/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/250422.mbx
C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R
Tuesday, April 22, 2025, Vol. 27, No. 80
Headlines
10 ROADS: Garcia Seeks to Lift Stay of Class Action
ACADIA HEALTH: Class Settlement in Jolia Suit Gets Initial Nod
ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Bid for Final OK of FLSA Settlement Tossed
ALAMEDA, CA: Bid for Class Certification in Ruelas Due June 18
ALLIED PROPERTY: Parties Seek Class Cert Bid Decision
ANGEL ADAN: Has Until May 23 to File Answer to Complaint
ANGEL LUIS: Seeks More Time to Answer Delgado Class Complaint
ANTERO RESOURCES: Grissoms Sues Over Underpaymant of Gas Royalties
APPLE INC: Faces Additional Class Suits Over AI Features
AVIATION PERSONNEL: AerSale's Claims Stayed Pending Arbitration
BANK OF AMERICA: Ramirez Seeks Temporary Sealing of Reply
BERRY CORP: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Texas
BIGBEAR.AI HOLDINGS: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit
BISHOP GOLD: All Scheduling Deadlines Stayed in Pitts Class Suit
BIT DIGITAL: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class Suit
BLADE AIR: Continues to Defend Drulias Class Suit in Delaware
BLOOM ENERGY: Court Approves Settlement Fund Distribution Plan
BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to Oct. 30
BOEING CO: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Securities Suit
BOTANIC TONICS: Settles Ingredients Class Action for $8.75-Mil.
BUGGIE DOWN SHOP: Conde Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
CENLAR FSB: Settlement in Kamrava Suit Gets Final Court Okay
CHERVON NORTH AMERICA: Desparrois Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois
CINTAS CORP: Inks $45MM Settlement in Mississippi Class Suit
CIOX HEALTH: Mayo Suit Removed to D. Utah
CLARITY DEBT RESOLUTION: Hull Files TCPA Suit in D. Colorado
CSU: Class Cert Hearing in Fisk Reset to May 29
ELANCO US: Creason Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 7th Circuit
ELON MUSK: Emrit Lawsuit Dismissed with Prejudice
EVERCOMMERCE INC: Continues to Defend Gusinsky Class Suit
EVERUS CONSTRUCTION: Faces Class Action Suit Over False Statements
EXICURE INC: Settlement in Colwell Shareholder Suit Gets Final Nod
F.N. LLC: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property
FAMOUS RAMONA WATER: Mejia Suit Removed to S.D. California
FARMERS INSURANCE: Court Reverses $26.3M Judgment in Insurance Suit
FIVERR INC: Johnson Suit Removed to N.D. California
FOXX DEVELOPMENT: Semensato Securities Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
FUNKO INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class Suit
FUNKO INC: Discovery in Shumacher Class Suit Ongoing
FUNKO INC: Mediation in California Labor Suit to Start in May
FUNKO INC: Oral Argument in Studen Class Suit Set for May or June
GAP INC: Faces "False Discounts" Class Action Lawsuit in Canada
GIRL SCOUTS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Campbell Alleges
GOODRX INC: NAP Sues Over Unlawful Price-Fixing
H2O.AI INC: Failed to Secure Employees' Personal Info, Clark Says
HESAI GROUP: "Pacella" Suit Remains Pending in New York
HUMANA MARKETPOINT: Alexander Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
HUMBERTO SANTOS TRUST: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property
IN RE PAYMENT: Withdrawal of JAM3STRO's Fraudulent Claims Ordered
INTRASYSTEMS LLC: Brennsteiner Suit Transferred to W.D. Pa.
INTRASYSTEMS LLC: Fitzgerald Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
INTRASYSTEMS LLC: Mikec Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
INTRASYSTEMS LLC: Snyder Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
INTRASYSTEMS LLC: Witas Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES: Hughes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
KRISTI NOEM: Class Certification Granted in Doe, et al. Lawsuit
LATAM AIRLINES: Trial on Air Transport Union Suit Still Not Set
LGCY POWER: Dounane Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
LIFEMD INC: Marden Data Privacy Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
LODI MEMORIAL HOSPITAL: Gill Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
LOS MOLES EMERYVILLE: Torres Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
MAGNITE INC: Tsering Files Suit in S.D. New York
MAPCO EXPRESS: Violates ADA's Accessibility Guidelines, Suit Says
MARATHON CLOTHING: Gonzales Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
MARINEMAX INC: Data Breach Class Settlement Gets Initial Court OK
MICHAEL KORS STORES: Nunes Suit Removed to N.D. California
MIELLE ORGANICS: Faces Class Lawsuit Over "Made in the USA" Labels
MONSANTO COMPANY: Cavalieri Suit Transferred to N.D. California
MONSANTO COMPANY: Evans Suit Transferred to N.D. California
MONSANTO COMPANY: Haxton Suit Transferred to N.D. California
MONSANTO COMPANY: Hudson Suit Transferred to N.D. California
MONSANTO COMPANY: Pisanczyn Suit Transferred to N.D. California
MONSANTO COMPANY: Stensrud Suit Transferred to N.D. California
NATIONWIDE EQUITIES: Hudson Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
NEW MODEL LOGISTICS: Clemons Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
NORDIC ENERGY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Price Gouging
NUMI INC: Frost Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
OATS OVERNIGHT: Hampton Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website
OLSON REMCHO: Alvarez Suit Removed to E.D. California
OPPFI INC: Shareholder Suit over Merger Deal Ongoing in Del. Ch.
ORTHOMINDS LLC: Villasenor Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI
OS RESTAURANT SERVICES: Yarbrough Suit Removed to C.D. California
OWLET INC: Butala Seeks Initial OK of Settlements in Certain Claims
OWLET INC: Trial in Consolidated Suit Set for Feb. 17, 2026
PARADISE LAKES STATION: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property
PATRICK RONEY: Deadline to Respond to Ezzes Suit Extended to May 9
PEOHEALTHLLC: Dungey Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
PHREESIA INC: Continues to Defend ConneOnCall Class Suit in N.Y.
PPC INTERNATIONAL: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cole Alleges
PRIME PROTECTION: Holder Sues to Remedy Unpaid Overtime Premium
REALPHA TECH: Settlement in NAR Class Action Gets Final Approval
REDWIRE CORP: Settlement in Lemen Suit for Final Court OK
REGAL CINEMAS: Agrees to Settle Undisclosed Fees Suit for $2.5MM
SHEIN US: Faces Suit Over Undisclosed Social Media Endorsements
SOUTHEAST SERIES: Fails to Secure Private Info, Carter Alleges
STELLANTIS NV: Italian Court Allows Class Suit Over Faulty Airbags
STRONGHOLD DIGITAL: Settlement in Winter Suit Gets Final Court Nod
TAVEL + LEISURE: Court Refuses to Credit Consent in TCPA Suit
TORRID HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Perez Class Suit in California
TORRID HOLDINGS: Faces Data Breach Suit in California
TRADITIONS HEALTH: Mundy Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
UKA'S BIG SAVER: Ballardo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
UNITED STATES: Class Certification Granted in Vokova Lawsuit
URGENTCARE2GO.COM: Rizo Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
VIATRIS INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 3
VISIONWORKS OF AMERICA: Colby Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
VOLCO CAR: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Battery Defect
WAMPLER CARROLL: Oregon Businesses Sue Over Alleged ADA Violations
WM TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend Ishak Shareholder Class Suit
YAMAMOTO OF ORIENT: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
*********
10 ROADS: Garcia Seeks to Lift Stay of Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Garcia v. 10 Roads
Express, LLC, et al., Case No. 2:22-cv-02783-JMA-LGD (E.D.N.Y.),
the Plaintiff asks the Court to enter an order granting request
lifting stay.
The stay was put in place nearly one year ago because, at that
time, the Court expected that the New York Court of Appeals would
soon weigh in on the Appellate Division split regarding whether
there is a private right of action for violations of N.Y. Lab. L.
section 191's timely payment requirements, which is Plaintiff's
lone claim in the case, the lawsuit says.
Since the stay was entered, federal courts that have reached the
issue have been nearly unanimous in holding that there is a private
right of action for such claims
The Plaintiff asserts New York Labor Law ("NYLL") claims on behalf
of all truck drivers who worked for the Defendants in New York
State at any time on or after May 12, 2016.
In mid-April 2024, the Court denied the certification motion
without prejudice to renew it and stayed the case.
As expressly stated by the Court, the reason for the stay was that
the New York Court of Appeals was expected to soon resolve the
Appellate Division split between Vega and Grant. However, since the
stay was entered (1) there has been near-unanimity in the federal
courts that Vega was correctly decided; and (2) there have been no
developments at all in the state court proceedings in Grant.
10 Roads Express is a full service asset-based contract carrier
that specializes in the on-time delivery of time sensitive
materials.
A copy of the Plaintiff's motion dated April 9, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=11r63p at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Josef Nussbaum, Esq.
JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
32 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY 10004
Telephone: (212) 688-5640
ACADIA HEALTH: Class Settlement in Jolia Suit Gets Initial Nod
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as LATRIS JOLLA, CARLIYAH
BRACKEN, STEVEN RHODES ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND HIS MINOR CHILDREN,
and KAELYN FRANKLIN ON BEHALF OF HERSELF AND HER MINOR CHILDREN,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
ACADIA HEALTH, LLC d/b/a JUST KIDS DENTAL, Case No.
3:23-cv-01370-SDD-EWD (M.D. La.), the Hon. Judge Shelly Dick
entered an order granting preliminary approval of class action
settlement.
1. For settlement purposes only and pursuant to Rule 23, the
Court certifies, solely for purposes of effectuating the
proposed Settlement, a Settlement Class defined as follows:
"all persons whose Private Information was compromised as a
result of the Data Breach discovered by Acadia Health, LLC
d/b/a Just Kids Dental in August 2023 including all those to
whom Defendant provided notice in or about September 2023."
The Settlement Class is inclusive of three subclasses:
The Minor Subclass: Settlement Class Members who were minors
at the time of the Data Incident.
The Adult Subclass: Settlement Class Members who are not a
member of the Minor Subclass.
The SSN Subclass: Settlement Class Members whose Social
Security numbers were potentially
compromised during the Data Incident.
The Settlement Class includes approximately 129,463 people,
with approximately 50,476 individuals who are members of the
Minor Subclass and 78,987 members of the Adult Subclass. Of
the 129,462 Settlement Class Members, approximately 14,645
are also members of the SSN Subclass.
The Settlement Class and associated subclasses specifically
exclude: (1) the judge presiding over this Action, and
members of his direct family; (2) Defendant, and its current
or former officers and directors; and (3) Settlement Class
Members who submit a valid a Request for Exclusion prior to
the Opt-Out Deadline.
2. Latris Jolla, Carliyah Bracken, Steven Rhodes, and Kaelyn
Franklin are provisionally designated and appointed as the
Class Representatives.
3. A Final Approval Hearing shall be held at 10:00 a.m. on
Aug. 7, 2025.
Just Kids provides dental health care to all children ages
birth-21.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 8, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=pHoH3u at no extra
charge.[CC]
ADVANCED DRAINAGE: Bid for Final OK of FLSA Settlement Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Ronnie Loschiavo and Shawn
Selby, et al., on behalf of themselves and those similarly
situated, V. Advanced Drainage Systems, Inc., Case No.
2:21-cv-05069-MHW-CMV (S.D. Ohio), the Court entered an order
denying without prejudice the parties' joint motion for final
approval of FLSA Settlement and preliminary approval of Rule 23
class action settlement.
Accordingly, after a careful review of the proposed Settlement
Agreement, though the Court is inclined to grant final approval to
the FLSA Collective settlement, problems with the Class settlements
(which may impact the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Collective
settlement) prevent it from doing so at this juncture.
Because the parties have not named a representative plaintiff for
each of the proposed Classes, they have not satisfied the Rule
23(a) requirements. This "obvious deficiency" prevents the Court
from preliminarily approving the Class settlements. Moreover,
because Loschiavo, Thompson, and Scott's membership in the FLSA
Collective may (or may not) change as a result of this Opinion and
Order, the Court also declines to finally approve the FLSA
Collective settlement.
In October 2021, Ronnie Loschiavo and Shawn Selby sued the
Defendant for unpaid overtime wages and other relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and analogous Ohio state laws.
The Court granted the parties' joint motion for FLSA conditional
certification and ordered issuance of notice to:
"All current and former hourly non-exempt material handlers,
production workers, and yard employees" who worked for the
Defendant at one of eleven facilities for at least 40 hours
during any workweek beginning May 1, 2020, through the present.
Thompson and Scott aver that approximately 279 opt-in plaintiffs
joined following issuance of the notice.
Advanced Drainage is a company that designs, manufactures and
markets polypropylene and polyethylene pipes, plastic leach field
chambers and systems, septic tanks and accessories.
A copy of the Court's opinion and order dated April 9, 2025, is
available from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dyTQoa
at no extra charge.[CC]
ALAMEDA, CA: Bid for Class Certification in Ruelas Due June 18
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the classCA action lawsuit captioned as ARMIDA RUELAS; DE'ANDRE
EUGENE COX; BERT DAVIS; KATRISH JONES; JOSEPH MEBRAHTU; DAHRYL
REYNOLDS; MONICA MASON; SCOTT ABBEY; and all others similarly
situated, v. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA; YESENIA SANCHEZ, SHERIFF; ARAMARK
CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, LLC; and DOES 1 through 10, Case No.
4:19-cv-07637-JST (N.D. Cal.), the Hon. Judge Jon Tigar entered an
order setting briefing schedule on motion for class certification.
1. Aramark shall produce the agreed-upon supplemental discovery
by May 21, 2025.
2. The Plaintiffs' opening motion for class certification shall
be due by June 18, 2025.
3. The Defendants' oppositions to the Plaintiffs' motion for
class certification shall be due by July 23, 2025.
4. The Plaintiffs' reply shall be due by Aug. 13, 2025.
5. The hearing on the motion shall occur on Sept. 18, 2025, at
2:00 p.m. via Zoom webinar.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 9, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=SWnvTv at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Dan Siegel, Esq.
SIEGEL, YEE, BRUNNER & MEHTA
475 14th St 500
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 839-1200
The Defendants are represented by:
Cortlin H. Lannin, Esq.
Isaac D. Chaput, Esq.
COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
Salesforce Tower
415 Mission Street, Suite 5400
San Francisco, CA 94105-2533
Telephone: (415) 591-6000
Facsimile: (415) 591-6091
E-mail: clannin@cov.com
ichaput@cov.com
- and -
Gilbert J. Tsai, Esq.
HANSON BRIDGETT LLP
425 Market St 26FL
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone: (415)995-5178
Facsimile: (415)541-9366
ALLIED PROPERTY: Parties Seek Class Cert Bid Decision
-----------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as MICHAEL and GINA ODDI,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
individuals, v. ALLIED PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE CO., an Iowa
company, and NATIONWIDE MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., an Ohio company, Case
No. 2:20-cv-09871-JAK-BFM (C.D. Cal.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order granting their joint request for decision on the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.
The Motion was filed on July 15, 2024. The Motion was fully briefed
on Oct. 16, 2024. A hearing on the Motion was held on Nov. 25,
2024, and the Court thereafter took the Motion under submission.
One hundred and twenty days have passed since the Motion was taken
under submission, and the parties therefore submit this Joint
Request for a ruling on Plaintiffs' Motion.
Allied provides property and casualty insurance.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 8, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=JfC3Er at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Mark A. Ozzello, Esq.
Calvin A. Marshall, Esq.
THE OZZELLO PRACTICE, PC
400 Continental Blvd. 6th Floor
El Segundo, CA 90245
Telephone: (844) 774-2020
Facsimile: (844) 774-2020
E-mail: mark@ozzellolaw.com
cmarshall@ozzellolaw.com
- and -
John A. Marshall, Esq.
MARSHALL & ASSOCIATES
26565 West Agoura Road, Suite 215
Calabasas, CA 91302
Telephone (818) 617-9337 Ext. 2243
E-mail: John@marshallbusinesslaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Sonia R. Martin, Esq.
Mark L. Hanover, Esq.
Kristine M. Schanbacher, Esq.
Emily C. Eggmann, Esq.
Kelly R. Graf, Esq.
DENTONS US LLP
1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1300
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (415) 882-5000
E-mail: sonia.martin@dentons.com
mark.hanover@dentons.com
kristine.schanbacher@dentons.com
emily.eggmann@dentons.com
kelly.graf@dentons.com
ANGEL ADAN: Has Until May 23 to File Answer to Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as Torres-Delgado v. ANGEL
LUIS ADAN, ET AL., Case No. 3:25-cv-01054 (D.P.R., Filed Jan. 31,
2025), the Hon. Judge Maria Antongiorgi-Jordan entered an order
granting "Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Complaint."
The Defendants Angel Luis Adan, Lewis Howard, Josean Nieves, and
Frances Rivera shall file their Answers to the Complaint by May 23,
2025.
The Defendants are notified that the filing of a dispositive motion
or other pleading will not stay discovery, nor alter the deadline
to file an Answer.
The Defendants shall also respond to "Motion to Certify Class" by
May 23, 2025.
No further extensions will be granted.
The nature of suit states Civil Rights.[CC]
ANGEL LUIS: Seeks More Time to Answer Delgado Class Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as NELSON TORRES DELGADO, v.
ANGEL LUIS ADAN, ET AL., Case No. 3:25-cv-01054-MAJ (D.P.R.), the
Defendants ask the Court to enter an order granting them until May
23, 2025, to answer the Complaint or otherwise plead and respond to
the Plaintiff's motion.
On Jan. 31, 2025, the Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the
above-captioned case against the Defendants. Copy of the four
summonses and Complaint was served upon the United States
Attorney’s Office on February 7, 2025.
In order to properly assess, legally and factually, the matters
alleged in the Complaint, and also to allow the DOJ to make a
determination as to the Defendants' individual capacity
representation, the named Defendants request a first extension of
time of 45 days, that is until May 23, 2025, to file the answer to
the Complaint or otherwise plead.
We also pray the Court to grant this extension request as to the
motion filed by Plaintiff seeking a class certification at ECF No.
2. The extension is reasonable, sought in good faith and will not
cause undue delay.
A copy of the Defendants' motion dated April 8, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=Mj82lX at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Defendants are represented by:
W. Stephen Muldrow, Esq.
Enrique Silva-Aviles, Esq.
USDC-PR 215810
Torre Chardon, Suite 1201
350 Carlos Chardon St.
San Juan, PR 00918
Telephone: (787) 766-5656
E-mail: Enrique.silva@usdoj.gov
ANTERO RESOURCES: Grissoms Sues Over Underpaymant of Gas Royalties
------------------------------------------------------------------
THE GRISSOMS, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. ANTERO RESOURCES CORPORATION, Defendant,
Case No. 2:25-cv-00349-JLG-CMV (S.D. Ohio, April 3, 2025) is a
class action against the Defendant for breach of contract and
injunctive relief.
The case arises from the Defendant's systematic underpayment of
royalties owed to the Plaintiff and the Class. According to the
complaint, the Defendant is underpaying the royalties owed to their
lessors in connection with its receipt of gross proceeds from the
sale of marketable natural gas and natural gas liquids (NGLs) after
May 2023. The Defendant is improperly deducting processing and
fractionation costs from class royalties, in contravention of the
commands of their leases. The Plaintiff and the Class members have
suffered monetary damage as a result of these breaches.
The Grissoms, LLC is a property owner in Noble County, Ohio.
Antero Resources Corporation is an independent oil and natural gas
company, with its principal place of business in Denver, Colorado.
[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Logan Trombley, Esq.
Warner Mendenhall, Esq.
MENDENHALL LAW GROUP
190 N. Union St., Suite 201
Akron, OH 44304
Telephone: (330) 535-9160
Email: warner@warnermendenhall.com
- and -
Daniel R. Karon, Esq.
KARON LLC
631 W. St. Clair Ave.
Cleveland, OH 44113
Telephone: (216) 622-1851
Email: dkaron@karonllc.com
- and -
Larry D. Shenise, Esq.
P.O. Box 471
Tallmadge, OH 44278
Telephone: (330) 472-5622
Email: ldshenise@sheniselaw.com
- and -
John W. Barrett, Esq.
Brian R. Swiger, Esq.
BAILEY & GLASSER LLP
209 Capitol Street
Charleston, WV 25301
Telephone: (304) 345-6555
Facsimile: (304) 342-1110
Email: jbarrett@baileyglasser.com
bswiger@baileyglasser.com
APPLE INC: Faces Additional Class Suits Over AI Features
--------------------------------------------------------
Emily Forlini, writing for PC Mag, reports that Apple falsely
advertised the AI features on its latest iPhone, particularly the
availability of a more capable Siri voice assistant, according to
two new lawsuits.
Apple made "misrepresentations and/or misleading statements" to
convince shoppers to buy the iPhone 16, according to a Canada-wide
class-action lawsuit, as reported by the Vancouver Sun.
Apple Intelligence was not available when the phone launched in
September 2024. Some features arrived with iOS updates in October
and December, but a smarter version of Siri, which is the crown
jewel of Apple Intelligence, is still not available.
"As such, consumers paid an unlawful price premium for the . . .
iPhone 16 model smartphone that they did not need, based on
artificial intelligence features that did not exist," the case
alleges.
In announcing the iPhone 16, Craig Federighi, Apple's VP of
software engineering, said the first Apple Intelligence features
would debut a month after the phone, with "more to come" in the
months thereafter. By year's end, however, Apple said some of the
more impressive AI tricks, like giving Siri "the ability to draw on
a user's personal context to deliver intelligence that's tailored
to them" and giving the AI "onscreen awareness . . . to take
hundreds of new actions in and across Apple and third-party apps"
were still in the works.
The lawsuit accuses Apple of deceiving buyers in a "race for AI
market share." By the time the features are available, they may not
be considered unique or innovative, the case adds. (In our review
of the Samsung Galaxy S25 Ultra, we noted its "powerful AI
features.")
In some ways, it's correct. Apple advertised the ability to see
what a user is doing on their screen, and take actions on their
behalf in apps. Samsung has already added a Google-powered AI
version of this to the new Galaxy S25 Ultra device. [GN]
AVIATION PERSONNEL: AerSale's Claims Stayed Pending Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Gregory J. Fouratt of the United States District
Court for the District of New Mexico ruled on several motions filed
by defendants in the case captioned as AERSALE, INC., Plaintiff, v.
AVIATION PERSONNEL, LLC, G-FORCE AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE, INC., HIRE
AVIATION STAFFING SOLUTIONS, LLC, and PSD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
DEVELOPMENT, INC., Defendants, Case No. 24-cv-00980-GJF-KRS
(D.N.M.).
This matter is before the Court on Hire Aviation Staffing
Solutions, LLC's Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration; PSD
Professional Services Development, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss and
Compel Arbitration; G-Force Aircraft Maintenance, Inc.'s Motion to
Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Motion to Transfer Venue; and
AerSale, Inc. and PSD's Joint Stipulation and Unopposed Motion to
Stay Defendant/Third-Party Plaintiff's Complaint as to Third-Party
Defendant PSD Pending Completion of Arbitration. The Court held
oral argument on April 11, 2025, primarily to seek the parties'
input on jurisdictional issues facing this case.
The origin of this litigation dates back to Nov. 10, 2022, when
Will Cruz filed a class and collective action complaint accusing
AerSale of failing to pay him and other similarly situated
employees the overtime to which they claim entitlement under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.
Federal question, diversity, and supplemental jurisdiction existed
for each of Cruz's class and collective causes of action.
AerSale answered and promptly filed a third-party complaint against
Launch Technical Workforce Solutions, LLC, one of AerSale's
staffing partners. Without objection, the Court ordered AerSale and
Launch to arbitration and stayed AerSale's claims against Launch in
the meantime. Some sixteen months later, AerSale filed a second
third-party complaint, this time bringing similar claims for
indemnity and contribution against six more of its staffing
partners. AerSale voluntarily dismissed its third-party claims
against Elwood Staffing Services, Inc. In addition, the Court
granted AerSale and Strom Aviation, Inc.'s joint motion to stay the
third-party complaint as against Strom pending completion of
arbitration. AerSale's third-party claims against Aviation
Personnel, LLC, G-Force, Hire, and PSD suffered a different fate,
however, when the Court severed those claims from the Cruz
litigation and ordered them to proceed under a new case number
altogether.
AerSale contends that there is federal question jurisdiction
because its state law contractual claims hinge on the
interpretation of the FLSA. Hire and PSD do not materially
disagree. For its part, however, G-Force argues that this Court
lacks federal question jurisdiction because the state law
contractual claims can be resolved without a unique interpretation
of the FLSA.
The Court agrees with counsel that staying AerSale's claims against
Hire and PSD and deferring a decision on subject matter
jurisdiction is the best way to efficiently and expeditiously
resolve those claims.
At this point in the litigation, the Court does not express a
definite view on the existence of subject matter jurisdiction and
will expressly reserve that question pending the outcome of the
arbitrations of AerSale's claims against Hire and PSD. If a party
challenges the arbitrator's decision, the Court will have to
determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over the
underlying dispute. Until then, it is in the best interest of those
parties for the Court to stay AerSale's claims against Hire and PSD
to allow them to arbitrate.
The Court:
(1) denies Hire's Motion to the extent that it seeks dismissal
of AerSale's claims while those claims are being arbitrated, but
grants the Motion to the extent that it seeks a stay of AerSale's
claims against it while those claims are being arbitrated;
(2) grants AerSale and PSD's Joint Motion to Stay while the
parties arbitrate AerSale's claims against PSD;
(3) denies PSD's Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration as
moot; and
(4) takes under advisement G-Force's Motion for at least thirty
days.
A copy of the Court's decision dated April 14, 2025, is available
at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3mYiNZ from PacerMonitor.com.
BANK OF AMERICA: Ramirez Seeks Temporary Sealing of Reply
---------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as ANTHONY RAMIREZ, MYNOR
VILLATORO ALDANA, AND JANET HOBSON, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case No.
4:22-cv-00859-YGR (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs ask the Court to
enter an order granting temporary sealing motion re: reply in
support of class certification.
The Plaintiffs seek to temporarily seal portions of their Reply and
certain exhibits to the Declaration of Andrea R. Gold in support of
Plaintiffs' Reply for the limited purpose of preserving the
confidentiality of documents and information that BofA or
Plaintiffs may ultimately seek to seal,
The Plaintiffs will serve on counsel for BofA complete copies of
the unredacted and unsealed documents in accordance with Paragraph
12(c)(i) of the Standing Order.
Bank of America offers various banking services, including
investments and financial solutions.
A copy of the Plaintiffs' motion dated April 8, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=XIul1C at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Cort T. Carlson, Esq.
Andrea R. Gold, Esq.
Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
Glenn E. Chappell, Esq.
TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
1970 Broadway, Suite 1070
Oakland, CA 94612
Telephone: (510) 254-6808
E-mail: ccarlson@tzlegal.com
hzavareei@tzlegal.com
agold@tzlegal.com
gchappell@tzlegal.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Elizabeth L. Mckeen, Esq.
Ashley M. Pavel, Esq.
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
610 Newport Center Dr., Suite 1700
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Telephone: (949) 823-6900
Facsimile: (949) 823-6994
BERRY CORP: Continues to Defend Securities Class Suit in Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
Berry Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 13, 2025, that the Company continues
to defend itself from a securities class suit in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
On November, 20, 2020, a putative securities class action (the
"Securities Class Action") was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas, claiming that Berry Corp.
and certain of its current and former directors and officers
violated the Securities Act of 1933 and the Exchange Act of 1934 by
allegedly making false and misleading statements between the IPO
and November 3, 2020, and in the IPO offering materials, about the
Company's permits and permitting processes.
While the motion for class certification was still pending before
the court, the parties reached an agreement-in-principle to settle
all claims in the Securities Class Action for an aggregate sum of
$2.5 million. Following notice to the class and an opt-out and
objection process, the Court granted final approval of the
settlement on February 6, 2024, and terminated the case.
The Defendants continue to maintain that the claims were without
merit and admitted no liability in connection with the settlement.
Berry is an independent upstream energy company with a focus on
onshore, low geologic risk, long-lived conventional reserves in the
San Joaquin basin of California and the Uinta basin of Utah.
BIGBEAR.AI HOLDINGS: Faces Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed against
BigBear.ai Holdings, Inc. ("BigBear.ai" or "the Company") (NYSE:
BBAI). The lawsuit alleges that Defendants made materially false
and/or misleading statements, and/or failed to disclose material
adverse facts regarding BigBear.ai business, operations, and
prospects, including allegations that: (i) BigBear maintained
deficient accounting review policies related to the reporting and
disclosure of certain non-routine, unusual, or complex
transactions; (ii) as a result, the Company incorrectly determined
that the conversion option within the 2026 Convertible Notes
qualified for the derivative scope exception under ASC 815-40 and
failed to bifurcate the conversion option as required by ASC
815-15; (iii) accordingly, BigBear had improperly accounted for the
2026 Convertible Notes; (iv) the foregoing error caused BigBear to
misstate various items in several of the Company's previously
issued financial statements; (v) as a result, these financial
statements were inaccurate and would likely need to be restated;
(vi) BigBear would require extra time and expense to correct the
inaccurate financial statements, thereby increasing the risk that
the Company would be unable to timely file certain financial
reports with the SEC; and (vii) as a result, the Company's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.
If you bought shares of BigBear.ai between March 31, 2022 and March
25, 2025, and you suffered a significant loss on that investment,
you are encouraged to discuss your legal rights by contacting Corey
D. Holzer, Esq. at cholzer@holzerlaw.com, by toll-free telephone at
(888) 508-6832 or you may visit the firm's website at
www.holzerlaw.com/case/bigbear-ai-holdings/ to learn more.
The deadline to ask the court to be appointed lead plaintiff in the
case is June 10, 2025.
Holzer & Holzer, LLC, an ISS top rated securities litigation law
firm for 2021, 2022, and 2023, dedicates its practice to vigorous
representation of shareholders and investors in litigation
nationwide, including shareholder class action and derivative
litigation. Since its founding in 2000, Holzer & Holzer attorneys
have played critical roles in recovering hundreds of millions of
dollars for shareholders victimized by fraud and other corporate
misconduct. More information about the firm is available through
its website, www.holzerlaw.com, and upon request from the firm.
Holzer & Holzer, LLC has paid for the dissemination of this
promotional communication, and Corey Holzer is the attorney
responsible for its content.
CONTACT:
Corey Holzer, Esq.
(888) 508-6832 (toll-free)
cholzer@holzerlaw.com [GN]
BISHOP GOLD: All Scheduling Deadlines Stayed in Pitts Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as JENNIFER PITTS, v. BISHOP
GOLD GROUP LLC, Case No. 3:24-cv-00128-MCR-HTC (N.D. Fla.), the
Hon. Judge M. Casey Rodgers entered an order staying all
outstanding scheduling deadlines.
Ongoing discovery is authorized for an additional 90 days for the
sole purpose of confirming the proposed class.
The parties are directed to work together in good faith to complete
and sign a full written class action settlement agreement no by
Aug. 1, 2025.
The Plaintiff Jennifer Pitts must file an unopposed motion for
preliminary class certification and preliminary approval of the
class action settlement by Aug. 7, 2025.
The motion must set out all information necessary to meet the Rule
23 requirements and include the proposed class notice as well as
the proposed means of settlement administration, the procedure for
opting out, and the time for objecting.
On preliminary approval of the proposed class and settlement, the
Court will direct issuance of notice and set a schedule for opting
out, objecting, briefing, and a final hearing.
Bishop offers a variety of gold, silver, platinum, and palladium
products, specializing in coins and bars for each metal.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 8, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=HiLEpA at no extra
charge.[CC]
BIT DIGITAL: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bit Digital Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 14, 2025, that the Company continues
to defend itself from a consolidated securities class suit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.
On January 20, 2021, a securities class action lawsuit was filed
against the Company and its Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer titled Anthony Pauwels v. Bit Digital, Inc., Min
Hu and Erke Huang (Case No. 1:21-cv-00515) (U.S.D.C. S.D.N.Y.). The
class action was brought on behalf of persons that purchased or
acquired its Ordinary Shares between December 21, 2020 and January
11, 2021, a period of volatility in its Ordinary Shares, as well as
volatility in the price of bitcoin.
On April 29, 2021, the Court consolidated several related cases
under the caption In re Bit Digital, Inc. Securities Litigation.
Joseph Franklin Monkam Nitcheu was appointed as lead plaintiff.
On July 6, 2021, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated class
action complaint (the "Amended Complaint").
The Amended Complaint was still based primarily upon a January 11,
2021 short seller report and included, among other things,
additional information concerning its previously discontinued peer
to peer lending business.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit and vigorously
defended the action.
While that motion was pending, the Company agreed with the lead
plaintiff selected in the case to settle the class action by paying
$2,100,000. The Company chose to do that to eliminate the burden,
expense and uncertainties of further litigation. The Company
continues to deny the allegations in the Amended Complaint and
nothing in the settlement is evidence of any liability on the
Company's behalf.
Bit Digital, Inc. is a financial services company into
digital/crypto currency based in New York.
BLADE AIR: Continues to Defend Drulias Class Suit in Delaware
-------------------------------------------------------------
Blade Air Mobility Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal period ending January 13, 2025 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 13, 2025, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Drulias class suit in the Delaware Court
of Chancery.
In February 2024, two putative class action lawsuits relating to
the acquisition of Blade Urban Air Mobility, Inc. ("Old Blade")
were filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery.
On April 16, 2024, these cases were consolidated under the caption
Drulias et al. v. Affeldt, et al., C.A. No. 2024-0161-SG (Del. Ch.)
("Drulias"). Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty
and unjust enrichment claims against the former directors of
Experience Investment Corp. ("EIC" and such directors, the "EIC
Directors"), the former officers of EIC, and Experience Sponsor LLC
("Sponsor"), and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty claim
against Sponsor.
The operative complaint alleges, amongst other things, that the
proxy statement related to the acquisition of Old Blade
insufficiently disclosed EIC’s cash position, Old Blade's value
prospects and risks, and information related to Old Blade's chief
executive officer, who is also its current chief executive officer.
The consolidated complaints seeks, among other things, damages and
attorneys' fees and costs. Litigation is ongoing.
The Company believes that all claims in the lawsuit are without
merit and intends to defend itself vigorously against them.
Headquartered in New York, Blade Air Mobility, Inc. provides air
transportation and logistics for hospitals and passengers. [BN]
BLOOM ENERGY: Court Approves Settlement Fund Distribution Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California approved the proposed
plan for distributing the Net Settlement Fund in the class action
lawsuit captioned as JAMES EVERETT HUNT, et al., Plaintiff, v.
BLOOM ENERGY CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Case No.
19-cv-02935-HSG (N.D. Cal.). The motion for disbursement of funds
is granted.
James Everett Hunt, the Court-appointed Lead Plaintiff, through
counsel, moves this Court for an order approving the Distribution
Plan in the class action and for payment to the Claims
Administrator to satisfy all administration fees and expenses
through the initial distribution.
This Order incorporates by reference the definitions in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated June 30, 2023 and the
Jan. 17, 2025 Declaration of Susanna Webb Concerning the Results of
the Claims Administration Process.
Epiq is directed to distribute 100% of the Net Settlement Fund,
after deducting all payments previously allowed and the payments
approved by the Court, including the 10% of attorney's fees ordered
withheld until the filing of the Post-Distribution Accounting by
the Order Granting Motion for Final Approval and Motion for
Attorney's Fees, and after deducting payment of any estimated
taxes, the costs of preparing appropriate tax returns, and any
escrow fees, to Authorized Claimants who would receive at least
$10.00 based on their pro rata share of the Net Settlement Fund,
which is based on each Authorized Claimant's Recognized Claim as
compared to the Total Recognized Claims of all Authorized Claimants
as set forth in paragraph 40(a) of the Webb Declaration and the
Court-approved Plan of Allocation.
Authorized Claimants who do not cash their Distribution checks
within the time allotted shall irrevocably forfeit all recovery
from the Settlement, and the funds allocated to all such
stale-dated checks shall be available to be re-distributed to other
Authorized Claimants in a Second Distribution. Similarly,
Authorized Claimants who do not cash their second or subsequent
distributions (should such distributions occur) within the time
allotted shall irrevocably forfeit any further recovery from the
Net Settlement Fund.
No new Claims shall be accepted after Nov. 1, 2024, and no further
Claim adjustments received on or before Dec. 13, 2024 that would
result in an increased recognized claim amount shall be accepted.
Epiq shall be paid $224,359.95 in satisfaction of the
administration fees and expenses for conducting the claims review
and initial distribution processes and shall withhold this amount
when calculating the Net Settlement Fund.
A copy of the Court's decision dated April 14, 2025, is available
at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=IsJNcH from PacerMonitor.com.
BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD: Class Cert. Bid Filing Extended to Oct. 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the class action lawsuit captioned as WILLIAM MARK CUMALANDER,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, v.
BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD OF TENNESSEE, INC., Case No.
1:24-cv-00176-TRM-CHS (E.D. Tenn.), the Parties ask the Court to
enter an order granting a four-month enlargement of each of the
deadlines set forth in the Court's Class Certification Scheduling
Order to allow
the parties to complete necessary class discovery.
Event Requested Amended
Deadline
Disclosure of any expert testimony in Aug. 15, 2025
accordance with Rules 26(a)(2)(B) and
26(a)(2)(C) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure as it relates to class issues:
Disclosure of rebuttal expert testimony on Sept. 12, 2025
class issues:
All discovery related to class Oct. 10, 2025
certification issues shall be completed:
Plaintiff's motion for class certification Oct. 30, 2025
shall be filed:
Defendant's response shall be filed: Nov. 21, 2025
Plaintiff's reply: Dec. 5, 2025
On Dec. 17, 2024, the Court entered an Order Setting Case
Management Conference, which ordered the parties to conduct a Rule
26(f) discovery conference and set a case management conference for
Jan. 4, 2025.
On Feb. 21, 2025, the Court entered its Class Certification
Scheduling Order,
BlueCross BlueShield is a health benefit plan company in
Tennessee.
A copy of the Parties' motion dated April 8, 2025, is available
from PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=dVeDRl at no extra
charge.[CC]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Stephanie A. Casey, Esq.
COLSON HICKS EIDSON
255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse
Coral Gables, FL 33134
Telephone: (305) 476-7400
E-mail: scasey@colson.com
- and -
Norris A. Adams, II, Esq.
ESSEX RICHARDS, P.A.
1701 South Boulevard
Charlotte, NC 28203
Telephone: (704) 377-4300
E-mail: nadams@essexrichards.com
- and -
Elizabeth K. Green, Esq.
GREEN HEALTH LAW, APC
201 N. Brand Blvd., Ste 200
Glendale, CA 91203
Telephone: (818) 722-1164
E-mail: egreen@greenhealthlaw.com
- and -
Timothy James Rozelle, Esq.
KANTOR & KANTOR, LLP
9301 Corbin Avenue, Suite 1400
Northridge, CA 91324
Telephone: (818) 886-2525
E-mail: trozelle@kantorlaw.net
- and -
Kaci Garrabrant, Esq.
ERIC BUCHANAN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
414 McCallie Avenue
Chattanooga, TN 37402
Telephone: (423) 634-2506
E-mail: kgarrabrant@buchanandisability.com
The Defendant is represented by:
Stephanie N. Bedard, Esq.
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON
LLP
1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800
Atlanta, GA 30309
Telephone: (404) 815-6039
E-mail: sbedard@ktslaw.com
- and -
Marc Harwell, Esq.
HARWELL & HURST PLLC
832 Georgia Avenue, Suite 510
Chattanooga, TN 37402
Telephone: (423) 756-7333
E-mail: marc@harwelllawgroup.com
- and -
Gwendolyn C. Payton, Esq.
KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON
LLP
1420 Fifth Ave., Suite 3700
Seattle, WA 98101
Telephone: (206) 626-7714
E-mail: gpayton@ktslaw.com
BOEING CO: Appeals Class Certification Ruling in Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Boeing Co. and other defendants have taken an appeal from a
district court decision granting class status to the securities
lawsuit stemming from the decline in the market value of the
aircraft manufacturer's stock following reported malfunctions of
737 MAX planes.
Boeing and four of its current and former executives are named
defendants in a class action led by the State of Rhode Island
Office of the General Treasurer, acting on behalf the Employees'
Retirement System of Rhode Island, and Local #817 IBT Pension Fund
before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
on behalf of all individuals and entities who purchased or acquired
Boeing common stock between October 23, 2019, and January 24, 2024.
The core allegation is that Boeing and its executives made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's
commitment to safety and quality control, particularly concerning
the 737 MAX aircraft program. The complaint was filed on Jan. 30,
2024, weeks after an incident wherein a "door plug" detached
mid-flight from an Alaska Airlines flight that left a gaping hole
in the 737 MAX 9's fuselage. The incident, which occurred Jan. 5
that year, triggered a near 19% stock price plunge, with shares
dropping from $249.00 on Jan. 5 to $201.88 by Jan. 25, 2024 --
erasing billions in market value.
In granting class status, the district court reduced the proposed
class period from nearly five years (September 2019 to May 2024) to
three years (January 2021 to January 2024); rejected defendants'
argument that plaintiffs needed a tailored damages model accounting
for gradual inflation from repeated statements; and held that the
general "out-of-pocket" framework satisfied the requirements set
forth by the Supreme Court in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27
(2013). The district court dismissed concerns about windfall
recoveries, where investors might receive compensation for stock
price declines caused by the Alaska Airlines accident itself --
rather than any corrective disclosure of fraud.
The defendants will argue before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fourth Circuit that the district court's ruling conflicts with
Comcast and creates unfair settlement pressure.
The Hon. Judge Leonie M. Brinkema, who oversees the case in
district court, has scheduled a final pretrial conference for
Thurs., May 22 at 10:00 a.m. in Alexandria.
Labaton Keller Sucharow LLP and Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
serve as co-counsel to the Plaintiffs. Cohen Milstein Sellers &
Toll PLLC and Law Office of Craig C. Reilly serve as their liaison
counsel.
Defendants are represented by McGuireWoods LLP and Sullivan &
Cromwell LLP.
For more information on the case, see Class Action Updates' "Who's
Who in Boeing Company's Securities Litigation" at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=YFYHdx
Class Action Updates posts every Monday. Subscribe to CA Updates to
receive the latest news from the class action industry. Visit
https://classactionupdates.substack.com for more information.
For comments and coverage suggestions, contact:
Yusef Siddiqui
Tel: (503) 915-9225
E-mail: yusef@beardgroup.com
Or
Christopher Patalinghug
Tel: (240) 629-3300
E-mail: tope@beardgroup.com
Founded in 1986, Beard Group, Inc., is a leading publisher of
business, law and finance books.
BOTANIC TONICS: Settles Ingredients Class Action for $8.75-Mil.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Botanic Tonics agreed to pay $8.75
million as part of a class action lawsuit settlement to resolve
claims that its Feel Free Wellness Tonic contains kratom, a
substance that can cause serious health risks.
The Botanic Tonics settlement benefits consumers who purchased Feel
Free Wellness Tonic containing kratom between March 28, 2019, and
March 5, 2025.
According to a Feel Free class action lawsuit against Botanic
Tonics, the company fails to warn consumers about the dangers of
kratom, an ingredient from Southeast Asia used in its products.
Instead of disclosing and warning about the ingredient, which is
illegal in some states, Botanic Tonics allegedly markets its Feel
Free Wellness Tonic as a safe and healthy alternative to alcohol.
Botanic Tonics is a beverage company that sells a variety of
wellness tonics, including its Feel Free product.
Botanic Tonics has not admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to an
$8.75 million settlement to resolve the Feel Free class action
lawsuit.
Under the terms of the Botanic Tonics settlement, class members can
receive a cash payment based on the number of Feel Free bottles
they purchased.
According to the settlement notice, each class member is estimated
to receive between $175 and $291.66 from the settlement. Exact
payments will vary depending on the number of participating class
members and the number of bottles purchased by each class member.
Class members who purchased 10 or fewer bottles of Feel Free do not
need to provide proof of purchase to receive reimbursement. Class
members who purchased 10 or more bottles must provide proof of
purchase.
The deadline for exclusion and objection is June 3, 2025.
The final approval hearing for the kratom class action lawsuit
settlement is scheduled for June 26, 2025.
To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid
claim form by June 3, 2025.
Who's Eligible
Consumers who purchased the kratom-containing Feel Free product
between March 28, 2019, and March 5, 2025.
Potential Award
$175 to $291.66 (estimated)
Proof of Purchase
Receipts, invoices, purchase orders or other documentation.
Claim Form
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
06/03/2025
Case Name
In re Botanic Tonics Litigation, Case No. 3:23-cv-01460-VC, in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Final Hearing
06/26/2025
Settlement Website
FeelFreeClassAction.com
Claims Administrator
Botanic Tonics Litigation
c/o RG/2 Claims Administration
P.O. Box 59479
Philadelphia, PA 19102-9479
FeelFreeClassAction@rg2claims.com
(800) 339-2392
Class Counsel
Shounak S. Dharap
ARNS DAVIS LAW
Anthony Label
Theo Emison
Steven A. Kronenberg
THE VEEN FIRM P.C.
Joel D. Smith
Yeremy Krivoshey
SMITH KRIVOSHEY P.C.
Matthew R. Mendelsohn
MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN LLC
Neal Deckant
BURSOR & FISHER P.A.
Defense Counsel
John S. Purcell
Douglas E. Hewlett
Marissa Maria Rael
ARENTFOX SCHIFF LLP [GN]
BUGGIE DOWN SHOP: Conde Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Conde, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
BUGGIE DOWN SHOP CORPORATION, and TAHA AHMED ABOZAYD, Case No.
1:25-cv-02949 (S.D.N.Y., April 9, 2025), is brought pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA") and the New York Labor Law
("NYLL") seeking from Defendants: unpaid minimum wage, unpaid
overtime, unpaid wages, statutory penalties, liquidated damages,
and attorneys' fees and costs.
Despite regularly working well over 40 hours per week, Defendants
failed to pay Plaintiff and similarly situated employees their
overtime premium equal to one-and-a-half times their regular rate
of pay for work performed in excess of forty hours per week.
Furthermore, throughout Plaintiff's employment, Defendants did not
compensate Plaintiff his weekly wages on at least nine occurrences.
Although Individual Defendant promised to pay Plaintiff at a later
time due to lack of sufficient funds at the time of Plaintiff's
payday, Plaintiff never received payment for those nine weeks of
unpaid salary.
The Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with
a policy of failing to pay wages of at least the prevailing New
York State minimum wage rate, in violation of the NYLL. the
Defendants knowingly and willfully operated their business with a
policy of failing to pay wages of at least the prevailing federal
minimum wage rate, in violation of the FLSA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants to work as a non-exempt
employee at Buggie Down Smoke Shop in September 2021.
The Defendants owned and operated a smoke shop doing business under
the tradename "Buggie Down Smoke Shop."[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clara Lam, Esq.
BROWN KWON & LAM, LLP
521 Fifth Avenue, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10175
Phone: (212) 295-5828
Fax: (718) 795-1642
Email: clam@bkllawyers.com
CENLAR FSB: Settlement in Kamrava Suit Gets Final Court Okay
------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Terry J. Hatter, Jr. of the United States District
Court for the Central District of California granted final approval
of the class action settlement in the case captioned as SHAYAN
KAMRAVA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CENLAR FSB, Defendant, Case No.
2:20-cv-11465-TJH-E (C.D. Cal.).
After arm's-length negotiations and settlement discussions,
plaintiff SHAYAN KAMRAVA and defendant CENLAR FSB entered into a
Class Action Settlement Agreement and Addendum thereto, which is
subject to review pursuant to the applicable Rules of Civil
Procedure.
On Dec. 14, 2022, the Parties notified the Court a settlement had
been reached between Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, and Defendant related to Plaintiff's
claims in this action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
47 U.S.C. Secs. 227, ef seq., and the Rosenthal Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, Cal. Civ. Code Secs. 1788-1788.32.
On Feb. 13, 2024, Plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.
Upon consideration of the Agreement, Preliminary Approval Motion,
and the record, on Aug. 19, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff's
Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action
Settlement:
Pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order, the Court, among other
things, (i) preliminarily certified (for settlement purposes only)
the Settlement Class with respect to the claims asserted in this
Litigation; (ii) preliminarily approved the proposed Settlement;
(iv) appointed Plaintiff Shayan Kamrava as the Class
Representative; (v) appointed Kazerouni Law Group, APC as Class
Counsel; and (vi) set the date and time of the Final Approval
Hearing.
On Jan. 13, 2025, Plaintiff filed an Unopposed Motion for Final
Approval of Class Action Settlement. Pursuant to Plaintiff's Final
Approval Motion, Plaintiff requested final certification of the
Settlement Class and final approval of the proposed class action
Settlement.
On Feb. 26, 2025, a Final Approval Hearing was held to determine
whether the lawsuit satisfies the applicable prerequisites for
class action treatment and whether the proposed settlement is
fundamentally fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests
of the Settlement Class Members and should be
approved by the Court.
The Action is finally certified, for settlement purposes only, and
the following TCPA Settlement Class and RFDCPA Settlement Sub-Class
are defined as and certified as follows:
a. TCPA Settlement Class:
All persons within the United States who received an automated call
to their cellular telephone, after revocation of consent, within
the TCPA Class Period from defendant or a loan servicer on whose
behalf Defendant was sub-servicing, its employees or its agents
(the "TCPA Settlement Class").
b. REDCPA Settlement Sub-Class:
All persons with addresses within the State of California who
requested in writing that Defendant or the loan servicer on whose
behalf Defendant was sub-servicing to top contacting them and
thereafter (i) received a letter asking them to sign and return a
form confirming their cease-and-desist request or (ii) received at
least one subsequent telephone call within the RFDCPA Sub-Class
Period (the "RFDCPA Settlement Sub-Class").
The Settlement Agreement is finally approved in all respects as
fair, reasonable and adequate. The terms and provisions of the
Settlement Agreement, including all Exhibits thereto, have been
entered into in good faith and are fully and finally approved as
fair, reasonable, and adequate as to, and in the best interests of,
each of the Parties and the Settlement Class Members.
The Court again finds that the Action satisfies the applicable
prerequisites for class action treatment, namely:
(1) the Settlement Classes are so numerous that joinder of all
members is impracticable;
(2) there are questions of law or fact common to the Settlement
Classes;
(3) Plaintiff's claims are typical of the claims of the
Settlement Classes;
(4) Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of
the Settlement Classes;
(5) for purposes of determining whether the settlement is fair,
reasonable and adequate, common questions of law and fact
predominate over questions affecting only individual Settlement
Class Members. Accordingly, the Settlement Classes are sufficiently
cohesive to warrant settlement by representation; and,
(6) certifying the Settlement Classes 1s superior to other
available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the
controversy.
The Court finds that the Settlement of the Action, on the terms and
conditions set forth in the Agreement, is in all respects
fundamentally fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests
of the Settlement Class Members, especially in light of the
benefits to the Settlement Class Members, the strength of the
Plaintiff's case, the complexity, expense and probable duration of
further litigation, the risk and delay inherent in possible
appeals, and the risk of collecting any judgment obtained on behalf
of the class.
The Court further finds the Settlement avoids prolonged litigation
and provides the Settlement Class with an opportunity for the
benefits of a class-wide settlement in the present rather than an
uncertain outcome in the future.
The Court confirms that Plaintiff Shayan Kamrava is appointed as
the Class Representative of the Settlement Classes.
a. Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, Defendant agreed to
not object to a requested Service Award that did not exceed $3,000.
Having reviewed Class Counsel's Fee Motion, the Court further
approves Plaintiff Shayan Kamrava's requested Service Award in the
amount of $3,000 to be paid from the Common Fund.
The Court appoints Abbas Kazerounian, Ryan L. McBride, and Pamela
E. Prescott of Kazerouni Law Group, APC as counsel for the
Settlement Class. It finds that counsel is competent and capable of
exercising all responsibilities as Class Counsel for the Settlement
Classes.
The Court further approves Class Counsel's request for attorneys'
fees in the amount of $184,219.23 and costs in the amount of
$29,980.77.
The Court finds that the requested fees are reasonable for the
reasons set forth herein. Further, it finds the hourly rates of
Class Counsel are fair and reasonable. The award of attorneys' fees
and costs to Class Counsel shall be paid from the Common Fund
within the time-period and manner set forth in the Settlement
Agreement.
The Litigation is dismissed with prejudice in all respects.
A copy of the Court's decision dated April 14, 2025, is available
at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ZGc8Lv from PacerMonitor.com.
CHERVON NORTH AMERICA: Desparrois Suit Removed to S.D. Illinois
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Anthony Desparrois, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Chervon North America,
Inc., and Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, Case No. 2025 LA 000175 was
removed from the Twentieth Judicial Circuit of St. Clair County,
Illinois, to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois on April 11, 2025, and assigned Case No.
3:25-cv-00551.
The State Court Action alleges 10 counts: unjust enrichment; breach
of express warranty; breach of implied warranty; breach of implied
warranty of merchantability; fraudulent concealment; strict
liability – failure to warn; strict liability – design defect;
negligent failure to warn; negligent design defect; and
negligence.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Troy E. Walton, Esq.
WALTON TELKEN, LLC
209 East Schwarz Street
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Email: twalton@waltontelken.com
- and -
Paul J. Doolittle, Esq.
POULIN | WILLEY | ANASTOPOULO
32 Ann Street
Charleston, SC 29403
Email: Paul.doolittle@poulinwilley.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Scott Stirling, Esq.
WALKER WILCOX MATOUSEK LLP
One North Franklin Street, Suite 3200
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: (312) 244-6754
Email: sstirling@walkerwilcox.com
CINTAS CORP: Inks $45MM Settlement in Mississippi Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Cintas Corporation is a defendant in a purported class action
lawsuit, City of Laurel, Mississippi v. Cintas Corporation No. 2,
filed on March 12, 2021. This is a contract dispute whereby
plaintiffs allege that Cintas breached its contracts with
participating public agencies and seek, among other things,
contract-based damages.
In March 2024, an agreement in principle was reached with the
plaintiff which would require a one-time monetary payment related
to the contract dispute of $45.0 million, which was accrued for and
included in accrued liabilities on the consolidated condensed
balance sheet at February 28, 2025 and May 31, 2024. The amount
reserved for this matter did not have a material impact on the
consolidated condensed statements of income for any period
presented, the Company disclosed in a Form 10-Q report for the
quarterly period ended February 28, 2025, filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company will also make certain future investments such as
people and technology. These future investments are not expected to
be material to the Company. The tentative settlement remains
subject to approval of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Nevada; however, the Company does not anticipate any material
changes in the amounts reflected in the consolidated condensed
financial statements, the Company further disclosed.
CIOX HEALTH: Mayo Suit Removed to D. Utah
-----------------------------------------
The case captioned as Mary Mayo and Angela Micklos, individually
and on behalf of all similarly situated persons v. CIOX HEALTH,
LLC, a Georgia limited liability company, dba DATAVANT GROUP, Case
No. 250901948 was removed from the Third Judicial District Court in
and for Salt Lake County, State of Utah, to the United States
District Court for the District of Utah on April 11, 2025, and
assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00285.
In their Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that they bring this action
on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated persons.
Specifically, Plaintiffs seek certification of a class consisting
of individuals who, within four years prior to the filing of the
Complaint through the present, requested medical records from Utah
healthcare providers, which Datavant allegedly produced in
violation of Utah Code Section 78B-5-618, including by charging
excessive fees, failing to provide timely access, and failing to
provide electronic records as requested.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Jordan C. Bledsoe, Esq.
Charles D. Morris, Esq.
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
95 South State Street, Suite 2500
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Phone: 801.401.8921
Email: jordan.bledsoe@foley.com
charlie.morris@foley.com
CLARITY DEBT RESOLUTION: Hull Files TCPA Suit in D. Colorado
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Clarity Debt
Resolution, Inc. The case is styled as Charles Hull, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Clarity Debt
Resolution, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-01149-CYC (D. Colo., April 11,
2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Clarity Debt Resolution -- https://usclarity.com/ -- is a debt
management services provider.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher E. Roberts, Esq.
BUTSCH ROBERTS & ASSOCIATES LLC
7777 Bonhomme Avenue, Suite 1300
Clayton, MO 63105
Phone: (314) 863-5700
Fax: (314) 863-5711
Email: croberts@butschroberts.com
CSU: Class Cert Hearing in Fisk Reset to May 29
-----------------------------------------------
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 Hon. Judge Todd
Robinson entered an order granting the Parties' joint motion to
continue class certification hearing and pretrial motion deadline.
Pursuant to the agreement of the Parties, the date for expert
depositions is extended to May 21, 2025, the hearing regarding the
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification is reset for May 29,
2025, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 14A, and the deadline to file
pretrial motions is extended to June 11, 2025.
Board of Trustees governs the diverse and complex 23-campus system
by developing broad administrative policy for the campuses.
A copy of the Court's order dated April 7, 2025, is available from
PacerMonitor.com at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=rzFy1M at no extra
charge.[CC]
ELANCO US: Creason Appeals Summary Judgment Ruling to 7th Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CLAYTON CREASON is taking an appeal from a court order granting the
Defendant's motion for summary judgment in the lawsuit entitled
Clayton Creason, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Elanco U.S., Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:22-cv-00853-RLY-MKK, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Indiana.
As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter, the case
arises from the Defendant's alleged failure to pay the Plaintiff
purportedly accrued and unused vacation wages at the time of his
separation in violation of Indiana's Wage Payment Statute; and its
permission of employees to purchase additional vacation time in
violation of Indiana's Wage Assignment Statute.
On Apr. 1, 2024, the Defendant filed a motion for summary
judgment.
On May 6, 2024, the Plaintiff filed a cross motion for partial
summary judgment.
On Mar. 10, 2025, Judge Richard L. Young granted the Defendant's
motion for summary judgment and denied the Plaintiff's cross motion
for summary judgment. As no claims remain for resolution, the Court
entered final judgment in favor of the Defendant and against the
Plaintiff.
The appellate case is captioned Creason v. Elanco US Inc., Case No.
25-1552, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit, filed on April 2, 2025. [BN]
Plaintiff-Appellant CLAYTON CREASON, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, is represented by:
Robert Peter Kondras, Jr., Esq.
Taryn Dissett, Esq.
HASSLER KONDRAS MILLER LLP
100 Cherry Street
Terre Haute, IN 47807
Telephone: (812) 232-9691
Facsimile: (812) 234-2881
Email: kondras@hkmlawfirm.com
tdissett@hkmlawfirm.com
Defendant-Appellee ELANCO US INC. is represented by:
Andrew B. Murphy, Esq.
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
2200 Wells Fargo Center
90 South Seventh Street
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Telephone: (612) 766-8897
Facsimile: (612) 766-1600
Email: andrew.murphy@faegredrinker.com
- and –
James Robert Strickland, Esq.
FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP
300 N. Meridian Street, Ste. 2500
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Telephone: (317) 237-1080
Email: james.strickland@faegredrinker.com
ELON MUSK: Emrit Lawsuit Dismissed with Prejudice
-------------------------------------------------
Senior Judge Ralph R. Beistline of the United States District Court
for the District of Alaska dismissed with prejudice the case
captioned as RONALD SATISH EMRIT, Plaintiff, v. ELON MUSK, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:25-cv-00007-RRB (D. Alaska). All pending
motions are denied as moot.
On Feb. 11, 2024, self-represented litigant Ronald Satish Emrit
filed a complaint, a civil cover sheet, and an application to
proceed without paying the filing fee. Then, on Feb. 7, 2025,
Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal in which he appears to be
attempting to have the present case at bar sent to the Tenth
Circuit Court of Appeal in Denver, Colorado and sent to the Fourth
Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, VA. Plaintiff believes this
should be a class action lawsuit, and that the U.S. Supreme Court
should grant certiorari and review his claims
The Court proceeds to conduct its mandatory screening of the
Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1915, 1915A.
Upon review, the Complaint lacks any basis upon which the Court can
establish it has personal jurisdiction over the named Defendants or
could be considered a proper venue for this action. Plaintiff
claims to be a resident of either Florida and Maryland (spending
half the year in each state). None of the Defendants reside in
Alaska, none of the alleged events took place in Alaska, and
Plaintiff himself indicates this case should be heard in either
Colorado or Virginia. As such, this Court certainly is not the
appropriate venue for Plaintiff's Complaint.
Further, the Court finds the Complaint is frivolous and duplicative
of lawsuits Plaintiff recently has filed. Plaintiff is a serial
filer of frivolous complaints in federal courts across the country.
The Court finds the Complaint to be frivolous and that amendment
would be futile. Additionally, it finds Plaintiff's premature
appeal to be frivolous, and any appeal of this order would be
frivolous.
A copy of the Court's decision dated April 14, 2025, is available
at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=ncDWSC
EVERCOMMERCE INC: Continues to Defend Gusinsky Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
EverCommerce Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
period ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 13, 2025, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Gusinsky class suit in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware.
On January 31, 2024, plaintiff Vladimir Gusinsky Revocable Trust
filed a putative class action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware against the Company, members of its Board of
Directors (the "Board") and the other parties to its sponsor
stockholders agreement, dated June 30, 2021, Providence Strategic
Growth II L.P., Providence Strategic Growth II-A L.P., SLA Eclipse
Co-Invest, L.P., and SLA CM Eclipse Holdings, L.P. (collectively,
the "Sponsor Stockholders"), captioned Vladimir Gusinsky Revocable
Trust v. Eric Remer, Penny Baldwin, et. al., Case No. 2024-0077
(Del Ch.).
The complaint generally alleges violations of Section 141(a) of the
Delaware General Corporation Law ("DGCL") by providing the Sponsor
Stockholders with a veto right over the Board's ability to hire or
fire the Company's Chief Executive Officer (the "CEO Approval
Right") on the basis that it unlawfully limits the Board's
authority to manage the business and affairs of the Company.
The plaintiff seeks declaratory judgment that the CEO Approval
Right is invalid and void, other declaratory and equitable relief
for the class and/or the Company, attorneys' and experts' II-50
witness fees and other costs and expenses, and other equitable
relief.
On June 14, 2024, the Company filed its opening brief in support of
its Motion to Dismiss, and on July 15, 2024, Plaintiff opposed that
motion.
On July 16, 2024, the court entered a stipulation and order
dismissing the director defendants from the action.
On August 29, 2024, the remaining defendants, the Company and
Sponsor Stockholders (collectively, "Defendants"), filed their
reply in support of the Motion to Dismiss, and pursuant to a
stipulation between the parties, Plaintiff filed a sur-reply on
September 26, 2024, which Defendants filed a response to on October
10, 2024.
On October 15, 2024, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack
of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, arguing that the claims alleged are
not ripe for adjudication and on November 15, 2024 Plaintiff
opposed that motion. On December 9, 2024, Defendants filed their
reply in support of the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject
Matter Jurisdiction.
On January 3, 2025, the Court entered a minute order deferring oral
argument on the pending Motion to Dismiss until after the
disposition of the appeal in Moelis & Company v. West Palm Beach
Firefighters' Pension Fund, Case No. 340, 2024 (Del. Supr.).
The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to the claims of
the plaintiff and members of the class and any liability for the
alleged claims is not currently probable and the potential loss or
range of loss is not reasonably estimable.
Headquartered in Denver, CO, EverCommerce is a publicly traded
corporation that provides software-as-a-service (SaaS) solutions
for small- and medium-sized businesses. [BN]
EVERUS CONSTRUCTION: Faces Class Action Suit Over False Statements
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Gross Law Firm issues a notice to shareholders of Everus
Construction Group, Inc. (NYSE: ECG) that shareholders who
purchased shares of ECG during the class period listed are
encouraged to contact the firm regarding possible lead plaintiff
appointment. Appointment as lead plaintiff is not required to
partake in any recovery.
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/everus-construction-group-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=141718&from=3
CLASS PERIOD: October 31, 2024 to February 11, 2025
ALLEGATIONS: The complaint alleges that during the class period,
Defendants issued materially false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company's backlog
conversion cycle had become elongated due to larger, more complex
projects; (2) as a result, the Company's revenue recognition would
be delayed; and (3) as a result of the foregoing, defendants'
positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.
DEADLINE: June 3, 2025 Shareholders should not delay in registering
for this class action. Register your information here:
https://securitiesclasslaw.com/securities/everus-construction-group-inc-loss-submission-form/?id=141718&from=3
NEXT STEPS FOR SHAREHOLDERS: Once you register as a shareholder who
purchased shares of ECG during the timeframe listed above, you will
be enrolled in a portfolio monitoring software to provide you with
status updates throughout the lifecycle of the case. The deadline
to seek to be a lead plaintiff is June 3, 2025. There is no cost or
obligation to you to participate in this case.
WHY GROSS LAW FIRM? The Gross Law Firm is a nationally recognized
class action law firm, and our mission is to protect the rights of
all investors who have suffered as a result of deceit, fraud, and
illegal business practices. The Gross Law Firm is committed to
ensuring that companies adhere to responsible business practices
and engage in good corporate citizenship. The firm seeks recovery
on behalf of investors who incurred losses when false and/or
misleading statements or the omission of material information by a
company lead to artificial inflation of the company's stock.
Attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee similar
outcomes.
CONTACT:
The Gross Law Firm
15 West 38th Street, 12th floor
New York, NY, 10018
Email: dg@securitiesclasslaw.com
Phone: (646) 453-8903 [GN]
EXICURE INC: Settlement in Colwell Shareholder Suit Gets Final Nod
------------------------------------------------------------------
Exicure Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 18, 2025, that on October 8, 2024, the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted
preliminary approval of the settlement of a December 13, 2021
putative securities class action lawsuit against the company, David
A. Giljohann and Brian C. Bock, captioned "Mark Colwell v. Exicure,
Inc. et al.," Case No. 1:21-cv-0663. A final approval hearing was
held on January 13, 2025 and on January 13, the court entered final
judgment approving the settlement.
On February 4, 2021, the plaintiff filed an amended putative
securities class action complaint. On March 20, 2023, the court
entered an order appointing James Mathew as lead plaintiff and
Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP as lead counsel in the action pursuant
to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.
On May 26, 2023, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended
complaint against the company, Dr. Giljohann, Mr. Bock, and Grant
Corbett. The second amended complaint alleges that Dr. Giljohann,
Mr. Bock, and Dr. Corbett made materially false and/or misleading
statements related to the company's clinical programs purportedly
causing losses to investors who acquired company securities between
January 7, 2021, and December 10, 2021.
The second amended complaint does not quantify any alleged damages
but, in addition to attorneys' fees and costs, lead plaintiff seeks
to recover damages on behalf of himself and others who acquired the
company's stock during the putative class period at allegedly
inflated prices and purportedly suffered financial harm as a
result. The parties filed a joint status report noting the
mediation efforts taken by the parties.
Exicure, Inc. is an early-stage biotechnology company based in
Illinois.
F.N. LLC: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property
-------------------------------------------------
Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated v. F.N., LLC and RRH – FLORIDA, LLC
D/B/A DENNY'S RESTAURANT #9598, Case No. 1:25-cv-21671-XXXX (S.D.
Fla., April 11, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys'
fees, litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's
discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him
access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services,
facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the
Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by
the ADA.
Although well over 33 years have passed since the effective date of
Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities
accessible to individuals with disabilities. The Plaintiff found
the Commercial Property and the business located within the
commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff
encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property and
the business located within the commercial property and wishes to
continue his patronage and use of the premises.
The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in
violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and
businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to
access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each
denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial
Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA.
The barriers to access, have likewise posed a risk of injury(ies),
embarrassment, and discomfort to Plaintiff, and others similarly
situated.
The Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing
threat of discrimination from the Defendants' non-compliance with
the ADA with respect to the described commercial property and
restaurant, including but not necessarily limited to the
allegations of this Complaint, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate.
F.N., LLC, owns, operates and/or oversees the commercial property;
to include its general parking lot, parking spots, and entrance
access and path of travel specific to the tenant business therein
and all other common areas open to the public located within the
commercial property.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC
7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104
Miami, FL 33144
Phone: (786) 361-9909
Facsimile: (786) 687-0445
Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com
Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com
FAMOUS RAMONA WATER: Mejia Suit Removed to S.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Ulises Lopez Mejia, individually, and on
behalf of all Others similarly situated v. FAMOUS RAMONA WATER,
INC; and DOES 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 25CU012335C was removed
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County
of San Diego, to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California on April 11, 2025, and assigned Case No.
3:25-cv-00863-LL-DEB.
The Complaint asserts the following causes of action: Failure to
Pay Minimum Wages; Failure to Pay Overtime Compensation; Failure to
Provide Meal Periods; Failure to Authorize and Permit Rest Breaks;
Failure to Indemnify Necessary Business Expenses; Failure to Timely
Pay Final Wages at Termination; Failure to Provide Accurate
Itemized Wage Statements; and Unfair Business Practices.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Donald P. Tremblay, Esq.
Maurile J. Tremblay, Esq.
TREMBLAY BECK LAW, APC
5330 Carroll Canyon Road, Suite 230
San Diego, CA 92121
Phone: (858) 699-4182
Facsimile: (858) 792-7768
Email: dontremblay@mac.com
mjt@tremblaylaw.com
FARMERS INSURANCE: Court Reverses $26.3M Judgment in Insurance Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Sellers, writing for Insurance Business, reports that the
Oregon Supreme Court has ruled that insurers satisfy their
obligation under Oregon's "choice-of-shop" notice law by using
language approved by the state's insurance regulator, even if the
language does not fully reflect the current content of the law. The
April 2025 decision in Bellshaw v. Farmers Insurance Company of
Oregon reversed a $26.3 million judgment against the insurer and
significantly limits insurer liability under ORS 746.290(2).
The dispute began when Steven Bellshaw, an Oregon policyholder,
filed a class action lawsuit against Farmers Insurance Company of
Oregon. He alleged that the company's notice, issued with his motor
vehicle insurance policy in 2011, violated ORS 746.290(2)(b), which
requires every policy to be accompanied by:
"a statement in clear and conspicuous language approved by the
director of [. . .] (b) The provisions of ORS 746.280."
The statute cross-referenced in the notice, ORS 746.280, prohibits
insurers from requiring policyholders to use specific motor vehicle
repair shops. In 2007, the Oregon Legislature amended that statute
to include three additional subsections (2) through (4), imposing
further disclosure and conduct requirements on insurers when
recommending repair shops.
Farmers' notice, however, included only the original language of
ORS 746.280(1), which had been approved for use in a 1993 bulletin
by the Department of Consumer and Business Services (DCBS). That
bulletin was withdrawn in 2003, but Farmers continued using the
same notice language. Bellshaw claimed the notice was deficient
because it failed to reflect the amendments made in 2007.
The trial court agreed, concluding that ORS 746.290(2) imposed an
independent obligation on insurers to ensure their notices included
the complete provisions of ORS 746.280. The court imposed a
statutory penalty of $100 per violation under ORS 746.300, totaling
more than $26 million in damages. The Oregon Court of Appeals
affirmed the ruling.
The Oregon Supreme Court reversed both decisions. Writing for the
majority, Justice Garrett concluded that ORS 746.290(2) imposes
only one obligation on insurers: to use notice language approved by
the director of DCBS. If the insurer uses such approved language,
it complies with the law—regardless of whether the approved
notice reflects all parts of ORS 746.280.
The Court emphasized that the phrase "approved by the director" was
added to the statute in 1977 specifically to give insurers a safe
harbor against liability. The legislative history showed that
lawmakers intended the director's approval to be determinative of
compliance, in part to alleviate insurer concerns about unclear or
evolving notice requirements.
"This case is not about who decides whether a notice complies," the
Court explained. "Rather, it is about what the statute requires an
insurer to do. The answer is that the insurer must use language
approved by the director. That is the entirety of its obligation
under ORS 746.290(2)."
The Court remanded the case to the circuit court to determine
whether Farmers had, in fact, used language that was approved by
the director at the time the policy was issued. While the notice
closely tracked the 1993 bulletin, that document had been
withdrawn. However, the record also showed that DCBS approved
Farmers' form in 2016—after the lawsuit was filed—when the
agency began requiring submission of ORS 746.290(2) notices through
the form pre-approval process. The Court declined to rule on the
legal significance of the 2003 withdrawal or the 2016 approval,
noting that those questions had not been fully briefed.
The notice provision at issue was not part of the insurance policy
contract but was a separate consumer protection notice required by
statute. Under ORS 746.300, failure to comply with the notice
requirement can result in a statutory penalty, which formed the
basis of the class action. The Supreme Court's ruling narrows the
scope of such liability by confirming that it is the director's
approval, not the completeness of the notice, that determines
whether the insurer met its legal duty.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice James, joined by Justice Masih,
argued that the majority's reading improperly shielded insurers
from accountability. The dissent contended that the statutory
obligation to state "the provisions of ORS 746.280" must mean that
the notice include the full, accurate content of the statute, not
just whatever the director may have approved—especially when the
approved language predates statutory amendments.
The majority disagreed, holding that the plain text, structure, and
legislative history of the statute establish that an insurer is not
independently liable for omitting statutory subsections if it used
director-approved wording.
The ruling in Bellshaw provides welcome clarity for insurers
operating in Oregon and potentially beyond. It confirms that
liability under ORS 746.290(2) turns solely on whether the insurer
used language approved by the DCBS director. For companies
concerned about exposure from outdated or incomplete statutory
references in their notices, the case reinforces the importance of
regulatory approval as a compliance benchmark.
For the insurance industry, the decision underscores the value of
following approved regulatory guidance—even if that guidance lags
behind legislative amendments. For policyholders, the ruling may
raise questions about the adequacy of consumer disclosures under
outdated notices, but the Court made clear that the remedy lies
with the regulator, not the courts.
As insurers revisit their compliance protocols, Bellshaw stands as
a key precedent defining the relationship between insurer
obligations, statutory language, and agency oversight in the realm
of auto insurance regulation. [GN]
FIVERR INC: Johnson Suit Removed to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Marcus Johnson, individually, and on behalf
of other members of the general public similarly situated v. FIVERR
INC., Case No. 25CV114008 was removed from the Superior Court of
the State of California for the County of Alameda, to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
April 11, 2025, and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-03303.
The Plaintiff asserts the following claims for relief: violation of
California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act; violation of
California's False Advertising Law and California's Unfair
Competition Law; and unjust enrichment.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Bryan A. Merryman, Esq.
Julian A. Lamm, Esq.
Russell J. Gould, Esq.
WHITE & CASE LLP
555 S. Flower Street, Suite 2700
Los Angeles, CA 90071-2433
Phone: (213) 620-7700
Facsimile: (213) 452-2329
Email: bmerryman@whitecase.com
jlamm@whitecase.com
russell.gould@whitecase.com
FOXX DEVELOPMENT: Semensato Securities Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Foxx Development Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 8-K filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 18, 2025, that with
regard to a November 22, 2024 case captioned "Semensato v. Foxx
Development Holdings Inc., et al.," No. 2024-1200 (Del. Ch. Ct.),
against the company and "Joy" Yi Hua, Haitao Cui, "Jeff" Feng
Jiang, "Eva" Yiqing Miao and Edmund R. Miller, after the Plaintiff
was advised of Foxx's approval of the Amended Charter on March 3,
2025, plaintiff filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the action
as moot, which the court approved by order dated March 4, 2025.
The lawsuit seeks declaratory relief under provisions of the
Delaware General Corporation Law relating to a waiver of the
corporate opportunity doctrine that is contained in the company's
Amended and Restated Certificate of Incorporation. The plaintiff
seeks a declaration that the waiver provision is invalid, an
injunction against the company and the individual defendants to
prevent them from attempting to enforce the waiver, attorneys'
fees, and the costs and disbursements of this action. However, to
avoid the cost and distraction of litigation, the directors of the
board of the company determined that it was advisable and in the
best interests of the company and its stockholders to amend Article
X of the Charter. It thus approved and adopted the Second Amended
and Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Company, and will
direct the Amendment to be submitted to the stockholders of the
company for adoption and approval at the next annual meeting of
stockholders with the recommendation that the Amendment be approved
and adopted by the stockholders of the company.
Foxx Development Holdings Inc. is primarily engaged in the sales of
electronic products and debt financing in the form of convertible
notes, loans from bank, third parties, related parties, and cash
generated from operations have been utilized to finance the working
capital.
FUNKO INC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Securities Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Funko Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period
ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 13, 2025, that the Company continues to defend
itself from a consolidated securities class suit in the Superior
Court of Washington.
Between November 16, 2017 and June 12, 2018, seven purported
stockholders of the Company filed putative class action lawsuits in
the Superior Court of Washington in and for King County against the
Company, certain of its officers and directors, ACON, Fundamental,
the underwriters of its IPO, and certain other defendants.
On July 2, 2018, the suits were ordered consolidated for all
purposes into one action under the title In re Funko, Inc.
Securities Litigation.
On August 1, 2018, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint
against the Company, certain of its officers and directors, ACON,
Fundamental, and certain other defendants.
The Company moved to dismiss twice, and the Court twice granted its
motions to dismiss, the second time with prejudice. Plaintiffs
appealed and on November 1, 2021, the Court of Appeals reversed the
trial court's dismissal decision in most respects.
On May 4, 2022, the Washington State Supreme Court denied the
Defendants' petition, and the case was remanded to the Superior
Court for further proceedings.
The Company filed its answer on September 19, 2022, and the Court
certified the case as a class action on November 6, 2023.
The consolidated complaint alleges that it violated Sections 11,
12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended ("Securities
Act"), by making allegedly materially misleading statements in
documents filed with the SEC in connection with its IPO and by
omitting material facts necessary to make the statements made
therein not misleading.
The lawsuit seeks, among other things, compensatory statutory
damages and rescissory damages in account of the consideration paid
for its Class A common stock by the plaintiffs and members of the
putative class, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.
On October 21, 2024, the parties agreed to a settlement in
principle, and on October 29, 2024 notified the Court of a proposed
class settlement.
The Court preliminarily approved the settlement on February 12,
2025 and the settlement was paid on February 25, 2025, directly by
the Company's applicable insurance policies.
No assurance can be made that this matter either individually or
together with the potential for similar suits, will not result in a
material financial exposure, which could have a material adverse
effect upon the Company's financial condition and results of
operations.
Funko is a pop culture consumer products company that creates
figures, plush, accessories, apparel, and homewares regarding
movies, TV shows, videogames, musicians, and sports teams.[BN]
FUNKO INC: Discovery in Shumacher Class Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------
Funko Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period
ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 13, 2025, that discovery in the Shumacher
stockholder class suit is ongoing in the Court of Chancery of the
States of Delaware.
On January 18, 2022, a purported stockholder filed a putative class
action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
captioned Shumacher v. Mariotti, et al., relating to its corporate
"Up-C" structure and bringing direct claims for breach of fiduciary
duties against certain current and former officers and directors,
seeking declaratory, monetary, and injunctive relief.
On March 31, 2022, it moved to dismiss the action. In response to
defendants' motion to dismiss, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint
on May 25, 2022. The amendment did not materially change the claims
at issue, and the Defendants again moved to dismiss on August 12,
2022.
On December 15, 2022, Plaintiff opposed the Defendants’ motion to
dismiss and also moved for attorneys' fees.
Briefing on the motion to dismiss was completed on February 8,
2023; briefing on Plaintiff's fee application was completed on
April 10, 2023. The Court heard oral argument on both motions on
July 24, 2023. On December 18, 2023, the Court denied Defendants'
motion to dismiss and denied Plaintiffs' application for an interim
fee.
The Company filed its answer on January 26, 2024, and discovery is
currently ongoing.
On March 13, 2024, the representative plaintiff moved to withdraw
as a plaintiff in the action, and another purported stockholder
moved to intervene as representative plaintiff.
On October 28, 2024, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion to
withdraw and granted the new representative plaintiff's motion to
intervene.
The Company filed its Answer to the Verified Class Action Complaint
in Intervention on December 10, 2024, and discovery is currently
ongoing.
Funko is a pop culture consumer products company that creates
figures, plush, accessories, apparel, and homewares regarding
movies, TV shows, videogames, musicians, and sports teams.[BN]
FUNKO INC: Mediation in California Labor Suit to Start in May
-------------------------------------------------------------
Funko Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period
ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 13, 2025, that the mediation in the California
Labor class suit is expected to begin in May 2025.
On April 12, 2024, a former employee of the Company filed a
putative class action in San Diego Superior Court, seeking to
represent all non-exempt workers of the Company in the State of
California.
The complaint alleges various wage and hour violations under the
California Labor Code and related statutes. Plaintiff has also
served a Private Attorneys General Act notice for the same alleged
wage and hour violations.
The claims predominantly relate to alleged unpaid wages (overtime)
and missed meal and rest breaks. The lawsuit seeks, among other
things, compensatory damages, statutory penalties, attorneys' fees
and costs. There have been no substantive rulings in the case,
including as to propriety of proceeding on a class wide basis, and
a date for trial has not yet been set.
The parties have agreed to a mediation session related to this case
that is expected to occur in May 2025.
Funko is a pop culture consumer products company that creates
figures, plush, accessories, apparel, and homewares regarding
movies, TV shows, videogames, musicians, and sports teams.[BN]
FUNKO INC: Oral Argument in Studen Class Suit Set for May or June
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Funko Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal period
ending December 31, 2024 filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 13, 2025, that the oral argument in the Studen
stockholder class suit is expected to be held in May or June 2025.
On June 2, 2023, a purported stockholder filed a putative class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington, captioned Studen v. Funko, Inc., et al. The
Complaint alleges that the Company and certain individual
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act,
as amended, as well as Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by making
allegedly materially misleading statements in documents filed with
the SEC, as well as in earnings calls and presentations to
investors, regarding a planned upgrade to its enterprise resource
planning system and the relocation of a distribution center, as
well as by omitting material facts about the same subjects
necessary to make the statements made therein not misleading.
The lawsuits seek, among other things, compensatory damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.
On August 17, 2023, the Court appointed lead plaintiff, and on
August 29, 2023, the parties submitted a joint stipulated
scheduling order. Plaintiff's amended complaint was filed October
19, 2023.
The amendment adds additional allegations by including accounts
from purported former employees and contractors. Plaintiff seeks to
represent a putative class of investors who purchased or acquired
Funko common stock between March 3, 2022 and March 1, 2023.
On May 16, 2024, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
with leave for Plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint.
On July 1, 2024, Plaintiffs notified the Court of their decision to
not amend their complaint, and the Court dismissed the complaint
with prejudice on July 8, 2024.
Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on August 6, 2024, under the amended
caption Construction Laborers Pension Trust of Greater St. Louis v.
Funko, Inc., et al. Plaintiffs' opening brief was filed on October
21, 2024, and briefing was completed on February 10, 2025.
Oral argument is expected to be held in or around May or June
2025.
Funko is a pop culture consumer products company that creates
figures, plush, accessories, apparel, and homewares regarding
movies, TV shows, videogames, musicians, and sports teams.[BN]
GAP INC: Faces "False Discounts" Class Action Lawsuit in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
Slater Vecchio LLP has filed a class action lawsuit alleging that
Gap and Old Navy have breached Canada's Competition Act and
consumer protection legislation through their online
representations of the regular and discount prices of their
products.
It is alleged that Gap and Old Navy rarely, if ever, offer to sell
their products at the represented regular price and instead always,
or almost always, offer these products at the so-called discount
price.
As a result of this conduct, individuals who purchased products
from Gap and Old Navy allegedly obtained less value than they
expected to obtain by purchasing these products at so-called
discount prices.
What is a class action?
A class action is a legal case through which one person makes a
claim to the Court on behalf of a similarly situated class of
people who have the same or a similar legal claim. A class action
seeks to hold a defendant or defendants responsible for their
conduct that affects each member of the class by resolving issues
that are common to the class in the same legal proceeding, instead
of each class member bringing a claim individually.
The individual who first files the claim must ask the Court for
permission to proceed as a class action. If permission is granted
(referred to as "authorized" in Quebec and "certified" in all other
Canadian provinces) and the case may proceed as a class action, the
Court will appoint an individual as "Representative Plaintiff" to
represent the best interests of the class during the litigation and
will define the class group. Each person who meets the criteria of
the class group is considered a "Class Member."
What should proposed class members do now?
If you purchased one or more products from Gap or Old Navy online
at a "discount price," please submit your information through the
form on this webpage. [GN]
GIRL SCOUTS: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Campbell Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
JOVAN CAMPBELL, individually and as the representative of a class
of similarly situated persons v. GIRL SCOUTS OF THE UNITED STATES
OF AMERICA, Case No. 1:25-cv-02780 (S.D.N.Y., April 3, 2025) sues
the Defendant for their failure to design, construct, maintain, and
operate their website to be fully accessible to and independently
usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or visually-impaired
persons under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The complaint says the is denying blind and visually-impaired
persons throughout the United States with equal access to the goods
and services Girl Scouts provides to their non-disabled customers
through http//:www.digitalcookie.girlscouts.org/scout/brea499635
and http//:www.digitalcookie.girlscouts.org/scout/troop73422
amongst the many other Girl Scout digital cookie store websites
offered by Defendant.
The Defendants' denial of full and equal access to its websites,
and therefore denial of its products and services offered, and in
conjunction with its physical locations, is a violation of
Plaintiff's rights under ADA, asserts the suit.
Girl Scout store websites provides to the public a wide array of
the goods, services, price specials, employment opportunities and
other programs offered by Girl Scouts.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Dan Shaked, Esq.
SHAKED LAW GROUP, P.C.
14 Harwood Court, Suite 415
Scarsdale, NY 10583
Telephone: (917) 373-9128
E-mail: ShakedLawGroup@Gmail.com
GOODRX INC: NAP Sues Over Unlawful Price-Fixing
-----------------------------------------------
Northern Arizona Pharmacy, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. GoodRx, Inc.; GoodRx Holdings, Inc.; CVS
Caremark Corp.; Express Scripts, Inc.; MedImpact Healthcare
Systems, Inc.; and Navitus Health Solutions, LLC, Case No.
3:25-cv-08069-KML (D. Ariz., March 28, 2025), is brought concerning
an unlawful horizontal price-fixing agreement between GoodRx and
four of the largest pharmacy benefit managers in the United
States—CVS Caremark, Express Scripts, MedImpact, and Navitus
(collectively, the "PBM Defendants").
Through its so-called Integrated Savings Program ("ISP"), GoodRx
and the PBM Defendants have orchestrated a horizontal price-fixing
agreement by coordinating the exchange of competitively sensitive
information and enforcing a single, uniform "lowest negotiated
rate" for every generic-drug claim. This lower rate has
substantially damaged Plaintiff and the Class, as Defendants have
artificially suppressed the prices paid to independent pharmacies
for reimbursement of generic prescription drug claims.
Pharmacy benefit managers ("PBMs"), including the PBM Defendants,
contract with pharmacies on behalf of health plans, employers, and
other third-party payors (collectively, "TPPs"). They negotiate the
prices that third-party payors and health insurance plans pay
pharmacies for generic prescription drugs and process the
pharmacies' reimbursement claims based on those pre-negotiated
prices.
The GoodRx ISP Scheme compels the PBM Defendants to adopt a single,
uniform reimbursement rate—the lowest negotiated among all
pharmacy
benefit managers in GoodRx's network—for every generic
prescription. Moreover, by imposing retroactive clawback fees,
GoodRx further undermines independent pharmacies by ensuring they
consistently receive amounts below market value. By integrating
directly into the PBM Defendants' internal claims-processing
infrastructure, GoodRx institutionalizes centralized algorithmic
price-fixing and facilitates collusion among the PBM Defendants.
This is a textbook price-fixing scheme that has damaged Plaintiff
and the Class.
GoodRx knows that its ISP Scheme significantly reduces independent
pharmacies' ability to stay profitable. Yet it continues to
leverage this network to enrich itself and its PBM co-conspirators
at the expense of pharmacies and the communities they serve. GoodRx
abuses its access to PBMs' proprietary data, colluding with the PBM
Defendants to fix reimbursements at the lowest negotiated rate. As
a result, independent pharmacies, which rely on fair and
competitive rates to stay in business, suffer crippling losses. The
ISP Scheme has undeniably worsened existing financial pressures on
independent pharmacies, accelerating the decline of local pharmacy
access and deepening pharmacy deserts in underserved areas, says
the complaint.
The Plaintiff has been providing critical health care services to
its communities since 2016.
GoodRx, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in Santa Monica, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary Gotto, Esq.
KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
3101 N Central Ave # 1400
Phoenix, AZ 85012
Phone: (602) 248-0088
Facsimile: (602) 248-2822
Email: ggotto@kellerrohrback.com
H2O.AI INC: Failed to Secure Employees' Personal Info, Clark Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
BRANDY CLARK, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. H2O.AI, INC., Case No. 3:25-cv-03067 (N.D. Cal., April
3, 2025) alleges that H2O failed to properly secure and safeguard
the Plaintiff's and other similarly situated current and former
employees' personally identifiable information including names,
payroll information, Social Security numbers, driver's license
numbers, home addresses, dates of birth, and benefit enrollment
information from hackers.
Accordingly, on March 27, 2025, H2O filed official notice of a
hacking incident with the Attorney General of Massachusetts. On or
around the same time, H2O also sent out data breach letters to
individuals whose information was compromised as a result of the
hacking incident.
Based on the Notice, H2O became aware that a financially motivated
group claimed to have stolen their data on February 18, 2025. In
response, the company conducted an investigation which revealed
that an unauthorized party had access to certain company systems
between Dec. 20, 2024, and Jan. 29, 2025 (the "Data Breach").
The Plaintiff and "Class Members" were, and continue to be, at
significant risk of identity theft and various other forms of
personal, social, and financial harm. The risk will remain for
their respective lifetimes. The Private Information compromised in
the Data Breach included highly sensitive data that represents a
gold mine for data thieves, including but not limited to, Social
Security numbers, driver's license numbers, payroll information,
and benefit enrollment information that H2O collected and
maintained.
The Plaintiff is an individual citizen of the State of Nevada
seeking remedy of the harms on behalf of herself and all similarly
situated individuals whose Private Information was accessed and/or
compromised during the Data Breach.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and the Class,
assert claims for negligence, invasion of privacy, breach of
implied contract, unjust enrichment, and declaratory judgment.
H2O, based in Mountain View, California, is an AI software company
that serves more than 20,000 companies across the globe.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Catherine Ybarra, Esq.
Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
Neil P. Williams, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
700 S Flower Street, Suite 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 297-3807
E-mail: cybarra@sirillp.com
tbean@sirillp.com
nwilliams@sirillp.com
HESAI GROUP: "Pacella" Suit Remains Pending in New York
-------------------------------------------------------
On April 7, 2023, Hesai Group (NASDAQ: HSAI) and certain of its
officers, directors, authorized U.S. representative, and IPO
underwriters were named as defendants in a putative securities
class action filed in federal court, captioned Pacella v. Hesai
Group, et al., No. 1:23-cv-02634 (U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York).
The Plaintiff in this case alleges, in sum and substance, that
Company's registration statement and prospectus filed in connection
with its February 2023 initial public offering contained false or
misleading statements in violation of U.S. federal securities
laws.
In February 2024, the case was transferred to U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York, under the case caption
Pacella v. Hesai Group, et al., No. 1:24-cv-00876. As the case is
still in its preliminary stage, the Company said cannot predict its
timing, outcome, potential damages, or expenses that may be
incurred, the Company disclosed in a Form 20-F report for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission.
HUMANA MARKETPOINT: Alexander Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against HUMANA MARKETPOINT
INC. The case is styled as Chandra Alexander, on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated v. HUMANA MARKETPOINT INC., Case No.
25STCV10591 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 9, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
Humana MarketPOINT, Inc. -- https://medicareagent.humana.com/ --
provides medical healthcare services.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638
Phone: 310-432-0000
Fax: 310-432-0001
Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
HUMBERTO SANTOS TRUST: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated v. HUMBERTO SANTOS TRUST, HUMBERTO SANTOS
& MARIA I. SANTOS REVOCABLE TRUST, MARIA I. SANTOS TRUST and
BULIE'S CAFÉ CORP., Case No. 1:25-cv-21629-RKA (S.D. Fla., April
10, 2025), is brought for injunctive relief, attorneys' fees,
litigation expenses, and costs pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result of the Defendant's
discrimination against the individual Plaintiff by denying him
access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services,
facilities, privileges, advantages and/or accommodations of the
Commercial Property and business located therein, as prohibited by
the ADA.
Although well over 33 years have passed since the effective date of
Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities
accessible to individuals with disabilities. The Plaintiff found
the Commercial Property and the business located within the
commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff
encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property and
the business located within the commercial property and wishes to
continue his patronage and use of the premises.
The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in
violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and
businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to
access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each
denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial
Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA.
The barriers to access, which are set forth below, have likewise
posed a risk of injury(ies), embarrassment, and discomfort to
Plaintiff, and others similarly situated.
The Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing
threat of discrimination from the Defendants' non-compliance with
the ADA with respect to the described commercial property and
restaurant, including but not necessarily limited to the
allegations of this Complaint, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate.
The Defendant own, operate and/or oversee the commercial
property.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Anthony J. Perez, Esq.
ANTHONY J. PEREZ LAW GROUP, PLLC
7950 w. Flagler Street, Suite 104
Miami, FL 33144
Phone: (786) 361-9909
Facsimile: (786) 687-0445
Email: ajp@ajperezlawgroup.com
Secondary Email: jr@ajperezlawgroup.com
IN RE PAYMENT: Withdrawal of JAM3STRO's Fraudulent Claims Ordered
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE PAYMENT CARD INTERCHANGE FEE AND
MERCHANT DISCOUNT ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No.
05-md-01720-MKB-JAM (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Margo K. Brodie of the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York adopts
in its entirety the report and recommendation issued by Magistrate
Judge Joseph A. Marutollo on March 7, 2025, recommending that the
Court orders Epiq to withdraw:
(1) JAM3STRO's 2,184 fraudulent proofs of authority; and
(2) assess against JAM3STRO the costs of remediating the
fraudulent submissions made to Epiq.
On Feb. 14, 2025, Class Counsel informed the Court that an entity
named JAM3STRO had attempted to file fraudulent settlement claims
with Epiq, including on behalf of parties that were already
represented by other third-party claims filing companies.
JAM3STRO submitted proof of authority related to 2,184 merchants,
ranging from well-known major corporate entities to individuals,
and submitted additional letters to Epiq claiming that an
individual named James Tro is legally authorized (2023–2025)
through proper channels and authority to act on behalf of the class
action.
Class Counsel concluded that there is a significant possibility
that a fraud is being attempted and recommended that the purported
Authorized Claimants submitted by JAM3STRO be withdrawn from Epiq's
systems and that JAM3STRO be required to pay all costs Epiq
incurred investigating the issues with JAM3STRO.
Class Counsel requested that the Court order the withdrawal of all
the purported Authorized Claimants submitted by JAM3STRO and order
that all costs associated with issues related to this entity that
Epiq has incurred be charged to JAM3STRO.
On Feb. 28, 2025, Class Counsel informed the Court that they
reviewed all 2,184 proofs of authority and concluded that the
merchants on the list appear to be actual merchants but that it
does not appear that these merchants have entered into any
agreements with JAM3STRO for claims-filing services.
Judge Marutollo explained sanctions were appropriate because
JAM3STRO attempted to fraudulently enroll thousands of merchants
for claims-filing services without their knowledge or consent and
subsequently behaved suspiciously by withdrawing its conflicting
proofs of authority when confronted by Class Counsel.
The Court has reviewed the R&R and, finding no clear error, adopts
the R&R pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(b)(1)
A copy of the Court's decision dated April 14, 2025, is available
at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=MWBHKK from PacerMonitor.com.
INTRASYSTEMS LLC: Brennsteiner Suit Transferred to W.D. Pa.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Paul Brennsteiner, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. INTRASYSTEMS, LLC, Case No.
1:25-cv-10350 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-00480-NR to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
INTRASYSTEMS -- https://www.intrasystems.com/ -- provides a wide
range of comprehensive services for the full lifecycle of IT
projects subject to international standards.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Randi A. Kassan, Esq.
MILBERG COLEMAN BRYSON PHILLIPS GROSSMAN, LLC
100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 500
Garden City, NY 11530
Phone: (516) 741-5600
Fax: (516) 741-0128
Email: rkassan@milberg.com
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jennifer R. O'Shea, Esq.
WINGET, SPADAFORA & SCHWARTZBERG, LLP
45 Broadway
New York, NY 10006
Phone: (617) 943-3919
Email: oshea.j@wssllp.com
INTRASYSTEMS LLC: Fitzgerald Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
------------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Sally Fitzgerald, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated v. INTRASYSTEMS, LLC, ALLEGHENY
HEALTH NETWORK, Case No. 1:25-cv-10218 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 8,
2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00486-NR to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Tort/Non-Motor
Vehicle.
INTRASYSTEMS -- https://www.intrasystems.com/ -- provides a wide
range of comprehensive services for the full lifecycle of IT
projects subject to international standards.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Charles E. Schaffer, Esq.
LEVIN SEDRAN & BERMAN
510 Walnut Street, Ste. 500
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Phone: (215) 592-1500
Fax: (215) 592-4663
Email: cschaffer@lfsblaw.com
- and -
Jeffrey S. Goldenberg
GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER
4445 Lake Forest Drive, Ste. 490
Cincinnati, OH 45242
Phone: (513) 345-8291
Email: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Jennifer R. O'Shea, Esq.
WINGET, SPADAFORA & SCHWARTZBERG, LLP
45 Broadway
New York, NY 10006
Phone: (617) 943-3919
Email: oshea.j@wssllp.com
- and -
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
INTRASYSTEMS LLC: Mikec Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Lisa Mikec, individually, and on behalf of
Minor Plaintiffs B.G. and A.M., and all others v. INTRASYSTEMS,
LLC, ALLEGHENY HEALTH NETWORK, Case No. 1:25-cv-10205 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 8, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00486-NR to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.
INTRASYSTEMS -- https://www.intrasystems.com/ -- provides a wide
range of comprehensive services for the full lifecycle of IT
projects subject to international standards.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christina Xenides, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
1005 Congress Avenue, Suite 925-C36
Austin, TX 78701
Phone: (512) 265-5622
Email: cxenides@sirillp.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Jennifer R. O'Shea, Esq.
WINGET, SPADAFORA & SCHWARTZBERG, LLP
45 Broadway
New York, NY 10006
Phone: (617) 943-3919
Email: oshea.j@wssllp.com
- and -
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
INTRASYSTEMS LLC: Snyder Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Deena Snyder, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. INTRASYSTEMS, LLC, ALLEGHENY
HEALTH NETWORK, Case No. 1:25-cv-10243 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 8,
2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00488-NR to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Personal Property.
INTRASYSTEMS -- https://www.intrasystems.com/ -- provides a wide
range of comprehensive services for the full lifecycle of IT
projects subject to international standards.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
D. Aaron Rihn, Esq.
ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
707 Grant Street, Suite 125
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Phone: (412) 281-7229
Fax: (412) 281-4229
Email: arihn@peircelaw.com
- and -
Danielle Lynn Perry, Esq.
Ra O. Amen, Esq.
MASON LLP
5335 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Suite 640
Washington, DC 20015
Phone: (202) 429-2290
Fax: (202) 429-2294
Email: dperry@masonllp.com
ramen@masonllp.com
- and -
Sara J. Watkins, Esq.
ROBERT PEIRCE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
437 Grant Street, Suite 1100
Pittsburgh, PA 15219
Phone: (412) 281-7229
Fax: (412) 281-4229
Email: swatkins@peircelaw.com
- and -
Sean K. Collins, Esq.
SEAN K. COLLINS
184 High Street, Suite 503
Boston, MA 02110
Phone: (617) 320-8485
Email: sean@neinsurancelaw.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Jennifer R. O'Shea, Esq.
WINGET, SPADAFORA & SCHWARTZBERG, LLP
45 Broadway
New York, NY 10006
Phone: (617) 943-3919
Email: oshea.j@wssllp.com
- and -
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
INTRASYSTEMS LLC: Witas Suit Transferred to W.D. Pennsylvania
-------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Richard Witas, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. INTRASYSTEMS, LLC, ALLEGHENY
HEALTH NETWORK, Case No. 1:25-cv-10221 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 8,
2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-00487-NR to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Other Fraud.
INTRASYSTEMS -- https://www.intrasystems.com/ -- provides a wide
range of comprehensive services for the full lifecycle of IT
projects subject to international standards.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gary Suzutaro Ishimoto, Esq.
LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
33 Whitehall Street, 17th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Phone: (212) 363-7500
Fax: (212) 363-7171
Email: gishimoto@zlk.com
The Defendants are represented by:
Jennifer R. O'Shea, Esq.
WINGET, SPADAFORA & SCHWARTZBERG, LLP
45 Broadway
New York, NY 10006
Phone: (617) 943-3919
Email: oshea.j@wssllp.com
- and -
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
KRAZAN & ASSOCIATES: Hughes Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Krazan & Associates.
The case is styled as Megan Nicole Hughes, on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Krazan & Associates, Case No. BCV-25-101264
(Cal. Super. Ct., Kern Cty., April 8, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment - Civil Unlimited."
Krazan & Associates, Inc. -- https://www.krazan.com/site/ -- is a
Construction, Consulting, and Environmental Engineering
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Kane Moon, Esq.
Allen V. Feghali, Esq.
Enzo Nabiev, Esq.
MOON & YANG, APC
725 South Figueroa St., 31st Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Phone: 213-232-3128
Fax: 213-232-3125
Email: kane.moon@moonyanglaw.com
afeghali@moonlawgroup.com
enabiev@moonlawgroup.com
KRISTI NOEM: Class Certification Granted in Doe, et al. Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Indira Talwani of the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in the case captioned as SVITLANA DOE, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. KRISTI NOEM, in her official capacity as Secretary
of Homeland Security, et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:25-cv-10495-IT
(D. Mass.).
The Court certifies a class of:
All individuals who have received a grant of parole that is subject
to the Termination of Parole Processes for Cubans, Haitians,
Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans, 90 Fed. Reg. 13611 (Mar. 25, 2025),
rescinding individual grants of parole on a categorical and en
masse basis, except: (1) those individuals who
voluntarily left, and remain outside, the United States prior to
the issuance of that Notice; and (2) those individuals who choose
to opt out of the class in order to seek relief in separate
litigation.
The Court appoints Armando Doe, Ana Doe, Carlos Doe, Andrea Doe,
Lucia Doe, Miguel Doe, and Daniel Doe as Class Representatives1 and
John A. Freedman, Daniel B. Asimow, and Laura Scott Shores of
Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, Karen C. Tumlin of Justice Action
Center, and Anwen Hughes of Human Rights First as class counsel.
The Court finds, as to the prerequisites set forth in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(a), that:
(1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable,
(2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class,
(3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties2 are
typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and
(4) the interests of the representative parties will not
conflict with the interests of any of the class members; and as to
the types of class actions permitted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b),
that Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds that apply
generally to the class.
The Court also finds, based on counsels' declarations and filings,
that counsel chosen by Plaintiffs are qualified, experienced and
able to vigorously conduct the proposed litigation. Accordingly,
certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is appropriate.
A copy of the Court's decision dated April 14, 2025, is available
at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=CUCOSY from PacerMonitor.com.
LATAM AIRLINES: Trial on Air Transport Union Suit Still Not Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 the Air Transport
Union class suit trial date is not yet set by the Regional Labor
Court.
A class action whereby the Air Transport Union is petitioning for
payment of additional hazardous and unhealthy work retroactively
and in the future for maintenance/CML employees.
The action was considered partially valid. The case is awaiting
hearing by the Regional Labor Court.
LATAM Airlines Group S.A. is an airline holding company based in
Chile.
LGCY POWER: Dounane Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against LGCY POWER, LLC. The
case is styled as Abdelhamid Dounane, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. LGCY POWER, LLC, Case No.
25CV116829 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., March 25, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case."
LGCY Power -- https://www.lgcypower.com/ -- is the leader in solar
power for homeowners looking to save on their energy bills.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jonathan M. Lebe, Esq.
LEBE LAW, APLC
777 S. Alameda Street, Second Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90021
Phone: (213) 444-1973
LIFEMD INC: Marden Data Privacy Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
LifeMD, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 11, 2025, that on November 1, 2024, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of an August 23,
2023 purported putative class action complaint captioned "Marden v.
LifeMD, Inc.," Case No. 23-cv-07469 filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
company's "RexMD" brand. Said case alleged, inter alia,
unauthorized disclosure of certain information of class members to
third parties.
On November 21, 2023, the plaintiffs amended the Marden complaint
and on March 4, 2024, the company moved to dismiss the Marden
complaint, and that motion is pending. On July 12, 2024, the
parties attended a mediation and on November 1, 2024, the
plaintiffs filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of the Southern
District of New York case.
On November 25, 2024, the plaintiffs refiled the case via a new
complaint captioned "W.M.F. & Matthew Marden v. LifeMD, Inc., Case
No. A-24-906800-C," in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada.
LifeMD, Inc. is a direct-to-patient telehealth company providing
virtual and in-home healthcare through its proprietary platform.
LODI MEMORIAL HOSPITAL: Gill Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Lodi Memorial
Hospital Association, Inc. The case is styled as Douglas Gill, an
individual, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons v.
Lodi Memorial Hospital Association, Inc., Case No.
STK-CV-UOE-2025-0004986 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Joaquin Cty., April
7, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Unlimited Civil Other Employment."
Adventist Health Lodi Memorial --
https://www.adventisthealth.org/lodi-memorial/ -- provides
faith-based, high-quality healthcare.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Nicholas James De Blouw, Esq.
BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG BHOWMIK DE BLOUW
2255 Calle Clara
La Jolla, CA 92037-3107
Phone: 858-551-1223
Fax: 858-551-1232
Email: norm@bamlawca.com
LOS MOLES EMERYVILLE: Torres Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Los Moles Emeryville
Inc., et al. The case is styled as Ivan Sanchez Torres,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Los
Moles Emeryville Inc., Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No.
25CV116274 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty., March 26, 2025).
Los Moles Emeryville Inc. -- https://www.losmoles.com/ --Mexican
eatery with multiple mole options, Taco Tuesday deals & tequila
served in colorful quarters.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Desiree Ruiz Alfaro, Esq.
WILSHIRE LAW FIRM
3055 Wilshire Blvd., 12th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90010
Phone: (213) 381-9988
Fax: (213) 381-9989
Email: desiree.ruizalfaro@wilshirelawfirm.com
MAGNITE INC: Tsering Files Suit in S.D. New York
------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Magnite, Inc. The
case is styled as Lisa Tsering, Ariel Gilligan, Logan Mitchell,
Marc Russo, Dilara Uskup, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. Magnite, Inc., Case No.
3:25-cv-03201-TSH (S.D.N.Y. April 9, 2025).
The nature of suit is stated as Other P.I. for Personal Injury.
Magnite Inc. -- https://www.magnite.com/ -- is an American online
advertising technology firm based in Los Angeles, California.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Philip Lawrence Fraietta, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
1330 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
New York, NY 10019
Phone: (646) 837-7150
Email: pfraietta@bursor.com
- and -
Joshua Wilner, Esq.
BURSOR & FISHER P.A.
1990 N. California Blvd., Suite 940
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Phone: (925) 300-4400
Email: jwilner@bursor.com
MAPCO EXPRESS: Violates ADA's Accessibility Guidelines, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
CHARLES CHAPUIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. MAPCO EXPRESS, INC., Case No. 2:25-cv-02382 (W.D.
Tenn., April 3, 2025) is a class action brought by the Plaintiff,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated against
the Defendant, asserting violations of Title III of the Americans
with Disabilities Act.
The Plaintiff's claims arise from his own experience with excessive
sloping conditions in purportedly accessible parking spaces, access
aisles, and curb ramps ("Parking Area" or "Parking Areas") at
places of public accommodation owned, operated, controlled, and/or
leased by the Defendant, and from site investigations at 13 of
Defendant's Facilities also finding excessive sloping conditions.
The Defendant allegedly discriminated against the Plaintiff and
others similarly situated mobility-impaired persons by implementing
policies and practices that consistently violate the ADA's
accessibility guidelines and routinely result in access barriers at
Defendant's Facilities.
The ADA expressly authorizes the injunctive relief aimed at
modification of existing policies, practices, or procedures that
the Plaintiff seeks in this action. Specifically, the Plaintiff
experienced difficulty and risk of harm navigating the parking lot
and path of access to Defendant’s business due to excessive
sloping, all in violation of the ADA, and that those violations
exist due to inadequate compliance policy or practice that leads
to, as in the case of the Defendant's parking lots, a systemic
failure to maintain accessibility features at the Defendant's
properties.
The Plaintiff is a person with a mobility disability who uses a
wheelchair for mobility. Mr. Chapuis is a double amputee and has
been using a wheelchair for the last four years. In 2021, Mr.
Chapuis suffered frostbite on both of his legs after working in the
snow for several hours. The frostbite resulted in an amputation of
both of his legs, requiring him to use a wheelchair.
On Feb. 13, 2025, the Plaintiff attempted to but was deterred from
patronizing and/or gaining equal access as a disabled patron at the
Mapco gas station located at 2120 Frayser Boulevard, Memphis, TN
38127 (Subject Property). The Plaintiff lives within 30 miles of
the Subject Property. The Subject Property is located in Shelby
County on a thoroughfare that he frequently travels.
Mapco collectively owns, leases, and/or operates at least 184 Mapco
gas stations in the states of Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, and
Mississippi. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
J. Luke Sanderson, Esq.
Rebecca Hutto, Esq.
WAMPLER, CARROLL, WILSON, &
SANDERSON, PLLC
208 Adams Ave.
Memphis, TN 38103
Telephone: (901) 523-1844
E-mail: rebecca@wcwslaw.com
alex@wcwslaw.com
MARATHON CLOTHING: Gonzales Files TCPA Suit in S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against The Marathon Clothing
Inc. The case is styled as Patrice Gonzales, individually and on
behalf of all those similarly situated v. The Marathon Clothing
Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-00839-AGS-JLB (S.D. Cal., April 9, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
The Marathon Clothing Inc. -- https://www.themarathonclothing.com/
-- offers exclusive clothing, accessories and official Nipsey
Hussle apparel.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Gerald D. Lane, Jr., Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF JIBRAEL S. HINDI, PLLC
1515 NE 26th Street
Wilton Manors, FL 33305
Phone: (754) 444-7539
Email: gerald@jibraellaw.com
MARINEMAX INC: Data Breach Class Settlement Gets Initial Court OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey McCroskey of ClassAction.org reports that boat seller
MarineMax, Inc. has agreed to pay a nearly $1.02 million settlement
to resolve a consolidated class action lawsuit over a March 2024
data breach that compromised the private information of
approximately 123,494 current and former customers.
The court-authorized website for the MarineMax data breach
settlement can be found at MarineMaxSettlement.com. The class
action settlement was preliminarily approved by the court on
February 13, 2025.
According to the settlement agreement, the deal covers all United
States residents who received a notice letter from MarineMax or
subsidiary Newcoast as a result of the data breach.
Eligible class members must submit a valid claim form online or by
mail by June 13, 2025 to receive MarineMax class action settlement
benefits.
You can file a MarineMax claim form online on this page, or
download a PDF claim form to print, fill out and return by mail. To
submit a claim form online, you will need your unique ID, which is
typically found on the personalized settlement notice you should
have received about the deal.
As part of the $1,018,825.50 settlement, class members can file a
claim to receive up to $5,000 per person in reimbursement for
identity theft losses supported by documentation and that are
"reasonably traceable" to the incident, the MarineMax settlement
website says.
Per the site, consumers may also submit a claim for up to $2,000
per person for documented out-of-pocket expenses incurred as a
result of the data breach. The website explains that qualifying
expenses may include fees for attorneys, accountants or credit
repair services; costs stemming from freezing or unfreezing credit;
credit monitoring expenses incurred between July 16, 2024 and June
13, 2025; notary, postage, mileage or phone charges; and other
miscellaneous costs.
In addition, the deal will provide up to three years of one-bureau
credit monitoring to class members who did not accept MarineMax's
previous offer of two-year monitoring services presented in the
data breach notice letter, the site shares. Consumers who elected
to receive MarineMax's previous offer are only eligible for an
additional 12 months of credit monitoring as part of the
settlement, the website states.
Moreover, class members can file a claim to receive a share of what
remains of the settlement fund after the payment of the
aforementioned benefits, the site relays. MarineMax settlement
payouts are subject to adjustment on a pro rata basis and capped at
$500 per person, the website adds.
It is now up to the court to decide whether to grant final approval
to the settlement. A final approval hearing is set for June 17,
2025.
Settlement payments will be issued to eligible class members only
if the deal receives ultimate approval, and after any appeals are
resolved, the site says. [GN]
MICHAEL KORS STORES: Nunes Suit Removed to N.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Marcus Nunes, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. MICHAEL KORS STORES (CALIFORNIA),
INC., a corporation; MICHAEL KORS STORES (CALIFORNIA), LLC, a
limited liability company; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Case
No. CGC-25-622287 was removed from the Superior Court of California
for the County of San Francisco, to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on April 11, 2025,
and assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-03270.
The Plaintiff asserts 6 causes of action in his Complaint against
Defendants: Violation of California Labor Code Sections 201-203,
1194, and 1197; Violation of California Labor Code Sections
201-203, 510, and 1194; Violation of California Labor Code Sections
201-203, 226.7; Violation of California Labor Code Sections
201-203, 226.7, and 512; Violation of California Labor Code Section
2802; and Violation of California Business and Professions Code.
The Plaintiff's Sixth Cause of Action is based on an alleged
"Violation Business and Professions Code Section 17200,"
specifically the California Unfair Competition Law ("UCL").[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Christopher A. Crosman, Esq.
Elizabeth M. Levy, Esq.
Michael A. Sigall, Esq.
SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
2029 Century Park East, Suite 3500
Los Angeles, CA 90067-3021
Phone: (310) 277-7200
Facsimile: (310) 201-5219
Email: ccrosman@seyfarth.com
elevy@seyfarth.com
msigall@seyfarth.com
MIELLE ORGANICS: Faces Class Lawsuit Over "Made in the USA" Labels
------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Sutton of Top Class Actions reports that plaintiff Sharon Allen
filed a class action lawsuit against Mielle Organics LLC.
Why: Allen claims Mielle Organics falsely advertises its hair care
products as being made in the United States with natural
ingredients.
Where: The Mielle Organics class action lawsuit was filed in
California federal court.
A new class action lawsuit accuses Mielle Organics LLC of falsely
advertising its hair care products as being made in the United
States with natural ingredients.
Plaintiff Sharon Allen filed the class action complaint against
Mielle Organics on Feb. 21 in California federal court, alleging
violations of state and federal consumer laws.
Allen claims Mielle Organics falsely markets its hair care products
as natural and made in the United States despite containing
synthetic ingredients and foreign-sourced components like tea tree
oil and coconut oil.
The class action also alleges that Mielle Organics' products,
including its popular Rosemary Mint Scalp & Hair Strengthening Oil,
promise benefits like dandruff relief and hair growth but do not
deliver.
Lawsuit: Mielle Organics hair care products contain synthetic
ingredients
Allen claims Mielle Organics' marketing misleads consumers into
believing they are purchasing superior goods while supporting
American companies and jobs.
The plaintiff says consumers are willing to pay a premium for
products that are made in the U.S. and contain natural ingredients,
believing them to be of higher quality and supporting domestic
jobs.
The lawsuit alleges that Mielle Organics' misleading claims have
led consumers to overpay for products that do not meet the
expectations.
In addition, the lawsuit states that Mielle Organics' claims about
the hair and scalp benefits of its products are not scientifically
substantiated.
Allen claims that despite advertising the products for hair growth
and dandruff relief, Mielle Organics has not provided scientific
evidence to support these claims.
The lawsuit argues that Mielle Organics' products are essentially
unapproved new drugs under federal law because they are marketed
for treating or preventing disease without approval from the Food
and Drug Administration.
Allen wants to represent a California class of consumers who
purchased Mielle Organics' products labeled as "Made in the USA" or
"natural" within the past four years.
The plaintiff seeks damages, restitution and an injunction to
prevent the company from continuing its allegedly deceptive
marketing practices.
Last year, Mielle Organics faced other class action lawsuits
alleging its rosemary mint hair care products contain ingredients
that cause hair loss and other injuries. One of the lawsuits argued
that Mielle Organics and its parent company, The Procter & Gamble
Co., neglected their duty to test its Rosemary Mint Scalp &
Strengthening Hair Oil adequately to ensure it was free of harmful
ingredients.
What do you think of the allegations made in this Mielle Organics
class action lawsuit? Let us know in the comments.
The plaintiff is represented by Abbas Kazerounian and Pamela E.
Prescott of Kazerouni Law Group APC.
The Mielle Organics hair products class action lawsuit is Allen v.
Mielle Organics LLC, Case No. 8:25-cv-00342, in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California. [GN]
MONSANTO COMPANY: Cavalieri Suit Transferred to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Erin Cavalieri as Executor of the Estate of
Hildegard Wenzel (Deceased), and others similarly situated v.
Monsanto Company, John Does 1-50, Case No. 6:25-cv-06152 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California on April 9, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-03206-VC to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability.
The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an
American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation
founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander Joseph Greco, Esq.
Brian A. Goldstein, Esq.
GOLDSTEIN GRECO, P.C.
2354 Wehrle Drive
Buffalo, NY 14221
Phone: (844) 716-4653
Fax: (716) 568-9090
Email: ag@goldsteingreco.com
bg@goldsteingreco.com
MONSANTO COMPANY: Evans Suit Transferred to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Aaron Evans, and others similarly situated v.
Monsanto Company, John Does 1-50, Case No. 1:25-cv-00247 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California on April 9, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-03183-VC to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability.
The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an
American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation
founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander Joseph Greco, Esq.
Brian A. Goldstein, Esq.
GOLDSTEIN GRECO, P.C.
2354 Wehrle Drive
Buffalo, NY 14221
Phone: (844) 716-4653
Fax: (716) 568-9090
Email: ag@goldsteingreco.com
bg@goldsteingreco.com
MONSANTO COMPANY: Haxton Suit Transferred to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Loren Haxton, and others similarly situated
v. Monsanto Company, John Does 1-50, Case No. 1:25-cv-00251 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California on April 9, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-03185-VC to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability.
The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an
American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation
founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander Joseph Greco, Esq.
Brian A. Goldstein, Esq.
GOLDSTEIN GRECO, P.C.
2354 Wehrle Drive
Buffalo, NY 14221
Phone: (844) 716-4653
Fax: (716) 568-9090
Email: ag@goldsteingreco.com
bg@goldsteingreco.com
MONSANTO COMPANY: Hudson Suit Transferred to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Robert Hudson, and others similarly situated
v. Monsanto Company, John Does 1-50, Case No. 1:25-cv-00249 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California on April 9, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-03186-VC to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability.
The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an
American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation
founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander Joseph Greco, Esq.
Brian A. Goldstein, Esq.
GOLDSTEIN GRECO, P.C.
2354 Wehrle Drive
Buffalo, NY 14221
Phone: (844) 716-4653
Fax: (716) 568-9090
Email: ag@goldsteingreco.com
bg@goldsteingreco.com
MONSANTO COMPANY: Pisanczyn Suit Transferred to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Sara Pisanczyn, and others similarly situated
v. Monsanto Company, John Does 1-50, Case No. 1:25-cv-00250 was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California on April 9, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-03188-VC to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability.
The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an
American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation
founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alexander Joseph Greco, Esq.
Brian A. Goldstein, Esq.
GOLDSTEIN GRECO, P.C.
2354 Wehrle Drive
Buffalo, NY 14221
Phone: (844) 716-4653
Fax: (716) 568-9090
Email: ag@goldsteingreco.com
bg@goldsteingreco.com
MONSANTO COMPANY: Stensrud Suit Transferred to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Duane Stensrud, and others similarly situated
v. Monsanto Company, Case No. 1:25-cv-00088 was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
April 10, 2025.
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:25-cv-03208-VC to the
proceeding.
The nature of suit is stated as Personal Inj. Prod. Liability.
The Monsanto Company -- https://www.monsanto.com/ -- was an
American agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation
founded in 1901 and headquartered in Creve Coeur, Missouri.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
John C. Enochs, Esq.
MORRIS BART, P.L.C.
601 Poydras Street, 24th Floor
New Orleans, LA 70130
Phone: (504) 526-1087
Fax: (833) 277-4214
Email: jenochs@morrisbart.com
NATIONWIDE EQUITIES: Hudson Files TCPA Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Nationwide Equities
Corporation. The case is styled as Kimberly Hudson, individually
and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Nationwide Equities
Corporation, Case No. 2:25-cv-03154 (C.D. Cal., April 10, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Nationwide Equities -- https://nwecorp.com/ -- is a veteran reverse
mortgage and residential mortgage lender.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
James C. Shah, Esq.
MILLER SHAH LLP
19712 MacArthur Boulevard Suite 222
Irvine, CA 92612
Phone: (866) 540-5505
Fax: (866) 300-7367
Email: jcshah@millershah.com
NEW MODEL LOGISTICS: Clemons Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------------
James Clemons; Haley Clemons; and Corey Preston, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. NEW MODEL LOGISTICS
LLC; VALIANT MANAGEMENT & HOLDINGS LLC; WITT SAFETY SERVICES LLC;
METRO BLUE LINE PROTECTION & SECURITY SERVICES LLC; and PHIL
VICKERS, Case No. 3:25-cv-00207-DJH (W.D. Ky., April 11, 2025), is
brought against Defendants to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA"), the Kentucky Wages and Hours Act ("KWHA")
and the Missouri Minimum Wage Law ("MMWL").
The Plaintiffs and those similarly situated regularly worked over
40 hours a week exclusively for Defendants. The Plaintiffs and
those similarly situated worked many such weeks without overtime
compensation. The Defendants' unlawful conduct is pursuant to a
company policy or practice. Defendants knew or should have known
that federal law required them to pay employees overtime wages for
all hours worked over 40 hours, says the complaint.
The Plaintiffs have been employees of the Defendants.
The Defendants provide loss prevention and security services to
multiple companies across the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Tyler Larson, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF TYLER LARSON PLC
1041 Goss Avenue
Louisville, KY 40217
Phone: (502) 855-4188
Email: tyler@larsonlawky.com
- and -
J. Chris Sanders, Esq.
BAHE, COOK, CANTLEY & NEFZGER PLC
1041 Goss Avenue
Louisville, KY 40217
Phone: (502) 587-2002
Email: csanders@bccnlaw.com
NORDIC ENERGY: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Price Gouging
------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Mehorter of ClassACtion.org reports that a proposed class
action lawsuit accuses Nordic Energy Services of secretly charging
customers excessively high markups for electricity and natural
gas.
The 35-page lawsuit was filed by an Indiana resident who says his
contract with Nordic specified that his natural gas bills would be
set at a fixed rate for the first three months. After that period,
prices would be based on the company's cost to acquire the
plaintiff's gas supply, plus an additional 25 cents per therm, the
complaint shares.
The filing alleges that, in reality, Nordic's variable supply rates
are substantially higher than its actual costs to acquire energy.
"Instead, Nordic's rates are the result of unbridled price gouging
and profiteering," the suit contends.
The lawsuit compares nearly two years of Nordic billing cycles paid
by the plaintiff with publicly available data on market commodity
costs for natural gas during that same period. The case claims that
even when adding 25 cents per therm, the market gas supply price
was "almost always" substantially lower than Nordic's rates.
According to the Nordic lawsuit, the energy supplier has deceived
customers by consistently charging them far more than its
contractual pricing terms permit and failing to disclose how its
rates are actually calculated.
"No customer would enroll with Nordic if they knew the truth about
this practice," the complaint argues, noting that the company
solicits consumers to purchase its services as an alternative to
their local utility.
Nordic also states in its customer contracts that its supply prices
include "other charges associated with gas delivery," such as
transportation and storage costs, the suit relays. What the energy
supplier fails to mention is that it imposes an "outrageously" high
markup on these expenses -- sometimes as much as 15 times the
actual costs it incurred for transportation and storage, the case
alleges.
"As a result of Nordic's breach of contract and deceptive
practices, tens of thousands of customers have been, and continue
to be, fleeced by Nordic out of tens of millions of dollars in
exorbitant charges for electricity and natural gas," the filing
contends. "[The defendant's] scheme, which often affects society's
most vulnerable citizens, is immoral, unethical, oppressive, and
unscrupulous."
The lawsuit looks to represent all residential and commercial
Nordic customers in the United States whose contracts have either a
variable commodity component or a transportation and storage
component. [GN]
NUMI INC: Frost Sues Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
----------------------------------------------------
Clarence and Tammy Frost, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. NUMI, INC., Case No. 0:25-cv-01361 (D. Minn.,
Jan. 31, 2025), is brought arising because the Defendant's Website
(www.numitea.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 the Minnesota Human Rights Act
("MHRA").
As a consequence of Plaintiffs experience visiting Defendant's
Website, including in the past year, and from an investigation
performed on their behalf, Plaintiffs found Defendant's Website has
a number of digital barriers that deny screen-reader users like
Plaintiffs full and equal access to important Website
content--content Defendant makes available to its sighted Website
users.
Still, Plaintiffs would like to, intend 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. 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 Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs are and have been legally blind and are therefore
disabled.
The Defendant offers tea and accessories for sale, including but
not limited to, tea bags, loose leaf tea, tea gifts, tea
accessories and more.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Chad A. Throndset, Esq.
Patrick W. Michenfelder, Esq.
Jason Gustafson, Esq.
THRONDSET MICHENFELDER, LLC
80 South 8th Street, Suite 900
Minneapolis, MN 55402
Phone: (763) 515-6110
Email: chad@throndsetlaw.com
pat@throndsetlaw.com
jason@throndsetlaw.com
OATS OVERNIGHT: Hampton Sues Over Blind's Equal Access to Website
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PHYLLIS HAMPTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. OATS OVERNIGHT, INC., Defendant, Case No.
1:25-cv-03575 (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://oatsovernight.com, contains access barriers which hinder
the Plaintiff and Class members to enjoy the benefits of their
online goods, content, and services offered to the public through
the website. The accessibility issues on the website include but
not limited to: inaccurate landmark structure, inaccurate heading
hierarchy, inadequate focus order, ambiguous link texts, unclear
labels for interactive elements, 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.
Oats Overnight, 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
OLSON REMCHO: Alvarez Suit Removed to E.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Jose Alvarez, and all those similarly
situated v. OLSON REMCHO LLP, a California limited liability
partnership; CONNIE BERGSTROM, an individual; EMILY A. ANDREWS, an
individual; MICHELLE WIXOM, an individual; and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive, Case No. 25CV002559 was removed from the Superior Court
of California for the County of Sacramento, to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California on April 10,
2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-01073-SCR.
The Plaintiff brings his Complaint on his own and on behalf of a
purported collective and class consisting of Defendants' current
and former employees, and he asserts alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), and several California Labor Codes.
The causes of actions pleaded are: failure to pay meal period
premiums, failure to pay rest period premiums, failure to pay
minimum wage in violation of the California Labor Code, failure to
pay all wages at termination of employment, failure to furnish
accurate wage statements, failure to failure to pay minimum wage in
violation of the FLSA, failure to pay overtime in violation of the
FLSA, and breach of contract.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Vincent R. Fisher, Esq.
Eleno Nunez Gonzalez, Esq.
O'HAGAN MEYER LLP
One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2100
San Francisco, CA 94111
Phone: 415.578.6900
Fax: 415.578.6910
Email: Vfisher@ohaganmeyer.com
Egonzalez@ohaganmeyer.com
OPPFI INC: Shareholder Suit over Merger Deal Ongoing in Del. Ch.
----------------------------------------------------------------
OppFi Inc., formerly FG New America Acquisition Corp. (FGNA),
disclosed in its Form 10-Q for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
11, 2025, that on July 20, 2023, a stockholder filed a putative
class action complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware (Case No. 2023-0737) on behalf of a purported class of
Company stockholders naming certain of FGNA's former directors and
officers and its controlling stockholder, FG New America Investors,
LLC (Sponsor), as defendants.
On February 7, 2025, the complaint was amended to name Todd
Schwartz, the Company's Executive Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, Theodore Schwartz, a director of the Company, Schwartz
Capital Group, the company's former Chief Executive Officer and a
former investment banker of the Company, alleging such parties
aided and abetted the breaches of the previously named defendants.
The lawsuit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to the stockholders of FGNA stemming from FGNA's merger with
OppFi-LLC and that the defendants were unjustly enriched. The
lawsuit seeks, among other relief, unspecified damages, redemption
rights and attorneys' fees. Neither the company nor any of the its
current officers or directors are parties to the lawsuit.
OppFi Inc., collectively with its subsidiaries, is a mission-driven
fintech platform that provided access to credit with digital
specialty finance products.
ORTHOMINDS LLC: Villasenor Sues Over Failure to Secure PII & PHI
----------------------------------------------------------------
Areli Villasenor, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. ORTHOMINDS, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-01736-JPB
(N.D. Ga., March 25, 2025), is brought against Defendant for its
failure to properly secure and safeguard Plaintiff's and Class
Members' sensitive personally identifying information ("PII"), and
protected health information ("PHI"), which was disclosed to
cybercriminals in a foreseeable, preventable data breach.
The Defendant breached these duties owed to Plaintiff and Class
Members by failing to safeguard their Private Information it
collected and maintained, including by failing to implement
industry standards for data security to protect against, detect,
and stop cyberattacks, which failures allowed criminal hackers to
access and steal thousands of consumers' Private Information from
Defendant's care.
The Defendant failed to adequately protect Plaintiff's and Class
Members' Private Information, and failed to even encrypt or redact
this highly sensitive data. This unencrypted, unredacted Private
Information was compromised due to Defendant's negligent and/or
careless acts and omissions and its utter failure to protect
consumers' sensitive data.
The Defendant maintained the Private Information in a reckless
manner. In particular, Private Information was maintained on and/or
accessible from Defendant's network systems in a condition
vulnerable to cyberattacks. The mechanism of the cyberattack and
potential for improper disclosure of Plaintiff's and Class Members'
Private Information was a known risk to Defendant, and thus,
Defendant knew that failing to take reasonable steps to secure the
Private Information left it in a dangerous condition, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff is a customer of Defendant's client.
The Defendant provides orthodontic software and services to dental
and orthodontic healthcare provider clients across the United
States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
MaryBeth V. Gibson, Esq.
GIBSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
4279 Roswell Road, Suite 208-108
Atlanta, GA 30342
Phone: (678) 642-2503
Email: marybeth@gibsonconsumerlawgroup.com
- and -
Jeff Ostrow, Esq.
KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
One West Las Olas, Suite 500
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
Phone: (954) 525-4100
Email: ostrow@kolawyers.com
OS RESTAURANT SERVICES: Yarbrough Suit Removed to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The case captioned as Tremayne Yarbrough, individually, and on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. OS
RESTAURANT SERVICES, LLC, a Florida corporation, doing business as
FLEMING'S PRIME STEAKHOUSE & WINE BAR; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. 25STCV02304 was removed from the Superior Court
of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, to the
United States District Court for the Central District of California
on April 11, 2025, and assigned Case No. 2:25-cv-03225.
In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges nine causes of action against
Defendant: Unpaid Minimum Wages; Unpaid Overtime; Unpaid Meal
Period Premiums; Unpaid Rest Period Premiums; Unpaid Reporting Time
Pay; Untimely Final Wages; Failure to Provide Accurate Wage
Statements; Unfair Competition; Failure to Reimburse Necessary
Business Expenses all in Violation of Cal. Labor Codes, Violation
of Cal. Business & Professions Codes and Wage Orders.[BN]
The Defendants are represented by:
Michael J. Nader, Esq.
Spencer S. Turpen, Esq.
OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 2800
Sacramento, CA 95814
Phone: 916-840-3150
Facsimile: 916-840-3159
Email: michael.nader@ogletree.com
spencer.turpen@ogletree.com
OWLET INC: Butala Seeks Initial OK of Settlements in Certain Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Owlet, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 11, 2025, that on January 31, 2025, the
plaintiffs in a November 2021 putative class action complaint filed
against the company in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, captioned "Butala v. Owlet, Inc.," (Case
No. 2:21-cv-09016) filed motions seeking preliminary approval of
the settlements in certain of its claims after mediation.
Complaint alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
against the company and certain of its officers and directors on
behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased the company's
common stock between March 31, 2021 and October 4, 2021 or held
common stock in Sandbridge Acquisition Corporation (SBG) as of June
1, 2021, and were eligible to vote at its special meeting held on
July 14, 2021. Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the
company and certain of its officers and directors made false and/or
misleading statements and failed to disclose certain information
regarding the FDA's likely classification of their baby monitor
"Smart Sock" as a medical device requiring marketing
authorization.
On September 8, 2023, the court ruled that, while said case has
been consolidated, there would be two distinct and separate classes
to represent the Section 10(b) Claims and Section 14(a) Claims,
respectively, and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for
each class. Amended complaints were filed for each class on
November 21, 2023, and then further amended in consolidated filings
on December 22, 2023.
The company filed motions to dismiss the complaints on February 9,
2024 on behalf of itself and the named officers and directors. The
plaintiffs filed oppositions to the motions to dismiss on March 24,
2024, and the company filed replies in support of the motions to
dismiss on May 10, 2024. On August 5, 2024, the court denied
owlet's and its officers' motions to dismiss the Section 10(b)
Claims and the Section 14(a) Claims.
On September 24, 2024, the court entered a scheduling order in the
case, setting trial to begin on February 17, 2026. On September 26,
2024, the court granted defendants' motion for reconsideration
regarding the Section 10(b) Claims and dismissed all claims arising
out of statements made prior to the merger.
Following mediation, the parties reached agreements in principle to
settle both the Section 10(b) Claims and the Section 14(a) Claims.
The Section 10(b) Claims would be resolved for $3,500 and the
Section 14(a) Claims would be resolved for $1,750.
On January 31, 2025, the plaintiffs filed motions seeking
preliminary approval of the settlements of the Section 10(b) Claims
and Section 14(a) Claims. Those motions remain pending.
Owlet (formerly Owlet Baby Care Inc.) is into infant health
monitoring technology using an ecosystem of digital parenting
solutions that provide parents data-driven insights into their
children's well-being using its digital parenting platform. SBG
closed the merger with Owlet Baby Care Inc. and as a result, SBG
changed its name to Owlet, Inc.
OWLET INC: Trial in Consolidated Suit Set for Feb. 17, 2026
-----------------------------------------------------------
Owlet, Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 11, 2025, that in November 2021, a putative
class action complaint was filed against the company in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California captioned
"Cherian v. Owlet, Inc.," Case No. 2:21-cv-09293. This was
consolidated in 2023 and a setting trial was scheduled on February
17, 2026.
Complaint alleged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
against the company and certain of its officers and directors on
behalf of a putative class of investors who purchased the company's
common stock between March 31, 2021 and October 4, 2021 or held
common stock in Sandbridge Acquisition Corporation as of June 1,
2021, and were eligible to vote at its special meeting held on July
14, 2021. Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the company
and certain of its officers and directors made false and/or
misleading statements and failed to disclose certain information
regarding the FDA's likely classification of their baby monitor
"Smart Sock" as a medical device requiring marketing
authorization.
On September 8, 2023, the court ruled that, while said case has
been consolidated, there would be two distinct and separate classes
to represent the Section 10(b) Claims and Section 14(a) Claims,
respectively, and appointed lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for
each class. Amended complaints were filed for each class on
November 21, 2023, and then further amended in consolidated filings
on December 22, 2023.
The company filed motions to dismiss the complaints on February 9,
2024 on behalf of itself and the named officers and directors. The
plaintiffs filed oppositions to the motions to dismiss on March 24,
2024, and the company filed replies in support of the motions to
dismiss on May 10, 2024. On August 5, 2024, the court denied
owlet's and its officers' motions to dismiss the Section 10(b)
Claims and the Section 14(a) Claims.
On September 24, 2024, the court entered a scheduling order in the
case, setting trial to begin on February 17, 2026. On September 26,
2024, the court granted defendants' motion for reconsideration
regarding the Section 10(b) Claims and dismissed all claims arising
out of statements made prior to the merger.
Owlet (formerly Owlet Baby Care Inc.) is into infant health
monitoring technology using an ecosystem of digital parenting
solutions that provide parents data-driven insights into their
children's well-being using its digital parenting platform. SBG
closed the merger with Owlet Baby Care Inc. and as a result, SBG
changed its name to Owlet, Inc.
PARADISE LAKES STATION: Pardo Sues Over Discriminative Property
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nigel Frank De La Torre Pardo, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated v. PARADISE LAKES STATION LLC; CHICKEN
STACK FRANCHISE, LLC; and PHO TASTIC MIAMI LLC, Case No.
1:25-cv-21639-XXXX (S.D. Fla., April 10, 2025), is brought for
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and costs
pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") as a result
of the Defendant's discrimination against the individual Plaintiff
by denying him access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the
goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or
accommodations of the Commercial Property and business located
therein, as prohibited by the ADA.
Although well over 30 years have passed since the effective date of
Title III of the ADA, Defendants have yet to make their facilities
accessible to individuals with disabilities. The Plaintiff found
the Commercial Property and the business located within the
commercial property to be rife with ADA violations. The Plaintiff
encountered architectural barriers at the Commercial Property and
the business located within the commercial property and wishes to
continue his patronage and use of the premises.
The Plaintiff has encountered architectural barriers that are in
violation of the ADA at the subject Commercial Property and
businesses located within the Commercial Property. The barriers to
access at the Commercial Property, and businesses within, have each
denied or diminished Plaintiff's ability to visit the Commercial
Property and have endangered his safety in violation of the ADA.
The barriers to access, which are set forth below, have likewise
posed a risk of injury(ies), embarrassment, and discomfort to
Plaintiff, and others similarly situated.
The Plaintiff has a realistic, credible, existing, and continuing
threat of discrimination from the Defendants' non-compliance with
the ADA with respect to the described Commercial Property, and with
respect to the allegations of this Complaint. Plaintiff has
reasonable grounds to believe that he will continue to be subjected
to discrimination at the Commercial Property, in violation of the
ADA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff uses a wheelchair to ambulate.
PARADISE LAKES STATION LLC, owned and operated a commercial
property.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Alfredo Garcia-Menocal, Esq.
GARCIA-MENOCAL, P.L.
350 Sevilla Avenue, Suite 200
Coral Gables, Fl 33134
Phone: (305) 553-3464
Primary Email: bvirues@lawgmp.com
Secondary Emails: aquezada@lawgmp.com
jacosta@lawgmp.com
- and -
Ramon J. Diego, Esq.
THE LAW OFFICE OF RAMON J. DIEGO, P.A.
5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 103
Miami, FL, 33155
Phone: (305) 350-3103
Email: ramon@rjdiegolaw.com
PATRICK RONEY: Deadline to Respond to Ezzes Suit Extended to May 9
------------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts of the United States District
Court for the District of Nevada granted the joint stipulation of
the parties extending the deadline for defendants to file an answer
to the the second consolidated amended class action complaint in
the case captioned as MARILYN EZZES, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. PATRICK RONEY,
KATHERINE DEVILLERS, and KRISTINA JOHNSTON, Defendants, Case No.
2:22-cv-01915-GMN-DJA (D. Nev.) from April 18, 2025 to May 9,
2025.
On April 5, 2024, Plaintiffs in the Action filed a Second
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint against Vintage Wine
Estates, Inc., Patrick Roney, Katherin DeVillers, and Kristina
Johnston.
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss Second Consolidated Amended
Class Action Complaint on May 10, 2024.
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed Defendant Vintage Wine Estates on
July 25, 2024.
The Court entered an order denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on
Dec. 13, 2024.
The Parties filed a Joint Stipulation to Stay Pending Mediation on
Jan. 31, 2025, pursuant to which the case was stayed until April
18, 2025, to allow the parties to mediate and for Defendants to
retain new counsel.
Under the Joint Stipulation to Stay Pending Mediation, Defendants'
answer to the Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint
would be due by April 18, 2025, if mediation was unsuccessful.
The Parties participated in mediation on April 3, 2025, but were
unsuccessful in resolving the Action.
Defendants' new counsel requests additional time to familiarize
themselves with the evidence in the case and to prepare an answer
to the Second Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint.
A copy of the Court's decision is available at
https://urlcurt.com/u?l=brNHNm from PacerMonitor.com.
Attorneys for Defendants Patrick Roney, Katherine Devillers, and
Kristina Johnston:
Richard C. Gordon, Esq.
Brian R. Reeve, Esq.
SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
1700 South Pavilion Center Drive, Suite 700
Las Vegas, NV 89135-1865
Telephone: (702) 784-5200
Facsimile: (702) 784-5252
E-mail: rgordon@swlaw.com
breeve@swlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiff Marilyn Ezzes:
Andrew R. Muehlbauer, Esq.
Sean Patrick Connell, Esq.
MUEHLBAUER LAW OFFICE, LTD
7915 West Sahara Ave., Ste. 104
Las Vegas, NV 89117
E-mail: andrew@mlolegal.com
sean@mlolegal.com
- and -
Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
Casey E. Sadler, Esq.
GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
Los Angeles, CA 90067
E-mail: clinehan@glancylaw.com
csadler@glancylaw.com
PEOHEALTHLLC: Dungey Files TCPA Suit in S.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against PEOHEALTHLLC. The
case is styled as Nicholas Dungey, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. PEOHEALTHLLC, Case No.
1:25-cv-21673-KMW (S.D. Fla., April 11, 2025).
The lawsuit is brought over alleged violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act for Restrictions of Use of Telephone
Equipment.
Pro-Health, LLC -- https://www.pro-health.com/ -- provides produce
for families. The Company grows potatoes, such as russet and
organic russet, red, and gold potatoes.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Christopher Chagas Gold, Esq.
GOLD LAW, PA
350 Lincoln Rd., 2nd Floor
Miami Beach, FL 33139
Phone: (561) 789-4413
Email: chris@chrisgoldlaw.com
PHREESIA INC: Continues to Defend ConneOnCall Class Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Phreesia Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
period ending January 13, 2025 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 13, 2025, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the ConnecOnCall class suit in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
On December 24, 2024, a putative class action complaint was filed
against ConnectOnCall.com, LLC and Phreesia, Inc., in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (the
"ConnectOnCall Case"). The plaintiff purports to represent a
nationwide class of all individuals in the United States who
allegedly had personally identifiable information stolen because of
the ConnectOnCall incident.
The plaintiff asserts a variety of common law claims seeking
monetary damages, disgorgement and restitution, attorneys' fees,
interest, and injunctive relief related to the incident.
Around the same time as the ConnectOnCall Case was filed, 12
additional putative class action complaints arising from the
ConnectOnCall incident were filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York—against
ConnectOnCall.com, LLC, Phreesia, Inc., or a combination of
both—purporting to represent the same nationwide class of
individuals and asserting substantially the same claims.
Motions have been granted to consolidate the 13 filed cases.
It expecst to incur legal and professional services expenses
associated with this litigation in future periods. It will
recognize these expenses as services are received, net of probable
insurance recoveries.
While a loss from these matters is reasonably possible, it cannot
reasonably estimate a range of possible losses at this time, as the
proceedings remain in the early stages, alleged damages have not
been specified, there is uncertainty as to the likelihood of the
cases being certified or the ultimate size of any class if
certified, and there are significant factual and legal issues to be
resolved. It has not recorded a loss contingency liability for the
above litigation as of January 31, 2025.
Phreesia Inc. designs and develops healthcare software. The Company
offers solutions for appointments, registration, clinical support,
patient surveys, and analysis and reports. [BN]
PPC INTERNATIONAL: Website Inaccessible to the Blind, Cole Alleges
------------------------------------------------------------------
MORGAN COLE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. PPC International, LLC, Case No. 1:25-cv-03570 (N.D. Ill., April
3, 2025) alleges that Canali failed to design, construct, maintain,
and operate its website, Ladressenyc.com, to be fully accessible to
and independently usable by the Plaintiff and other blind or
visually-impaired persons in violation of Plaintiff's rights under
the Americans with Disabilities Act.
According to the complaint, the Defendant is denying blind and
visually impaired persons throughout the United States with equal
access to the goods and services PPC International provides to
their non-disabled customers through https://houseplantshop.com.
Houseplantshop.com provides to the public a wide array of the
goods, services, price specials and other programs offered by PPC
International. Yet, Houseplantshop.com contains significant access
barriers that make it difficult if not impossible for blind and
visually-impaired customers to use the website.
In fact, the access barriers make it impossible for blind and
visually-impaired users to even complete a transaction on the
website. Thus, PPC International excludes the blind and
visually-impaired from the full and equal participation in the
growing Internet economy that is increasingly a fundamental part of
the common marketplace and daily living, says the suit.
PPC International, LLC operates the website Ladressenyc.com. [BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Michael H. Cohen, Esq.
EQUAL ACCESS LAW GROUP PLLC
68-29 Main Street
Flushing, NY 11367
Telephone: (718) 914-9694
E-mail: mcohen@ealg.law
PRIME PROTECTION: Holder Sues to Remedy Unpaid Overtime Premium
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Holder, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons v. PRIME PROTECTION AUTHORITY, LLC and ANTHONY
PIERCE, Case No. 2:25-cv-11028-SJM-DRG (E.D. Mich., April 10,
2025), is brought to remedy the Defendants failure to pay
Plaintiffs' overtime premium pay pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA").
The Defendants paid the Plaintiff and other security officers an
hourly rate. The Plaintiff and the other security officers
regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week. Despite the long
hours, Defendants did not pay Plaintiff Holder or the other
security officers, overtime wages for hours worked over 40 in a
week. The Plaintiffs seek unpaid overtime wages, statutory damages,
liquidated damages, costs and attorneys' fees as well as
declaratory relief under the FLSA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff worked for Prime as an Armed Security Officer from
August 2023 through December 2024.
Prime is in the business of providing security officers to various
establishments to protect their goods and/or events, and to
individuals as personal security.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Rebecca King, Esq.
Emily Sullivan, Esq.
GETMAN, SWEENEY & DUNN, PLLC
260 Fair St.
Kingston NY 12401
Phone: (845) 255-9370
Fax: (845)255-8649
Email: rking@getmansweeney.com
esullivan@getmansweeney.com
REALPHA TECH: Settlement in NAR Class Action Gets Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
reAlpha Tech Corp. disclosed in a Form 10-K report for the fiscal
year ended December 31, 2024, filed with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission that the residential real estate industry faces
significant pressure from private lawsuits and investigations by
the Department of Justice with regards to antitrust and other
issues, including with respect to lawsuits and investigations in
which we are not a named party.
For example, in April 2019, the National Association of Realtors
("NAR") and certain brokerages and franchisors (including Realogy
Holdings Corp., HomeServices of America, Inc., RE/MAX and Keller
Williams Realty, Inc.) were named as defendants in a class action
complaint alleging a conspiracy to violate federal antitrust laws
by, among other things, requiring residential property sellers in
Missouri to pay inflated commission fees to buyer brokers (the "NAR
Class Action").
On March 15, 2024, NAR entered a settlement agreement to resolve on
a class-wide basis the claims against NAR in the NAR Class Action.
In addition to a monetary payment of $418 million, NAR agreed to
change certain business practices, including changes to cooperative
compensation and buyer agreements, which went into effect on August
17, 2024. Specifically, among other things, the NAR settlement
agreement: (1) prohibits NAR and REALTOR(R) MLSs from requiring
that listing brokers or sellers make offers of compensation to
buyer brokers or other buyer representatives; (2) prohibits NAR,
REALTOR® MLSs and MLS participants from making an offer of
compensation on the MLS; and (3) requires all REALTOR(R) MLS
participants to enter into a written buyer agreement specifying
compensation before taking a buyer on tour. The NAR settlement
received final court approval on November 26, 2024. Class action
suits raising similar claims are pending and the outcome of the NAR
Class Action may result in additional such actions being filed.
REDWIRE CORP: Settlement in Lemen Suit for Final Court OK
---------------------------------------------------------
Redwire Corporation disclosed in its Form 10-K for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2024, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 11, 2025, that on November 15, 2024, the
company and plaintiffs filed a joint motion for a stipulated order
to settle "Lemen v. Redwire Corp. et al.," Case No.
3:21-cv-01254-TJC-PDB (December 17, 2021, M.D. Fla.) against the
company, its CEO, Peter Cannito, and former CFO, William Read.
Redwire has also agreed to certification of a settlement class to
facilitate resolution of claims. The settlement has received
preliminary approval from the court but remains subject to final
court approval.
On March 7, 2022, the court appointed a lead plaintiff, who on June
17, 2022, filed an amended complaint. In the amended complaint, the
lead plaintiff alleged that the company and certain of its
directors and officers made misleading statements and/or failed to
disclose material facts about the company's business, operations,
and prospects, allegedly in violation of Section 10(b) (and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act. As relief, the plaintiffs are seeking, among other things,
compensatory damages.
On August 16, 2022, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint
in its entirety, and such motion was denied by the Court on March
22, 2023. On November 15, 2024, the company and plaintiffs filed a
joint motion for a stipulated order to settle this litigation
pursuant to a settlement agreement entered into among the parties.
Under the terms of the agreement, Redwire will pay $8.0 million to
settle claims brought on behalf of purchasers of Redwire's publicly
traded shares from March 25, 2021, through March 31, 2022.
Redwire Corporation develops and manufactures mission critical
space solutions and high reliability components for the next
generation space economy, with valuable intellectual property for
solar power generation, in-space 3D printing and manufacturing,
avionics, critical components, sensors, digital engineering and
space-based biotechnology.
REGAL CINEMAS: Agrees to Settle Undisclosed Fees Suit for $2.5MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Top Class Actions reports that Regal agreed to a $2.5 million class
action lawsuit settlement to resolve claims it failed to disclose
electronic ticket booking fees in New York.
The Regal Cinemas settlement benefits individuals who purchased
electronic tickets to any film screening in Regal Cinemas located
in New York state from July 31, 2023, through July 15, 2024, using
the guest checkout process on Regal's website.
According to a class action lawsuit, Regal failed to disclose
booking fees when consumers purchased online electronic tickets.
The plaintiffs say Regal's failure to disclose these fees violated
New York law.
Regal Cinemas is a movie theater chain with locations across the
country, including New York.
Regal hasn't admitted any wrongdoing but agreed to a $2.5 million
class action settlement to resolve these allegations.
Under the Regal Cinemas settlement terms, class members can receive
a proportional share of the net settlement fund based on the amount
they paid in booking fees. Payments will vary depending on the
number of claims filed, the amount in Regal Cinema fees included in
the claims and deductions taken from the settlement fund. No
payment estimates are available at this time.
Regal also agreed to clearly disclose total ticket costs, including
Regal Cinema fees, before consumers select tickets for purchase in
New York.
The deadline for exclusion and objection was Feb. 14, 2025.
The final approval hearing for the Regal ticket fee class action
lawsuit settlement was scheduled for March 5, 2025.
To receive settlement benefits, class members must submit a valid
claim form by April 21, 2025.
Who's Eligible
Consumers who purchased electronic tickets to any film screening in
a Regal Cinemas theater located in New York state from the Regal
website between July 31, 2023, and July 15, 2024, using the guest
checkout process
Potential Award
TBD
Proof of Purchase
If you qualify, your details will be reflected in the cinema's
electronic record system.
Claim Form
NOTE: If you do not qualify for this settlement do NOT file a
claim.
Remember: you are submitting your claim under penalty of perjury.
You are also harming other eligible Class Members by submitting a
fraudulent claim. If you're unsure if you qualify, please read the
FAQ section of the Settlement Administrator's website to ensure you
meet all standards (Top Class Actions is not a Settlement
Administrator). If you don't qualify for this settlement, check out
our database of other open class action settlements you may be
eligible for.
Claim Form Deadline
04/21/2025
Case Name
Jones v. Regal Cinemas Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-11145-MMG, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
Final Hearing
03/05/2025
Settlement Website
RegalTicketFeeSettlement.com
Claims Administrator
Regal Ticket Fee Settlement
P.O. Box 2935
Portland, OR 97208-2935
info@RegalTicketFeeSettlement.com
(888) 788-8084
Class Counsel
Philip L. Fraietta
Stefan Bogdanovich
BURSOR & FISHER PA
Defense Counsel
Jonathan B. Potts
Laith J. Hamdan
BRYAN CAVE LEIGHTON PAISNER LLP [GN]
SHEIN US: Faces Suit Over Undisclosed Social Media Endorsements
---------------------------------------------------------------
JD Supra reports that a recent class action asks how it's possible
that a Chinese company, with allegedly "no fashion designers or
background, selling flea-market quality clothes, became a giant in
the fast-fashion industry in the US?" The answer, according to the
complaint, "is simple: undisclosed endorsements on social media."
In this case, the plaintiffs allege that Shein engages influencers
to promote its products without disclosing their relationships to
the company.
Plaintiffs residing in three states allege that they purchased
products from Shein as a result of endorsements from seven
influencers on Instagram. According to the complaint, though, some
of the influencers don't disclose their connection to the company
at all. Other influencers do disclose their connection to the
company, but do so in a long list of hashtags that are only visible
if a consumer clicks on the "more" button on the posts.
The plaintiffs claim that they "would not have purchased the
products if they knew that the Influencers were paid to pretend
that they like Shein and endorse the brand." They also complain
that they purchased the "products at artificially inflated prices,
exclusively because of the way the Shein products are advertised on
social media and the misleading content of the advertisement."
Plaintiffs attempt to support this allegation by looking at what
similar companies charge for similar products.
If you read our blog and this sounds familiar, that's probably
because the fact pattern is similar to the one in a lawsuit against
Celsius over its influencer campaign that we discussed last week.
In fact, although the two lawsuits were brought by two different
firms, the language in key sections of the complaints is very
similar. Like the Celsius complaint, this one also names the
individual influencers as defendants, in addition to naming Shein
itself.
There are at least two lessons to learn here. First, if you are a
consumer purchasing products based on an influencer's
recommendation, you may want to err on the side of assuming that
the influencer is being paid. Second, if you are a company using
influencers to promote your products, make sure your influencers
disclose their connection to you in a way that complies with the
FTC's Endorsement Guides. We expect to see more of these cases.
[GN]
SOUTHEAST SERIES: Fails to Secure Private Info, Carter Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
HUNTER CARTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. SOUTHEAST SERIES OF LOCKTON COMPANIES, LLC, Case No.
4:25-cv-00233-DGK (W.D. Mo., April 3, 2025) sues the Defendant for
failing to secure and safeguard the personally identifiable
information that it collected and maintained as part of its regular
business practices, including the Plaintiff's and Class Members'
names, dates of birth, medical information, medical insurance
information, and Social Security numbers.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff and Class Members have suffered injury
as a result of Defendant's conduct on a recent data breach. These
injuries include invasion of privacy; theft of their Private
Information; and lost or diminished value of Private Information.
The Plaintiff and Class Members are current and former Benefits
Recipients of the Defendant's clients.
SOUTHEAST SERIES OF LOCKTON COMPANIES is a company that provides
employee-benefit management services to its clients.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Andrew J. Shamis, Esq.
SHAMIS & GENTILE P.A.
14 NE 1st Ave., Suite 705
Miami, FL 33132
Telephone: (305) 479-2299
E-mail: ashamis@shamisgentile.com
STELLANTIS NV: Italian Court Allows Class Suit Over Faulty Airbags
------------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that a civil court in Turin, Italy, has ruled
admissible a class action suit against Stellantis (STLAM.MI), opens
new tab concerning potentially faulty airbags made by Japanese
automotive parts company Takata, Stellantis and two consumer groups
behind the legal action said on Monday, April 14.
Affected vehicle owners have 150 days to join the class action, the
two consumer groups Codacons and Altroconsumo said in two separate
statements. They added that a court hearing on the case had been
adjourned to November 21.
Similar legal actions against Stellantis have already been launched
in France.
Stellantis took note of the court's decision, saying in a statement
it was working "tirelessly" on its recall campaign and was
reserving "the right to consider any appropriate initiative in the
context of the ongoing proceedings."
It noted that the decision "concerns only the admissibility of the
class action, and neither the alleged liability of (Stellantis) nor
the damages claimed, the assessment of which is postponed to a
later stage of the proceedings."
The Codacons association, which filed the class action request on
behalf of other consumer groups as well, said requested
compensation could amount to up to 285 million euros ($323
million).
Stellantis launched last year a vast "Stop Drive" recall campaign
for Takata airbags affecting hundreds of thousands of Citroen and
DS models made between 2009 and 2019 and located in 24 different
countries in Southern Europe, Africa and the Middle East.
These airbags can cause serious injuries or death because the
chemicals they contain can deteriorate in hot and humid weather
conditions, causing them to deploy with too much force, according
to the company's recall statement.
Takata Group filed for bankruptcy in 2017.
Stellantis was created in early 2021 through the merger of France's
Peugeot and Citroen maker PSA and Italian-American group Fiat
Chrysler. Its other brands include Jeep and Alfa Romeo. [GN]
STRONGHOLD DIGITAL: Settlement in Winter Suit Gets Final Court Nod
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Ronnie Abrams of the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York granted final approval of the
class action settlement in the case captioned as MARK WINTER,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff, v. STRONGHOLD DIGITAL MINING, INC., GREGORY A. BEARD,
RICARDO R. A. LARROUDÉ, WILLIAM B. SPENCE, B. RILEY SECURITIES,
INC., COWEN AND COMPANY, LLC, TUDOR, PICKERING, HOLT & CO.
SECURITIES, LLC, D.A. DAVIDSON & CO., COMPASS POINT RESEARCH &
TRADING, LLC, and NORTHLAND SECURITIES, INC., Defendants, Case No.
1:22-cv-03088-RA (S.D.N.Y.).
As of Nov. 6, 2024, Class Representative Allegheny County Employees
Retirement System, on behalf of itself and all other members of the
Settlement Class, on the one hand, and Stronghold Digital Mining,
Inc., Gregory A. Beard, William B. Spence, B. Riley Securities,
Inc., Cowen and Company, LLC, Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co.
Securities, LLC, D.A. Davidson & Co., Compass Point Research &
Trading, LLC, and Northland Securities, Inc., and Ricardo R. A.
Larroude, on the other, entered into a Stipulation and Agreement
of Settlement, dated Nov. 6, 2024 in the litigation.
Pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and for
purposes of the Settlement only, the Court re-affirms its
determinations in the Preliminary Approval Order and finally
certifies Plaintiff as Class Representative for the Settlement
Class and finally appoints The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. as Class
Counsel for the Settlement Class.
Pursuant to Rule 23(e)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
the Court approves the Settlement and finds that in light of the
benefits to the Settlement Class, the complexity and expense of
further litigation, the risks of establishing liability and
damages, and the costs of continued litigation, said Settlement is,
in all respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate, having considered
and found that:
(a) Plaintiff and Lead Counsel have adequately represented the
Settlement Class;
(b) the proposal was negotiated at arm's-length between
experienced counsel;
(c) the relief provided for the Settlement Class is adequate,
having taken into account (i) the costs, risks, and delay of trial
and appeal; (ii) the effectiveness of any proposed method of
distributing relief to the Settlement Class, including the method
of processing Settlement Class Member claims; (iii) the terms of
any proposed award of attorneys' fees, including timing of payment;
and (iv) any agreement required to be identified under Rule
23(e)(3); and
(d) the proposed Plan of Allocation treats Settlement Class
Members equitably relative to each other.
Accordingly, the Settlement is approved in all respects (including,
without limitation: the amount of the Settlement; the releases
provided for in the Stipulation; and the dismissal with prejudice
of the claims asserted against Defendants) and shall be consummated
in accordance with the terms and provisions of the Stipulation.
The Court finds that the proposed Plan of Allocation is a fair and
reasonable method to allocate the Net Settlement Fund among
Settlement Class Members, and Class Counsel and the Claims
Administrator are directed to administer the Plan of Allocation in
accordance with its terms and the terms of the Stipulation.
The Amended Class Action Complaint for Violation of the Securities
Act of 1933, filed on Oct. 18, 2022, is dismissed in its entirety,
with prejudice, and without costs to any Party, except as otherwise
provided in the Stipulation.
A copy of the Court's decision dated April 14, 2025, is available
at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=fMrJgy from PacerMonitor.com.
TAVEL + LEISURE: Court Refuses to Credit Consent in TCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eric J. Troutman of Troutman Amin, LLP, in an article for The
National Law Review, reports that nothing more frustrating for a
TCPA defendant than to be stuck in a class action when the named
plaintiff provided consent to be contacted in the first place.
However the rules of litigation often prevent that issue from being
addressed until much later in the case -- sometimes even after
expensive class discovery -- which is why so many TCPA plaintiffs
file frivolous lawsuits and manage to extract a high-dollar
settlement.
Take the case of Hodge v. Tavel + Leisure Co., 2025 WL 1093243
(N.D. Cal. April 11, 2025). There the Defendant moved to dismiss
arguing the Plaintiff had consented to receive the calls at issue.
But the Court was unimpressed noting it would only credit the
allegations of the complaint at this stage:
Hodge therefore had no obligation to negate Defendant's claim of
express consent through her allegations, and the Court can only
dismiss Hodge's TCPA claim on the consent defense if the
"allegations in the complaint suffice to establish" consent. Sams
v. Yahoo! Inc., 713 F.3d 1175, 1179 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting Jones
v. Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 215 (2007)). Nothing in the SAC, when
construed in Hodge's favor, shows that she consented to artificial
or prerecorded messages.
Get it?
Even though the defendant might have a complete defense it is
simply too early in the case for the Court to throw out the class
action. As a result the defendant must litigate and deal with
discovery demands– all of which gives Plaintiff's counsel the
opportunity to extort. . . er.. extract a high dollar resolution.
There are some tricks to get past the pleadings stage limitation on
extrinsic consent evidence -- Troutman Amin, LLP has earned great
pleadings stage wins for example -- but anytime there is a dispute
of fact on consent you are DEFINITELY not going to win at the
pleadings stage, and maybe not even at the MSJ stage. So be
careful.
At the end of the day making outbound prerecorded or artificial
voice calls (including voicemails) carries substantial risk. Make
sure you know the rules of the game before playing! [GN]
TORRID HOLDINGS: Continues to Defend Perez Class Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------------
In April 2024, a class action complaint was filed in the Court
captioned Crystal Jillson and Carmen Perez v. Torrid LLC. The
complaint alleges misleading and unlawful pricing, sales, and
discounting practices on the Company's website under multiple legal
theories including violation of California's Unfair Competition
Law, California False Advertising Law and California Consumer Legal
Remedies Act.
"We intend to vigorously defend ourselves against the complaint,"
the Company disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal year
ending February 1, 2025, filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.
Torrid Holdings Inc. owns a direct-to-consumer brand of apparel,
intimates and accessories in North America aimed at fashionable
women who are curvy and wear sizes 10 to 30. It generates revenues
primarily through its e-Commerce platform www.torrid.com and
stores
in the United States of America, Puerto Rico and Canada.
TORRID HOLDINGS: Faces Data Breach Suit in California
-----------------------------------------------------
Torrid Holdings Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the
fiscal year ending February 1, 2025, filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission that in October 2024, it was notified by a
third-party vendor that it had observed a potentially unauthorized
access to its data stored in a data warehouse.
The Company has been named as a defendant in six pending class
action lawsuits alleging that it failed to employ adequate security
measures to protect the data stored in the data warehouse. On
February 25, 2025, the United States District Court of the Central
District of California granted a motion to consolidate the six
lawsuits, and plaintiffs are required to file a single consolidated
class action complaint no later than April 28, 2025.
"We intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this matter," the
Company said.
Torrid Holdings Inc. owns a direct-to-consumer brand of apparel,
intimates and accessories in North America aimed at fashionable
women who are curvy and wear sizes 10 to 30. It generates revenues
primarily through its e-Commerce platform www.torrid.com and
stores
in the United States of America, Puerto Rico and Canada.
TRADITIONS HEALTH: Mundy Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Misty Mundy, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TRADITIONS HEALTH, LLC, Case No. 4:25-cv-01664 (S.D.
Tex., April 10, 2025), is brought to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938
("FLSA"), and unpaid straight time wages pursuant to Oklahoma
common law.
Although Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members have
routinely worked (and continue to work) in excess of 40 hours per
workweek, Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members were
not paid overtime of at least one and one-half their regular rates
for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.
Likewise, Plaintiff and the Putative Collective/Class Members
worked under 40 hours per workweek on occasion and were not fully
compensated at their regular rate of pay for all hours worked.
During the relevant time period(s), Traditions Health knowingly and
deliberately failed to compensate Plaintiff and the Putative
Collective/Class Members for all hours worked each workweek and the
proper amount of overtime on a routine and regular basis, says the
complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Traditions Health in Oklahoma during
the relevant time period(s).
Traditions Health provides home health services to its patients
throughout the United States.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Clif Alexander, Esq.
Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
Carter T. Hastings, Esq.
Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
ANDERSON ALEXANDER PLLC
101 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 610
Corpus Christi, TX 78401
Phone: 361-452-1279
Fax: 361-452-1284
Email: clif@a2xlaw.com
austin@a2xlaw.com
carter@a2xlaw.com
lauren@a2xlaw.com
UKA'S BIG SAVER: Ballardo Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against UKA'S BIG SAVER FOODS
INC. The case is styled as German Arturo Ballardo, Jr., on behalf
of himself and others similarly situated v. UKA'S BIG SAVER FOODS
INC., Case No. 25STCV10370 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty.,
April 7, 2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
UKA'S Big Saver Foods Inc. -- https://www.bigsaverfoods.com/ --
offer a full assortment of fresh meat, farm fresh produce, and many
stores feature artisan bakeries, tortillerias and delicious hot
foods.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Joseph Lavi, Esq.
LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
8889 W Olympic Blvd., Ste. 200
Beverly Hills, CA 90211-3638
Phone: 310-432-0000
Fax: 310-432-0001
Email: jlavi@lelawfirm.com
UNITED STATES: Class Certification Granted in Vokova Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Senior Judge Frederic Block of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York granted the plaintiff's motion for
class certification in the case captioned as ANASTASIIA VOLKOVA,
for herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, -against-
UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendants, Case No. 23-cv-07565-FB-LB (E.D.N.Y.). The motion is
granted with a modified definition of the class to be certified.
The definition of the class is modified as follows:
All Ukrainian parolees who paid the $410 filing fee for
applications on Form I-765 for initial employment authorization
documents between February 24, 2022, and May 21, 2022.
Anastasiia Volkova fled to the United States after her home country
of Ukraine was invaded by Russia. She was paroled into this country
on April 24, 2022, and applied for a work permit on May 16, 2022,
paying the $410 fee required by United States Citizenship and
Immigration Services at the time.
Less than a week after Volkova paid the fee, President Biden signed
the Additional Ukraine Supplemental Appropriations Act, Pub. L.
117-128, 136 Stat. 1211 (2022), which makes Ukrainians paroled into
the United States between February 24, 2022, and September 30,
2023, eligible for resettlement assistance, entitlement programs,
and other benefits available to refugees.
On Nov. 21, 2022, USCIS announced that it would apply that policy
to Ukrainian parolees in accordance with the AUSAA. Although the
agency stopped charging the fee on that date, it did not
immediately take any steps to refund fees already paid. Volkova
sued to recover the $410 she paid prior to the AUSAA's enactment.
In addition to asserting her own claim, she sought to represent a
class of other Ukrainian parolees.
Volkova acknowledges that the policy announced on November 21,
2022, sets the latest possible end date delimiting the class
because Ukrainian parolees were not charged the $410 fee after that
date. She further acknowledges that USCIS has redressed
the injury of at least those who paid the fee but received a full
refund. Thus, she now defines the proposed class as follows:
All individuals or entities who paid the $410 filing fee for
applications on Form I-765 for initial employment authorization
documents filed by Ukrainian parolees between February 24, 2022 and
November 22, 2022, who were entitled to "other benefits available
to refugees" under the Additional Ukrainian Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2022, Pub. L. No. 117-128 § 401, and have not
received their refund in the full amount of the fee charged.
Chief Magistrate Judge Bloom recommended that Volkova's proposed
class be certified. However, a month after the Judge Bloom's report
and recommendation was issued, USCIS launched a refund program
under which qualifying Ukrainian parolees who paid the $410 fee can
apply online for a refund. In addition to announcing the program on
its website, USCIS sent emails and letters to more than 20,000
Ukrainian parolees (approximately 95% of those it deemed eligible
for a refund). It sent a second round of emails and letters in
August and September of 2024, and has, as of February 10, 2025,
granted more than 16,000 refund applications. The program is
ongoing.
For their part, the defendants do not dispute that the proposed
class -- which includes more than 20,000 individuals -- is
sufficiently numerous. Rather, the defendants' objection to class
certification focuses on Volkova's adequacy as a representative of
the proposed class.
The defendants argue that USCIS's refund program creates three
distinct groups within Volkova's proposed class:
(1) parolees who paid the $410 fee between February 24, 2022,
and May 21, 2022 (the date the AUSAA was signed into law);
(2) parolees who paid the fee between May 21, 2022, and November
22, 2022, who have not received a refund; and
(3) individuals and entities who paid the fee but are not
"parolees."
They then argue that Volkova is a member of only the first group
and, therefore, cannot adequately represent the second or third.
The Court agrees. Judge Block says, "Although Volkova dismisses
defendants' groupings of class members as manufactured, they
reflect the reality created by the refund program. Moreover -- and
crucially for purposes of class certification—they present three
different legal challenges to USCIS's decision not to refund the
fee in a particular case."
A copy of the Court's decision dated April 14, 2025, is available
at https://urlcurt.com/u?l=3rnhIZ from PacerMonitor.com.
Attorney for the Plaintiff:
William H. Narwold, Esq.
MOTLEY RICE LLC
20 Church Street, 17th Floor
Hartford, CT 06103
E-mail: bnarwold@motleyrice.com
Attorney for the Defendants:
Kathleen A. Mahoney, Esq.
Assistant United States Attorney
271-A Cadman Plaza East, 7th Floor
Brooklyn, NY 11201
E-mail: kathleen.mahoney@usdoj.gov
URGENTCARE2GO.COM: Rizo Sues to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dominique Rizo, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated employees v. UrgentCare2go.com, LLC; and DK Physicians
PLLC, Case No. 3:25-cv-00888-D (N.D. Tex., April 10, 2025), is
brought against for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") to recover unpaid overtime wages and all other damages
under the FLSA.
The Plaintiff and employees like Plaintiff routinely worked in
excess of 40 hours per workweek during their employment with
Defendants, but Defendants failed to compensate them at
one-and-one-half times the regular rate for all hours worked over
40 in each workweek. Instead of paying overtime, as required by the
FLSA, Defendants paid Plaintiff and employees like Plaintiff the
same for all hours worked. Accordingly, Plaintiff seeks to recover
all unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs provided for under the FLSA, says the complaint.
The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a "medical assistant"
from January 2024 until on or about May 21, 2024.
The Defendants own and operate an "On-Demand Urgent Care"
company.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Drew N. Herrmann, Esq.
Pamela G. Herrmann, Esq.
HERRMANN LAW, PLLC
801 Cherry St., Suite 2365
Fort Worth, TX 76102
Phone: 817-479-9229
Fax: 817-840-5102
Email: drew@herrmannlaw.com
pamela@herrmannlaw.com
VIATRIS INC: Bids for Lead Plaintiff Appointment Due June 3
-----------------------------------------------------------
Leading securities law firm Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP announces
that a lawsuit has been filed against Viatris Inc. (NASDAQ: VTRS)
and certain of the Company's senior executives for potential
violations of the federal securities laws.
If you invested in Viatris, you are encouraged to obtain additional
information by visiting
https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/viatris-inc.
Investors have until June 3, 2025, to ask the Court to be appointed
to lead the case. The complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of
investors who purchased Viatris securities. The case is pending
in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania
and is captioned Quinn v. Viatris Inc., et al., No. 25-cv-466.
Why was Viatris Sued for Securities Fraud?
Viatris is a global healthcare company that supplies medicines to
about 1 billion patients across more than 165 countries and
territories. The complaint alleges that Viatris stated its
facilities were in "good operating condition," were "suitable for
their intended purposes," and that the Company was "committed to
maintaining the highest quality manufacturing standards."
However, on December 23, 2024, the Company revealed that the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration had issued a Warning Letter following
a failed inspection at the Company's Indore, India, facility.
Still, Viatris downplayed the situation, describing it as a "little
bit of headwind" and spoke about "active discussions with the FDA"
to get additional products produced at the facility exempted from
the FDA's Import Alert.
In truth, the ramifications of the failed FDA inspection resulted
in a significant headwind to the Company's financial results as it
prevented the Company from manufacturing and distributing key
products, including Lenalidomide.
The Stock Declines as the Truth is Revealed
On February 27, 2025, the Company released its Q4 2024 results and
provided 2025 guidance. The Company revealed that the "negative
impact" of the Indore facility's failed inspection would lower 2025
revenue by "approximately $500 million" and 2025 earnings from
operations by "approximately $385 million." The Company further
disclosed that the failed inspection at its Indore facility
prevented it from identifying alternative supply options for
Lenalidomide and from obtaining further product exemptions from the
FDA. On this news, the price of Viatris stock declined roughly 15%
during the trading day, from a closing price of $11.24 per share on
February 26, 2025, to $9.53 per share on February 27, 2025.
Click here if you suffered losses:
https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/viatris-inc.
What Can You Do?
If you invested in Viatris you may have legal options and are
encouraged to submit your information to the firm.
All representation is on a contingency fee basis, there is no cost
to you. Shareholders are not responsible for any court costs or
expenses of litigation. The firm will seek court approval for any
potential fees and expenses.
Submit your information by visiting:
https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/viatris-inc
Or contact:
Ross Shikowitz
ross@bfalaw.com
(212) 789-3619
Why Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP?
Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP is a leading international law firm
representing plaintiffs in securities class actions and shareholder
litigation. It was named among the Top 5 plaintiff law firms by ISS
SCAS in 2023 and its attorneys have been named Titans of the
Plaintiffs' Bar by Law360 and SuperLawyers by Thompson Reuters.
Among its recent notable successes, BFA recovered over $900 million
in value from Tesla, Inc.'s Board of Directors, as well as $420
million from Teva Pharmaceutical Ind. Ltd.
For more information about BFA and its attorneys, please visit
https://www.bfalaw.com.
https://www.bfalaw.com/cases-investigations/viatris-inc [GN]
VISIONWORKS OF AMERICA: Colby Sues Over Unprotected Personal Info
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SUSAN COLBY, ASIA HARRIS, OLUWAKEMI FOSUDO ADE, and DANA BERKLEY,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
VISIONWORKS OF AMERICA, INC., Case No. 1:25-cv-00387-JLT-SAB (E.D.
Cal., April 3, 2025) alleges that unbeknownst to the Plaintiffs and
other visitors to the Defendant's website, their private personal
and health information was not actually being kept private.
According to the complaint, through VisionWorks's patient
scheduling software, the Defendant collected and transmitted
personally identifiable, sensitive health information pertaining to
Plaintiffs and other patients' upcoming appointments, including the
reason(s) for their appointment(s), the date of their
appointment(s), and the location of their appointment(s) (Sensitive
Health Information) to unauthorized third parties, including
Alphabet, Inc. (Google), through the use of surreptitious online
tracking tools.
Accordingly, online advertising giants, like Google, compile as
much information as possible about American consumers, including
information relating to the most private aspects of their lives.
This information is then used to fuel for a massive, targeted
advertising enterprise. Thus, any information about a person
captured by these online behemoths can be used to stream ads to
that person, among other uses. If Google receives information that
a person is concerned about a potential vision-related issue, it
will collect that information and allow its clients to use that
information to stream ads related to vision care products and
services to that person's computers and smartphones.
Google offers its clients' website operators access to its
proprietary suites of marketing, advertising, and customer
analytics software, including Google Analytics, Google AdSense and
Google Tag Manager (Business Tools). Armed with these Business
Tools, website operators can leverage Google's enormous database of
consumer information for the purposes of deploying targeted
advertisements, performing minute analyses of their customer bases,
and identifying new market segments that may be exploited.
But, in exchange for access to these Business Tools, website
operators install Google's surveillance software on their website,
including 'tracking pixels' and third-party 'cookies' that capture
sensitive, personally identifiable information provided to the
website operator by its website users, says the suit.
This sensitive information can include a unique identifier that
Google uses to identify that user, regardless of what computer or
phone is used to access the website. The Tracking Tools can also
capture and share other information like the specific webpages
visited by a website user, items added to an online shopping cart
by a website user, information entered into an online form by a
website user, and the device characteristics of a website user's
phone or computer.
In essence, when website operators use Google's Business Tools,
they choose to participate in Google's mass surveillance network
and, in turn, benefit from Google's collection of user data at the
expense of their website user's privacy, the suit asserts.
The Defendant is one of the companies that have chosen to
prioritize its marketing efforts and profits over its patients'
privacy by installing Google's Tracking Tools on its websites.
VisionWorks is a nationwide operator of optometry offices through
which it provides vision-related medical care and retail
eyeglasses, contact lenses, and other eyewear. VisionWorks owns and
operates over 750 office locations nationwide.[BN]
The Plaintiffs are represented by:
Catherine E. Ybarra, Esq.
Tyler J. Bean, Esq.
Sonjay C. Singh, Esq.
SIRI & GLIMSTAD LLP
700 S. Flower Street, Ste. 1000
Los Angeles, CA 90017
Telephone: (213) 376-3739
E-mail: cybarra@sirillp.com
tbean@sirillp.com
ssingh@sirillp.com
VOLCO CAR: Faces Class Action Lawsuit Over Battery Defect
---------------------------------------------------------
Corrado Rizzi of ClassAction.org reports that a proposed class
action lawsuit alleges a half dozen 2020-2022 Volvo plug-in hybrid
vehicle models are at risk of experiencing a short circuit within
their high-voltage battery module when the battery is fully charged
and the car is parked, posing a fire risk.
The 23-page Volvo lawsuit notes that the automaker in March 2025
recalled nearly 73,000 plug-in hybrid vehicles worldwide, including
7,483 in the United States, due to the potential for "thermal
runaway" to occur under certain conditions, which can cause a fire.
In particular, the case states that the short-circuit risk stems
from the fact that the Volvo batteries are located in the
transmission tunnel in the center of the vehicle instead of under
the trunk floor.
Per the filing, the battery defect is a result of Volvo's "improper
engineering, design, or manufacturing" of the battery modules at
issue, with the recall impacting the following vehicle models:
Make Model Years
Volvo S90 2020-2021
Volvo S60 2020-2022
Volvo V60 2020-2022
Volvo XC60 2020-2022
Volvo XC90 2020-2022
Volvo V90 2022
According to the suit, the Volvo recall -- which includes an
inspection to catch any cell deviations within the battery module,
a software update to bolster battery module monitoring and, in the
event issues are found, a replacement battery module -- will cost
drivers hours of their time, plus towing expenses, and leave them
burdened with devalued hybrids.
"In all, Defendants' recall amounts to tens of thousands of hours
and dollars needlessly taken from Plaintiff and other Class Vehicle
owners," the lawsuit contends.
The Volvo battery lawsuit looks to cover all individuals in the
United States who bought or leased a recalled Volvo 2020-2021 S90;
2020-2022 S60, V60, XC60 or XC90; or 2022 V90 plug-in hybrid
vehicle. [GN]
WAMPLER CARROLL: Oregon Businesses Sue Over Alleged ADA Violations
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Iboshi, writing for KGW8, several Oregon small businesses
filed a federal class action lawsuit alleging a group of lawyers
created a sophisticated racketeering scheme involving thousands of
fraudulent demand letters and lawsuits brought under the Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA).
The class-action lawsuit targets the Tennessee law firm of Wampler,
Carroll, Wilson & Sanderson, Wade Law and Oregon lawyer Jessica
Molligan, along with others. It estimates damages exceed $80
million.
The lawsuit follows a KGW investigation that found dozens of small
businesses in the Portland area received demand letters threatening
to sue if they didn't bring their property into compliance with the
ADA and pay attorney fees of roughly $10,000.
The federal lawsuit, filed on behalf of small businesses Baek
Family Partnership, AB Hollywood, MY, LLC and the Penney Kim Trust,
claims the operation stretched across more than 15 states and
involved more than four thousand demand letters and lawsuits.
As KGW previously reported, the Wampler firm, along with attorney
B.J. Wade of Memphis, followed a playbook. They found people with
disabilities and paid them $200 for every business they visited.
Then, the out--of--town lawyers hired a local attorney who sent the
business a letter threatening to sue and attached a boilerplate
complaint.
The demand letter offered an alternative: if the property owner
paid thousands of dollars in attorney fees and brought its property
into ADA compliance, the lawyer wouldn't sue the business.
The lawsuit claims the lawyers involved were more interested in
profit than actually finding and fixing accessibility issues at
businesses.
The suit refers to the people with disabilities paid to visit
businesses as "Fake Testers" who were instructed to visit
particular properties, purchase items and upload photos of the
receipts. The lawyers "expressly told the Fake Testers not to
concern themselves with actually finding, confirming, encountering
or even attempting to encounter a specific obstacle or barrier in
violation of the ADA," the lawsuit claims.
According to the suit, the lawyers falsely claimed Fake Testers
visited stores and restaurants and found barriers to access on
multiple prior occasions, when in fact, they didn't.
In reality, the lawsuit claims the lawyers sent Fake Testers to
visit properties listed in an outdated database, which often
included permanently closed businesses.
The class action lawsuit claims the scheme involved "wire fraud and
perjury targeting more than four thousand victims nationwide and
resulting in as much as $80 million in damages."
Also named as defendants are the so--called Fake Testers identified
as John Does and Conner Slevin.
Previously, Slevin said he regretted his involvement. "I realized
that these people are not representing me in a way that I agree
with," Slevin told KGW in August 2024. "I'm a tool in their
operation." Slevin sued his former lawyer, Jessica Molligan, who is
now under investigation by the Oregon State Bar for possible ethics
violations.
KGW reached out to the Wampler firm, Molligan and attorney B.J.
Wade for comment. Molligan has not responded so far.
"This lawsuit is wholly without merit. We are grateful for the
opportunity to have represented individuals who have been denied
access to public facilities based on their disabilities. This
frivolous lawsuit will be vigorously defended, and we will
prevail," Wampler, Carroll, Wilson & Sanderson said in a
statement.
"I'm absolutely salivating about the tens of thousands of dollars
the lying lawyers at Sapient Law in Portland -- namely, Joseph
Mabe, Neal Schecter and Keith Pitt -- will have to pay me for
bringing this fraudulent lawsuit on behalf of the bogus Baek Family
and others businesses who openly defy the Americans with
Disabilities Act, depriving wheelchair users of public access,"
Wade said in a statement. [GN]
WM TECHNOLOGY: Continues to Defend Ishak Shareholder Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
WM Technology Inc. disclosed in its Form 10-K Report for the fiscal
period ending January 13, 2025 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 13, 2025, that the Company continues
to defend itself from the Ishak shareholder class suit in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California.
on October 17, 2024, a putative shareholder class action complaint,
captioned Seret Ishak v. WM Technology, Inc. et al., Case No.
2:24-cv-08959, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California, naming the Company and certain former and
current officers and/or directors of the Company and Silver Spike
as defendants. The lawsuit alleges that the Company made material
misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact relating to
historical public reporting of MAUs in violation of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.
The putative class action is brought on behalf of persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired its securities between
May 25, 2021, and September 24, 2024, inclusive, and seeks
unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the putative class and an
award of costs and expenses, including attorney's fees.
At this early stage of the proceedings, the Company is unable to
make any prediction regarding the outcome of the litigation.
WM Technology, Inc., formerly known as Silver Spike Acquisition
Corp., is an online cannabis marketplace operator based in
California. [BN]
YAMAMOTO OF ORIENT: Hernandez Files Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against YAMAMOTO OF ORIENT,
INC. The case is styled as Claudia Hernandez, on behalf of herself
and other similarly situated employees v. YAMAMOTO OF ORIENT, INC.,
Case No. 25STCV09321 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., March 28,
2025).
The case type is stated as "Other Employment Complaint Case
(General Jurisdiction)."
Yamamotoyama -- https://yamamotoyama.com/ -- is a family-owned
company specializing in green tea and nori seaweed.[BN]
The Plaintiff is represented by:
Jose Garay, Esq.
JOSE GARAY APLC
249 E Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814
Long Beach, CA 90802-4899
Phone: 949-208-3400
Fax: 562-590-8400
Email: jose@garaylaw.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 ***