/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250421.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Monday, April 21, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 79 Headlines 3M COMPANY: Kirby Personal Injury Suit Removed to N.D. Ala. ABLETO INC: Parties Seek to Seal Class Cert Briefing Docs ADOBE INC: Collects Personal Info Without Consent, Johnston Says AHS MANAGEMENT: Court Awards Class Counsel $220,000 in Fees ALLEGHENY HEALTH: Boyer Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania ALN MEDICAL: Gilleland Sues Over Failure to Secure Clients' Info ALN MEDICAL: Keggins Sues Over Failure to Secure Clients' Info AMARAMEDICAL HEALTH CARE: Allen Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages AMAZON.COM INC: Korn Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts AMERICAN AXLE: Blockett Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages AMERICAN HEALTH: Arinatwe Seeks to Extend Class Cert Deadlines AMERICAN RENAL: Salazar Sues Over Inadequately Protected Network ANHEUSER-BUSCH COS: Wins Bid for Individual Arbitration in Nelson ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Parties Seek to Modify Scheduling Order AOD VENTURES INC: Linyard Files Suit in Tex. Dist. Ct. APPLE INC: Court Awards $12-Mil. in Fees & Costs in Barrett Suit APPLE INC: Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss Margolis Class Suit AQUAZZURA NORTH: Calcano Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ARAMARK SERVICES: Forbes Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY: Taylor Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona AVENUE A PET SUPPLY: Wills Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website AVENUE STORES: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BAKER SOLUTIONS: Weingrad Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania BASICS LANDSCAPING: Funez Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages BERRY BROS: Court Narrows Claims in Castillo Data Breach Suit BETTER MORTGAGE: Mora Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. BIG BARKER LLC: Calcano Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website BLACKBERRY LIMITED: $2.8MM Deal in "Parker" Awaits Court Approval BLACKBERRY LIMITED: Awaits Trial Date in Swisscanto Class Suit BLACKBERRY LIMITED: Obtains Final Judgment in US Class Suits BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Beauge Sues Over Recalled Vehicles BOEING COMPANY: Seeks to Strike Class Allegations in Dosenbach BP EXPLORATION: Can Withhold Certain Documents in Gremillion Suit BRIDGE IT: Feeman Sues Over Predatory Lending Practices CANOPY GROWTH: Baron Sues Over Securities Exchange Act Breach CARBONE FINE FOOD: Calcano Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website CARDI'S DEPARTMENT: Beaucage Sues Over Data Security Incident CARTERS INC: Namvary Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia CARTERS INC: Ringler Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia CATALENT PHARMA: Kearby Sues Over Unpaid Compensation CDHA MANAGEMENT: Cook Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII & PHI CDHA MANAGEMENT: McKinney Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Info CHILDREN OF PROMISE: Lewis Sues Over Sexual Harassment, Unpaid OT CHRIS C. KEMP: Hamelton Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. CITIZEN WATCH: Lindo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CIUNI & PANICHI: Jarvis Sues Over Failure to Protect Clients' Info CLAIRE'S STORES: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website CLEO COMMUNICATIONS: Doe Sues Over Unprotected Sensitive Data CLEO COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Failure to Protect Data CLEVELAND-CLIFFS INC: Hodock Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages COCA-COLA CO: Court Dismisses Barnes Class Suit COGNYTE SOFTWARE: Securities Class Suit Remains Pending in New York COINBASE GLOBAL: Carolus Sues Over Breach of Contract COINBASE GLOBAL: Court Affirms Ruling in Securities Lawsuit CORONADO COAL: Miller Sues Over Unpaid OT for Coal Mining Workers COUNTY COMFORT: Underpays Sales Specialists, Mosquera Suit Claims COVENANT AVIATION: Castleberry Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. CREDIT UNION: Alcocer Files FCRA Suit in N.D. Georgia CROSSROADS TRADING: Koester Files Suit in N.D. California CSU: Parties Seek to Continue Class Cert Hearing DAISO CALIFORNIA: Fukaya Class Cert Filing Extended to May 30 DANALEX INC: Siracusa Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. DIALAMERICA MARKETING: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Nod DILIGENT CORP: Settlement Class in Whelan Gets Provisional Cert. DONALD J. TRUMP: G.F.F. Files Suit in S.D. New York DOWNTOWN AUTO CENTER: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. EMBRAER SA: Labor Class Suits Remain Pending in Brazil EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Singh Files Suit in Ga. Super. Ct. EVENT TICKETS: Loses Bid to Dismiss or Stay Hernandez Lawsuit EXPENSIFY INC: Filing for Class Cert. in Wilhite Due Jan. 16, 2026 EYEBUYDIRECT INC: Watkins Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas FACTORY MUTUAL: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Cure Suit Due Sept. 30 FINISH LINE: Dalton Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind FREEDOM CARE: Layoffs Employees Without Proper Notice, Lyons Says FUEGO SMOKE: Seeks to Narrow Claims in Dial Suit GEN CERRITOS: Faces Miranda Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif. GOOD KARMA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cordero Alleges GRANITE, MT: Larson Suit Seeks to Extend Class Cert Bid Deadlines GREEN DIAMOND: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Gregorio Due Nov. 14 H.O. DIBENEDETTO: Court Narrows Claims in Jones Lawsuit HESS BAKKEN: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Penman Suit Due Oct. 15 HOMETOWN AMERICA: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Classes ID MENSWEAR: Faces Wills Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store INDIAN HARBOR: Must Respond to Discovery Requests in Morrison Suit J. JILL INC: Delaware Court Closes Paul Berger Class Suit JONATHAN WOOD: Court Dismisses Ben-Oni Suit Without Prejudice JOY CONE: Conditional Class Certification in Davey Suit Due May 7 KING COUNTY, WA: Court Affirms Dissmisal of Belmonte Lawsuit LATAM AIRLINES: Discovery in Conadecus Suit Ongoing in Chile LEPRINO FOODS: Dominguez's Pending Bid to Certify Class Terminated LGBCOIN LTD: Court Upholds Class Certification in De Ford Suit MDL 2875: Court Excludes Plaintiff Expert's Testimony MDL 2989: Trading Suit Stayed Pending Arbitration MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Chappell Suit Over Wheel Configuration Tossed MERCK SHARP: Fact Discovery Date in Baltimore Extended to May 15 MICHAEL KORS: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid MOMENTUS INC: Continues to Defend Delaware Class Suits MOMENTUS INC: Objections to Securities Suit Deal Remain Pending NEW YORK: Faces Minano Suit Over Failure to Protect Clients' Info NEWARK, NJ: Deleva Sues to Recover Overtime Wages NEXHEALTH INC: Discloses Patient Info to 3rd Parties, Janik Claims NOVA HOME: Savinova Loses Bid to Certify Home Worker Class OOMA INC: Continues to Defend Chiu Class Suit in Canada OUTOKUMPU STAINLESS: Osborne Seeks Conditional Cert. of Action PACIFIC RESIDENTIAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Cnossen Says REJOICE DELIVERS: Webb Labor Suit Cannot Proceed as Class RIO HONDO: Faces Baez Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif. SAUCE INC: Faces Ingber Suit Over Food Delivery Service Delays SHAQUILLE O'NEAL: Settlement in Harper Suit Gets Final Court Nod SHUTTERSTOCK INC: Bid to Issue Subpoenas in Herrick Suit Granted SISECAM CHEMICALS: Campos Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages SL GREENFIELD: Class Certification Affirmed in Freeman Wage Suit SNAPCOMMERCE HOLDINGS: Ferrell Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California SOLAIRUS AVIATION: Cole Files Suit in N.D. California SOUTHWEST SPAS & POOLS: Winters Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona SPORTSMAN'S WAREHOUSE: "Kogut" Suit Stayed ST. ANDREW'S RESOURCES: Williams Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri ST. JOSEPH'S: Lavigne Sues Over Compromised Personal Info STATE FARM: Ellis Must File Class Cert Reply by April 21 STEADY CLOTHING: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Evans Alleges SUNSTATES SECURITY: Cobar Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois SWIFT TECHNICAL: Hayes Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages SWINERTON INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Schuster, et al. ERISA Lawsuit SYNEOS HEALTH: Class Settlement in Scurlock Gets Prelim. Approval SZ ALHAMBRA LLC: Palomares Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. TARGET CORPORATION: Haro Suit Removed to C.D. California TARGET CORPORATION: Navarro Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota TELEXFREE LLC: Class Certification Denied in Securities MDL TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website TOTAL LIFE CHANGES: Pope Suit Removed to E.D. California TRANSMEDICS GROUP: Collins Sues Over Exchange Act Breach UNIFIRST CORPORATION: Lazare Suit Removed to N.D. California UNITED SEATING: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Barron Alleges UNITED STATES: Court Affirms Dismissal of Andrews, et al. CWA Suit UNITED STATES: Seeks to Dissolve TRO and Stay Proceedings UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Court Tosses ERISA Class Claims in Meyer Suit UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Says UPS SUPPLY CHAIN: Bautista Suit Removed to C.D. California VALU AUTO: Gleason Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages VERTIV CORP: Torok Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action VISTA EQUITY: Michigan Electrical Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. WASH MULTIFAMILY: Miguel Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. WESTGATE RESORTS: Can File Sur-Reply on Class Certification Issue WINE GROUP HEALTH: Urges Court to Reject Burningham's Remand Bid XEROX: Court Stays Deadlines, Strikes Trial Date in Hill Suit YAHOO INC: Caplan Files Suit in S.D. New York ********* 3M COMPANY: Kirby Personal Injury Suit Removed to N.D. Ala. ----------------------------------------------------------- The case styled DONALD BAR KIRBY, et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. 3M COMPANY, et al., Case No. 01-CV-2025-900533, 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. The Clerk of Court for the Northern District of Alabama assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-02778-RMG to the proceeding. The case arises from severe personal injuries sustained by the Plaintiffs as a result of their exposure to the Defendants' aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) and firefighter turnout gear (TOG) containing fluorochemical products. 3M Company, f/k/a Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Co., is a multinational conglomerate corporation and designer, marketer, developer, manufacturer, distributor of firefighting equipment, including those with AFFF. It is located at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota. [BN] The Defendants are represented by: M. Christian King, Esq. Harlan I. Prater, IV, Esq. W. Larkin Radney, IV, Esq. Jacob M. Salow, Esq. LIGHTFOOT, FRANKLIN & WHITE, L.L.C. The Clark Building 400 North 20th Street Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 581-0700 Email: cking@lightfootlaw.com hprater@lightfootlaw.com lradney@lightfootlaw.com jsalow@lightfootlaw.com ABLETO INC: Parties Seek to Seal Class Cert Briefing Docs --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL SESSA, v. ABLETO, INC., Case No. 8:23-cv-02219-TPB-CPT (M.D. Fla.), the Defendant Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting their joint motion to seal materials supporting class certification briefing. The Plaintiff only requests the Court redact Plaintiff and the putative class's personal identifying information. The Defendant requests the Court order the materials Defendant seeks to seal or redact, as described herein, be kept under seal or filed with redactions until final resolution of this matter, including the conclusion of any appeals, at which time Defendant requests that sealed or redacted materials be destroyed. AbleTo is a provider of virtual behavioral health care. A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pOTc18 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: William ("Billy") Peerce Howard, Esq. THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM 401 Tampa East Jackson Street Suite 2340 Truist Building Tampa, FL 33602 Telephone: (813) 500-1500 Facsimile: (813) 435-2369 - and - Ryan L. McBride, Esq. KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC 2221 Camino Del Rio S., #101 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (800) 400-6808 Facsimile: (800) 520-5523 E-mail: ryan@kazlg.com The Defendant is represented by: Adam K. Levin, Esq. Carolyn A. DeLone, Esq. Katherine I. Culora, Esq. Victoria Glover, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 555 13th Street NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: (202) 637-5600 Facsimile: (202) 637-5910 E-mail: carrie.delone@hoganlovells.com - and - Allen P. Pegg, Esq. HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP 600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 2700 Miami, FL 33131 Telephone: (305) 459-6500 Facsimile: (305) 459-6550 E-mail: allen.pegg@hoganlovells.com ADOBE INC: Collects Personal Info Without Consent, Johnston Says ---------------------------------------------------------------- BIANCA JOHNSTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ADOBE INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-03052 (N.D. Cal., April 3, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of the California Invasion of Privacy Act and the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, and invasion of privacy under California's Constitution. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged unauthorized collection, recording, and dissemination of the Plaintiff's and Class members' personal information, geolocation data, and communications. According to the complaint, the Defendant uses "pen register" and "trap and trace" tracking software on the Plaintiff's and Class members' mobile devices to collect, record, and disseminate their personal information without prior consent. As a result of the Defendant's misconduct, the Plaintiff and the Class suffered damages, says the suit. Adobe Inc. is multi-national software development company based in San Jose, California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 402 W. Broadway, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (858) 209-6941 Facsimile: (865) 522-0049 Email: jnelson@milberg.com - and - Daniel O. Herrera, 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 AHS MANAGEMENT: Court Awards Class Counsel $220,000 in Fees ----------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as KERRY HODGE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AHS MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC., No. 3:23-cv-01308, Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, North Eastern Division, awards $220,000 to Class Counsel for attorneys' fees and reasonable litigation expenses. The Court also awards the five named Plaintiffs an additional service award of $2,000 each. The Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation on February 26, 2025, recommending that the Court grant Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs, and Service Awards. Plaintiffs Kerry Hodge, Jessica Cannon, Jolanda King, Don McGee, and Michael Epperson sought a total award of $220,000 for attorneys' fees and litigation expenses, along with individual service awards of $2,000 for each named Plaintiff, to be paid separately from the settlement benefit fund. Defendant AHS Management Company, Inc., represented by counsel, neither responded to Plaintiffs' Motion nor objected to the R&R within the period prescribed, despite the Magistrate Judge's express warning that failure to timely object would result in waiver. Upon independent and thorough review of the R&R, Plaintiffs' Motion, supporting Memorandum of Law, and accompanying exhibits, the Court agrees in substantial part with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. The Court finds that an award of $220,000 in attorneys' fees and litigation expenses is reasonable under the circumstances of this consolidated class action, consistent with prevailing standards in the Sixth Circuit for common fund cases. The Court cites Rawlings v. Prudential-Bache Props., Inc., 9 F.3d 513, 516 (6th Cir. 1993), which held that courts must ensure fee awards are "reasonable under the circumstances". However, the Court departs from the R&R in one respect. The Court says the R&R appears to have inadvertently omitted Plaintiffs' explicit request for a $10,000 total Service Award -- comprised of $2,000 for each of the five named Plaintiffs -- which was clearly set forth in the Motion and supporting documents. Although the R&R acknowledged the request and recommended approval, it failed to incorporate this additional amount into the recommended total award. The Court accordingly increases the award to account for this omission. The amounts -- totaling $230,000 -- will be paid separate and apart from the settlement fund, the Court says. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=iJgfc0 from PacerMonitor.com. ALLEGHENY HEALTH: Boyer Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania ------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Michelle Boyer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Allegheny Health Network, Allegheny Health Network Home Medical Equipment LLC, Allegheny Health Network Home Infusion, LLC, Intrasystems LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-10364 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on April 7, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00474-NR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Contract. Allegheny Health Network -- https://www.ahn.org/ -- is an integrated health care delivery system serving the greater Western Pennsylvania region.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Pastor, Esq. PASTOR LAW OFFICE, LLP 63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (617) 742-9700 Fax: (617) 742-9701 Email: dpastor@pastorlawoffice.com The Defendant is represented by: Peter K. Levitt, Esq. UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE One Courthouse Way Boston, MA 02210 Phone: (617) 748-3355 - and - Pietro A. Conte, Esq. DONNELLY CONROY & GELHAAR 260 Franklin Street, Suite 1600 Boston, MA 02110 Phone: (617) 720-2880 Email: pac@dcglaw.com ALN MEDICAL: Gilleland Sues Over Failure to Secure Clients' Info ---------------------------------------------------------------- VIRGINIA GILLELAND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALN MEDICAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:25-cv-03080 (D. Neb., April 3, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and personal health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach in March 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. ALN Medical Management, LLC is a provider of billing services and revenue recycle management based in Lincoln, Nebraska. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq. GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, LPA 4445 Lake Forest Drive, Suite 490 Cincinnati, OH 45242 Telephone: (513) 345-8291 Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com - and - Charles E. Schaffer, Esq. LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN LLP 510 Walnut Street, Suite 500 Philadelphia, PA 19106 Telephone: (215) 592-1500 Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com - and - Brett R. Cohen, Esq. LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C. One Old Country Road, Suite 347 Carle Place, NY 11514 Telephone: (516) 873-9550 Email: bcohen@leedsbrownlaw.com ALN MEDICAL: Keggins Sues Over Failure to Secure Clients' Info -------------------------------------------------------------- TIMOTHY KEGGINS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ALN MEDICAL MANAGEMENT, LLC and HEALTH PRIME INTERNATIONAL, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-01094-ABA (D. Md., April 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, and declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and personal health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within their network systems following a data breach between March 18, 2024, and March 24, 2024. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. ALN Medical Management, LLC is a medical management company with its principal place of business in Lincoln, Nebraska. Health Prime International, LLC is a provider of practice management and revenue cycle management (RCM) solutions based in Hollywood Maryland. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary E. Mason, Esq., Esq. MASON LLP 5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 640 Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 Email: gmason@masonllp.com - and - Marc H. Edelson, Esq. Liberato P. Verderame, Esq. EDELSON LECHTZIN LLP 411 S. State Street, Suite N300 Newtown, PA 18940 Telephone: (215) 867-2399 Email: medelson@edelson-law.com lverderame@edelson-law.com AMARAMEDICAL HEALTH CARE: Allen Sues Over Unpaid Overtime Wages --------------------------------------------------------------- Christine Allen, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. AMARAMEDICAL HEALTH CARE SERVICES, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00225-SJD (S.D. Ohio, April 9, 2025), is brought challenging policies and practices of Defendant that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act ("OMFWSA"), as a result of the Defendants failure to pay overtime wages. The Plaintiff routinely worked 40 or more hours per workweek. The Plaintiff and others similarly situated were not paid when traveling to and from different job sites within the same workday. Such work is compensable under the commonly called "continuous workday" rule. This unpaid work performed by The Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees constituted a part of their principal activities, was required by Defendant, and was performed for Defendant's benefit. As a result, Defendant intentionally failed to accurately record and compensate The Plaintiff and those similarly situated employees for all hours worked, including their job to-job travel, which resulted in Defendant not paying for all overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. The Defendant knowingly and willfully engaged in the above-mentioned violations of the FLSA and Ohio law, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant as a non-exempt hourly employee from 2014 until present. The Defendant provides home health care services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7034 Braucher Street, N.W., Suite B North Canton, OH 44720 Phone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com - and - Robi J. Baishnab (0086195) NILGES DRAHER LLC 1360 E. 9th St., Ste. 808 Cleveland, OH 44114 Phone: (216) 230-2955 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: rbaishnab@ohlaborlaw.com AMAZON.COM INC: Korn Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Justin Korn, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Amazon.com, Inc., Case No. 2584-CV-00452 was removed from the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Suffolk County, in and for the County of Tulare, to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on April 3, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-10802-WGY. The Plaintiff alleges that he applied to work for three Massachusetts based jobs at Amazon in or around August 2024, including Test Engineer, Mechatronics & Sustainable Packing – Systems Engineering Integration Testing, Functional Safety Engineer, Functional Safety, and Sr. Product Quality Engineer, Amazon Robotics. However, Plaintiff contends the Amazon job applications did not provide the "notice of his rights concerning lie detector tests that is required by Mass. Gen. Laws.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Keri L. Engelman, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Federal Street Boston, MA 02110-1726 Phone: +1.617.341.7700 Fax: +1.617.341.7701 Email: keri.engleman@morganlewis.com AMERICAN AXLE: Blockett Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------------------- Timothy Blockett, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN AXLE & MANUFACTURING, INC., a Delaware corporation, Case No. 2:25-cv-10956-LJM-CI (E.D. Mich., April 3, 2025), is brought against Defendant to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, costs, and other relief as appropriate under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). In addition to the base rate of pay, Defendant incorporated various types of routine and non-discretionary pay into its payment structure. For example, Defendant paid employees shift differential pay. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, Defendant failed to properly calculate Plaintiff's shift differential pay and other remuneration in the regular rate for proper overtime calculation. Throughout Plaintiff's employment with Defendant, he earned shift differential pay and other remuneration. As non-exempt employees, Defendant's Hourly Employees were entitled to full compensation for all overtime hours worked at a rate of 1.5 times their "regular rate" of pay, says the complaint. The Plaintiff worked for Defendant from November 2023 through January 2025, as a non-exempt, hourly employee. The Defendant is headquartered in Detroit, Michigan, and employs thousands of hourly employees in numerous states, including Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Arkansas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jesse L. Young, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. 141 E. Michigan Avenue, Suite 600 Kalamazoo, Michigan 49007 Phone: (269) 250-7500 Email: jyoung@sommerspc.com - and - Kevin J. Stoop, Esq. SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C. One Town Square, 17th Floor Southfield, MI 48076 Phone: (248) 355-0300 Email: kstoops@sommerspc.com AMERICAN HEALTH: Arinatwe Seeks to Extend Class Cert Deadlines -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as DAN ARINATWE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. AMERICAN HEALTH ASSOCIATES, INC., Case No. 0:24-cv-61678-AHS (S.D. Fla.), the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting an extension of the April 14, 2025, and Class Certification motion deadline to May 14, 2025. The Plaintiff submits that the sought modest enlargement is well justified under the circumstances and will serve the interests of judicial economy. The requested 30 day extension of the April 14, 2025, class certification deadline to May 14, 2025, will allow the parties with adequate time to determine if resolution is viable or if the required path is litigating class certification and arbitration motions. Neither party will be prejudiced by the requested extension. Further, the parties do not anticipate that this requested extension would affect the discovery schedule. On Feb. 18, 2025, the Court granted the Plaintiff's unopposed motion to extend deadline for class certifications. American Health Associates is a provider of clinical laboratory services to long term care in the United States. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZuwBNV at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Zev Antell, Esq. BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 648-4848 E-mail: zev@butlercurwood.com - and - Timothy Coffield, Esq. COFFIELD PLC 106-F Melbourne Park Circle Charlottesville, VA 22901 Telephone: (434) 218-3133 Facsimile: (434) 321-1636 E-mail: tc@coffieldlaw.com - and - Jordan Richards, Esq. Michael Miller, Esq. USA EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS – JORDAN RICHARDS PLLC 1800 SE 10th Ave. Suite 205 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316 Telephone: (954) 871-0050 E-mail: jordan@jordanrichardspllsc.com michael@usaemploymentlawyers.com AMERICAN RENAL: Salazar Sues Over Inadequately Protected Network ---------------------------------------------------------------- Jhovanna Salazar, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. AMERICAN RENAL MANAGEMENT LLC d/b/a INNOVATIVE RENAL CARE, Case 3:25-cv-00366 (M.D. Tenn., March 28, 2025), is brought seeks to hold Defendant responsible for the harms it caused Plaintiff and similarly situated persons in the preventable data breach of Defendant's inadequately protected computer network. On February 29, 2024, IRC detected suspicious activity on its computer network, indicating a data breach. Based on a subsequent forensic investigation, IRC determined that cybercriminals infiltrated its inadequately secured computer environment and thereby gained access to its data files between February 21, 2024 and March 1, 2024 ("Data Breach"). According to IRC, the personal information accessed by cybercriminals involved a wide variety of personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI"), including names, dates of birth, addresses, phone numbers, Social Security numbers, driver's license numbers or other state identification numbers, financial account information, taxpayer information, electronic signature, health insurance information, medical billing/claim information, medical diagnosis or condition information, medical prescription information, medical record numbers, medical treatment information, patient account numbers, and patient identification numbers (collectively, "Personal Information"). By taking possession and control of Plaintiff's and Class members' Personal Information, Defendant assumed a duty to securely store and protect the Personal Information of Plaintiff and the Class. The Defendant breached this duty and betrayed the trust of Plaintiff and Class members by failing to properly safeguard and protect their Personal Information, thus enabling cybercriminals to access, acquire, appropriate, compromise, disclose, encumber, exfiltrate, release, steal, misuse, and/or view it. The Defendant's misconduct--failing to implement adequate and reasonable measures to protect Plaintiff's and Class members' Personal Information, failing to timely detect the Data Breach, failing to take adequate steps to prevent and stop the Data Breach, failing to disclose the material facts that it did not have adequate security practices in place to safeguard the Personal Information, and failing to provide timely and adequate notice of the Data Breach--caused substantial harm and injuries to Plaintiff and Class members across the United States, says the complaint. The Plaintiff entrusted her Personal Information to Defendant. The Defendant is a for-profit renal care and kidney treatment chain. Defendant has locations across the country.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Lisa A. White, Esq. MASON LLP (Local Office) 9117 Millertown Pike Mascot, TN 37806 Phone: (202) 429-2290 Email: lwhite@masonllp.com - and - A. Brooke Murphy, Esq. MURPHY LAW FIRM 4116 Wills Rogers Pkwy, Suite 700 Oklahoma City, OK 73108 Phone: (405) 389-4989 Email: abm@murphylegalfirm.com ANHEUSER-BUSCH COS: Wins Bid for Individual Arbitration in Nelson ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Gregory B. Williams of the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware grants the Defendants' motion to compel individual arbitration in the lawsuit captioned GARY NELSON, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ANHEUSER-BUSCH COMPANIES, INC., and ANHEUSER-BUSCH BREWING PROPERTIES LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:24-cv-00029-GBW (D. Del.). Plaintiff Gary Nelson, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, brings this action against Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc., and Anheuser-Busch Brewing Properties LLC (together, "Anheuser-Busch"). Presently before the Court is the Defendants' Motion to Compel Individual Arbitration and Stay or, in the alternative, to Dismiss the Case ("the Motion to Compel"). The Plaintiff filed an Answering Brief to the Motion to Compel, and the Defendants filed a Reply Brief. Anheuser-Busch is the largest beer manufacturer in the United States and is incorporated in Delaware. Anheuser-Busch maintains and operates breweries in the United States. Plaintiff Nelson was employed by Anheuser-Busch for over a decade and worked at four Anheuser-Busch breweries. Nelson's primary duty was to "package beer and bottle beer on the bottling, canning, and keg lines." Mr. Nelson alleges that, during his employment, he and others with similar job duties and titles were classified by Anheuser-Busch as "exempt" from the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("the FLSA"). Consequently, he alleges that he regularly worked more than 40 hours in a workweek but was not paid for the majority of hours he worked over 40 in a week even though he worked the same job as nonexempt employees. He claims that Anheuser-Busch violated the FLSA by its failure to pay complete and proper overtime premiums for overtime hours worked by the Plaintiff and others similarly situated. On Jan. 11, 2024, Nelson, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed a Collective Action Complaint against Anheuser-Busch, LLC. On March 1, 2024, Anheuser-Busch, LLC, filed a Motion to Transfer Venue or, alternatively, to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction. On March 15, 2024, the Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint ("the Amended Complaint"). In the Amended Complaint, the Plaintiff substituted Anheuser-Busch, LLC, with Defendants Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc., and Anheuser-Busch Brewing Properties LLC. The Plaintiff asserts one cause of action: Violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201, et seq. On April 15, 2024, Anheuser-Busch filed a Motion to Compel Individual Arbitration and Stay or, in the alternative, Dismiss the Case. The Motion to Compel asserts that the Plaintiff agreed to an arbitration agreement, the "Dispute Resolution Program" ("the DRP"), with the Defendants; thus, the Court should order the Plaintiff to arbitrate his claims. The Motion to Compel also requests, in the alternative, that the Court dismiss the claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 (b)(1) or for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). The Defendants assert that the Court should compel arbitration because the DRP is a valid arbitration agreement, and the Plaintiff's claim falls within the scope of the DRP. They also assert that the parties "agreed to have threshold issues of applicability, formation, and enforceability determined by the arbitrator." The Court determines the DRP is a valid and enforceable arbitration agreement, and finds that the Plaintiff's claim is within the scope of the DRP because it is a "covered claim." As a result, the Plaintiff's claim must be arbitrated. Judge Williams notes the DRP does not contain a provision discussing class arbitration or collective actions. Therefore, there is no contractual basis for concluding that Anheuser-Busch agreed to class arbitration. As a result, should the Plaintiff wish, Judge Williams points out that the arbitrator may decide whether the DRP precludes the class action. The Court, however, will not order the Defendants to arbitrate collectively with the Plaintiff and the class. For the reasons explained in the Memorandum Opinion, the Court grants the Defendants' Motion to Compel Individual Arbitration and Stay the Case. A full-text copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion is available at https://tinyurl.com/5b9v645b from PacerMonitor.com. Brian E. Farnan -- bfarnan@farnanlaw.com -- Michael J. Farnan -- mfarnan@farnanlaw.com -- FARNAN LLP, in Wilmington, DE; Brian Warwick -- bwarwick@vandwlaw.com -- Christopher J. Brochu -- cbrochu@vandwlaw.com -- VARNELL & WARWICK, P.A., in Tampa, FL; Matthew K. Handley -- mhandley@hfajustice.com -- HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC, in Washington, D.C.; William A. Anderson -- wanderson@hfajustice.com -- HANDLEY FARAH & ANDERSON PLLC, in Boulder, CO, Attorneys for the Plaintiff. Jennifer C. Jauffret -- jauffret@rlf.com -- Christine D. Haynes -- haynes@rlf.com -- RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A., in Wilmington, DE; Richard L. Etter -- rick.etter@ogletree.com -- OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C., in Pittsburgh, PA, Attorneys for the Defendants. ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Parties Seek to Modify Scheduling Order ------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as THOMAS E. OVERBY, JR., and ABBY GEARHART, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. ANHEUSER-BUSCH, LLC, Case No. 4:21-cv-00141-AWA-DEM (E.D. Va.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order modifying the Court's Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order and staying all district court proceedings, including the Defendant's production of an updated listing of Rule 23 class members, until final resolution of class certification, which shall include the resolution of the Defendant's Rule 23(f) petition and any appeals arising thereof. The Plaintiffs seek recovery of allegedly unpaid wages and statutory damages for themselves and others under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Virginia Wage Payment Act ("VWPA"), and the Virginia Overtime Wage Act ("VOWA). Specifically, the Plaintiffs allege they performed unpaid pre- and post-shift work, including unpaid overtime hours. Defendant denies these allegations. On Jan. 28, 2022, the Plaintiffs filed their motion to conditionally certify this matter as a collective action pursuant to section 216(b) of the FLSA. The Court issued an order on Sept. 21, 2022, granting, as modified, the Plaintiffs' conditional certification Motion. Anheuser-Busch is an American brewing company. A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=KNW3QK at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Craig J. Curwoo, Esq. Zev H. Antell, Esq. Samanth R. Galina, Esq. BUTLER CURWOOD, PLC 140 Virginia Street, Suite 302 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 648-4848 Facsimile: (804) 237-0413 E-mail: craig@butlercurwood.com zev@butlercurwood.com samantha@butlercurwood.com - and - Robert W.T. Tucci, Esq. Gregg C. Greenberg, Esq. Thomas J. Eiler, Esq. ZIPIN, AMSTER, & GREENBERG LLC 8757 Georgia Ave., Ste 400 Silver Spring, MD 20910 Telephone: (301) 587-9373 E-mail: rtucci@zagfirm.com ggreenberg@zagfirm.com teiler@zagfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Robert G. Lian, Jr., Esq. James E. Tysse, Esq. Katherine I. Heise, Esq. Margaret O. Rusconi, Esq. Benjamin R. Saul, Esq. AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP 2001 K Street N.W. Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 887-4000 Facsimile:(202) 887-4288 E-mail: blian@akingump.com jtysse@akingump.com kheise@akingump.com mrusconi@akingump.com saulb@akingump.com AOD VENTURES INC: Linyard Files Suit in Tex. Dist. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against AOD Ventures, Inc. The case is styled as Ben Linyard, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AOD Ventures, Inc. doing business as "Autos of Dallas," Case No. 493-02446-2025 (Tex. Dist. Ct., Collin Cty., April 7, 2025). The case type is stated as "All Other Civil Cases." AOD Ventures, Inc. doing business as Autos of Dallas -- https://www.autosofdallas.com/ -- offers the Dallas-area's best selection of used luxury vehicles- Mercedes, BMW, Jaguar and Land Rover.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Grayson L. Linyard, Esq. LINYARD PLLC 6744 Avalon Ave. Dallas, TX 75214 Phone: 214-415-0580 Email: gray@linyardpllc.com APPLE INC: Court Awards $12-Mil. in Fees & Costs in Barrett Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division, grants the Class Counsel's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses, and Service Awards in the lawsuit titled CARL BARRETT, et al., Plaintiffs v. APPLE INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:20-cv-04812-EJD (N.D. Cal.). The Court awards the Class Counsel $11.65 million in attorneys' fees and $546,657.27 in litigation expenses. The Named Plaintiffs are granted a service award of $10,000 each. On Dec. 19, 2024, the Court granted Class Counsel's Motion for Final Approval of the Class Action Settlement. The Court incorporates the facts of the Settlement Agreement as described in that Order. At that time, the Court deferred ruling on the present motion pending Class Counsel's submission of supplemental billing records and further briefing on the updated claims rate. Having received this additional information, the Court now rules on Class Counsel's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Expenses, and Service Awards. Class Counsel seek $11.65 million in attorneys' fees, $546,657.27 in litigation expenses, and $10,000 services awards for four named Plaintiffs, Michel Polston, Nancy Martin, Maria Rodriguez, and Andrew Hagene. Apple filed an opposition. As an initial matter, however, the Court addresses Class Counsel's argument that Apple does not have standing to challenge the fees award because any fees will come from the common class fund, not from Apple. Class Counsel cite to this Court's order in In re Apple Inc. Device Performance Litig., No. 5:18-md-02827- EJD, 2023 WL 2090981, at *11 n.7 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2023), appeal dismissed, No. 23-15416, 2023 WL 10447843 (9th Cir. Aug. 8, 2023), where the Court found "that Apple lacks standing to object to the proposed fee awards as 'a settling defendant in a class action [that] has no interest in the amount of attorney fees awarded when the fees are to be paid from the class recovery rather than the defendant's coffers.'" The Court agrees that Apple does not have an interest in the amount of fees awarded here; but nevertheless, as it did in In re Apple Inc. Device Performance Litigation, the Court still examines Apple's arguments as helpful for the Court to satisfy its fiduciary duties. In the Motion, the Class Counsel ask for a fee award of $11.65 million, which is equal to 33.33% of the Settlement Fund. Apple opposes the Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees, arguing in part that the recovery and claims rate here is not exceptional, this is not an unusually risky case, there are no comparable cases, and contingency alone does not justify an upward deviation. Having considered the relevant factors, the Court exercises its discretion to find that a 33.33% request is appropriate in these circumstances. The non-reversionary Settlement Fund is an excellent result in large part because the Settlement Fund will fully reimburse all class members for the money they lost in the scams. During the hearing, the Court originally noted concerns about the claims rate, which at that time was 2.1% for known class members and 10.75% for unknown class members, and the Court requested additional briefing after the claims period closed. In the updated briefing, Class Counsel report a final claim rate of 2.32% for known class members and 14.52% for unknown class members. The Court is now satisfied that Class Counsel made every effort to maximize the claim rate before the period closed. This result was also hard-fought. The parties only reached settlement after approximately four years of litigation, including two years of discovery, two rounds of motions to dismiss, a motion for class certification, which was pending when the parties reached settlement, and mediation discussions. Judge Davila opines that the Class Counsel further undertook substantial risk by agreeing to litigate this case on a purely contingent basis given the magnitude of the class, complicated and technical facts, well-funded Defendants, and numerous contested issues. The Court also notes that an award of this percentage is consistent with other awards in the Ninth Circuit. The Court finds that the lodestar cross-check confirms the reasonableness of the percentage-based calculation. Therefore, the Court grants the Class Counsel's request for attorneys' fees in the amount of $11.65 million. The Class Counsel also seek $546,657.27 in litigation expenses. The Class Counsel are entitled to reimbursement of reasonable out-of-pocket expenses. The Court finds that the Class Counsel's request for compensation in the amount of $546,657.27 is supported by the record and the amount is reasonable, fair, and adequate. Therefore, the Court grants the Class Counsel's request for $546,657.27 in litigation expenses. The Class Counsel request service awards of $10,000 for four Named Plaintiffs. Apple does not challenge the $10,000 award as to Plaintiffs Hagene and Rodriguez, but argues that Plaintiffs Martin and Polston are ineligible for a service award because they were not class representatives, and they made inconsistent statements in their depositions. The Court finds that the requested service awards as to all four Named Plaintiffs are reasonable. Judge Davila opines that all Named Plaintiffs made considerable efforts in this case, including spending numerous hours reviewing drafts of pleadings and discovery responses, participating in telephone calls with the Class Counsel, retrieving documents to produce during discovery, responding to several discovery requests from the Defendants, preparing for and appearing for their depositions, and reviewing and approving the Settlement. Though Martin and Polston are not class representatives, their considerable efforts furthered the interest of the class and benefited Class Counsel's litigation strategy. The Court further finds no evidence that Martin and Polston committed perjury or were deceptive in their depositions. Though they could not find documentation to support their claims and made some inconsistent statements, i.e., changing the names of the technology companies that could have been the source of the scam, the Court is not troubled by this conduct given the unique circumstances of this case. As discussed in the hearing, this class is generally comprised of older, unsophisticated, and vulnerable individuals, who fell victim to a third-party scammer online, and documentation of the scam was often discarded by class members or destroyed per the instruction of the scammer. The lack of documentation and inconsistent statements thus carries less weight in the Court's examination of credibility here than they might in other class actions. Therefore, the Court grants the Class Counsel's request for service awards in the amount of $10,000 for Named Plaintiffs Hagene, Rodriguez, Martin, and Polston. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/bdy29snw from PacerMonitor.com. APPLE INC: Court Grants in Part Bid to Dismiss Margolis Class Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge P. Casey Pitts of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California grants in part and denies in part the Defendant's motion to dismiss the lawsuit entitled FERN MARGOLIS, et al., Plaintiffs v. APPLE INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:23-cv-03882-PCP (N.D. Cal.). The Plaintiffs bring the putative class action against Apple Inc. for allegedly misleading iPhone 7 users about the performance degradations that their devices would suffer as a result of downloading iOS 15 software. The Plaintiffs are California, New York, Virginia, Louisiana, and North Carolina residents and owners of Apple iPhone 7 devices that suffered from performance degradations after they downloaded Apple's iOS 15 software on the devices. The Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of all purchasers, owners, users, or lessees of any iPhone 7 device in the United States that was updated to any version of iOS 15, as well as California, New York, North Carolina, and Virginia subclasses. Apple is one of the world's largest developers and sellers of mobile phones and other consumer electronic devices. Apple first released the iPhone in 2007 and has typically released a new model of the phone each year since. Apple's iOS software is its proprietary mobile operating system for the iPhone. Apple generally releases a new major iOS version each year alongside its release of a new iPhone model and designates that iOS version with a number. Apple releases periodic updates to an iOS version following its initial release. Apple provides those updates to customers for free and advertises that old iPhones will be able to run on new iOS versions, which will add security enhancements and improve their devices. Once the software update is installed, Apple informs customers that it cannot be downgraded to the previous iOS version. In September 2016, Apple began selling the iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus (collectively, "iPhone 7 devices"). These devices use Apple's A10 Fusion chip to support their processing power and were the last of Apple's iPhone models to use that chip. The first iOS version that operated on the iPhone 7 devices was iOS 10. Apple released iOS 15 in 2021 alongside the iPhone 13 and made iOS 15 available for the iPhone 7 devices. Apple heavily markets the release of each new iOS version. It encouraged iPhone users to download iOS 15 by emphasizing its features and improvements, security content, updates, and fixes. Apple communicated to customers that each version of iOS improved the performance of prior versions. The Plaintiffs contend that Apple's fervent promotion of iOS 15, and its warnings that the new version provided important security updates, did not provide customers with any meaningful choice about whether to install iOS 15. Apple did not reveal that iOS 15 would make iPhone 7 devices perform worse than they did when using prior versions of iOS. The Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that iOS 15 degraded the performance of their iPhone 7 devices in several ways, including by causing slowed performance across applications and functions, lags, glitches, freezes, sudden reboots, and poor battery health. They contend that the impact of iOS 15 on iPhone 7 devices was particularly acute because iOS 15 catered to the iPhone 8 and later models that had more powerful bionic chips and greater memory capacity. The Plaintiffs assert nine causes of action arising under federal and state law and seek damages, as well as declaratory and injunctive relief. To establish Apple's liability, the Plaintiffs invoke: (1) the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA); (2) California's Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act; (3) California's False and Misleading Advertising Law; (4) California common law trespass to chattels; (5) California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL); (6) New York's General Business Law; (7) New York's General Business Law; (8) North Carolina's Unfair Trade Practices Act; and (9) Virginia's Consumer Protection Act. On Oct. 13, 2023, Apple moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims. The Court granted that motion as to all claims except those invoking the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act and California common law trespass to chattels. On Aug. 27, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. Apple now moves to dismiss that amended complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). For the reasons set forth in this Order, the Court grants Apple's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, California's False and Misleading Advertising Law, and Virginia's Consumer Protection Act, as well as Plaintiff Elizabeth Guidice's claims under New York's consumer protection statute. The Court denies the motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' remaining state consumer protection claims. In its prior order, the Court held that the Plaintiffs failed to state a claim under the CFAA because they did not plausibly plead that Apple acted intentionally and they did not satisfy the CFAA's loss threshold. Apple contends that the Plaintiffs' amended complaint again fails to plead intent plausibly. The Court concluded in its prior order that, in order to allege that Apple acted intentionally, the Plaintiffs must plausibly plead that it was Apple's "conscious desire" to damage their iPhone 7 devices, not simply that Apple knew such damage might occur. In applying that standard to the Plaintiffs' original complaint, the Court concluded that the Plaintiffs' allegations supported an inference that Apple acted with knowledge that iOS 15 could negatively impact iPhone 7 devices but did not support a plausible inference that Apple intentionally damaged the Plaintiffs' devices. While allegations of knowledge, motive, and prior intentional conduct can support an inference of intent in certain circumstances, Judge Pitts finds the Plaintiffs do not plausibly plead motive or relevant prior intentional conduct here. As a result, the factual allegations in the amended complaint once again support an inference that Apple acted only with knowledge that iOS 15 might degrade the performance of iPhone 7 devices, not with a conscious desire to effect that degradation. Because the Plaintiffs have not provided allegations of prior intentional conduct or motive sufficient to create a plausible inference that Apple sought to damage their phones in order to spur sales of newer phones, the amended complaint plausibly pleads that Apple acted only with knowledge rather than intent, Judge Pitts opines. The Plaintiffs, thus, fail to state a claim under the CFAA and the motion to dismiss is granted as to that claim. The dismissal of this claim is with prejudice and without leave to amend. Because the Plaintiffs fail to plead that they face a real threat of a similar injury in the future, Judge Pitts finds, among other things, that they fail to plead facts establishing their standing to pursue injunctive relief and the Court lacks equitable jurisdiction over their UCL and FAL claims as currently pleaded. The motion to dismiss is, therefore, granted as to the California consumer protection claims. Because the Plaintiffs may be able to cure these deficiencies through amendment, Judge Pitts holds this dismissal is without prejudice and with leave to amend. For these reasons, the Court grants Apple's motion to dismiss the Plaintiffs' claims under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, California's Unfair Competition Law, California's False and Misleading Advertising Law, and Virginia's Consumer Protection Act, as well as Plaintiff Elizabeth Guidice's claim under New York's consumer protection statute. The Court's dismissal of these claims is with prejudice and without leave to amend except as to the UCL and FAL claims, which are dismissed without prejudice and with leave to amend. The Court denies Apple's motion to dismiss the remaining Plaintiffs' claims under the New York and North Carolina consumer protection statutes. The Plaintiffs may file an amended complaint consistent with this Order within 21 days. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/2s3j94n2 from PacerMonitor.com. AQUAZZURA NORTH: Calcano Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------- Marcos Calcano, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. AQUAZZURA NORTH AMERICA INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-02800 (S.D.N.Y., April 4, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, https://www.aquazzura.com/us_en, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. AQUAZZURA NORTH AMERICA INC., operates the Aquazzura online retail store and physical retail stores, as well as the Aquazzura interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal Danalgottlieb@aol.com Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal ARAMARK SERVICES: Forbes Suit Removed to D. Massachusetts --------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Jeffrey Forbes, individually and on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Aramark Services, Inc. f/k/a Aramark Corporation, Case No. 2584-CV-00608 was removed from the Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Suffolk County, in and for the County of Tulare, to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts on April 3, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-10808. The Plaintiff alleges that he "applied to work as an Aramark Food Service Worker at the Essex County Correctional Facility in Middleton, Massachusetts," and the job application did not provide the "notice of his rights concerning lie detector tests that is required by Mass. Gen. Laws.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Keri L. Engelman, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP One Federal Street Boston, MA 02110-1726 Phone: +1.617.341.7700 Fax: +1.617.341.7701 Email: keri.engleman@morganlewis.com ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY: Taylor Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Arizona State University Foundation. The case is styled as Sarah Taylor, individually and on behalf of a class of all persons and entities similarly situated v. Arizona State University Foundation, Case No. 2:25-cv-01093-DLR (D. Ariz., April 2, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. ASU Foundation -- http://www.asufoundation.org/-- accepts and administers philanthropic contributions from private (non-governmental) entities, as well as funds from governmental entities.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony I. Paronich, Esq. PARONICH LAW, P.C. 350 Lincoln St., Suite 2400 Hingham, MA 02043 Phone: (617) 485-0018 Fax: (508) 318-8100 Email: anthony@paronichlaw.com AVENUE A PET SUPPLY: Wills Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- Laurence Wills, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. AVENUE A PET SUPPLY CO., INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-01847 (E.D.N.Y., April 3, 2025), is brought against Defendant for the failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate Defendant's website, www.nycpetopia.com (the "Website"), to be fully accessible to and independently usable by Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired people. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to the Website, and therefore denial of the goods and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). The Defendant's website is not equally accessible to blind and visually impaired consumers; therefore, Defendant is in violation of the ADA. The Plaintiff now seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that the Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using the computer. The Defendant's Website, and the goods and services offered thereupon, is a public accommodation.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Phone: (201) 282-6500 Fax: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com AVENUE STORES: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ---------------------------------------------------------- Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Avenue Stores, LLC, Case No. 0:25-cv-01362 (D. Minn., April 7, 2025), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.avenue.com) is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers clothing and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, tops, bottoms, denim, dresses, intimates, sleepwear, swimwear, shoes, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Gustafson, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC Jason Gustafson (#0403297) 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: jason@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com BAKER SOLUTIONS: Weingrad Files TCPA Suit in E.D. Pennsylvania -------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Baker Solutions Inc. The case is styled as Leon Weingrad, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Baker Solutions Inc. doing business as: Creditbaker, Case No. 2:25-cv-01792 (E.D. Pa., April 7, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Baker Solutions Inc. doing business as Creditbaker -- https://www.creditbaker.com/ -- offer comprehensive funding services to all businesses in all 50 states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Roman Perrong, Esq. PERRONG LAW LLC 2657 Mt. Carmel Ave Glenside, PA 19038 Phone: (215) 225-5529 Fax: (888) 329-0305 Email: a@perronglaw.com BASICS LANDSCAPING: Funez Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------ Yimi Funez, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. BASICS LANDSCAPING CO., INC. and JAY BERNSTEIN, Case No. 2:25-cv-01967 (E.D.N.Y., April 9, 2025), is brought against Defendants to recover unpaid wages on behalf of himself and all individuals similarly situated under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New York Labor Law and the supporting New York State Department of Labor Regulations ("NYLL"). Throughout his employment with Defendants, Plaintiff regularly worked more than 40 hours in a single workweek. The Defendants paid Plaintiff at his regular rate of pay for all hours worked, including those hours worked by Plaintiff after 40 hours per week. Defendants paid Plaintiff's wages in combination of check and cash. The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff at the rate of one and one-half times his regular rate of pay for hours worked after 40 hours per workweek. The Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees premium overtime wages for hours worked in excess of forty hours per week in violation of both the FLSA and NYLL, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a landscape laborer from 2003 until March 2025. The Defendants provide landscaping services including design, installation, maintenance, and masonry.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter A. Romero, Esq. ROMERO LAW GROUP PLLC 490 Wheeler Road, Suite 277 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Phone: (631) 257-5588 Email: Promero@RomeroLawNY.com BERRY BROS: Court Narrows Claims in Castillo Data Breach Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge James D. Cain, Jr. of the United States District Court for the Western District Court of Louisiana will deny Berry Bros. General Contractors Inc.'s motion to dismiss the case captioned as MOISES CASTILLO VERSUS BERRY BROS GENERAL CONTRACTORS INC, CASE NO. 6:24-CV-01723 (W.D. La.) for lack of jurisdiction. Berry Bros' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim will be granted as to the unjust enrichment claim and denied in all other respects. Plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment will be dismissed with prejudice. This suit arises from an August 2024 data breach impacting defendant, who was plaintiff's employer, and the alleged resulting theft of personally identifiable information of defendant's customers and employees. Plaintiff filed suit in this court on Dec. 11, 2024, on behalf of himself and a prospective class of other individuals whose PII was compromised by the 2024 Berry Bros. data breach. He raises claims of negligence, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. Defendant now moves to dismiss the suit, arguing that: (1) plaintiff cannot satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d), because there is nothing in the complaint to support a good faith assumption that the class's damages will exceed $5 million; (2) plaintiff lacks standing to pursue his claims because he has not suffered an injury in fact; and (3) plaintiff fails to state a valid claim for relief. Plaintiff opposes the motions and requests leave to amend his complaint if any deficiencies are found. CAFA Jurisdiction Plaintiff asserts that this court has subject matter jurisdiction over his putative class action under CAFA, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d), because the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs and there are at least 100 potential class members with minimal diversity. His only present injury appears to be the emotional harm he has allegedly suffered as a result of the data breach. He admits that defendant has provided 24 months of credit monitoring, which is still ongoing. In reliance on a recent decision from the Eastern District of Louisiana, defendant maintains that the jurisdictional amount is not satisfied because plaintiff has not yet sustained any financial losses as a result of the data breach. According to the Court, Plaintiff's risk of future injury is an issue of standing. Plaintiff provides no valuation of the costs of his demands, but a court recently found that the cost of credit monitoring from TransUnion is $29.95 per month. Plaintiff alleges that 6,210 individuals were affected by the data breach. Ten years of credit monitoring from TransUnion for all of these individuals will cost at least $22,318,740.00. Accordingly, the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied without the Court even attempting to value the other requests for relief. Standing Plaintiff alleges that the PII held by defendant, and presumably accessed through the data breach, included names and Social Security numbers of defendant's employees as well as financial account information and contact information of its customers. There is little information on the nature of the attack or the degree to which PII was actually accessed or misused. But the Court's obligation at this time is to accept the well-pleaded allegations and construe them in a light most favorable to plaintiff. The allegations plausibly demonstrate a data breach. Accordingly, plaintiff has demonstrated standing and the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction will be denied Negligence Defendant argues that plaintiff fails to state a claim for negligence under Louisiana law because his damages are speculative. The Court finds Plaintiff satisfies the actual damages element of his negligence claim and there is no basis for dismissal. Breach of Implied Contract Defendant also requests that the court dismiss plaintiff's claim for breach of implied contract, arguing that: (1) there was no agreement between the parties regarding the safety of plaintiff's data and (2) even if such an agreement existed, plaintiff fails to demonstrate that defendant's alleged breach resulted in any damages. Plaintiff alleges that, when he and class members provided private information to defendant in exchange for employment and/or services, they entered implied contracts with Defendant under which Defendant agreed to reasonably protect such information. Accordingly, plaintiff has provided sufficient allegations to support a claim for implied breach of contract, the Court finds. Unjust Enrichment Defendant moves to dismiss plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment on several grounds, including that the claim is a remedy of last resort and precluded by plaintiff's pleading of other causes of action. According to the Court, the fact that plaintiff maintains breach of contract and negligence claims against defendant precludes him from pursuing a remedy through unjust enrichment. The motion will therefore be granted as to this claim, the Court holds. A copy of the Court's decision is available athttps://urlcurt.com/u?l=Mq3kEh from PacerMonitor.com. BETTER MORTGAGE: Mora Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Better Mortgage Corporation. The case is styled as Gerardo Mora, on Behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Better Mortgage Corporation, Case No. STK-CV-UOE-2025-0004997 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., April 7, 2025). The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment." Better Mortgage Corporation -- https://better.com/ -- is a direct lender dedicated to providing a fast, transparent digital mortgage experience backed by superior customer support.[BN] BIG BARKER LLC: Calcano Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Marcos Calcano, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. BIG BARKER, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02757 (S.D.N.Y., April 2, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, https://bigbarker.com, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. BIG BARKER, LLC, operates the Big Barker online retail store, as well as the Big Barker interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal Danalgottlieb@aol.com Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal BLACKBERRY LIMITED: $2.8MM Deal in "Parker" Awaits Court Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- On March 17, 2017, a putative employment class action was filed against BlackBerry Limited in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Parker v. BlackBerry Limited). The Statement of Claim alleged that actions the Company took when certain of its employees decided to accept offers of employment from Ford Motor Company of Canada amounted to a wrongful termination of the employees' employment with the Company. The claim sought (i) an unspecified quantum of statutory, contractual, or common law termination entitlements; (ii) punitive or breach of duty of good faith damages of $20.0 million, Canadian dollars or such other amount as the Court may find appropriate, (iii) pre- and post- judgment interest, (iv) attorneys' fees and costs, and (v) such other relief as the Court may deem just. The Court granted the plaintiffs' motion to certify the class action on May 27, 2019. The Company commenced a motion for leave to appeal the certification order on June 11, 2019. The Court denied the motion for leave to appeal on September 17, 2019. The Company filed its Statement of Defence on December 19, 2019. The parties participated in a mediation on November 9, 2022, which did not result in an agreement. The matter had a trial date of June 2, 2025. The parties attended a pre-trial conference on December 4, 2024. At a further pre-trial conference on January 24, 2025, the parties reached a settlement in principle for approximately $2.8 million or $4.0 million Canadian dollars inclusive of all fees and costs. On February 18, 2025, the parties signed the minutes of settlement. On March 10, 2025, the Company paid the settlement amount into a trust held by the plaintiffs' counsel. The settlement is subject to approval by the Court. The Company expects the settlement to be complete before the end of fiscal 2026, the Company disclosed in a Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. About BlackBerry Headquartered in Waterloo, Canada, BlackBerry Limited provides intelligent security software solutions. At May 31, 2024, BlackBerry had $1.3 billion in total assets, $581 million in total liabilities, and $742 million in total equity. * * * Egan-Jones Ratings Company on December 18, 2024, maintained its 'CCC' foreign currency and local currency senior unsecured ratings on debt issued by BlackBerry Limited. BLACKBERRY LIMITED: Awaits Trial Date in Swisscanto Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- On July 23, 2014, the plaintiff in the putative Ontario class action (Swisscanto Fondsleitung AG v. BlackBerry Limited, et al.) filed a motion for class certification and for leave to pursue statutory misrepresentation claims. On November 17, 2015, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued an order granting the plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a statutory claim for misrepresentation. On December 2, 2015, BlackBerry Limited filed a notice of motion seeking leave to appeal this ruling. On November 15, 2018, the Court denied the Company's motion for leave to appeal the order granting the plaintiffs leave to file a statutory claim for misrepresentation. On February 5, 2019, the Court entered an order certifying a class comprised persons (a) who purchased BlackBerry common shares between March 28, 2013, and September 20, 2013, and still held at least some of those shares as of September 20, 2013, and (b) who acquired those shares on a Canadian stock exchange or acquired those shares on any other stock exchange and were a resident of Canada when the shares were acquired. Notice of class certification was published on March 6, 2019. The Company filed its Statement of Defence on April 1, 2019. Discovery is proceeding and the Court has not set a trial date, the Company disclosed in a Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. About BlackBerry Headquartered in Waterloo, Canada, BlackBerry Limited provides intelligent security software solutions. At May 31, 2024, BlackBerry had $1.3 billion in total assets, $581 million in total liabilities, and $742 million in total equity. * * * Egan-Jones Ratings Company on December 18, 2024, maintained its 'CCC' foreign currency and local currency senior unsecured ratings on debt issued by BlackBerry Limited. BLACKBERRY LIMITED: Obtains Final Judgment in US Class Suits ------------------------------------------------------------ Between October and December 2013, several purported class action lawsuits and one individual lawsuit were filed against BlackBerry Limited and certain of its former officers in various jurisdictions in the U.S. and Canada alleging that the Company and certain of its officers made materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's financial condition and business prospects and that certain of the Company's financial statements contain material misstatements. The individual lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed and a Stipulation of Settlement was executed in respect of the consolidated U.S. class actions effective June 7, 2022. On April 6, 2022, through a mediator, the Company agreed in principle to pay $165.0 million to settle the consolidated U.S. class actions. The Stipulation of Settlement was executed effective June 7, 2022. On June 29, 2022, the Company paid $1.0 million of the settlement amount and the remaining $164.0 million was paid on September 6, 2022. On September 29, 2022, the Court granted final approval of the settlement and entered final judgment. About BlackBerry Headquartered in Waterloo, Canada, BlackBerry Limited provides intelligent security software solutions. At May 31, 2024, BlackBerry had $1.3 billion in total assets, $581 million in total liabilities, and $742 million in total equity. * * * Egan-Jones Ratings Company on December 18, 2024, maintained its 'CCC' foreign currency and local currency senior unsecured ratings on debt issued by BlackBerry Limited. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Beauge Sues Over Recalled Vehicles -------------------------------------------------------- Archy Beauge, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Case No. 5:25-cv-00051 (W.D.N.C., April 7, 2025), is brought on behalf similarly situated persons who purchased or leased any BMW model that was recalled and manufactured from the years 2012 through 2018 ("Class Vehicles"), to remedy various violations of law in connection with Defendant's manufacture, marketing, advertising, selling, warranting, and servicing of the Class Vehicles. The Class Vehicles contain a design defect that causes a serious safety concern. The design defect with the Class Vehicles is contained in the improperly sealed electrical connector on the water pump. Specifically, "blowby-liquid from the positive crankcase ventilation system may collect on the intake air hose," and eventually "drip onto the plug connector," potentially seeping in, causing an electrical shortage, which could increase the risk of a thermal event and, potentially, a fire. On August 20, 2024, BMW recalled 720,796 of the Class Vehicles ("Recall). The allegations herein are based on personal knowledge as to Plaintiff's own experience and are made as to other matters based on an investigation by counsel, including analysis of publicly available information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased a 2013 BMW 328i Sedan in December of 2018. The Defendant designs, manufactures, markets, distributes, services, repairs, sells, and leases vehicles, including the Class Vehicles, nationwide and in the state of North Carolina.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ryan A. Valente, Esq. Paul J. Doolittle, Esq. Seth Little Esq.d POULIN | WILEY | ANASTOPOULO, LLC 32 Ann Street Charleston, SC 29403 Phone: 803-222-2222 Fax: 843-494-5536 Email: paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com seth.little@poulinwilley.com cmad@poulinwilley.com - and - Philip J. Furia, Esq. Jason P. Sultzer, Esq. SULTZER & LIPARI, PLLC 85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 200 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601 Phone: (845) 483-7100 Fax: (888) 749-7747 Email: furiap@thesultzerlawgroup.com sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com BOEING COMPANY: Seeks to Strike Class Allegations in Dosenbach -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as STEVEN L. DOSENBACH, on Behalf of Himself and all Others Similarly Situated, v. THE BOEING COMPANY, Case No. 1:25-cv-00204-CMH-WEF (E.D. Va.), Boeing requests the Court to enter an order granting partial motion for judgment on the pleadings and to strike class allegations and/or deny class certification. Boeing also requests the Court to enter an order dismissing Plaintiff Steven L. Dosenbach's claim for breach of contract alleged in Count III of the Complaint, with prejudice, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) and to strike the class allegations of and/or deny class certification as to Plaintiff's claims for violations of the Missouri Minimum Wage Law ("MMWL") (Count II) and breach of contract (Count III) pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(1)(A) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(d)(1)(D). Boeing designs, manufactures, and sells airplanes, rotorcraft, rockets, satellites, and missiles worldwide, also providing leasing and product support services. A copy of the Defendant's motion dated April 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Zd1MdP at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendant is represented by: Scott A. Siegner, Esq. W. Ryan Waddell, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK AND STEWART, P.C. 901 East Byrd Street, Suite 1300 Richmond, VA 23219 Telephone: (804) 663-2342 Facsimile: (804) 225-8641 E-mail: Scott.siegner@ogletreedeakins.com Ryan.waddell@ogletreedeakins.com BP EXPLORATION: Can Withhold Certain Documents in Gremillion Suit ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Michael B. North of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana denied the plaintiff's proposed motion to compel defendants to produce certain documents in the case captioned as TAMMY GREMILLION VERSUS BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INC., ET AL., Case No. 22-cv-03209-JCZ-MBN (E.D. La.). The BP Defendants oppose Plaintiff's motion. This lawsuit arises out of the Deepwater Horizon well blow-out and oil spill in 2010. Decedent, Jennifer L. Gremillion,1 was an oil response worker who worked for the BP Defendants from August to December 2010. The Complaint alleges that Decedent's duties included recovering booms covered in oil and COREXIT -- a chemical dispersant -- from Barataria Bay, Louisiana, which flows into the Gulf of Mexico. During the relevant times, Decedent allegedly received continuous exposure to BP's toxic substances through her clean-up and response work activities. The Complaint alleges that, due to her exposure to the oil and other toxic substances, Decedent contracted and was subsequently diagnosed with Chronic Myeloid Leukemia. The Complaint further alleges that Decedent's exposure to the substances during the time she worked as a response activity worker for the oil spill was a substantial contributing cause of the medical condition and Decedent's untimely death on Dec. 16, 2020. Plaintiff ultimately filed this lawsuit on Sept. 9, 2022 pursuant to the Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement Agreement. Plaintiff, on behalf of Decedent, has now filed this motion in which she challenges the BP Defendants' assertion of the attorney-client and work-product privileges to withhold documents. This is the eighth in a collection of discovery motions filed by the parties. Plaintiff's challenge to the BP Defendants' invocation of privilege involves three categories of documents: (1) documents to or from a BP Defendants' contractor, Paul Hewett; (2) documents relating to the BP Defendants' monitoring and sampling data; and (3) documents associated with the BP Defendants' participation in the Operational Science Advisory Team ("OSAT"). The BP Defendants produced non-privileged documents relevant to each of these three categories but withheld others on the basis of privilege and provided Plaintiff with a thorough privilege log. Plaintiff contends that these categories of documents are not entitled to privilege regardless whether they contain legal advice. Plaintiff maintains that no document concerning the oil spill response can be withheld as privileged because the documents involved technical subjects, which Plaintiff describes as the ordinary course of business by an oil company. A. Documents to or from the BP Defendants' Contractor, Paul Hewett Paul Hewett is a former government contractor later hired by the BP Defendants, who recognize that Hewett performed both privileged and non-privileged work for them. The BP Defendants produced all non-privileged documents by Hewett to Plaintiff. At his deposition, however, Hewett specifically testified that he performed some of his work at the direction of the BP Defendants' attorneys. The BP Defendants withheld these documents on the ground of privilege. Plaintiff essentially maintains that Hewett's dual role precludes any privilege protection because his work was performed in the ordinary course of business. Plaintiff concentrates on the fee agreement between Hewett and the BP Defendants, arguing that nothing in the contract contemplated legal work. Plaintiff's argument misses the mark. The attorney-client and work-product privileges are not controlled by the terms of a contract, but by the nature of the work performed. The Court finds that Hewett's work product is privileged. B. Documents Relating to BP's Monitoring and Sampling Data Both this Court and the Northern District of Florida have acknowledged the privileged nature of the BP Defendants' work with third-party consultants surrounding monitoring and sampling data. That the BP Defendants anticipated litigation as a result of the oil spill is well-established and cannot seriously be challenged. The documents Plaintiff seeks contain communications with or involving attorneys discussing strategy associated with monitoring and sampling or documents that include attorney comments or revisions. The privilege log reveals that the counsel involved include outside attorneys with Kirkland & Ellis and Arnold & Porter along with the BP Defendants' in-house attorneys James Pickett, Nathan Block, and Donna Ward. The Court finds that these documents fall within the purview of the attorney-client privilege and/or the work-product privilege. C. Documents Associated With the BP Defendants' Participation in the OSAT The BP Defendants' in-house counsel were involved in legal analysis associated with the OSAT reports and the related data involved in that analysis. The documents were properly withheld, the Court further finds. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CohPeb from PacerMonitor.com. BRIDGE IT: Feeman Sues Over Predatory Lending Practices ------------------------------------------------------- Robert Feeman, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. BRIDGE IT, INC., d/b/a BRIGIT, Case No. 153681/2025 (March 20, 2025), is brought seeking to protect active-duty military service members from Brigit's predatory lending practices that violate the Military Lending Act ("MLA") and the Truth in Lending Act ("TILA"). In violation of the MLA, Defendant uses its Instant Cash product to saddle Covered Members with charges that yield a military annual percentage rate ("MAPR") well in excess of the MLA's legal limit. Brigit's consumer credit agreements violate the MLA in at least four ways: By charging interest above the 36% statutory MAPR cap; failing to provide any required MLA Disclosures; including a class action and jury trial waiver; and including a mandatory binding arbitration clause. Brigit systematically violates the Truth in Lending Act by failing to make required disclosures concerning the interest rate charged as part of its loan agreements with consumers. Brigit's business practices violate the MLA and TILA and are part of a systematic nationwide policy and practice. CPO Feeman seeks to hold Defendant accountable for its actions and prevent its predatory lending practices from continuing, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been a member of the U.S. Navy since 2008 and is a currently a chief petty officer stationed at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. Brigit transacts or has transacted business in this District and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Thomas M. Mullaney, Esq. THE LAW OFFICE OF THOMAS M. MULLANEY 530 Fifth Avenue, 23rd Floor New York, NY 10036 Phone: (212) 223-0800 Email: tmm@mullaw.org - and - Randall K. Pulliam, Esq. Edwin Lee Lowther III, Esq. Courtney Ross Brown, Esq. CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC One Allied Drive, Suite 1400 Little Rock, AR, 72202 Phone: (501) 312-8500 Email: rpulliam@cbplaw.com llowther@cbplaw.com cbrown@cbplaw.com - and - Jacob L. Phillips, Esq. Joshua R. Jacobson, Esq. JACOBSON PHILLIPS PLLC 478 E. Altamonte Dr., Ste 108-570 Altamonte Springs, FL 32701 Phone: (407) 720-4057 Email: jacob@jacobsonphillips.com joshua@jacobsonphillips.com CANOPY GROWTH: Baron Sues Over Securities Exchange Act Breach ------------------------------------------------------------- Bruce D. Baron, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. CANOPY GROWTH CORPORATION, DAVID KLEIN, and JUDY HONG, Case No. 1:25-cv-01877 (E.D.N.Y., April 4, 2025), is brought as a federal securities class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons and entities other than Defendants that purchased or otherwise acquired Canopy securities between May 30, 2024 and February 6, 2025, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws and to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, against the Company and certain of its top officials. The Defendants made materially false and misleading statements regarding Canopy's business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: Canopy had incurred significant costs producing Claybourne pre-rolled joints in connection with the Claybourne product launch in Canada; 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; 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; and (iv) as a result, Defendants' public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times. On February 7, 2025, during pre-market hours, Canopy issued a press release announcing its financial results for the third quarter ("Q3") of its FY 2025. The same day, Canopy held a conference call with investors and analysts to discuss its Q3 2025 financial results. During the call, Canopy's Chief Financial Officer ("CFO"), Defendant Judy Hong, revealed that the Company's Claybourne product launch costs were "primarily attributable to [the] higher initial cost to produce Claybourne" products. On this news, Canopy's common share price fell $0.76 per share, or 27.34%, to close at $2.02 per share on February 7, 2025. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff acquired Canopy securities at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period. Canopy, together with its subsidiaries, produces, distributes, and sells cannabis and hemp-based products for recreational and medical purposes.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq. J. Alexander Hood II, Esq. James M. LoPiano, Esq. POMERANTZ LLP 600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor New York, New York 10016 Phone: (212) 661-1100 Facsimile: (917) 463-1044 Email: jalieberman@pomlaw.com ahood@pomlaw.com jlopiano@pomlaw.com CARBONE FINE FOOD: Calcano Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website --------------------------------------------------------------- Marcos Calcano, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly situated v. CARBONE FINE FOOD LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-02801 (S.D.N.Y., April 4, 2025), is brought against the Defendant for its failure to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired persons. The Defendant's denial of full and equal access to its website, and therefore denial of its products and services offered thereby, is a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"). Because Defendant's interactive website, https://carbonefinefood.com/, including all portions thereof or accessed thereon (collectively, the "Website" or "Defendant's Website"), is not equally accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers, it violates the ADA. Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to cause a change in Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that Defendant's Website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually-impaired consumers. By failing to make its Website available in a manner compatible with computer screen reader programs, Defendant deprives blind and visually-impaired individuals the benefits of its online goods, content, and services--all benefits it affords nondisabled individuals--thereby increasing the sense of isolation and stigma among those persons that Title III was meant to redress, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is a visually-impaired and legally blind person who requires screen-reading software to read website content using his computer. CARBONE FINE FOOD LLC, operates the Carbone Fine Food online retail store, as well as the Carbone Fine Food interactive Website and advertises, markets, and operates in the State of New York and throughout the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael A. LaBollita, Esq. Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq. Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq. GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES 150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR New York, N.Y. 10003-2461 Phone: (212) 228-9795 Fax: (212) 982-6284 Email: Michael@Gottlieb.legal Danalgottlieb@aol.com Jeffrey@gottlieb.legal CARDI'S DEPARTMENT: Beaucage Sues Over Data Security Incident ------------------------------------------------------------- Jeffrey Beaucage, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CARDI'S DEPARTMENT STORE, INC., d/b/a CARDI'S FURNITURE AND MATTRESS, Case No. 1:25-cv-10660-DJC (D. Mass., March 20, 2025), is brought arises out of the recent data security incident and data breach that was perpetrated against Defendant (the "Data Breach"), which held in its possession certain sensitive personally identifiable information ("PII") and protected health information ("PHI"), (the Private Information") of Plaintiff and other current and former employees of Defendant, the putative class members ("Class"). This Data Breach occurred on September 30, 2024. The Data Breach resulted from Defendant's failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect individuals' Private Information with which they were entrusted for either treatment or employment or both. The Plaintiff brings this class action lawsuit on behalf of those similarly situated to address Defendant's inadequate safeguarding of Class Members' Private Information that they collected and maintained, and for failing to provide timely and adequate notice to Plaintiff and other Class Members that their information was subjected to unauthorized access by an unknown third party and precisely what specific type of information was accessed. The Defendant maintained the Private Information in a reckless manner. In particular, the Private Information was maintained on Defendant's computer network in a condition vulnerable to cyberattacks. Upon information and belief, the mechanism of the Data Breach and potential for improper disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was a known risk to Defendant, and thus Defendant was on notice that failing to take steps necessary to secure the Private Information from those risks left that property in a dangerous condition. The Defendant, through its employees, disregarded the rights of Plaintiff and Class Members by, among other things, intentionally, willfully, recklessly, or negligently failing to take adequate and reasonable measures to ensure its data systems were protected against unauthorized intrusions. Defendant also failed to disclose that it did not have adequately robust computer systems and security practices to safeguard Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information and failed to take standard and reasonably available steps to prevent the Data Breach, says the complaint. The Plaintiff provided Defendant with his sensitive PII as part of the process of obtaining employment with Defendant. The Defendant is a corporation that sells furniture and mattresses to the general public, as well as offering financing services for purchases.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John P. Kristensen, Esq. KRISTENSEN LAW GROUP 53 State Street, Ste. 500 Boston, MA 02109 Phone (617) 913-0363 - and - Leigh S. Montgomery, Esq. EKSM, LLP 1105 Milford Street Houston, TX 77006 Phone: (888) 350-3931 Fax: (888) 276-3455 Email: lmontgomery@eksm.com CARTERS INC: Namvary Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Shaheen Namvary, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Carters, Inc., Does 1-50 inclusive, Case No. 1:24-cv-06787 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on April 9, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-01929-ELR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud. Carter's, Inc. -- https://www.carters.com/ -- is a major American designer and marketer of children's apparel..[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER LLP 1133 Penn Avenue 5th Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Phone: (412) 322-9243 Email: Gary@lcllp.com The Defendants is represented by: Tyler E. Baker, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON - LA 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (212) 634-3048 Email: tbaker@sheppardmullin.com CARTERS INC: Ringler Suit Transferred to N.D. Georgia ----------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Adina Ringler, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Carters, Inc., Does 1-50 inclusive, Case No. 2:24-cv-06878 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on April 7, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-01819-ELR to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Carter's, Inc. -- https://www.carters.com/ -- is a major American designer and marketer of children's apparel..[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP 402 West Broadway, 29th Floor San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (619) 756-6994 Fax: (619) 756-6990 Email: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com The Defendants is represented by: P. Craig Cardon, Esq. Tyler E. Baker, Esq. Jay T. Ramsey, Esq. SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON - LA 1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 228-3700 Email: ccardon@sheppardmullin.com tbaker@sheppardmullin.com jramsey@sheppardmullin.com CATALENT PHARMA: Kearby Sues Over Unpaid Compensation ----------------------------------------------------- Eric Kearby and Amanda Diehl, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CATALENT PHARMA SOLUTIONS LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-02390 (D.N.J., April 7, 2025), is brought challenging policies and practices of Defendant that violate the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the Indiana Wage Payment Statute ("IWPS"), as a result of the Defendants failure to pay proper compensation. The Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees, as full-time employees, regularly worked 40 or more hours in a workweek in the three years preceding the filing of this Action, including donning and doffing time and associated travel. As a result of Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees not being paid for all hours worked, Plaintiffs and other similarly situated employees were not paid overtime compensation for all of the hours they worked in excess of 40 each workweek. Moreover, in weeks Plaintiffs and/or similarly situated employees did not work in excess of 40 hours in a work week, Plaintiffs and similarly situated employees were not paid wages in full and on time, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs were employed by Defendant at Defendant's facility in Bloomington, Monroe County. The Defendant manufactures, packages, distributes, and sells pharmaceutical products.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ravi Sattiraju, Esq. SATTIRAJU & THARNEY, LLP 50 Millstone Road, Building 300, Suite 202 East Windsor, NJ 08520 Phone: (609) 469-2110 Facsimile: (609) 228-5649 Email: rsattiraju@s-tlawfirm.com - and - Robert P. Kondras, Jr., Esq. HASSLER KONDRAS MILLER LLP 100 Cherry Street Terre Haute, IN 47807 Phone: 812-232-9691 Facsimile: 812-234-2881 Email: kondras@hkmlawfirm.com - and - Hans A. Nilges, Esq. NILGES DRAHER LLC 7266 Portage Street, N.W., Suite D Massillon, OH 44646 Phone: (330) 470-4428 Facsimile: (330) 754-1430 Email: hans@ohlaborlaw.com CDHA MANAGEMENT: Cook Sues Over Failure to Safeguard PII & PHI -------------------------------------------------------------- April Cook, on behalf of her minor child S.C., and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. CDHA MANAGEMENT, LLC d/b/a CHORD SPECIALTY DENTAL PARTNERS and SPARK DSO, LLC d/b/a CHORD SPECIALTY DENTAL PARTNERS, Case No. 3:25-cv-00379 (M.D. Tenn., April 4, 2025), is brought arising from Chord's failure to safeguard the Personally Identifiable Information1 ("PII") and Protected Health Information ("PHI") (together, Private Information") of its patients, which resulted in unauthorized access to its information systems between August 19, 2024 and September 25, 2024, and the compromised and unauthorized disclosure of that Private Information, causing widespread injury and damages to Plaintiff and the proposed members. Chord detected unusual activity related to an employee email account and ultimately determined that an unauthorized third party accessed a few employees' email accounts and obtained certain files between August 19, 2024, and September 25, 2024 ("Data Breach"). As a result of the Data Breach, which Chord failed to prevent, the Private Information of Chord's patients including Plaintiff and the proposed Class members, were stolen, including their names, addresses, Social Security numbers, driver's licenses, bank account information, payment card information, dates of birth, medical information, and health insurance information. Chord's investigation concluded that the Private Information compromised in the Data Breach included Plaintiff's and other Class Members information (together, "patients"). Chord's failure to safeguard patients' highly sensitive Private Information as exposed and unauthorizedly disclosed in the Data Breach violates its common law duty, Tennessee law, and Chord's implied contract with patients to safeguard their Private Information. Plaintiff and Class members now face a lifetime risk of identity theft due to the nature of the information lost, which they cannot change, and which cannot be made private again. Chord's failure to protect Plaintiff's and Class members' Private Information has harmed and will continue to harm thousands of patients, causing Plaintiff to seek relief on a class wide basis. The Plaintiff brings causes of action against Chord for negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of implied contract, seeking an award of monetary damages and injunctive and declaratory relief, resulting from Chord's failure to adequately protect their highly sensitive Private Information, says the complaint. The Plaintiff on behalf of her minor child S.C.. are citizens of Tennessee and was sent a Notice from Chord dated March 14, 2025. Chord is a dental support organization headquartered in Tennessee that provides support services to over 60 dental practices in six states.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerard J. Stranch IV, Esq. Grayson Wells, Esq. STRANCH, JENNINGS & GARVEY, PLLC 223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200 Nashville, TN 37203 Phone: (615) 254-8801 Email: gstranch@stranchlaw.com gwells@stranchlaw.com CDHA MANAGEMENT: McKinney Sues Over Unauthorized Access of Info --------------------------------------------------------------- SHANNON MCKINNEY, on behalf of her minor child A.H., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CDHA MANAGEMENT, LLC d/b/a CHORD SPECIALTY DENTAL PARTNERS and SPARK DSO, LLC d/b/a CHORD SPECIALTY DENTAL PARTNERS, Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00371 (M.D. Tenn., April 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for negligence, negligence per se, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of third-party beneficiary contract. The case arises from the Defendants' failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) and personal health information (PHI) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within Chord's network systems following a data breach between August 19, 2024 and September 25, 2024. The Defendants also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. CDHA Management, LLC, doing business as Chord Specialty Dental Partners, is a dental support organization headquartered in Pennsylvania. Spark DSO, LLC, doing business as Chord Specialty Dental Partners, is a dental support organization headquartered in Tennessee. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gerard J. 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 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Telephone: (954) 332-4200 Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com CHILDREN OF PROMISE: Lewis Sues Over Sexual Harassment, Unpaid OT ----------------------------------------------------------------- TRACEY LEWIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CHILDREN OF PROMISE WELLNESS GROUP LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01811 (E.D.N.Y., April 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York State Executive Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, and the New York Labor Law including sexual harassment, gender-based discrimination, retaliation, and unpaid minimum and overtime wages. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendant as a Director of an afterschool program by Ms. Monique Newton in or about late September 2023. His employment was terminated on December 29, 2023. Children of Promise Wellness Group LLC is a non-profit organization in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emanuel Kataev, Esq. CONSUMER ATTORNEYS, PLLC 6829 Main Street Flushing NY 11367 Telephone: (718) 412-2421 Facsimile: (718) 489-4155 Email: ekataev@consumerattorneys.com CHRIS C. KEMP: Hamelton Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chris C. Kemp, et al. The case is styled as Jerry Hamelton, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Chris C. Kemp, Adam P. London, Case No. 2025-0358 (Del. Chancery Ct., April 3, 2025). The case type is stated as "Breach of Fiduciary Duties." Chris C. Kemp is an American entrepreneur who, along with Dr. Adam London, founded Astra, a space technology firm based in California, in 2016.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Christopher Quinn, Esq. KAHN SWICK & FOTI LLC-WILMINGTON 112 French St Ste 201 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 438-3436 Email: christopher.quinn@ksfcounsel.com CITIZEN WATCH: Lindo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Citizen Watch Company Of America, Inc. The case is styled as Staceyann Lindo, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. Citizen Watch Company Of America, Inc., Case No. 25STCV09718 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 2, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." CITIZEN -- https://www.citizenwatch-global.com/ -- is a watch company that has the capabilities of all its manufacturing in-house, from crafting individual watch components to final assembly.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan M. Genish, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442 Phone: 855-786-6355 Fax: 855-786-6356 Email: jgenish@blackstonepc.com CIUNI & PANICHI: Jarvis Sues Over Failure to Protect Clients' Info ------------------------------------------------------------------ DAYNA JARVIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CIUNI & PANICHI, INC. CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-00669 (N.D. Ohio, April 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of implied contract, and unjust enrichment. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information (PII) of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach discovered on November 3, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties. Ciuni & Panichi, Inc. is a provider of tax, accounting and business advisory services in Cleveland, Ohio. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Terence R. Coates, Esq. Jonathan T. Deters, Esq. MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO, LLC 119 East Court Street, Suite 530 Cincinnati, OH 45202 Telephone: (513) 651-3700 Facsimile: (513) 665-0219 Email: tcoates@msdlegal.com jdeters@msdlegal.com - and - Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (202) 429-2290 Email: gklinger@milberg.com CLAIRE'S STORES: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Claire's Stores, Inc., Case No. 0:25-cv-01218 (D. Minn., April 2, 2025), is brought arising because Defendant's Website--www.claires.com--is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers jewelry and accessories for sale including, but not limited to, necklaces, bracelets, earrings, hair accessories, beauty supplies, toys, piercing services and supplies, and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Gustafson, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC Jason Gustafson (#0403297) 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: jason@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com CLEO COMMUNICATIONS: Doe Sues Over Unprotected Sensitive Data ------------------------------------------------------------- John Doe, on behalf of H.E., a minor, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CLEO COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-50155 (N.D. Ill., March 27, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. As such, Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") about its current and former customers. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach (the "Data Breach"). It is unknown for precisely how long the cybercriminals had access to Defendant's network before the breach was discovered. In other words, Defendant had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its systems--thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to its current and former customers' PII. Cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII. In short, Defendant's failures placed the Class's PII in a vulnerable position—rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals. The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of himself, and all others harmed by Defendant's misconduct. The exposure of one's PII to cybercriminals is a bell that cannot be unrung. Before this data breach, its current and former customers' private information was exactly that--private. Not anymore. Now, their private information is forever exposed and unsecure, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are Data Breach victim. The Defendant is a developer of managed file transfer platforms.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago IL, 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: raina@straussborrelli.com sam@straussborrelli.com CLEO COMMUNICATIONS: Sued Over Failure to Protect Data ------------------------------------------------------ John Doe, on behalf of M.E., a minor, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. CLEO COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-50158 (N.D. Ill., March 27, 2025), is brought arising from the Defendant's failure to protect highly sensitive data. As such, Defendant stores a litany of highly sensitive personal identifiable information ("PII") about its current and former customers. But Defendant lost control over that data when cybercriminals infiltrated its insufficiently protected computer systems in a data breach (the "Data Breach"). It is unknown for precisely how long the cybercriminals had access to Defendant's network before the breach was discovered. In other words, Defendant had no effective means to prevent, detect, stop, or mitigate breaches of its systems--thereby allowing cybercriminals unrestricted access to its current and former customers' PII. Cybercriminals were able to breach Defendant's systems because Defendant failed to adequately train its employees on cybersecurity and failed to maintain reasonable security safeguards or protocols to protect the Class's PII. In short, Defendant's failures placed the Class's PII in a vulnerable position—rendering them easy targets for cybercriminals. The Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of himself, and all others harmed by Defendant's misconduct. The exposure of one's PII to cybercriminals is a bell that cannot be unrung. Before this data breach, its current and former customers' private information was exactly that--private. Not anymore. Now, their private information is forever exposed and unsecure, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are Data Breach victim. The Defendant is a developer of managed file transfer platforms.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC One Magnificent Mile 980 N Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago IL, 60611 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: raina@straussborrelli.com sam@straussborrelli.com - and - Lynn A. Toops, Esq. COHENMALAD, LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 1400 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: (317) 597-8694 Facsimile: (317) 636-2593 Email: ltoops@cohenmalad.com CLEVELAND-CLIFFS INC: Hodock Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages --------------------------------------------------------- Brett Hodock, individually and for others similarly situated v. CLEVELAND-CLIFFS INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00231 (S.D.W. Va., April 9, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more than 40 hours a workweek. However, the Defendant does not pay the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees for all their hours worked, including overtime hours. Instead, the Defendant requires the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees to suit out in protective clothing and safety gear necessary perform their job duties and gather other tools and equipment, while on the Defendant' premises, "off the clock." Additionally, the Defendant pays the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees non-discretionary bonuses, including safety and production bonuses, that it fails to include in their regular rates of pay for overtime purposes (The Defendant' "bonus pay scheme"). The Defendant' off the clock policy and bonus pay scheme violate the FLSA by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees at least 1.5 times their regular rates of pay--based on all remuneration--for all hours worked in excess of 40 a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant at its underground coal mine, Mine No. 39, from January 2023 until April 2024. Cleveland-Cliffs bills itself as "a leading North America-based steel producer with focus on value-added sheet products."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Majestro, Esq. Graham B. Platz, Esq. POWELL & MAJESTRO, PLLC 405 Capitol Street, Suite 1200 Charleston, WV 25301 Phone: 304-346-2889 Fax: 304-346-2895 Email: amajestro@powellmajestro.com gplatz@powellmajestro.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com COCA-COLA CO: Court Dismisses Barnes Class Suit ----------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Keith Barnes, v. The Coca-Cola Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-01511-KJM-EPG (E.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge entered an order granting the motion to dismiss and granting the motion to strike with leave to amend. Any amended complaint shall be filed within 30 days of the date of this order. The Defendant Coca-Cola is ordered to show cause within 14 days of the filed date of this order why its Motion to Dismiss, Requests to Seal and related documents, and Reply should not be fully unsealed. This order resolves ECF No. 21. At present, the proposed class could not proceed on a classwide basis, and the court therefore grants the motion to strike the class action allegations in the complaint Barnes's claims arise from a series of calls and voicemails from Coca-Cola. These calls used an artificial or prerecorded voice. In November 2022, Barnes filed this action, alleging the Coca-Cola knowingly or 2 willfully violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA). The Plaintiff also seeks to represent a class of "all persons within the United States who (a) received a telephone call on his or her landline or cellular telephone; (b) made by or on behalf of Defendant." Coca-Cola is a total beverage company. A copy of the Court's order dated April 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=97Zcf6 at no extra charge.[CC] COGNYTE SOFTWARE: Securities Class Suit Remains Pending in New York ------------------------------------------------------------------- On March 1, 2023, a putative securities class action complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against Cognyte Software Ltd., its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's ordinary shares during the period between February 2, 2021, and June 28, 2022, and seeking unspecified damages. On November 10, 2023, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint. The Amended Complaint asserts claims on behalf of all purchasers of the Company's ordinary shares during the period between February 2, 2021, and January 19, 2023, and alleges that Cognyte and its Chief Executive Officer purportedly issued false and misleading statements and made omissions in violation of U.S. federal securities laws. On September 30, 2024, the court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss, holding that (1) none of the alleged misstatements were actionable; (2) Cognyte's CEO did not act with scienter; and (3) plaintiff failed to adequately allege that any purported losses were caused by the alleged misstatements. On October 21, 2024, plaintiff filed a letter motion seeking leave to amend its operative complaint. The proposed second amended complaint raises substantially the same claims as the Amended Complaint. On October 28, 2024, Defendants filed a letter opposing leave to amend. The plaintiff filed a reply letter on November 7, 2024. The Company has not accrued any losses in connection with this proceeding. The Company's position is that this lawsuit has no merit, and that the case should be dismissed with prejudice, the Company disclosed in a Form 20-F report for the fiscal year ended January 31, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. COINBASE GLOBAL: Carolus Sues Over Breach of Contract ----------------------------------------------------- Brian Carolus, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COINBASE GLOBAL, INC., COINBASE INC., and COINBASE BERMUDA SERVICES LIMITED, Case No. 3:25-cv-03089 (N.D. Cal., April 4, 2025), is brought asserting claims of: violations of California's Unfair Competition Law; breach of contract; and unjust enrichment; and is brought on behalf of a nationwide class for damages, restitution, injunctive relief, and any other relief deemed appropriate by the Court. Despite this lofty goal, Coinbase is a registered "money services business" under the Bank Secrecy Act and is a licensed money transmitter in nearly every state. Yet, Coinbase has failed to comply with basic legal requirements, putting its users at risk of fraud. This has fueled the rise of a new type of financial scam, known as "pig butchering." In 2023 alone, the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") reported losses of a staggering $10.4 billion from these types of scams, with that number only growing in 2024. Coinbase could have prevented many of these scams by simply complying with its legal obligations imposed by laws designed to curb this very conduct. Its failure to do so has led to significant financial and emotional harm for numerous individuals who have fallen victim to fraud. To make matters worse, Coinbase has made explicit promises to its customers to prevent fraudulent activity on its platform, including pledging to reverse transactions it suspects of fraud. And Coinbase continues to represent itself as a "trusted" and "secure" platform to convince consumers to use its platform. Coinbase users are unaware of the significant risks that come with using the Coinbase platform, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was an individual citizen of the State of California. Coinbase is a leading cryptocurrency exchange boasting a trading volume of $468 Billion.[NM] The Plaintiff is represented by: James B. Zouras, Esq. Ryan F. Stephan, Esq. Justin M. Caparco, Esq. STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLC 222 West Adams Street, Suite 2020 Chicago, IL 60606 Phone: 312-233-1550 Email: jzouras@stephanzouras.com rstephan@stephanzouras.com jcaparco@stephanzouras.com - and - Matthew C. Helland, Esq. NICHOLS KASTER, LLP 235 Montgomery Street, Ste. 810 San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone: (415) 277-7235 Email: helland@nka.com COINBASE GLOBAL: Court Affirms Ruling in Securities Lawsuit ----------------------------------------------------------- The Honorable Brian R. Martinotti of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey denied defendants' motion for reconsideration of an order issued on Sept. 5, 2024, granting in part and denying in part their motion to dismiss the case captioned as PATEL v. COINBASE GLOBAL, INC. (IN RE COINBASE GLOBAL, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION), Case No. 22-cv-04915-BRM-LDW (D.N.J.). This case is a federal securities putative class action on behalf of persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired: (i) Coinbase common stock from April 14, 2021, through June 5, 2023, inclusive (the "Class Period"), and were damaged thereby; and (ii) Coinbase common stock in or traceable to Coinbase's Registration Statement and/or Prospectus. Generally, Plaintiffs allege Defendants misrepresented, concealed, and/or omitted significant, material aspects of Coinbase's business during the Class Period which enabled Defendants to reap financial benefits such as cashing out existing shares at inflated values following Coinbase's public listing. The Court previously granted in part and denied in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. The Court granted that Motion partly by dismissing the portions of Count I, to the extent it is premised upon the Proprietary Trading Statements and the Bankruptcy Statements that tout customers' trust in Coinbase, while denying the remaining portions. Defendants claim the logic of the Court's contemporaneous falsity analysis requires that the Securities Act proprietary trading claims be dismissed. Defendants contend the Court overlooked their argument that the Securities Act claims fail to satisfy Rule 8's pleading standard and insist they successfully demonstrated Plaintiffs failed to properly allege contemporaneous falsity under both Rule 8 and Rule 9(b). Plaintiffs assert Defendants fail to show that the Court committed any error sufficient to justify reconsideration. The Court finds it did not overlook any legal or factual issue in its Sept. 5, 2024 Order. The Court made explicit its acknowledgement of Defendants' passing references to Rule 8 or any other standard but stated the parties did not address the liberal pleading standard of Rule 8. It gave appropriate and careful attention to what Defendants provided in their Motion to Dismiss. Thus, reconsideration is not warranted. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=C8K1Fm from PacerMonitor.com. CORONADO COAL: Miller Sues Over Unpaid OT for Coal Mining Workers ----------------------------------------------------------------- GARY MILLER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. CORONADO COAL LLC, Defendant, Case No. 5:25-cv-00214 (S.D. W. Va., April 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Mr. Miller was employed by the Defendant at its Lower War Eagle Mine as a scoop operator and roof bolter from approximately October 2016 until October 2023. Coronado Coal LLC is a coal mining company headquartered in Beckley, West Virginia. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Anthony J. Majestro, Esq. Graham B. Platz, Esq. POWELL & MAJESTRO PLLC 405 Capitol Street, Suite 807 Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: (304) 346-2889 Facsimile: (304) 346-2895 Email: amajestro@powellmajestro.com gplatz@powellmajestro.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 352-1100 Facsimile: (713) 352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Telephone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: (713) 877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com COUNTY COMFORT: Underpays Sales Specialists, Mosquera Suit Claims ----------------------------------------------------------------- JONATHAN MOSQUERA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. COUNTY COMFORT HOME SOLUTIONS, INC., COUNTY HEAT & AC, LLC, JOSEPH JENSEN, and MICHAEL JENSEN, Defendants, Case No. 7:25-cv-02755 (S.D.N.Y., April 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law including failure to pay overtime wages, failure to pay minimum wages, failure to pay sales commission, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to furnish proper wage statements, retaliation, and assault and battery. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a sales specialist in Verplanck, New York from May 2022 through May 24, 2024. County Comfort Home Solutions, Inc. is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) company, with its principal place of business in Mahopac, New York. County Heat & AC, LLC is a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) company, with its principal place of business in Mahopac, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeffrey R. Maguire, Esq. STEVENSON MARINO LLP 445 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 1500 White Plains, NY 10601 Telephone: (212) 939-7229 COVENANT AVIATION: Castleberry Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against COVENANT AVIATION SECURITY, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Major R. Castleberry, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. COVENANT AVIATION SECURITY, LLC, Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CGC25623941 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Francisco Cty., April 3, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Non-Exempt Complaints." Covenant Aviation Security, LLC -- https://www.covenantsecurity.com/ -- is a Chicago company that provides security services to the aviation industry. Michael Bolles has been its President since July 2012.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kane Moon, Esq. MOON & YANG, APC 725 South Figueroa St., 31st Floor Los Angeles, CA 90017 Phone: 213-232-3128 Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com CREDIT UNION: Alcocer Files FCRA Suit in N.D. Georgia ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Credit Union of Georgia. The case is styled as Carmen Belem Pimentel Alcocer, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Credit Union of Georgia, Case No. 1:25-cv-01760-SEG-WEJ (N.D. Ga., April 3, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Georgia United Credit Union -- https://gucu.org/ -- is a full-service financial institution providing personal & business accounts, auto, home loans & more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mark Andrew Begnaud, Esq. Michael James Eshman, Esq. ESHMAN BEGNAUD LLC 315 W Ponce De Leon Ave., Suite 775 Decatur, GA 30328 Phone: (404) 665-9601 Fax: (404) 393-5019 Email: mbegnaud@eshmanbegnaud.com meshman@eshmanbegnaud.com CROSSROADS TRADING: Koester Files Suit in N.D. California --------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Crossroads Trading Co., Inc. The case is styled as Megan Koester, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Crossroads Trading Co., Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-03128-AGT (N.D. Cal. April 7, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Crossroads -- https://crossroadstrading.com/ -- lets customers sell their current, on-trend clothing and accessories for cash or trade credit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John J. Nelson, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 402 W. Broadway, Suite 1760 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: (858) 209-6941 Fax: (865) 522-0049 Email: jnelson@milberg.com CSU: Parties Seek to Continue Class Cert Hearing ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as MADISON FISK, RAQUEL CASTRO, GRETA CASTRILLON, CLARE BOTTERILL, MAYA BROSCH, HELEN BAUER, CARINA CLARK, NATALIE FIGUEROA, ERICA GROTEGEER, KAITLIN HERI, OLIVIA PETRINE, AISHA WATT, KAMRYN WHITWORTH, SARA ABSTEN, ELEANOR DAVIES, ALEXA DIETZ, and LARISA SULCS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY and SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY, Case No. 3:22-cv-00173-TWR-MSB (S.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order continuing the April 10, 2025, Class Certification hearing and extending the deadline for filing pretrial motions by thirty days. To permit the Plaintiffs and the Defendants to continue exploring settlement and to avoid wasting judicial resources, the parties request that the Court continue the hearing regarding the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, currently set for April 10, 2025, by thirty days, or the next available date for the Court after May 10, 2025. Further, the parties agree that for the same reasons good cause exists to extend the deadline to file pretrial motions by thirty days. The Plaintiffs and Defendants have conferred with Judge Berg regarding their joint request prior to this filing. On March 7, 2025, the parties engaged in a full day settlement conference with the Hon. Michael S. Berg. On March 12, 2025, through Judge Berg, the Plaintiffs sent the Defendants detailed settlement terms outlining the Plaintiffs' substantive demands. Board of Trustees governs the diverse and complex 23-campus system by developing broad administrative policy for the campuses. A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bmFrmY at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: David S. Casey, Jr., Esq. Gayle M. Blatt, Esq. CASEY GERRY SCHENK FRANCAVILLA BLATT & PENFIELD, LLP 110 Laurel Street San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 238-1811 E-mail: dcasey@cglaw.com gmb@cglaw.com - and - Arthur H. Bryant, Esq. Carey Alexander, Esq. CLARKSON LAW FIRM, P.C. 22525 Pacific Coast Hwy Malibu, CA 90265 Telephone: (213) 788-4050 Facsimile: (213) 788-4070 E-mail: abryant@clarksonlawfirm.com calexander@clarksonlawfirm.co - and - Amber Eck, Esq. Jenna Rangel, Esq. HAEGGQUIST & ECK, LLP 225 Broadway, Ste 2050 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 342-8000 E-mail: ambere@haelaw.com jennar@haelaw.com - and - Lori Bullock, Esq. BULLOCK LAW PLLC 309 East 5th St., Suite 202B Des Moines, IA 50309 Telephone: (515) 423-0551 E-mail: lbullock@bullocklawpllc.com The Defendants are represented by: Brian M. Schwartz, Esq. Scott R. Eldridge, Esq. Erika L. Giroux, Esq. Ashley N. Higginson, Esq. MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK AND STONE, P.L.C. 150 West Jefferson, Suite 2500 Detroit, MI 48226 Telephone: (313) 963-6420 E-mail: schwartzb@millercanfield.com eldridge@millercanfield.com giroux@millercanfield.com higginson@millercanfield.com - and - Rob Bonta, Esq. Jodi L. Cleesattle, Esq. Jennifer L. Santa Maria, Esq. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA 600 West Broadway, Suite 1800 San Diego, CA 92101 Telephone: (619) 738-9099 Facsimile: (619) 645-2012 E-mail: Jennifer.SantaMaria@doj.ca.gov DAISO CALIFORNIA: Fukaya Class Cert Filing Extended to May 30 ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MAKIKO FUKAYA, on behalf of herself and all others similar situated, v. DAISO CALIFORNIA LLC and DAISO HOLDING USA INC., Case No. 3:23-cv-00099-RFL (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Rita Lin entered an order extending the discovery deadlines as specified below: Rebuttal Expert Designation: April 30, 3025 Plaintiff's Class Certification Motion: May 30, 2025 Class Certification Opposition: June 27, 2025 Class Certification Reply: July 18, 2025 Hearing: July/August 2025 Daiso offers a wide variety of affordable household items, stationery, and Japanese snacks. A copy of the Court's order dated April 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dXJrfF at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Ara Jabagchourian, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF ARA JABAGCHOURIAN, PC 1650 S Amphlett Blvd 216 San Mateo, CA 94402 Telephone: (650) 437-6840 The Defendants are represented by: Jeffrey A. Swedo, Esq. Sean P. Flynn, Esq. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI 5 Park Plaza, Suite 1100 Irvine, CA 92614 Telephone: (949) 255-6981 Facsimile: (949) 474-2060 E-mail: jswedo@grsm.com sflynn@grsm.com DANALEX INC: Siracusa Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against DANALEX, INC. The case is styled as Houston Siracusa, individually and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. DANALEX, INC. DBA MATHNASIUM, Case No. 25VECV01960 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 8, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." DANALEX, INC. doing business as Mathnasium -- https://www.mathnasium.com/ -- is an American education brand and supplemental math learning franchise consisting of over 1,000 learning centers around the world, that provides instruction to students in pre-kindergarten through high school.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rachel J. Vinson, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 3055 Wilshire Blvd., Fl. 12 Los Angeles, CA 90010-1176 Phone: 213-659-3071 Email: racheljvinson@gmail.com DIALAMERICA MARKETING: Class Action Settlement Gets Final Nod ------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as ALLEN MOURE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. DIALAMERICA MARKETING, INC., Case No. 3:22-cv-00625-OAW (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Omar Williams entered an order 1. The Plaintiff's motion for final approval of class action settlement is granted. a. Final approval of the terms of the Settlement Agreement is granted. b. The Settlement Class and California Subclass, as defined in section 1.31 and 1.2, respectively, of the Settlement Agreement are certified. c. The parties, their respective counsel, and the Claims Administrator are instructed to implement the settlement in accordance with this judgment and the terms and time frame set forth in the Settlement Agreement. 2. The following ten individuals have timely and properly excluded themselves from the Settlement Class and, therefore, are not members of the Settlement Class and are not bound by the terms of the Settlement Agreement or this judgment: Letisha Osearo, Carl Borda, Amy Daniel, Muneer Uddin, Emonica Dames, Edward Edward Webbinar (A.K.A. Webb), Amanda Scrivano, Jacob Flentke, Stephen Johnson, and Benedicto Perez. The court finds that the notice provided to absent class members complies with Rule 23, and the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate. The court therefore certifies the settlement class and approves the proposed settlement. The Plaintiff brings this class action against DialAmerica alleging violations of the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914. DialAmerica is a telemarketing and call center headquartered in New Jersey. A copy of the Court's ruling dated April 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=QC7Xw3 at no extra charge.[CC] DILIGENT CORP: Settlement Class in Whelan Gets Provisional Cert. ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Fred Whelan, and Megan Ellis, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v. Diligent Corporation, Case No. 1:22-cv-07598-AT (S.D.N.Y.), the Hon. Judge Analisa Torres entered an order provisionally certifying the Settlement Class and the California Settlement Subclass for the purposes of settlement, notice, and award distribution pursuant to Rules 23(c) and 23(e). The Plaintiffs allege that Diligent, a software company, was hacked by cybercriminals on or around May 21, 2022. During the hack, the cybercriminals stole the PII of over 1,100 current and former Diligent employees. The Plaintiffs filed their lawsuit in Sept. 2022. Over several weeks in early 2023, the parties negotiated a settlement agreement with the assistance of independent mediator Bruce Friedman of JAMS. The resulting Settlement provides for a "Settlement Class" consisting of: "all individuals, or their respective successors or assigns, who reside in the United States and whose PII was impacted by the data breach, as well as a "California Settlement Subclass" consisting of "all Settlement class members who resided in California on May 23, 2023." Under the Settlement, Diligent agrees to pay up to $200,000 to a common fund that will be used to reimburse class members for any out-of-pocket costs that are "fairly traceable" to the data breach, as well as time spent monitoring accounts, up to $500 per class member. The Court finds, therefore, that the Settlement is the result of arm’s-length, good faith negotiations involving a credentialed mediator and experienced and independent counsel for all parties. Diligent Corporation is a software as a service company that enables groups to share and collaborate information for board meetings. A copy of the Court's order dated April 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=epsAfU at no extra charge.[CC] DONALD J. TRUMP: G.F.F. Files Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Donald J. Trump, et al. The case is styled as G.F.F., J.G.O., on their own behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President of the United States; Pamela Bondi, Attorney General of the United States, in her official capacity; Kirsti Noem, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, in her official capacity; U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Todd Lyons, Acting Director of the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, in his official capacity; Marco Rubio, Secretary of State, in his official capacity; U.S. State Department; William P. Joyce, in his official capacity as acting New York Field Office Director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement; Paul Arteta, in his official capacity as the Director of the Orange County Correctional Facility; Case No. 1:25-cv-02886-AKH (S.D.N.Y., April 8, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Habeas Corpus - Alien Detainee. Donald John Trump is an American politician, media personality, and businessman who is the 47th president of the United States.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amy Belsher, Esq. Ashley Marie Gorski, Esq. Hina Shamsi, Esq. Molly Knopp Biklen, Esq. Patrick Christopher Toomey, Esq. Robert Andrew Hodgson, Esq. Daniel Galindo, Esq. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION FOUNDATION 125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 607-3300 Email: abelsher@nyclu.org agorski@aclu.org hshamsi@aclu.org mbiklen@nyclu.org ptoomey@aclu.org rhodgson@nyclu.org dgalindo@aclu.org DOWNTOWN AUTO CENTER: Rodriguez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Downtown Auto Center. The case is styled as Yoana Rodriguez, individually, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. Downtown Auto Center, a California general partnership; Ralph Fattore, LLC, a California limited liability company; R.A.F., Inc., a California corporation; Downtown Toyota of Oakland, a California general partnership; Does 1 through 10, Inclusive; Case No. 25CV117288 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., March 28, 2025). Downtown Automotive Center -- https://www.dacautoservice.com/ -- is a full service automotive repair facility.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Molly DeSario, Esq. WILSHIRE LAW FIRM 475 14th St., Ste. 700 Oakland, CA 94612-1945 Phone: 213-381-9988 Fax: 213-381-9989 Email: molly.desario@wilshirelawfirm.com EMBRAER SA: Labor Class Suits Remain Pending in Brazil ------------------------------------------------------ Embraer SA disclosed in a Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2024, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission that labor cases related to the class actions filed by the Sao Jose dos Campos Metalworkers' Union ("SJK Union"), which represents the replaced employees, claiming wage adjustments and productivity payments on salaries for the months of November and December 1990. In May 2023, the Company and the SJK Union ratified an agreement to settle the case in the amount of US$ 4.3 million, which was paid in the same month. The labor cases related to the class action have been closed. The class action will remain ongoing for a period of one year from the date of the agreement, so that any questions raised by the replaced employees can be assessed. Headquartered in São José dos Campos, State of Sao Paulo, Brazil, Embraer SA manufactures and markets commercial, corporate, and defense aircraft. Egan-Jones Ratings Company on January 3, 2025, upgraded the foreign currency and local currency senior unsecured ratings on debt issued by Embraer SA to B+ from B. EJR also withdrew the rating on commercial paper issued by the Company. EQUIFAX INFORMATION: Singh Files Suit in Ga. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Equifax Information Services LLC. The case is styled as Melissa Singh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Wash Multifamily Laundry Systems, LLC, Case No. 25CV004182 (Ga. Super. Ct., Fulton Cty., March 27, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Tort/Negligence. Equifax -- https://www.equifax.com/ -- is one of the three nationwide providers of consumer reports.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Craig Bertschi, Esq. MCRAE BERTSCHI & COLE LLC 1872 Independence Square, Suite D Duwoody, GA 30338 Phone: 678.999.1102 Email: ceb@mcraebertschi.com EVENT TICKETS: Loses Bid to Dismiss or Stay Hernandez Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Dale A. Drozd of the United States District Court for the Central District of California denied Event Tickets Center, Inc.'s motion to dismiss or stay the case captioned as KRISTINA HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff, v. EVENT TICKETS CENTER, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:24-cv-01983-DAD-AC (E.D. Cal.) pursuant to the first-to-file rule. The plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint is granted. On July 19, 2024, plaintiff Kristina Hernandez filed a putative class action against defendant Event Tickets Center, Inc. On Jan. 31, 2025, plaintiff filed a proposed first amended complaint. In both the original complaint and proposed first amended complaint plaintiff alleges that for years, defendant sold tickets online using drip pricing and hidden fees -- advertising one price for the ticket, only to tack on mandatory fees at the very end. The hidden fees were only disclosed in the fine print, in small, gray font. Thus, customers missed the fees, and were unaware that they were paying substantial fees. On July 9, 2024, the plaintiff Mikhail Gershzon filed a putative class action complaint against the defendant Event Tickets Center, Inc. in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In Gershzon, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant leads consumers to believe that they are visiting the actual ticket site for the venue where the event is taking place. The defendant further entices them to purchase tickets by misrepresenting that the tickets are limited or almost sold out when such statements are false. These misrepresentations enable the defendant to charge consumers hefty premium prices for the tickets, far more than the consumer would pay if they were purchasing from the actual site for the venue. In many instances, the tickets that the defendant sells are counterfeit or are never actually provided. First-to-File In its pending motion, defendant argues that plaintiff in the instant action and the Gershzon plaintiff bring claims under largely overlapping statutes. Defendant further argues that both cases involve allegations of hidden fees. It contends that both cases allege that defendant deceives customers into paying more for tickets. In her opposition, plaintiff responds that substantial similarity of the issues is concerned with overlapping facts rather than overlapping statutes. Plaintiff further argues that the Gershzon complaint mentions defendant's fees only incidentally when quoting complaints made by defendant's customers found online. She contends that essentially every consumer protection case will allege that some misrepresentation on defendant's part caused consumers to be deceived and pay more, and that superficial similarities common to almost all consumer protection cases do not qualify as substantially similar issues. Because the alleged misrepresentations are distinct, the two cases do not concern substantially similar issues at all, the Court finds. Because the similarity of the issues threshold requirement is not satisfied, the Court need not analyze the chronology or similarity of the parties. Defendant's motion to dismiss or stay this case pursuant to the first-to-file rule will therefore be denied. Leave to Amend Plaintiff seeks leave to amend her complaint to add an additional plaintiff and proposed class representative, Julie Varon. Defendant argues that the proposed amendment would be futile because it would not cure the applicability of the first-to-file rule. Because the Court has determined that the first-to-file rule does not apply, regardless of which version of the complaint is at issue, defendant's argument fails. Therefore, the Court will grant plaintiff's motion for leave to amend. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=vRLwCX from PacerMonitor.com. EXPENSIFY INC: Filing for Class Cert. in Wilhite Due Jan. 16, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Wilhite v. Expensify, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:23-cv-01784 (D. Or., Filed Nov. 29, 2023), the Hon. Judge Jolie A. Russo entered an order adopting the parties' proposed joint case management schedule as follows and as modified: -- Parties to complete Rule 26(f) discussions by April 14, 2025. -- Answer to amended complaint deadline has previously been reset to April 21, 2025, for all defendants. -- Initial disclosures to be exchanged by May 7, 2025. -- Substantial completion of document production to be concluded by Dec. 1, 2025. -- Written consents, if any, should be submitted by Jan. 16, 2026. -- Motion for Class Certification due by Jan. 16, 2026. -- Response to motion for class certification due by April 3, 2026. -- Reply to response to motion for class certification due by May 15, 2026. -- Fact Discovery is to be completed by June 30, 2026. -- Initial expert reports to be exchanged by July 31, 2026. -- Rebuttal expert reports to be exchanged by Aug. 28, 2026. -- Expert Discovery to be completed by Sept. 30, 2026. -- Joint Alternate Dispute Resolution Report is due by Oct. 30, 2026. -- Dispositive motions, including any Daubert motions, are due by 10/30/2026. The suit alleges violation of the Securities Exchange Act. Expensify is a software company that develops an expense management system for personal and business use.[CC] EYEBUYDIRECT INC: Watkins Files TCPA Suit in W.D. Texas ------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against EyeBuyDirect, Inc. The case is styled as Jesse Watkins, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EyeBuyDirect, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-00538 (W.D. Tex., April 10, 2025). Eyebuydirect, Inc. -- https://www.eyebuydirect.com/ -- is an online retailer of prescription glasses, based in Austin, Texas.[BN] Eyebuydirect, Inc. -- https://www.eyebuydirect.com/ -- is an online retailer of prescription glasses, based in Austin, Texas.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew John Shamis, Esq. SHAMIS & GENTILE, PA 14 NE 1st Ave., Ste. 1205 Miami, FL 33132 Phone: (305) 479-2299 Fax: (786) 623-0915 Email: ashamis@sflinjuryattorneys.com FACTORY MUTUAL: Class Cert. Bid Filing in Cure Suit Due Sept. 30 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Cure v. Factory Mutual Insurance Company, et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-12399 (D. Mass., Filed Oct. 17, 2023), the Hon. Judge Julia E. Kobick entered an order a scheduling order. -- Initial Disclosures to be completed by: April 25, 2025 -- Amendment to Pleadings and Joinder of May 30, 2025 Parties due by: -- The Plaintiffs Class Certification Sept. 30, 2025 Motion due: -- The Defendants Class Certification Oct. 31, 2025 Opposition: -- The Plaintiffs Class Certification Nov. 14, 2025 Reply: -- Fact Discovery must be completed by: Jan. 9, 2026 -- Plaintiffs Expert Report(s) Due: Feb. 6, 2026 -- Defendants Expert Report(s) Due: March 6, 2026 -- Completion of Expert Discovery: May 8, 2026 -- Summary Judgment and Separate June 30, 2026 Daubert Motions Due: -- Summary Judgment and Daubert July 21, 2026 Oppositions Due: -- Summary Judgment and Daubert Reply July 28, 2026 Briefs Due: The suit alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Factory Mutual provides condos, healthcare, real estate, and retail insurance services.[CC] FINISH LINE: Dalton Seeks Equal Website Access for the Blind ------------------------------------------------------------ JULIE DALTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE FINISH LINE, INC. d/b/a JD SPORTS, Defendant, Case No. 0:25-cv-01316-NEB-JFD (D. Minn., April 8, 2025) alleges violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant's Web site, www.jdsports.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. Finish Line, Inc. is an American retail chain that sells athletic shoes and related apparel and accessories. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. Jason Gustafson, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC 80 South 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (763) 515-6110 Email: pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com jason@throndsetlaw.com FREEDOM CARE: Layoffs Employees Without Proper Notice, Lyons Says ----------------------------------------------------------------- MICHELLE LYONS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. FREEDOM CARE LLC (d/b/a "FreedomCare"), LIVEWELL, and JOHN DOE ENTITY 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-01825 (E.D.N.Y., April 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act and the New York State Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (NY WARN). According to the complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants abruptly terminated her employment, as well as hundreds of others, on April 2, 2025 without providing the requisite 60 days' notice under the federal WARN Act or the 90 days' notice required under NY WARN. The Plaintiff brings this suit to recover wages, benefits, and other relief mandated by federal and state WARN statutes. Freedom Care LLC, doing business as FreedomCare, is a home health care company in New York. LiveWell is a health and wellness company in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Mohammed Gangat, Esq. LAW OFFICE OF MOHAMMED GANGAT 675 Third Avenue, Suite 1810 New York, NY Telephone: (718) 669-0714 Email: gangat@gangatllc.com FUEGO SMOKE: Seeks to Narrow Claims in Dial Suit ------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as KATHLEEN DIAL, AS PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF MARGARET P. CALDWELL individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. FUEGO SMOKE & VAPE LLC, MANKI INVESTMENTS LLC, HYWAZE LLC, OUTERLIMITES SALES TWO LLC, A&A SMOKE SHOP LLC, PUFFZILLA LLC, and GIVINGO LLC, individually and as representatives of a defendant class, and PLUTO BRANDS, LLC, GALAXY GAS, LLC, DIMO HEMP LLC, FUSION INTERNATIONAL TRADING, LLC, UNITED BRANDS, INC., SWEET AND SOUR HOLDINGS LLC, MONSTER GAS, INC., and BAKING BAD GROUP, INC., Case No. 6:25-cv-00551-WWB-UAM (M.D. Fla.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting their motion to dismiss Count IV of class action complaint and response in opposition to class certification request as it relates to Count IV. The Defendants contend that: 1. The Plaintiff lacks standing to seek declaratory and injunctive relief because she does not allege a sufficient likelihood of future harm, and a favorable judicial decision would not redress any alleged injury; 2. Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief would be granted; 3. The "political question" doctrine bars Plaintiff's claim for declaratory and injunctive relief that would prohibit smoke shops nationwide from selling N-O products The Plaintiff alleges that Decedent was "enticed to purchase N-O Products by Manufacturer Defendants' advertising," and purchased such products from each named smoke shop defendant. According to the Plaintiff, the Decedent became addicted to these N-O products and suffered "severe health consequences," ultimately resulting in her overdose death. The Plaintiff seeks to certify: Plaintiff Class consisting of: "individuals residing in the U.S. who purchased N-O products, manufactured by Manufacturer Defendants, from a smoke shop (as defined in the Complaint)"; Subclass consisting of: "individuals residing in Florida who purchased the same"; and Defendant Class consisting of: "smoke shops (as defined in the Complaint) located in the United States who sold N-O products." The Plaintiff does not allege that the Plaintiff Class or Subclass suffered any injury due to the sale of N-O products and seeks no damages from the Defendant Class. Fuego is a retailer of tobacco products and accessories. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=9VA7nn at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Timothy Michael Morgan, Esq. John A. Yanchunis, Esq. James D. Young, Esq. Ronald Podolny, Esq. Riya Sharma, Esq. MORGAN AND MORGAN 201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor Tampa, FL 33602 E-mail: mmorgan@forthepeople.com jyanchunis@forthepeople.com jyoung@forthepeople.com ronald.podolny@forthepeople.com rsharma@forthepeople.com The Defendants are represented by: Brandon S. Peters, Esq. LUKS, SANTANIELLO, PETRILLO, COHEN & PETERFRIEND 602 S. Main Street, Suite 110 Gainesville, FL 32601 Telephone: (352) 224-2790 Facsimile: (352) 224-2789 E-mail: Bpeters@insurancedefense.net Jgarwood@insurancedefense.net - and - Zachary T. Broome, Esq. BOWEN & SCHROTH, P.A. 600 Jennigs Avenue Eustis, FL 32726 E-mail: zbroome@bowneschroth.com hadrid@bowenschroth.com kdillinger@bowenschroth.com - and - Kenneth L. Minerley, Esquire Ashley D. Adras, Esquire MINERLEY FEIN, P.A. 1200 N. Federal Highway, Suite 420 Boca Raton, FL 33432 E-mail: ken@minerleyfein.com ashley@minerleyfein.com fileclerk@minerleyfein.com kelley@minerleyfein.com - and - Spencer Silverglate, Esq. Shawn Y. Libman, Esq. Adisbel Hernandez, Esq. CLARKE SILVERGLATE, P.A. 5301 Blue Lagoon Drive, Suite 900 Miami, FL 33126 E-mail: ssilverglate@cspalaw.com lyun@cspalaw.com slibman@cspalaw.com ahernandez@cspalaw.com kmartinez@cspalaw.com clandgraf@cspalaw.com GEN CERRITOS: Faces Miranda Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif. -------------------------------------------------------- HUMBERTO HIGAREDA MIRANDA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GEN CERRITOS, LLC, GEN ALHAMBRA, LLC, GEN RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT LLC, GEN CHINO HILLS, LP, GEN CONCORD, LP, GEN FREMONT, LP, GEN MILPITAS, LP, GEN MOUNTAIN VIEW, LP, GEN NORTHRIDGE, LP, GEN RANCHO CUCAMONGA, LP, GEN ROWLAND HEIGHTS, LP, GEN SACRAMENTO, LP, GEN SAN JOSE, LP, GEN TORRANCE, LLC, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV09877 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for unpaid wages in violation of California's Labor Code's Private Attorneys' General Act. The Plaintiff worked for the Defendants as a non-exempt employee from approximately June 2023 until January 2024. Gen Cerritos, LLC is a restaurant owner and operator doing business in California. Gen Alhambra, LLC is a restaurant owner and operator doing business in California. Gen Restaurant Management LLC is a restaurant owner and operator doing business in California. Gen Chino Hills, LP is a restaurant owner and operator doing business in California. Gen Concord, LP is a restaurant owner and operator doing business in California. Gen Fremont, LP is a restaurant owner and operator doing business in California. Gen Milpitas, LP is a restaurant owner and operator doing business in California. Gen Mountain View, LP is a restaurant owner and operator doing business in California. Gen Northridge, LP is a restaurant owner and operator doing business in California. Gen Rancho Cucamonga, LP is a restaurant owner and operator doing business in California. Gen Rowland Heights, LP is a restaurant owner and operator doing business in California. Gen Sacramento, LP is a restaurant owner and operator doing business in California. Gen San Jose, LP is a restaurant owner and operator doing business in California. Gen Torrance, LLC is a restaurant owner and operator doing business in California. [BN] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Jason Rothman, Esq. Nairi Shirinian, Esq. BIBIYAN LAW GROUP, PC 1460 Westwood Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90024 Telephone: (310) 438-5555 Facsimile: (310) 300-1705 Email: jason@tomorrowlaw.com nairi@tomorrowlaw.com GOOD KARMA: Fails to Pay Proper Wages, Cordero Alleges ------------------------------------------------------ CONCEPCION SILVA CORDERO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. GOOD KARMA 818 LLC d/b/a MAC SUITES HOTEL, d/b/a FRIENDLY SUITES, d/b/a UMBRELLA HOTEL BRONX; and MANNY CHADHA a/k/a MANOJ KUMAR, Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-02901 (S.D.N.Y., April 8, 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 Cordero was employed by the Defendants as staff. Good Karma 818 LLC d/b/a MAC Suites Hotel owns and operates a chain of hotels in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael Samuel, Esq. THE SAMUEL LAW FIRM 1441 Broadway Suite 6085 New York, NY 10018 Telephone: (212) 563-9884 Email: michael@thesamuellawfirm.com GRANITE, MT: Larson Suit Seeks to Extend Class Cert Bid Deadlines ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RANDY LARSON AND RUSSELL MORRISON, on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly situated, v. GRANITE COUNTY, Case No. 9:23-cv-00126-DLC-KLD (D. Mont.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order modifying the current Scheduling Order with regard to the deadline for the Putative Class Plaintiffs' class certification motion for 45 days, to May 23, 2025. Granite County was granted several extensions for their response to Putative Class Plaintiffs' discovery, and it has just recently supplemented its discovery responses. The volume of discovery is such that more time is needed for Plaintiffs to review and evaluate the production for both responsiveness as well as substantively for class certification issues. The Putative Class Plaintiffs' counsel has conferred with Defendant’s counsel and they are not opposed to this motion. Granite County is a rural natural-resource supported county in central Western Montana. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bT4fWc at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Lawrence E. Henke, Esq. HENKE LAW OFFICE, PLLC 6 Summer Gulch Road Philipsburg, MT E-mail: larry@henkelaw-mt.com The Defendant is represented by: Maureen H. Lennon, Esq. Mitchell A. Young, Esq. COUNTY LITIGATION GROUP 2715 Skyway Drive Helena, MT 59602 Telephone: (406) 441-5471 E-mail: mlennon@mtcounties.org myoung@mtcounties.org GREEN DIAMOND: Filing for Class Cert Bid in Gregorio Due Nov. 14 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as JASON GREGORIO et al., v. GREEN DIAMOND RESOURCE COMPANY, Case No. 2:24-cv-00596-LK (W.D. Wash.), the Hon. Judge Lauren King entered an order extending case schedule deadlines: Event Date Deadline for motions related to discovery Sept. 12, 2025 on class certification: Deadline to complete fact discovery on Oct. 10, 2025 class certification (not to be construed as bifurcation of discovery): Plaintiffs' motion for class certification Nov. 14, 2025 and initial expert reports under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) due: Defendants' opposition to motion for Jan. 16, 2026 class certification, motion to exclude initial experts, and rebuttal expert reports due: Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion Mar. 20, 2026 for class certification, opposition to motion to exclude initial experts, and motion to exclude rebuttal experts due: Defendants' reply in support of motion to Apr. 17, 2026 exclude initial experts and opposition to Plaintiffs' motion to exclude rebuttal reports due: Plaintiffs' reply in support of motion May 8, 2026 to exclude rebuttal experts due: Green Diamond operates as a forest products company. A copy of the Court's order dated April 4, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=319Oyd at no extra charge.[CC] H.O. DIBENEDETTO: Court Narrows Claims in Jones Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------- Judge Evelyn Padin of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey will dismiss in part with prejudice and in part without prejudice the class action complaint captioned LASHAWN JONES, Plaintiff v. H.O. DIBENEDETTO, et al., Case No. 24-cv-11182-EP-CLW (D.N.J.). Pro se Plaintiff Lashawn Jones, a state prisoner incarcerated in South Woods State Prison in Bridgeton, New Jersey, brings a putative class action against Hearing Officer DiBenedetto, the New Jersey Department of Corrections, John/Jane Doe NJDOC Commissioner, SWSP Administrator Anthony Degner, the NJDOC's Drug Division Program, and an unnamed ADA Coordinator. Plaintiff argues that the DDP does not serve its intended purpose and that Defendants denied Plaintiff his right to treatment for drug addiction. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, Jones alleges violations of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment; a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act; and unidentified state law tort claims, which the Court construes as a claim under the New Jersey Civil Rights Act. Jones filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Jones' IFP Application establishes his financial eligibility to proceed without prepayment of the filing fee. Therefore, the Court will grant the IFP Application. However, the Court must screen the Complaint for sua sponte dismissal under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court will dismiss the Complaint in part with prejudice and in part without prejudice, and grant Plaintiff leave to amend those claims dismissed without prejudice. The Court will dismiss with prejudice Jones' Section 1983 and NJCRA claims against NJDOC and DDP based on Eleventh Amendment immunity. It will dismiss without prejudice the remainder of the claims in the Complaint for failure to state a claim. The Court will grant Plaintiff leave to amend those claims dismissed without prejudice. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=7YnppI from PacerMonitor.com. HESS BAKKEN: Filing for Class Cert. Bid in Penman Suit Due Oct. 15 ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ronald Penman and Adelante Oil & Gas, LLC, on behalf of themselves and a Class of similarly situated royalty owners, v. Hess Bakken Investments II, LLC, Case No. 1:22-cv-00097-DLH-CRH (D.N.D.), the Hon. Judge Clare R. Hochhalter entered an order deeming the Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Scheduling Order moot and extending the deadlines as follows: (1) The deadlines to complete expert reports shall extended as follows: a. Aug. 13, 2025, for Plaintiffs' expert disclosures; b. Sept. 24, 2025, for Defendants' expert disclosures; and c. Nov. 5, 2025, for Plaintiff's rebuttal expert disclosures. (2) Motions for class certification are due by Oct. 15, 2025. (3) The Parties shall have until Aug. 13, 2025, to complete discovery. (4) Discovery motions are due by Aug. 27, 2025. On March 24, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Amend Scheduling Order. They assert that they have not yet been able to complete discovery, including taking the Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Defendant, because Defendant has yet to complete its production of relevant documents and information related to their first set of written discovery. They further assert, that due to these discovery deficits, they "require additional time to complete their discovery and fully investigate and litigate these issues.” They request that the their deadline to complete discovery and serve their Rule 26(a)(2) disclosures be extended an additional sixty days. Additionally, they request that the deadlines to disclose experts reports and to file a motion for class certification also be extended an additional sixty days. On April 2, 2025, the Defendant filed a response to Defendant’s motion. It advises that it open to amending existing deadlines to allow for the completion of recently served discovery. However, it objects to extending the discovery deadlines to allow for additional discovery on the ground that Plaintiffs have failed to show good cause for such an extension. On April 3, 2025, the court held a status conference with the Parties by telephone. A copy of the Court's order dated April 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=FlrUnC at no extra charge.[CC] HOMETOWN AMERICA: Plaintiffs Seek to Certify Classes ---------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as EDWIN BARTOK, et al., v. HOMETOWN AMERICA, LLC, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-10790-LTS (D. Mass.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: Pursuant to Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3), the Plaintiffs Barbara Lee and Alan Dernalowicz request that the Court certify their respective Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act damages claims for class treatment. Ms. Lee and Mr. Dernalowicz request that the Court grant the instant Motion and order the following relief: (1) certify a Rule 23(b)(3) class of persons who have paid home-site rent to the Oak Point Manufactured Housing Community located in Middleborough, Massachusetts at any time since June 16, 2015 ("Oak Point Class"), appoint Ms. Lee as the representative of the Oak Point Class and designate the undersigned as counsel for the Oak Point Class; (2) certify a Rule 23(b)(3) class of persons who have paid home-site rent to the Miller's Woods and River Bend Manufactured Housing Community located in Athol, Massachusetts at any time from June 16, 2015 to Dec. 31, 2024 ("Miller's Woods Class"), appoint Mr. Dernalowicz as the representative of the Miller's Woods Class and designate the undersigned as counsel for the Miller's Woods Class; (3) approve the notice plans submitted herewith by Atticus Administration, LLC for the Oak Point Class and Miller's Woods Class, respectively, (collectively, "Notice Plan") as the best notice that is practicable under the circumstances and appoint Atticus as the administrator designated to execute the Notice Plan; (4) direct Atticus to execute the Notice Plan within 60 days of the date of the Court's certification order; (5) direct that Oak Point Class and the Miller's Woods Class members must exercise their respective rights to exclude themselves from the applicable Class – as outlined in the Notice Plan – within 120 days from the date of the Court's certification order; and (6) direct Atticus to file a declaration attesting to its execution of the Notice Plan, which will include lists of the excluded members of the Oak Point Class and Miller's Woods Class, respectively, within 150 days from the date of the Court's certification order; and (7) make any further orders as the Court deems necessary and proper. Hometown indirectly owns and operates dozens of manufactured housing communities across the United States. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CuyopZ at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Ethan R. Horowitz, Esq. NORTHEAST JUSTICE CENTER 50 Island Street, Suite 203B Lawrence, MA 01840 Telephone: (978) 888-0624 E-mail: ehorowitz@njc-ma.org ID MENSWEAR: Faces Wills Suit Over Blind-Inaccessible Online Store ------------------------------------------------------------------ LAURENCE WILLS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. ID MENSWEAR, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-01845 (E.D.N.Y., April 3, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York City Human Rights Law, and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, www.idmenswear.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: missing alt-text, hidden elements on web pages, incorrectly formatted lists, unannounced pop ups, unclear labels for interactive elements, and the requirement that some events be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. ID Menswear, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rami Salim, Esq. STEIN SAKS, PLLC One University Plaza, Suite 620 Hackensack, NJ 07601 Telephone: (201) 282-6500 Facsimile: (201) 282-6501 Email: rsalim@steinsakslegal.com INDIAN HARBOR: Must Respond to Discovery Requests in Morrison Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Magistrate Judge Joseph K. Reeder of the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia granted in part and denied in part plaintiff's motion to compel defendants in the case captioned as GARY MORRISON, Individually and on behalf of all similarly situated insureds, Plaintiff, v. INDIAN HARBOR INSURANCE COMPANY, and PENINSULA INSURANCE BUREAU, INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:23-cv-00451 (S.D. W. Va.) to respond to discovery requests. This matter arises from a flood event on May 6, 2022, which damaged Plaintiff's residential property. At the time of the flood, Plaintiff's property was insured under a flood insurance policy issued by Neptune Flood Incorporated on behalf of Defendant Indian Harbor, identified as Policy No. ASR3027275, with effective dates of coverage from May 27, 2021 through May 27, 2022. Defendant Peninsula Insurance Bureau, Inc., served as a third-party administrator for the purpose of Plaintiff's claim. The Policy was a replacement cost policy and provided replacement cost coverage for flood damage to Plaintiff's real property. Plaintiff asserts that the Policy contains a Replacement Cost Endorsement which deleted each reference to "Actual Cash Value" in the Policy and in addition, the Policy expressly provides, under the Section entitled "Replacement Cost Loss Settlement," that payments would be made "without deduction for depreciation." Based upon his contention that the Defendants failed to properly pay his claim pursuant to the applicable Policy terms, Plaintiff filed his Complaint, including a putative class action, on June 23, 2023, naming Indian Harbor and Peninsula as Defendants. Plaintiff subsequently amended his Complaint. In his Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff asserted claims for breach of contract, bad faith and violations of West Virginia's Unfair Trade Practices Act in connection with the Defendants' handling of his claim. In addition, the Plaintiff has asserted claims on behalf of all similarly situated insureds of Indian Harbor whose claims were improperly subject to deductions for depreciation when they purchased replacement cost coverage. Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendants' responses to his first set of interrogatories and requests for production of documents. Defendants object to providing any further information, primarily on the basis that they have produced all relevant discovery, and any further information sought by Plaintiff is irrelevant to the case. The Court agrees with Defendants, in part. However, the Court concludes that most of the discovery requests at issue are patently reasonable and seek relevant discoverable information that is proportionate to the needs of the case. A. Claims Adjusters and Witnesses Interrogatory Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 5 concern people who handled Plaintiff's insurance claim and witnesses who have knowledge regarding the claims and defenses in this action. In response to the motion to compel, Defendants argue that they have provided the additional information sought by Plaintiffs. Plaintiff has not established that any further discovery on these issues is required. Therefore, the motion to compel responses to these discovery requests is denied as moot. B. Privilege Regarding Interrogatory No. 9 and Request for Production Nos. 1, 7, 10, and 14, Plaintiff claims that he is unable to ascertain what information Defendants are withholding because they did not provide a privilege log. The Court orders Defendants to produce to the Court for in camera review the approximate eight pages of documents at issue in both redacted and unredacted form on or before April 11, 2025. C. Defendants' Handling of Other Claims As to Interrogatory Nos. 14, 15, and 17 directed to Defendant Peninsula; Interrogatory Nos. 15, 16, and 18 directed to Defendant Indian Harbor; and Request for Production Nos. 2, 4, 6, and 8, Defendants argue that they have provided the same documents that they produced in Moore v. Indian Harbor Ins. Co., No. 3:22-CV-00385, 2023 WL 2520582 (S.D.W. Va. Mar. 14, 2023), which concerned other instances in which Defendants paid a flood insurance claim involving West Virginia real property on an actual cash basis. The Court finds that the information sought is relevant to Plaintiff's claims, such as his allegations of unfair trade practices and bad faith, but the requests are overly broad. Although Plaintiff asserts that evidence of different types of claims can be used to support his claims, the Court finds that the scope of the discovery sought is overly broad and unduly burdensome. Considering relevance and proportionality concerns, the Court grants the motion to compel responses to these requests as limited to Defendants' flood insurance policies within the past five years. D. Other Lawsuits and Complaints Defendants argue that information regarding other lawsuits and complaints is irrelevant because Plaintiff testified that he never made a claim for depreciation or submitted any evidence supporting a claim for repairs in excess of the amount that Indian Harbor paid. Therefore, according to Defendants, Plaintiff does not have any viable claims, including unfair trade practices claims. The Court agrees that the discovery sought is relevant to Plaintiff's bad faith and unfair trade practices claims. Defendants have not met their burden resisting discovery of this information. Nevertheless, considering relevance and proportionality, the requests should be limited in subject matter. The Court GRANTS the motion as limited to disputes concerning flood insurance policies. E. Financial Statements Plaintiff seeks production of Defendants' financial statements for the past few years, as follows: Request for Production No. 3. Provide a copy of the financial statements of Defendant Indian Harbor for fiscal years 2022, 2023, and 2024 (once available). Plaintiff argues that Defendants' financial information is relevant to his claim for punitive damages. The Court finds that Defendants' financial information is relevant. It grants the motion regarding this discovery request. A copy of the Court's decision dated April 8, 2025, is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=oIxFfT from PacerMonitor.com. J. JILL INC: Delaware Court Closes Paul Berger Class Suit --------------------------------------------------------- On December 19, 2024, the Paul Berger Revocable Trust, a purported stockholder of J.Jill, filed a putative class action and derivative complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, captioned The Paul Berger Revocable Trust v. Rahamim, et al., C.A. No. 2024-1318-JTL (Del. Ch.). The Complaint alleged that certain members of the Company's board of directors breached their fiduciary duties in connection with approving a stock repurchase program in December 2024 that authorized the use of up to $25 million to repurchase J.Jill stock. The Complaint also asserted a claim against TowerBrook Capital Partners L.P. for aiding and abetting the individual defendants’ alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. Plaintiff alleged that the repurchase program could have transferred majority voting control of J.Jill to TowerBrook. The individual defendants and TowerBrook believe that the allegations of the Complaint were meritless, denied and continue to deny those allegations, and deny that any violation of applicable law has occurred. However, solely to minimize expenses and distraction and to avoid the uncertainty of any litigation, on February 24, 2025, the Company’s board of directors adopted certain resolutions that amended certain terms of the repurchase program and provided, among other things, that the repurchase program must be executed in such a way that J.Jill's repurchases pursuant thereto do not directly cause TowerBrook and any investment fund or investment vehicle managed or controlled, directly or indirectly, by TowerBrook, including, without limitation, TI IV JJill Holdings, LP to directly or indirectly beneficially own more than 49.9% of the issued and outstanding voting stock of the company; and provided further that J.Jill must take appropriate measures to ensure that repurchases pursuant to the repurchase program do not directly cause the TowerBrook Funds' ownership of the Company's outstanding voting stock to exceed 49.9%. On March 7, 2025, the parties entered into a proposed Stipulation and Order Dismissing the Action as Moot and Retaining Jurisdiction to Determine Plaintiff’s Counsel’s Application for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses (the “Stipulation and Proposed Order”), pursuant to which the Court would retain jurisdiction regarding any application Plaintiff may make for an award of attorneys' fees. The Court entered the Stipulation and Proposed Order the same day, and retained jurisdiction to approve a form of notice concerning attorneys’ fees payable to Plaintiff in connection with the Board Resolutions. The Company subsequently agreed to pay $450,000 in attorneys’ fees and expenses in full satisfaction of any and all claims by Plaintiff and all of its counsel for fees and expenses in the action. On March 21, 2025, the Court entered an order closing the action, subject to the Company filing an affidavit with the Court confirming that this notice has been issued, the Company disclosed in a Form 10-K report for the year ended February 1, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The Plaintiff is represented by: Michael J. Barry, Esq. Christine M. Mackintosh, Esq. Vivek Upadhya, Esq. GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. 123 Justison Street Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 622-7000 JONATHAN WOOD: Court Dismisses Ben-Oni Suit Without Prejudice ------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California grants without prejudice the Defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit styled JOSIAH MALCHIEL ISRAEL BEN-ONI, Plaintiff v. JONATHAN LUKE WOOD, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-02769-DJC-JDP (E.D. Cal.). The Plaintiff is a current student at California State University, Sacramento ("CSUS"). He has brought this case against Jonathan Wood, the President of the University; and the University's student body group, the Associated Students, Incorporated ("ASI"). ASI is a student organization that represents student interests, manages student activities, and is a self-governing organization. The 34-page amended complaint details many specific, but not necessarily related, grievances the Plaintiff has against the Defendants; but the Court understands the crux of the Plaintiff's claims to center around his ineligibility to author petitions that would have blocked ASI's representatives from raising the ASI membership fee. He alleges that on April 13, 2023, ASI relied upon ASI Operating Rule 200.6 to deny him the right to create or sign a petition to recall the president and vice president of ASI. Rule 200.6 mandates that eligibility to sign a petition rest on whether the student participated in a prior election. The Plaintiff claims that ASI's use of Rule 200.6 violates CSUS's nondiscrimination policy because it "disenfranchises" transfer students, freshman, international students, and undocumented students. He claims that this denial occurred during a critical election, in which Defendant Wood tasked ASI to increase ASI membership fees. He attributes the low student voter turnout in the Spring 2023 elections to the "chilling effect" of Rule 200.6. The Plaintiff attempted to initiate a second recall petition of the ASI president and vice president in April 2024, but his ability was "severely hampered" by Rule 200.6. The ASI president and vice president, with the support of Defendant Wood, increased the ASI fee to $508. This increase, according to the complaint, disproportionally affects low-income and underrepresented students. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants violated his First, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights. For his First Amendment claim, he alleges that ASI's implementation of Rule 200.6 had a chilling effect and constituted an unlawful restriction on constitutionally protected speech. He alleges that Rule 200.6's discriminatory nature violates the Equal Protection Clause by prohibiting marginalized groups (transfer students, freshman, international, undocumented students) from participating in ASI's voting. Next, the Plaintiff claims that ASI's implementation of Rule 200.6 violates due process since the rule fails to provide notice to students about their eligibility to participate in elections. Finally, he claims that Defendant Wood's lack of action to address the discriminatory nature of Rule 200.6 constitutes deliberate indifference. Pending are the Plaintiff's: motion for class certification; motion to file supplemental pleadings; request for a status conference; request for procedural clarity; motion for a hearing date; revised motion for a hearing date; motion to file a supplemental brief; corrected motion to file a supplemental brief; motion for leave to file a sur-reply; and motion to appoint counsel. The Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss. The Plaintiff has filed a motion that asks for this case to proceed as a class action. The motion also seeks to certify a class consisting of current and former students at CSUS, who paid tuition during the 2023-2024 academic year. The Defendants oppose this motion. Because the Plaintiff is representing himself, Judge Peterson holds that he cannot litigate a class action on behalf of other plaintiffs. Hence, this motion is denied. Since this motion is denied, so too is the Plaintiff's motion for a hearing on the motion and his motion to revise the hearing date, Judge Peterson holds. The Plaintiff has filed a motion to file a supplemental pleading that adds additional claims; a motion to file a supplemental brief; a corrected motion to file a supplemental brief; and a motion to file a sur-reply. Judge Peterson holds that the motion to file a supplemental pleading is denied as unnecessary since the Plaintiff will be permitted to file an amended complaint within 30 days of this Order. The motions to file supplemental briefs are denied because he does not explain what brief he seeks to supplement. Finally, the Plaintiff's motion to file a sur-reply is denied as unnecessary as the Court resolves the Defendants' motion to dismiss in this Order. The Plaintiff requests a status conference be held to address his pending motions. Judge Peterson holds that the motion is denied as moot as this Order resolves all pending motions. In his motion for procedural clarity, the Plaintiff requests that the Court order the Defendants to file separate motions to dismiss. Additionally, he asks that the Court direct the Defendants to address the "substantive implications" rather than "procedural arguments" in their motion to dismiss. Judge Peterson denies this motion. Judge Peterson opines that the Plaintiff has sued both Defendants in the same lawsuit; there is no requirement that they file separate motions. Generally, Judge Peterson says pro se litigants do not have a right to counsel in civil actions. However, the Court can ask that an attorney represent an indigent civil litigant under certain exceptional circumstances. The Court does not find that the Plaintiff's likelihood of success, the complexity of the issues, or the degree of his ability to articulate his claims amount to exceptional circumstances warranting the appointment of counsel. Accordingly, the Court denies the Plaintiff's motion for counsel. The Defendants argue that the amended complaint violates the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 pleading standards. They contend that the complaint is a mishmash of causes of actions, prayers for relief, and factual allegations, each bearing no relation to the other. In addition, the Defendants argue that the amended complaint fails to state specific facts against each Defendant and does not specify which claims are brought against each Defendant. Finally, they argue that each of the complaint's enumerated claims fails. The Plaintiff has filed two oppositions to the Defendants' motion. He primarily argues that he has properly pleaded claims under the First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, and that the Defendants' procedural arguments should not be considered. Judge Peterson finds that the Plaintiff's amended complaint violates Rule 8. Judge Peterson explains that the allegations are hidden amongst unorganized text and attachments. Indeed, the complaint is similar to other complaints that have been stricken for failure to make a "short and plain statement" of the claim for relief. The complaint also violates Rule 8 by not providing the Defendants with fair notice of each specific claim and of the facts on which each is based, Judge Peterson opines. The Defendants cannot be expected to wade through the amended complaint's unorganized allegations to discern the Plaintiff's claims. The complaint, as it stands, would burden the Defendants with the onerous task of combing through a 34-page pleading just to prepare an answer that admits or denies such allegations, and to determine what claims and allegations must be defended or otherwise litigated. Accordingly, the Court dismisses the complaint with leave to amend for violation of Rule 8. If the Plaintiff decides to file an amended complaint, the amended complaint will supersede the current complaint, Judge Peterson says. This means that the amended complaint will need to be complete on its face without reference to the prior pleading. Once an amended complaint is filed, the current complaint no longer serves any function. Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an original complaint, Judge Peterson points out the Plaintiff will need to assert each claim and allege each Defendant's involvement in sufficient detail. The amended complaint should be titled "Second Amended Complaint" and refer to the appropriate case number. If the Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint, Judge Peterson will recommend that this action be dismissed. Accordingly, the Court denies the Plaintiff's motion for class certification; motion to file supplemental pleadings; motion for a status conference; motion for procedural clarity; motion for a hearing date; motion for a hearing date; motion to file a supplemental brief; motion to file a supplemental brief; motion for leave to file a sur-reply; and motion to appoint counsel. The Court grants the Defendants' motion to dismiss, without prejudice. The Plaintiff is granted 30 days from service of this Order to file a second amended complaint. Failure to timely file an amended complaint will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. A full-text copy of the Court's Order is available at https://tinyurl.com/39smpafc from PacerMonitor.com. JOY CONE: Conditional Class Certification in Davey Suit Due May 7 ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as RYAN DAVEY, v. JOY CONE CO., Case No. 2:24-cv-01246-NR (W.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge J. Nicholas Ranjan entered a scheduling order re conditional class certification: -- The Plaintiff's motion for conditional class certification and accompanying brief shall be filed on or before May 7, 2025. -- The Defendant's brief in response is due by June 6, 2025. -- The Plaintiff's reply brief is due by June 20, 2025. The principal briefs shall be 20 pages or less; the reply brief shall be 10 pages or less. -- The Plaintiff shall file a form opt-in notice, and the parties shall present their positions on the form and manner of any notice. Joy Cone makes ice cream cones and ice cream cone bowls for the whole family. A copy of the Court's order dated April 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RraW3A at no extra charge.[CC] KING COUNTY, WA: Court Affirms Dissmisal of Belmonte Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------ Senior Judge Marsha J. Pechman of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington overrules the plaintiff's objections to the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge David W. Christel in the case captioned as DAVID L BELMONTE (a/k/a DAMEAS SHIRUK DURANZAN), Plaintiff, v. KING COUNTY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:24-cv-00518-JNW (W.D. Wash.). The Court adopts the R&R and dismisses this action without prejudice. The Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint SAC focuses on several different events, including an ongoing prosecution, events surrounding Plaintiff's arrest, and the conditions of his confinement. The SAC contains a variety of claims: (i) ineffective assistance of counsel and speedy trial violations (Count I); (ii) interference with effective self-representation (Count II); (iii) malicious prosecution and wrongful arrest/imprisonment; (Count III), (iv) excessive force (Count IV); (v) inadequate medical care (Count V); (vi) religious meal claims (Count VI); (vii) retaliation and cruel and unusual punishment (Count VII); (viii) IIED (Count VIII); and (ix) wrongful death (IX). As to Counts I and II, the R&R found that the Court must abstain from exercising jurisdiction under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). As to the remaining claims, the Court recommended dismissal because they are misjoined claims that do not identify common factual issues or a viable common defendant. The Court finds Plaintiff has not identified any error in the R&R's conclusion that Younger abstention applies and precludes its consideration of Counts I and II. Similarly, Plaintiff has not demonstrated any reason why the R&R erred in failing to allow him to pursue Count I as a class action. As such, the R&R's conclusions about Plaintiff's inability to pursue class action claims as a pro se individual remain valid. The Court agrees with the R&R's conclusions that the remaining counts cannot proceed in this action because the claims and defendants are misjoined. The sprawling claims against a variety of different defendants share different factual bases that lack any unifying defendant or defendants. According to the Court, they are not properly joined under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(1) as the R&R correctly explains, and severance is not a viable means of addressing these concerns. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JeefA8 from PacerMonitor.com. LATAM AIRLINES: Discovery in Conadecus Suit Ongoing in Chile ------------------------------------------------------------ LATAM Airlines Group S.A. disclosed in its Form 20-F Report for the fiscal period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 13, 2025, that discovery for the Conadecus class suit is ongoing in the Chilean Insolvency Court. On June 25, 2020, the National Corporation of Consumers and Users filed a class action against LATAM Airlines Group in the 23 Juzgado Civil de Santiago, for alleged breaches of the Law on Protection of Consumer Rights due to flight cancellations caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, requesting the nullity of alleged abusive clauses in consumer contracts, the imposition of fines and compensation for damages in defense of the interest of consumers. On July 4, 2020, the Company filed a motion to reverse the court's ruling declaring the admissibility of the action filed by Conadecus . On July 11, 2020, it requested the Court to comply with the Chilean Insolvency Court's ruling to suspend the case in connection with the foreign reorganization procedure pursuant to the Chilean Insolvency Act, a request that was accepted by the Court. CONADECUS filed a motion for reconsideration and an appeal against this resolution should the motion for reconsideration be dismissed. The Court dismissed the reconsideration motion on August 3, 2020, but admitted the appeal. On December 22, 2022, LATAM Airlines Group filed a motion requesting the stay of the proceedings to be lifted, given the current state of the reorganization procedure. On December 30, 2022, Conadecus agreed to LATAM Airlines Group's request. On January 23, 2023, the Santiago Court of Appeals granted LATAM's motion and lifted the stay. On November 24, 2023, the Court dismissed LATAM's motion for reversal against the ruling that declared the action filed by Conadecus admissible. On December 4, 2023, LATAM filed a statement of defense. The settlement hearing took place on March 27, 2024, but the parties did not reach an agreement. On May 14, 2024 the Court determined the facts to be proven, and dismissed the motion of reconsideration on June 18, 2024, thereby opening the discovery stage. The amount at the moment is undetermined. LATAM Airlines Group S.A. is an airline holding company based in Chile. LEPRINO FOODS: Dominguez's Pending Bid to Certify Class Terminated ------------------------------------------------------------------ In the class action lawsuit captioned as Dominguez v. Leprino Foods Company, Case No. 1:22-cv-01018 (E.D. Cal., Filed Aug. 12, 2022), the Hon. Judge Kirk E. Sherriff entered an order terminating the Plaintiff's pending motion to certify class. Additionally, the Court vacates its pending findings and recommendations on the Plaintiff's motion to certify class. The suit alleges violation of the labor litigation. Leprino Foods produces cheese, lactose, whey protein and sweet whey.[CC] LGBCOIN LTD: Court Upholds Class Certification in De Ford Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Paul G. Byron of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida denied defendants' motion for reconsideration of the order granting partial class certification and motion to stay all proceedings pending motion for reconsideration and Rule 23(f) petition in the case captioned as ERIC DE FORD, SANDRA BADER and SHAWN R. KEY, Plaintiffs, v. JAMES KOUTOULAS and LGBCOIN, LTD, Defendants, Case No. 6:22-cv-652-PGB-DCI (M.D. Fla.). Plaintiffs initiated this putative class action on April 1, 2022. After several amended complaints, motions to dismiss, and a stay of discovery, the Court narrowed the claims against Defendants James Koutoulas and LGBCoin, LTD in its Order dated March 29, 2024. Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification, Appointment of Class Representatives, and Appointment of Class Counsel on July 22, 2024. Defendants responded in opposition to the Motion for Class Certification on Oct. 2, 2024, The Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification on March 28, 2025. In the Motion for Reconsideration, Defendants assert that the Court's finding that Plaintiffs met the predominance and typicality requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 was clearly erroneous. Yet, Defendants do not explain how the Court clearly erred, nor do they present any discussion as to the Court's analysis or application of Rule 23. Defendants fail to set forth strongly convincing reasons for the Court to change its prior decision. Defendants' Motion for Reconsideration is thus denied. In the Motion to Stay, Defendants seek a stay of all proceedings in this case pending the Court's resolution of the Motion for Reconsideration and an anticipated Rule 23(f) petition for interlocutory appeal to the Eleventh Circuit. Considering the Court's resolution of the Motion for Reconsideration herein, Defendants' request for a stay on this basis is now moot. As such, Defendants' Motion to Stay is denied. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SyKIgI from PacerMonitor.com. MDL 2875: Court Excludes Plaintiff Expert's Testimony ----------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as IN RE: VALSARTAN, LOSARTAN, AND IRBESARTAN PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, Case No. 1:19-md-02875-RBK-SAK (D.N.J.), the Honorable Renee Marie Bumb, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the New Jersey, granted Defendants' Motion to Exclude the opinions of Dr. Rena Conti, prohibiting her from testifying that Valsartan-containing drugs were worthless. However, the Court denied the Defendants' request to file a summary judgment. The Court also considered the Plaintiffs' request to amend the complaint and found the requested amendment to be unnecessary. This multi-district litigation has been pending for six long years. The case involves the manufacture and sale of allegedly adulterated high blood pressure medication. Hundreds of motions and requests have required the Court’s attention. The Opinion concerns only a subset of claims, plaintiffs and defendants set forth in the Third Amended Consolidated Economic Loss Class Action Complaint at Docket No. 1708, that were being readied for a bellwether trial that has been referred to as the “TPP Trial.” The TPP -- Third-Party Payors -- involves only the economic loss claims and does not involve individual consumer plaintiffs or personal injury claims. In particular, the primary source of contention involves Plaintiffs' theory of damages for alleged breach of express warranty cause of action. Valsartan is the generic name of the now off-patent anti-hypertensive drug Diovan(R). It is also used in a combination heart failure drug called Exforge(R). At its core, the litigation involves the alleged contamination with nitrosamines of certain Valsartan-containing drugs manufactured, distributed, or sold by Defendants -- VCDs -- from January 1, 2012, through the recalls of those drugs in the summer of 2018. In particular, the primary source of contention involves Plaintiffs' theory of damages for its breach of express warranty cause of action. According to the Court, "Plaintiffs press the following syllogism: Because the VCDs contained nitrosamines, i.e., known carcinogens, they were adulterated. Because they were adulterated, they should not have been sold. Because they should not have been sold, they were worthless. Because they were worthless, Plaintiffs are entitled to a full refund." To support this syllogism, Plaintiffs rely heavily on the opinion of their damages expert, Professor Rena Conti, Ph.D. The Plaintiffs proffered Conti's testimony to support the "fact of economic damage" and their class-wide damages calculations. Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), govern the admissibility of expert testimony. To be admissible, expert testimony must be both relevant and reliable. Rule 702 "clearly contemplates some degree of regulation of the subjects and theories" to which an expert may testify, the Supreme Court has stated: "[I]n order to qualify as 'scientific knowledge,' an inference or assertion must be derived by the scientific method." Proposed testimony must be supported by appropriate validation -- i.e., "good grounds" based on what is known. In short, the requirement that an expert's testimony pertain to "scientific knowledge" establishes a standard of evidentiary reliability. The Court acknowledges it serves as a gatekeeper, ensuring that testimony is grounded in scientific validity and pertains to the issues before the jury. The Court agrees with the Defendants' argument that Conti's testimony is unreliable because "Conti has never cited any economic literature supporting her views about legitimate supply curves or adulterated drugs having no value; nor could she identify any such literature in her deposition." Instead, Conti's testimony is supported only by her own say so. Plaintiffs claimed that no economic literature is needed because Conti's testimony derives from "health economics 101" supply and demand principles. But the court found this argument to be too simplistic and too doctrinaire. The Court added that without more, her testimony that, based on "health economics 101," an adulterated drug can never have any value whatsoever is nothing more than an ipse dixit assertion of worthlessness. The Court will discuss the path forward for the TPP Trial, including how the Court's exclusion of Conti's worthlessness testimony impacts any pending motions in limine and Daubert motions, with the parties at the upcoming Case Management Conference scheduled for April 28, 2025. The parties will meet and confer in advance of the conference in an effort to find agreement where possible and streamline the disputes that will be raised with the Court. MSP Recovery Claims, Series LLC serves as class representative of numerous Third-Party Payors Defendants include Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceuticals Co., Ltd., located in China, and its U.S. subsidiaries: Huahai U.S. Inc.; Prinston Pharmaceutical Inc. d/b/a Solco Healthcare LLC; and Solco Healthcare U.S. (collectively, "ZHP"); Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.; Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.; Actavis LLC; and Actavis Pharma, Inc. (collectively, "Teva"); Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd., located in India, and its U.S. subsidiary, Torrent Pharma, Inc. (together, "Torrent"). A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JZQk8f from PacerMonitor.com. MDL Plaintiffs' Co-Lead Counsel: Adam M. Slater, Esq. MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN, LLC 103 Eisenhower Parkway, 2nd Floor Roseland, NJ 07068 - and - Ruben Honik, Esq. HONIK LLC 1515 Market Street, Suite 1100 Philadelphia, PA 19102 - and - Daniel Nigh, Esq. NIGH GOLDENBERG RASO & VAUGHN, PLLC 14 Ridge Square NW, 3rd Floor Washington, DC 20016 - and - Conlee S. Whiteley, Esq. KANNER & WHITELEY, LLC 701 Camp Street New Orleans, LA 70130 Third-Party Payor Economic Loss Co-Lead Class Counsel: Jorge Mestre, Esq. RIVERO MESTRE LLP 2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 1000 Miami, FL 33134 - and - Gregory P. Hansel, Esq. PRETI, FLAHERTY, BELIVEAU & PACHIOS, CHARTERED, LLP One City Center P.O. Box 9546 Portland, ME 04112 Liaison Counsel for Manufacturer Defendants and Attorneys for Defendants Zhejiang uahai Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Huahai U.S., Inc., Prinston Pharmaceutical Inc., and Solco Healthcare U.S., LLC: Jessica Davidson, Esq. Allison M. Brown, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 - and - Nina R. Rose, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20004 Attorneys for Defendants Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Actavis LLC, and Actavis Pharma, Inc. Gregory E. Ostfeld, Esq. Tiffany M. Andras, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP 77 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3100 Chicago, IL 60601 - and - Lori G. Cohen, Esq. Victoria Davis Lockard, Esq. Steven M. Harkins, Esq. GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP Terminus 200 3333 Piedmont Road, NE, Suite 2500 Atlanta, GA 30305 Attorneys for Defendants Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Torrent Pharma, Inc.: Alexia R. Brancato, Esq. Devora W. Allon, Esq. KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 MDL 2989: Trading Suit Stayed Pending Arbitration ------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit RE: January 2021 Short Squeeze Trading Litigation, Case No. 1:21-md-02989-CMA (S.D. Fla.), the Hon. Judge Cecilia Altonaga entered an order granting the Defendants' motion to compel arbitration. The Plaintiffs, Robert Days, Richard Joseph Gatz, Scott Schiller, and Chance Daniels, are compelled to arbitrate their federal securities claims against Defendants, Robinhood Markets, Inc., Robinhood Financial LLC, and Robinhood Securities, LLC. The case is stayed pending the conclusion of the arbitration proceedings. The Clerk is directed to close this case for administrative purposes only. Any party may move to reopen the case after arbitration has concluded. Robinhood argues that the remaining Plaintiffs are required to arbitrate because: (1) each agreed to a valid, written arbitration clause; (2) the claims asserted fall within the scope of the arbitration clause; and (3) Robinhood has not waived its right to compel arbitration. Days does not dispute the existence of a valid agreement or that his claims generally fall within its scope. He thus waives any objection to the validity and breadth of the arbitration clause. Days presents two narrow objections to arbitration. First, he insists that his case must be remanded to the Northern District of California. But the Court has already fully considered (and rejected) that argument; and declines Days’s invitation to revisit settled ground. Second, Days asserts that his surviving state-law claims — including putative class claims for concealment and negligent misrepresentation — fall outside the scope of the arbitration clause. But that contention relies on a faulty premise: as the Court previously held, those state-law claims were extinguished when the Robinhood Tranche was dismissed with prejudice, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the Court’s dismissal. Days may take issue with the consequences of that ruling, but he cannot reopen claims this Court and the Court of Appeals have firmly shut This multidistrict litigation (MDL) arises from trading restrictions imposed by Robinhood during the January 2021 short squeeze involving "meme stocks." A copy of the Court's order dated April 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=RvjYt2 at no extra charge.[CC] MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Chappell Suit Over Wheel Configuration Tossed ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the case captioned as DAVID CHAPPELL, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, v. MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:24-CV-1989-TWT (N.D. Ga.), the Hon. Thomas W. Thrash in Atlanta grants the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, saying the Named Plaintiffs fail to adequately allege any violation. The Plaintiffs alleged that the 21" wheel configuration in certain Mercedes-Benz vehicles "is insufficient to withstand the weight of such vehicles, which results in the failure of its structural integrity." That in turn leads to "sudden and repeated tire blowouts, tire punctures, sidewall bubbling, tire deflation, and cracked rims that necessitate costly repairs and replacements." The Vehicles subject to the complaint are "any model year 2021-present Mercedes-Benz vehicles equipped with 21" AMG V-multispoke wheel configuration." The Named Plaintiffs are David Chappell, Richard Baldwin, Michelle Cockerham, Upender Reddy Gone, and Nidal Barakat. The Defendants allegedly knew of this defect but failed to disclose that knowledge. Then, when individuals brought their Vehicles to authorized Mercedes-Benz dealerships for repairs, the Defendants systematically denied coverage under the warranty. The Named Plaintiffs filed a putative class action on behalf of all individuals in the United States who purchased or leased any Vehicles for breach of warranty, unjust enrichment, and deceptive trade practices. MBUSA moved to dismiss all claims against it. The Court notes a complaint should be dismissed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) only where it appears that the facts alleged fail to state a "plausible" claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A complaint may survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, however, even if it is "improbable" that a plaintiff would be able to prove those facts; even if the possibility of recovery is extremely "remote and unlikely." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007). In ruling on a motion to dismiss, the court must accept the facts pleaded in the complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Quality Foods de Centro Am., S.A. v. Latin Am. Agribusiness Dev. Corp., S.A., 711 F.2d 989, 994-95 (11th Cir. 1983); see also Sanjuan v. Am. Bd. of Psychiatry & Neurology, Inc., 40 F.3d 247, 251 (7th Cir. 1994) (noting that at the pleading stage, the plaintiff "receives the benefit of imagination"). Generally, notice pleading is all that is required for a valid complaint. The Court starts by considering the arguments about the Named Plaintiffs' fraud-based claims, then addresses their breach of warranty and unjust enrichment claims, and concludes with their claim for declaratory and injunctive relief. In dismissing all of the Fraud based claims (Counts II, VI, VII, X, & XIV), the Court finds that the Named Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged a defect. The Court also dismisses the Breach of Express Warranty Claims (Counts I, IV, VIII, & XI) as the court agrees with MBUSA that the Named Plaintiffs' damages were excluded from the warranty and that that warranty was not unconscionable. In dismissing the Breach of Implied Warranty Claims (Counts III, V, IX, & XII), the Court says that, because the Named Plaintiffs fail to plausibly allege a defect, they fail to plausibly allege that the Class Vehicles are unmerchantable." The Court also rejects the Plaintiffs' Unjust Enrichment Claim (Count XIII) and Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Claim (Count XV). A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xcVtE9 from PacerMonitor.com. MERCK SHARP: Fact Discovery Date in Baltimore Extended to May 15 ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., Case No. 2:23-cv-00828-GAM (E.D. Pa.), the Hon. Judge Gerald Austin McHugh entered an order extending the fact discovery deadline to May 15, 2025. All subsequent deadlines in the above-captioned case shall be commensurately extended as follows: Event Original Revised Deadline Deadline Fact Discovery Deadline: April 4, 2025 May 15, 2025 Rebuttal Expert Reports: Aug. 4, 2025 Sept. 15, 2025 Reply Expert Reports: Sept. 15, 2025 Oct. 27, 2025 Expert Discovery Cutoff: Oct. 5, 2025 Nov. 17, 2025 Motion(s) for Class Oct. 27, 2025 Dec. 8, 2025 Certification: Opposition to Motion(s) Dec. 8, 2025 Jan. 20, 2026 for Class Certification and Related Rule 702 Motions: Merck operates as a research-intensive biopharmaceutical company. A copy of the Court's order dated April 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8eSzV6 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel J. Walker, Esq. Eric L. Cramer, Esq. Russell D. Paul, Esq. David Langer, Esq. Grace Ann Brew, Esq. Sarah Zimmerman, Esq. BERGER MONTAGUE PC 2001 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W., Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006 Telephone: (202) 559-9740 E-mail: dwalker@bm.net ecramer@bm.net rpaul@bm.net dlanger@bm.net gbrew@bm.net szimmerman@bm.net - and - Daniel H. Silverman, Esq. Sharon K. Robertson, Esq. Jared Dummitt, Esq. Silvie Saltzman, Esq. COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 769 Centre Street, Suite 207 Boston, MA 02130 Telephone: (617) 858-1990 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699 E-mail: dsilverman@cohenmilstein.com srobertson@cohenmilstein.com jdummitt@cohenmilstein.com ssaltzman@cohenmilstein.com The Defendant is represented by: Ashley Bass, Esq. Andrew Lazerow, Esq. COVINGTON & BURLING LLP One CityCenter 850 Tenth Street, NW Washington, DC Telephone: (202) 662-6000 E-mail: abass@cov.com alazerow@cov.com - and - Lisa C. Dykstra, Esq. Mark J. Fanelli, Esq. MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 2222 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 963-5000 E-mail: lisa.dykstra@morganlewis.com mark.fanelli@morganlewis.com MICHAEL KORS: Parties Seek More Time to File Class Cert Bid ----------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Binder et al., v. Michael Kors (USA), Inc. et al., Case No. 1:23-cv-03941-DEH-OTW (S.D.N.Y.), the Parties ask the Court to enter an order granting an extension of the deadlines related to the Plaintiffs' anticipated motion for class certification. The Motion is currently due to be filed on April 21, 2025. Under the requested extension, the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification would be due twelve weeks later, on July 14, 2025. Keeping the same schedule as set by the Parties' Civil Case Management Plan and endorsed by the Court, the Defendant's opposition would be due Aug. 28, 2025, and the Plaintiffs' reply would be due Oct. 6, 2025. The requested extension is necessary because, despite the parties' best efforts and cooperation, the parties do not anticipate being able to complete depositions until late May 2025, due to delays caused by scheduling conflicts of counsel and witnesses, and the parties' meet and confer efforts to narrow the issues in dispute to avoid the need for court intervention. The Plaintiffs require these depositions so that they can properly understand and analyze documents and data produced by Defendant, which will then become the subject of expert analysis Plaintiffs will rely on in their Motion. Further, the Plaintiff Waldner's appeal of the Judgment has been placed on the Expedited Appeals Calendar, with the Defendant's response brief due on April 15, 2025, and Plaintiffs' reply brief due on April 29, 2025. Michael Kors operates designs and sells apparel, accessories, and footwear. A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TNJz4Y at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Matthew J. Zevin, Esq. Todd D. Carpenter, Esq. Connor J. Porzio, Esq. Gary F. Lynch, Esq. LYNCH CARPENTER, LLP 9171 Towne Centre Drive, Suite 180 San Diego, CA 92122 Telephone: (619) 762-1910 Facsimile: (858) 313-1850 E-mail: mattz@lcllp.com todd@lcllp.com connor@lcllp.com gary@lcllp.com The Defendants are represented by: James B. Saylor, Esq. Geoffrey W. Castello, Esq. KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 3 World Trade Center 175 Greenwich Street New York, NY 10007 Telephone: (212) 808-5052 Facsimile: (212) 589-9509 E-mail: jsaylor@kelleydrye.com gcastello@kelleydrye.com MOMENTUS INC: Continues to Defend Delaware Class Suits ------------------------------------------------------ On November 10, 2022, purported stockholders filed a putative class action complaint against Brian Kabot, James Hofmockel, Ann Kono, Marc Lehmann, James Norris, Juan Manuel Quiroga, SRC-NI Holdings, LLC, Edward K. Freedman, Mikhail Kokorich, Dawn Harms, Fred Kennedy, and John C. Rood in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, in a case captioned Shirley, et al. v. Kabot et al., 2022-1023-PAF (the "Shirley Action"). The complaint alleges that the defendants made certain material misrepresentations, and omitted certain material information, in their public statements and disclosures regarding the Proposed Transaction, in violation of the securities laws, and seeks damages on behalf of a putative class of stockholders who purchased SRAC stock on or before August 9, 2021. On March 16, 2023, purported stockholders of the Company filed a putative class action complaint against certain current and former directors and officers of the Company in the Delaware Court of Chancery, in a case captioned Lora v. Kabot, et al., Case No. 2023-0322 (the "Lora Action"). Like the Shirley complaint, the complaint alleges that the defendants made certain material misrepresentations, and omitted certain material information, in their public statements and disclosures regarding the Business Combination in violation of the securities laws, and seeks damages on behalf of a putative class of stockholders who purchased SRAC stock on or before August 9, 2021. On March 17, 2023, purported stockholders of the Company filed a putative class action complaint against certain current and former directors and officers of the Company in the Delaware Court of Chancery, in a case captioned Burk v. Kabot, et al., Case No. 2023-0334 (the "Burk Action"). Like the Lora and Shirley complaints, the Burk complaint alleges that the defendants made certain material misrepresentations, and omitted certain material information, in their public statements and disclosures regarding the Business Combination in violation of the securities laws, and seeks damages on behalf of a putative class of stockholders who purchased SRAC stock on or before August 9, 2021. On May 26, 2023, plaintiffs filed a stipulation and proposed order for consolidation and appointment of co-lead plaintiffs and co-lead plaintiffs' counsel designating the complaint filed in the Lora Action as the operative complaint. On June 30, 2023, the defendants each filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. On October 26, 2023, plaintiffs filed their answering briefs in opposition to the motions to dismiss, and the defendants' reply briefs are due to be filed on or before December 14, 2023, and a hearing on the motions to dismiss was held for February 1, 2024. On May 29, 2024, the court issued its orders on the motions to dismiss: (1) granting the motions to dismiss with respect to Defendants Fred Kennedy and Dawn Harms and dismissing the claims against them with prejudice, and (2) with respect to the SRAC Defendants, granting the motion to dismiss with prejudice. However, the court noted that Defendants Brian Kabot, James Hofmockel, and James Norris did not move to dismiss the portion of Count II relating to alleged misrepresentations concerning the value of SRAC shares issued in the merger and Defendant Brian Kabot did not move to dismiss the portion of Count III relating to the same. As such, the claims as to the SRAC were dismissed with prejudice, except for these remaining claims. The Shirley Action, the Lora Action, and the Burk Action have been consolidated under the caption, In re Momentus, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, C.A. No. 2022-1023-PAF (Del Ch. Nov. 10, 2022). These putative class actions do not name the Company as a defendant. Regardless, the SRAC directors and officers, together with current and former directors and officers of the Company, have demanded indemnification and advancement from the Company, under the terms of the merger agreement and the exhibits thereto, the Delaware corporate code, the Company's bylaws, and their individual indemnification agreements. The Company may be liable for the fees and costs incurred by the defendants and has an obligation to advance such fees during the pendency of the litigation. The Company understands that the defendants dispute the allegations in the complaint and intend to vigorously defend against any such litigation, the Company disclosed in a Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Momentus Inc. (NASDAQ: MNTS) is a U.S. commercial space company that offers in-space infrastructure services, including in-space transportation, hosted payloads and in-orbit services. Momentus believes it can make new ways of operating in space possible with its in-space transfer and service vehicles that will be powered by an innovative water plasma-based propulsion system that is under development. MOMENTUS INC: Objections to Securities Suit Deal Remain Pending --------------------------------------------------------------- On July 15, 2021, a purported stockholder of Momentus Inc., previously called Stable Road Acquisition Corp. ("SRAC"), filed a putative class action complaint against SRAC, SRC-NI Holdings, LLC, Brian Kabot, James Norris (SRAC CFO), Momentus, and the Company's co-founder and former CEO, Mikhail Kokorich, in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, in a case captioned Jensen v. Stable Road Acquisition Corp., et al., No. 2:21-cv-05744 (the "Jensen class action"). The complaint alleges that the defendants omitted certain material information in their public statements and disclosures regarding the Business Combination, in violation of the securities laws, and seeks damages on behalf of a putative class of stockholders who purchased SRAC stock between October 7, 2020 and July 13, 2021. Subsequent complaints captioned Hall v. Stable Road Acquisition Corp., et al., No. 2:21-cv-05943 and Depoy v. Stable Road Acquisition Corp., et al., No. 2:21-cv-06287 were consolidated in the first filed matter (collectively, referred to as the "Securities Class Actions"). An amended complaint was filed on November 12, 2021. The Company disputes the allegations in the Securities Class Actions. On February 10, 2023, the lead plaintiff in the Securities Class Actions and the Company reached an agreement in principle to settle the Securities Class Actions. Under the terms of the agreement in principle, the lead plaintiff, on behalf of a class of all persons that purchased or otherwise acquired Company stock between October 7, 2020 and July 13, 2021, inclusive, would release the Company from all claims asserted or that could have been asserted in the Securities Class Actions and dismiss such claims with prejudice, in exchange for payment of $8.5 million by the Company (at least $4.0 million of which was funded by insurance proceeds). On April 10, 2023, the parties filed a Notice of Settlement with the Court, and on August 18, 2023, the parties executed a Settlement Agreement. On August 30, 2023 the lead plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement, and the Court entered an Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement and Providing for Notice on September 21, 2023. Pursuant to that Order, on October 5, 2023, the Company paid $1.0 million into the settlement escrow account. On November 16, 2023, following the Court's order granting lead plaintiff's motion to enforce the settlement agreement and despite the Company's attempts to negotiate an extension of time to satisfy its payment obligations, the Company paid an additional $3.5 million into the settlement escrow account. Insurance carriers made additional payments totaling $4.0 million into the settlement escrow account. On April 23, 2024, the Court entered an order and judgment finally approving the settlement of the Securities Class Actions. A group of plaintiffs asserting the Delaware Class Actions objected to the scope of the release in the settlement, and the Court overruled the objection. Those objectors may or may not appeal the Court's decision to overrule their objections and approve the settlement. The Company does not know the timing of when such an appeal, if filed, would be heard. If the objectors do not appeal the approval of the settlement, or if their appeal is ultimately rejected by the Court of Appeal, then the settlement will resolve all claims in the Securities Class Actions against the Company (except as to any shareholders that may elect to opt-out of the class). The Company and the other defendants have denied and continue to deny each and all of the claims alleged in the Securities Class Actions, and the proposed settlement contains no admission of liability, wrongdoing or responsibility by any of the defendants. In the event that a court, on appeal or otherwise, overturns the approval of the settlement, the Company will continue to vigorously defend against the claims asserted in the Securities Class Actions. As a result of the agreement to settle the Securities Class Action, the Company recorded a litigation settlement contingency of $8.5 million. The Company additionally recorded an insurance receivable of $4.0 million for the insurance proceeds expected from its insurers related to the settlement. The net amount of $4.5 million was recognized in litigation settlement, net during the year ended December 31, 2022. As of December 31, 2024, the contingent liability in relation to Securities Class Action has been paid in full, the Company disclosed in a Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Momentus Inc. (NASDAQ: MNTS) is a U.S. commercial space company that offers in-space infrastructure services, including in-space transportation, hosted payloads and in-orbit services. Momentus believes it can make new ways of operating in space possible with its in-space transfer and service vehicles that will be powered by an innovative water plasma-based propulsion system that is under development. NEW YORK: Faces Minano Suit Over Failure to Protect Clients' Info ----------------------------------------------------------------- JACK MINANO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY, Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-02750 (S.D.N.Y., April 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence/negligence per se, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and invasion of privacy/intrusion upon seclusion. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach on March 22, 2025. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. New York University is a university with its headquarters in New York, New York. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Deborah De Villa, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C. 521 5th Avenue, 17th Floor New York, NY 10175 Telephone: (917) 336-0171 Facsimile: (917) 336-0177 Email: Ddevilla@ahdootwolfson.com - and - Andrew W. Ferich, Esq. AHDOOT & WOLFSON, P.C. 201 King of Prussia Road, Suite 650 Radnor, PA 19087 Telephone: (310) 474-9111 Facsimile: (310) 474-8585 Email: aferich@ahdootwolfson.com NEWARK, NJ: Deleva Sues to Recover Overtime Wages ------------------------------------------------- Vincent Deleva, Jamie Pinto, and Elddy Torres, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. CITY OF NEWARK, Case No. 2:25-cv-02256 (D.N.J., April 2, 2025), is brought against the Defendant, under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law ("NJWHL"), to recover overtime wages. The Plaintiffs and other hourly employees often work over 40 hours per 7-day workweek. During some of these overtime weeks, Plaintiffs and other hourly employees earn both their hourly wage and bonus payments. On such occasions, Defendant calculates overtime pay based entirely on the hourly wage and without regard to the bonus payments. The Defendant's failure to account for bonus payments in determining the overtime wages owed to Plaintiffs and other hourly employees has been undertaken willfully and with reckless disregard of clearly applicable FLSA and NJWHL principles. In fact, Defendant previously settled two lawsuits alleging FLSA violations that are virtually identical to the violations asserted herein, says the complaint. The Plaintiffs are hourly employees of the Defendant. The Defendant operates a Department of Public Safety that includes a Police Division.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Peter Winebrake, Esq. R. Andrew Santillo, Esq. Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq. WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC 715 Twining Road, Suite 211 Dresher, PA 19025 Phone: 215-884-2491 Email: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com asantillo@winebrakelaw.com mgottesfeld@winebrakelaw.com - and - Stephen C. Richman, Esq. Mathew David Areman, Esq. MARKOWITZ & RICHMAN 123 South Broad Street, Suite 2020 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Phone: (215) 875-3100 Email: srichman@markowitzandrichman.com mareman@markowitzandrichman.com NEXHEALTH INC: Discloses Patient Info to 3rd Parties, Janik Claims ------------------------------------------------------------------ CATHERINE JANIK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. NEXHEALTH, INC. and GRAND DENTAL ASSOCIATES, P.C., Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-03055 (N.D. Cal., April 3, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for breach of confidence, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, and violations of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the California Invasion of Privacy Act. According to the complaint, the Defendants disclosed the private and confidential information of their patients to third parties, including Google, without consent. The Defendants installed tracking technologies, including, but not limited to, the Meta Pixel, Google Analytics, and Google Ads, on NexHealth's client's websites to collect and disclose the said information. As a result, the Defendants violated the Plaintiff's and the Class members' statutorily protected privacy rights. NexHealth, Inc. is a software company in California. Grand Dental Associates, P.C. is a dental group in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Catherine E. Ybarra, Esq. SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP 700 S. Flower Street, Ste. 1000 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Telephone: (213) 376-3739 Email: cybarra@sirillp.com - and - 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: tbean@sirillp.com ssingh@sirillp.com NOVA HOME: Savinova Loses Bid to Certify Home Worker Class ---------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Yelena Savinova, et al., v. Nova Home Care, LLC, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-01612-TOF (D. Conn.), the Hon. Judge Thomas Farrish entered an order denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The Court, however, declines to impose costs at this time. This is not a recommended ruling. The consent of the parties allows the undersigned Magistrate Judge to conduct all proceedings in accordance with 28 U.S.C. section 636(c)(3) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73(c). The Court agrees with the defendants that the plaintiffs have come forward with no new and material information that would justify a different result. It will therefore deny the plaintiffs' renewed motion to certify a class. At the same time, the Court will deny the defendants' request for an award of costs. The Court is unable to make an explicit and specific finding of bad faith on the current record. On April 27, 2023, the plaintiffs moved for certification of a class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiffs defined the proposed class as: "Homecare workers who worked for Nova Home Care, LLC and Southern Home Care Services, Inc. . . . between Oct. 21, 2018, and the present, and who had any workweeks split between Nova and Southern on the same live-in assignments." On April 12, 2024, the Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class certification. The court again denied certification, this time because the plaintiffs did "not raise any new evidence to show numerosity is met nor attempt to redefine the class." Nova Home specializes in home health care as well as private non-emergency medical transportation. A copy of the Court's order dated April 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=bTsQgG at no extra charge.[CC] OOMA INC: Continues to Defend Chiu Class Suit in Canada ------------------------------------------------------- Ooma Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year ending January 31, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission that on February 3, 2021, plaintiff Fiona Chiu filed a class action complaint against the Company and Ooma Canada Inc. in the Federal Court of Canada, alleging violations of Canada's Trademarks Act and Competition Act. The complaint seeks monetary and other damages and/or injunctive relief enjoining the Company from describing and marketing its Basic Home Phone using the word "free" or otherwise representing that it is free. On November 9, 2021, the Federal Court of Canada removed Ms. Chiu and substituted John Zanin as the new plaintiff in the proceeding. In connection with the substitution of Mr. Zanin as the new plaintiff, the Federal Court of Canada deemed the proceeding as having commenced on November 8, 2021 instead of February 3, 2021. In January 2022, the Federal Court of Canada heard arguments from counsel representing each of the Company and Mr. Zanin regarding jurisdiction and class action certification issues. In January 2025, the Federal Court of Canada ruled in favor of the Company by denying class action certification and compelling individual arbitration in California; however, plaintiff's counsel has filed an appeal of certain portions of the judgment and related motions. The Company intends to continue to defend itself vigorously against this complaint. Based on the Company's current knowledge, the Company has determined that the amount of any reasonably possible loss resulting from the Canadian Litigation is not estimable. Ooma Inc. provides communications services and related technologies based in California. OUTOKUMPU STAINLESS: Osborne Seeks Conditional Cert. of Action -------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as KINGSTON OSBORNE and DAVID SMITH, individually and as representatives of class of plaintiffs described herein, v. OUTOKUMPU STAINLESS USA, LLC, Case No. 1:24-cv-00439-JB-N (S.D. Ala.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to enter an order: (1) conditionally certifying this case as a collective action; (2) requiring Defendant to produce within 14 days the last known address, email address, and telephone numbers of all current and former hourly wage manufacturing employees who have been employed by the Defendant at its Calvert, Alabama facility since Oct. 1, 2021; and (3) approving the Notice of Right to Opt-In to the Lawsuit and Consent to Become a Party Plaintiff form. The proposed Class is all: 1. Current and former manufacturing employees at the Defendant's Calvert, Alabama location; 2. Paid on an hourly basis; and 3. Who received payment since Nov. 26, 2021, for work performed for the Defendant. The Plaintiffs submit that the nature of th civil action is such that the conditional certification decision is an easy one. Outokumpu manufactures steel products. A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=AdTbw4 at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiffs are represented by: Brian M. Clark, Esq. WIGGINS CHILDS PANTAZIS FISHER GOLDFARB LLC The Kress Building 301 Nineteenth Street North Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 314-0500 E-mail: bclark@wigginschilds.com - and - Ian Rosenthal, Esq. DAVIS, DAVIS AND ASSOCIATES 27180 Pollard Road Daphne, AL 36526 Telephone: (251) 544-4484 E-mail: ian@ddalawfirm.com The Defendant is represented by: Devin C. Dolive, Esq. Ronald W. Flowers, Jr., Esq. Cheri Turnage Gatlin, Esq. Natalie A. Cosmic, Esq. H. William Wasden, Esq. BURR & FORMAN LLP 420 North 20th Street, Suite 3400 Birmingham, AL 35203 Telephone: (205) 251-3000 Facsimile: (205) 458-5100 E-mail: ddolive@burr.com rflowers@burr.com cgatlin@burr.com ncosmich@burr.com bwasden@burr.com PACIFIC RESIDENTIAL: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Cnossen Says --------------------------------------------------------------- ALEXANDER CNOSSEN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. PACIFIC RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00574-IM (D. Or., April 8, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted the Defendant with sensitive Personally Identifiable Information ("PII") whose PII was compromised in a data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed on March 25, 2025 (the "Data Breach" or the "Breach"). The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the PII collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the PII, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. As a result of the Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII was exposed to criminals. The Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries including: financial losses caused by misuse of their PII; the loss or diminished value of their PII as a result of the Data Breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information. Pacific Residential Mortgage LLC provides home loan products. The Company offers in house loan processing, underwriting, funding, closing, financing, and reverse mortgage. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Kim D. Stephens, P.S., Esq. Kaleigh N. Boyd, Esq. TOUSLEY BRAIN STEPHENS PLLC 1200 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700 Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 682-5600 Facsimile: (206) 682-2992 Email: kstephens@tousley.com kboyd@tousley.com - and - Eduard Korsinsky, Esq. Mark Svensson, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: ek@zlk.com msvensson@zlk.com REJOICE DELIVERS: Webb Labor Suit Cannot Proceed as Class --------------------------------------------------------- Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint in the case captioned as Webb v. Rejoice Delivers LLC et al., Case No. 5:22-cv-07221 (N.D. Calif.)., with leave to amend in part. Plaintiff Ian Webb initiated this putative class action in Santa Clara County Superior Court in August 2022, asserting claims under the California Labor Code and the Unfair Competition Law against his former employer, Rejoice Delivers LLC. In October 2022, the Plaintiff amended the complaint to add Amazon Logistics, Inc. and Amazon.com Services, LLC, alleging they were joint employers. The case was subsequently removed to federal court. Following the denial of Defendants' motion to compel arbitration in December 2023 and the voluntary dismissal of their interlocutory appeal, Plaintiff filed successive amended complaints, culminating in the operative Third Amended Complaint filed on November 15, 2024. The TAC alleges the Plaintiff and other putative class members were hourly, non-exempt employees of Rejoice, and purportedly of Amazon as well, but it fails to set forth any specific facts supporting joint employment or Amazon's role in the alleged violations. Instead, the Plaintiff pleads generalized allegations against all "Defendants," without differentiating among them. The TAC asserts nine causes of action, including claims for unpaid wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods, unreimbursed business expenses, and unfair competition. Defendants moved to dismiss the TAC under Rule 12(b)(6) and to strike the class allegations. At the March 20, 2025 hearing, the Court identified several deficiencies in the complaint, which the Plaintiff's counsel did not dispute. The Court found the TAC failed to distinguish between the actions of Rejoice and Amazon, employing impermissible group pleading. The Court also found that each of the Labor Code claims (Claims 1 through 8) lacked the factual specificity necessary to survive a motion to dismiss. For example, the Plaintiff alleged unreimbursed business expenses but did not identify what those expenses were, whether they were incurred in the course of employment, or how Defendants failed to reimburse them. The Court concluded such formulaic recitations of statutory language failed to state a plausible claim for relief. Claim 8, which sought relief under California Labor Code section 229, was dismissed without leave to amend. The Court agreed with Defendants that Sec. 229 does not establish a standalone cause of action and noted that Plaintiff failed to oppose dismissal of the claim. Similarly, the Court dismissed the UCL claim (Claim 9) without leave to amend, finding it deficient under Sonner v. Premier Nutrition Corp., 971 F.3d 834 (9th Cir. 2020), because Plaintiff did not allege the absence of an adequate remedy at law. The Court also dismissed the class allegations, holding that the underlying claims were insufficiently pled and that Plaintiff had not demonstrated a basis for class treatment. The motion to strike those allegations was denied as moot. Accordingly, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss in full. Leave to amend was granted only as to Claims 1 through 7. Leave to amend was denied as to Claims 8 and 9. The discovery stay was extended pending the filing of a Fourth Amended Complaint, which was due no later than April 15, 2025. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8xhybB RIO HONDO: Faces Baez Wage-and-Hour Suit in Calif. -------------------------------------------------- MARLENE BAEZ, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. RIO HONDO SUBACUTE AND NURSING CENTER, LLC and DOES 1 through 50, Defendants, Case No. 25STCV10040 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles Cty., April 3, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for violations of California Labor Code's Private Attorneys General Act including failure to provide employment records, failure to pay overtime and double time, failure to provide rest and meal periods, failure to pay minimum wage, failure to keep accurate payroll records and provide itemized wage statements, failure to pay reporting time wages, failure to pay split shift wages, failure to pay all wages earned on time, failure to pay all wages earned upon discharge or resignation, failure to reimburse business-related expenses, and failure to provide notice of paid sick time and accrual. The Plaintiff was hired by the Defendants as a Social Services Director on or about January 15, 2024 until October 30, 2024. Rio Hondo Subacute and Nursing Center, LLC is a nursing home in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Haig B. Kazandjian, Esq. Cathy Gonzalez, Esq. HAIG B. KAZANDJIAN LAWYERS, APC 801 North Brand Boulevard, Suite 1015 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 696-2306 Facsimile: (818) 696-2307 Email: haig@hbklawyers.com cathy@hbklawyers.com SAUCE INC: Faces Ingber Suit Over Food Delivery Service Delays -------------------------------------------------------------- ALIZA INGBER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. SAUCE, INC. and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-02881 (C.D. Cal., April 3, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Consumer Legal Remedies Act and California's Business and Professions Code and fraud. The case arises from the Defendant's alleged unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent business practices in connection with its food delivery service. According to the complaint, the Defendant represents its food delivery service as timely, reliable, and convenient, but customers experienced significant delays in their food deliveries, sometimes waiting hours beyond the estimated delivery time. Moreover, the Defendant systematically delay, obstruct, and ultimately deny legitimate refund requests from customers. As a result, the Plaintiff and the Class suffered economic damages, says the suit. Sauce, Inc. is a food delivery service provider, headquartered in California. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason M. Ingber, Esq. INGBER LAW GROUP 3580 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1260 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Telephone: (213) 805-8373 Email: ji@jasoningber.com SHAQUILLE O'NEAL: Settlement in Harper Suit Gets Final Court Nod ---------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Federico A. Moreno of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted final approval of the class action settlement in the case captioned as DANIEL HARPER, et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, SHAQUILLE O'NEAL, et al., Defendants, Case No. 23-cv-21912-FAM (S.D. Fla.). Plaintiffs Daniel Harper, Daniel Koch, Shaun Divecha, Viraf Sam Chapgar, Mickey Scott, and Timo Walter, on behalf of themselves and the Setlement Class, and Defendants Shaquille O'Neal, Astrals LLC, Astrals Holding, LLC, and Astrals Operations LLC have entered into a Settlement Agreement to settle the claims asserted in this Action. Plaintiffs and Settling Defendants have applied to the Court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.23(e) and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Acto f 1995 for an Order granting final approval of the proposed settlement in accordance with the Settlement Agreement, which sets forth the terms and conditions of the proposed settlement. The Court held a Final Approval Hearing on Tuesday, April 1, 2025, to determine, among other things, (i) whether the terms and conditions of the proposed Settlement are fair, reasonable, and adequate and should therefore be approved;(ii) whether the Settlement Class should be finally certified for settlement purposes; (iii)whether notice to the Settlement Class was implemented pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order and constituted due and adequate notice to potential Settlement Class Members in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, the United States Constitution, the Rules of the Court, and any other applicable law;(iv) whether to approve the proposed Plan of Allocation;(v) whether to enter an order and judgment dismissing the Action on the merits and with prejudice as to Settling Defendants and against all Settlement Class Members, and releasing all the Released Claims as provided in the Settlement Agreement;(vi) whether to enter the requested permanent injunction and bar order as provided in the Settlement Agreement;(vii) whether and in what amount to grant an award of Class Counsel Fees and Costs to Lead Class Counsel; and (viii) whether and in what amount to grant an award of Plaintiffs General Release Payments to Plaintiffs. Final Class Certification. The Court grants certification of the Settlement Class solely for purposes of the Settlement pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.23(b)(3). The Settlement Class is defined to consist of: All persons or entities (i)who, from May 24, 2022 to the date of preliminary approval, purchased Astrals NFTs and/or(ii) who, before the date of preliminary approval, purchased GLXY Tokens. Excluded from the Settlement Class are: a. representatives, and employees; b. Any governmental entities, any judge, justice, or judicial officer presiding over this matter, and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff; and c. Any person or entity who would otherwise be a Settlement Class Member but who validly requested exclusion pursuant to the "Opt-Out" provision of the Settlement Agreement. The Court confirms its (i) certification of Plaintiffs as representative of the Settlement Class and (ii)appointment of The Moskowitz Law Firm, PLLC, as Lead Class Counsel for the Settlement Class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.23(g). Final Settlement Approval The Court finds that the proposed Settlement resulted from serious, informed, non-collusive negotiations conducted at arm s length by the Settling Parties and their experienced counsel and was entered into in good faith. The terms of the Settlement Agreement do not have any material deficiencies, do not improperly grant preferential treatment to any individual Settlement Class Member, and treat Settlement Class Members equitably relative to each other. Accordingly, the proposed Settlement as set forth in the Settlement Agreement is fully and finally approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate, consistent and in full compliance with all applicable requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the United States Constitution (including the Due Process Clause), the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, and the Rules of the Court, and in the best interests of the Settlement Class Members. The Court finds that the proposed Plan of Allocation is a fair and reasonable method to allocate the Net Settlement Amount among eligible Settlement Class Members. Attorneys' Fees and Expenses Lead class counsel is awarded Class counsel Fees and Costs in the amount of $2,910,00. That amount shall be paid pursuant to the terms set out in Section of the Settlement Agreement. The Court finds that the Class Counsel Fees and Costs Award is fair, reasonable, and appropriate. Plaintiffs General Release Payment. The Court finds that the requested Plaintiffs General Release Payment of$15,000 to each of the Plaintiffs is reasonable in the circumstances. Dismissal of Action The Action, including all Claims that have been asserted, is dismissed on the merits and with prejudice, without fees or costs to any Settling Party except as otherwise provided in the Settlement Agreement. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=mXV8Cu from PacerMonitor.com. SHUTTERSTOCK INC: Bid to Issue Subpoenas in Herrick Suit Granted ---------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part and denied in part Shutterstock, Inc.'s request to issue subpoenas to absent class members in the case CYNTHIA HERRICK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, -v- SHUTTERSTOCK, INC., Defendant, Case No. 23-cv-03191-JPC-SLC (S.D.N.Y.). Shutterstock seeks permission to serve document subpoenas pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 on at least twelve absent class members. Plaintiff objects. Shutterstock's request is granted in part and denied in part insofar as each party may issue seven (7) subpoenas to absent class members of their choosing. The Court finds there is no evidence, and Plaintiff does not argue, that Shutterstock seeks information from absent class members for an improper purpose. According to the Court, the five document requests in the subpoenas are narrowly tailored to seek documents aimed at determining the licensing history, registration status, and ownership of proposed class members' photographs, information that is relevant to the commonality and typicality prongs of class certification in this copyright infringement action. The Court is limiting the subpoenas to seven per side -- seven served by Plaintiff, seven served by Shutterstock -- to minimize the burden on absent class members and mitigate any risk of impermissibly altering the membership of the class or undermining the efficiencies sought to be achieved by the class action. Having limited the number of subpoenas and their purpose -- to obtain information relevant to class certification -- there is little risk that the subpoenas will dramatically change the size of the class or send a message to absent class members that they should opt out (if a class is certified) in order to avoid onerous discovery obligations. The parties' request to extend discovery deadlines by 45 days is granted, and discovery shall proceed as follows: 1. Fact Discovery Deadline: Friday, June 13, 2025 a. Letter Certifying Close of Fact Discovery: Friday, June 20, 2025 2. Expert Discovery Deadline: Monday, August 4, 2025 a. Plaintiff's Expert Disclosure Deadline: Wednesday, May 21, 2025 b. Defendant's Expert Disclosure Deadline: Friday, July 25, 2025 c. Letter Certifying Close of Discovery: Monday, August 11, 2025 A status conference is scheduled for Tuesday, May 20, 2025 at 3:00 p.m. on the Court's Webex platform. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6ZTnKE from PacerMonitor.com. SISECAM CHEMICALS: Campos Sues to Recover Unpaid Wages ------------------------------------------------------ Bryan Campos, individually and for others similarly situated v. SISECAM CHEMICALS RESOURCES LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01948-TWT (N.D. Ga., April 10, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid wages and other damages from the Defendant in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). The Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees regularly work more than 40 hours a workweek. The Defendant pays the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees by the hour. However, the Defendant does not pay the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees for all their hours worked, including overtime hours. Rather, the Defendant requires the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees to suit out in protective clothing and safety gear necessary to safely perform their job duties, while on the Defendant's premises "off the clock." Likewise, the Defendant requires the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees to change out of and store their safety gear and protective clothing and wash-up, while on the Defendant's premises "off the clock." But the Defendant does not pay the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees for the time they spend donning and doffing their safety gear and protective clothing and washing up, "off the clock," before and after their shifts. The Defendant's pre/post shift off the clock policy and bonus pay scheme violate the FLSA by failing to compensate the Plaintiff and the other Hourly Employees at 1.5 times their regular rates of pay--based on all remuneration--for all hours worked in excess of 40 a workweek, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as one of its Hourly Employees. Sisecam owns and operates the Big Island Mine in Wyoming's Green River Basin where "trona is mined using the 'Room and Pillar Method' and conveyed to the surface to be refined into dense soda ash."[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jeremy Stephens, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, 191 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 4200 P.O. Box 57007 Atlanta, GA 30303-1007 Phone: (404) 965-1682 Email: jstephens@forthepeople.com - and - C. Ryan Morgan, Esq. MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20 N. Orange Ave., 15th Floor P.O. Box 4979 Orlando, FL 32802-4979 Phone: (407) 420-1414 Fax: (407) 245-3401 Email: RMorgan@forthepeople.com - and - Michael A. Josephson, Esq. Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq. JOSEPHSON DUNLAP LAW FIRM 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3050 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: 713-352-1100 Facsimile: 713-352-3300 Email: mjosephson@mybackwages.com adunlap@mybackwages.com - and - Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq. BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC 11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 3025 Houston, TX 77046 Phone: (713) 877-8788 Facsimile: 713-877-8065 Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com SL GREENFIELD: Class Certification Affirmed in Freeman Wage Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- In the appealed case styled as SHERLETI FREEMAN, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, V. SL GREENFIELD, LLC AND SENIOR LIFESTYLE CORPORATION, DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS, Appeal No. 2023AP2103 (Wis. Ct. App.), Judges Maxine A. White, Sara J. Geenen, and Pedro A. Colon of the Court of Appeals of Wisconsin District I affirmed the remand court's order granting Sherleti Freeman's motion for class certification. Sherleti Freeman, a former senior care employee of SL Greenfield, LLC, and Senior Lifestyle Corporation, alleges on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated senior care employees that SL Greenfield engaged in systemic violations of Wisconsin's wage payment and collection laws at several independent living and assisted living facilities throughout Wisconsin. This case has been to the court of appeals once before. Specifically, Freeman alleges that SL Greenfield unlawfully failed to pay certain senior care workers for meal periods lasting fewer than thirty minutes, resulting in the denial of compensation and overtime pay. In that appeal, the court of appeals vacated the circuit court for Milwaukee County's order granting Freeman's class certification motion because it was insufficiently detailed under WIS. STAT. Sec. 803.08(11)(a). It remanded the matter, and the remand court reinstated the circuit court's order in a thirteen-page written decision. The remand court concluded that the commonality requirement was satisfied because all senior care employees in Wisconsin, including Freeman, used the ADP system to record their work time and were subject both to SL Greenfield's "seven-minute" rounding rule and its expectation that employees immediately began compensable work upon clocking in. Citing WIS. ADMIN. CODE SEC. DWD 272.12(2)(c), the remand court concluded that only bona fide meal periods that are duty free and last at least thirty consecutive minutes in duration are non-compensable. SL Greenfield now appeals the remand court's order granting Freeman's class certification motion. SL Greenfield makes two substantive challenges to the order. First, SL Greenfield argues that the remand court erroneously exercised its discretion when it granted Freeman's motion because two statutory prerequisites to class certification were not met, namely, "commonality" and "predominance." Second, SL Greenfield argues that approximately 1,500 members of the proposed class signed class action waivers and should be excluded from any class certified in this litigation. SL Greenfield argues that WIS. ADMIN. CODE SEC. DWD 274.02(3) defeats commonality because an "on-duty meal period" is defined as "a meal period where the employer does not provide at least 30 minutes free from work." According to the court of appeals, SL Greenfield erroneously concludes that because a compensable "on-duty meal period" is one where an employer "does not provide at least 30 minutes free from work," then a non-compensable "off-duty meal period" is one where an employer "provides at least 30 minutes free from work," but that is not what SEC. DWD 274.02(3) says, and it flatly ignores that the definition of a "bona fide meal period" under WIS. ADMIN. CODE SEC. DWD 272.12(2)(c)2. lacks the "does not provide" language at the crux of SL Greenfield's argument. The Appellate Judges disagree with SL Greenfield and conclude that the remand court did not erroneously exercise its discretion when it granted Freeman's class certification motion. The remand court's order, supported by the record, shows both that there are questions of law or fact common to the class and that these common questions predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. They conclude that SL Greenfield waived its right to enforce the class waiver agreements against members of the class in this litigation. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=NkRBfX SNAPCOMMERCE HOLDINGS: Ferrell Files TCPA Suit in N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against SnapCommerce Holdings, Inc., et al. The case is styled as Amber Ferrell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SnapCommerce Holdings, Inc. doing business as: Super.com, SnapMoney, Inc. doing business as: Super.com, Case No. 4:25-cv-03160-JST (N.D. Cal., April 8, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. SnapCommerce Holdings, Inc. doing business as Super.com -- https://www.super.com/ -- operates at the intersection of fintech and commerce, offering a saving app that empowers users to spend less, save more, and build credit.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Rebecca Leah Davis, Esq. LOZEAU DRURY LLP 1939 Harrison St., Suite 150 Oakland, CA 94612 Phone: (510) 836-4200 Fax: (510) 836-4205 Email: rebecca@lozeaudrury.com SOLAIRUS AVIATION: Cole Files Suit in N.D. California ----------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Solairus Aviation LLC. The case is styled as Edina Cole, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. Solairus Aviation LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-03035 (N.D. Cal. April 3, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. Solairus -- https://www.solairus.aero/ -- is an aviation services company assisting owners with the safe and economical operation of their aircraft.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Andrew Gerald Gunem, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 2261 Market Street, Suite 22946 San Francisco, CA 94114 Phone: (872) 263-1100 Fax: (872) 263-1109 Email: agunem@straussborrelli.com SOUTHWEST SPAS & POOLS: Winters Files TCPA Suit in D. Arizona ------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Southwest Spas & Pools LLC, et al. The case is styled as Richard Winters, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Southwest Spas & Pools LLC, Unknown Parties, Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 2:25-cv-01195-SPL (D. Ariz., April 10, 2025). The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone Equipment. Southwest Spas -- https://southwestspasandpools.com/ -- is a Premier Hydropool Hot Tub & Swim Spa Dealer Serving Phoenix, Arizona Area.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Adrian R Bacon, Esq. Todd Michael Friedman, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF TODD M FRIEDMAN PC 21550 Oxnard St., Ste. 780 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 Phone: 323-306-4234 Fax: 866-633-0228 Email: abacon@toddflaw.com tfriedman@toddflaw.com SPORTSMAN'S WAREHOUSE: "Kogut" Suit Stayed ------------------------------------------ On January 22, 2024, Jon Kogut filed a putative class action lawsuit against Sportsman's Warehouse Holdings, Inc., and the members of its Board of Directors in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The lawsuit asserts claims on behalf of a putative class comprised of all stockholders other than defendants and any current directors or officers of the Company and is captioned Kogut v. Bejar, et al., C.A. No. 2024-0055-MTZ (Del. Ch.). In his complaint, Mr. Kogut contends that certain provisions in the Company's advance notice bylaws are invalid and void and that the members of the Board have breached their fiduciary duty of loyalty by adopting and maintaining the Challenged Provisions. In addition to seeking declaratory, equitable, and injunctive relief, Mr. Kogut seeks an award of attorneys' fees and other costs and expenses on behalf of the putative class. On March 27, 2025, the Court stayed the action pending the resolution of motions to dismiss in other cases challenging advance notice bylaws, the Company disclosed in a Form 10-K report for the fiscal year ended February 1, 2025, filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. ST. ANDREW'S RESOURCES: Williams Suit Removed to E.D. Missouri -------------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Ralph Williams, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. St. Andrew's Resources for Seniors System, Case No. 25SL-CC02016 was removed from the U Circuit Court of the County of St. Louis State of Missouri, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri on April 7, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-00454-SEP to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Senior Solutions -- https://standrews1.com/ -- is a leading eldercare provider in the Metropolitan St. Louis area with a National Network to address the needs and wants of seniors.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: John Francis Garvey, Jr., Esq. STRANCH JENNINGS PLLC - St. Louis 701 Market Street, Suite 1510 St. Louis, MO 63101 Phone: (314) 374-6306 Email: jgarvey@stranchlaw.com The Defendants is represented by: Colby M. Everett, Esq. BAKER HOSTETLER LLP - Denver 1801 California Street, Suite 4400 Denver, CO 80202 Phone: (303) 861-0600 Fax: (303) 861-7805 Email: ceverett@bakerlaw.com ST. JOSEPH'S: Lavigne Sues Over Compromised Personal Info --------------------------------------------------------- MONIKA LAVIGNE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. TRUSTEES OF ST. JOSEPH'S COLLEGE D/B/A ST. JOSEPH'S COLLEGE OF MAINE, Defendant, Case No. 2:25-cv-00124-KFW (D. Me., April 2, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for negligence, negligence per se, breach of contract, breach of implied contract, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, invasion of privacy, and declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. The case arises from the Defendant's failure to properly secure and safeguard the personally identifiable information and personal health information of the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals stored within its network systems following a data breach between December 15, 2023, and January 24, 2024. The Defendant also failed to timely notify the Plaintiff and similarly situated individuals about the data breach. As a result, the private information of the Plaintiff and Class members was compromised and damaged through access by and disclosure to unknown and unauthorized third parties, says the suit. Trustees of St. Joseph's College, doing business as St. Joseph's College of Maine, is a private college based in Standish, Maine. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David E. Bauer, Esq. 443 Saint John Street Portland, ME 04102 Telephone: (207) 804-6296 Email: david.edward.bauer@gmail.com - and - Samuel J. Strauss, Esq. Raina C. Borrelli, Esq. STRAUSS BORRELLI PLLC 980 N. Michigan Avenue, Suite 1610 Chicago, IL 60611 Telephone: (872) 263-1100 Facsimile: (872) 263-1109 Email: sam@straussborrelli.com raina@straussborrelli.com STATE FARM: Ellis Must File Class Cert Reply by April 21 -------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ellis v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Company, Case No. 6:22-cv-01005 (M.D. Fla., Filed June 7, 2022), the Hon. Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. entered an order granting motion for leave to file document. The Plaintiff may file a reply of no more than ten pages in support of the motion for class certification by Monday, April 21, 2025. The nature of suit states Diversity-Contract Dispute. State Farm is a property, casualty and auto insurance provider.[CC] STEADY CLOTHING: Blind Users Can't Access Website, Evans Alleges ---------------------------------------------------------------- JAMES EVANS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. STEADY CLOTHING, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:25-cv-03571 (N.D. Ill., April 3, 2025) is a class action against the Defendant for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and declaratory relief. According to the complaint, the Defendant has failed to design, construct, maintain, and operate its website to be fully accessible to and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually impaired persons. The Defendant's website, https://steadyclothing.com, contains access barriers which hinder the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their online goods, content, and services offered to the public through the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but not limited to: ambiguous link texts, changing of content without advance warning, lack of alt-text on graphics, inaccessible drop-down menus, the denial of keyboard access for some interactive elements, redundant links where adjacent links go to the same URL address, and the requirement that transactions be performed solely with a mouse. The Plaintiff and Class members seek permanent injunction to cause a change in the Defendant's corporate policies, practices, and procedures so that its website will become and remain accessible to blind and visually impaired individuals. Steady Clothing, Inc. is a company that sells online goods and services in Illinois. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David B. Reyes, Esq. EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP, PLLC 68-29 Main Street Flushing, NY 11367 Telephone: (630) 478-0856 Email: Dreyes@ealg.law SUNSTATES SECURITY: Cobar Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois ------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Leonel Cobar, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SUNSTATES SECURITY, LLC, Case No. 2025CH02736 was removed from the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on April 11, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-03977. The Plaintiff purports to state a claim against SSL arising under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law ("IMWL"), and the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act ("IWPCA"), for Defendant's alleged failure to pay Plaintiff, and other similarly situated employees, minimum wages, overtime wages, and earned wages.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Mary A. Smigielski, Esq. Cameron T. Liljestrand, Esq. LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP 550 West Adams Street, Suite 300 Chicago, IL 60661 Phone: (312) 345-1718 Fax: (312) 345-1778 Email: Mary.Smigielski@lewisbrisbois.com Cameron.Liljestrand@lewisbrisbois.com SWIFT TECHNICAL: Hayes Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages -------------------------------------------------------------- Caleb Hayes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. SWIFT TECHNICAL SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-01639 (S.D. Tex., April 9, 2025), is brought as a result of the Defendant's failure to pay certain workers overtime as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (the "FLSA"). Instead, the Defendant paid these workers a flat weekly salary, for all hours worked, including those in excess of 40 in a workweek. These workers also had the opportunity to earn non-discretionary commissions or bonuses based on their production during their hours worked in the previous quarter. At no time did the Defendant pay these workers one-and-one half times their regular rates for hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek. This failure to pay overtime violated the FLSA, says the complaint. The Plaintiff was employed by the Defendant as a Senior Recruitment Consultant starting in June of 2022 and through January 2024,. Swift is engaged in providing professional services to clients in the oil and gas, energy, and clean energy sectors throughout the United States and Canada.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel Patton, Esq. Michael K. Burke, Esq. SCOTT PATTON PC 5301 Katy Freeway, Suite 201 Houston, TX 77007 Phone: (281) 377-3311 Fax: (281) 377-3267 Email: dpatton@scottpattonlaw.com mburke@scottpattonlaw.com SWINERTON INC: Loses Bid to Dismiss Schuster, et al. ERISA Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the case captioned as MICHAEL S SCHUSTER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SWINERTON INCORPORATED, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:24-cv-04970-JSC (N.D. Cal.). Plaintiffs bring this Employee Retirement Income Security Act breach of fiduciary duty action on behalf of a putative class of participants in a retirement savings plan Swinerton Incorporated offered its employees. Plaintiffs Michael S. Schuster and Juan C. Del Barco are former Swinerton employees and participants in Swinerton's Section 401(k) defined contribution benefit plan. Swinerton and its Board are the Plan Sponsors, and the Swinerton 401(k) and Savings Committee is the Plan Administrator. Collectively, these three entities are the Plan fiduciaries. The Plan fiduciaries, as is the practice with defined contribution plans, hired John Hancock Retirement Plan Services and Principal Life Insurance Company as service providers, also known as recordkeepers, to deliver retirement plan benefits under the Plan. John Hancock was the recordkeeper from Aug. 9, 2018 to Jan. 31, 2019 when Principal took over as recordkeeper In August 2024, Plaintiffs filed this putative class action against Swinerton, the Swinerton Board of Directors, and the Swinerton 401(k) and Savings Committee alleging two ERISA violations: (1) breach of the duty of prudence by incurring excessive recordkeeping and administrative fees charged by the two Plan recordkeepers, John Hancock and Principal, in violation of 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1104(a)(1)(B); and (2) failure to monitor the Plan Committee fiduciaries responsible paying the excessive recordkeeping and administrative fees. After Defendants moved to dismiss, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B). Defendants move to dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim. Defendants insist Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged a breach of the duty of prudence because the claim lacks the required specificity as to Plaintiffs' proposed comparators and relies on a flawed methodology. According to the Amended Complaint, from the years 2018 through 2023 the Plan paid an effective average annual Total RKA fee of $124 annually per participant, while a reasonable rate for materially similar Total RKA fungible services for a plan the size of Swinerton should have been $43 annually per participant. Plaintiffs allege $42 was a reasonable per participant fee given the Swinerton Plan's features, the commoditized and fungible nature of the Total RKA services provided by the Swinerton Plan's recordkeepers, the number of participants in the Plans (approximately 3,800), and the recordkeeping market. Plaintiffs' calculations are based on a survey of fees paid by ten comparable plans of similar size, receiving a materially similar level and quality of fungible services. Defendants move to dismiss arguing Plaintiffs' analysis does not plausibly support their claim because the sample size is too small and Plaintiffs fail to compare whether the plans provide same specific services. That is, Defendants insist Plaintiffs must support their allegations with an apples to apples comparison of services. Defendants' arguments overreach at the pleading stage. The Court finds Plaintiffs plausibly allege Defendants failed to administer the fees in a prudent manner. Defendants contend the switch from John Hancock to Principal in 2019 demonstrates the Committee was not "asleep at the wheel" and is an admission of Defendants' prudence which means the claim fails as a matter of law. But, Defendants' argument improperly requires the Court to draw inferences in their -- rather than Plaintiffs' -- favor. According to the Court, as the Amended Complaint alleges the recordkeeping fees actually increased when the Plan switched to Principal, it is more plausible the reason for the switch had nothing to do with Defendants seeking to mitigate excessive fees. Nor is there support for Defendants' argument that Plaintiff's sample size of five plans for 2018 and five plans for 2021 is too small. Defendants challenge Plaintiffs' methodology for calculating the fees as fatally flawed asking the Court to examine the Form 5500s for the comparator plans to assess the validity of Plaintiffs' alleged calculations. While the Court has taken judicial notice of the Form 5500s, the Court cannot take judicial notice of any disputed facts contained therein. Plaintiffs have identified comparators offering substantially similar services. Although Defendants may prevail at summary judgment or trial on this claim by showing that Defendants provided services that added value beyond Plaintiffs' chosen comparators, at the pleading stage Plaintiffs have succeeded in stating a claim for breach of the fiduciary duty of prudence, the Court concludes. The Court sets an initial case management conference for June 11, 2025 at 2:00 p.m. via videoconference. An initial joint case management conference statement is due June 4, 2025. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=TcuGBd from PacerMonitor.com. SYNEOS HEALTH: Class Settlement in Scurlock Gets Prelim. Approval ----------------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as REGINALD SCURLOCK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. SYNEOS HEALTH US, INC., Case No. 2:22-cv-09444-FMO-JC (C.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Fernando Olguin entered an order granting the Plaintiff's amended motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement and certification of settlement class. 1. The court preliminarily certifies the class, for the purposes of settlement. 2. The court preliminarily appoints plaintiff Reginald Scurlock as class representative for settlement purposes. 3. The court preliminarily appoints Shaun Setareh and Jose Maria D. Patino, Jr. from the Setareh Law Group as class counsel for settlement purposes. 4. The court preliminarily finds that the terms of the settlement are fair, reasonable and adequate, and comply with Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 5. The court approves the form, substance, and requirements of the Class Notice. Syneos is an American company that provides contract research and commercial services to pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. A copy of the Court's order dated April 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=V97XCj at no extra charge.[CC] SZ ALHAMBRA LLC: Palomares Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. -------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against SZ ALHAMBRA, LLC. The case is styled as Samantha Nicole Palomares, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated v. SZ ALHAMBRA, LLC, Case No. 25STCV10815 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 10, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." SZ ALHAMBRA, LLC is a California Limited-Liability Company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: David Keledjian, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N. Brand Blvd., Ste. 840 Glendale, CA 91203-2920 Phone: 818-962-6465 Email: d.keledjian@d.law TARGET CORPORATION: Haro Suit Removed to C.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Christopher Haro, an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TARGET CORPORATION, a Minnesota Corporation; EATO TANAKA, an individual, and DOES 1 to 100, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2500677 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Riverside, in and for the County of Tulare, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 3, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-00831. The Plaintiff's Complaint contained eight causes of action alleging: Failure to Pay Overtime Wages; Failure to Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Provide Rest Periods; Waiting Time Penalties; Wage Statement Violations; and Unfair Competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Julie A. Dunne, Esq. Alberto J. Corona, Esq. Joseph J. Kim, Esq. DLA PIPER LLP (US) 4365 Executive Drive, Suite 1100 San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 858.677.1400 Fax: 858.677.1401 Email: julie.dunne@us.dlapiper.com alberto.corona@us.dlapiper.com TARGET CORPORATION: Navarro Suit Transferred to D. Minnesota ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Grace Navarro, on behalf of herself, and all others similarly situated, and the general public v. TARGET CORPORATION and DOES 1 to 50, Inclusive, Case No. 1:24-cv-00280 was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on April 3, 2025. The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:25-cv-01243-JWB-ECW to the proceeding. The nature of suit is stated as Fraud. Target Corporation -- https://www.target.com/ -- is an American retail corporation that operates a chain of discount department stores and hypermarkets.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: R. Brent Wisner, Esq, Stephanie B. Sherman, Esq. WISNER BAUM, L.L.P 11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 1750 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Phone: (310) 207-3233 Facsimile: (310) 820-7444 Email: rbwisner@wisnerbaum.com ssherman@wisnerbaum.com TELEXFREE LLC: Class Certification Denied in Securities MDL ----------------------------------------------------------- Judge Nathaniel M. Gordon of the United States District Court District of Massachusetts denied the motion of named plaintiff Anthony Cellucci for class certification in the case captioned as In re: TelexFree Securities Litigation, MDL Action No. 4:14—md-2566-NMG (D. Mass.). This multi-district litigation arises from the meltdown of a sprawling, hybrid Ponzi-pyramid scheme operated by TelexFree, LLC, TelexFree, Inc. and TelexFree Financial, Inc. TelexFree was a billion-dollar fraud scheme that operated from 2012 until April, 2014. Holding itself out as a multi- level marketing company, TelexFree generated revenue by selling packages of Voice over Internet Protocol ("VoIP") calling plans to "promoters," i.e., participants. TelexFree charged promoters $50 for membership, and then $289 for the right to sell 10 VoIP plans per month for a year, or $1,375 for the right to sell 50 VoIP plans per month for a year. It operated as a Ponzi scheme by guaranteeing lucrative returns to promoters funded by membership fees collected from new participants. Immediately after TelexFree filed its bankruptcy petition, the U.S.-based investigation materialized. Both the Massachusetts Securities Division and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filed suit and the Department of Justice executed a series of search warrants, including at the Marlborough, Massachusetts headquarters of TelexFree. Individual civil actions soon followed. Beginning in May, 2014, plaintiffs filed suits in federal district courts nationwide seeking to recover losses against dozens of defendants, including the operators of the scheme, payment processors and banks that provided financial services to TelexFree. In October, 2014, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation allowed a motion to centralize the actions for coordinated pretrial proceedings in another session of this Court. In March, 2015, plaintiffs filed the first of five amended consolidated complaints and the Court granted the government's request to stay discovery in the MDL pending parallel criminal proceedings against several TelexFree insiders. The fifth consolidated amended complaint. The 5CAC contains eight counts, including, as relevant to this hearing, a common-law claim of tortious aiding and abetting against all defendants. The representative of the putative class brings his Claims against three broad categories of defendants: (1) TelexFree "insiders" who worked for TelexFree either officially or unofficially; (2) Professionals (lawyers and accounts) who advised TelexFree and allegedly helped to hide funds and lie to investigators; and (3) Banks and payment processors who allegedly knew TelexFree was a fraud but provided financial services regardless. In December, 2024, plaintiff Anthony Cellucci, the designated representative of the putative class, filed a motion to certify a class. He seeks to bring claims on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated individuals who invested money in TelexFree and suffered net losses as a result. Cellucci also seeks to have Attorney Robert Bonsignore appointed as class counsel. More than a dozen defendants moved to dismiss the claims against them. In August, 2022, the transferee judge issued multiple orders addressing various motions, resulting in the dismissal of claims against six defendants. The motions of defendants Mauricio Cardenas, Bank of America, N.A., Dustin Sparman, Vantage Payments, LLC, TD Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo Advisors LLC and Wells Fargo Bank N.A. and ProPay, Inc. were denied. In December, 2023 the MDL was reassigned to this session of the Court. In February, 2024, the newly-assigned transferee judge approved settlement agreements with several of the remaining defendants. Subsequently, the Court held a case management conference and established a schedule for discovery, class certification and the filing of dispositive motions. Defendants Wells Fargo, N.A., Wells Fargo Advisors, LLC, Maurico Cardenas, Michael Montalvo and ProPay, Inc. oppose the motion. The Court held a hearing on plaintiff's motion in February, 2025 and took the matter under advisement. Plaintiff moves to certify a class of victims of the TelexFree scheme pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. 23(b) (3). Plaintiff defines the class as: all persons that made a payment to TelexFree and suffered a net loss defined as placing more funds into TelexFree than the total funds withdrawn from TelexFree. The essence of the parties' dispute is the reliability of the methods used by plaintiff's expert to ascribe TelexFree user accounts to individual participants and to calculate individual damages. Plaintiff's expert, Karyl Van Tassel, relied upon participant data stored by TelexFree in an internal system called "SIG" to identify class members. Participants would enter their own identifying information (e.g., name, SSN, phone number, email address) to create user accounts with TelexFree. Each account has its own unique identification number and login name. SIG kept a record of invoices, deposits and withdrawals associated with each account, thereby enabling plaintiff's expert to identify accounts that suffered net losses and to calculate damages. Defendants insist that this data is entirely unreliable because users often input false information, created multiple accounts under different names or established "group" accounts affiliated with multiple participants. Furthermore, SIG does not capture the whole universe of participant transactions because the cash payments made to recruiters as part of the triangular transactions occurred entirely off-the-books. Defendants argue that these deficiencies in the data affect plaintiff's ability both to identify class members and to evaluate damages. Plaintiff counters that the "fundamental problems" in the SIG database that defendants highlight (i.e., fake data, under-aggregation and over-aggregation) are not nearly as pervasive as defendants suggest. Furthermore, plaintiff emphasizes that the definition of the proposed class is limited to those suffering proven net losses as reflected in their direct payments made in the SIG database, i.e., triangular transactions are omitted from the calculation entirely. Thus, plaintiff contends, the class definition is intentionally conservative so as to omit victims whose losses lack evidentiary support. Finally, plaintiff lays out a process that he asserts would be administratively feasible both as to associate user accounts with individual participants and to the accuracy of damages calculations. The Court finds: 1) Plaintiff cannot evade the issue of triangular transactions simply by defining the class to exclude those who engaged in them; that may resolve ascertainability but not predominance. 2) Inquiries with respect to individual damages will predominate over common questions because they must incorporate triangular transactions: a. more than 90% of the transactions did not occur through the SIG system but rather via triangular transactions for which, as plaintiff admits, there are few, if any, records; b. the process of culling net winners from the class will not necessarily identify them because it is unrealistic to assume net winners will self-report their gains and thereby forfeit their (miscalculated) damages; c. damages must be calculated for all 500,000 class members, not just those identified as net winners; and d. working off of the calculations already made by the Bankruptcy Court does not reduce the administrative burden in this case because i. only approximately 130,000 of what plaintiff's expert estimates to be more than 500,000 injured class members have submitted claims thus far; and ii. tens of thousands of those claims were disallowed after a lengthy claims adjudication process, and the method of confirming claim amounts by plaintiff's other expert is only a less precise version of the process used by the Bankruptcy Court. For these reasons, plaintiff's motion to certify a class is denied. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=yRggYI from PacerMonitor.com. TEXAS ROADHOUSE: Dalton Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website ------------------------------------------------------------ Julie Dalton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Texas Roadhouse, Inc. d/b/a Texas Roadhouse, Case No. 0:25-cv-01295 (D. Minn., April 7, 2025), is brought arising because Defendant's Website (www.texasroadhouse.com) (the "Website" or "Defendant's Website") is not fully and equally accessible to people who are blind or who have low vision in violation of both the general non-discriminatory mandate and the effective communication and auxiliary aids and services requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and its implementing regulations. In addition to her claim under the ADA, Plaintiff also asserts a companion cause of action under the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). The Defendant owns, operates, and/or controls its Website and is responsible for the policies, practices, and procedures concerning the Website's development and maintenance. As a consequence of her experience visiting Defendant's Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation performed on her behalf, Plaintiff found Defendant's Website has a number of digital barriers that deny screen reader users like Plaintiff full and equal access to important Website content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website users. Still, Plaintiff would like to, intends to, and will attempt to access Defendant's Website in the future to browse, research, or shop online and purchase the products and services that Defendant offers. The Defendant's policies regarding the maintenance and operation of its Website fail to ensure its Website is fully accessible to, and independently usable by, individuals with vision-related disabilities. The Plaintiff and the putative class have been, and in the absence of injunctive relief will continue to be, injured, and discriminated against by Defendant's failure to provide its online Website content and services in a manner that is compatible with screen reader technology, says the complaint. The Plaintiff is and has been legally blind and is therefore disabled under the ADA. The Defendant offers food and beverages for sale including, but not limited to, ribs, steaks, chicken, seafood, salads, burgers, sandwiches, desserts and more.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jason Gustafson, Esq. Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq. Chad A. Throndset, Esq. THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC Jason Gustafson (#0403297) 80 S. 8th Street, Suite 900 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Phone: (763) 515-6110 Email: jason@throndsetlaw.com pat@throndsetlaw.com chad@throndsetlaw.com TOTAL LIFE CHANGES: Pope Suit Removed to E.D. California -------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Tatiana Pope, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. TOTAL LIFE CHANGES, LLC; TOTAL LIFE CHANGES – EXPORT, INC.; JACK FALLON; JOHN LICARI; SCOTT BANIA; NATALIE PARAMO; and DOES 1–50, inclusive, Case No. BCV-25-100718 was removed from the Superior Court of California, County of Kern, to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California on April 4, 2025, and assigned Case No. 1:25-cv-00391-JLT-CDB. The Complaint alleges 9 causes of action against Defendants in connection with the core allegation (which Defendants deny) that, under California law, Plaintiff was misclassified as an independent contractor. The causes of action are as follows: failure to pay minimum wages; failure to pay overtime wages; failure to provide rest periods; failure to provide meal periods; failure to timely pay wages during employment; failure to keep payroll records; failure to provide accurate wage statements; failure to reimburse business expenses; and unfair competition.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Katherine C. Den Bleyker, Esq. Megan A. Childress, Esq. Ali A. Abouesh, Esq. O'HAGAN MEYER, LLP 550 S. Hope Street, Suite 2400 Los Angeles, California 90071 Phone: 213.647.0005 Email: KDenBleyker@ohaganmeyer.com MChildress@ohaganmeyer.com AAbouesh@ohaganmeyer.com TRANSMEDICS GROUP: Collins Sues Over Exchange Act Breach -------------------------------------------------------- Patrick Collins, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. TRANSMEDICS GROUP, INC., WALEED HASSANEIN, and STEPHEN GORDON, Case No. 1:25-cv-10778-LTS (D. Mass., April 2, 2025), is brought a federal securities class action on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded TransMedics securities between February 28, 2023 and January 10, 2025, inclusive (the "Class Period"), against TransMedics and certain of its officers and executives, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Unbeknownst to investors, throughout the Class Period, TransMedics employed a slew of illegal, coercive, deceptive, and ultimately unsustainable business tactics and practices including: As alleged by a member of the U.S. Congress, once TransMedics received FDA approval of its OCS device, it began an illegal, anticompetitive, and unsustainable tying offensive, forcing hospitals to use its NOP service, including TransMedics' airplanes, to maintain access to OCS, as well as increasing the price of OCS by nearly ten times; TransMedics' NOP service engages in systematic illegal and unsustainable billing fraud by overcharging transplant centers and organ procurement organizations for the Company's air transport service, including by flying in non-local organ procurement teams on TransMedics' jets when a local team is already available and sending staff on multiple jets to the same location to further inflate the charge. As a result, large customers have reduced or eliminated using TransMedics or are in the process of doing so. New alternative devices or techniques for transplant organ retrieval and preservation are making it easier for customers to switch from TransMedics. (collectively, "Illegal, Coercive, and Unsustainable Business Practices"). As a result of these practices, TransMedics' statements about, among other things, its business practices and revenue generation were materially false and misleading, and the Company lacked a reasonable basis to support its guidance that its revenue would continue to grow at record levels. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company's securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages, says the complaint. The Plaintiff purchased TransMedics securities during the Class Period, and suffered damages as a result of the federal securities law violations and false and/or misleading statements. TransMedics, a commercial-stage medical technology company, focuses on organ transplant therapies and associated services.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Amanda F. Lawrence, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP 156 S. Main St., P.O. Box 192 Colchester, CT 06415 Phone: (860) 531-2645 Email: alawrence@scott-scott.com - and - Thomas L. Laughlin, IV, Esq. Nicholas S. Bruno, Esq. Matthew A. Peller, Esq. SCOTT+SCOTT ATTORNEYS AT LAW LLP The Helmsley Building 230 Park Avenue, 24th Floor New York, NY 10169 Phone: (212) 223-6444 Facsimile: (212) 223-6334 Email: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com nbruno@scott-scott.com mpeller@scott-scott.com - and - Brian J. Schall, Esq. Andrew Brown, Esq. Will Brody, Esq. Adam Rosen, Esq. THE SCHALL LAW FIRM 2049 Century Park East, Suite 2460 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Phone: (310) 301-3335 Fax: (310) 388-0192 Email: brian@schallfirm.com andrew@schallfirm.com wbrody@schallfirm.com adam@schallfirm.com UNIFIRST CORPORATION: Lazare Suit Removed to N.D. California ------------------------------------------------------------ The case captioned as Tyler Lazare, an individual, on behalf of himself, all other aggrieved employees, and the general public v. UNIFIRST CORPORATION, a Massachusetts corporation; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 25CV106909 was removed from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Alameda, in and for the County of Tulare, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on April 2, 2025, and assigned Case No. 4:25-cv-03028. In the PAGA Complaint, Plaintiff seeks, among other things, damages for claims that Defendant failed to pay minimum wages, pay designated rates, pay overtime compensation, provide meal breaks, provide rest breaks, pay all wages due at termination, and provide accurate and itemized wage statements.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Ryan H. Crosner, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 400 South Hope Street, Suite 1200 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Phone: (213) 239-9800 Facsimile: (213) 239-9045 Email: ryan.crosner@ogletreedeakins.com - and - Kevin B. Piercy, Esq. Timothy D. Hastie, Esq. OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C. 7060 N. Marks Ave, Suite 108 Fresno, CA 93711 Phone: (559) 825-8510 Facsimile: (559) 570-0323 Email: kevin.piercy@ogletreedeakins.com timothy.hastie@ogletreedeakins.com UNITED SEATING: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Barron Alleges ------------------------------------------------------------ GEORGE BARRON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. UNITED SEATING AND MOBILITY, LLC D/B/A NUMOTION, Defendant, Case No. 3:25-cv-00537 (D. Conn., April 8, 2025) is a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who entrusted the Defendant with sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information that were impacted in a data breach that Defendant publicly disclosed on March 10, 2025. According to the Plaintiff in the complaint, the Defendant owed Plaintiff and Class Members a duty to take all reasonable and necessary measures to keep the Private Information collected safe and secure from unauthorized access. Defendant solicited, collected, used, and derived a benefit from the Private Information, yet breached its duty by failing to implement or maintain adequate security practices. As a result of the Defendant's inadequate digital security and notice process, the Plaintiff's and Class Members' Private Information was exposed to criminals. The Plaintiff and the Class Members have suffered and will continue to suffer injuries including: financial losses caused by misuse of their Private Information; the loss or diminished value of their Private Information as a result of the Data Breach; lost time associated with detecting and preventing identity theft; and theft of personal and financial information, says the suit. United Seating and Mobility, L.L.C., doing business as Numotion, offers medical products. The Company provides wheel chairs, strollers, walkers, car seats, ramps, and hospital beds. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 1111 Summer Street, Suite 403 Stamford, CT 06905 Telephone: (203) 992-4523 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: shopkins@zlk.com - and - Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq. Mark S. Reich, Esq. Melissa G. Meyer, Esq. LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP 33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 363-7500 Facsimile: (212) 363-7171 Email: cmaccarone@zlk.com mreich@zlk.com mmeyer@zlk.com UNITED STATES: Court Affirms Dismissal of Andrews, et al. CWA Suit ------------------------------------------------------------------ Judge Edward H. Meyers of the United States Court of Federal Claims denied plaintiffs' motion to reconsider the dismissal of the case captioned as JEFFREY ANDREWS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant, No. 24-1088 (Fed. Cl.) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. As the court explained in its dismissal order, the Andrews family has been engaged in an ongoing legal fight with the United States regarding alleged violations of the Clean Water Act. The United States alleged Mr. Andrews violated the CWA when he filled in approximately 13.3 acres of the 16.3 acres of jurisdictional wetlands on his property. The United States brought an action in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut seeking an order that the Andrews family remediate the alleged violations, which the district court granted. That court then entered an injunction requiring Mr. Andrews and his family to restore the wetlands on their property. This injunction also required Mr. Andrews to allow representatives of the United States access to his property to inspect the property and remediation efforts so long as those inspections were at reasonable times and with at least five days' notice. Mr. Andrews and his family assert that the district court has taken their property without paying just compensation. In the dismissal order, this court explained that there are two jurisdictional hurdles that Plaintiffs cannot overcome. First, this court explained that it lacks jurisdiction to hear a collateral attack on a district court decision. Although Plaintiffs stated that was not what they were seeking, they based their claim on the assertion that the district court was wrong in concluding that certain waters were Waters of the United States subject to the CWA. That is the type of collateral attack that this court cannot entertain; rather, it is a question for the appellate process. Second, this court explained that Plaintiffs had never sought a permit to fill the wetlands on their property, their claims are not ripe under Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606, 618 (2001), Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172, 186 (1985), Howard W. Heck, and Associates, Inc. v. United States, 134 F.3d 1468, 1471-72 (Fed. Cir. 1998), and Tabb Lakes, Ltd. v. United States, 10 F.3d 796, 800-01 (Fed. Cir. 1993). For these reasons, this court dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiffs now seek reconsideration of that dismissal. Plaintiffs seek to reargue their case under the guise of clear legal error. They contend that the court disregards the 5th Amendment, which they assert provides jurisdiction over their case. They also believe that the district court erroneously held that certain waters were Waters of the United States subject to the CWA. There is nothing in Plaintiffs' motion that calls into question the binding circuit precedent holding that this court lacks jurisdiction to hear collateral attacks on district court judgments. Plaintiffs argue that the CWA is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative Authority. The court finds this does not provide a basis for reconsideration. Because Plaintiffs could have made this argument in response to the motion to dismiss, it is not proper for a motion to reconsider. Plaintiffs assert that this court failed to rule on their motion to convert this case to a class action. This assertion is irrelevant because whether this case is a class action has nothing to do with the court's jurisdiction to hear it. Plaintiffs are also incorrect because this court denied Plaintiffs' motion as moot because of the lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Once the court determines that it lacks jurisdiction, it must dismiss the case. Because there was no clear error of law, the court denies Plaintiffs' motion to reconsider the dismissal of this action. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=C2tdDW UNITED STATES: Seeks to Dissolve TRO and Stay Proceedings --------------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as MASSACHUSETTS FAIR HOUSING CENTER, et al., v. THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, et al., Case No. 3:25-cv-30041-RGS (D. Mass.), the Defendants ask the Court to enter an order dissolving the temporary restraining order issued on March 26, 2025, and staying proceedings. Department of Housing administers programs that provide housing and community development assistance. A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ihJv0X at no extra charge.[CC] The Defendants are represented by: Julian N. Canzoneri, Esq. U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE John Joseph Moakley U.S. Courthouse One Courthouse Way, Suite 9200 Boston, MA 02210 Telephone: (617) 748-3170 E-mail: julian.canzoneri@usdoj.gov UNITEDHEALTHCARE: Court Tosses ERISA Class Claims in Meyer Suit --------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Dana L. Christensen of the United States District Court for the District of Montana granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the second amended complaint filed by the plaintiff in the case captioned as JOHN MEYER, Plaintiff, vs. UNITEDHEALTHCARE INSURANCE COMPANY; BILLINGS CLINIC; and REGIONAL CARE HOSPITAL PARTNERS HOLDINGS, INC., d/b/a RCCH HEALTHCARE, Defendants, Case No. 21-cv-00148-DLC (D. Mont.). This matter is dismissed with prejudice. In December 2015, Meyer was involved in a serious ski accident at Big Sky Resort. After the accident, Meyer spent approximately two weeks at Billings Clinic in 2015 and another two weeks undergoing mental and physical rehabilitation at Missoula Community Medical Center from 2015 to early 2016. Billings Clinic and RCHP are co-owners of Community. At the time of his accident, Meyer was insured by United through his employer, Wildearth Guardians. Meyer's policy provided an in-network deductible of $6,000. Meyer alleges that he was unlawfully billed at out-of-network rates for the care received at Community, despite the fact that Community was owned by Billings Clinic in partnership with RCHP. Meyer brings this case to challenge both Defendants' pattern and practice of Surprise Billing, a commonly referred to phenomenon where a patient receives out-of-network bills for medical services that were provided at an in-network medical facility, and the practice of making an insured pay more than their annual policy deductible by resetting the deductible on Jan. 1, regardless of when the person became insured. Meyer first filed this action on Dec. 10, 2021. He filed a first amended complaint on June 6, 2022, following Defendants United and Billings Clinic's first motion to dismiss. On June 21, 2022, United and Billings Clinic again moved to dismiss. The Court granted the motion in part, dismissing Counts I, III, and V, which alleged ERISA and RICO violations, and allowing Counts II and IV, alleging ERISA violations under 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1132(a)(1)–(3), to survive. Meyer then moved for leave to file a second amended complaint in an apparent attempt to reallege his RICO claim. On Aug. 9, 2023, Meyer filed a second motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. Through the motion, Meyer sought to: (1) add a RICO class-action claim; (2) add RCHP as a defendant; and (3) convert the existing ERISA claims to class-action claims. This Court denied Meyer's motion insofar as he sought to allege a RICO class-action claim but granted Meyer leave to amend his complaint to add RCHP as a defendant and to convert his ERISA claims to a class action. On Oct. 20, 2023, Meyer filed his Second Amended Complaint -- now the operative pleading -- alleging that United violated ERISA, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1132(a)(1)–(3) (Count I) and Billings Clinic and RCHP violated ERISA, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1132(a)(3) (Count II). He also brings this as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, though class certification has not yet been sought. On March 5, 2024, RCHP filed the present Motion. According to the Court, although a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is typically not the proper vehicle to address class allegations and sufficiency under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, it may be appropriate to dismiss class claims at the pleading stage where there is no factual support for the class allegations. Meyer's class claims are premised on the same allegations as those described in Counts I and II: (1) United's practice of surprise billing and (2) United's policy of resetting deductibles on January 1 instead of every 12 months. And for these reasons, these allegations fail to state a plausible claim for relief under ERISA. Accordingly, Meyer's class claims must be dismissed, the Court holds. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=xqebSr from PacerMonitor.com. UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN: Fails to Prevent Data Breach, Suit Says --------------------------------------------------------------- STUDENT DOE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff v. THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN BOARD OF REGENTS; KEFFER DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, LLC; and MATTHEW WEISS, Defendants, Case No. 2:25-cv-10999-BRM-CI ECF (E.D. Mich., April 8, 2025) is a class action against the Defendants for the failure to properly secure the highly sensitive personally identifiable information and protected health information of more than 150,000 student athletes. The Plaintiff alleges in the complaint that the Data Breach was a direct result of the Defendants' failure to implement adequate and reasonable cyber-security procedures and protocols necessary to protect Plaintiff's and Class Members' PII and PHI, and the University of Michigan's failure to reasonably oversee its employees, leaving the most sensitive and personal information of students, like Student Doe, vulnerable to exploitation by malicious predators. The University of Michigan Board of Regents offers research spending, interdisciplinary programs, international outreach, athletics and academic programs. [BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Gary M. Klinger, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, PLLC 227 W. Monroe Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60606 Telephone: (866) 252-0878 Email: gklinger@milberg.com - and - James J. Pizzirusso, Esq. Amanda V. Boltax, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 888 16th Street N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20006 Telephone: (202) 540-7200 Email: jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com mboltax@hausfeld.com - and - Steven M. Nathan, Esq. Ashley M. Crooks, Esq. HAUSFELD LLP 33 Whitehall Street 14th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (646) 357-1100 Email: acrooks@hausfeld.com UPS SUPPLY CHAIN: Bautista Suit Removed to C.D. California ---------------------------------------------------------- The case captioned as Augustine Bautista, individual, and on behalf of other members of the general public similarly situated v. UPS SUPPLY CHAIN SOLUTIONS, INC., a Delaware corporation; UPS CHAIN SOLUTIONS GENERAL SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. CVRI2501086 was removed from the Superior Court of State of California for the County of Riverside, to the United States District Court for the Central District of California on April 7, 2025, and assigned Case No. 5:25-cv-00852. The Complaint asserts nine causes of action: Unpaid Overtime; Unpaid Minimum Wages; Failure to Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Periods; Wages Not Timely Paid Upon Termination; Failure to Timely Pay Wages During Employment; Unreimbursed Business Expenses; Unlawful Business Practices; and Unfair Business Practices and in Violation of California Business & Professions Code and California Labor Codes.[BN] The Defendants are represented by: Jon D. Meer, Esq. Justin J. Jackson, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021 Phone: (310) 277-7200 Facsimile: (310) 201-5219 Email: jmeer@seyfarth.com jujackson@seyfarth.com - and - Phillip J. Ebsworth, Esq. SEYFARTH SHAW LLP 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2300 Sacramento, CA 95814-4428 Phone: (916) 448-0159 Facsimile: (916) 558-4839 Email: pebsworth@seyfarth.com VALU AUTO: Gleason Sues Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages ---------------------------------------------------------- Andrew Gleason, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. VALU AUTO, LLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00444-BKS-MJK (N.D.N.Y., April 10, 2025), brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") as a result of the Defendant willful, regular and repeated failure to pay Plaintiff and the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs at the required overtime rates for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek. The Defendant agreed to pay Plaintiff pursuant to an hourly rate of pay. In 2024, Defendant agreed to pay Plaintiff $22.00 per hour. However, throughout the entirety of Plaintiff's employment, Defendant failed to pay Plaintiff for every hour that he worked and never paid Plaintiff for any of the overtime hours that he worked. Plaintiff routinely worked 5-6 days a week, 8-10 hours a day, for a total of 40-60 hours a week. The Defendant never provided Plaintiff with wage statements reflecting all of the regular and overtime hours he worked and his regular and overtime rates of pay. Defendant's failure to provide Plaintiff with wage statements that reflected the actual hours he worked injured Plaintiff's ability to advocate for himself and show that he was not paid the correct amount for all of the time that he worked. Further, had Defendant included all of his work hours on his wage statements, Defendant would likely have actually paid Plaintiff for all of the hours he worked. Thus, as a result of Defendant not including all of the hours he worked on his wage statements, Plaintiff was underpaid. In addition, Defendant never provided Plaintiff with a written wage notice stating his hourly compensation rate or his overtime compensation rate, says the complaint. The Plaintiff has been employed by Defendant as a tow truck driver from 2022 to September 2023 and from February 2024 through the present. The Defendant is a towing company.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq. Denise Schulman, Esq. Michael DiGiulio, Esq. JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP 32 Broadway, Suite 601 New York, NY 10004 Phone: (212) 688-5640 Fax: (212) 981-9587 VERTIV CORP: Torok Suit Seeks to Certify Class Action ----------------------------------------------------- In the class action lawsuit captioned as LAWRENCE TOROK, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v. VERTIV CORPORATION, an Ohio corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 3:24-cv-01645-WHA (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiff will move the Court for an order certifying a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 23. Pursuant to Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(3), the Plaintiff seeks to certify five California-only classes consisting of non-exempt employees of the Defendant. The five classes that the Plaintiffs seek to certify are defined as follows: Meal Period Class: "all current and former non-exempt employees of Vertiv Corporation who worked for Vertiv Corporation who worked at least one five or six-hour shift at any point from Feb. 13, 2020 through Sept. 1, 2022." Rest Break Class: "all current and former non-exempt employees of Vertiv Corporation who worked for Vertiv Corporation who worked at least one three-and-a-half-hour shift at any point from Feb. 13, 2020 through Sept. 1, 2022." Unpaid Overtime Class: "all current and former non-exempt employees of Vertiv Corporation who worked in excess of eight hours a day or 40 hours a week and earned supplemental wages in the same pay period, from Feb. 13, 2020 through the present." Wage Statement Class: all members of the Meal Period, Rest Break, and Unpaid Overtime Classes above who received a wage statement from Vertiv Corporation in the time period of Feb. 13, 2023 through the present." Waiting Time Penalty Class: all members of the Meal Period, Rest Break, and Unpaid Overtime Classes who separated their employment between Feb. 13, 2021 through the present." Vertiv designs, builds and services critical infrastructure. A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 7, 2025, is available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=eiZhTf at no extra charge.[CC] The Plaintiff is represented by: Emil Davtyan, Esq. David Yeremian, Esq. David Keledjian, Esq. Kevin Burns, Esq. D.LAW, INC. 450 N Brand Blvd., Ste. 840 Glendale, CA 91203 Telephone: (818) 962-6465 Facsimile: (818) 962-6469 E-mail: emil@d.law d.yeremian@d.law d.keledjian@d.law k.burns@d.law VISTA EQUITY: Michigan Electrical Files Suit in Del. Chancery Ct. ----------------------------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against VISTA EQUITY PARTNERS MANAGEMENT, LLC, et al. The case is styled as Michigan Electrical Employees' Pension Fund and Glazer Capital, LLC, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated v. VISTA EQUITY PARTNERS MANAGEMENT, LLC, VEP GROUP, LLC, ONEX CORPORATION, LAURENCE GOLDBERG, MONTI S. SAROYA, HARDEEP GULATI, ZACH LEVITT, JUDY COTTE, BETTY HUNG, GWEN REINKE, AMY MACINTOSH, RONALD D. MCCRAY, and BARBARA BYRNE, Case No. 2025-0305-LWW (Del. Chancery Ct., March 20, 2025). The case type is stated as "Breach of Fiduciary Duties." Vista Equity Partners Management, LLC -- https://www.vistaequitypartners.com/ -- is an American private equity firm that invests in software, data, and technology-enabled businesses.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Daniel E. Meyer, Esq. BERSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMAN LLP 500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 901 Wilmington, DE 19801 Phone: (302) 363-3600 Email: daniel.meyer@blbglaw.com WASH MULTIFAMILY: Miguel Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct. ------------------------------------------------------ A class action lawsuit has been filed against Wash Multifamily Laundry Systems, LLC. The case is styled as Javon Miguel, individually, and on behalf of other similarly situated employees v. Wash Multifamily Laundry Systems, LLC, Case No. 25CV116962 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., March 26, 2025). The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case (General Jurisdiction)." WASH -- https://www.wash.com/ -- provides laundry room management services for multifamily residences, colleges, and commercial properties.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Jonathan M. Genish, Esq. BLACKSTONE LAW 8383 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 745 Beverly Hills, CA 90211-2442 Phone: 855-786-6355 Fax: 855-786-6356 Email: jgenish@blackstonepc.com WESTGATE RESORTS: Can File Sur-Reply on Class Certification Issue ----------------------------------------------------------------- Judge Clifton L. Corker of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion for leave to file sur-reply to plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the case captioned as MARILYN MOORE et al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WESTGATE RESORTS, LTD., et al., Defendants, Case No. No. 3:18-CV-00410-DCLC-JEM (E.D. Tenn.). Defendants sell timeshare units to vacationers at Westgate Smokey Mountain Resort in Gatlinburg, Tennessee, and Plaintiffs Marilyn Moore, Ryan and Laura Spado, Ellen Gilliland, Gerold Gallegos, Deborah Campbell, Brian and Danyelle Miller, and Tonya Melfi, at various points, bought timeshares from Defendants at this resort. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants used "high-pressure sales tactics" to snooker them into purchasing their timeshares. Plaintiffs have now filed a proposed class-action suit against Defendants in this Court, seeking to sue on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated to them. Plaintiff bring claims against Defendants for violations of the Tennessee Time-Share Act of 1981, Tennessee Code Annotated Sec. 66-32-101 et seq. (Counts One and Two), unjust enrichment (Count Three), fraudulent misrepresentation by omission (Count Four), fraud in the inducement (Count Five), negligent misrepresentation by omission (Count Six), breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Count Seven), breach of contract (Count Eight), and civil conspiracy (Count Nine). Defendants moved to dismiss these claims, and the Court granted dismissal of some of them: Counts One and Eight in their entireties and Counts Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, and Nine only as to Ms. Moore, Mr. Spado, and Ms. Spado. As to the counts that survived dismissal, Plaintiffs move for class certification, and they propose the following class for certification: “All residents of the United States and its territories who purchased from Westgate an All Season ‘floating use plan' vacation timeshare property at the Westgate Smoky Mountain Resort at Gatlinburg from September 25, 2008 through the date of class certification.” In the interim, Defendants move the Court for leave, under Local Rule 7.1(d), to file a sur-reply to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and Plaintiffs oppose their motion. In moving for permission to file a sur-reply to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs largely ignored key elements of their claims in their motion and attempted to make up ground by addressing these elements for the first time in their reply brief. In response, Plaintiffs contend that the new issues listed by Westgate were either previously raised or were directly responsive to Westgate's arguments in its response. Defendants also ask for leave to address the applicability of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. Sec. 1 et seq., to Plaintiffs' pending motion for class certification and for leave to submit their own expert's report for the Court's consideration when it rules on that motion. Because Plaintiffs propose class certification under Rule 23(c)(4) for the first time in their reply, the Court will allow Defendants to file a sur-reply and express their view as to whether class certification is proper under this rule. Defendants' motion is granted to the extent they seek leave to address Plaintiffs' argument that Defendants, as real-estate licensees, had a duty of disclosure under Tennessee law and to address whether class certification is proper under Rule 23(c)(4). Defendants' motion is also granted to the extent they request leave to file their expert report in opposition to class certification. Their motion is denied in all other respects. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=8Pbi2y from PacerMonitor.com. WINE GROUP HEALTH: Urges Court to Reject Burningham's Remand Bid ---------------------------------------------------------------- The Court should deny Plaintiff's request for a remand and, instead, enter judgment in Defendant's favor of both of Plaintiff's purported Causes of Action under ERISA section 502(a)(1)(B), defendant The Wine Group, Inc. Health Benefit Plan tells the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California in the case, Burningham v. Wine Group, Inc. Health Benefit Plan, Case No. 2:22-cv-00659 (E.D. Calif., April 13, 2022). "The Court should enter judgment in Defendant's favor for three reasons. First, remand of the June 14, 2019, provider appeal from Plaintiff's therapist to UMR for re-consideration would be futile because the documentation in the Administrative Record not only proves that UMR considered the documentation submitted by the therapist in support of the appeal and found it lacking, but also because the medical documentation proves that UMR properly denied the claim for lack of medical necessity. For an admission to a residential detoxification facility to be considered medically necessary, the patient must be experiencing significant acute withdrawal symptoms, such as seizures or delirium tremens, and have a CIWA score of between 10 and 18. The records indicate that Plaintiff was not, in fact, experiencing significant acute withdrawal symptoms as evidenced by her documented CIWA score of 2. Further review is not going to change the fact that the medical documentation does not satisfy the requirements of the medical necessity guidelines." "Second, Plaintiff has failed to show that UMR abused its discretion in denying Plaintiff's claim and subsequent appeals. The medical records submitted for review, including the records submitted by Plaintiff's therapist and Plaintiff herself, conclusively prove that Plaintiff was not experiencing acute withdrawal symptoms, seizures, or delirium tremens. Again, Plaintiff's medical records show that she had a CIWA score of 2, and a score of between 10 and 18 is required by the medical necessity guidelines for a finding that an admission to a residential detoxification facility is medically necessary. "Finally, despite her rhetoric, Plaintiff has failed to show that UMR breached its fiduciary duties in reviewing her claim and appeals. The Administrative Record proves that UMR followed the terms of the Plan, established medical necessity guidelines, and that it considered all of the documentation submitted to it for review." The Plan contends that Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Trial Brief is long on rhetoric but short on facts. Specifically, it repeatedly ignores or mischaracterizes the documentation in the Administrative Record because those documents contradict Plaintiff's narrative that UMR did something wrong in deciding Plaintiff's claim for benefits and subsequent appeals of the denial, which it most certainly did not do. A copy of the Plan's Reply in Support of its Trial Brief is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=LMExnX from PacerMonitor.com. The document was filed April 11 after District Judge Daniel J. Calabretta approved a Stipulation extending the time for Defendant to file its Reply. Judge Calabretta said: "Good cause exists for granting this extension of time due to unanticipated commitments in other cases. Counsel for Defendant recently prevailed on a dispositive motion in a class action lawsuit in the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:23-cv-15197). As a result of the ruling, the Defendant must prepare a Motion for Attorney's Fees with all supporting documentation this week, as well as an Opposition to the opposing party's anticipated Motion for Reconsideration. During the same time, the Defendant's counsel was required to prepare and file a large administrative record in an ERISA action pending in the Eastern District of Wisconsin (Case No. 2:24-cv-01228-BHL)." Plaintiff's counsel did not oppose the extension request. Attorney for Defendant: Donald P. Sullivan, Esq. JACKSON LEWIS P.C. 50 California Street, 9th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111-4615 Telephone: (415) 394-9400 Facsimile: (415) 394-9401 E-mail: Donald.Sullivan@JacksonLewis.com Robert F. Keehn, Esq., of LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT F. KEEHN, represents the Plaintiff. XEROX: Court Stays Deadlines, Strikes Trial Date in Hill Suit ------------------------------------------------------------- Judge John C. Coughenour of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington approved the stipulated motion of the parties to stay all current deadlines and strike the trial date in the class action lawsuit captioned as TIFFANY HILL, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. XEROX BUSINESS SERVICES, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:12-cv-00717-JCC (W.D. Wash.). With the assistance of mediator Retired Judge Paris Kallas, on April 4, 2025, the Parties reached an agreement on the materials terms of a class action settlement in this matter. Because this is a class action, the settlement must be approved by the Court in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). The parties anticipate that they can negotiate, complete, and execute the settlement and related documents by the first week of May 2025. Plaintiff anticipates filing a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement by mid-to-late May 2025. The Parties have various impending pre-trial deadlines as well as deadlines set in this Court's Order dated March 21, 2025, that address matters that are not relevant to settlement and will become moot if the Court approves the settlement. The Parties agree that staying all current deadlines and striking the trial date so that the Parties and the Court can move forward in the settlement approval process and avoid needless cost and burdens on the Parties and the Court. A copy of the Court's decision is available at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=6ioxGq from PacerMonitor.com. Attorneys for Defendants: Patrick M. Madden, Esq. Todd L. Nunn, Esq. K&L GATES LLP 925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2900 Seattle, WA 98104-1158 Tel: +1 206 370 6795 Fax: +1 206 623 7022 E-mail: patrick.madden@klgates.com todd.nunn@klgates.com Attorneys for Plaintiff: Toby J. Marshall, Esq. TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC 936 North 34th Street, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98103 Telephone: (206) 816‐6603 Facsimile: (206) 319‐5450 E-mail: tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com Daniel F. Johnson, Esq. BRESKIN JOHNSON & TOWNSEND, PLLC 1000 Second Avenue, Suite 3670 Seattle, WA 98104 Telephone: (206) 652‐8660 Facsimile: (206) 652‐8290 E-mail: djohnson@bjtlegal.com YAHOO INC: Caplan Files Suit in S.D. New York --------------------------------------------- A class action lawsuit has been filed against Yahoo Inc. The case is styled as James Caplan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Yahoo Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-02943 (S.D.N.Y., April 9, 2025). The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury. Yahoo! Inc. -- https://www.yahooinc.com/ -- is an American multinational technology company that focuses on media and online business.[BN] The Plaintiff is represented by: Victoria Jennings Maniatis, Esq. MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN PLLC 100 Garden City Plaza, Ste. 500 Garden City, NY 11530 Phone: (866) 252-0878 Fax: (212) 868-1229 Email: vmaniatis@milberg.com ********* S U B S C R I P T I O N I N F O R M A T I O N Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA. Rousel Elaine T. Fernandez, Joy A. Agravante, Psyche A. Castillon, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2025. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272. This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers. Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed. The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000. *** End of Transmission ***