) 997-0500 Fax: (914) 997-0035 Email: clevis@lowey.com afiorilla@lowey.com ZELIS HEALTHCARE: Danny Bachoua Sues Over Destructive Market ------------------------------------------------------------ Danny Bachoua Chiropractic, APC on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. ZELIS HEALTHCARE, LLC, ZELIS CLAIMS INTEGRITY LLC, ZELIS NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC, AETNA, INC., THE CIGNA GROUP, ELEVANCE HEALTH, INC., and, HUMANA, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-03031 (N.D. Cal., April 2, 2025), is brought as an antitrust action brought to correct an illegal and destructive market distortion in the private, commercial health insurance market. Like the combined effect of a pestle and mortar, Zelis has collaborated with private commercial health insurers and other payers, and at least one other repricing competitor to crush the nation's private practice of medicine. Instead of retaining or bolstering the financial incentives to motivate future medical practitioners to sustain the substantial real and opportunity costs associated with deferring income until after gaining the education, training, and other forms of preparation necessary for a medical practitioner to provide appropriate healthcare services, Zelis and its co-conspirators have formed, worked to preserve, and successfully concealed until now a conspiracy designed to suppress payments made to healthcare service providers performing services on an out-of-network basis to the greatest extent that their coordination can achieve. This had the effect of permitting Zelis and its co-conspirators to reap windfall profits on the backs of hardworking healthcare professionals. The conspiracy at issue concerns the unlawful agreement, communication, coordination, and information sharing associated with collusively depressing and setting payments for out-of network healthcare services, euphemistically known as "repricing." Even if neutral sounding, such "repricing" is not based on any pre payment, provider-payer negotiation, and goes only one direction: down. To remedy the economic harm caused by Zelis's and the Commercial Payers' illegal and anticompetitive conduct, Plaintiff DBC – on behalf of itself and a class of all others similarly situated – brings this Section 1 Sherman Act action, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is represented by: Adam J. Zapala, Esq. Elizabeth T. Castillo, Esq. Christian S. Ruano, Esq. COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP 840 Malcolm Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Phone: (650) 697-6000 Fax: (650) 697-0577 Email: azapala@cpmlegal.com ecastillo@cpmlegal.com cruano@cpmlegal.com ZR CONSULTING: Mott Files TCPA Suit in N.D. Georgia --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against ZR Consulting, LLC. The case is styled as William Mott, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. ZR Consulting, LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-00081-SCJ (N.D. Ga., April 3, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. ZR Consulting -- https://z-rconsulting.com/ -- provides a wide range of services for both steam and gas turbine-generator systems.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John A. Love, Esq. LOVE CONSUMER LAW 2500 Northwinds Parkway, Ste. 330 Alpharetta, GA 30009 Phone: (404) 855-3600 Email: tlove@loveconsumerlaw.com ZWILLING J.A.: Rodriguez Removed from State Ct. to C.D. Cal. ------------------------------------------------------------ The class action lawsuit captioned as REBEKA RODRIGUEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ZWILLING J.A. HENCKELS, LLC, a Delaware company, d/b/a WWW.ZWILLING.COM, Case No. Case No. 25STCV05246 (Filed Feb. 25, 2025) was removed from Los Angeles County Superior Court to the United States District Court for the Central District Of California on April 2, 2025. The C.D. California Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02862 to the proceeding.[BN] The Defendant is represented by: Jocelyn M. Hoffman, Esq. VORYS, SATER, SEYMOUR AND PEASE LLP 2211 Michelson Drive, Suite 500 Irvine, CA 92612 Telephone: (949) 526-7906 Facsimile: (949) 526-7906 E-mail: jmhoffman@vorys.com [^] Most Active Class Action Firms of 2024 Announced ---------------------------------------------------- Class Action Updates has published a two-part report featuring "Most Active Class Action Firms of 2024," a resource list that identifies 35 of the nation's busiest class action practices. In the first part, CA Updates names 20 of the most active class action law firms that represent plaintiffs. The Plaintiff firms are: * Berger Montague PC * Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP * Bursor & Fisher, P.A. * Gottlieb & Associates PLLC * Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP * Kopelowitz Ostrow P.A. * Law Offices of Jibrael S. Hindi, PLLC * Levi & Korsinsky, LLP * Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP * Lynch Carpenter LLP * Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, PLLC * Morgan & Morgan, P.A. * Pomerantz LLP * Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP * The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. * Scott+Scott Attorneys at Law LLP * Shamis & Gentile, P.A. * Siri & Glimstad LLP * Stein Saks PLLC * Stranch, Jennings & Garvey, PLLC The report is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YonmXb CA Updates also lists down 15 of the busiest class action law firms that assist defendants. The Defendant firms are: * Baker & Hostetler LLP * DLA Piper LLP (US) * Duane Morris LLP * Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP * Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP * Greenberg Traurig, LLP * King & Spalding LLP * Kirkland & Ellis LLP * Littler Mendelson P.C. * Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP * O'Melveny & Myers LLP * Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP * Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP * Seyfarth Shaw LLP * Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP The report is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=uGqapu CA Updates posts every Monday. Subscribe to CA Updates to receive the latest news from the class action industry. Visit https://classactionupdates.substack.com for more information. For comments and coverage suggestions, contact: Yusef Siddiqui Tel: (503) 915-9225 E-mail: yusef@beardgroup.com Or Christopher Patalinghug Tel: (240) 629-3300 E-mail: tope@beardgroup.com Founded in 1986, Beard Group, Inc., is a leading publisher of business, law and finance books. ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***